The information on the analysis of research results, their approbation, publications, structure and volume of the thesis is given. There are many classifications of world languages ​​that implement their principles and are based on various language tiers.  The first scientific, actually linguistic classification of languages ​​is genealogical (genetic).  It is based on the concept of "linguistic kinship", defined by a common origin.  Its main objects of study are phonetics and morphology. According to A. A. Abduazizov and others, “another type of typological classification - regardless of the presence or absence of genetic commonality, typologies concerning one language family”.  So, the classification of Slavic languages ​​by I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay is given the longitude / brevity of vowels and the morphological function of stress.  According to phonetic features, modern Turkic languages ​​are mainly classified by N.A. Baskakov, who supplements them with lexical and morphological features in accordance with two structural features.

The languages ​​that are inflectional differing in type are fundamentally in structure, agglutinative, fell into one artificially allocated heading. At the same time E.Sepir recognized the role of the same levels of interacting classifications of languages. Typological classification of the languages ​​by J.Greenberg is represented with fundamentally new approach.

Proceeding from the classification of E. Sepir, J.Greenberg consistently applied quantitative parameters to linguistic typological features.  His classification is based not on three features, as in Sepir’s, but five.  A number of quantitative indices are singled out: the index of synthesis (syntheticity), inflection, prefixation, suffixation, reconciliation.

In the aspect of linguistic determinant a contensive approach to the classification of languages, developed on basis of the concept of I.I.Meschaninov is perspective. The classification of I.I.Meschaninov is based on the categories of deep syntax, since it is based on the relationships of “ subject ”, “ object ”, “ attribute ”and research methods, revealing their new scientific and practical significance and reliability and ways of their superficial expression through the subject, predicate, definition and connections between them  signs of all language levels.  The concept of "linguistic determinant" is one of the basic concepts in typology.  It was considered in the works of S.M. Lamb, Mr. P. Melnikov, M.I. Rasulova and others. The determinant connects all tiers of the language - from phonological to syntactic, showing that the length of word forms, mutability / immutability of lexemes, a set of grammatical categories, grammatical methods, word order, agreement of lexemes in the text, type of agreement, etc. in each language are mutually related, deterministic.  The classification is promising, since it is multi factorial and inter-tier and is applicable to the leading typological determinant connects all linguistic syllables, phonetic structure, the structure of a very linguistic determinant of the languages ​​of the world, the importance of the relationship of any formal types. It should be emphasized to the languages ​of the substantive features of the theory of linguistic determinants.

Development of theory of the language determinant is continued by G.P. Melnikov. At the same time, his formulations are based on the functional features of affix systems - on the principles of economical expression of combinations, of the use of multi-valued affixes, etc. A service moneme of complex meaning is a polysemantic inflection, a derivational moneme is a derivational formant. The abundance of service monemes and the presence of several meanings in most of them are noted by G.P.Melnikov as a characteristic feature of inflectional languages.  The researcher emphasizes: “The connection of derivational meanings with relational leads to a certain place of lexemes and future sentences, as a result of which the dictionary clearly develops into classes of words with certain derivational semantics”

The Russian and Uzbek languages have developed systems of word formation, these are the systems of different types. The Uzbek language belongs to the Turkic language family (Chagatai, or oriental subgroup); it is an agglutinative type language.  In our opinion, determinant in these languages ​​can be formulated as "economical use of unambiguous affixes ", or more briefly, "economy of affixes".

Dealing with the same problem, A. A. Abduazizov in co-authorship with G.P. Melnikov and other researchers of the individual character of words in the Uzbek and Russian languages.  For example, in the Uzbek language, a word is made up of a root morpheme stable in terms of semantics and, mainly, post-root affixes.  Morphonological phenomena are not typical for Uzbek word formation and inflection, despite individual cases of adaptation of affixes to stem roots.  Something else is characteristic of a word in the Russian language, which changes as it notes the lexical, derivational monolith, synthesizes grammatical meanings, diverse morphonological phenomena that obscure the structure of the word, "melting" morphemic seams.

According to N.A.Baskakov, in the Uzbek language any word, regardless of its composition and number of affixes disintegrates into parts without any effort and clearly distinguishes an essentially unchanging root.

In the reference model of typological research, the comparison of Russian, Uzbek and English is taken as the initial unit - either Uzbek, Russian, or English languages. When implementing a reference model of typological research, a binary (pair wise) of compared languages ​​is often observed, for example, when comparing languages.

Extremely important result of language determinant realization is “complex” of grammatical categories (GC) characterizing a particular language. The very presence or absence of certain grammatical categories is a bright typological characteristic of a given language and in many respects determines the specificity  of its lexical composition and word-formation level. An important "consequence" of the linguistic implementation of the categories "set" of grammatical is specificity of word-formation categories.  For example, the word-formation systems of the Russian and Uzbek languages ​​should begin, in our opinion, with the identification of grammatical contrasts, the identification of contrasts of systems.

Considerable attention in the chapter is given to the issue of asymmetry of the form and content of the linguistic determinant.  Currently, the position on the asymmetry of a linguistic sign is generally recognized, although the typology of languages ​​at different linguistic levels have not been developed yet. To the maximum extent, this applies to the study of the derivational tier. 

The proposition about the asymmetric dualism of a linguistic sign was put forward by S.O. Kartsevsky, according to which a linguistic sign must be unchanged for the same time, that is, with its partial change, it must retain its identity to itself.

Asymmetry in grammar manifests itself in the system as a whole and in the structure and the functioning of linguistic units.  Keeping the main headings of the classification of the type of linguistic asymmetry of V.G. Gak, O.M. Kim gives a more ramified classification of this expression, paradigmatic and semiotic. 

According to O. Kim, "symmetry in the semiotic aspect is noted in the relationship of a certain form and content ... In the absence of one of their sides, two forms of asymmetry are observed: zero and form without content". Recognizing the validity of such an approach, we make the following comments.  1. The syntagmatic plane (including the internal morphemic context) is inextricably linked with the paradigmatic one.  The word form идите given by O.M.Kim has the following grammatical meanings (GM): non perfect  type action, active voice, imperative mood, II person, plural. One-to-one (symmetric) relationships are observed only between the postfix -тe and the value of the plurality, which is the specificity of the postfixes of the Russian language. Flection и synthetically expresses the meanings of mood and person, type and voice are expressed through the interaction of the root and inflectional parts.

2. "Pure" paradigmatic asymmetry in the interpretation of O.M.Kim in Russian is more an exception than a norm;  it is natural that there are many examples of similar or close relationships in the agglutinative Uzbek language when expressing word-formation relationships. 

3. The presence in any language of analytical forms (along with synthetic or in their absence), we consider not a manifestation of syntagmatic asymmetry, compensation for paradigmatic insufficiency. 

4. Undoubtedly recognizing the notion of  “linguistic zero” we doubt the advisability of distinguishing “empty” forms, to which O.M.Kim refers to interfixes (gaskets) in morphology and word formation, insignificant service words, an excessively used speech element (parasite words).

An example of the semiotic asymmetry of the Uzbek language can be considered the category of animativity  highlighted by M.I.Rasulova. "How the asymmetries can be considered the category and described by M.I.Rasulova  is known, in the Uzbek language, due to a clear distinction, they correspond to the names of specific objects (answer the question of the non-person of the names of animals grammatically нима?).  correspond to the ideas of native speakers about, etc. An asymmetry of the conceptual content of grammatical linguistic design arises, which we consider to be one of the types of semiotic asymmetry. From this point of view, the functional asymmetry of the form of content is most essential for the organization of word-formation systems, which is manifested in the ratio of systems of word-formation meanings  (WM), methods of word formation and formants. One and the same word formation meaning in the Russian and Uzbek languages ​​is often expressed in different ways and formants. An example is the word-formation category (WC) "consistency (comitativeness)", showing certain features of isomorphism in the compared languages.  Compare:   co-author, co-host, accomplice, fellow traveler, companion, co-worker, interlocutor, fellow soldier, fellow villager, classmate, coursemate, etc. In the Russian language, WM “compatibility” is expressed in prefix, prefix-suffix-suffix methods using different formants.  In the Uzbek language, WC "consistency (comitativity)" is realized through the original affix- dosh and the borrowed prefix   ham (vatandosh, yuldosh, maktabdosh, sinfdosh; hamshahar, hamsuhbat, hamtovok, hamdard), moreover, word-formation variants from the producer in two ways: darddosh-hamdard, yotoqdosh-hamyotoq, maqalladosh-hammahalla, fikrdosh-hamfikr, etc. However, the noted isomorphism is rather external, formal, in the semiotic sense of the Uzbek and Russian languages, a deep allomorphism manifests itself in this area. The first derivation performs the function of mutation, transforming concrete-objective and abstract nouns into names of persons: shahar - “city” - hamshahar “living in the same city” (corresponding to the conventional synthetic nomination in Russian does not exist  which is a manifestation of the asymmetry of the system), the word “dard” - "pain" - hamdard "sympathizing, empathizing", etc. Moreover, the derivation in the Uzbek language in this case is carried out by the technique of composition of morphemes, which corresponds to the determinant of agglutinated. According to A.K. Abdurakhmanova, in the Russian language prefix derivatives with the meaning of consistency "are formed only by personal nouns, since prefixes in Russian perform exclusively a modifying function and do not have the ability to translate a derived word into another semantic class."

In our point of view, "inconsistency"  in terms of meaning is a manifestation of the demonstration of the expression of gender relations, form of the genus, characteristic for many languages.

Considering the essence of determinants, their origin and place in the syntax system, the article defines determinants as one of the most important characteristics of the language system.  The main ideas of V.Humboldt are revealed, which later served as the basis for the creation of the doctrine of the external and internal determinants of language, contributing to the emergence of certain linguistic forms.  It is shown that in the composition of a widespread sentence there can be various word forms and their combinations, which do not depend on any member of the sentence and are an independent language unit.  Such linguistic constructions, endowed with functional features, are represented by the secondary members of the sentence. Their characteristic feature is independence, self-reliance, without formal and semantic connection with other words.  Such a special position of such word forms in the structure of a sentence contributes to the emergence of certain syntactic relations in it. 

The next extremely actual problem of the research deals with contrastive linguistics. At the present time it is developed in the works of R. Lado, Di Pietro, A.A. Reformatsky, V.N.Yartseva, E.M.Akhunzyanov, V. G. Gak and others.  

Contrastive linguistics is a direction of research of general linguistics, intensively developing since the 1950s.  Including the comparative study of two, sometimes several languages, establishing the direction of research in common for the purpose of commonality and differences, contrastive linguistics operates with materials on a synchronous slice of language.

In our point of view, comparative linguistics is a more broad and general direction, contrastive linguistics is considered as its section, in which attention is focused not only on the similarities and differences of languages, but on their typological contrasts. 

The theory of linguistic relativity is also related to the formation of a contrastive linguistics.  It is precisely what is specific, contrasting for the languages ​​of the world, that B. Whorf also reveals in his studies.  It is not for nothing that the idea of necessity arises, along with comparative knowledge, of “opposing” linguistics. "Part of speech is one of the central concepts of morphology that is directly related to the classification of the lexical composition and the processes of derivation. In different linguistic concepts they are characterized as grammatical classes of words, lexical and grammatical classes or categories, basic lexical categories, categories. I.U.Mamasoliev, referring parts of speech to a traditional object of linguistics, indicates the lack of full identification of semantics, system organization, text potential  in language in general and in languages ​​of different structures in particular.  Along with this, he notes an interest in various aspects of parts of speech, and as an example he cites E.S.Kubryakova  categories, immutability, syntagmatics affects the formation of derivational categories.

For the nouns of the Uzbek language, the grammatical categories of number, case and belonging are generally recognized, however, A. N. Kononov and other researchers also distinguish categories of certainty – uncertainty and person-non-person. According to A. N. Kononov, traces appear with one form or another of the category of certainty, only Western European and some Eastern European languages, but all Turkic languages.  The core of this category in the Uzbek language should be considered a kind of articles and definitions: these are not definite and undefined postposition of a noun in the Uzbek language, respectively, in preposition and common nouns, abstract and concrete, personal and impersonal.  Applies to nouns, proper nouns are assigned and the essential difference in the organization of nouns in Russian and Uzbek languages, which is determined by the different organization of grammatical systems.  If the Russian nominal word formation is organized by the "under control" categories of number, gender and animation, then in the Uzbek language the categories of the person belonging (to a lesser extent) are especially important for the organization of the non-person of the word-formation system.

Nouns of the Uzbek language have the categories of number, person, belonging, definiteness-uncertainty, and the most contrasting for the Uzbek language is not person.  Maximal contrastive are the categories of the genus and the specifics of the substantive word-formation categories of the Russian language. Grammatical ways of expressing grammatical meanings, reflecting the features of the morphological structure of the language, are subdivided into synthetic and analytical.  The synthetic method provides for the use of "internal" word resources, while a synthetic word form is formed.  The essence of the analytical method consists in the use of service words for the formation of word forms.

As it is known, the case meanings in the Uzbek language are expressed by stable post root morphemes, which largely determine the asymmetry of gender relations by post-root morphemes, which, like other inflectional and derivational morphemes of the Turkic languages, are expediently of the Uzbek language also carried out at the expense of postfixes, however, in a number of sections of Uzbek inflection, analyticism is observed.   

The chapter deals with the most characteristic features of the contrast of the morphemic systems of the Russian and Uzbek languages. The task of the comparative analysis of the morphemics and word formation of the Russian and Uzbek languages ​​is the description and comparison of the morphemic systems of these languages ​​in their entirety: according to their correspondence to the typological determinant and by deviation from it.

We attribute the following to the most significant features of the contrast between the morphemic systems of the Russian and Uzbek languages:

1. In the Russian language, the main way of expressing grammatical meanings, which is characterized by an expression, is inflection, polysemy, the form of a number of syntacticity of paradigmatic complexes.  There is no such class of morphemes in the Uzbek language.

2. For the Russian language, both post-root (suffix and a few postfix) and pre-root (prefix) morphemes are productive. In terms of morphemic structure, the prevalence in Russian of not only post-root (postfix in a broad sense), but prefix morphemes (prefixes), primarily verbal ones, is very important.  This is an important typological feature that testifies to a departure from the linguistic determinant, since prefixes are connected not with stems, but with lexemes according to the principle of matching technique.

In the Uzbek language, prefix morphemes are represented by small morphemes borrowed from Persian-Tajik origin, which, however, play an important role in the formation of names and are an interesting object of study in terms of comparison with Russian nominal prefixes.  It is fundamentally important that in the Uzbek language there are no verb prefixes (prefixes) as a class of morphemes, which is inextricably linked with the category of the species and the set of verbs.

As most Russian prefixes are known in their own way, the origin is associated with prepositions.  This is another striking feature of the typological contrast of the Russian and Uzbek languages, broader the Slavic and Turkic languages.  In the latter, there is no such class of service parts of speech as prepositions; with them postpositions, which take a position after the controlled word, partially correlate.  Although the prefixation does not apply to derivational formants that are productive for the Turkic languages, among the prefixes of the Uzbek language, the few borrowed language characteristic features of the typological contrast demonstrate an attitude towards the Russian language.

I.U. Mamasoliev describes the word formation of parts of speech of the Uzbek language attributes the transposition function of prefixes, for example: maza – taste, bemaza - tasteless), makr (cunning)- bemakr (ingenuous, ingenuous), etc.  though differing from Russian language in the Turkic languages nouns and adjectives are not as precisely opposed to each other.

An inflectional language means the presence of inflection and its opposition to derivational morphemes.

E. M. Akhundganov indicates a great specialization and differentiation of Russian affixes, their positional distribution, both semantic and formal. He indicates: "The difference in the ways of affixation is one of the essential contrastive difference in the system of word formation in Russian and Tatar languages​​".

This provision can be extended to the Uzbek language but definition of the status of post-root is more essentially a common word-forming morpheme of the Turkic languages.  The suffix in languages, in particular, in Russian, is a bilaterally related morpheme, taking a position between the root and inflection or other suffix (with the exception of adverbs).  This position "obliges" the suffix to conjugate with the system of inflections and participate in the expression of grammatical categories. 

The stability of the root morpheme in the Turkic languages ​​is manifested in the monosyllabic nature of the root morpheme and usually the presence of three sounds in its composition.  For the Uzbek language, as an agglutinative language, a clear morphemic structure is characteristic, a relatively easy isolation of the roots and affixes that are stable in formal and practical semantics, however, due to the idiomaticity of derived words, the presence of lexemes with difficult articulation is not excluded.  The Turkic root is stable and independent, in principle, it does not need a morphemic design to fit into sentences (if it is not necessary to indicate an indirect case, attachment, etc.).  The roots of Indo-European languages, on the contrary, are genetically verbal, as a rule, need a morphemic design, then even a category of basic suffixes is highlighted in them (for example: ловить, тереть, колоть).

The inflections of the Russian language have not only grammatical function, they also play a large role in the processes of word formation, since they are an obligatory component of the suffix formant or act as an independent formant for substantivating and zero suffixation.  There is no morpheme of this class in the Uzbek language; it clearly distinguishes between inflectional and derivational morphemes.  In the Uzbek language there are no suffixes as morphemes intermediate between the stem and the inflection. Calling morphemes of the Uzbek language suffixes is terminologically imprecise; it is better to use the term "postfix" for this.  This term was approved by Russian linguistics at the suggestion of V.V. Lopatin: affix - те ( пойдите, получите, киньте ), which, unlike fleck, perform not only grammatical post-root derivational and is connected to the root. It can be considered to be the analog of Uzbek language affix – лар with the same meaning of plurality, but having narrower functional sphere: the expression of plural number in imperative mood of the verb.

Thus, The article "Linguistic Determinants in Russian and Uzbek: Essence and Theory" justifies the relevance of its topic and its alignment with the priority directions of science and technology development in the Republic of Uzbekistan. It presents an overview of foreign scientific research related to the article's topic, indicating its extent of study and its connection to the research plans of Samarkand State University. Additionally, it outlines the research's goal, objectives, subject, and methods, while highlighting its scientific novelty, practical significance, and reliability.