CC BY
5ACTUAL PROBLEMS AND METHODOLOGY OF MODERN COMPARATIVE TYPOLOGY
Karimova Muattar
Master's student of NamSU https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7487366
Abstract: The article provides a comparative analysis of phraseological units
specific to English and Uzbek languages, as well as grammatical and semantic features of both languages. Phraseological units specific to both languages are widely
covered today in terms of their importance to science and humanity.
Keywords: Modern, literature, language, creative work, character, legacy, idea, phrase, people, conduct.
As we know, language learners should also learn and know the geographic location, historical traditions, customs of the country which the language is being studied, because according to we are analyzing above samples, it is also known that the proverb and the proverb are of great importance both in the analysis and translation of phraseological units. Any proverbs, fables and phraseological units, each nation uses by its own mentality. However, some themes of phraseological units are available in both languages, for instance, behavior, friendship, braveness, shyness and others. Some differences of phraseological compounds which about behavior are given on the below: Politenesscostslittle, butyieldsmuch - the cost of being frankly is cheap, for being so does not need many things, but it gives much crop. "Yaxshigapbilaniloninidanchiqar, Sovuq-sovuqso'zlasang, qilichchiqarqinidan". A fool says what he knows, and a wise knows what he says. - A stupid man tells anything, a clever man knows what to tell, not speak without thinking. "Donoo'ylabaytar, Nodon - o'ynab" A sluggard takes a hundred steps because he would not take one in due time. - A lazy man has to go 100 steps because of not put 1
literature and humanity. Because if we look at their essence deeply, full of good qualities necessary for the spiritual and physical perfection of humanity. Almost all kinds of phraseological phrases effect, without doubt, a positive impact on spirit of any person. We cannot imagine fiction and literary genres without phraseological phrasesPoets and writers are adding splendor to the splendor of any creative work through the use of phraseological phrases in their own creative examples. The role of
phraseological units in literature that help to describe stylistic colorfulness and collect many kind of similarity aids. Nowadays, many unknown phraseological idioms, proverbs and fables are joining and restoring in our literature. Many research works are doing for learning them.
The comparative method, which analyzes two or more systems of relation for common patterns and distinctions (usually identifying these patterns as products of either a shared genealogy or shared responses to specific historical conditions), emerged in the transition from the eighteenth to the nineteenth century as the preeminent method for finding commonalities across an extraordinary range of aesthetic, social, and scientific fields of research, from philology to anatomy, from geology to sociology. For this reason, comparativism, and the comparative method specifically, is a central object for a comprehensive history of the humanities. The modern comparative method emerged when a new generation of writers, historians, and naturalists developed fresh ways to explore the analogies drawn between specimens and documents, between natural groups and societies—part of the wider realignment, noted by Foucault and many others, around the problem of social history and the history of biological life.2 Two alignments were crucial to this transformation. First, early nineteenth-century scholarship is marked by an interdisciplinary recognition that distinct comparative fields might draw productively on each other for models of comparative analysis (see, for example, B. Ricardo Brown's recent study of the importance of historical linguistics as a model for early nineteenth-century geology, anatomy, and sociology).3 The second major shift was the recognition that previously distinct modes of analysis—marked by the distinction between "comparison" and "analogy"—might be usefully combined in the comparative method. James Turner, in his wide-ranging study of philology and the history of the humanities, argues that the "use of comparison to highlight similarities and differences in objects of study is ancient and perhaps universal."4 Rens Bod, in his expansive history of the humanities in its longue durée, also observes that "there has been a continuous humanistic tradition from Antiquity to the present day that focuses on the quest for patterns and rules (with alongside it a parallel tradition that concentrates on the rejection of patterns)."5
As Bod suggests, while study of similarity necessarily brushes into contrast, and vice versa, they have not always been practiced together. In fact, the use of "comparison" to denominate both is largely a modern phenomenon. Before 1800, "comparison" was generally used as a rhetorical device that underlined differences.6 "Analogy," on the other hand, was used primarily to study the similarity between distinct systems, especially in Christian metaphysics and philosophy.7 The nineteenth century saw a new and extensive overlap in the use of both "analogy" and "comparison" in nineteenth-century English writing on the comparative method, as
well as in French and German texts (as "analogie"/"comparaison" and "Analogie"/"Vergleich"). The interlinking of these vocabularies in the nineteenth century both demonstrates an enhanced focus on analyzing both the similarities and differences in common patterns and can help make sense of the complicated differentiation of the comparative method within specific academic disciplines.8 While practitioners of the comparative method used the terms "analogy" and "comparison" interchangeably in the early nineteenth century, by the close of the century "comparison" became dominant, while "analogy" meant either loose
References:
1. Bassnett, Comparative Literature, 31. D. W. Fokkema, "Comparative
Literature and the New Paradigm," Canadian Review of Comparative Literature 9,
no. 1 (March 1982): 1-18.
2. For recent more interdisciplinary studies of comparative literature, see Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht, The Powers of Philology: Dynamics of Textual Scholarship (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2003); Eric Hayot, On Literary Worlds (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).
3. Natalie Melas, "Versions of Incommensurability," World Literature Today 69, no. 2 (Spring 1995): 275-80, 275. Haun Saussy touches briefly on the connection to nineteenth-century biology and philology in Comparative Literature in an Age of Globalization, 12-13.
4. Chow, "The Old/New Question of Comparison in Literary Studies," 301. Natalie Melas, "Versions of Incommensurability," and All the Difference in the World: Postcoloniality and the Ends of Comparison (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2007).
5. Shu-mei Shih, "World Studies and Relational Comparison," PMLA 130, no. 2
(2015): 430-38.
6. David Damrosch, What Is World Literature? (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003); Vilashini Cooppan, "Ghosts in the Disciplinary Machine:
The Uncanny Life of World Literature," Comparative Literature Studies 41, no. 1
(2004): 10-36.
