Volume 02 Issue 11-2022
36
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
(ISSN
–
2771-2273)
VOLUME
02
I
SSUE
11
Pages:
36-47
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2022:
5.
445
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
METADATA
IF
–
5.963
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
ABSTRACT
A phraseological unit is a linguistic unit consisting of two or more words which represents a particular figurative
meaning, such as to flog a dead horse, as happy as Larry, to be snowed under. Nowadays, the cultural viewpoint and
the structural and semantic analysis of phraseological units with a particular component has been in the limelight. In
this article, a structural and semantic analysis of phraseological units consisting of anthroponomic components of
English and Uzbek languages has thoroughly been given.
KEYWORDS
Anthroponomic phraseology, linguistic system, structural and semantic analysis, the plane of expression, the plane of
content.
INTRODUCTION
Research Article
THE STRUCTURAL AND SEMANTIC ANALYSIS OF THE ANTHROPONOMIC
COMPONENT PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS IN ENGLISH AND UZBEK
LANGUAGES
Submission Date:
November 01, 2022,
Accepted Date:
November 10, 2022,
Published Date:
November 18, 2022
Crossref doi:
https://doi.org/10.37547/ajps/Volume02Issue11-06
G’oyibov
Umarjon Alisher
O’g’li
Student Of
Master’s Department
, Uzbekistan State World Languages University, Uzbekistan
Abdusamadov Zafarbek Nurmat O'g'li
Scientific Supervisor, Phd On Philological Sciences, Uzbekistan State World Languages University, Uzbekistan
Journal
Website:
https://theusajournals.
com/index.php/ajps
Copyright:
Original
content from this work
may be used under the
terms of the creative
commons
attributes
4.0 licence.
Volume 02 Issue 11-2022
37
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
(ISSN
–
2771-2273)
VOLUME
02
I
SSUE
11
Pages:
36-47
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2022:
5.
445
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
METADATA
IF
–
5.963
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
The
nature
of
anthroponomic
component
phraseological units in English and Uzbek languages as
an integral part of the vocabulary stock is better
realized through the discrimination of the two planes
of language, particularly, the plane of content and the
plane of expression. The content plane comprises the
semantic elements contained in the phraseological
units, whereas the expression plane comprises the
formal or linguistic units of the phraseological units.
Each component of the phraseological units presents a
unity of form and meaning. The correspondence
between these two planes is peculiar to English and
Uzbek languages and is explained by the structural and
semantic analysis of the phraseological units in these
compared languages.
First of all, the structural analysis of the anthroponomic
component phraseological units is explained by the
plane of expression and this analysis is realized through
the ways of the constitution of proper names in
phraseological units, through the viewpoint of
morphological properties.
As a result of his research, Abdusamadov Z. , claims
that in the constitution of the anthroponomic
component phraseological units in compared
languages, such proper names as a first name, a
surname or last name, a nickname and a patronym are
extensively used. Particularly, such proper names as
Adam, Jack, Jill, Tom, Ann, Jim, Cain, Betty, Dickens,
Jane, John, Job, Peter, Mary, Nancy, Sam, Paul,
Richard, Daniel, Robin, Charlie in English and Xizr, Ali,
Vali, Iso, Sulaymon, Muso, Odam ato, Sattor,
Muhammad, Eshmat, Toshmat, Masharif, Mirsharif,
Hasan, Husan, Ahmad, Mahmud, Layli, Majnun in
Uzbek are bright illustrations of the proper names in
the constitution of anthroponomic constituent
phraseological units.
1)
First name in English: Adam, Jack, Jill, Tom,
Ann, Jim, Cain, Betty, Dickens, Jane, Sam, etc.
Examples:
Adam: “Adam’s ale”
- water, the only drink available to
Adam, “the old Adam”
- the evil supposedly inherent in
human nature lacking in grace, “Adam’s apple”
- a
bulge in the throat;
Mary: “contrary Mary”
- a girl or woman who often
disagrees with other people or does the opposite of
what other people want them to do, “little Mary”
-
stomach, “bloody Mary”
- cocktail made from vodka,
tomato juice and ice;
Peter: “rob Peter to pay Paul”
- to take from one merely
to give to another, to discharge one debt by incurring
another, “Peter out”
- dwindle away to nothing.
First name in Uzbek: Xizr, Ali, Vali, Iso, Sulaymon, Muso,
Odam ato, Sattor, Muhammad, Ahmad, Mahmud, Layli,
Majnun, etc. Examples:
Ali and Vali: “aybni Ali qiladi, kaltakni Vali yeydi”
- Ali is
guilty, but Vali is beaten, “Alixo’ja
-
Xo’jaali”
- it does not
Volume 02 Issue 11-2022
38
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
(ISSN
–
2771-2273)
VOLUME
02
I
SSUE
11
Pages:
36-47
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2022:
5.
445
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
METADATA
IF
–
5.963
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
matter, both are equal, “Alining o’chini Validan
olmoq”
- to take revenge on Vali instead of Ali;
Layli and Majnun: “Majnun bo’lib qolmoq”
- to fall
madly in love with someone, “Layli va Majnun”
- a
couple who is desperately in love with each other;
Sulaymon: “Sulaymon o’ldi, devlar qutuldi”
- Suleyman
died and ogres were released, “suv tilasang,
Sulaymondan tila”
- if you need to ask something, ask
from the patron;
2)
Surname in English: Crichton, Cocker,
Robinson, Hoyle, Hancock, Oakley, Woodser, Collins,
Holmes, Henry, McCoy, etc. Examples:
“The admirable Crichton”
- educated, broad- horizon
person, lettered husband, “According to Cocker”
-
right, reliable, correct, “Jack Johnson”
- heavy shell,
missile, “The real McCoy”
- the genuine thing or person.
There is no surname in anthroponomic component
phraseological units in the Uzbek language.
3)
Nickname in English: Father Knickerbocker,
Jack the Ripper, John Bull, Tom o’Bedlam, Namby
-
pamby, etc
“Father Knickerbocker”
- a descendant of the Dutch
settlers of New York, “Jack the Ripper”
- an
unidentified murderer.
There is no nickname in anthroponomic component
phraseological units in the Uzbek language.
Consequently, the usage of names in the forming of
anthroponomic component phraseological units is a
general phenomenon for both compared languages,
whereas it is not encountered such proper names as
surnames, nicknames and patronyms in the Uzbek
language as compared to English.
Furthermore, the structural analysis is also observed
from the viewpoint of the morphological properties of
the main components in anthroponomic component
phraseological units in compared languages and can be
classified into the following groups:
1.
Anthroponomic component phraseological
units which include substantive property. For example,
in English: “Johnny
- come-
lately”
- a newcomer, a
person who has just joined a group, “Uncle Sam”
- the
government of the US and, by extension, the American
people, “Moaning Minnie”
- a person who complains a
lot.
In Uzbek: “Hasan buvaning tayog’i”
- everything
remains as before, unchanged, “Bazmi
Jamshid”
-
great, luxurious feast, “Aqli Salim”
- a person who has a
good judgement, a sensible person.
2.
Anthroponomic component phraseological
units which include adjectival property. For example, in
English: “Even Stevens”
-
equal between people, “As
hap
py as Larry”
-
very happy indeed, “In like Flynn”
-
quickly and emphatically attractive or successful.
Volume 02 Issue 11-2022
39
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
(ISSN
–
2771-2273)
VOLUME
02
I
SSUE
11
Pages:
36-47
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2022:
5.
445
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
METADATA
IF
–
5.963
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
In Uzbek: “Amir Temurdan qolgan”
- ancient, very old,
“Odam Atodan qolgan”
-
as old as the world, “Xizr
nazar solgan”
- happy, blessed.
3.
Anthroponomic component phraseological
units which include verbal property. For example, in
English: “To take the Mickey out of somediv”
- to
make fun of somediv, “To live the life of Riley”
- to live
a really good life with few problems, “To rob Peter to
pay Paul”
- to discharge one debt by incurring another.
In Uzbek: “Majnun bo’lib qolmoq”
- to fall madly in love
with someone, “Rustami doston bo’lmoq”
- to be
talked by many people for a long time, “Alining o’chini
Validan olmoq”
- to take revenge on Vali instead of Ali.
4.
Anthroponomic component phraseological
units which include adverbial property. For example, in
English: “Before you can say Jack Robinson”
- in a very
short amount of time, “Somewhere to the right of
Genghis Khan”
- holding the right wing views of
extreme kind,
“Rip Van Winkle”
- behind the times and
out of touch with what is happening now.
In Uzbek: “O’laman Sattor”
- absolutely not, never,
“Daqqiyunusdan beri”
- for a very long time, etc
5.
Anthroponomic component phraseological
units which include interjectional property. For
example, in English: “Oh, for the love of Pete!”
- usually
used in exasperation, “Home, James, and do not spare
the horses!”
- a clichéd way of telling the driver of a
vehicle to start driving, “Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him,
Horatio!”
- used as a meditation on the fragility of life.
In Uzbek: “Muhammad payg’ambar madadkor
bo’lsin!”
- May prophet Muhammad bless you.
Besides, there are such anthroponomic component
phraseological units which include proverbs in
compared languages. For example, in E
nglish: “All
work and no play makes Jack a dull boy”
- if a person
does not take some time off work, they become bored.
Particularly, the Uzbek language abounds in such
proverbs which include personal names. Examples
include: “Sog’ odamga Suqrotning keragi yo’q”
- there
is no need for Socrat for the healthy, “Eshmat ketib,
Toshmat keldi”
- leaving one, came another.
With reference to the semantic analysis of the
anthroponomic component phraseological units, it is
explained by the plane of content. From the semantic
point of view, phraseological units are integrally
connected to human characteristics and activities
(Maslova, 2001) . Moreover, phraseological units
provide a useful source of information concerning a
person, his appearance, his personality and his
intellectual and creative capabilities.
As a consequence of her investigation, Khudoyorova S.
T . classified two notable semantic groups of
phraseological units with personal names, including
phraseological units directly related to personal
character, behaviour and actions and those that
Volume 02 Issue 11-2022
40
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
(ISSN
–
2771-2273)
VOLUME
02
I
SSUE
11
Pages:
36-47
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2022:
5.
445
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
METADATA
IF
–
5.963
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
indicate things, situations and beverages. This
classification is illustrated by the following examples:
1.
Phraseological units with anthroponyms
associated with human traits, qualities and physical
and psychological stat
es. In English: “as happy as
Larry”
-
very happy indeed, “smart Alec”
- a conceited
person who likes to show off how clever and
knowledgeable
they
are,
“good
Samaritan”
-
somediv who helps another in need for
compassionate motives and with no thought of
rewa
rd. In Uzbek: “Aflotun miya”
- very knowledgeable
person, “ishni Ismat qiladi, lofni Toshmat uradi”
- a
person who boasts about himself while someone else
does the work, “jonini Jabborga berib ishlaydigan”
- a
person who works hard, laborious.
2.
Phraseological units with anthroponyms which
characterize
another
objects,
situations
and
phenomena. In English “John Hancock”
-
a person’s
signature, “the real McCoy”
-
the genuine thing, “Annie
Oakley”
- free ticket, free permit for the theatre. In
Uzbek “bazmi Jamshid”
- great, luxurious feast,
“Laynini ko’rish uchun Majnunning ko’zi kerak”
- beauty
lies in lover’s eyes.
Abdusamadov Z. N. conducted the research on the
content
plane
of
anthroponomic component
phraseological units and, as a result, he asserts that the
semantic features of the components with personal
names can be realized through six criteria, such as the
criterion of anthroponyms which deliver a general
concept about a particular person, the criterion of
anthroponyms with precise or imprecise meaning, the
criterion of the functions of anthroponyms, the
criterion of the origin of source, the criterion of the
transference of meaning and the criterion of the
coordination of the functional- semantic viewpoint of
the anthroponomic component phraseological units in
compared languages. Therefore, he classified the
semantic features of anthroponomic component
phraseological units according to those criteria and
they are illustrated with bright examples in compared
languages.
1.
The criterion of anthroponyms which deliver a
general concept about a particular person. According
to this criterion, the personal names are, in turn,
subdivided into two subgroups:
a)
Those which can be a symbol and emdiv a
general concept, such as Adam, Balaam, Solomon,
Pandora, etc in English and Odam ato, Muso, Iso, Xizr
in Uzbek: “Adam’s apple”
- a bulge in the throat,
“Balaam’s ass”
- a silent, submissive person who
suddenly spoke up, protested (English); “Isoning
alamini Musodan olmoq”
- the pain of Jesus taken from
Moses, “Xizr nazar solgan”
- happy, blessed (Uzbek);
b)
Those which cannot be a symbol and do not
emdiv a general concept, such as Jack, John, Jimmy,
etc in English and Ali, Vali, Sattor in Uzbek: “Jack in
Volume 02 Issue 11-2022
41
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
(ISSN
–
2771-2273)
VOLUME
02
I
SSUE
11
Pages:
36-47
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2022:
5.
445
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
METADATA
IF
–
5.963
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
office”
-
arrogant official, bureaucrat, “John Hancock”
-
a person’s signature (English); “aybni Ali qiladi, kaltakni
Vali yeydi”
- Ali is guilty but Vali is beaten;
2.
The criterion of anthroponyms with precise or
imprecise meaning. According to this criterion, the
meaning of anthroponyms develops and changes to
the present day and some of the personal names still
maintain their exact meaning, but the meaning of
others tarnish. The personal names are, accordingly,
subdivided into the following groups:
a)
Those with precise meaning, including Achilles,
Cordelia, Job, Cain, etc in English and Xizr, Muso, Iso in
Uzbek: “Achilles’ heel”
-
a person’s weak point,
“Cordelia’s gift”
- tiny and pleasant voice of woman
(English); “ko’pda Xizr bor”
- deeds done in harmony
will always be blessed (Uzbek);
b)
Those with imprecise meaning, including Sally,
Cassandra, David, etc in English and Ali, Vali, Sattor, etc
in Uzbek: “aunt Sally”
- a person who is a target for
criticism, “Cassandra warnings”
- a warning of
impending disaster or prophesizes doom, usually
unheeded (English); “Alining o’chini Validan olmoq”
- to
take revenge on Vali instead of Ali” (Uzbek);
3.
The
criterion
of
the
functions
of
anthroponyms. The personal names used in the
anthroponomic component phraseological units in
English and Uzbek languages perform various
functions in the phraseological contexts, and they are
subdivided into the following types:
a)
Anthroponym- dedications. To this group such
names as Achilles (a Greek hero in Greek mythology) in
English and Xizr (a prophet who found a life spring) in
Uzbek belong: “Achilles’ heel” (English); “Xizr nazar
qilgan” (Uzbek);
b)
Anthroponym- interpretations. To this group
such names as Christ (a name given to the prophet
Jesus), Cordelia (the only daughter of the King Lear) in
English and Iso (the Arabian form of the name Jesus),
Muso (the prophet of the Jew), Oppoqxo’ja (a sacred
child who is born to the family of Khuja generation) in
Uzbek belong: “For Christ’s sake”, “Cordelia’s gift”
(English);
“Isoning
alamini
Musodan
olmoq”,
“Oppoqxo’jam ursin” (Uzbek);
c)
Anthroponym- wishes. To this group such
names as Peter (from Greek, meaning “a stone”),
Robin (meaning “glory, honour”) in English and Sattor
(meaning “forgiver, merciful”), Daqqiyunus (the
oriental name of the Roman emperor Diokletian) in
Uzbek belong: “to rob Peter to pay Paul”, “round
Robin” (English); “O’laman Sattor”, “Daqqiyunusdan
qolgan” (Uzbek);
4.
The criterion of the origin of source. From the
viewpoint of origin, the personal names used in the
anthroponym component phraseological units in
Volume 02 Issue 11-2022
42
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
(ISSN
–
2771-2273)
VOLUME
02
I
SSUE
11
Pages:
36-47
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2022:
5.
445
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
METADATA
IF
–
5.963
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
English and Uzbek languages can be classified into the
following groups:
a)
Mythological anthroponyms. To this group
such personal names as Pandora, Castor, Pollux,
Croesus, Achilles, Hercules, Damos, Pythias, etc in
English belong: “Pandora’s box”
- a procedure that
once begun generates many complicated problems,
“Castor and Pollux”
- candles that are fired at the end
of the competition. However, there is no
phraseological units which include mythological
personal names in Uzbek.
b)
Religious anthroponyms. To this group such
personal names as Adam, Balaam, Cain, Job, David,
Jonathan, Jesus, etc in English and Odam ato, Iso,
Muso, Xizr, Muhammad payg’ambar, in Uzbek belong:
“as old as Adam”
-
ancient, very old, “the mark of Cain”
-
the stigma of murder, a sign of infamy (English);
“Odam atodan qolgan”
-
very old, “Isoning alamini
Musodan olmoq”
- the pain of Jesus taken from Moses
(Uzbek).
c)
Historical anthroponyms. To this group such
personal names as Lucullus, Vandyke, Brummel,
Hobson, Cocker, Crichton, etc in English and
Daqqiyunus in Uzbek belong: “a banquet of Lucullus”
-
the abundance and sophistication of the table, many
dishes, “Vandyke beard”
- taken from the portrait of
Van Dyke (English); “Daqqiyunusdan qolgan”
- very old,
ancient (Uzbek).
d)
Literary anthroponyms. To this group such
personal names as Barkus, Billy Bunter, Fortunatus,
Cordelia, Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde, John Barleycorn,
Bountiful, Aladdin, Riley, etc in English and Nadirmat,
Ali, Vali, Sattor, Oppoqxo’ja in Uzbek belong: “Barkus
is willing”
-
somediv is willing to get married, “Billy
Bunter”
- a fictional fat boy, gluttonous, stout teenager
(English); “tata
-
tat, usta Nadirmat”
- nonsense,
“Oppoqxo’jam ursin”
- an expression of repentence
(Uzbek).
e)
Daily anthroponyms. To this group such
personal names as Annie Oakley, Sally, Gladstone,
Teddy, Gallagher, Jack, etc in English belong: “A
nnie
Oakley”
-
free ticket, free permit for the theatre, “aunt
Sally”
- a person who is a target for criticism. However,
there is no phraseological units which include daily
personal names in Uzbek.
5.
The criterion of the transference of meaning.
According to this criterion, the personal names used in
anthroponym component phraseological units in
compared languages are divided into two types,
including anthroponyms with direct meaning and
those with indirect, metaphorical meaning.
a)
Anthroponyms with direct meaning used in
phraseological units in English include “Jack the
Ripper”
-
an unidentified murderer, “as patient as Job”
-
very patient indeed and in Uzbek include “Ali desa, Bali
demoq”
- to argue, to squabble.
Volume 02 Issue 11-2022
43
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
(ISSN
–
2771-2273)
VOLUME
02
I
SSUE
11
Pages:
36-47
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2022:
5.
445
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
METADATA
IF
–
5.963
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
b)
Anthroponyms with indirect, metaphorical
meaning used in phraseological units in English include
“John Hancock”
-
a person’s signature, “Aladdin’s
lamp”
- a talisman that enables its owner to fulfil every
desire and in Uzbek include “Xizr nazar qilgan”
-
blessed, very happy, “tata
- tat, usta Nadirmat
”
-
nonsense, a useless advice.
6.
The criterion of the coordination of the
functional- semantic viewpoint of the anthroponomic
component phraseological units in compared
languages. According to this criterion, the relationship
of anthroponym component phraseological units in
compared languages from the functional- semantic
viewpoint constitute as follows:
a)
Anthroponym component phraseological units
have their absolute equivalence from the semantic
viewpoint in both compared languages, such as “by
George!”
-
an expression of surprise, “all my eye and
Betty
Martin”
-
nonsense
in
English
and
“Daqqiyunusdan
qolgan”
-
ancient,
very
old,
“Oppoqxo’jam ursin”
- an expression of repentance,
“tata
-
tat, usta Nadirmat”
- nonsense in Uzbek.
b)
Anthroponym component phraseological units
in one language do not have their equivalence in
another language, such as “Herculean labour”
- a heroic
deed, “the thread of Ariadne”
- solving a problem by
multiple means in English and “Ali desa, Bali demoq”
-
to argue, to squabble, “Isoning
alamini Musodan
olmoq”
- the pain of Jesus taken from Moses in Uzbek.
Therefore,
the
classification
of
anthroponym
component phraseological units from the semantic
viewpoint in compared languages can be various and
multi- faceted. The structural analysis of phraseological
units with personal names is conducted according to
morphological property and the semantic analysis of
such units is implemented in relation with semantic
property.
In the process of the structural and semantic analysis
of the anthroponym component phraseological units
in English and Uzbek languages, it has been observed
that both languages have several similarities and
differences in this viewpoint of analysis. As
Abdusamadov asserts, anthroponym component
phraseological units in English and Uzbek languages
have their own lexical- semantic and grammatical
peculiarities and can be characterized with their
isomorphic and allomorphic possibility in compared
languages.
First of all, from the structural viewpoint,
phraseological units with personal names in compared
languages have the following similarities:
1.
First names are mostly used in phraseological
units in both languages, such as Adam, Jack, Jill, Tom,
Ann, Jim, etc. in English and Xizr, Ali, Vali, Iso,
Volume 02 Issue 11-2022
44
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
(ISSN
–
2771-2273)
VOLUME
02
I
SSUE
11
Pages:
36-47
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2022:
5.
445
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
METADATA
IF
–
5.963
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
Sulaymon, Muso, Odam ato, Sattor, Muhammad,
Eshmat, Toshmat, Layli, Majnun, etc.in Uzbek.
2.
Both languages have the same substantive,
adjectival, verbal, adverbial and interjectional
properties from the morphological viewpoint,
including “Uncle Sam” (substantive), “as rich as
Croesus” (adjectival), “to rob Peter to pay Paul”
(verbal), “before you can say Jack Robinson”
(adverbial), “Even blind Freddy could see it!”
(interjectional) in English and “bazmi Jamshid”
(substantive), “baloyi Azim” (adjectival), “Rustami
doston bo’lmoq” (verbal), “Daqqiyunusdan beri”
(adverbial), “Muhammad payg’ambar madadkor
bo’lsin!” (interjectional) in Uzbek.
3.
In substantive phraseological units with
personal names, both languages have phraseological
units with the same two components, such as “Annie
Oakley” in English and “bazmi Jamshid” in Uzbek, and
the same three and more components, including
“Darby and Joan” in English and “Hasan buvaning
tayog’i” in Uzbek.
4.
In substantive phraseological units with
personal names, both languages have the same
phraseological units in possessive case from the
viewpoint of syntagmatic relation, such as “Cordelia’s
gift” in English and “Hasan buvaning tayog’i” in Uzbek.
5.
Both languages have the same phraseological
units with couple personal names, such as “Darby and
Joan”,
“David and Jonathan”, “Castor and Pollux”, Dr.
Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” in English and “ishni qilar
Masharif, mushtni yeydi Mirsharif”, “aql
- Hasan, odob-
Husan”, “Alining o’chini Validan olmoq” in Uzbek.
6.
Both languages have the same proverbs with
personal
names, such as “Caesar’s wife is above
suspicion” in English and “Abdulhakim ovga chiqdi,
orqasidan g’avg’o chiqdi in Uzbek.
Moreover,
from
the
structural
viewpoint,
phraseological units with personal names in compared
languages have the following differences:
1.
Personal names with surnames, nicknames and
a patronym are used in anthroponym component
phraseological units in English, whereas there is no
such kind of personal names in Uzbek. For instance, a
surname is used in “the admirable Crichton”, a
nick
name is used in “Father Knickerbocker” and a
patronym is used in “the cask of Danaides”.
2.
Articles and prepositions are widely used in
English anthroponym component phraseological units,
while six types of case affixes, such as nominative,
genitive, accusative, dative, locative and ablative and
auxiliary postpositions are frequently used in Uzbek
phraseological units with personal names. Examples in
English include “a banquet of Lucullus”, “as happy as
Larry”, “to be between Scylla and Charybdis”, “since
Adam was a boy” (articles and prepositions are used in
all of them) and in Uzbek include “Sulaymon o’ldi,
Volume 02 Issue 11-2022
45
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
(ISSN
–
2771-2273)
VOLUME
02
I
SSUE
11
Pages:
36-47
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2022:
5.
445
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
METADATA
IF
–
5.963
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
devlar qutuldi” (in nominative case), “Alining o’chini
Validan olmoq” (in genitive and ablative case),
“Berdisini aytguncha belimni bukma” (in accusat
ive
case), “jonini Jabborga berib ishlamoq” (in dative
case), “suv tilasang, Sulaymondan tila” (in ablative
case), “Daqqiyunusdan beri” (in ablative case and
auxiliary postposition).
3.
The usage of definite and indefinite articles in
anthroponym component phraseological units is also
peculiar to English and they are not usually used in
Uzbek. Examples include: “a beau Brummel”, “the
Gordian knot”.
4.
In adjectival phraseological units with personal
names, the pattern of comparison “as… as” is widely
used in English, whereas there is no such kind of
pattern in Uzbek adjectival phraseological units.
Examples include: “as old as Adam”, “as rich as
Croe
sus”.
5.
Anthroponym component phraseological units
with the components consisting of only personal
names are also peculiar to the English language, while
there is no such kind of phraseological units in Uzbek.
Examples include: “Sherlock Holmes”, “Peter Pan”,
“Jack Johnson”.
Secondly, from the semantic viewpoint, phraseological
units with personal names in compared languages
have the following similarities:
1.
As a result of Khudoyorova’s research, it can be
claimed that both languages have the same
phraseological units associated with human traits,
qualities and physical and psychological states, such as
“smart Alec” in English and “Aflotun miya” in Uzbek.
Besides, there are such phraseological units
characterizing another objects and phenomena in both
lan
guages, including “John Hancock” in English and
“bazmi Jamshid” in Uzbek.
2.
According to Abdusamadov’s research on the
semantic analysis of phraseological units with personal
names in compared languages based on the six criteria,
almost both languages have the same anthroponym
component phraseological units pertaining to those six
criteria, excluding mythological, religious and daily
phraseological units with personal names in the
criterion of origin of source.
Furthermore,
from
the
semantic
viewpoint,
phraseological units with personal names in compared
languages have the following differences:
1.
As a result of Khudoyorova’s research, there
are such anthroponym component phraseological
units which contain items in connection with the
prototype in English, while there are no such kind of
phraseological units in Uzbek. Examples include “Big
Ben”, “Joe Miller”, “Sally Lynn”, “Annie Oakley”.
2.
Based on Abdusamadov’s research, there are
no mythological and daily phraseological units in
Volume 02 Issue 11-2022
46
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
(ISSN
–
2771-2273)
VOLUME
02
I
SSUE
11
Pages:
36-47
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2022:
5.
445
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
METADATA
IF
–
5.963
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
Uzbek, while the English language abounds in such
kinds of phraseological unit in the criterion of origin of
source. Examples include “Pandora’s box”, “Castor
and Pollux” (mythological anthroponyms), “Annie
Oakley”, “Teddy bear” (daily anthroponyms).
3.
From the viewpoint of the religious origin of
source, personal names used in anthroponym
component phraseological units in English originate
from Christian religion, particularly from Bible,
whereas those in Uzbek originate from Islamic religion,
particularly, from Koran. Examples in English include
“Balaam’s ass”, “as old as Adam”, “David and
Jonathan” and in Uzbek include “Muhammad
payg’ambar madadkor bo’lsin!”, “suv tilasang,
Sulaymondan tila”.
REFERENCES
1.
Abdusamadov Z. N. “National and cultural
features
of
anthroponomic
component
phraseological units in English and Uzbek
languages” dissertation for the defence of
PhD, UzSWLU, Tashkent- 2022;
2.
Abdusamadov Z. N. (2021). National and
cultural
features
of
anthroponomic
component phraseological units in English and
Uzbek
languages.
Retrieved
from
https://eprajournals.com/IJMR/article/4645/do
wnload
3.
Ashurova D, Galiyeva M. “Cultural linguistics”
textbook for Master’s department English
linguistics, Tashkent- 2019;
4.
Begmatov E. A. “Explanation of Uzbek names”,
Tashkent- 2016;
5.
Ergasheva G. “The comparative
- typological
investigation of the gender aspect of
phraseologisms and proverbs in English and
Uzbek languages” dissertation for the defense
of PhD, Tashkent- 2011;
6.
Khudoyorova S. (2020). Semantic and
etymological classification of English and
Uzbek phraseological units with personal
names. ISJ Theoretical & Applied Science, 07
(87), 227- 230. Retrieved from http://www.t-
science.org/arxivDOI/2020/07-87/07-87-47.html
7.
Kunin A. V. “Phraseology of modern English
language”, Mo
scow- 1972;
8.
Maslova V. A. “Linguoculturology”, textbook
for students of high education, Moscow- 2001;
9.
Radjabova
M.
(2019).
Equivalence
of
phraseological
units
with
onomastic
components as the means expressing cross-
cultural communication. Retrieved from
http://journalofresearch.us/wp-
content/uploads/2019/08/314-321.pdf
10.
“Uzbek national proverbs” (Compiled by
Mirzayev T., Musoqulov A., Sarimsoqov B.),
Tashkent- 2005;
Volume 02 Issue 11-2022
47
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
(ISSN
–
2771-2273)
VOLUME
02
I
SSUE
11
Pages:
36-47
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2022:
5.
445
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
METADATA
IF
–
5.963
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
11.
Choriyeva Z. O. “The semantic and grammatical
features of the phraseological units in English
and Uzbek languages”, dissertation for the
defence of MA, Bukhara- 2013.
