A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH AND UZBEK PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55640/Keywords:
phraseological units, idioms, comparative linguistics, English, Uzbek, cultural specificity, semantic analysisAbstract
This paper presents a comparative analysis of English and Uzbek phraseological units, examining their semantic, structural, and cultural characteristics. Phraseology reflects the national worldview and mentality encoded in a language, and idiomatic expressions form a vivid part of linguistic identity. The aim of this study is to identify similarities and differences between the two languages' phraseological systems and determine the extent of cross-cultural correspondence. Through descriptive, comparative, and semantic analysis, the paper demonstrates both universal and culturally bound features of phraseological units, contributing to better understanding in translation, linguistics, and intercultural communication.
Downloads
References
1.Cowie, A. P. (1998). Phraseology: Theory, Analysis, and Applications. Oxford University Press.
2.Kunin, A.V. (1970). English-Russian Phraseological Dictionary. Moscow: Russian Language Publishers.
3.Vinogradov, V.V. (1947). The Main Types of Phraseological Units in Russian.
4.Rasulov, M. (2003). O‘zbek tilida frazeologik birliklar. Toshkent: O‘qituvchi.
5.Komilov, N. (2008). Til va tafakkur. Toshkent: Fan.
6.Cambridge International Dictionary of Idioms (2002). Cambridge University Press.
7.Uzbek-English Phraseological Dictionary (2015). Tashkent: Jahon tillari nashriyoti.
Published
Issue
Section
License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain the copyright of their manuscripts, and all Open Access articles are disseminated under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC-BY), which licenses unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is appropriately cited. The use of general descriptive names, trade names, trademarks, and so forth in this publication, even if not specifically identified, does not imply that these names are not protected by the relevant laws and regulations.

Germany
United States of America
Italy
United Kingdom
France
Canada
Uzbekistan
Japan
Republic of Korea
Australia
Spain
Switzerland
Sweden
Netherlands
China
India