STYLISTIC AND SEMANTIC PURPOSES OF PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS WITH ORNITHONYMS IN ENGLISH AND UZBEK LANGUAGES

Аннотация

This article explores the semantic and stylistic functions of phraseological units (PUs) containing ornithonyms (bird names) in English and Uzbek. Through comparative analysis, the study examines how ornithonym-based idioms reflect cultural values, worldview, and communicative strategies in both languages. The analysis reveals that while both English and Uzbek phraseologies utilize ornithonyms to express metaphorical meanings, stylistic nuances and semantic associations differ significantly. The findings underscore the role of birds as symbolic agents in human cognition and discourse, enriching stylistic expressiveness and cultural imagery. Key words: to Phraseological units, birds, symbolism, ornithonymic, cultural connotation, semanticfeature Introduction. Phraseological units with ornithonyms—idiomatic expressions that include the names of birds—constitute a vibrant and expressive segment ofboth English and Uzbek lexicons. Birds have been central to human observation, mythology, and symbolism, making their names particularly rich inconnotation and metaphor. The primary aim of this article is to examine the semantic roles and stylistic functions of ornithonymic phraseological units in English and Uzbek. These units are not only tools for linguisticeconomy but also vehicles ofcultural symbolism and stylisticembellishment. Key research questions include: -Whatare thedominant semantic fields ofornithonymic PUs in English and Uzbek? -Howdothese idiomsfunction stylistically in discourse? -Whatcultural ornational characteristics influence themetaphorical useof bird names This investigation contributes to contrastive phraseology and highlights the deep-rooted cultural dimensionsembedded inidiomaticlanguage. Methodology. This research employs a comparative-descriptive method combined with semanticandstylistic analysis. Thedata corpus comprises: -120English PUs with ornithonyms; -120UzbekPUs withornithonyms. Sources include monolingual and bilingual dictionaries, proverb collections, corpora (British National Corpus, UzbekNational Corpus), and literary texts. Each PUwas analyzed based on: -Ornithonym used (e.g., crow, nightingale, eagle); -Semanticfield (intelligence, cowardice, beauty, etc.); -Stylistic function (irony, exaggeration, poeticism,etc.); -Cultural connotation (symbolic, mythological, religious). Idioms were categorized according to their pragmatic roles: expressive, evaluative, intensifying, andsymbolic. http://www.internationaljournal.co.in/index.php/jasass 473 Volume15 Issue05, May2025 Impact factor: 2019: 4.679 2020: 5.015 2021: 5.436, 2022: 5.242, 2023: 6.995, 2024 7.75 Results. SemanticFunctions Themostprominent semanticroles ofornithonymic PUs are: -Negative human traits: -English: “To eat likea bird”,“silly goose” -Uzbek:“Qarg‘adek qiyshiq”,“Toydek yurgizmoq” -Social status orbehavior: -English: “Lameduck”,“nest egg” -Uzbek:“Loqayd qush” -Freedom and independence: -English: “Free as a bird” -Uzbek:“Qushdek erkin” -Beauty and grace: -Uzbek:“Turnadek go‘zal” -English: Rare in thissense -Danger or vigilance: -English: “Watch likea hawk” -Uzbek:“Lochin kabi hushyor” StylisticFunctions Ornithonym-based idioms perform several stylisticfunctions: -Expressive/Evaluative: Express opinions orattitudes (e.g., “birdbrain”,“qushdek”) - Poetic/Imagistic: Found in literary and poetic texts, especially in Uzbek (e.g., “Qaldirg‘ochdek sadoqatli”) -Humorous/Ironic: “Go ona wildgoose chase”,“Qarg’adaychiyillamoq” -Metaphorical Compression:Condensation of complex ideas intoshort, vivid expressions Cross-Cultural Observations SemanticField EnglishExample Uzbek Example Observation Intelligence “Birdbrain” “Qush miyali” Shared metaphor, negative Vigilance “Eagle eye ”“Lochin nigoh” Similarsymbolism Foolishness “Silly goose” “Toy qush” Culturalmatch Loyalty Rare “Qaldirg‘ochdek Stronger in Uzbek poetic sadoqatli” tradition Isolation “Bird in acage” “Qafasdagi qush” Shared emotional metaphor Discussion. The analysis demonstrates that ornithonym-based PUs in English and Uzbek serve both referential and stylistic purposes. While many idioms overlap semantically, their stylistic deployment varies dueto cultural frameworks. In English, ornithonymic PUs are often used in everyday speech, informal writing, and political discourse. In contrast, Uzbek idioms often appear in folklore, poetry, and proverbs, imbuing themwith emotional and symbolic depth. The stylisticrichness of Uzbek ornithonymic idioms reflects the country's oral traditions. English http://www.internationaljournal.co.in/index.php/jasass 474 Volume15 Issue05, May2025 Impact factor: 2019: 4.679 2020: 5.015 2021: 5.436, 2022: 5.242, 2023: 6.995, 2024 7.75 idioms,moresecular and modernized, usebirds for rational and pragmatic evaluations. This contrast reveals how phraseology encodes not just language but worldview, value systems, andcommunicative preferences. Conclusion. Phraseological units with ornithonyms are vital tools for expressing complex ideas in a vivid