Volume 15 Issue 08, August 2025
Impact factor: 2019: 4.679 2020: 5.015 2021: 5.436, 2022: 5.242, 2023:
6.995, 2024 7.75
http://www.internationaljournal.co.in/index.php/jasass
220
THE CONCEPT OF "FRIEND/FOE" AND ITS VERBALIZATION IN RUSSIAN AND
ENGLISH
Jumoxunova Maftuna Umidovna
Andijan State Institute of Foreign Languages
1st year master's studentE-mail:
Annotation:
This article is devoted to a comparative analysis of the binary concept
“friend/enemy” and the means of its verbalization in the Russian and English languages. The
study examines the theoretical foundations of the notion of “concept” in cognitive linguistics, the
characteristics of binary (antonymic) concepts and related phenomena (frames, scenarios, etc.).
Keywords:
concept, binary concept, friend, enemy, verbalization, frame, scenario, comparative
analysis.
Introduction.
The conceptual opposition “friend – foe” is one of the basic binary oppositions
that reflect the fundamental value categories of human experience. It is not surprising that this
antithetical pair attracts the attention of linguists and linguaculturalists in reconstructing the
linguistic picture of the world. In modern cognitive linguistics, the concept plays a central role as
a unit of thought that mediates the connection between language and consciousness [1]. Binary
or antonymous concepts, such as “friend/foe”, are of particular interest because they reveal the
value dichotomy “friend – foe” in culture and language. This article aims to analyze the concept
“friend/foe” and the features of its verbalization (linguistic expression) in Russian and English,
to identify the common and different content of this concept and the means of its linguistic
representation. The relevance of the study is due to the growing interest in comparative works on
linguacognitive analysis of key concepts of different languages in the context of the
anthropocentric paradigm, where the concept of "friend/foe" is considered as one of the universal
and culturally significant. The novelty of the work lies in the fact that an attempt is made to
provide a holistic description of the mentioned concept in two languages at once - Russian and
English - based on the theory of concepts, frames and scenarios, as well as taking into account
the phraseological and paremiological (proverb) embodiments of the concept.
In modern linguistics, the term "concept" has many definitions and interpretations. Initially, it
was introduced into scientific circulation by S.A. Askoldov in his article "Concept and Word"
(1928), defining a concept as "a mental formation that replaces for us in the process of thought
an indefinite set of objects of the same kind" - i.e. as a general concept that performs a
substitutive function. [1]. Later, this understanding was developed by academician D.S.
Likhachev , who emphasized that a concept is a “concentrated expression of culture in the
consciousness of its bearers,” arising as a result of the collision of the meaning of a word with
the personal and collective experience of the speaker [5]. Thus, a concept is considered not
simply as a synonym for a concept, but as a mental image endowed with rich cultural content.
Modern cognitive scientists also note the complex nature of the concept. For example, E.S.
Kubryakova et al . define the concept as "an operational unit of memory, mental lexicon,
conceptual system and language of the brain, the entire picture of the world, a quantum of
knowledge" , pointing to its multicomponent nature [4]. Uzbek researcher Sh. Safarov
emphasizes that the concept is "a unit of thought that contains a concept, image and linguistic
meaning" [7]. In other words, the structure of the concept usually includes a conceptual
Volume 15 Issue 08, August 2025
Impact factor: 2019: 4.679 2020: 5.015 2021: 5.436, 2022: 5.242, 2023:
6.995, 2024 7.75
http://www.internationaljournal.co.in/index.php/jasass
221
component (logical content), a figurative component (perceptual-associative image) and a value-
emotional component. This kind of understanding is especially important for linguacultural
studies , where the concept is considered as a carrier of culturally significant meanings.
To analyze the concept of "friend/foe" it is important to take into account the associated
cognitive structures - frames, scenarios, gestalts. A frame is a cognitive model, a scheme of
knowledge about a typical situation or phenomenon, which can include roles, objects and their
relationships. A scenario (script) is a type of frame that describes a stereotypical sequence of
actions or events. These concepts are part of the methodological apparatus of cognitive
linguistics. Thus, the theories of frames (C. Fillmore ), scenarios and gestalts help to describe
how knowledge about friendship and enmity is structured in the minds of native speakers [2]. In
particular, the concepts of "friend" and "enemy" can be understood through the corresponding
scenarios of interaction :
friendship
(typical situations of friendly communication, support) and
enmity
(conflict, confrontation) - these scenarios are part of the content of the concepts under
consideration.
of a binary concept deserves special attention . Linguist G.M. Khoshimov points out that, by
their structure, concepts can be not only singular, but also paired
,
forming opposite pairs within
a conceptual system [6]. Such binary concepts represent antonymic unities, where the content of
one is impossible without opposition to the other. The opposition “friend – enemy” is precisely
one of these antonymic (bipolar) concepts. A number of authors have studied this opposition in
various languages and cultures, emphasizing its universal nature. For example, N.A. Pogrebnaya
introduces the term “ antonymic concept “friend – enemy” ” in relation to the comparison of
English friend / enemy and Russian friend/enemy , pointing out the similarity of core meanings
and the difference in peripheral connotations in the two linguacultures . The Bulgarian researcher
I. Kirillova also gives a detailed description of the concepts “ friend – enemy” (friend – foe)
based on Bulgarian proverbs, which confirms the cross-cultural significance of this opposition
[3].
Thus, from the literature review it follows that the concept of "friend" is usually associated with
a positive evaluation - ideas of trust, loyalty, friendship, support - while the concept of "enemy"
carries a negative evaluation - hostility, danger, malice. However, both of these concepts are
complex mental formations with a multi-level structure. They include cognitive models (frames
of friendship and enmity), emotional-evaluative components (for example, friend - " good, one's
own " ; enemy - " bad, alien " ) and figurative associations (an enemy is associated with evil, can
be depicted as a predator - " wolf " , devil, etc., while a friend - with something good, reliable,
for example " brother " . It is important to note the words of D.S. Likhachev that a concept is not
born directly from the meaning of a word, but is formed "as a result of the collision of the
learned meaning with the personal experience of the speaker" [5]. This fully applies to the
concepts of friend and enemy: their content is largely determined by the historical and cultural
experience of each language community.
It is known that each linguistic unity serves as an expression of a certain concept. The concept of
"friend/foe" in Russian and English is realized through various levels of linguistic means - from
individual lexemes and morphemes to stable expressions, phraseological units and
paremiological units. Below is an analysis of the main types of verbalizers of the concept of
"friend/foe" in both languages:
Volume 15 Issue 08, August 2025
Impact factor: 2019: 4.679 2020: 5.015 2021: 5.436, 2022: 5.242, 2023:
6.995, 2024 7.75
http://www.internationaljournal.co.in/index.php/jasass
222
1.
Morphemes .
In Russian, the concept of "friend/foe" is expressed primarily lexically,
but some morphemic components can be distinguished, such as suffixes that form diminutive or
derogatory forms: friend → little friend, little friend, little friend (diminutive); enemy → enemy ,
little enemy (dismissive) .
In English, the concept of "friend/enemy" does not have any pronounced affix forms, but there
are prefixes that can strengthen or modify the meaning: friend → friendly (adjective), unfriendly
(opposite in meaning); enemy → arch - ( archenemy – sworn enemy), ex - ( ex-friend – former
friend)
2.
Lexemes
in Russian: friend → comrade, pal, brother; enemy → foe, adversary, opponent,
rival ; In English: friend → buddy , pal , ally , companion , mate ; enemy → foe , adversary ,
rival
3.
F -words
:
a) noun + noun
in Russian: childhood friend, enemy of the state, workmate,
election rival ; in English: childhood buddy , national enemy , workmate , election rival ;
b)
adjective + noun
in Russian: loyal friend, old pal, sworn enemy, implacable opponent ; in
English: faithful companion , longtime pal , bitter foe , relentless adversary ;
c) numeral + noun
in Russian : two friends, three enemies, five allies, the first rival ; In English: one close friend ,
several enemies , four allies , second rival ;
d) pronoun + noun
in Russian: my friend, your
enemy, our comrade, their opponent ; In English: my friend , your enemy , our companion , their
adversary
e) verb + noun
in Russian: to protect a friend, to betray a comrade, to bypass an
enemy, to trust a friend ; In English: stand by a friend , betrayal an ally , confront an enemy ,
trust a buddy ;
f) preposition + noun
in Russian: with a faithful friend, against a dangerous
enemy, for the sake of an old comrade, without a sworn enemy ; In English: alongside a faithful
pal , against a ruthless foe , for an old buddy , without a sworn enemy ;
c) participial phrase +
noun
in Russian: devoted comrade, hated enemy, supportive friend, attacking opponent ; In
English: devoted ally , hated adversarial , supporting companion , attack foe .
4.
F razeoemami
in Russian: sworn friend (hypocritical friend), friend to the core, friend for
an hour, wolf in sheep's clothing ; in English: a wolf in sheep's clothes , a snake in the grass , fair
weather friend , boss friend .
5.
Paremi e mami
(proverbs, sayings) in Russian: There are no bonds more sacred than
camaraderie; God save me from friends, but I can deal with enemies myself; A friend in need is a
friend indeed; An old friend is better than two new ones ; In English: A friend in need is a friend
indeed Better an open enemy than a false friend ; A faithful friend is the medicine of life ; The
enemy of my enemy is my friend .
6.
Sentences : a ) monosentences
in Russian: He is my best friend. The enemy attacked
suddenly ;
b) polysentences
in Russian: A friend will always come to the rescue if he is truly
loyal and sincere. An enemy can put on the guise of a friend, so it is important to be careful in
choosing your surroundings; In English, monosentences : He is my best friend . The enemy
attacked suddenly ; Polysentenses : A friend will always come to help if he is truly loyal and
sincere. An enemy may wear the face of a friend, so it is important to be careful about whom you
trust.
Thus, in the course of our study, structural and semantic types of verbalizers of the concept
"friend / enemy"
in the compared languages were identified. Naturally, their totality forms a
special system of verbal means in the language, which indicates the existence of a
linguacognitive field of the concept
"friend / enemy"
. The linguacognitive field of this concept
Volume 15 Issue 08, August 2025
Impact factor: 2019: 4.679 2020: 5.015 2021: 5.436, 2022: 5.242, 2023:
6.995, 2024 7.75
http://www.internationaljournal.co.in/index.php/jasass
223
consists of a core, a dominant and peripheral (extreme) components. The dominant part of the
field is made up of the most frequently used phrasemes (word combinations), for example,
combinations of the type adjective + noun (faithful friend, sworn enemy), noun + noun
(childhood friend, enemy of the people), pronoun + noun (my friend, their enemy). The core of
the field is formed by syntactic constructions - simple sentences ( monosentensemes ): "A friend
will always support", "The enemy does not sleep". Other elements, such as lexemes, as well as
phraseological units and paroemias (for example, a friend to the core, an enemy in the guise of a
friend, “A friend in need is a friend indeed”, “ Better a friend in need »), are part of the
peripheral components of this field.
As a result of the conducted research of the concept "friend/foe" in Russian and English
languages, it was revealed that this concept is a typical binary, antonymic formation, reflecting
the fundamental opposition of the positive and negative poles of interpersonal relations. Its
content is formed on the basis of deeply rooted cultural values and cognitive structures, such as
frames and scenarios that record typical situations of friendship and enmity. An important result
of the study was the confirmation of the presence of a multi-level system of linguistic verbalizers
of the concept - from morphemes and lexemes to stable phraseological units and paremias that
function in the linguocognitive field and reflect culturally conditioned features of the perception
and expression of these concepts.
REFERENCES
1. Askoldov S. A. Concept and word // Russian speech. – L., 1928. – Issue 2. – P. 28–44.
2. Fillmore, C. Frames and Semantics // New in Foreign Linguistics. – Issue XXIII. – Moscow:
Progress, 1986. – P. 111–120.
3. Kirilova J. Concept mind and married spored Bulgarian cat paremiological picture of the
world // Bulgarian speech - 2009. - No. 1–2. — Sofia: University “St. Kliment Ohridski ."
– P. 35-38.
4. Kubryakova E.S. Language and knowledge: on the way to gaining knowledge about
language. – M.: Languages of Slavic Culture, 2004. – 280 p.
5. Likhachev D.S. Conceptual sphere of the Russian language // Izvestiya RAS. Series of
Literature and Language, 1993. – Vol. 52, No. 1. – P. 3–9.
6. Khoshimov G. M. On the current problems of the theory of concepts, their new
classification and typology in modern cognitive linguistics // Int . scientific conf .
“Cognitive linguistics and conceptology ”. - Tashkent, 2020. - P. 45-53.
7. Safarov Sh . Cognitive tilshunoslik . – Samarqand : Sangzor , 2006. – 78 b .
