INTRODUCTION. Possessives, participles, objects are usually included in formal categories as purely grammatical relations. But due to the interaction of these categories, there is a huge semantic difference in the process of expressing events. In addition, if we compare a cross section of languages, then not only the syntactic tasks in them differ, but also the amount of meaning expressed by formal indicators. In particular, in English, participles and complex objects form specific constructions.

REVIEW. These structures are used to express resultant and causative meanings from a semantic point of view. These meanings are also interpreted as separate categories in English. In particular, causality and effectivity have many ways of being expressed as complex, overarching categories. They also reflect the attitude towards the objects of the external world.

In these relations lie the concepts of cause and effect existing in the mind. In the category of direct causality, there is also the concept of causality, and it is necessary to distinguish between the relationships that they perform. Since our study is not focused on causation and causality, we will not dwell on these relationships. In connection with the emergence of effectiveness and causality in structures close to each other, structural and semantic differences in them are analyzed.

DISCUSSION. The resultutive structures are considered to be a semantic feature arising from secondary predication. In particular, the American linguist S. Rothstein includes secondary resulting predicates in the aspectual-event type in terms of their relationship to the event represented by the main predicate (S. Rothstein; 2006, 209-233). The author argues that secondary predicates have descriptive and resultative semantic properties. He gives the following examples to illustrate the difference between the two:

1. John drove the car drunk.
2. John painted the house red (S.Rothstein; 2006, 209-233).

This example (a) has a descriptive predication. It has the meaning "John was driving drunk" and contains information about the night of the accident. Productivity in this sentence is expressed in the secondary predicate drunk in the II form of the adjective. In fact, John was drunk even before he got behind the wheel. But in the translation into Uzbek, the effective expression is not visible. In the following example (b), the information is recorded that "John painted the house red and as a result the house turned red."

Obviously, this is the result of the actions taken. Therefore, this example is evaluated as the resulting predication. Similar ideas can be found in (D.Dowty, 1991), (J.Carrier, J.H. Randall, 1992).

Many English linguists are also concerned about the direct separation of resultative and descriptive meaning, expressive and secondary predicates, and the acceptance of structure (S. Wechsler, 1997; B. Levin, Rappaport Hovav; 1999, 2001. Dj.E. Miller, 1997) discussed between them.

Therefore, they come to the conclusion that there is no need to divide these structures into descriptive and result types according to their semantic characteristics. In our opinion, since the combination of an indirect object and a secondary predicate is a combination specific to the English language, it is advisable to accept them as a special structure. Such an interpretation can shed light on their semantic features. We focus on the following examples of authors:

John laughed sick.

John laughed himself sick.

John sang the baby asleep.

In these examples, the adjectives sick and sleeping have a resultant meaning as a result of a change in the state of the subject as a result of the action expressed by the verbs laugh and sing. The study of secondary predicative structures is usually carried out syntactically and semantically. In our opinion, in their analysis it is necessary to cover both aspects. The analysis of language units (adjectives, nouns, impersonal forms of verbs, etc.) that perform the function of secondary predication is expressed in the form-syntactic approach.

The syntactic factor is the compatibility of the language units used in these constructions with the object. The meaning expressed in these structures is the result of a combination of the lexical meaning of linguistic units in the secondary predication function and the meaning of the linguistic unit in the object function.

For example: Then, when that offer wasn’t leapt on with grateful thanks, ‘Or I can arrange to have it delivered.’(LIZ FIELDING, 33); They reined up with a plunge at the Casino entrance. The cab doors flew open. (O‘Henry, 59). The resulting meaning is associated with the lexical attribute of the compound word. The use of an adjective in a secondary predicate is directly adapted to the meaning expressed by the verb in the primary predicate. This case indicates a close relationship between syntactic and semantic factors. Therefore, it is required that the syntactic and semantic connection in each sentence have a basic, primary predication and be substantiated.

Effective constructions that arise due to the use of an adjective in the function of a secondary predicate mean to act on an object. Effective constructions that arise due to the use of an adjective in the function of a secondary predicate mean to act on an object. In this regard, R. Voshio, in the course of typological analysis, divides the effective phenomena into strong effective and weak effective ones. (R. Washio; 1997, 1999, 2002). The author states that in the strong resultative case the meaning of the verb and the adjective are independent of each other, and subject causality means ergative result. As evidence, the author gives the following examples: a) The horses dragged the logs smooth; b) The jockeys raced the horses sweaty. (R. Jackendoff; 1990, 226. R. Washio; 1997, 39. R. Washio; 2002, 689). In the weak resultative case, the change in the state of an object under the influence of probabilistic causality is associated with the sign of the verb and gives the following examples: a) He wiped the table clean; b) He sharpened the pencil pointy (R. Washio; 1997, 227).

In our opinion, the classification of effectiveness into a strong or weak type is directly based on the actional semantics of the verb. R. The verbs drag, race used by Woshio have a feature that is not limiting in terms of action; it is under the influence of this semantic feature that these constructions express the ergative resulting meaning. The verbs wipe, sharpen, expressing weak effectiveness, are active-limited, and the meaning they express is effectiveness resulting from a change in the state of an object. In this case, R. Voshio connected the change in meaning with the fact that it is a sign of the verb, but does not pay attention to the fact that it is a sign of the action of the verb.

Resultant constructions are more common in English than in other languages. The following morphosyntactic forms are encountered: 1) resulting compounds expressed by adjectives. For example: I wiped the table clean (British corpora).

2) effective structures in which quality is part of the owner’s complex. For example: Your son could have been born clever (British corpora).

3) resultative structures formed using ravish and ravish compounds: I left behind the tree into pieces (British corpora).

4) resultative constructions expressed by the adjective: People drank spirits and got drunk (British corpora).

Efficiency differs in different languages ​​depending on the ways of expression. In particular, language units expressing productivity in English can be divided into three groups. The first of them, and the main ones, are constructions included in a special secondary predication; the second is a lexical expression characteristic of some finite characteristic verbs, and the third is a phenomenon characteristic of predicativity.

John painted the house red, Mary drank her coffee hot. Mary believes/considers John foolish (British corpora).

In the examples analyzed below, attention is paid to lexical productivity. Lexical effectiveness is combined with the content of reasoning under the influence of the lexical meaning of the verb. The expressed action causes the state of the argument to change. In this case, the effectiveness is expressed in the passive form of verbs with a limited set of features. A sudden fear seized Soapy that some dreadful enchantment had rendered him immune to arrest. (O‘Henry, 46);

‘I guess already that you have been stuck in the ribs with a knife. I have many times told you those Dagoes would do you up.’(O‘Henry, 43);

As this dark mass had been transformed from a bright and love-endorsed flower to be an ignominious vegetable, so had her summer hopes wilted and perished. (O‘Henry, 66).

In English, the lexico-semantic features of the verb and the grammatical form (passive case, adjective form II) are the elements that make up the resulting constructions in English. In cases where causative verbs receive a complex object, the semantics of the action verb used in the main predicate changes the status of the nominative argument when it arrives (the semantics of the state change is superimposed on the semantics of the quality in the secondary predicate), it is expressed in complex transverse devices representing the state of the subject.

Speaking about the productivity of Uzbek linguistics, we can cite a number of works performed in this regard (V.P. Nedyalkov; 1983, 23., V.P. Nedyalkov, G.A. Otaina, A.A. Kholodovich; 1974. P. 232 -251 V. G. Guzev, 1990, 165, D. M. Nasilov, 1983, 118–123, S. Mukhammedova, 2007, 225–226, A. T. Tybykova, 1988, 52–67, I. Nevskaya , 2008, 275–295, I. A. Nevskaya ; 2014, 305–313). These works are based on productivity studies in Russian linguistics. In the previous chapter, we thought about the fact that resultant meanings can be found in all languages ​​in one form or another. As we saw in the analysis of English-language examples, in English the effectiveness is expressed in specific structures and, therefore, is studied in linguistics under the term "resultative construction". We made sure that in English the effectiveness is expressed not only by certain constructions, but in some cases it can be expressed depending on the lexical feature of the verb. It can be noted that comparative typological analyzes of descriptiveness, which is analyzed on a par with effectiveness, were carried out on the scale of the Turkic languages ​​(I.A. Nevskaya; 2011, 171–175). In her article, Nevskaya focused on a comparative analysis of the semantic structural aspects of descriptives representing minor predicates in the Turkic languages.

The Uzbek language has complex participles consisting of more than one element, and in these combinations you can find the meanings of the result. A compound participle consists of two predicates, represented by a noun or noun category, and a personal verb. For example: a person has grown; swore. In these compounds, the verb component is syntactically independent, while the nominal component is subordinate to the verb. These predicates are connected not only with the subject, but also with other components of the sentence, in particular with the object. For example: The sun melted the snow.

The nominative component, which is part of a complex sentence, has a predicative nature and in most cases has a figurative expression. The verb, in addition to completing the figurative and expressive meaning of the nominal component, also creates a certain semantics, such as a state, a change in state, an action. The component related to the noun in the composition of a complex participle has a figurative expression and serves as an addition to clarify the physical and psycho-emotional state of a person. For example: But Qumrikhan was a different woman. She stood by this fire and swore to avenge her husband. He killed fifty-five young men and carved a printing press (Said Ahmad, 96).

In the Uzbek language, effectiveness is expressed in a predicate. Also in the Uzbek language, special suffixes such as -an, -in, -il (marked, done, done, implemented) can be taken as performance indicators. Because these suffixes serve to indicate the result of the action represented by the predicate.

Efficiency, expressed by quality, can be assessed as a weak feature. For example, a change of state is expressed using the verb do (he cleaned the house). In Uzbek, efficiency is also expressed as an adjective. Efficiency in this case is the phenomenon resulting from a change in state. For example: Nimchis woven from crimson velvet are not worn (Said Ahmad, 39).

In this example, the expression of the meaning of the result is made using the gerund adjective and adjective: the pattern is woven. In Uzbek, analytical forms of verbs and complex verb combinations can have a wide range of meanings. In particular, a number of analytic forms of the verb can have resultative meaning. The effectiveness expressed by the analytical forms of the verb differs from the effectiveness expressed by the adjective in its syntactic function and lexical meaning. The effectiveness expressed by the adjective acts as a reference to the meaning of the predicate. For example: Artik for some reason took pity on him and made him sad. Then he took a bucket and walked slowly (Pirimkul Kadyrov, 248). When the minister took the jacket, he was fascinated by his strong body, bulging wrists and broad shoulders (Saeed Ahmad, 96).

In the examples given, the analytical form "became" meant a change in the state of a person. It is the lexical meaning of the auxiliary verb "to stay" that has the expression of the state. That is why the lexical meaning of the verb occupies an important place in the result expressed with the help of analytical forms.

Efficiency in the Uzbek language also has morphological features. In particular, the adjective with the suffix -gan and incomplete verb combinations edi form unique result structures. For example; Shirimbetov became so numb that his legs buckled (S. Ahmad, 31 .; (Said Ahmad, 142). Azizkhan had not laughed like that for a long time. He grabbed his stomach and bent.

In the analytical forms of the auxiliary verb, the resultant and the main predicate in a certain sense lose their lexical meaning and express two types of action. In this case, one action is evaluated as the result of another. For example: Your poor father bent his back; now you do not burn (Said Ahmad, 255).

The coexistence of performance and static can be assessed as a grammatically related synonymy. Because in this case, performance is considered as the main value, and statics is a derived expression. The reason for word formation is that the occurrence of a situation is based on the form of an adjective.

For example: An old woman is sitting on the porch on the sunny side of the courtyard with cracked walls, fastening her waistcoat (Said Ahmad, 262). It seems that in the Uzbek language we can evaluate performance and static as phenomena that are close to each other in some cases, and it is possible to determine the difference between them only by referring to the context.

 In this regard, the well-known linguist D. Nasilov expresses the following opinion: “The meaning of the resulting and stative forms do not negate each other, therefore they can change places in a certain environment (in this case it is expressed in the form of the resulting perfect)” (D. Nasilov; 1983 , 118–120).

Lexical resources that make up effectiveness include structures formed by combining verbs expressing a situation with an adverb, an adjective and a noun of action (Bybee J., 1994: 53). For example: The next day in the evening, Kholmat rode up to Oikol on his sweat-drenched horse (Pirimkul Kadyrov, 244).

Lexical signs of effectiveness in most cases are associated with a change in state, the emergence of a new state. The combination of some auxiliary verbs with the verb "to be" (became) or compound verbs formed with the verb "to be" (became-became) can be attributed to the general lexical type of effectiveness in the Uzbek language. There are also known cases of the formation of resultant meanings by combining auxiliary verbs with a static meaning with nouns or adjectives.

For example: In one pass, Ikramjon bent his height (Said Ahmad, 289). The emergence of a new situation is carried out using the adjective form or the passive participle form. In this case, the transitive verb is evaluated as the result of a dynamic action that took place in the past tense. For example: a store-bought mustachioed driver, having opened the hood of the car and cooled the engine, closed the hood... (Pirimkul Kadyrov, 5).

It seems that the lexical properties of effectiveness depend on a number of lexical units, in particular, on verbs, as well as on grammatical indicators. The expression of performance can also be seen in transitive verbs with the meanings of having or achieving. For example: Avaz, unloading his burden and heading home, tried not to think about anything but these majestic mountains and beautiful lambs in the forest (Pirimkul Kadyrov, 13).

In Uzbek, effectiveness is also expressed by the adjective form of transitive verbs. For example: a broken chair, a pile of material, etc. In resulting constructions, the unit subject to the adjective predicate performs the syntactic functions of the resultantly achievable attribute of the unit in the function of determination, i.e., effective expressions. Efficiency is also expressed in verbs of limited and transformative action of predicates.

RESULTS. The resulting meaning expressed in the main predicate is associated with the lexical meaning of the verb underlying the predicate. In this case, the effectiveness arising as a result of a change in state is aimed at the actor, it is due to a change in the qualitative feature or state of the nominative unit used in the possessive function.

The adjective involved in resultative constructions is the main morphological feature indicating this meaning, and is recognized as the main element constituting the syntactic structure. Therefore, in some cases it is also called a resultative phrase.

* The resulting constructions in English have clear morphological features, including the element in the role of a secondary predicate consists of an adjective, adjective II, a sign of the action of the infinitive;

* Effective structures in the function of a complex addition interact with causative and descriptive structures, in most cases one structure expresses two different meanings, effectiveness and causation, effectiveness and descriptiveness;

* In the Uzbek language, the resulting constructions reflect the action performed in relation to a locative, creative noun;

*resultative constructions in the Uzbek language are formed when the adjectival form of the verbs "to be", "to do" means a change in the case of the nominative unit in the leading and auxiliary functions;

CONCLUSION. In both languages, the resulting structures are formed using grammatical forms characteristic of the passive. In these cases, the limited active feature of the verb is important.

The adjective form II of finite characteristic verbs in English acts as a secondary predicate of a complex object, as a language tool that establishes a change in state and the result of an action in a determining function.

Although the resultative and perfect forms are close to each other in content, they differ in semantic realization in terms of the content of the expression. In particular, in English the perfect and resultant have certain grammatical formations, and their differences are clearly visible in terms of pragmatic expression and sequence of events. In the Uzbek language, the perfect and resulting meanings can only be determined in the context, taking into account aspects of the pragmatic expression.

The form of the adjective -gan, which takes part in resultative constructions and occupies an important place, means the necessary meaning in cases, depending on the activity nature of the verb and lexical meaning. When state verbs are used in the adjective form, we can observe the occurrence of a state or process in which the state of the subject is equal to the state of speech. It should be recognized that the influence of the feature of the action of the adjective, formed from the verb, is the main feature in the formation of the resulting structures of the adjective. Based on case studies, we can say that verbs with a limited characteristic in the form of an adjective (II) lose the meaning of an action or process and express the effectiveness caused by a change in state.