CC BY
0ANALYSIS OF SCIENTIFIC SOURCES ON FOREIGN
PHRASEOLOGY
Timirov A.M.
Samarkand state architecture and civil engineering university, Associate professor of Foreign
languages department https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14028937
Abstract. Phraseological units are the lexicalized word groups of the language. They are called "phraseological units" (PU) because of their polylexical form and single meaning. They make up a heterogeneous group, with different degrees of frozenness and are lexico-syntactic in nature.
Keywords: phraseological units (PUs), lexical, skills, grammar, vocabulary development.
Introduction: Phraseology is a separate branch of linguistics, which studies fixed combinations and expressions based on figurative meaning. The term "phraseology" is derived from Greek "phrase" - expression; "logos" means doctrine, and only stable compounds based on figurative meaning are included in its scope of research [122;7]. The main focus of phraseology as a branch of linguistics is to study the nature of phraseology and their categorical features, as well as to determine the laws of use of phraseology in speech. Its most important problem is to differentiate and distinguish phraseologisms from word combinations that are formed in speech (that is, not ready in advance) and to determine the signs of phraseologisms on this basis.
Main part. Depending on the specific differences between idioms (phraseologisms), phraseological combinations and stable sentences (proverbs and other phraseological equivalents), many researchers understand phraseology in 2 ways: narrow and broad. When it is understood in a broad sense (L.P. Smith, V.P. Zhukov, V.N. Teliya, N.M. Shansky), proverbs and sayings, stable sentences characteristic of folklore, some forms of communication (greetings, farewell sentences) are also included. But this issue, that is, the issue of the broad meaning of phraseology, is still controversial in modern linguistics. V.V. Vinogradov was against the inclusion of stable sentences and winged words in the composition of phraseology and stated that proverbs and sayings cannot be the object of study of phraseology because they are equivalent to sentences in form.
Phraseologism is a complex, multi-faceted linguistic phenomenon that is difficult to distinguish from the general account of existing word combinations in the language as the main unit of the system. About the object of study of phraseological units, dozens of their criteria and signs have been noted by linguists. Inadequate definition of the status of phraseologisms has caused many debates among phraseologists-scientists to this day.
In the process of studying and analyzing scientific works devoted to the theory of foreign phraseology, we came across different definitions and interpretations given to its main signs. In particular, Sh. Balli believes that the main sign of phraseologism is whether or not it can be replaced by a word that corresponds to the meaning of that phrase. B.A. Larin believes that its main feature is that the meaning of individual words that make up phraseological units does not derive from the general meaning of those units. A.A.Reformatsky expresses the opinion that the fact that phraseological expressions cannot be literally translated into other languages is its leading sign. M.V. Lomonosov, while compiling the dictionary of the Russian literary language,
emphasized that in addition to words, "folk proverbs", "idioms" and phrases should also be expressed.
Many scientists point to the fact that they are not created in the speech process, but are included in the speech, their components cannot be separated from each other, their main features are their semantic integrity, the integrity of their naming, the inability to activate the individual components that make up the phraseology, the limited combination of lexemes, etc. Some linguists claim that a certain "phraseological context" or "phraseological environment" is necessary to determine the boundary of phraseology. In particular, N.N. Amosova puts forward the idea of "phraseological context", M.T. Tagiyev - the idea of "closest phraseological environment". [23, 183]. The importance of both ideas is natural for the theory of phraseology, because it is difficult to imagine the meaning of any phraseological unit without certain contexts. But the disadvantage of such an idea-theory is that in some cases it complicates the distinction of pure phraseological units from non-phraseological fixed word combinations and free word combinations within a specific context. According to A.M. Babkin, phraseological units have four characteristics: 1) integrity of meaning; 2) stagnation of vocabulary; 3) figurative meaning; 4) emotional-expressive sensitivity.
I.V.Arnold believes that the common features of phraseologisms are their stability, the integrity of their meaning, and the separate formalization of the component composition. A.V. Kunin and A.G. Nazaryan expressed the essence of phraseological units very briefly and created such a definition: "a phraseological unit is a stable set of words with a partially and completely figurative meaning".
The reason for the compulsion in determining the scope of phraseology in linguistics is that each scientist takes a certain sign of it as a basis and makes it absolute. It is known that such absolutization is temporary and at a certain point it loses its importance. Some scientists based the definition of the criterion of phraseology on the basis of meaning integrity, N.N. Amosova, V.A. Arkhangelsky, M.M. Kopylenko, A.V. Kunin, V.P. Zhukov, A. G. Nazaryan consider semantic integrity and nominative as the leading signs. G.G. Sokolova takes a critical approach to this and emphasizes that the nominative character is characteristic of all types of word combinations, and therefore these signs cannot be a criterion for a phraseological expression. The achievements in Germanic and Roman phraseology in world linguistics are directly related to the scientific works of mature scientists N.N.Amosova, A.V.Kunin who dedicated to the study of English phraseology, which have great scientific value in science. In the development of German phraseology, I.I. Chernysheva, A.D. Reishtein made great contributions, while V.G. Gak, A.G. Nazaryan conducted scientific research on French phraseology.
The study of scientific literature in foreign languages confirms that phraseological units, which make up the vocabulary of the language and are units equal in content to one word, have been studied in lexicology for many years. However, it should be emphasized that the equivalence of PUs to words is one of the urgent and priority issues that should be analyzed and researched separately. According to Charles Bally, the most important feature of PUs is whether or not they can enter into a synonymous relationship with a single word. Such a word was called a word-identifier by Charles Bally and interpreted such changes as a sign of the internal integrity of PUs. However, it should be noted that there are cases in the language system that do not correspond to the views of the great linguist. Many PUs in English do not have word-identifiers, that is, it is
impossible to express their meaning in a single word. For example: drink like a fish-drink too much; a hard nut to crack-a very difficult problem; a small way-on a small scale;
In addition, it should not be overlooked that the identity of proverbs, which make up the phraseological fund of the language, can only be sentences. For example, birds of a feather flock together — people who have the same interests, ideas; the blind leading the blind — a situation in which the person who is leading or advising others knows as little as they do.
Based on these linguistic conditions, we can safely say that phraseological units are units that differ from other units of the language and have their own meaning and structure. Treating them as word equivalents only leads to consign and difficulty in the field. Of course, phraseological units and words have common aspects, but this commonality should not be exaggerated. In particular, we can express their peculiarities and linguistic nature as follows:
1. PUs and words are structurally and semantically separate units.
2. Phraseologisms are units of a phrase or a sentence based entirely or partially on figurative meaning. Stability, structural-semantic integrity are typical linguistic criteria for them. Words are made up of morphemes, not words themselves. Words can be used both in the dictionary sense and in the figurative sense. Phenomena of prefixation and affixation, which are not typical for phraseological units, are observed in words. All words in the language can enter into a paradigmatic relationship with each other, but PUs do not have this feature.
3. Words and PUs are units specific to different levels of the language, phraseology is a unit of the phraseological level, and a word is a unit of the lexical level.
4. Belonging to different levels of language not only differentiates PUs but also shows their relatedness. For example, the same syntactic task is observed in both of them. Also, both of them have ambiguous meaning and semantic relationships such as homonymy, antonymy and synonymy [122; 19-20].
Conclusion. So, phraseology is recognized as a separate science in world linguistics; it went through several stages during its formation and development; now phraseology has its own internal structure, models and options; was formed as a separate branch of linguistics with specific research issues. Although many scientific and practical problems in it are still waiting for their solution, theoretical issues of phraseology are being studied one after another in modern linguistics.
REFERENCES
1. Реимов Б.Х. Фразеологические единицы, выражающие эмоциональное состояние человека.: Автореф. дисс. ... канд-та филол. наук. - Ташкент: УзГУМЯ, 2005/ -28с.
2. Рискулова К.Д. булажак инглиз тили укитувчиларисоциолингвистик компетентлигини шакллантириштизими.: Автореф. дисс. ... док.пед. наук. - Ташкент: ТДПУ, 2017/ -62с.
3. Рыжикова Е.В Фразеологическая окказиональность в английском языке: Когнитивно-комуникативные аспекте: дис.канд филол. наук. - М., 2003. - 236с.
4. Саттаров Т.К. Укитувчилик буйича амалий машгулотларда булажак чет тили муаллимининг социолингвистик малакаларини шакллантириш (инглиз тили материалида): Дисс. ... пед.ф.д. -Т.: 2000. - 373 б.
5. D.Normatova. Further improving communicative competence of students at higher educational establishments. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10333194
