International Journal Of Literature And Languages
35
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue03 2025
PAGE NO.
35-39
10.37547/ijll/Volume05Issue03-10
Grammatical and
Sеmаntic Fеаturеs
o
f Compаrаtivе
Phrаsеologicаl Unit
s
Kholmatova Malika Ibadullayеvna
Assistant Tеachеr Of Thе Dеpеrtmеnt “Uzbеk And Forеign Languagеs” Tashkеnt Institutе Of Tеxtilе And Light Industry, Uzbekistan
Received:
03 January 2025;
Accepted:
05 February 2025;
Published:
13 March 2025
Abstract:
This аrticlе is dеdicаtеd to thе compаrаtivе аnаlysis of grаmmаticаl аnd sеmаntic fеаturеs of
compаrаtivе phrаsеologicаl units in Еnglish аnd Uzbеk lаnguаgеs. Thе study еxаminеs compаrаtivе phrаsеologicаl
structurеs bаsеd on syntаctic modеls, sеmаntic аspеcts, аnd thеir linguistic аnd culturаl foundаtions. Thе
composition of compаrаtivе phrаsеologicаl units аnd thеir uniquе compаrаtivе forms in Uzbеk аnd Еnglish аrе
еxplorеd. Thе study аnаlyzеs thе usе of аdjеctivе аnd noun componеnts in compаrаtivе idioms, highlighting thеir
grаmmаticаl аnd sеmаntic diffеrеncеs. Thе еquivаlеnts of compаrаtivе phrаsеologicаl units in Uzbеk аnd Еnglish
аrе аnаlyzеd. Аdditionаlly, thе stylistic аnd prаgmаtic аspеcts of thеsе еxprеssions аrе еxаminеd. Thе findings
contributе to dеtеrmining thе rolе of compаrаtivе phrаsеologicаl units in linguistics. Thе rеsults obtаinеd аrе
significаnt for trаnslаtion аnd lаnguаgе tеаching. Thе similаritiеs аnd diffеrеncеs of compаrаtivе phrаsеologicаl
units in Uzbеk аnd Еnglish аrе еvаluаtеd bаsеd on stаtisticаl dаtа.
Keywords:
C
ompаrаtivе phrаsеologisms, compаrаtivе аnаlysis, grаmmаticаl fеаturеs, sеmаntic fеаturеs,
compаrаtivе units, linguoculturology, аdjеctivаl phrаsеs, phrаsеologicаl units.
Introduction:
Analogy, considered one of the
important methods of inference in the field of logic, is
based on similarities between objects. Through this
method, it is hypothesized that if a certain
characteristic exists in one object, a similar
characteristic may also be present in another
comparable object. However, this is not the only
method of cognition. In studying and understanding
the world, humans actively use methods such as
comparison and contrast.
Comparison serves to identify the similarities and
differences between objects, thereby enriching our
knowledge of the world. This process is also carried out
through language. In language, comparison manifests
in various constructions, particularly in comparative
and simile structures. Regarding this, N. Mahmudov
states the following: comparison allows for the easier
recognition of an unknown characteristic through a
known one. For example, if the hardness of a stone is a
known characteristic, then the same characteristic in
other objects can be easily perceived either by
comparison with a stone (harder than stone) or by
likening it to a stone (as hard as stone).
In linguistics, comparison is generally classified into two
types based on its purpose. If two objects or concepts
are compared to highlight their differences, a pure
comparative construction is formed (e.g., the ground is
harder than stone). However, if the comparison aims to
express similarity, a simile construction is formed (e.g.,
the ground is as hard as stone).[5]
LITERATURE REVIEW
Regarding the comparator and the compared element,
F. Čermák states the following: an adjectival
comparison is a firmly established phraseological unit,
such as blind as a bat. In this structure, the main
component is an adjective, which is combined with the
conjunction (as) and a noun (a bat). Typologically, this
is considered an explicit type of comparison, as the
tertium comparationis is explicitly expressed. [3] This
contrasts with implicit comparisons (verb-based),
where the tertium is only indirectly understood
through the comparison element itself, e.g., look like a
clown (meaning mаsxаrаbozgа o‘xshаmoq).
According to E. Yaroslov, the standard structure of
comparative adjectives is as follows:
Comparandum (Kd)
–
the entity or person being
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
36
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
International Journal Of Literature And Languages (ISSN: 2771-2834)
compared
Tertium Comparationis (TC)
–
the primary common
characteristic
Comparatum (Kt)
–
the reference object serving as a
standard for comparison
For example: John (Kd) is blind (TC) as a bat (Kt).
Within this structure, the main adjective (TC)
represents the shared characteristic between the
comparandum
and
the
comparatum.
This
characteristic typically reflects a prototypical feature
but
can
sometimes
involve
unconventional
associations, such as
deaf as a post (butunlаy kаr).
In comparison, the adjective is linked with a noun (Kt),
which consistently represents a characteristic in a fixed
manner. Additionally, the comparandum is considered
an open component and is often represented by a
pronoun or a person's name. Comparative adjective
phrases sometimes include an initial (as), such as (as)
good as gold. This linking component is optional and is
often enclosed in parentheses in dictionaries. Its
presence depends on the position of the comparison in
the sentence or prosodic (intonation) features.
The fixed part of an adjectival comparison structure is
the connection between the tertium and the
comparatum, which can be used with various
comparandums. However, in some cases, specific
comparandums are preferred. For instance, good as
gold is typically used to describe children. This
preference is derived from the semantic content of
adjectival comparisons.
It is important to emphasize that comparative
phraseological units are stable in form. These units are
generally expressed as word combinations, where
attributive components are connected through
subordination or coordination.
The grammatical classification of phraseological units
allows them to be divided into two main groups:
1.
Comparative
phraseological
units
(Comparative FUs): These units express a particular
characteristic through comparison with another
characteristic. They often convey meanings of
similarity, equivalence, or contrast.
2.
Non-comparative phraseological units (Non-
comparative FUs): These units independently express a
characteristic without comparison. Their semantic load
is conveyed either through context or directly via the
main component.
Each group of adjectival phraseological units follows
specific grammatical models, where the adjective
component plays a crucial role in expanding their
semantic and stylistic potential. For example, in Uzbek
adjectival phraseological units based on comparison
typically include words indicating similarity, such as
“kаbi”,
“dеk”, “dаy”, “singаri”, and “o‘xshаsh”. These
elements are essential in defining the boundaries of
their meanings.
The term “comparativity” originates from the Latin
comparativus, meaning comparison. In linguistics, this
concept refers to the comparison of two or more
linguistic units, phenomena, or concepts. The term
comparative phraseological units have traditionally
been classified as a distinct category in phraseology,
and its structural composition, semantics, and syntactic
role are widely discussed in numerous works on English
phraseology.
The nature of comparativity is two fold:
1.
Indicating difference
2.
Indicating similarity
Thus, in the first case, comparison is understood as a
means of identifying differences, while in the second
case, it is used to establish similarities. These two
approaches form the basis of scientific and
philosophical analysis, aiding in the accurate and
systematic organization of human knowledge.
A.I. Burlak’s theoretical directions on “Comparative
Phraseological Units” (1
978) have served as a crucial
foundation in this field. Several researchers have
contributed to this direction, including N.M. Sidyakova,
whose studies encompassed English comparative
phraseological units (CPUs) and were incorporated into
A.V. Kunin’s theo
retical course on English phraseology.
[5]
Additionally, N.M. Prokhorova conducted research on
coordination and attempted to describe its semantic
structure. Adjectival comparative phraseological units
are defined as constructions “based on comparison and
associated with adjectives.” [9] V.M. Ogoltsev’s
fundamental
research
on
fixed
comparative
expressions in the Russian language (1978) and A.V.
Terentyev’s structural analysis of CPUs have helped
establish their place in lexicology.
A.V. Terentyev’s dissertation, titled “Adjectival
Comparative Phraseological Units as a Linguistic
Universal (Based on English Material),” represents one
of the latest scientific studies in this field. [13]
Additionally, S.G. Karimova’s research, which focuses
on the comparative analysis of metaphorical adjectival
phraseological units in English and Russian, is an
important academic direction. [4] This study has
contributed to uncovering the level of imagery and
semantic features of phraseological units by identifying
the mechanisms of metaphorization.
The Turkish linguist Ömer Asım Aksoy classified CPUs
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
37
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
International Journal Of Literature And Languages (ISSN: 2771-2834)
into two groups: simple comparisons and explanatory
comparisons. [1] However, O.A. Aksoy and other
researchers have not conducted a detailed analysis of
the adjective components within these phraseological
units.
In Uzbek linguistics, M. Muqarramov was one of the
first scholars to study comparativity, exploring its
lexical, morphological, and syntactic expression
methods.
Later,
N.
Mahmudov
and
D.S.
Khudaybergenova conducted research on the
semantic-stylistic features of simile constructions and
compiled an explanatory dictionary of Uzbek
comparisons.
METHODS AND RESULTS
Comparative adjectival phraseological units are
linguistic structures associated with adjectives and
based on the principle of comparison. These idiomatic
expressions, from a linguistic perspective, describe an
object or phenomenon by comparing it to another
object or phenomenon. CPUs typically contain general
descriptive words and are widely used to illustrate a
specific characteristic of something.
In Uzbek, CPUs serve to define adjectives through
comparison with objects or phenomena. These
expressions generally include adjective and noun
components, which are linked by elements such as
“dek,” “day,” “singari,” “qadar.” In English, these units
are usually connected by the conjunction “as.” These
phraseological expressions are widely used in both
colloquial and literary speech, enhancing imagery
through comparison.
Building on the theories of N.M. Sidyakova and A.V.
Kunin, researchers have demonstrated that such
English phraseological expressions belong to the
phraseological lexicon.
STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS OF CPUS
Comparative phraseological units consist of two
primary components:
1.
Adjective
–
This component describes the
quality or characteristic of an object, such as color,
shape, or state.
2.
Noun
–
This component represents the object
being compared and denotes the subject of the
comparison.
These two components interact to illustrate a
particular characteristic and define its degree or
condition. Therefore, CPUs hold a significant place in
linguistics as rich and precise linguistic expressions.
Comparative phraseological units in different
languages exhibit distinct structural patterns. The most
basic, standard, and dominant structure in English is:
As + adj + as + (a/the) + N
Uzbek equivalent: sifat + day (dek) + ot
A large portion of comparative phraseological
expressions are formed based on this construction. This
structure helps determine the function of the phrase
and the type of imagery it conveys. Moreover, it
ensures the correct usage of phraseological units by
establishing the proper arrangement of components
and their syntactic relationships. Below, we will
examine examples of these structures in more detail.
Comparative phraseological units in English follow the
structure (as) + adj + as + (a/the) + N, which can be
translated into Uzbek as sifat + day(dek) + ot. Examples
of such phraseological units include:
•
As soft as silk
–
ipakday mayin (as soft as silk)
•
As red as a cherry
–
gilosdek qip-qizil (as red as
a cherry)
•
As busy as a bee
–
chumolidek mehnatkash (as
hardworking as an ant)
•
As dull as dishwater
–
o‘lgudek zerikarli
(extremely boring)
•
As yellow as a guinea
–
oltinday sariq (gold-like
yellow)
•
As white as paper
–
qog‘ozdek oppoq (paper
-
white)
•
As straight as an arrow
–
qilichday to‘g‘ri,
o‘roqdеk to‘g‘ri (as straight as a
sword/sickle)
•
As blind as a bat
–
ko‘rshapalakdek ko‘zi ko‘r
(blind like a bat)
•
As dry as a bone
–
suyakdek qurib ketgan (dried
up like a bone)
•
As hard as stone
–
toshday qattiq (hard as a
rock)
•
As clear as daylight
–
kunday aniq, ochiq-oydin
(as clear as daylight)
•
As black as ink
–
ko‘mirdek qora (coal
-black)
Despite the similarities between English and Uzbek
comparative phraseological units, they differ in
structure, morphology, and grammatical features.
These differences are particularly evident in the use of
articles, the number and definiteness of nouns, as well
as the degrees of adjectives.
In English, comparative phraseological expressions
require either the indefinite article (a/an) or the
definite article (the) before singular countable nouns,
depending on whether the comparison object is
specific or general. For example:
•
As red as a cherry (gilosdek qip-qizil) uses an
indefinite article.
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
38
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
International Journal Of Literature And Languages (ISSN: 2771-2834)
•
As old as the hills (tog‘lar kabi eski) uses a
definite article.
In contrast, Uzbek lacks morphological equivalents of
articles. The definiteness or indefiniteness of the noun
is understood through context. For instance:
•
Ko‘z qorachig‘iday (as the pupil of the eye).
In Uzbek, comparative phraseological units are mostly
formed using suffixes such as -day, -dek, which play a
crucial role in linking adjectives to nouns. The primary
model in Uzbek is N + day (dek) + adj (with a
subordinate relationship), which corresponds to the
English as + adj + as + N structure. Due to structural
differences between the two languages, Uzbek
expressions have a reversed word order compared to
their English equivalents, with the adjective placed at
the end.
For example:
•
Pichoqdek o‘tkir (as sharp as a knife).
•
Go‘dakdek masum (as innocent as a baby).
•
Zaharday achchiq (as bitter as poison).
•
O‘lguday ziqna (as stingy as death).
Additionally, in Uzbek, phraseological comparisons
frequently appear in literary and conversational
contexts:
•
Kelinimdan o‘tdеk kuyganman. (I am deeply
hurt by my daughter-in-law.)
•
O‘g‘ilginamni yaxshi bilasan, qo‘ydеk yuvosh
bola. (You know my son well; he is as gentle as a lamb.)
These examples highlight the grammatical flexibility of
the Uzbek language in forming comparisons through
suffixation.
CONCLUSION
The
study
reveals
that
while
comparative
phraseological units in English and Uzbek are similar in
meaning, they differ significantly in grammatical
structure and usage. In English, these phrases are
primarily constructed using the as...as or like
structures, whereas in Uzbek, suffixes such as -dek, -
day, -singari, -qadar serve as the main comparative
markers.
Comparative phraseological expressions enhance the
vividness of language, strengthen expressiveness, and
effectively convey meaning. The connection between
the adjective and noun components in these
expressions determines their semantic load. The study
shows that in English, these expressions have a fixed
lexical structure, while in Uzbek, they exhibit syntactic
and morphological flexibility.
The findings confirm that studying comparative
phraseological units is valuable for linguistics, cultural
studies, and translation studies. Identifying the
similarities and differences between English and Uzbek
comparative idioms helps in understanding translation
challenges
and
improving
language
teaching
methodologies.
Future research could expand by comparing such
expressions in other languages and analyzing them
using corpus linguistics to gain deeper insights.
REFERENCES
Аksoy Omеr Аsim. Аtаsözlеri vе Dеyimlеr Sözlüğü. –
Istаnbul: İnkılаp, 1988.
Burlаk А.I. Kompаrаtiv frаzеologik birliklаr. –
Moskvа:
Nаukа, 1978.
Čеrmák F. Frаzеologiе а idiomаtikа čеská а obеcná /
Czеch аnd Gеnеrаl Phrаsеology. –
Prаhа: Nаklаdаtеlství
Kаrolinum, 2007. 401s.
Каримова С.Г. Адъективные фразеологические
единицы метафорического характера в английском
и русском языках: Дис…., канд. филол. наук. –
Казань, 2007. –
169 с.
Kunin А.V. Аngliyskаyа frаzеologiyа: tеorеtichеskiy
kurs.
–
Moskvа: Visshаyа shkolа, 1996.
Mаxmudov N. O‘zbеk tilidаgi soddа gаplаrdа sеmаntik
-
sintаktik аssimmеtriyа. –
Toshkеnt: O‘qituvchi, 1984.
68 b.
Mеzеnin S.M. Konstruktsii sovrеmеnnogo аngliyskogo
yаzykа, imеyushchiе znаchеniе srаvnеniyа. –
Moskvа,
1969.
Ogoltsеv V.M. Russkiе srаvnitеlnyе frаzеologizmy:
strukturа i sеmаntikа. –
Lеningrаd: Nаukа, 1978.
Proxorovа N.M. Sopostаvitеlnаyа frаzеologiyа: tеorii i
mеtody. –
Moskvа: Flintа, 2001.
Qаlаndаrov А.R. Ingliz vа o‘zbеk tillаridа kompаrаtivlik
kаtеgoriyаsi
ifodаlаnishining
sintа
ktik-
sеmаntik
xususiyаtlаri. –
Toshkеnt: Fаn, 2019.
Sаpаrov
S.P.
Kompаrаtiv
аdyеktiv
iborаlаr
shаkllаnishining konsеptuаl аsosi vа ulаrning lеksik
-
sеmаntik xususiyаtlаri. –
Toshkеnt: Fаn, 2024.
Сидякова
Н.М.
Структурные
особенности
компаративных
фразеологических
единиц
в
современном английском языке. // Уч. зап.
Вологодского ГПИ,т.26,1961.
-
с. 97
-139
Терентьев
А.В.
Адъективные
компаративные
фразеологические
единицы
как
языковая
универсалия: На материале англ. яз.: Дис…, канд.
филол. наук. –
Нижний Новгород, 1997. –
352 с.
Turаnskiy I.I. Sеmаntichеskаyа kаtеgoriyа intеnsivnosti
v аngliyskom yаzykе. –
Moskvа: Visshаyа shkolа, 1990.
17. Ubin I.I. Lеksichеskiе srеdstvа vyrаzhеniyа kаtеgorii
intеnsivnosti. –
Moskvа, 1974.
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
39
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
International Journal Of Literature And Languages (ISSN: 2771-2834)
Холматова
М.
Сравнительный
анализ
сопоставительных
фразеологизмов
с
прилагательним компонентом английского и
узбекского языков. SciеncеPrоblеms 2023, 3, c. 161–
166.
Xolmаtovа, M. I. (2021). Ingliz vа о‘zbеk tillаridаgi sifаt
kоmpоnеntli ibоrаlаrning lingvоkulturоlоgik qi
-
yоsiy
tаhlili. Аcаdеmic rеsеаrch in еducаtionаl sciеncеs,
2(12), 1391-1397.
Xolmаtovа, M. I. (2022). Umumtаlim mаktаblаri ingliz
tili dаrslаridа til koʼnikmаlаrini rivojlаntirish. Sciеncе
аnd Еducаtion, 3(2), 999
-1005.
Yаroslov Е. Еnglish аdjеctivаl similеs: compаrison of а
corpus sаmplе with thеir sеlеction in а stаndаrd
rеfеrеncе book of idioms. 2024, 28
-43s
DOI 10.14712/23366591.2024.1.2
