PHRASEOLOGICAL ANTONYMS: WAYS OF FORMING PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS WITH ANTONYMIC COMPONENTS

Аннотация

This paper provides an in-depth analysis of phraseological antonyms and investigates the primary methods of forming phraseological units with antonymic components in English and Uzbek. Drawing from both linguistic theory and cross-cultural comparison, the study outlines semantic, structural, and pragmatic dimensions of antonymic phraseology. The role of antonymy in phraseology is examined not only as a lexical-semantic phenomenon but also as a stylistic device that enhances expressiveness, contrast, and rhetorical force. The paper integrates the theoretical perspectives of scholars such as Sh. Rahmatullayev, L.A. Novikov, D.A. Cruse, and M.L. Murphy, and offers an expanded typology of formation methods. The findings contribute to comparative linguistics by highlighting universal and language-specific features of phraseological antonyms. Keywords: phraseological antonyms, antonymy, semantic opposition, idioms, phraseological units, formation methods, English-Uzbek comparison. Phraseological antonyms are a distinctive subset of idioms in which the structural composition includes lexical items of opposite meanings. They function as indivisible semantic wholes, where the antonymic relationship between components forms the core of the expression’s meaning. According to Sh. Rahmatullayev (O‘zbek tilida frazeologik birliklarning izohli lug‘ati, 1992), phraseological antonyms are “stable combinations in which the lexical opposition of elements is central to the figurative interpretation of the expression.” L.A. Novikov (Semantika. Antonymiya, 1973) views antonymy as “a semantic opposition between lexical units that belong to the same conceptual field,” stressing that antonymic elements in phraseology are not accidental but are bound by shared thematic relevance. In English, examples include black and white, life and death, high and low, and all or nothing, while in Uzbek, comparable structures are oq-qora, hayot va o‘lim, baland va past, hammasi yoki hech narsa. These combinations are not only lexically opposed but also fixed in structure and culturally recognized. M.L. Murphy (Semantic Relations and the Lexicon, 2003) emphasizes the pragmatic function of antonyms in idiomatic language, noting that “antonymy in fixed expressions often serves to highlight contrast for rhetorical emphasis 124 THEORETICAL ASPECTS IN THE FORMATION OF PEDAGOGICAL SCIENCES International scientific-online conference rather than purely to indicate opposition.” Similarly, D.A. Cruse (Lexical Semantics, 1986) introduces the concept of contextual substitutability as a criterion: two expressions can be considered antonymic if their substitution within the same syntactic frame maintains a contrastive meaning. Formation Methods of Phraseological Units with Antonymic Components The formation of phraseological antonyms can be categorized as follows: 1. Direct lexical opposition in a fixed phrase – use of antonymic words within an established idiomatic structure (sooner or later, now and then, day and night; Uzbek: erta-kech, bor-yo‘q, kun-tun). 2. Antonymic modification of a prototype – creating a new idiom by replacing one component of an existing phrase with its antonym (from head to toe ↔ from head to heels figuratively). 3. Context-dependent antonymy – where opposition is activated in a particular discourse setting (sink or swim, make or break; Uzbek: yutish yoki yutqazish, o‘tish yoki qolish). 4. Proverbs and aphorisms – culturally embedded expressions containing antonymic pairs (Easy come, easy go, Many are called, few are chosen; Uzbek: Oson kelgan – oson ketar, Ko‘p chaqiriladi – oz tanlanadi). 5. Structural parallelism – syntactic symmetry reinforcing contrast (Some give, others take; Uzbek: Ba’zilar beradi, boshqalar oladi). 6. Metaphorical extension of antonymy – where figurative imagery is built upon opposing concepts (heaven and hell; Uzbek: jannat va do‘zax). Cross-Linguistic Perspective The comparison of English and Uzbek phraseological antonyms reveals both universality and specificity. Universal tendencies include the pairing of fundamental human concepts (life–death, light–darkness, success–failure) into fixed idiomatic structures. Language-specific features emerge in culturally bound expressions: English: from rags to riches – Uzbek: cho‘ponlikdan podshohlikka. English: live and learn – Uzbek: bilganing bir tog‘, bilmaganing ming tog‘. English: the quick and the dead – Uzbek: tiriklar va o‘liklar. These parallels demonstrate that antonymic phraseology serves as a cognitive tool for conceptualizing extremes and transitions across cultures.