RAQAMLI TEXNOLOGIYALAR DAVRIDA TARJIMASHUNOSLIK VA LINGVISTIKA: ZAMONAVIY YONDASHUVLAR TADQIQI” nomli ilmiy
maqolalar to‘plami May – 2024
145
CONSTRUCTIVISM IN TEACHING AND LEARNING
PROCESS
Leyla Kholmuradova
Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), the Department of Translation theory and practice,
Samarkand State Institute of Foreign Languages
Abdulaziz Norboev
Master student of Samarkand State Institute of Foreign Languages
Abstract —
This article examines animal symbolism in English and Uzbek phraseological units, emphasizing their linguocultural
significance. It explores how idioms serve as cultural artifacts, encapsulating the essence of a society’s history and values. The
study analyzes idioms through qualitative and quantitative methods, revealing the pivotal role of symbolism in phraseology. It
discusses the influence of linguistic and extra-linguistic factors, such as stylistics, culture, and cognitive linguistics, on the
symbolization of phraseological units. By comparing the symbolic meanings of animals like the wolf, fox, and sheep in both
languages, the article highlights the deep connections between language, culture, and human experience, offering insights into
cross-cultural communication and linguocultural understanding.
Keywords
— Animal symbolism, English, Uzbek, phraseology, phraseological units, linguocultural context, cross-cultural
communication, cognitive linguistics, linguopragmatics, cultural heritage, metaphorical language.
1.
I
NTRODUCTION
The study of phraseological units across various languages reveals their shared elements, enhancing our comprehension and
practical application of these languages. V.N. Teliа wrote: "Phraseological of a language is considered to be а mirrоr in which the
cоmmunity idеntifies its nаtionаl idеntity" [1, 9]. Through continuous sampling, a diverse range of idioms from dictionaries was
analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively. Language is not just a tool for communication; it’s a cultural artifact that carries the
essence of a people’s history, beliefs, and traditions. Focusing on the concept of linguocultural aspects allows for an enriched
understanding of the cultural practices and values of societies, inviting us to delve into the myriad ways in which human culture
and language intertwine and shape our collective experiences.
2.
M
AIN PART
According to Schneider, “culture is a system of symbols, whereas a symbol is something stands for something else where there is
no relationship between a symbol and what it symbolizes”. For Persons and Shill (1962), “cultural patterns include a system of
ideas and beliefs, a system of expressive symbols or system of value orientation” [2, 20].
Animal symbolism, in particular, plays a pivotal role in phraseology and linguocultural studies, serving as a bridge between
language and culture. It allows phraseological units to encapsulate and convey the rich tapestry of cultural knowledge, beliefs, and
values. Here’s how animal symbolism enriches phraseology and linguocultural understanding:
It reflects the cultural heritage and collective consciousness of a community. Proverbs like “a wolf in sheep’s clothing” - “bo’rini
to’q dema, dushmanni yo’q dema” carry cultural narratives and moral lessons that are passed down through generations, preserving
and transmitting cultural wisdom.
Symbolic phraseology also resonates with our cognitive structures, enabling us to conceptualize abstract ideas through concrete
images. For instance, calling someone “the black sheep of the family” that comes from a proverb “there’s a black sheep in every
flock” - “bitta tiraqi buzoq bir to’p podani buzadi” utilizes the symbolism of color and animal behavior to convey the concept of an
outcast or non-conformist within a group.
Understanding the symbolism in phraseology can facilitate cross-cultural communication and translation. Recognizing that “to kill
two birds with one stone” in English has a similar counterpart in Uzbek -“bir o’q bilan ikki quyonni urmoq”, helps in grasping the
underlying intent and meaning across cultures.
There are some linguistic and extra-linguistic factors that shape the symbolization of phraseological units in English and Uzbek
languages These factors are related to external linguistics such as psycholinguistics, culture, socio, ethno, cognitive linguistics and
linguopragmatics. Each language is characterized by national and cultural peculiarities. Linguistic factors do not exist without
external one, external one also cannot become in existence without linguistic factors [3, 51].
Stylistics: The style of language use can convey additional layers of meaning. The phraseological unit “a snake in the grass” -
“yomon ilon tegirmon boshida aylanar” not only refers to deceit but also carries a negative stylistic connotation due to the cultural
perception of snakes.
RAQAMLI TEXNOLOGIYALAR DAVRIDA TARJIMASHUNOSLIK VA LINGVISTIKA: ZAMONAVIY YONDASHUVLAR TADQIQI” nomli ilmiy
maqolalar to‘plami May – 2024
146
Cognitive Linguistics: Our mental conceptualization of the world affects language. The English phrase “busy as a bee” and the
Uzbek “asalari kabi band” both draw from the bee’s industrious image.
Linguopragmatics: The practical use of language in context can create symbolic meanings. The phrase “to kill two birds with one
stone” in English and its Uzbek equivalent analogue “bir o’q bilan ikki quyonni urmoq” both symbolize efficiency.
The physical environment, religious beliefs, historical events, and customs of a people also play a crucial role:
Geographical Environment: The prevalence of certain animals in a region can affect their symbolic representation. For example,
the camel, common in Uzbekistan, symbolizes endurance and patience - “barcha yukni ko’targan tuya cho’michni ham ko’tarar.”
The same context in English phraseology is expressed by a horse because it was more common to see a horse in England rather
than a camel - “all day on the willing horse.”
Religion: Religious texts and beliefs contribute to symbolism. The lamb is a symbol of sacrifice in both Christian and Islamic
cultures, which influences its use in English and Uzbek phraseology: “if one sheep leap over the dyke, all the rest will follow” -
“podani qo’chqor yetaklar.”
Customs: Daily practices and traditions influence symbolism. Both in English and Uzbek cultures, the horse (“ot”) is a symbol of
grace and nobility, reflecting its historical importance in daily life and warfare: “a ragged colt may make a good horse” - “toychani
toy deb xo’rlama, erta-indin ot bo’lar.”
If we talk about specific animals in the realm of English and Uzbek phraseology, the fox, sheep, and wolf emerge as emblematic
figures, each carrying a trove of cultural symbolism and wisdom.
The idiom“as hungry as a wolf” in English and “bo’ridek och” in Uzbek both vividly express an intense hunger, likening a
person’s appetite to that of a wolf’s. It conveys a sense of ravenous hunger, driven by a primal instinct to hunt and consume. It’s
often used to describe a deep, almost animalistic hunger, where one could seemingly eat a substantial amount of food.
In Uzbek, “bo’ridek och” carries a similar meaning, with “bo’ri” meaning wolf and “och” meaning hungry. It suggests an extreme
level of hunger, as if one has not eaten for a long time, much like a wolf that is driven by its natural instincts to seek food. This
expression is used to describe a person who feels a strong, urgent need to eat, emphasizing the intensity of their hunger.
Both expressions draw on the wolf’s well-known characteristic of being a fierce and efficient hunter, capable of enduring long
periods without food and then eating voraciously when the opportunity arises. These phrases are evocative examples of how animal
behaviors are used metaphorically in human language to describe our own experiences and sensations.
The fox, with its reputation for shrewdness and adaptability, often features in English expressions like “sly as a fox,” which
encapsulates its notoriety for intelligence and guile. This portrayal aligns with the animal’s behavior in nature, where it employs
clever tactics to evade predators and secure its prey. Similarly, in Uzbek, the phrase “tulkidek ayyor” translates to “cunning like a
fox,” reflecting a comparable view of the fox’s crafty disposition. Both expressions highlight the fox’s symbolic status across
cultures as a figure of wit and cunning, often used metaphorically to describe someone who is quick-witted or deceitful.
The metaphor “like lambs to the slaughter” in English and “qo’ydek yuvosh” in Uzbek both evoke images of innocence and
passivity. In English, the phrase “like lambs to the slaughter” suggests a state of being unaware and unprepared for the danger that
lies ahead, often used to describe someone going into a situation without understanding the negative consequences. In contrast,
“qo’ydek yuvosh” translates to “as gentle as a lamb,” reflecting a demeanor that is mild, gentle, and compliant. While the English
phraseological unit carries a sense of impending doom, the Uzbek metaphor focuses more on the docile and serene nature of the
sheep, without the connotation of danger. Both expressions, however, draw from the inherent traits of the sheep, its meekness and
lack of resistance to convey deeper human emotions and behaviors.
These metaphors and proverbs, rich in animal imagery, offer a window into the values and lessons esteemed by both English and
Uzbek-speaking people, illustrating the profound role that animals play in the expression of human experience and wisdom.
3.
C
ONCLUSION
In conclusion, the exploration of phraseological units across languages such as English and Uzbek offers a unique lens through
which we can observe the interplay between language and culture. As V.N. Teliа aptly noted, phraseology acts as a mirror
reflecting a community’s national identity, and this study has affirmed that idioms are not mere linguistic constructs but
repositories of cultural heritage [1, 9]. The symbolic use of animals in phraseology, ranging from the cunning fox to the industrious
bee, serves as a testament to the shared cognitive structures that underpin human expression across cultures. These symbols are not
arbitrary but are deeply rooted in the geographical, religious, and customary landscapes that shape a society’s worldview.
The intricate relationship between language and culture is further emphasized by the stylistic, cognitive, and pragmatic dimensions
of phraseology. Idioms like “a snake in the grass” or “busy as a bee” are not just phrases but encapsulate complex cultural
narratives and cognitive patterns. They resonate with the collective consciousness, offering moral lessons, encapsulating societal
values, and enhancing cross-cultural communication.
Through this lens, we gain insights into the essence of a people’s history, beliefs, and traditions, and we are reminded that language
is a living, breathing element of human culture, ever-evolving and rich with wisdom passed down through generation.
RAQAMLI TEXNOLOGIYALAR DAVRIDA TARJIMASHUNOSLIK VA LINGVISTIKA: ZAMONAVIY YONDASHUVLAR TADQIQI” nomli ilmiy
maqolalar to‘plami May – 2024
147
This study underscores the significance of understanding the linguocultural aspects of phraseology to appreciate the full spectrum
of human experience. It invites us to recognize the profound impact of linguistic and extra-linguistic factors on the symbolization
of phraseological units and to acknowledge the role of language as a vibrant cultural artifact.
4.
R
EFERENCES
[1]
V.N. Telia, Russian Phraseology: semantic, pragmatic and ural aspects. (1996)
[2]
R. Feinberg, Scheider's Symbolic Culture Theory. Cultural anthropology, 20, 541. (1979)
[3]
N. Tursunova, Linguistic and Extralinguistic Factors in the Formation of Phrases in the English and Uzbek Languages, The
American Journal of Social Science and Educational Innovations, 50-58 (2020)
[4]
L. Kholmuradova, The comparative analysis of the picture of the world in the English and French phraseology. (2020)
[5]
L. Kholmuradova, Analysis of the phraseological foundation of the English language and the influence of the French language
on its development. (2020)
[6]
L. Kholmuradova, National and cultural originality of English and French phraseology and its influence on the development of
the mentality of the people. (2021)
[7]
С. Г. Тер-Минасова, Язык и межкультурная коммуникация (2000)
[8]
Abdimital o‘g‘li , A. B. . (2023). Leksik Birliklarning Lingvomadaniy Xususiyatlari (“Shum Bola” Asarining Tarjimasi
Misolida). Miasto Przyszłości, 34, 236–239. Retrieved from
https://miastoprzyszlosci.com.pl/index.php/mp/article/view/1293
[9]
Asror, Y. (2023). Comparative Analysis of Linguocultural Units in English and Uzbek Mass Media Texts. INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE LEARNING AND APPLIED LINGUISTICS, 2(3), 124-127.
[10]
Kushbakova, M., Shahram, A., & Zarina, R. INTERULTURAL TRAINING AT EARLIER STAGES–AS AN
INNOVATIONAL PROJECT AT EFL TEACHING.
Zbiór artykułów naukowych recenzowanych.
, 72.
[11]
Shahram, A., & Zarina, R. MODERN LANGUAGE TEACHERS IN FOREIGN LANGUAGES (US EXPERIENCE).
Zbiór
artykułów naukowych recenzowanych.
, 277.
[12]
Шамахмудова, А. (2022). Pragmatic possibilities of interrogative sentences in a stable form.
Современные
лингвистические исследования: зарубежный опыт, перспективные исследования и инновационные методы преподавания
языков
, (1), 17-19.
[13]
Furkatovna, S. A., Jurabekovna, T. M., & Mamurjonovna, T. P. (1962). Gender aspects of politeness strategy in speech acts.
Linguistics and Culture Review, 5 (S2), 1488-1496.
[14]
Шамахмудова, А. Ф. (2022). ҲУРМАТ ТАМОЙИЛЛАРИНИНГ ГЕНДЕР АСПЕКТЛАРИ.
МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫЙ
ЖУРНАЛ ИСКУССТВО СЛОВА
,
5
(3).
