1 Comparative Study of English Phraseology

The novelty of the work is vivid in the complex investigation of the grammatical, lexical, cultural, semantic-syntactic, historical and stylistic features of English phraseological units and proverbs with proper names.
The theoretical significance of the work is evident in the presenting important and interesting information about culture, historical background, semantic-stylistic and grammatical-lexical structures of English phraseological units and proverbs with proper names. Explanation of reasons of including proper names into them and classification of them according to some features.
The practical significance of the work is the possibility of usage of the rich material in communication during the speech act with English people, at the lessons of practical English, lectures and seminars on Country Study, Stylistics, Literature of English speaking countries, writing scientific articles and course papers on the theme of research, compiling dictionaries of phraseological units and proverbs, while working at literary texts and reading original literature, etc.
The investigation of English phraseological units with proper names will surely make out many structures of their origin and present information about their semantic, grammatical, lexical and cognitive features, cultural and historical background, which can be used in compiling phraseological dictionaries and enriching the science of .phraseology. By the way we can introduce the main characteristic feature of nationality.
It can be supported by the scientific interpretation, methods of analyzing of factual material and getting new information about phraseological units and proverbs with proper names.
English phraseological units with proper nouns include people's names and surnames, geographical names, names of institutions, places in the city, historical events, nationalities, weekdays, months, names of cinema, theatre, circuses and other notions, objects and places that are capitalized and used as names.
There are many proverbs and phraseological units that contain proper names. They came from people's everyday life, folklore, prose and poetry, myths, fairy tales, fables,songs, slang and other sources. Mostly we can differentiate their grammatical, lexical, cognitive structures.
4. Proverbs and sayings are the cultural-determined part of the English language’s vocabulary.
The structure of the work. The work consists of the following parts: Introduction, 3 chapters, Conclusion and List of used literature. Introduction presents the problems, which are investigated and discussed in the work, points out the aim of this research, tasks of the work, scientific novelty, theoretical value, practical value and other peculiarities and features of the research work. In Chapters I, II and III all the duties and problems of the work are investigated and analyzed in details.
Chapter I investigate proverbs used in English literature and their meaning interpretations compared to Uzbek and Russian language.
Chapter II presents comparative analysis of proverbs and sayings both in Uzbek,Russian and English languages.
Chapter III deals with English proverbs and sayings with linguo-cultural and its semantic points.
In Conclusion we pointed out the most important facts of our investigation and showed the significant results of the research work. List of used literature presents the names of authors and their theoretical issues and books, which were used for writing this research work. The research work contains 95 pages of printed text.

CHAPTER1.Linguistic Theory Of Phraseological Units

1.1 Comparative Study of English Phraseology
Phraseology is a science about phraseological units; i.e. stable combination of words. Phraseology is a treasure of a language, which reflects the history, the cultures, and way of life of any nation. Phraseology after express national character. The fund of English Phraseology is rich in national, international and borrowed, of terminological and non - terminological origin phraseological units as well as Uzbek phraseology. Translating phraseological units is not easy matter as it depends on several factors: different combinability of words, homonymy and synonymy, polysemy of phraseological units and presence of falsely identical units, which makes it necessary to take into account of the context. There are also different scientific approaches to the classification of English phraseological units. For instance, V. V. Vinogradov classifications is synchronic. It is based upon the motivation of the unit. According to his classification, there are 3 types of phraseological units: phraseological fusions; phraseological unities; phraseological combinations. It has been pointed out by N. N. Amosova and A. V. Koonin that classification, being for the Russian phraseology doesn’t fit the specifically English features. A. V. Koonin’s classification is based on the functions the functions the units fulfill in speech: nominating; interjectional; communicative. Moreover, English Phraseological units can be classified as parts of speech. Here we have the following groups: noun phraseologisms denoting an object, a person, a living being, e. g. bullet train, latchkey child, redbrick university, Green Berets. verb phraseologisms denoting an action, a state, a feeling, e. g. to break the log-jam, to be on the beam, to nose out, to make headlines. adjective phraseologisms denoting a quality, g. loose as a goose, dull as lead. adverb phraseological units, such as: with a bump, in the soup, like a dream, like a dog with two tails. preposition phraseological units. Such kind of classification is not seen in Uzbek phraseology. This is mainly because, there is not any kind of preposition in Uzbek. This part is the most essential difference English and Uzbek phraseology. For example: e. g. in the course of, on the stroke of. interjection phraseological units, e. g. «Catch me!», «Well, I never!» etc. And also Uzbek scholars have been working on the branch of phraseological units. There is the branch of lexicology which studies idioms, phraseological units, words and group of words that are used in the language as ready- made units it is called in Uzbek. They are: phraseological units; proverbs; aphorisms. Phraseological units are usually called as idioms in Uzbek language. Phraseological units require followings: consist of two or more than two words; usually show transforming meaning; usually used as ready- made units of the language; the words that are parts of phraseological units can not be aparted; they are usually expressed or their definition is usually expressed by one word. For example: Yog’ tushsayalaguday-toza. It means in English «clean.pure». Ilon yog'ini yalagan-ayyor. This phrase is used for the people who are deceiver. Do'ppisini osmonga otmoq ; Xursand.This phrase is used when people are pleased, glad. But some of them can not be expressed by one word: f.ex. bog’dan kelsa, tog’dan kelmoq- suhbatdoshining gapiga hech aloqasi yo’q gap so’z aytmoq. Phraseologic units can be asked by one question and answered too. Phraseologic units or idioms will be analyzed completely in the sentence but not separately word by word. One idiom functions as one syntactical unit. In Uzbek they can function all kinds of syntactical units: f.ex. Bilamiz, Direktor bo’lgandan keyin dimog’I shishib ketibdi. (kesim) Ona degan yer tagida ilon qimirlaganini biladi. (to’ldiruvchi) Siz ham o’sha daqqi yunusdan qolgan afsonaga ishonasizmi? (aniqlovchi) Damini ichiga yutib, oyog’ining uchida yurib uyga asta kirdi. (hol)  Phraseological units have synonymic, antonymic and homonymic features as words do. For example, Ko'z yummoq , E'tiborsiz qoldirmoq. Phraseological units can be synonyms to words or to the phraseological units. If phraseological units are synonym to phraseological units so they are called phraseological synonym idioms, if phraseological units are synonym by words so they are called lexico-phraseological synonym idioms. For instance,Og'ziga talqon solmoq, og'ziga qatiq ivitmoq ;lom-mim demaslik. Dunyoni suv bossa to’pig’iga chiqmaydi — beg’am, beparvo. Phraseological unities are also often synonyms of words in English. Such as: e. g. to make a clean breast of — to confess; to get on one’s nerves — to irritate. Antonymous idioms are the idioms that are opposite to each other such as oq ko'ngil- ichi qora, yerga ursa ko'kka sapchiydi, qo'y og'zidan cho'p olmagan. Classic literature and philosophy provide lots of examples of phraseological units, that have entered modern languages and that are widely used in an instantiable sense. There is another expression in Uzbek that we should know and remember but not mix these two expressions with each other. They are called «tasviriy ifodalar» in Uzbek. We can call them either paraphrases or «tasviriy ifodalar». Tasviriy ifodalar address the things, events, or goods not with their real name but with the other name, we paraphrase the things or events in order to express what someone or else has said or written using different words in order to make it shorter or clearer.
At the current stage of linguistic science development and against universal trends to continuous cooperation in various areas and fields of activity, there is an urge for comparative and typological researches intended to provide a comprehensive and full-scale study of various linguistic categories. First of all, this results from the fact that features of mentality, a centuries-old history and culture of speakers of this or that language are reflected in these categories just like in a mirror.
Comparative studies of language consciousness as the certain direction of psycholinguistics started being formed in the early 1990's. As an impulse for ethnopsycholinguistic research, the methodological base of the Moscow psycholinguistic school acted. In the focus of attention of contrastive studies, there were national and cultural specifics of language consciousness. The development of new psycholinguistic approaches to studying the language material influenced all spheres of the linguistic science, in particular, methodological base of the contrastive phraseological research. The modern approaches to studying the language phraseology in comparison to other unrelated languages : Russian, English, German, French, Chinese, etc. are created in Kazakhstani comparative linguistics.

1.2.Linguocultural Aspects of Phraseological Units

As the analysis of works on comparative phraseology of the English language has shown, unfortunately, a lack of the basic research directed on identification and comparison of a phraseological picture of the world with carriers of these languages is noted. Up to this date there has been observed insufficient study of the theory and methodology of the comparative description of phraseology, absence of uniform understanding and interpretation of a subject, object and metalanguage of comparative phraseology, to say nothing of cognitive, ethnopsycholinguistic, and linguoculturological approaches. We have to point out that these facts complicate and, to some extent, slow down the development of the theory of comparative phraseology, from the standpoint of new approaches in the linguistic description of language which assumes turning to a human as to the national linguistic identity.
At the same time, the data obtained by comparative phraseology now becomes necessary and important for compiling bilingual dictionaries, including the contained linguoculturological description of phraseological components, a figurative basis and value in general; for development of the modern principles of language education; for improvement of the theory and practice of the Kazakh-French and French-Kazakh translation. The practice of compiling bilingual dictionaries, including thematic ones, using the material of phraseology demands an essentially new approach both to development of structure and to the content of phraseological dictionaries.
The modern science about language, phraseology in particular, involves achievements of psychology, cultural science, sociology, ethnography, philosophy and other sciences into the sphere of linguistic interests. Integration of the scientific directions of various spheres has led to any modern linguistic research being unimaginable without an integrated approach to studying the facts of language in its attitude towards a person. The identity of the native speaker and his cognitive sphere was nominated as the focus of linguistic descriptions.
Numerous fundamental works, published papers, various linguistic centers and institutes, scientific conferences etc. confirm this. All linguistic directions existing today, in fact, are united by one general object – the language identity of a person in the system of culture.
The foundation of linguoculturological approach to language was laid by W. Humboldt and A.A. Potebnya's basic researches. Modern linguistics integrating with other humanities develops this direction and considers language as a nation's cultural code and not only a tool of communication and knowledge.
The starting point of this research is understanding of language as an integral part of knowledge displaying the interaction of cultural, psychological, communicative and functional factors (Kravchenko, 2005). Consideration of phraseological value in linguocultural space of a language seems very relevant with regard to this. The phraseological units representing fragments of human cognitive sphere, in particular, such as "intelligence, mind, mental capacities", served as material for this research,. The specifics of reflection of culture and language in the phraseological system (in this case, in the phraseological macrosystem "intelligence, mind") comes to light on the basis of the contrastive-semantic and linguoculturological description.
It is well-known that all subtleties of national culture are reflected in its language the particularities of which reflect both the surrounding reality and a person learning this world. People gain information and knowledge about the world around them via the linguistic channel, therefore they live in "the world of the concepts" created by it for their various requirements. Hence, a profound knowledge and understanding of language can be identified with deep understanding of culture of the people.From the standpoint of language and culture interaction, the linguistic and extralinguistic phraseological units' interrelation represent the brightest and rich source of data on the culture, mentality, outlook, identity of the people. Phraseological structure of language, as worded by V.N. Telija (1996), is a mirror in which the linguocultural community identifies the national consciousness.
As the cognitive and comparative analysis of these phraseological units has shown, it is only the phraseology that is capable to reflect idioethnic features of language figuratively. It concerns not only the "culturally" marked phraseological layer but also the phraseological units which are characterized by "universality, neutrality" of the reflected reality subject. In this case, we mean the intelligence, intellectual activity, mind, mental capacities of a person falling within the cognitive scope of the person. Representatives of psychological, neurolinguistic sciences, etc. have repeatedly spoken about the universal character and community of the cognitive processes course (in particular, cogitative processes) in speakers of various languages. However, this fragment of reality (as it was revealed in the analysis) finds the figurative, idioethnic reflection in language phraseology too that is especially brightly demonstrated by the comparison and linguocultural approach to studying these units. It has been found out that phraseological units of this semantic macrosystem differ in national and cultural specifics of semantics.
Thus, phraseological units as indirect and nominative figurative units of the language alongside with words designate a wide range of fragments of reality. One of the extremely extensive fragments reflected by phraseology is the fragment "Man, his activity, characteristics, properties, abilities"
In the compared languages, a large scope of phraseological units is revealed reflecting the human cognitive sphere. These units were considered from the viewpoint of typological, functional and stylistic, structural-semantic description. The current analysis assumes the linguocultural description of the phraseological units forming the same phraseological macrosystem in the compared languages, namely, a macrosystem of the extensive semantic field "mental activity" defined as "intelligence", "mind, mental capacities".
Research has shown that definition of cultural background underlying a phraseological unit and allowing us to get into the profound essence of these units can be the purpose of such analysis. In fact, we can reveal specifics of logical and language knowledge which are reflected by phraseological units of a macrosystem "intelligence", "mind, mental capacities". Logical and language forms of knowledge alongside with a sensual form of knowledge are included into structure of one's mental activity.
The studied phraseological units represent indirect and nominative means of designation and reflection of the logical thought processes being the second step of cognition (the first step of cognition is sensory perception of the world) which, being expressed in certain language forms, gain a nationality-caused character. The point is language and thinking are interconnected yet are not identical to each other. As the great Russian psychologist, L.S. Vygotskiy (1999) fairly emphasized, the thought is never equal to a direct sense of the word, however it is also impossible without words. A language develops under the influence of subject activity and traditions of culture of society, and thinking is connected with mastering the laws of logic and it depends on informative abilities of each person.
If we address interpretation of the concepts "intelligence" and "mind", it is possible to find out the following: intelligence -power of thinking, the intellectual principle of a person, his defining activity' (cf.: the intellectual - intellectual, spiritual; with highly developed intelligence'). Mind -ability of a person to think, a basis of adult, reasonable life' or in figurative sense ‘a person by his mental capacities; thinker, scientist'.
So, the structure of phraseological semantics is understood by us as a set of three components: denotative, significant and connotative ones. However, we have to recognize that the semantic structure of phraseological units is wider than its value as it cannot be settled by existence of the above three components and it is also defined by creation of all formation in general (Kunin, 1996). The semantic complexity of phraseological units allows them to carry out specific functions in language.
At present, an active interest in phraseological semantics is observed from the standpoint of linguoconceptology. In this case, reflecting linguocultural concepts brings to light the linguistic mentality of a certain ethnos. The linguocultural concept (unlike "a cultural concept") is, as a rule, connected with language implementers.
We have an opportunity to reveal and define not only anthropocentric, but also ethnocentric properties of the phraseological macrosystem "intelligence", "mind, mental capacities" if we take a linguocultural approach (to this object of research). The ethnocentric properties are understood as ones focused on a certain ethnos, whereas
The main feature of phraseological equivalence in relation to multilingual comparative-typological analysis as E.M. Solodukho believes is the coincidence of the content aspect of correlated phraseological units (Solodukho, 1977). Such an approach to the definition of phraseological equivalence allows one, in his opinion, to extend this concept to a large number of phraseological units that are not recognized by most researchers as interlingual equivalents, that is, as not having full formal similarity. According to E. M. Solodukho, phraseological units coinciding in meaning and (in case of polysemy) in stylistic connotation are full equivalents. Those having partial divergences in semantic structure and/or not coinciding stylistically in one of the meanings in case of polysemy are called limited equivalents.
However, a significant role when determining the degree of equivalence is also played by lexical structure, figurativeness, and grammatical form of the correlated units. E. M. Solodukho proposes a classification of equivalent phraseological compliances and non- equivalent compliances, including the following categories: identical equivalents, direct equivalents, synonymous equivalents, and interlanguage phraseological homonyms. Accordingly, identical, direct and synonymous equivalents are characterized by upper, middle and lower threshold of equivalence.
In the works of Yu. P. Solodub the characteristic of equivalence of the phraseological units is limited by aspectual structural and typological orientation of the research (Solodub, 1997, pp. 43-54). According to Yu.P. Solodub, when determining the concept of interlingual phraseological equivalence based first of all on the components of the content plan, namely the meaning, the stylistic coloring and phraseological image, it is possible to deeply investigate the phenomenon itself by the analysis of the components of the expression plan. In this case all specific features of the grammatical and lexico-semantic organization of any particular language or group of related languages are manifested.
1.3.Semantic Structure of English Phraseological Units
Considering a phraseological image as a necessary component of semantics of a considerable part of phraseological units, Yu. P. Solodub conducts structural and typological research of phraseological units having the meaning of qualitative evaluation of a person, revealing not only the fact of figurative proximity of units in different languages, but also defining the degree of this proximity as the degree of structural and typological convergences and divergences of Russian phraseological units with phraseological units in the compared languages. In the classification of Yu.
P. Solodub interlingual phraseological equivalents of four degrees and interlingual phrase-semantic compliances of two degrees of similarity are allocated. Theconceptinterlingual phraseological equivalents' is specific in relation to the concept -typologically identical phraseological units. The above indicated are phraseological units the semantic structure of which is integrated on the basis of a general model of phrase construction and so both multilingual and monolingual phraseological units can be found. Interlingual phrase-semantic compliances of the second degree of similarity are characterized only by a community of phrase formation model at various concrete and figurative forms of its implementation in each separate language.
According to our research,three types of interlingual phraseological compliances / non-compliances have been elicited: semantic equivalents, semantic analogues and