1 Comparative Study of English Phraseology

partial semantic analogues. In our research, allocation of such a group is therefore dictated by the needs of phraseography and, to a certain extent, is rather conditional and rarely applicable. In partial semantic analogues the connotation components (except for the estimating one) can either coincide, or differ.
Thus, the primacy of semantic identity / difference as identification of the types of interlingual phraseological compliances / non-compliances means that the component theory which is based on the component analysis method serves as the organizing theory when determining these types. Such an approach to the solution of the problem of criteria of identity and difference between phraseological units of the compared languages is justified when considering that, in numerous monolingual and multilingual studies of the phraseological material, the method of the component analysis is used.
Phraseology is one of the branches of the science of language that studies the etymology, semantics, structure and functioning of phraseological units. In scientific linguistic literature, the term "phraseological unit" is considered in a broad and narrow sense. Some researchers attribute aphorisms, idioms, paremias and catchphrases to phraseological units. In the lexical composition of the language, phraseological units occupy a significant place, since they figuratively and accurately convey thought, reflect various aspects of reality.
Phraseologisms for the most part not only denote a certain phenomenon of reality, but also characterize it, give it a certain assessment. In a semanticsense, they correspond to unified concepts, expressing the meaning of objectivity, process, quality, property or method, have grammatical categories determined by morphological forms and syntactic function in a sentence, and reveal patterns in relation to the general system of language, which are manifested in lexical compatibility, stylistic and emotionally expressive coloring of meaning and synonymous connections. Winged words are traditionally viewed as a means of figurative and expressive literary speech. The name of the term goes back to the work of the ancient Greek poet Homer, in whose poems "Iliad" and "The Odyssey" it occurs more than once: He uttered a winged word, We exchanged winged words among themselves quietly. The figurative expression of Homer, which arose from the association of pronouncing a word, as a flight to the ear of a hearer from the mouth of a speaker, has become a term of linguistics. They denote short quotations, figurative expressions, sayings of historical figures, names of mythological and literary characters that have become common nouns, characteristics of historical figures, which have entered our speech from literary sources, etc. Popular sayings, sayings, all kinds of figurative expressions, both literary and everyday origin, can also be attributed to winged words. Metaphoricity, emotionality, evaluativeness, expressiveness - all these qualities of phraseological units give our speech brightness, imagery and expressiveness. The etymology and semantics of the phraseological fund of the language is directly related to the cultural and historical experience of the people. The phraseology reflects ideas related to work, life and culture of the people. Phraseologismsare used in everyday speech, in works of art and in journalism. They give the language a special expressiveness, unique originality and often have a bright national character.
Researcher T.Z. Cherdantseva defines the meaning of phraseology in the aspect of the linguistic picture of the world: "The phraseology of any language is the most valuable linguistic heritage, which reflects the vision of the world, national culture, customs and beliefs, fantasy and history of the people speaking it. Stable stereotypical phrases and phrases often represent structures reflecting certain periods of the state and development of each specific language, its history"[Cherdantseva 1991, 59].
In recent years, interest in the comparative study of the phraseology of languages of different structures has significantly increased, when universal and specific features of phraseological units within certain groups and fields began to emerge. In the research paradigms of recent decades, the process of anthropologizing knowledge began to dominate, affecting almost all spheres of scientific knowledge and expressed in the desire to comprehend them through the prism of the human worldview. Phraseological nomination is never primary. It is always secondary or tertiary (Kunin 1982, 88-100). When phraseological units are formed, two meanings are usually combined in it: primary, original (or etymological) and secondary, derivative (or material, actual; Zhukov 1978, 8-9), while the second is associated with the motivating etymological meaning (internal form) metaphorical, less often - by metonymic relations. Let us dwell on the role of the metaphorical factor in the formation of phraseological meaning.
Speaking about different ways of forming phraseological meaning, E.V. Kuznetsova identifies three factors underlying these methods (Kuznetsova 1989,199). Wewillnotdwell on the first two, since they are associated with the formation of both separate words and stable reproducible turns of a nominative character, with a dismembered meaning (phraseological combinations and expressions). The third, most powerful factor in education is the factor of metaphorization. There is a wide and narrow understanding of metaphor. This is how N.D. Arutyunova: "Metaphor (from the Greek metaphora - transfer) is a trope or mechanism of speech, consisting in the use of a word denoting a certain class of objects, phenomena, etc. to characterize or name an object belonging to another class, or the name of another class of objects, similar to this in any respect. In a broad sense, the term "metaphor" is applied to any kind of use of words in an indirect sense. "A metaphor in the narrow sense is defined as a transfer of a name based on similarity (Kalinin 1978, 25). Examplesofphraseologicalmetaphors: milk on the lips has not dried up - someone is still very young and inexperienced; lying on your side - messing around; sit back - do nothing, do nothing; expose a leg to someone - deliberately harm, etc.
At the same time, there are phraseological units, the figurative meaning of which is formed on the basis of contiguity (metonymy; Kalinin 1978, 30) or the relationship of a part and a whole (synecdoche; Kalinin 1978, 34). Forexample:shaveyour forehead - take a soldier; a strong hand is an influential patron; the right hand is the first assistant, the main confidant; tongue without bones someone is very talkative, etc. It should also be noted the difference between metaphor and metonymy in the syntagmatic aspect. Metonymy gravitates towards the position of the subject and other reference members of the sentence, writes N.D. Arutyunov. - It cannot be used in a predicate. Metaphor, on the other hand, in its primary function is strongly associated with the position of the predicate. This distribution follows from the nature of each trail”(Arutyunova 1990, 31).
In other words, metaphor fulfills a characterizing function and, therefore, is focused mainly on the position of the predicate, while metonymy performs an identifying function in a sentence and therefore is focused on the position of the subject and other actants. Hence, verbalandadjective phraseological units refer, as a rule, to the metaphorical type (lead by the nose, tie hand and foot, hold the tongue, stretch the legs; blood with milk, skin and bones, etc.). Among the substantive phraseological units, there are many formed according to the type of synecdoches (spruce head; violent head; foolish head; evil tongues, etc.). Speaking about the formation of PU, B.A. Larin emphasizes that the most important condition for the emergence of phraseological units is "semantic enrichment, called metaphorization, the essence of which is to expand and generalize the meaning towards figurative typicality" (Larin 1977, 145). In other words, the derivative, secondary meaning of phraseological units is associated with the motivating etymological meaning, as a rule, a metaphorical connection (in a broad sense).
At the same time, between the initial, etymological meaning and the secondary, actual in the process of metaphorization, a "mediator" arises, which is the bearer of the figurative representation and which is usually called the internal form of phraseological units. The term "internal form" was first introduced into linguistics by A.A. Take a little bit of a poetic word. Later this concept was applied to the phraseological unit. Many linguists paid attention to the problem of the internal form of phraseological units in their works. “The internal form of the word,” he writes, “is a residual element of the semantics of the derivative word, conveying the idea of the attribute by which the object is named, and thus motivating the name of the object” (Fedorov 1973, 13). At the same time, it is important to note that objects are named not necessarily according to the most essential feature, but according to the one that catches the eye; such a sign, insignificant from a logical point of view, is essential from a linguistic point of view, as a distinctive sign of a concept. "Many researchers of phraseology describe various thematic groups of phraseological units: for example, phraseological units denoting character traits, properties, qualities of a person, phraseological units expressing emotions, etc. It is necessary to describe thematic groups and phraseological units of the Uzbek and English languages.
CONCLUSION
Moreover, it seems to us that the thematic classification of the above phraseological units should be drawn up and considered in two directions: firstly, within phraseological units united by a common somatic component, in order to identify groups common to all phraseological units and specific to each somatism; secondly, in comparison of multilingual groups of phraseological units with the same somatic component, see what the similarities are, and what is the difference between thematic groups of phraseological units of the compared languages.
The objective of this research consists in the description of the structure of phraseological meaning in the English and Russian phraseological units as well as in identifying and analyzing stable semantic correlations between them. On this basis, the research aims to define certain characteristic types of English- Russian phraseological interlingual compliances / non-compliances, to identify characteristic English- Russian phraseological equivalents and analogues.
Defining the types of interlingual phraseological compliances / differences in this research we focus primarily on complex criterion which includes semantic coincidence, grammatical (syntactic) organization and component (lexical) structure of multilingual phraseological units. For our analysis, over 1750 phraseological units have been extracted from monolingual and bilingual authoritative English and Russian phraseological and explanatory dictionaries. Comparing phraseological units of the two languages the main attention has been given to the seme structure of significative and denotative macrocomponent including the four components of connotation (the estimating, emotive, expressive seme and the functional and stylistic component of phraseological meaning).
Comparing phraseologicalunits of the two languages, special attention in this regard has been given to their meanings, their seme structure, significative and denotative as well as macrocomponents. The semantic identity or difference of multilingual phraseological units means the identity or difference of their seme structure, of a simplified set of minimum semantic components of significative and denotative, and connotative components of phraseological meaning.
For the analysis we have compared over 1,750 English and Russian phraseological units extracted from monolingual and bilingual phraseological and explanatory dictionaries. Defining the types of interlingual phraseological compliances / differences in this research, we focused primarily on complex criterion which includes semantic coincidences, grammatical (syntactic) organization and component (lexical) structure of multilingual phraseological units (at an unconditional primacy of semantic identity / difference or content plan).
The primacy of semantic identity / difference at identification the types of interlingual phraseological compliances / non-compliances means that the component theory which is based on the component analysis method serves as the organizing theory when determining these types. Such an approach to the solution of the problem of criteria of identity and difference between phraseological units of the compared languages is justified upon consideration that, in numerous monolingual and multilingual studies of phraseological material, the method of component analysis is used.
The methodology of identification of semantic identity / difference of phraseological units of the English and Russian languages is divided into the following stages:
Representation of phraseological meaning of the English phraseological unit (or phrase- semantic option) as a set of the minimum semantic components;
Search for the semantic compliance in Russian;
Representation of phraseological meaning of the found Russian phraseological unit (or phrase-semantic option) as a set of the minimum semantic components;
Measurement of component (seme) structures of the English and Russian phraseological units (phrase-semantic option or options) in order to determine the identity or difference of phraseological units.
Thus, the use of component analysis in comparative studies and, especially, in the identification of the types of phraseological compliances can be justified by such realities as the universality of categories of human thinking, the known community in the process of knowledge of the surrounding world. Being a language semantic category, a special way for human consciousness to reflect on the phenomena of surrounding reality, phraseological meaning of multilingual units is quite comparable and measurable.
CHAPTER2. Sociolinguistic features of Idioms in the
English, Russian and Uzbek languages
2.2 General characteristics of Idioms in English, Russian and Uzbek languages
Nowadays English is worth not just knowing, but it is worth really knowing. There is a great importance to understand up-to-date English. English is the chief language of international business and academic conferences, and the leading language of international tourism. English is the main language of popular music, advertising, home computers and video games. Most of the scientific, technological and academic information in the world is expressed in English. International communication expends very fast. The English language becomes the means of international communication, the language of trade, education, politics, and economics. People have to communicate with each other. It is very important for them to understand foreigners and be understood by them. In this case the English language comes to be one but very serious problem. A word comes to be a very powerful means
of communication but also can be a cause of a great misunderstanding if it is not clearly understood by one of the speakers.
Idioms come to be a very numerous part of English. Idioms cover a lot of drawbacks of the English language and it is one-third part of the colloquial speech. The object of the work is the process of using phraseological units and idioms. The subject of the work is phraseological idioms and units in the English language. The hypothesis of the work is as following: if we develop awareness of using idiomatic sentences, we are sure to bring them closer to the authentically sounding speech. The objective of the work is an attempt to study the aspects of idioms, the cases of their usage and to analyze the frequency of idioms usage referring to English and Russian.
To achieve the set aim we determine the following tasks:
to classify idioms;
to study the problem of the translation of idioms;
to understand the aim of the modern usage of idioms;
to distinguish different kinds of idioms;
to analyze the frequency of idioms' usage referring to English and Russian.
For gaining the mentioned aim we used the following methods:
description;
observation;
critical study of scientific literature and fiction;
comparison and contrast.
Scientific novelty is concluded in the comparison of two languages, belonging to different language families.
Theoretical value consists in revealing the fact that idioms can't and mustn't be translated directly as such a branch of language as idioms are inseparably connected with nation's mentality and mode of life. The practical value consists in the fact that the present work is a valuable manual for specialists concerned with teaching English and for those who study English and can be used as a teaching guide for stirring up idiomatic sentences. The results of the investigation are aimed at raising the quality of translations and preventing mistakes in comprehension. Structurally the presented work consists of: introduction, two parts, conclusion, and bibliography. The introduction reveals the
general survey of the whole work and determines idioms as an essential part of the general vocabulary.
A.V. Koonin classified phraseological units according to the way they are formed. He pointed out primary and secondary ways of forming phraseological units.
Primary ways of forming phraseological units are those when a unit is formed on the basis of a free word- group:
a) Most productive in Modern English is the formation of phraseological units by means of transferring the meaning of terminological word-groups, e.g. in cosmic technique we can point out the following phrases: «launching pad» in its terminological meaning is «стартовая площадка», in its transferred meaning -
«отправной пункт», «to link up» -
«стыковать космические корабли» in its transformed meaning it means -
«знакомиться». A large group of phraseological units was formed from free word groups by transforming their meaning, e.g. «granny farm» - «пансионат для престарелых», «Trojan horse» -
«компьютерная программа»;
-Phraseological units can be formed by means of alliteration, e.g. «a sad sack» -
«несчачтный случай», «culture vulture» -
«человек, увлекающийся культурой»,
«fudge and nudge» - «уклончивость».
-They can be formed by means of expressiveness, especially it is characteristic for forming interjections, e.g.
«My aunt!)), « Hear, hear!» etc
-They can be formed by means of distorting a word group, e.g. «odds and ends» was formed from «odd ends»;
-They can be formed by using archaisms,
e.g. «in brown study» means «in gloomy meditation» where both components preserve their archaic meanings,
-They can be formed by using a sentence in a different sphere of life, e.g. «that cock won't fight» can be used as a free word- group when it is used in sports (cock fighting), it becomes a phraseological unit when it is used in everyday life, because it is used metaphorically;
Stock of words of the language According to the Academician V. V. Vinogradov's classification phraseological units may be classified into three groups: phraseological fusions, phraseological unities and phraseological collocations. Phraseological fusions are completely non - motivated word - groups, such as heavy father - “serious or solemn part in a theatrical play”, kick the bucket - “die”; and the like. The meaning of the components has no connection whatsoever, at least synchronically, with the meaning of the whole group. Idiomaticity is, as a rule, combined with complete stability of the lexical components and the grammatical structure of the fusion. Phraseological fusions are called “traditional”, “set expression with fixed nomination”, “combinations”, ”set expression” in works of other researchers. Phraseological unities are partially non - motivated as their meaning can usually be perceived through the metaphoric meaning of the whole phraseological unit. For example, to show one' s teeth, to wash one' s dirty linen in public if interpreted as semantically motivated through the combined lexical meaning of the component words would naturally lead one to understand these in their literal meaning. The metaphoric
meaning of the whole unit, however, readily suggests “take a threatening tone” or “show an intention to injure” for show one's teeth and “discuss or make public one's quarrels” for wash one's dirty linen in public. Phraseological unities are as a rule marked by a high degree of stability of the lexical components.
Phraseological collocations are motivated but they are made up of words possessing specific lexical valence which accounts for a certain degree of stability in such word - groups. In phraseological collocations variability of member - words is strictly limited. For instance, bear a grudge May be changed into bear malice, but not into bear a fancy or liking. We can say take a liking (fancy) but not take hatred (disgust). These habitual collocations tend to become kind of clichй where the meaning of member - words is to some extent dominated by the meaning of the whole group. Due to this, phraseological collocations are felt as possessing a certain degree of semantic inseparability. In classification of phraseological units according to their structure there are two groups of idioms: nominal a black sheep (of the family) [shame of the family], and verbal to take risks (to risk) as I've already told you. There are more verbal idioms, approximately 65 percent, than nominal ones. In both groups there turns out to be too many idioms, therefore such way is difficult for remembering.
According to academician V. V. Vinogradov's classification there are three groups of idioms. The problem is the same as in the previous case. It's not easy to remember all of these phraseological units.
To sum up, in this course paper there was conducted analysis of idiomatic and stable expressions denoting the subject "information" in the English and Ukrainian languages. This niche of language is of great interest since idiomatic and stable phrases have interesting meanings applied in varied situations. Whilst, the majority of native language speakers can not always
know the origin of idioms they use, though as long as they utilize them in every day communication, they know its meaning and feel where it is appropriate to use this or that idiom. Undoubtedly, the correct usage of English and Ukrainian idioms is finesse, which makes the language of the speaker more vivid
Idioms are sayings that reflect accumulated human experiences and are built on frequently occurring situations that demonstrate human behavior, social traits, certain habits or tradition in a country. They almost represent life lessons and are a heritage of those accumulated events that make up the conscious of a nation or humankind in general.
Every country or nation has got their own idioms that are specific to their own culture, while many idioms have synonyms in several countries, what refers to the equal shared human nature in many cultures. Learning the specific idioms related to a certain culture helps you learn more about the history, customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of it. You can know more idioms through reading: Many books, novels and articles quote many to their context relevant idioms.
In this dissertation paper,I would like to show you some close idioms in English and in uzbek.
And I hope this will help you to understand and compare idioms in English and Uzbek.
‘QALOVINI TOPSANG QOR HAM YONADI’ ( if you find its fire tools even snow can burn)- means you have to find the keys to do something successfully. Money always has a telling influence.
Example:
A: -Rosa ichkariga kirishga qiynalayotgan edim, chunki eshikni oldida turgan qoravul ichkariga qo’ymayotgan edi, rosa yalinsam ham. Lekin Sherigim kelib cho’ntagiga ozgina pul solgan edi, indamay ochib berdi.
(- I was having a hard time to go inside because the security who was standing at the door was turning me away, although I begged. But when my friend came to him and put some money into his pocket he didn’t say anything and opened the door without any point)
B: -Shuning uchun ham aytishadida do’stim, ‘Qalovini topsang qor ham yonadi’.
O’sha payt sen uning qalovini topa olmagansan va rosa qiynalgansan xa xa xa!
(that’s way all they say: if you find its fire tools even snow can burn, but you were having a hard time too much to enter the place that moment because you couldn’t find his fire tools ha ha ha!)
English equivalent is " A GOLDEN KEY CAN OPEN ANY DOOR "[1]
Example:
He’s not really good enough to be an F1 driver but he got in the team because he brought a major sponsorship deal with him. As they say, a golden key can open any door.
‘BUKRINI GO’R TUZATADI’ (only the tomb corrects a hunchback)- something you say which means a person's character, especially if it is bad, will not change, even if they pretend it does… You cannot change your innate self whether you pretend.
Example:
A: -Bu odamga buni gapirgan bilan foydasi yo’q, doim o’z bilganini qiladi, baribir hamma bilan urishaveradi. (it is useless to say that to that person, he always does what he knew. Whether you say or not, anyway, he keeps fighting with everyone again)
B: -Haa… Bukrini go’r tuzatadu deganlari shu ekanda…(yes it is true as they say:
only tomb can correct a hunchback (dean))
English equivalent is " A LEOPARD CAN’T CHANGE HIS SPOTS "
Example:
He was a bully at school and he’s a bully now - a leopard can’t change its spots.
“SULAYMON O’LDI DEVLAR QUTILDI”-(as Sulaymon’s (Sulaymon was the prophet of kindness in Islamic religion and a man who has been sent by God to lead people to do good things in history. Famous historical name in the Islamic books) dead; genies become free (happy) or death to Suleiman, happiness to genies!(like antithesis- contrasting relationship between two ideas) Or the death of Suleiman is the happiness of genies) - it means to Be happy when a person leaves.
Example:
A: -Bugun sizlar bayram qilyapsizlar, hech bunday qilmas edinglar bu yerda, tinchlikmi o’zi? (today you’re having a party, you haven’t it done before in this place, what is up?)
B: -Bugun ho’jayin yo’qlar, qandaydir ish bilan uzoq safarga ketibdilar, shuni bayram qilyapmiz… (today our boss is not here, he’s gone on a long trip, we are celebrating this now)
A: - Sulaymon o’ldi devlar qutildi deng? (it is like a death to Suleiman is happiness to genies, isn’t it?)
B: -ha shunaqa, topdingiz!( Yes it is! You got it!)
English equivalent is “BE GLAD TO SEE THE BACK OF” -
person leaves or when an unpleasant situation is ended.Before exploring the possible strategies regarding the translation of idioms, it is necessary to describe some of those features which can be responsible for the difficulties in their translation. The first problem would be related to their definition, which, as Cacciari states, is a difficult and controversial task, along with the description of their acquirement and understanding (Cacciari 1993). She mentions several factors which are responsible for these difficulties as, for instance, the fact that idiomatization is a process, meaning that structures acquire their idiomaticity gradually; or the fact that they are analysable and holistic at the same time, meaning that they are built of more constituent words, but their global meaning cannot be reduced to the meaning of these words; and the fact that there are different types of idioms, some of them retaining the original meaning of their constituent words, others having a completely different meaning.
However, in Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics, the term idiom is defined simply as “an expression which functions as a single unit and whose meaning cannot be worked out from its separate parts. For example: She washed her hands of the matter means She refused to have anything more to do with the matter” (Richards & Schmidt 2010: 270). A similar definition is given by Seidl and McMordie, who say that “an idiom can be defined as a number of words which, when taken together, have a different meaning from the individual meanings of each word” (Seidl & McMordie 1988: 12–13). Brenner believes that native English speakers simply use idioms without being aware what constitutes them. He points out that in dictionaries certain confusion and disagreement can be observed regarding the definition of idioms. However, the most common one is “two or more words together that, as a unit, have a special meaning that is different from the literal meaning of the words separately” (Brenner 2003: 4–5). These units sometimes are not only different in meaning from what the words would mean separately but they are also considered more effective or gripping in certain contexts.
Baker considers it important to distinguish idioms from collocations. She does this based on the transparency of meaning and flexibility of patterning. According to her, while collocations allow variations in form and are more flexible patterns of language (e.g. deliver a letter, a letter has been delivered,
delivery of a letter), idioms are “frozen patterns of language which allow little or no variation in form and often carry meanings which cannot be deduced from their individual components”. She also adds that there are certain things which under normal circumstances (except jokes or play on words) cannot be done to an idiom: changes in word order, deletion of words from it, adding other words to it, replacement of a word with another, or changes in its grammatical structure (Baker 1992: 63)
McPherron and Randolph states that the majority of linguists, writers, poets, language teachers, and language learners admit that idioms may help to give vivid descriptions and that they prove to be more effective and powerful than literal, non-idiomatic language. However, they also agree with the fact that idioms cannot be easily classified and they are definitely a challenge for language teachers (McPherron & Randolph 2014).
The difficulties related to their classification are pointed out also by Kövecses, who compares the linguistic expressions called idioms to a “mixed bag” which “involves metaphors (e.g. spill the beans), metonymies (e.g. throw up one’s hands), pairs of words (e.g. cats and dogs), idioms with it (e.g. live it up), similes (e.g. as easy as pie), sayings (e.g. a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush), phrasal verbs (e.g. come up, as in “Christmas is coming up”), grammatical idioms (e.g. let alone), and others” (Kövecses, 2010: 231). Consequently, classification is an important issue regarding idioms. If there are different types of idioms, there might be differences regarding the ways they are understood, learned, and translated. There have been several attempts to categorize them.
According to Fernando, there are three sub-classes of idioms. Pure idioms are conventionalized, non-literal multiword expressions. They are always non- literal; they may be either invariable or may have little variation. In addition, these idioms are considered to be opaque (e.g. to spill the beans has nothing to do with the beans). Semi-idioms can have one or more literal constituents and one with non-literal sub-sense. Therefore, this type of idiom is considered partially opaque (e.g. foot the bill, which means ‘pay’). Literal idioms are either invariable or allow little variation. They are considered to be transparent because they can be interpreted based on their parts (e.g. of course, in any case, for certain) (Fernando qtd in Strakšiene 2009: 14).
Seidl and McMordie point out that idioms can have different (regular, irregular, or even grammatically incorrect) structures and different forms. However, the structure does not determine the clarity of meaning. The three main types according to them are: idioms with irregular form and clear meaning (e.g. give

someone to understand, do the dirty on someone); idioms with regular form, but unclear meaning (e.g. cut no ice, bring the house down); and idioms with irregular form and unclear meaning (e.g. be at large, be at daggers drawn). They concluded that most idioms belong to the second group, but even within this group there might be differences regarding the clarity of the idioms (Seidl & McMordie 1988: 13).

Cacciari and Glucksberg proposed a functional approach based on their degree of compositionality and their semantic transparency. According to the dimension of compositionality, idioms can be non-compositional, partially compositional, and fully compositional (Cacciari & Glucksberg, 1991).
In noncompositional idioms, no relations between the idiom’s constituents and the idiom’s meaning can be discerned, as in the idiom cheescake to refer to pinup art [...]. In partially compositional idioms, some relationships between an idiom’s constituents and its idiomatic meaning can be discerned and exploited. Although one could not infer the meaning to die from the literal meaning of kick the bucket, the idiom’s literal meaning does constrain its use and comprehension. [...] In fully compositional idioms, the constituents map directly onto their idiomatic referents, as in the idiom pop the question” (Glucksberg 2001: 73).

Some linguistic studies attempted to decide whether compositional idioms or non-compositional idioms are easier to understand. For compositional idioms, the result of linguistic analysis corresponds with the idiomatic meaning, and therefore their comprehension is facilitated. In the case of non-compositional idioms, the linguistic and idiomatic meanings do not correspond, hence their comprehension becomes more difficult. That is why compositional idioms are understood more easily than non-compositional ones (ibid. 74).

According to Glucksberg, another possibility to classify idioms is based on their degree of transparency, the extent to which the meaning of an idiom can be deduced from the meanings of its constituents. He distinguishes opaque and transparent compositional idioms.
In compositional-opaque idioms, the relations between an idiom’s constituents and its meaning may be opaque, but the meanings of individual words can nevertheless constrain both interpretation and use. For the idiom kick the bucket, the semantics of the verb to kick can constrain interpretation. Kicking is a discrete act, and so one could not say he kicked the bucket all week, even though one could say he lay dying all week” (Glucksberg 2001: 74). A language has a communicative function. The success of this process much depends how the speaker uses his background knowledge. We should underline the importance of the speakers’ cultural awareness, the factors that support the communication, how language and culture correspond among themselves, how language reflects the world through consciousness of the person, how the individual and collective mentality, ideology and culture are reflected in the language, how language and culture create a world picture - primary, from the native language, and secondary, acquired when studying foreign languages. The maintenance of a cultural and national connotation of idioms is interpretation of the figurative basis of idiomatic picture of the world in the sign of cultural and national "space" of this language community. From this point of view it is possible to deduce methodologically important consequences: the cultural knowledge can be "caught" from an internal form of the idiom: there are some "traces" of the cultures, customs and traditions, historical events and life elements and the culture can be understood as a way of orientation of the subject in empirical, cultural, spiritual life on the basis of norms, standards, stereotypes, symbols, myths, etc. signs of the national culture which has been traditionally established in certain national language society.
Phraseologisms are special units f the language, which reflect the cultural identity of the people. They indirectly reflect the view people, social system, ideology of their era. The phraseological wealth of any language is the property of its folk national linguistic consciousness. Most phraseological units cannot be translated into other languages: each nation manifests in them its own nature, the usual figurative manner of speech. The impact of phraseological units gives the language the brightness of the features of the national character and a unique flavor, which distinguishes one from the other both the languages of centuries-old culture and the literary languages that are newly formed by writing.
The English language is very rich in phraseological units. His phraseological system captures the vast historical experience of the people, it reflects the life and culture of the nation. Getting acquainted with a foreign language, a person simultaneously penetrates into a new national culture.
There are various methods of systematizing phraseological units. Linguists have not yet developed a single principle for the classification of phraseological units. We will consider several classifications phraseological units of the English language offered by different authors.