Introduction actuality of the research paper

Conclusion on Chapter III
In conclusion, the results of this study have shown that there are also some phrases, metaphors and other expression that we can use to mean the ability in our language. In the English language, the analysis of phraseological units expressing intellectual ability shows that they can be used freely to express the ability. For instance, “turn of mind”, “have and quick wit”, “have all one’s buttons on” and others
In the same point, in the Uzbek language also exist such kind of expressions: “koni aql”, “aqli past”, “miyasi g’ovlagan”, “aqlini ishlatmoq” and so on.
If we summarise the comparing process of expressing ability in the English and Uzbek languages, there are some similarities and differences in terms of expressing ability. In the point of garammatical structures, English tends to rely on more on auxiliary verbs like “can” to express ability, while Uzbek uses to the verb “qila olmoq” more frequently. Additionally, English uses present continuous tenses to express ability in the present moment, while Uzbek uses present simple tense. In the term of lexical items, English has a wider range of words and phrases that can be used to express ability, while Uzbek tends to rely on more verbs and adjectives. However, both languages use the infinitive form of the verbs and adverbs to express ability in certain contexts.

CONCLUSION
Summarizing the above, we can conclude that the considered sentences, which are descriptive in their essence, are evaluative due to the combination of the components of the words included in them. At the same time, the cognitive context plays an important role, containing knowledge of generally accepted norms and standards, as well as knowledge of the reactions that objects and phenomena can cause in a person. These statements are non-prototypical means of evaluative representation of a person's intellectual abilities and correlate the object with the zone of the far periphery of the categories associated with the evaluation of this conceptual area. The category boundaries are vague and suggest the existence of transitional zones.
The units within the specific grammatical meaning mentioned above are much smaller in number and quantity than the means in the “process” layer. However, the difference between the two meaning groups is not limited to the number of units. Another difference between groups of meanings depends on the scope and context in which the means of expression are used. We know that forms of movement are characterized by different adaptations in different contexts of speech. The communication situation that provides specificity in their application can be divided into two groups:
1) Formal communication conditions;
2) Informal communication conditions.
It has been found that the auxiliary verbs stand, throw, give, put, stay, go, go out, pass, take, come, which constitute the forms of motion manner, are more adapted to the formal speech situation. This is determined by the breadth of their semantic coverage and the weakness of the semantic scope. However, a number of units that represent the meanings of ability and test are distinguished by having a specific semantic coloring. [5:50] For this reason, syntactic layer means of expression, such asarang, bazo’r(hardly, with huge efforts)and lexical manner means of expression such as eplamoq, amalmaq, uddalamoq (to be capable of) are far from methodological neutrality and cannot be used in the context of a formal, scientific text. The scope of such tools is limited to the scope of the literary text.
In conclusion, this study has identified several similarities and differences between English and Uzbek in terms of expressing ability. While there are some differences in the grammatical structures and lexical items used, there are also some similarities in the way that ability is expressed in both languages. These findings have implications for language teaching and learning, as a better understanding of the similarities and differences between English and Uzbek can help learners to develop more accurate and effective communication skills in both languages. Overall, this study has contributed to our understanding of how ability is expressed in English and Uzbek languages. While there are some differences in the grammatical structures and lexical items used, there are also some similarities in the way that ability is expressed in both languages. By identifying these similarities and differences, this study can help to improve language teaching and learning, and to promote more effective communication between speakers of English and Uzbek.