70
ADJECTIVAL PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS IN REPRESENTING NATIONAL
WORLDVIEW
DSc., prof., Kuldashev A.
Berdimuratova A.В.
MА student of Karakalpak State University named after Berdakh
Abstract.
The national identity of the language is reflected in its phraseological fund. The
identification of the actual national features of the semantics of phraseological units is possible
only on the basis of a comparison of stable turns of different languages. To carry out a comparative
analysis of phraseological units containing components denoting a value, it is necessary to
establish the national features of the language worldview and trace the process of linguistic
conceptualization of the value. Each language has its own method of conceptualizing reality,
which has its own specific and universal features. A comparative cultural linguistics study of the
fund of the English and Karakalpak languages makes it possible to determine the common and
national in matters of perception of magnitude by representatives of the two peoples.
Key words:
phraseological units, adjective, culture, worldview
Language and culture are considered as basic social phenomena dependent on each other.
The sum of knowledge about the surrounding world, imprinted in the form of linguistic signs,
makes up the linguistic worldview. This article is devoted to the problems of studying the
culturally determined features of phraseological units, as well as the principles of modeling the
concept of magnitude in the English and Russian phraseological worldview.
The term "worldview" was introduced into scientific use by the physicist G.Hertz. He
defines the worldview as a set of internal images of external objects that serve to derive logical
judgments about the behavior of these objects. Later, the term was transferred to the humanities,
appeared in the works of K. Jaspers and L.Wittgenstein [“Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus”], as
well as L. Weisgerber.
Since the beginning of the 21st century, the "worldview" [WV] has become the central
object of study in many areas of science. This concept is interpreted from philosophical, linguistic,
educational, cultural and other points of view. There are several different definitions of this
concept, but they all agree on one thing: the worldview is an ordered structure, which gives a
person the opportunity to navigate in the world around him. Some linguistic and highly specialized
dictionaries also note that the worldview is “reflected in linguistic forms and categories, concepts,
opinions, ideas of the people speaking this language about reality, about a person’s attitude to
reality; reflects the cultural identity of the people [1.96].
PHRASEOLOGICAL WORLDVIEW AS AN OBJECT OF LINGUISTIC STUDY
When studying LWV, a special role is given to lexicology and, in particular, phraseology,
since it is phraseological units “... that are associated with cultural and national standards,
stereotypes, mythologemes, etc. and when used in speech, they reproduce the mentality
characteristic of a particular linguocultural community” [2.56]. Phraseological units are the most
valuable source of information about the culture and mentality of the people. B.A. Larin in his
work “Essays on Phraseology” accurately notes that they “indirectly reflect the views of the
71
people, the social system, and the ideology of their era. Reflect - as the light of the morning is
reflected in a drop of dew" [3. 125-149].
According to S.G. Ter-Minasova, language is a "tool of culture". The author argues that
grammar and vocabulary play the main role in the formation of the national character. It seems
obvious that it is the vocabulary that bears the greatest cultural load. Words and phrases make up
the LWV, which determines the perception of the world by native speakers of a particular
language. This aspect becomes especially clear when studying set expressions, phraseological
units, idioms, proverbs and sayings. It is in this layer of the language that the cultural experience
of the people can most transparently be reflected [4.147].
In Karakalpak and English comparative phraseological units, standards naming artifacts
are the priority. Phraseological comparisons are used primarily to characterize a person, while in
the comparative phraseology of two languages, comparisons that characterize a person’s
appearance, his physiological and physical states and movements are priority. In stable
comparisons of Russian and English languages, an insignificant amount of nationally marked
vocabulary is presented. In the comparative phraseology of the two languages, both animal images
and the names of artifacts are used to characterize a person, while when characterizing inanimate
objects, situations, events, phenomena of inanimate nature, images associated with artifacts are
prioritized [5. 50].
The classification of phraseological units revealed some national-specific features of the
analyzed vocabulary. Separate words, phrases, including phraseological units, in languages of
different systems may have points of contact, fully or partially coincide, i.e. For example: Quick
on the trigger – қызба, қан қызба = гуди бузар [вспыльчивый, быстро реагирующий]; Slow
on the trigger – уян = тырп етпес = жай басар [медленно реагирующий].
The reason for this coincidence may lie not only in borrowing, tracing from one language
to another, but also in the universal humanity of many reactions and their equal reflection in the
public linguistic consciousness of different peoples. For example, an example of phraseological
units with the “common/әпиӯайы” component is given, representing the concept of “simplicity”
in a diachronic plan:
Common or garden – жай ҳам әпиўайы, майда шуйде, жеңил желпи, шақур-шуқыр
[заурядный, самый обыкновенный, шаблонный, избитый] = бир-бап, аспайтуғын –
таспайтуғын, азар-безерсиз, ақ кеўил.
These APhU properties are observed in the following contexts:
“I imagine they’d soon realize that I wasn’t quite the common or garden chartered
accountant.” [W.S. Mangham];
“Sib’s judgment is just his opinion of Sib – common or garden impatience of any one
else” [J. Galsworthy. The White Monkey, part I, ch. II] [6.189].
As part of the adjectival comparative units, thematic groups are found that include only
phraseological units, while there are no independent lexemes to designate these detonants.
PARADIGMATIC RELATIONS OF COMPARATIVE PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS OF
THE ENGLISH AND KARAKALPAK LANGUAGES
The images underlying adjectival phraseological units are based on objects of the real and
unreal world both in English and in Russian.
The issues of polysemy of adjectival phraseological units in terms of comparative study
are still the object of close attention of linguists. As A.N. Lyubov in the field of phraseology over
72
the past "twenty years, there will not be even a dozen works devoted to the study of paradigmatic
relations in the system of phraseology" [7.136].
Meanwhile, a comparative study of the polysemy of the APU of the English and
Karakalpak languages makes it possible to distinguish phraseological units from compound terms,
proverbs, and aphorisms. The degree of polysemy of the AFE series in the English and Karakalpak
languages is compared below. Examples:
In English:
As cold as ice – 1]. Холодный как лёд; 2]. [о человеке] равнодушный,
хладнокровный, бесстрастный.
As clear as a day – 1]. Очень ясный, светлый; 2]. Ясный, понятный, очевидно ясный.
В каракалпакском языке:
Муздай суўық – 1]. холодный как лёд; 2]. [о человеке] равнодушный,
необшительный, бесстрастный.
Күндизгидей жарық – 1]. очень ясный, светлый; 2]. [о человеке] миловидный; 3].
очевидный, понятный.
Let us dwell on the issue of analysis of APhU polysemy further on. Tiper as an integral
part of the paradigm, let's proceed to a parallel consideration of the prerequisite for studying the
synonymy and antonymy of the APhU of the English and Karakalpak languages.
The analysis of the structural organization of comparative phraseological units made it
possible to expand the known classifications. In the course of the study, adjective comparative
phraseological units with a structural organization such as adj. + as + gerundial turnover, adj. +
like + attraction. places/places + noun in English and adj / adj. + as + [adj.] + n. + preposition +
noun in the Karakalpak language. The fact was revealed that in structural types comparative
phraseological units can be formed without observing the rules of English grammar, for example,
there may be no article before a countable noun in the singular. In the course of the study, two
types of structural APhU relations of the compared languages were identified: structural-
component correspondences and structural-component divergences.
Comparison of adjective comparative phraseological units in the English and Karakalpak
languages allows us to conclude that there is a significant commonality in the structure of the
phraseological units under consideration. The most numerous type of comparative phraseological
units adj. + like + n. refers to structural-component correspondences, to which five more structural
types adjoin. The group of structural discrepancies is small and consists of three structural types.
REFERENCES:
1. Азимов Э.Г., Щукин А.Н. (2009). Новый словарь методических терминов и понятий
(теория и практика обучения языкам).
2. Телия В.Н. (1996). Русская фразеология: Семантический, прагматический и
лингвокультурологический аспекты. - М.: Школа «Языки русской культуры».
3. Larin B.A. (1997). Essays on phraseology.
4. Тер-Минасова С.Г. (2000). Язык и межкультурная коммуникация: учебное пособие. – М.:
Слово
5. Долгова Е.В. (2006). Лексико-фразеологические особенности речевого жанра "Портрет
делового человека" в дискурсе.
6. Кунин. А.В. (1967). Англо-русский фразеологический словарь. Около 25 000
фразеологических единиц.
73
7. Любова А.Н. (2009). Адъективные компаративные фразеологизмы в английском
немецком и норвежском языках: общее и специфическое: Дис…., канд. филол. наук.
8. Cowie, A. P. Phraseology. (1998). Theory, Analysis and Applications. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
9. Бердимуратов Е. (1968). Ҳәзирги заман қарақалпақ тилиниң лексикологиясы.
[Лексикология современного каракалпакского языка] – Нөкис: Билим.
10. Нызанов М. (1994). «Қассаптын туси»
11. Ешбаев Ж. (1985). Қарақалпақ тилиниң қысқаша фразеологиялык сөзлиги. Нөкис:
Қарақалпақстан Баспасы.
12. Musaev A. A., Syntactic-semantic realization of causative structures in English and
Karakalpak languages. The American Journal of Social Science and Education Innovations. (ISSN
– 2689-100x) VOLUME 05. ISSUE 11. P. 29-37.
13. 4. Musaev A. A., Emotional-expressive causative verbs in English and Karakalpak. Science
and innovation // International scientific journal. 2022, №4, ISSN: 2181-3337. – P. 678-683.
СОЦИОЛИНГВИСТИЧЕСКИЙ ПОДХОД К ПРОБЛЕМЕ ЖЕЛЕЗНОДОРОЖНОГО
ТЕРМИНА
Мирсагатова Дилором Убайдуллаевна
Переводческий факультет, УзГУМЯ
Железнодорожная техника представляет собой совокупность материальных средств,
предназначенных для осуществления процессов производства, обслуживания различного
рода потребностей общества. Для профессиональной деятельности и, соответственно,
мышления в сфере железнодорожной техники характерна предметная направленность.
Категории понятий, формируемых в области железнодорожной техники, вытекают из
соотношений объективных сторон отражаемой в этих понятиях предметной
действительности и создают систему категорий, свойственных только железнодорожной
технике. Социолингвистика сформировалась в пределах лингвистики через взаимодействие
со смежными областями. В разных странах формы этого взаимодействия были различны. В
США и Англии социолингвистика появилась как результат взаимопроникновения
лингвистики, социальной психологии и культурной антропологии, тогда как во Франции —
как результат взаимодействия лингвистики, социологии и философии. Возникла
социолингвистика, по мнению учёных тогда, когда стали накапливаться факты, которые всё
хуже и хуже поддавались объяснению через существующие теории языка, именно тогда
учёные-исследователи обратились к смежным наукам. Кроме того, считается, что
социолингвистика появилась как ответ на «общественную потребность» прежде всего в
упорядочении языка. Эта научная дисциплина существует с того момента, когда лингвисты
столкнулись с непримиримым противоречием между постулатами структурной лингвистики
(«в структурном соотношении все языки равны», «все говорящие в равной степени владеют
языком») и социальной реальностью, в которой ни языки, ни говорящие на них не равны [2,
с. 13].
Общепринятого определения социолингвистики нет, из-за относительной молодости
этой науки. Обычно её определяют, как область взаимопроникновения социологии и
лингвистики, охватывающую влияние социальных факторов на язык и языковых факторов
на общество. У. Лабов трактует это понятие «как область знаний, изучающая структуру
языка и языковые изменения на основании данных, получаемых при исследовании
