Abstract. The following article discusses the role of onomastic components in phraseological units and their meaning as well as giving a classification of onomastic components in phraseological units based on the materials of different structural languages. Through examples the author proves that the presence of names in the ancient rich phraseological layer of non-fraternal English, Russian and Uzbek languages is related to the national and cultural values, customs, ancient history, folklore and daily life of the peoples who speak this language. Besides, in the process of study of onomastic components it is also determined that names, along with forming their national character, are a factor giving information about the past of a particular nation. Background. In the world linguistics there have been carried out a series of researches in the field of the study of phraseological units with onomastic components in comparative-typological aspect revaling their national and cultural peculiarities, analyzing and classifying their content structurally and semantically. It plays an important scientific and practical role in strengthening inter lingual and intercultural relations. Particularly, there is a need to identify the etymological sources of phraseological units with onomastic components in English, Russian and Uzbek, to form their classification, to study their equivalence and specific system. Methods. Phraseological units with onomastic components has a special place in different structural languages. Therefore, phraseological units in English, Russian and Uzbek languages are unique linguistic system having their own etymology, structure and semantics. In this article, phraseolgocial units with onomastic components in different language structure is studied comparatively and classifying them it gives an opportunity to study the worldview, customs, lifestyle and ancient history of the peoples who speak this language. Results. The examples classified comparatively while studying phraseological units with onomastic components showed that as onomastic components there mostly used anthroponyms and toponyms which served to define figurative meaning as well as mental and universal peculiarities. Also, based on the classifications, similarities and differences of phraseological units with onomastic components in unrelated English, Russian and Uzbek languages are identified. Conclusion. The classification of phraseological units with onomastic components showed that their main components are anthroponyms, toponyms, ethnonyms, zoonyms, astronyms, cosmonyms, chrononyms, phaleronyms, georthonyms, documentonyms, ergonyms, ideonyms, chrematonyms and biblionyms which mainly served to strengthen symbolic meaning of the phraseological units. In addition, these names reflect the national and cultural characteristics of a particular nation.
1. Ashukin N. S., Ashukina M. G. (1955). Krilatiye slova. – Moscow, – p. 668.
2. Avlakulov Ya.I. (2017). Onomastic degree of Uzbek language. – Тashkent: Science and Technology, – p. 138.
3. Azizova F.S. (2018). Linguacultural peculiarities of teaching English phraseological units to the students of higher educational establishments (based on the examples of English and Uzbek languages):Thesis paper for Doctor of Philosophy in Philology. – Tashkent, – p. 56.
4. Berdiyorov H., Rasulov P. (1984). Paremiological dicitonary of the Uzbek language. – Tashkent: Teacher, – p. 237.
5. Birikh A.K., Mokiyenko V.M., Stepanova L.I., (1998). Slovar russkoy frazeologii. – Sankt Peterburg, – p. 700.
6. Korzyukova Z.V. (2003). Osnovniye aspekti funksionirovaniya frazeologicheskix yedinis s imenami sobstvennimi v angliskom yazike: nasionalno-kulturnaya spesifika: Prilojen. diss. kand. filol. nauk. – Moscow, – p. 234.
7. Kunin A. V. (1984). Anglo-russskiy frazeologicheskiy slovar. – Moskva: Russkiy yazik, – p. 944.
8. Mokienko V.M., Nikitina T.G. (2007). Bolshoy slovar russkix pogovorok. – Moskva, – p. 784.
9. Shomaksudov Sh., Shorahmedov Sh. (2001). The source of meanings. – Tashkent: National Encyclopedia of Uzbekistan, – p. 448.
10. Sizranova G.Yu. (2013). Onomastikа. – Tolyatti: ТGU, – p. 248.
11. Superasnkaya A.B. (1973). Obshaya teoriya imeni sobstvennogo. – Моskva: Nauka,– p. 159.
12. Tikhonov A.N., Lomov A.G., (2007). Frazeologicheskiy slovar russkogo yazika. – Моskva: Russkiy yazik Media, – p. 338.
13. Urazmetova A.V. (2006). Linguakulturologicheskiy aspect izucheniya toponimov v sostave frazeologicheskix yedinis (na materiale angliyskogo i fransuzkogo yazikov): Diss. kand. filol. nauk. – Ufa, – p. 196.
14. Khokhlova V.А. (2017). Frazeologicheskiye yedinisi s toponimicheskom komponentom v angliyskom i ukrasinkom yazikax: lingvokulturologicheskiy aspekt: Avtoref. diss. kand. filol. nauk. – Donesk, – p. 26.
15. Sobirova, Zarnigor Intern-researcher (2020) "LEXICOGRAPHIC INTERPRETATION OF THE TOURISM TERMS IN THE ENGLISH AND UZBEK LANGUAGES," Philology Matters: Vol. 2020: Iss. 4, Article 6. DOI: 10.36078/987654466 Available at: https://uzjournals.edu.uz/philolm/vol2020/iss4/6
16. Sobirova, Zarnigor (2020) "ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF TOURISM LEXEMES INTO UZBEK," Scientific reports of Bukhara State University: Vol. 4: Iss. 5, Article 7. Available at: https://uzjournals.edu.uz/buxdu/vol4/iss5/7
Radjabova, Marjona Akhmadovna
"THE CLASSIFICATION OF PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS WITH ONOMASTIC COMPONENTS,"
Scientific reports of Bukhara State University: Vol. 4
, Article 7.
Available at: https://uzjournals.edu.uz/buxdu/vol4/iss6/7