Аbstract. This article discusses phraseological units with onomastic components in the English, Russian and Uzbek languages from the point of semantic pecularities. It is known that initially, onomastic components were used in their direct meaning but later, it had figurative meaning being as a component of phraseological units. From this point, onomastic components according to their dominant meaning, they expressed neagtive and positive connotations. Phraseological units with onomastic components in both languages were studied in 38 groups according to their meaning and content in terms of lifestyle, literature and folklore, and common religious beliefs of the English and Russian people. Phraseological units with onomastic components in the Uzbek language also have semantic features, which are formed through national-cultural aspects. The author divides the onomastic components of the phraseological units of the Uzbek language into 21 groups. Background. Phraseological units has an important place in the world linguistics as national and cultural units. The history of the formation of such units, which are often used in human speech, is connected with the culture and centuries-old history of each nation. In particular, units with onomastic components go to Western and Eastern sources, the way of life of the nation, the folklore and religious sources. In this regard, the scientific and theoretical reserach of phraseological units, the study of their linguocultural and semantic features play an important role in comparative linguistics. Methods. In this article, the author has conducted a study on phraseological units with onomastic components using comparative-typological method and classified the English and Russian phraseological units into the following groups as phraseological units with the meaning of miracle; honesty; peacefulness, tranquility, prosperity; cunning, deception, hypocrisy; weakness; a sin, a curse; loyalty, fidelity; defeat; corruption, filth; arrogance; dream, desire; wealth, abundance; tastelessness; nonsense, dry promise; friendship; hunger, donation; joking; happiness, luck; purpose, intention; wisdom; dirty filth, mess; savagery, fear, suffering, cruelty; drunkenness; betrayal; foolishness, stupidity; conflict, protest; stubbornness; unstableness; distrust; disappointment, danger; lawlessness, theft, murder; justice, fairness, truth; нодонлик, ignorance; injustice; patriotism; laziness, indifference; hopelessness and dispair; patience. Results. When analyzing Uzbek phraseological units with onomastic components from the point of semantics, it can be classified as follows: wisdom; greediness; cunningness; savagery, intimidation, suffering; unjustice; pride and arrogance; good deeds; love, loyalty; dream, intention; laziness; simplicity and humility; panic; appraisal; ignorance, stupidity; offence; anger, wickedness; etiquette; patriotism; tranquility; happiness and luck; ignorance, stupidity. The structural-semantic features of above given phraseological units differ from each other in a system of unrelated languages with its use in the speech. Conclusion. Based on the analyzed examples, it can be said that the names that come as a part of phraseological units convey different meanings. The use of phraseological units in positive and negative contexts can be understood through the names coming as part of the phraseological units. In addition, the dominance of a particular sema depends on the centuries-old customs and traditions of the peoples who speak that language.
1. Azizova F.S. (2018). Lingua-cultural features of teaching phraseological units in the Uzbek language to the students of higher educationa establishments (under the examples of English and Uzbek languages): The dissertation thesis (PhD). – Тashkent, – p. 56.
2. Ganiyeva Sh.A. (2017). The structure of Uzbek phraseologisms (modelling by form and meaning): The dissertation thesis (PhD). – Fergana, – p. 50.
3. Kholmurodova L.E. (2017). Thematic and ideographic expression of motive and image phraseologisms in the English and French languages (lingua cultural aspect): The dissertation thesis (PhD). – Тashkent, – p. 50.
4. Korzyukova Z.V. (2003). The main aspects of functions of phraseological units with onomastic components in the English language: national-cultural peculiarities: Diss. for cand. of Phil. Sciences. – Мoscow, – p. 234.
5. Radjabova M.A. (2020). The classification of phraseological units with onomastic components. Scientific Reports of Bukhara State University. – Bukhara, – № 2020/6(82). – pp. 139-147.
6. RADJABOVA M. Comparative Study Of Phraseological Units With Naming Features In Nonrelated Languages //Philology Matters. – 2019. – Т. 2019. – №. 1. – С. 71-80.
7. Teshaboyeva Z.K. (2017). The phraseological units in the English translation of «Boburnoma» and their lingua-cultural features: The dissertation thesis (PhD). – Тashkent, – p. 44.
8. Urazmetova A.V. (2006). The linguoculturological aspect of the study of toponyms as part of phraseological units (based on the material of English and French): Diss. for cand. of Phil. Sciences. – Ufa, – p. 196.
9. Sobirova Z. The Realistic Genre and its Development in World Literature-International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE). – 2019.
10. Rakhimovna Z.S. STUDY OF THE TERMS OF TOURISM IN ENGLISH ON LEXICAL-SEMANTIC ASPECTS //International Engineering Journal For Research & Development. – 2021. – Т. 6. – №. TITFL. – S. 282-289.
11. Rakhimovna Z.S. VOCABULARY STUDY OF THE TOURISM TERMS IN THE UZBEK LANGUAGE //International Engineering Journal For Research & Development. – 2021. – Т. 6. – №. TITFL. – S. 275-281.
12. O.M. Fayzulloev and M.M. Rakhimov, “THE WOMAN HAS BEEN IN HIS POWER (ABOUT THE WORKS OF WILKIE COLLINS)”, IEJRD - International Multidisciplinary Journal, vol. 6, no. TITFL, pp. 169-175, Apr. 2021.
Radjabova, Marjona Akhmadovna
"SEMANTIC ANALYSIS OF PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS
WITH ONOMASTIC COMPONENTS,"
Scientific reports of Bukhara State University: Vol. 5
, Article 9.
Available at: https://uzjournals.edu.uz/buxdu/vol5/iss2/9