Uzbekistan state world languages university department of the theoretical aspects of the english language-i course paper in modern english lexicology

Conclusion
An important issue that needs to be discussed is the generalizability of the results from written to spoken language. Although we cannot offer definitive
arguments on this point, we can cite some reasons why the result might underestimate the difference between same and different class of wordsin speech.
Having analyzed the theoretical and practical material used for fulfilling the tasks of my course paper, we have come to the conclusions that there are several problematic questions in the field of semasiology which are continuously in the focus of attention of language scholars. Studying these problems, we have analyzed religion words as universal linguistic phenomena, reviewing the existing definitions of the religion words and their specific peculiarities.
An exact definition of any basic term is an easy task altogether. In the case of lexical meaning it becomes especially difficult due to the complexity of the process by which language and human conscience serve to reflect outward reality and toadapt it to human needs.
The definitions of lexical meaning have been attempted more than once in accordance with the main principles of different linguistic schools. The disciples of F. de Saussure consider meaning to be the relation between the object or notion named, and the name itself. Descriptive linguistics of the Bloomfieldian term defines the meaning as the situation in which the word is uttered. Both ways of approach afford no possibility of a further investigation of semantic problems in strictly linguistic terms, and therefore if taken as a bases of for general linguistic theory, give no insight onto the mechanism of meaning. Some of Bloomfields successors went so far as to exclude semaseology from linguistics on the ground that meaning could not be studied objectively and was not part of language but an aspect of the use to which language is put. This point of view was never generally accepted. The more general opinion is well revealed in R. Jakobson's pun. He said: «Linguistics without meaning is meaningless.» In our country definitions given by the majority of authors, however different in detail, agree in one basic principle: They all point out that lexical meaning is the realization of the notion by means of definite language system. It has also been repeatedly stated that the plane of content in speech reflects the whole of human consciousness which comprises not only mental activity but emotions as well.
The notional content of a word is expressed by the denotative meaning (also referential or extensional meaning) which, as we shall see later, may be of to types,
according to whether the word's function is significative or identifying (demonstrative).To denote , than is to serve as linguistic expression for a notion or an actually existing object referred to by a word . The term denotatum (PL. denotata) or referent means either a notion or an actually existing individual thing to which reference is made. The emotional content of the word is its capacity to evoke or directly express emotion. It is rendered by the emotional or expressive counterpart of meaning, also called emotive charge, intentional or affective connotations of words.
It is well known that the main and major component of the semantic structure of the word is its lexical meaning. But it is as well clear, that the content of the word
consists not only of the aggregate of lexical meanings. The majority of the linguistic admit that in the content of the word exists some additional meaning to add to its lexical meaning. Different linguists name this additional meaning in different terms: “emotive meaning”, (I. V. Galperin), “connotative meaning” (E. S. Aznaurova) etc. this additional meaning also materializes a concept in the word but unlike lexical meaning, it does not have reference (соотноситсяс) to the feelings and emotions of the speaker towards these things or his emotions through a kind of evaluation. Some linguists (N. G. Comlev) think, that the stylistic content of the word shows itself only in the individual sphere of communication, expressing the subjective feelings and emotions of the speaker, and so consider the stylistic content an extra linguistic phenomena some linguists suppose, that the stylistic meanings doesn’t correlate with any objective notion or subject and so they consider the stylistic content of the word a subjective moment of the communication (V. A. Zveghintsev).
A large number of linguists refer the stylistic meaning to the objective linguistic essence (E. s. Aznaurov, A. A. Ufimtseva, M. D. Stepanov). They do it on the basis that, in any language there is a large group of words, in the semantic structure of which there are stylistic meanings, common to all bearers of the language. These meanings are fixed in most of the dictionaries and are the components of the semantic structure of the word as well as the lexical meanings of these words. They can be discovered by way of componential analysis in the form of semes. Semes are the smallest constituents, of the definition of a meaning fixed in the dictionaries. For example if we take the word gentleman, and study its semantic structure by means of componential analysis, we can discover the semes fine; “perfect; excellent of highest quality, best; So we can make conclusion that the word gentleman has in its semantic structure a positive evaluative meaning. If we take the adjective blatant and look at its definition we can find there the dominative semes “unpleasant”, “repulsive”, “offensive”. Then we can see that this adjective has a negative emotional evaluative meaning. Both the emotional and the evaluative components of the meaning of the word are the properties of the semantic structure of the word and make the stylistic meaning of the word.
After conducting this research, there are two main points concerning to this research question. The first point, answering the first question, the researcher describe the development of lexical meaning in the word God is defined into two categorize, the first categorize is the use of the word God in general meaning as the word Lord. For other categorize is the use of word God into the particular meaning as the word Lord God, Son of God and etc. The development of meaning in New Testament has begun with the use of the word “Lord”. The word Lord means the other word of mentioning the word God.
After that, the word Lord followed by the word “Lord God”. The word Lord God has the same meaning of God, but the problem is the next word which has mentioning the word “God” with the word “Son”. The word Son of God has different meaning with the word God. The word of Son of God caused ambiguity of mentioning the word God and Son of God. It proved when the use of the word
Son of God has the same word with the word God in Old Testament (Lord and God: Johannes 20:28). The word God in Old Testament use Denotative meaning. For the other word as Lord and Lord God include on synonym. For about the word Lord and God that belongs to Son of God in New Testament (Johannes 20:28) was categorized as Homonym. The way of the word God improve is the concrete of the word God becomes the abstract one. The concrete means there is nothing word that reflect the word god. It proved in the beginning of the verse genesis, 1; 1. Abstract means the word god can be described into another word, for example the word Lord, Lord God, and Son of God etc. The researcher hopes this research would give some advantages for the further researchers who concern in studying in the same field. For the second, hopefully the researcher gives some contribution about the history of god, especially in term of religion, and for the hidden massage that the researcher use to conclude the anomaly phenomenon depends on the reader. For the last, hopefully there are many researchers that interact about this research and continue the research deeply.