Volume 04 Issue 12-2024
15
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
(ISSN
–
2771-2834)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
12
P
AGES
:
15-19
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
ABSTRACT
This article investigates phraseological units with gender semantics. Specifically, it analyzes the gender semantics in
English phraseological units containing zoomorphic components from structural-semantic, social, and linguocultural
perspectives.
KEYWORDS
Phraseological unit, metagender, masculinity, femininity, zoomorphism, reference, connotation.
INTRODUCTION
In contemporary humanities, gender is defined as a
sociocultural sex, which involves the attribution of
specific qualities and behavioral norms to an individual
based on their biological sex. While gender is not
considered a linguistic category, its essence can be
revealed through the analysis of linguistic structures.
The investigation of gender categories using linguistic
devices is the primary objective of linguistic gender
studies, a multifaceted field of research.
Research on language and gender is diverse, primarily
focusing on two main areas:
1. Language and Gender Expression: This encompasses
describing and explaining how the existence of
different sexes is expressed through language. This
includes how men and women are evaluated and in
which semantic fields these evaluations are most
clearly and distinctly expressed.
2. Gender-Specific Communication Patterns: This area
focuses on identifying typical strategies and tactics
employed by men and women. It explores gendered
lexical choices, effective communication techniques,
and preferences in lexical and syntactic structures,
Research Article
THE ROLE OF ZOOMORPHIC PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS IN
REPRESENTING GENDER
Submission Date:
December 10, 2024,
Accepted Date:
December 15, 2024,
Published Date:
December 20, 2024
Crossref doi:
https://doi.org/10.37547/ijll/Volume04Issue12-03
Korakuzieva Diyora
Doctorate student of Andijan State University, Uzbekistan
Journal
Website:
https://theusajournals.
com/index.php/ijll
Copyright:
Original
content from this work
may be used under the
terms of the creative
commons
attributes
4.0 licence.
Volume 04 Issue 12-2024
16
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
(ISSN
–
2771-2834)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
12
P
AGES
:
15-19
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
highlighting the distinctive features of male and female
speech.
Gender concepts are among the most significant
cultural concepts because they exist in every culture
and play a crucial role in shaping linguistic personality
and interpersonal communication. Gender concepts
find their expression through language; therefore,
their meaning and structure can be described by
analyzing their objectification through linguistic
devices. The aggregate of linguistic tools expressing a
concept at any stage of social development is defined
as the concept's nominative field. A significant part of
the nominative field of gender concepts includes the
naming of individuals of different genders, including
zoomorphic imagery. Zoomorphisms not only allow for
the description of a person’s appearance, behavioral
characteristics, physical, intellectual, and moral
qualities, and emotional state, but also incorporate a
distinct evaluative tone and cultural connotation.
Lexical units expressing gender concepts are defined
as gender marked. Their semantics include gender-
related information, i.e., the potential to activate
gender stereotypes and representations in the minds
of communicants and to impose restrictions on the use
of these units in relation to male or female referents
[4]. In describing lexical units with gender semantics,
they can be divided into three groups: metagender,
and units with masculine and feminine referents.
Developing a methodology for studying these units is
one of the key issues in contemporary linguistic gender
studies.
“The analysis above demonstrates the crucial role of
considering national and cultural specifics in
identifying the characteristics of phraseological units,
revealing the semantic field of each individual
phraseological unit. A complex application of
linguocultural, contrastive, and cognitive approaches
provides a comprehensive understanding of the
linguistic phraseological system” [3].
As noted by A.A. Kipriyanova and T. Ogdanova [5], the
functional-semantic group of zoomorphisms is defined
as a series of zoonyms, performing characterizing and
expressive functions. Enriched with emotional and
instrumental meanings, zoomorphisms are widely
used in everyday speech and literature. Zoomorphic
imagery carries distinct connotations. Their purpose is
to attribute specific traits to a person, consistently or
almost consistently, carrying an evaluative meaning,
since transferring animal characteristics to a human
implies evaluative connotations.
METHODODLOGY
The symbolic meanings of zoonyms arise from a
creative understanding of the world (particularly the
fauna), and these meanings are shaped based on both
universal and national conceptions of animals. While
similar animal names are often recognized for their
characteristic functions across different cultures, the
meaning of zoomorphisms in one language can differ
from the meaning of similar zoomorphisms in another
one.
In English, the image of a “magpie” is used to describe
a person who hoards many unnecessary things. Thus,
while the human cognitive ability to associate people
with animals is common across all languages,
zoomorphisms can reflect not only universal but also
nationally specific associations. In this research, in
addition to differences in associative links between a
particular animal and speakers of a language, we will
examine how the national specificity of zoomorphisms
Volume 04 Issue 12-2024
17
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
(ISSN
–
2771-2834)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
12
P
AGES
:
15-19
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
may manifest in differences in the gender reference of
these lexical units (i.e., their ability to be associated
with a person of a particular gender), as well as in the
use (or non-use) of animal names alongside male and
female gender terms.
Following a review of the key characteristics of
zoomorphisms using lexicographic sources, a corpus of
units was compiled for further analysis. The selected
material, consisting of English zoomorphisms for this
analysis, comprised 57 units: ape, ass, bear, beast,
beave, bitch, bird, bull, calf, cat, chick, cock, coot, cow,
crow, cur, dog, donkey, dotterel, dove, duck, eagle,
fish, fox, gander, goat, goose, hare, hawk, hen, hog,
horse, lamb, jay, lion, lioness, magpie, monkey, mouse,
mule, parrot, peacock, pig, pigeon, rabbit, rat, rook,
serpent, sheep, skunk, snake, swine, tiger, tigress,
vulture, wolf, woodcock.
In these examples, 12 units form dichotomous pairs:
bull - cow, goose - gander, hen - cock, lion - lioness,
snake - serpent, tiger - tigress. The remaining lexemes
(except beast, bird, calf, chick, cur, fish, hog, lamb) are
specific names of fauna representatives.
Using lexicographic data, the gender reference for
each unit was determined. The gender reference of
zoomorphisms was identified based on the presence
of a specific lexeme repertoire in dictionary definitions.
For example, lion
–
a person possessing strength or
courage. In phraseological units, this can be
exemplified by:
every dog is a lion at home
–
(used in reference to
people who are more assertive and free in their own
home than in public);
Dog
–
a person who has done something unpleasant,
disgusting, or bad; mostly refers to men.
it is a poor dog that does not know ‘come out’ –
(used
in reference to people who don't know when to stop);
Wolf
–
encompasses meanings of strong, not very
intelligent, greedy. Mostly used in pejorative contexts.
a wolf in sheep’s clothing –
(used in reference to
people who appear kind and gentle but are actually
malicious).
To simplify the description during the research,
zoomorphisms were divided into semantic groups.
Analysis of zoomorphisms according to their semantic
group revealed that the most frequently used images
in the English material are those expressing character
traits, moral qualities, and intellectual abilities.
Analysis of the collected English material concerning all
semantic groups revealed a predominance of
zoomorphisms with negative connotations. Various
linguists [6] have noted the prevalence of negative
evaluations over positive ones. As R. Lakoff points out,
this relates to the human characteristic of
conceptualizing reality, where “good” is considered
the norm and not always explicitly mentioned, while
'bad' is marked and frequently reflected in language as
a deviation from the ideal “good” [2].
The research identified zoomorphisms without direct
equivalents for figurative naming of humans. The
following animal names possess national specificity in
English: beaver, coot, cur, dotterel, duck, jay, mule,
rook, skunk, vulture, woodcock. Of these images, only
coot, cur, mule, skunk, and vulture were found in the
English samples, but their usage in the examined
contexts was relatively infrequent.
RESULTS
Volume 04 Issue 12-2024
18
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
(ISSN
–
2771-2834)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
12
P
AGES
:
15-19
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
The research revealed the following results. In
expressing gender concepts in English culture, a
number of zoomorphisms are used similarly to other
linguistic cultures; that is, they contain similar
associations, their gender references correspond, and
they differ in the frequency of use in objectifying
masculinity/femininity. Universality was observed in
the use of the following zoonyms: rat; ape, monkey;
pig, swine; hawk; lamb; fish; and calf (although for fish
and
calf,
despite
semantic
and
referential
correspondence, infrequent use in the examined
contexts was observed).
Thus, the process of naming animals to distinguish
their gender in English is relatively complex, and when
using animal names to describe a person, the
associations linked to the animal are more important
than the animal’s sex. This may explain the absence of
male and female counterparts for the indicated
zoomorphisms.
In English, besides the trope gander used for men, the
trope goose is also used to describe a person and
serves as a common generic name. Interestingly, when
depicting people, the zoomorphism goose can be
associated with both men and women:
Cassandra Murnieks, a cricket fan, led the charge to
have Ponting sacked: ‘Ponting is a goose and he has
stuff
ed up so many chances for Oz now,’ she wrote on
her Facebook page (The Times, 24.08.2009)
Hitler’s half
-sister, Angela, for example, reportedly
once called Eva Braun ‘a silly goose’ (The Guardian,
21.08.2006)
Regarding the snake/serpent pair, there is asymmetry
in
gender
reference
concerning
male/female
counterparts. As the research shows, in English
materials, both counterparts (the female-associated
lexeme 'snake'and the male-associated 'serpent'
possess metagender references and have the ability to
express both masculinity and femininity:She told
Jennifer that Helene thought her a snake. Loucinda had
won round Helene... and now-
as Helen’s face of
thunder implied ~ she was a treacherous bag (The
Times, 24.04.2008).
And his attempt to take over Harley Davidson failed
after a case in which the judge described him as a
"snake in sheep’s clothing" (The Guardian, 14.12.2004).
"Your conduct has converted me into a very serpent",
she proclaims (Times Literary Supplement, 31.10.2008).
Jason Braham thought of Mr MacPherson as a
treacherous serpent (The Sunday Times, 06.07.2008).
In the zoonym cow, despite the gender reference
being consistent across many languages (both
zoomorphisms objectify femininity), the English
counterpart has a broader meaning: an unpleasant,
unattractive, uninteresting woman:
"What for?" she asked, looking miserable. She always
looks miserable, poor cow (The Guardian, 22.12.2007).
A noticeable difference in meaning is observed in the
zoonym hen. In English culture, the zoomorphism hen
describes a woman by age, associating her with a fussy,
elderly woman:
This month I shall feel a bit like an old hen myself,
because all three of my children are coming home from
various foreign parts... (The Times, 07.07.2007).
The zoomorphism tigress carried a negative meaning
(dangerous, aggressive woman) in all examined
contexts. According to lexicographic data, in English
Volume 04 Issue 12-2024
19
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
(ISSN
–
2771-2834)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
12
P
AGES
:
15-19
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
culture, the image tigress is associated with a
courageous, energetic woman, but also often
excessively aggressive and ruthless. However, in some
instances, it was used solely with positive
connotations, as in the following example:
...his wife could have made Ivan the Terrible quake in
his boots. A tigress when it came to pursuing career
appointments both for her husband and their eldest
son, her steely courage served her best when she was
fighting for the survival of her family (The Guardian,
21.03.2009).
CONCLUSION
“Men and women perceive and evaluate existence
differently.
The
gender
variable
in
speech
communication manifests itself at various linguistic
levels: phonetic, lexical, grammatical, and semantic.
Gender relations are not only used in an encoded form
but also give rise to the thematic content and
characteristics of the speech event
” [1].
Furthermore, the study of current zoomorphism usage
in English linguistic culture revealed a predominance of
units with metagender reference, which can represent
both masculinity and femininity in different contexts,
regardless of the animal's sex. This leads to the
conclusion that it is not the sex of the animal but rather
the associations it evokes that determine to which
human gender the zoonym is attributed. The decisive
factor here is likely the associations a particular animal
triggers.
REFERENCES
1.
Korakuzieva , D. I. kizi . (2023). THEORETICAL BASIS
OF GENDER RELATIONS IN ENGLISH AND UZBEK
PHRASES. Oriental Journal of Philology, 3(05), 8
–
14. https://doi.org/10.37547/supsci-ojp-03-05-02
2.
Lakoff Robin. Language and Woman’s place. –
New
York: Harper and Row, 1975.
–
372 p.
3.
Qoraqo‘ziyeva Diyora. Ingliz va o‘zbek frazeologik
birikmalarida
gender
stereotiplarining
lingvomadaniy tadqiqi. Results of National
Scientific Research International Journal, 2023,
Volume 2 Issue 8, ISSN: 2181-3639. B.- 150-155.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10156732
4.
Васькова
О.А.
Гендер
как
предмет
лексикографического описания (на материале
фразеологии). 2006. –
21 с.
5.
Киприянова, А.A. Функциональные особенности
зооморфизмов: На материале фразеологии и
паремиологии
русского,
английского,
французского
и
новогреческого
языков.
Автореф. дисс. … канд. филол. наук. –
Москва,
1999.
–
48 c.
6.
Телия В.Н. Метафора как модель смысла
произведения и её экспрессивно
-
оценочная
функция. Метафора в языке и тексте. М,. Наука,
1988.
–
356с.
