Adjectival phraseological units in representing national worldview

Аннотация

The national identity of the language is reflected in its phraseological fund. The identification of the actual national features of the semantics of phraseological units is possible only on the basis of a comparison of stable turns of different languages. To carry out a comparative analysis of phraseological units containing components denoting a value, it is necessary to establish the national features of the language worldview and trace the process of linguistic conceptualization of the value. Each language has its own method of conceptualizing reality, which has its own specific and universal features. A comparative cultural linguistics study of the fund of the English and Karakalpak languages makes it possible to determine the common and national in matters of perception of magnitude by representatives of the two peoples. Key words: phraseological units, adjective, culture, worldview Language and culture are considered as basic social phenomena dependent on each other. The sum of knowledge about the surrounding world, imprinted in the form of linguistic signs, makes up the linguistic worldview. This article is devoted to the problems of studying the culturally determined features of phraseological units, as well as the principles of modeling the concept of magnitude in the English and Russian phraseological worldview. The term "worldview" was introduced into scientific use by the physicist G.Hertz. He defines the worldview as a set of internal images of external objects that serve to derive logical judgments about the behavior of these objects. Later, the term was transferred to the humanities, appeared in the works of K. Jaspers and L.Wittgenstein [“Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus”], as well as L. Weisgerber. Since the beginning of the 21st century, the "worldview" [WV] has become the central object of study in many areas of science. This concept is interpreted from philosophical, linguistic, educational, cultural and other points of view. There are several different definitions of this concept, but they all agree on one thing: the worldview is an ordered structure, which gives a person the opportunity to navigate in the world around him. Some linguistic and highly specialized dictionaries also note that the worldview is “reflected in linguistic forms and categories, concepts, opinions, ideas of the people speaking this language about reality, about a person’s attitude to reality; reflects the cultural identity of the people [1.96]. PHRASEOLOGICAL WORLDVIEW AS AN OBJECT OF LINGUISTIC STUDY When studying LWV, a special role is given to lexicology and, in particular, phraseology, since it is phraseological units “... that are associated with cultural and national standards, stereotypes, mythologemes, etc. and when used in speech, they reproduce the mentality characteristic of a particular linguocultural community” [2.56]. Phraseological units are the most valuable source of information about the culture and mentality of the people. B.A. Larin in his work “Essays on Phraseology” accurately notes that they “indirectly reflect the views of the 70 people, the social system, and the ideology of their era. Reflect - as the light of the morning is reflected in a drop of dew" [3. 125-149]. According to S.G. Ter-Minasova, language is a "tool of culture". The author argues that grammar and vocabulary play the main role in the formation of the national character. It seems obvious that it is the vocabulary that bears the greatest cultural load. Words and phrases make up the LWV, which determines the perception of the world by native speakers of a particular language. This aspect becomes especially clear when studying set expressions, phraseological units, idioms, proverbs and sayings. It is in this layer of the language that the cultural experience of the people can most transparently be reflected [4.147]. In Karakalpak and English comparative phraseological units, standards naming artifacts are the priority. Phraseological comparisons are used primarily to characterize a person, while in the comparative phraseology of two languages, comparisons that characterize a person’s appearance, his physiological and physical states and movements are priority. In stable comparisons of Russian and English languages, an insignificant amount of nationally marked vocabulary is presented. In the comparative phraseology of the two languages, both animal images and the names of artifacts are used to characterize a person, while when characterizing inanimate objects, situations, events, phenomena of inanimate nature, images associated with artifacts are prioritized [5. 50]. The classification of phraseological units revealed some national-specific features of the analyzed vocabulary. Separate words, phrases, including phraseological units, in languages of different systems may have points of contact, fully or partially coincide, i.e. For example: Quick on the trigger – қызба, қан қызба = гуди бузар [вспыльчивый, быстро реагирующий];