40UNIVERSAL AND NATIONAL PECULIARITIES OF PHRASEOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION OF IMAGE IN THE ENGLISH AND UZBEK LANGUAGES
Dildora Fayzulla kizi Gaybullayeva
Uzbekistan State World Languages University dildoragaybullayeva@gmail .com
ABSTRACT
The following article is dedicated to studying phraseological units in the English and Uzbek languages from the perspective of linguoculturological aspect. The article mostly focuses on two totally different languages and illustrates several phraseological units according to their universal and national peculiarities in the English and Uzbek. What's more, the main aim and objectives of cultural linguistics and its new trend cultural phraseology are also under the discussion in this article. Componential method and comparative-analysis method are used effectively in the research in order to make the study comprehensible.
Keywords: linguaculturology, cultural phraseology, phraseological unit, universal value, national value.
INTRODUCTION
These days, the issue of language and culture is one of the foremost vital issues involving the minds of language specialists, anthropologists, psychologists, and philosophers. Language is bound up with the culture in numerous and complex ways. It is recognized that effective communication is inconceivable without profound and wide foundation knowledge of local speakers' culture which infers ways of life, mindset, vision of the world, the national character, traditions, convictions, frameworks of values, sorts of social conduct.
Linguoculturology or cultural linguistics is a rapidly expanding field at the interface between linguistics, cultural studies, cognitive linguistics, ethnolinguistics and sociolinguistics [7]. However, it has its own integral aspect of studying language and culture. Cultural linguistics studies the profound level of semantics, and brings into relationship linguistic implications and the concepts of universal and national cultures. The intention of linguoculturology is to ponder etymological implies with the assistance of which language epitomizes, stores, and exchanges culture. Though Cultural Linguistics is a comparatively new science, there distinguished different trends and aspects. The survey of the linguistic literature makes it possible to
differentiate between the following trends: lexicographical, phraseological, conceptological and stylistic.
As our work is mostly focus on phraseological units, we attempt to delve into linguocultural phraseology as a new trend of cultural linguistics. Obviously, phraseological unit is considered to be a specific linguistic unit with cultural connotation or cultural information "woven" into its semantics. The anthropocentric orientation of the modern linguistics is foreordained by the so-called "axiological approach to language", with respect to dialect as a mirror, reflecting the framework of cultural values [2]. In this regard phraseology is accepted to be the foremost imperative layer of the conceptual world picture. A huge number of researches are given to the cultural perspective of phraseology.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
On the basis of new and unique linguacultural researches under the supervision of V.N. Telia, there have been created the dictionary «Большой фразеологический словарь русского языка. Значение. Употребление. Культурологический комментарий» (1st edition - 2006; 4th edition - 2009). The dictionary describes idioms as signs of "language of culture", as symbols, etalons, stereotypes, and etc. According to V. Telia, phraseological units are defined as linguistic representations of cultural phenomena due to their ability to reflect the national mentality and the system of values of the people who speak this language [7].
In most cases phraseological units express the state of mind of the human being to what is happening within the world. In other words, expressiveness is respected as a sense of important information around culture and the mindset of the individuals, their traditions and conventions, myths, ceremonies, propensities, behavior, etc. So, phraseological units constitute a critical evaluative layer of the conceptual world picture.
As our aim is to cover universal and national peculiarities of phraseological description of image in the English and Uzbek languages, one is supposed to know what universals are and how national features differ from them. According to notable linguistics, N.F. Alefirenko, cultural values represented in the language are considered as one of the important means of transmitting cultural information [5]. Values are general concepts people believe in. "They consist of norms not only for one cultural group or community but also for everyone" [4]. So, values are properties we prescribe to movements we consider of as ethically correct or incorrect. According to Alefirenko, at present, vital (life, health, living, environment), social
(social status, profession, wealth, sexual equality, tolerance), political (freedom, democracy, lawfulness, peace), religious (God, faith, sacred laws, salvation, blessing), moral (goodness, kindness, friendship, honor, love, decency), and aesthetic (beauty, ideal, harmony, lifestyle) types of cultural values are widely represented in the language [5]. These values mostly can be represented in the language as universal and national ones. Universal values are the values which are highly recognized by the majority of people. To these values we refer the masterpieces of art, sustainable morals (love and respect, honesty, compassion, wisdom, beauty and others.). These morals are common for people of all nations and religions. National values play a significant role in the life of every nation and individual. To these values we refer everything which creates specificity of culture: Louvre for French culture, Big Ben for UK, the statue of Freedom for American, etc. In the research, componential method (to separate and study anthropocentric idioms out of whole) and comparative-analysis method (to compare in two languages) are effectively used.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Simply, universals in phraseology (we prefer to call them international phraseological units) are the linguacultural units that have equivalents in several languages with the same component and unchanged meanings through universal issues. In contrast, nationals are units which can be found in one language and among its users. Unlike universals, nationals can ascribe one nation and its entire culture. Thus, we can begin the practical part by completing the theoretical part, which is given to the reader to understand the essence of this paragraph. Let's look through the examples to prove our points:
In English phraseological unit, "Good Samaritan " refers to a compassionate person who helps others in a random act of kindness, unselfishly. It originated from the Parable of the Good Samaritan, a story that is very familiar to Christians: E.g.: If it had not been for a good Samaritan who rushed him to the hospital, the accident victim would not have been living today. In Uzbek, "Xizrni yo 'qlamoq "is considered as its equivalent. The reason why it is so, because this phraseological unit with proper name's origin also came from religious point of view. "Xizrni yo 'qlasang bo'larkan" is variation of the very unit, taken by the name of prophet Khizr alayhisallam. E.g.: Ana, Xizrni yo „qlasang bo „larkan, Poshsha opang kelyapti [3].
Another example, "a dog's life " means life with many troubles and difficulties in English. Here, Englishmen pay attention dog's difficult lifestyle, in other words, obeying to its owner without freedom. E.g.: Jonathan had a dog's life when he
worked in that factory. In Uzbek, "ityashash " is the translation of "a dog's life". The meaning is full compliance. Generally, living like a dog is understood to have a difficult life in Uzbek culture as dogs are subservient for people. E.g.: "Bunday it yashashdan ko'ra o'lim afzal"-dedi jahl bilan Nurali. In its place, we would like you to draw the reader's attention to the phraseological unit "Every dog has his (or its) day" (Uzbek version: "Bizning ko'chada ham bayram bo'lajak") in order to make our example clearer. Here, one can be aware of why English culture use the idioms constituent with "dog" for two situations. Nevertheless, Uzbek translation is not full compliance, the idiom is easy to understand: One may find good fate after his dog's life. So, with the help of above mentioned phraseological units, two cultures arise the component patience.
Moreover, in both cultures nightingale (bulbul) is a symbol of fast but fluent speech by people who are intelligent enough what they are talking about. Idiom "To sing like a nightingale" in English can be completely translated into Uzbek as "Bulbuldek sayramoq ". This phraseological unit is based on common words, animal names in the two compared languages, the image, semantic - stylistic potential and all-inquisitive. Least but not last, there is another phraseological unit to open people's character in both English and Uzbek languages: "as gentle as a lamb " - "qo 'ydek yuvosh" (qo'y og'zidan chop olmagan). Obviously, lamb is a kid of sheep and this animal is accepted as a humble animal in both cultures according to its smooth character.
Universal peculiarities of phraseological units can also be seen through phraseological unit "to lead cat and dog life" in English, "it mushuk bo'lib yashamoq " in Uzbek. As we know, from the creation of the world, cat and dogs are very unfriendly to each other. In any issue these two animals cannot compromise. Not only in English and Uzbek culture, but also in many cultures people who do not agree in making a life are imitated to cats and dogs. So, the very animals can prescribe people's behavior universally [1].
"Go in one ear and out the other" is an English idiom, that is said about something which is heard and then quickly forgotten. Uzbek translation is "u qulog^idan kirib bu qulog^idan chiqmoq". In both culture, this phraseological unit shows the person's poor memory as well as irresponsible attitude towards his/her hearings.
Further analysis of phraseological units in English and Uzbek languages reveal universal peculiarities of phraseological description of image in the benchmarks from speakers of these languages. These universals are determined by the two cultures
(linked with the realities of life characteristic of the English and Uzbek features of natural conditions and traditions of these peoples). These words are the realities, rather, associates of the word stimuli associative reactions which are not bearers of the national characteristics of a particular language because of their extra linguistic features
Phraseological units are main sources of linguaculturemes that identify one culture and interesting lifestyle of particular nation. Phraseologisms in the scope of national peculiarities are more interesting than universals as they can give the description of image in any language differently. At this point, we aim to analyze the linguacultural aspects, basically, national peculiarities of phraseological units. Linguacultural aspects are usually realized through the manifestation of pragma-linguistic aspects in discourse.
For example, the phrase "tuzoq uzdilardan" means "those who can flee from any point by any ways." In Uzbek culture, the fox stretches the trap ("tulkidek ayyor") while in European culture ("as cunning as a fox"), the fox cuts off his leg and survives. What is the reason for this? This is because in the East, the trap is made of leather, strap or rope, while in European culture the trap is usually made of iron. The rope, strap, or leather can be twisted, but not the iron. So the only way to escape is to bite the hoof that has fallen into the trap. This difference in culture is fully expressed through the use of language tools.
Another example is "Tuya go 'shti yemoq", it means that something is done very slowly by someone, that it is constantly slowed down. In Uzbek culture the animal "tuya" (camel) is believed as a symbol of slow actions since the camel does not walk fast. But in English culture, the very meaning is carried by "for donkey's years ". In the Uzbek phrase camel helps in expressing this meaning, while in English the focus is on the donkey. This is also explained by life - the place of life, the existence of the people, the uniqueness of the habitat, the culture. As a primary sign of using two different componential phraseological units for one meaning, donkeys can be found in the cold-dominated northern regions including English, this stems from the possibilities of that area when making and naming the primary forms of all traditional words and phrases. Camels do not live in the cold area, and they can be met in eastern territories, mostly Central Asia. There is also a tortoise in the area of Uzbek linguacultura, and this idiom also means slow movement. But in this task it appears as a synonym for the concept of "camel". In the same sense, in the Uzbek conceptosphere, "Tuyaning dumi yerga tekkanda," (When a camel's tail touches the ground", "Tuyani yut, lekin dumi o'g'zingdan ko'rinib turmasin" (Swallow the
camel, but do not let the tail be visible through your mouth), "Tuya so 'yib chorlasang ham kelmaydi" (Even if you slaughter a camel and call him, he doesn't come), "Tuya qancha bo 'lsa-yag'rini shuncha" (The more camels you have, the more fat you have) and so on, exist only in the Uzbek culture and are not typical of European culture. Because without knowing the camel, how can a person know the signs associated with it.
Consider another example: the phrase "to work like a horse " in English culture is not translated into Uzbek as "to work like a horse," but "to work like a donkey ". The fact is that in the history of the Uzbek people, donkeys are more common among ordinary people. The horse belonged to upper level of society, khans, wealthy people and young men who served them. It is known that they were less numerous than the common people and did not do the work of donkeys, but served as the usual means of transportation for the owners. The donkeys were responsible for dragging the cart, hauling the load, and turning the millstone. Apparently, the horse serves less because it is relatively scarce, and the attitude towards it is different from that of a donkey because its meat is honest and edible.
Next example, "When pigs fly" in English culture is used for something that will never happen. The phrase has been used in various forms since the 1600s, when it was said that "pigs fly with their tails forward", used as a sarcastic remark something overly optimistic. The form "when pigs fly" is more common in America. However, in Uzbek culture the animal component pig is replaced with bullock: "Xo'kiz tuqqanda"(when a bullock gives a birth) . As pigs can never fly, bullocks also cannot give a birth. Here, one can know in Uzbek culture, bullocks are pet animals that many families raise for its meat. From the religious points of view, beef is halal but not pork.
Similar examples, in English culture, to describe an odd member of a group "Black sheep " is usually used. It could be used to refer to a person who is considered bad by the rest of their family. In contrast, Uzbeks call the very kind of person as "Tirriqi buzoq" (Weak calf). "Kill two birds with one stone" is a phraseological unit which means to get two tasks completed at once. But Uzbek people illustrate this meaning with the help of "Bir o 'q bilan ikki quyonni urmoq" (Kill two hares with one arrow). This idiom shows how nations engaged in shooting. Uzbeks prefer to hunt hares (wild rabbits) than to shot birds.
Describing someone as "'pig-headed" means that person is stupid and stubborn in English culture. As the English consider that pig is the most close-minded and inflexible animal. Unlikely, Uzbeks call such kind of person with component hen:
"Tovuq miya" (Hen-headed). This phrase applies to people who don't understand anything, who say stupid things, who act stupidly, who act irrationally. (Tovuqmiya, tovuqning miyasichalik miyang bo'lmasa, Xudo urgani shu bo'lsa kerak, - pichirladi Norbo'ta). So, they say, a small hen head with a lack of brain, as well as sometimes incomprehensible chicken behavior, because sometimes a hen seems to be one of the stupidest animals in the world.
When it comes to reveal the national peculiarities of phraseological units of image in two languages, linguoculturemes should certainly mentioned, we think. Unlike a word, a linguocultureme includes not only linguistic meaning, but also the cultural (non-linguistic) sense. For example, the word pub stands for "a public house" (linguistic meaning). But it is of great cultural significance for the English people. In Great Britain pubs serve as places where people gather to relax; some of them spend all their evenings after a hard working day there in a good company in order to discuss business affairs or political issues in a more comfortable atmosphere. As the lexis of every culture is typical, there are some words which denote the lingua cultural aspect of the nation who speak in the very language. Let's look through several examples in Uzbek culture.
Obviously, eastern countries are famous for their calling food, habits and customs which totally differ from western areas. For example, "osh", "palov", "manti", "chuchvara " and so on. Therefore, many phraseological units (considering proverbs and sayings) have been appeared with these components. For instance: "O 'Idirsa ham osh o 'Idirsin " means that in case you pass away from the food let it be meal «osh» since it's exceptionally delightful feast indeed you concur to pass away. "Ko 'ribsan-ki osh, ko 'tarmagin bosh ", "Pulingdan bir tiyin qolsa ham osh ye, umringdan bir kun qolsa ham osh " can be synonyms of this phraseological unit.
Another example depends on the relationship between Mother-in-law, which is very disputable issue in Uzbek culture: "Qaynona va kelin tuprog'i bir joydan olinar" - it means they have similar characters, "Kelin qaynonaning supurgisi" -means the bride is the servant of her Mother-in-law. However, this bond can be analyzed from another angle taking into consideration of their quarrels: "Qaynona qayramasa, kelin sayramaydi" - means if mother-in-law accepts her bride as her daughter, bride will also respect her and keep secret about the defamations. What's more, if the groom is not in good terms with his wife's relatives, the idiom "Kuyov yov" is used. Truly, this idiom shows negative side of Uzbek culture but mostly the idiom is used for sarcasm irony. Basically, people in Uzbek culture highly respect the grooms saying by "Kuyovni payg 'ambarlar siylaydi".
There are many idioms using the animals such as dog and cat in Uzbek idioms, but most of them give negative meaning, for example: but it's very rare using them in English idioms. For example: "Itga qoptirmay tuyaga teptirmay" (asrab-avaylab), "lining keying oyog'i" (Qo'yning oxirgi tuyog'i), however in some proverbs the animal "dog" is used in positive meaning, such as "It vafo, xotin jafo", "it inson do'sti" (itdek sodiq) and etc. But in English idioms it isn't used often. The cat "mushuk" as it's in Uzbek language is used in the following Uzbek idioms: "Mushukning bo'yi yetmay, go'shtni puf sassiq ekan degan ekan" "Mushugiga pisht demaymiz", "Mushukka ko 'rpa yopgandek"(Eshakka motor qo 'ygandek)- This idiom is used mostly when something doesn't suit to somebody.
CONCLUSION
Overall, phraseology could be a complex and wealthiest segment of language. In figures of speech we consider authentic signs of language arrangement, find unmistakable highlights of culture and instruction, which expressively affected the enhancement of language. Phraseological units serve to preserve and enrich the mentality of the people and its culture. Universal peculiarities of them have been studied through universals, all-inquisitive linguacultural units relating to the general issues and correspond to many languages. National peculiarities of phraseological units have been analyzed through linguaculturemes, the units which have both linguistic and cultural meaning.
REFERENCES
1. Azizova Fotimakhon S. "The teaching of proverbs and sayings using information technology in the lifelong education system" Образование через всю жизнь: непрерывное образование в интересах устойчивого развития, vol. 8 (Eng.), 2010, p 481.
2. Fatkullina F.G. (2017) Basic notions of linguocultural analysis. RUDN Journal of Russian and Foreign Languages Research and Teaching, 15 (2), 175—188.
3. Tohir Malik. Shaytanant. 4-qism. www.ziyo.com. 2007. 283-b.
4. Wallace, R (2003). Introduction. In R. Wallace, ed: The Practice of Value, 15-47. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5. Алефиренко Н.Ф. Принципы коммуникативно-прагматического исследования фраземики / Н.Ф. Алефиренко // Коммуникативно-прагматические аспекты фразеологии. — Волгоград, 1999. С. 3 - 5.
6. Маслова В.А. Лингвокультурология: учеб. пособие для студентов высших учебных заведений. М.: Издательский центр «Академия», 2001. 208 c
7. Телия В.Н. Первоочередные задачи и методологические проблемы исследования фразеологического состава языка в контексте культуры // Фразеология в контексте культуры / отв. ред. В.Н. Телия. М.: Языки русской культуры, 1999. С. 13—24
