Semantic Features of English Proverbs

In folklore among all the assortment and profusion of its poetical significance and signifier it is hard to happen more interesting and researchable genre than Proverbss and expressions. It was the topic of deep survey of scientists in most different ideological subdivisions. Most of the scientists agreed that the pro verbs are folklore address. Where was non merely the individual ‘s point of position but besides general people ‘s mentality is expressed.

Proverbs and expressions play of import function in linguistic communication. They give emotionalism, expressiveness to the address. They have certain pure lingual characteristics that must ever be taken into history in order to separate them from ordinary sentences. Proverbs are brief statements demoing uncondensed signifier of the accrued life experience of the community and helping as conventional practical symbols for abstract thoughts. They are normally didactic and image bearing.

Many of them become really polished and there is no excess word in Proverbs and expressions. Sum uping above mentioned information the undermentioned definition can be given to a adage: It is a short, meaningful has the rhythmic organisation in poetic manner – that people had created for centuries in their societal and historical life.

The actuality of the survey of the Proverbs in Uzbek, English is that the use of Proverbs in address is really of import. The right use of these Proverbss is besides of import, while interpreting any other work of art we should pay close attending to this point, and that is the ground of the survey of the subject we have taken under treatment. So express any thought or secret plan of the work in interlingual rendition as in original demands a individual ‘s high accomplishment and deep cognition. Translator ought to cognize the regulations of interlingual rendition, moreover the history, slang, life, imposts and traditions of the people whose linguistic communication he / she interpreting into.

The freshness of this making paper is that the analysis of the job of the common people Proverbs have been taken under treatment in related and non related linguistic communications. Modem and authoritative authors ‘ plants have been used in roll uping the illustrations. The making paper besides includes the Shakespeareans and other Proverbss used by English poets. The purpose of the making paper is to analyze the Proverbs and to separate the cultural characteristics in every linguistic communication that was taken under treatment. This making paper chiefly discusses the Uzbek Proverbs and their interlingual rendition into foreign linguistic communications.

The undermentioned undertaking has been solved in this making paper:

• To cover with the history of the Proverbs and analyse them. To demo their constituents or equivalents if they exist in compared linguistic communications, and the ways of their interlingual rendition.
• To indicate out the difference between Proverbss and expressions.
• To research the structural type of English Proverbs, to differ in the groups of types of Proverbs harmonizing to their equivalents and synonymic row.

The practical value of this paper is that, practical consequence and all the given illustrations can be used in practical lessons, composing composings in conversational and written address. This making paper besides can be utile to other pupils who are ‘ interested in this field as in this making paper there is given the tabular array of the most frequently used Proverbss in English.

The theoretical value of the making paper is to look into the structural types of Proverbs and expressions in English, to give their equivalents in related and related linguistic communications, to analyse and distinguish Proverbss and expressions in investigated linguistic communications.

The construction of this making paper is as follows: debut, chief portion, decision, the list of used literature.

PROVERBS IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE

By wording I mean the subdivision of linguistics covering with stable word- combinations characterized by certain transference of significance.

Despite differences of sentiment, most writers agree upon some points refering the typical characteristics of phraseological units, such as:

• Integrity ( or transference ) of significance agencies that none of the idiom constituents is individually associated with any referents of nonsubjective world, and the significance of the whole unit can non be deduced from the significances of its constituents ;
• Stability ( lexical and grammatical ) means that no lexical permutation is possible in an parlance in comparing with free or variable word-combinations ( with an exclusion of some instances when such permutations are made by the writer deliberately ) . The experiments conducted in the 1990s showed that, the significance of an parlance is non precisely indistinguishable to its actual paraphrasis given in the dictionary entry. That is why we may talk about lexical flexibleness of many units if they are used in a originative mode. Lexical stableness is normally accompanied by grammatical stableness which prohibits any grammatical alterations ;
• Separability means that the construction of an parlance is non something indivisible, certain alterations are possible within certain boundaries. Here we meet with the alleged lexical and grammatical discrepancies.
• Expressivity and emotiveness agencies that parlances are besides characterized by stylistic coloring. In other words, they evoke emotions or add expressiveness.

On the whole phraseological units, even if they present a certain form, do non bring forth new phrases. They are alone. Interlanguage comparing, the purpose of which is the exposure of phraseological conformances, forms the footing of a figure of theoretical and applied tendencies of modern lingual research, including the theory and pattern of phraseography. But the inquiry of finding the factors of lingua franca phraseological conformances as the chief construct and the standard of taking phraseological equivalents and parallels as the facet construct is still at issue.

The analysis of particular literature during the last decennaries shows that the bulk of linguists consider the happenstance of semantic construction, grammatical ( or syntactical ) organisation and componential ( lexeme ) construction the chief standards in specifying the types of lingua franca phraseological conformities/disparities with the undoubted primacy of semantic construction.

Comparing the three attacks discussed above ( semantic, functional, and contextual ) we have ample land to reason that have really much in common as, the chief standards of phraseological units appear to be basically the same, i.e. stableness and idiomaticity or deficiency of motive. It should be noted nevertheless that these standards as elaborated in the three attacks are sufficient chiefly to individual out utmost instances: extremely idiomatic non-variable and free ( or variable ) word- groups.

Therefore ruddy tape, female horse ‘s nest, etc. Harmonizing to the semantic attack belong to wording and are described as mergers as they are wholly non-motivated. Harmonizing to the functional attack they are besides regarded as phraseological units because of their grammatical ( syntactic ) inseparability and because they function, in address as word-equivalents. Harmonizing to the contextual attack ruddy tape, female horse ‘s nest, etc. do up a group of phraseological units referred to as parlances because of the impossibleness of any alteration m the ‘fixed context ‘ and their semantic inseparability.

The position of the majority of word-groups nevertheless can non be decided with certainty with the aid of these standards because as a regulation we have to cover non with с о mp1ete idiomaticity and stableness but with a certain grade of these separating characteristics of phraseological units. No nonsubjective standards of the grade of idiomaticity and stableness have as yet been suggested. Therefore, e.g. , to win a triumph harmonizing to the semantic attack is a phraseological combination because it is about wholly motivated and allows of certain variableness to win, to derive, a triumph.

Harmonizing to the functional attack it is non a phraseological unit as the grade of semantic and grammatical inseparability is deficient for the word-group to map as a word-equivalent. Small hours harmonizing to the contextual attack it is actual significance. If nevertheless we classify it continuing from the functional attack is a word-groups which are partly motivated is decided otherwise depending on which of the standards of phraseological units is applied.

There is still another attack to the job of wording in which an effort is made to get the better of the defect of the phraseological theories discussed supra. The chief characteristics of this new attack which is now more or less universally accepted by Soviet linguists are as follows:

• Wording is regarded as a self-contained subdivision of linguistics and, non as a portion of lexicology.
• Wording trades with a phraseological subsystem of linguistic communication and non with stray phraseological units.
• Phraseology is concerned with all types of set looks.
• Fit looks are divided into three categories: phraseological units ( e.g. ruddy tape, female horse ‘s nest, etc. ) , phraseomatic units ( e.g. win a triumph, launch a run, etc. ) and marginal instances belonging to the assorted category. The chief differentiation between the first and the 2nd categories is semantic: phraseological units have to the full or partly transferred significances while constituents of, phraseomatic units are used in their actual significances.
• Phraseological and phraseomatic units are non regarded as word- equivalents but some of them are treated as word correlatives.
• Phraseological and phraseomatic units are set looks and their phraseological stableness distinguishes them from free phrases and compound words.
• Phraseological and phraseomatic units are made up of words of different grade of wordness depending on the type of set looks they are used in. ( californium. e.g. little hours and ruddy tape ) . Their structural discreteness, an of import factor of their stableness, distinguishes them from compound words ( californium. E.g. blackbird and black market ) . Other facets of their stableness are: stableness of usage, lexical stableness and semantic stableness.
• Stability of usage agencies that set looks are reproduced ready-made and non created in address. They are non elements of single manner of address but linguistic communication units.
• Lexical stableness means that the constituents of fit looks are either unreplaceable ( e.g. ruddy tape, female horse ‘s nest ) or party replaceable within the bounds of phraseological or phraseomatic discrepancy: lexical ( e.g. a skeleton in the closet – a skeleton in the cupboard ) .grammatical ( e.g. to be in deep H2O – to be in deep Waterss ) , positional ( e.g. caput over ears – over caput and ears ) , quantitative ( e.g. to take smb a dance- to take smb a pretty dance ) , assorted discrepancies ( e.g. rise ( stir up ) a hornets ‘ nest about one ‘s ears- arouse ( stir up ) the nest of hornets ) .
• Semantic stableness is based on the lexical stableness of set looks. Even when occasional alterations are introduced the significance of set look is preserved. It may merely be specified, made more precise, weakened or strengthened. In other words in malice of all occasional phraseological and phraseomatic units, as distinguished from free phrases, remain semantically invariant or are destroyed. For illustration, the permutation of the verbal constituent in the free phrase to raise a inquiry by the verb to settle ( to settle a inquiry ) changes the significance of the phrase, no such alteration occurs in to raise ( stir up ) a hornets ‘ nest about one ‘s ears.
• An built-in portion of this attack is a method of phraseological designation which helps to individual out fit looks in Modern English. The historical facet of wording has barely been investigated. Just a few points of involvement may be briefly reviewed in connexion with the beginning of wording has barely been investigated. Just a few points of involvement may bebriefly reviewed in connexion with the beginning of phraseological units and the ways they appear in linguistic communication. It is assumed that about all phrases can be traced back to liberate word-groups which in the class of the historical development of the English linguistic communication have acquired semantic and grammatical procedure of grammaticalization or lexicalisation.

Cases of grammaticalization may be illustrated by the transmutation of free word-groups composed of the verb have, a noun ( pronoun ) and Participle II of some other verb ( e.g. H з h ї fde hine ) into the grammatical form- the Present Perfect in Modern English. The grade of semantic and grammatical inseparability in this analytical word-form is so high that the constituent has seems to possess no lexical significance of its ain.

The term lexicalisation implies that the word-group under treatment develops into a word-equivalent, i.e. a phraseological unit or a compound word. These two parallel lines of lexicalisation of free word-groups can be illustrated by the historical analysis of, e.g. , the compound word alternatively and the phraseological unit in malice ( of ) . Both of them can be traced back to structurally1indistinguishable free phrases. ( californium. OE. In spede and ME. In despit. )

There are some evidences to say that there exists a sort of mutuality between these two ways of lexicalisation of free word-groups which makes them reciprocally sole. It is observed, for illustration, that compounds are more abundant in certain parts of address, whereas phraseological units are numerically prevailing in others. Therefore, e.g. , phraseological units are found in great Numberss as verb-equivalents whereas compound verbs are relatively few. This leads us to presume that lexicalisation of free word-groups and their transmutation into words or phraseological units is governed by the fewer phraseological units we are likely to meet in this category of words.

Very small is known of the factors active in the procedure of lexicalisation of free word-groups which consequences in the visual aspect of phraseological units. This job may be viewed in footings of the grade of motive. We may safely presume that a free word-group is transformed into a phraseological unit when it acquires semantic inseparability and becomes synchronically non-motivated.

The followers may be perceived as the chief causes accounting for the less ‘ of motive of free word-groups:

1. When one of the constituents of a word-group becomes archaic or drops out of the linguistic communication wholly the whole word-group may go wholly or partly non-motivated. For illustration, deficiency of motive in the word-group kith and family may be accounted for by the fact that the member-word kith dropped out of the linguistic communication wholly except as the constituent of the phraseological unit under treatment. This is besides observed in the phraseological unit under treatment.
2. When as a consequence of a alteration in the semantic construction of a polysemous word some of its significances disappear and can be found merely in certain collocations. The noun head, e.g. , one time meant ‘purpose ‘ or ‘intention ‘ and this significance survives in the phrases to hold a head to make smth. , to alter one ‘s head, etc.
3. When a free word-group used in professional address penetrates into general literary use, it is frequently felt as non-motivated. To draw ( the ) strings ( wires ) , e.g. , was originally used as a free word-group in its direct significance by professional histrions in marionette shows. In Modern English, nevertheless, it has lost all connexion with puppet-shows and hence can non besides be observed in the ‘ phraseological unit to lodge to one ‘s guns, which can be traced back to military English, etc. Sometimes extra-linguistic factors may account for the loss of motive, toshow the white plume – ‘to act as a coward ‘ , e.g. , can be traced back to the yearss when cock-fighting was popular. A white plume in a fighting cock ‘s feather denoted bad genteelness and was regarded as a mark of cowardliness. Now that cock-fighting is no longer a popular athletics, the phrase is felt as non-motivated.
4.  When a word-group doing up portion of a adage or stating Begins to be used a self-contained unit it may bit by bit go non-motivated if its connexion with the corresponding adage or stating is non clearly perceived. A new broom, e.g. , originates as a constituent of the stating new brooms sweep clean. New broom as a phraseological unit may be viewed as non-motivatedbecause the significance of the whole is non deducible from the significance of the constituents. Furthermore, it seems grammatically and functionally self-contained and inseparable excessively. In the stating quoted above the noun broom is ever used im the plural; as a member-word of the phraseological unit it largely used in the singular. The phraseological unit a new broom is characterized by functional inseparability. In the stating new brooms sweep clean the adjectival new maps as an property to the noun brooms, in the phraseological unit a new broom ( e.g. Well he is a new broom! ) the whole word-group is functionally inseparable.
5. When portion of a citation from literary beginnings, mythology or theBible Begin to be used as a self-contained unit, it may besides lose all connexion with the original context and as a consequence of this become non-motivated. The phraseological unit the jealous monster ( jealousy ) can be easy found as a portion of the citation from Shakespeare “ It is the jealous monster which doth mock the meat it feeds on ” ( Othello, II, I. 165 ) . In Modern English, nevertheless, it functions as a non-motivated self-contained phraseological unit and is besides used to denote the T.V. set. Achilles heel – ‘the weak topographic point in a adult male ‘s fortunes or character ‘ can be traced back to mythology, but it seems that in Modern English this word-group maps as a phraseological unit mostly because most English talkers do non link it with the myth from which it was extracted.

PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS AND THEIR TYPES

It has been repeatedly pointed out that word-groups viewed as functionally and semantically inseparable units are traditionally regarded as the capable affair of wording. It should be noted, nevertheless, that no proper scientific probe of English wording has been attempted until rather late. English and American linguists as a regulation confine themselves to roll uping assorted words, word- groups and sentences showing some involvement either from the point of position of beginning, manner, use, or some other characteristic peculiar to them. These units are habitually described as parlances but no effort has been made to look into these parlances as a separate category of lingual units or a specific category of word-groups.

The vocabulary of a linguistic communication is enriched non merely by words but besides by phraseological units. Phraseological units are word-groups that can non be ‘ made in the procedure of address, they exist in the linguistic communication as ready-made units. They are compiled in particular lexicons. The same as words phraseological units express a individual impression and are used in a sentence as one portion of it. American and British lexicologists call such units « parlances » . We can advert such lexicons as: L.Smith « Wordss and Idioms » , V.Collins « А Book of English Idioms »

In these lexicons we can happen words, peculiar in their semantics ( idiomatic ) , side by side with word-groups and sentences. In these lexicons they are arranged, as a regulation, into different semantic groups. Phraseological units can be classified harmonizing to the ways they are formed, harmonizing to the grade of the motive of their significance, harmonizing to their construction and harmonizing to their part-of-speech significance.

A.V. Koonin classified phraseological units harmonizing to the manner they are formed. He pointed out primary and secondary ways of organizing phraseological units.

There are different combinations of words. Some of them are free, e.g. to read books ( intelligence documents, a missive, etc. ) others are fixed, limited in their combinatory power, e.g. to travel to bed, , to do a study. The combinations of words which are fixed ( set-expressions ) are called phraseological units.

A free combination is a syntactical unit, which consists fanciful and form words, and in which fanciful words have the map of, independent parts of the sentence. In a phraseological unit words are non independent. They form set-expressions, in which neither words nor the order of words can be changed. Free combinations are created by the talker. Phraseological units are used by the talker in a ready signifier, without any alterations. The whole phraseological unit has a significance which may be rather different from the significance of its constituents, and hence the whole unit, and non separate words, has the map of a portion of the sentence.

Phraseological units consist of separate words and therefore they are different words, even from compounds. Word have several structural signifiers, but in phraseological units merely one of the constituents has all the signifiers of the paradigm of the portion of address it belongs to e.g. to travel to bed, goes to bed, went to bed, gone to bed, traveling to bed, etc. , the remainder of the constituents do non alter their signifier.

By the categorization of Academician V.Vinogradov phraseological units are devided into three groups: phraseological combinations, phraseological integrities and phraseological mergers.

Phraseological combinations are frequently called traditional because words are combined in their original significance but their combinations are different in different linguistic communications, e.g. hard currency and carry – ( self-service store ) , in a bigway ( in great grade ) etc. It is normally impossible to account logically for the combination of peculiar words. It can be explained merely on the footing of tradition, e.g. to present a lection ( but non to read a talk ) .

In phraseological combinations words retain their full semantic independency although they are limited in their combinatory power, e.g. to pay wax ( but non to take war ) , to render aid, to render services ( but non to render pleasance ) .

Phraseological combinations are the least idiomatic of all the sorts of phraseological units. In other words, in phraseological combinations the significance of the whole can be inferred from the significance of the constituents, e.g. to pull a decision, lo lend aid, to do money, to pay attending to.

In phraseological combinations one of the constituents ( by and large the constituent which is used fugiratively ) can be combined with different words, e.g. to speak athleticss, political relations, concern ( but to talk about life ) , leadingworker, taking article ( but the chief job ) , lifelessly enemy, lifelessly changeable ( but a mortal lesion ) , acute involvement, acute wonder, acute sence of temper ( but the great surprise ) .

Wordss of broad significance, as to do, to take, to make, to give, etc. Form many phraseological units, e.g. to take an scrutiny, to take a trip, to take a opportunity, to take involvement, to do merriment of, to do enquiries, to do a statement, to do friends, to do hastiness.

Sometimes traditional combinations are equivalent word of words, e.g. to do enquiries = to ask, to do haste=to haste.

Some traditional combinations are equivalents of prapositions, e.g. fry agencies of, in connexion with.

Some phraseological combinations have about become compounds, e.g. brown staff of life.

Traditional combinations frequently have synonymous looks, e.g. to do a report=to deliver a study.

Phraseological combinations are non equivalents of words. Though the constituents of phraseological combinations are limited in their combinatory power, that is, they can be combined merely with certain words and can non be combined with any other words, they preserve non merely their significance, but all their structural signifiers, e.g. nice differentiation is a phraseological combinations and it is possible to state nice differentiations, nicer differentiation, etc. , or to clinch one ‘s fist. ( clenched his fists, was clinching his fists, etc. ) .

In Prof. A. Smirnitskv ‘s sentiment traditional combinations are non phraseological units, as he considers merely those word combinations to be phraseological units which are equivalents of words.

In phraseological integrities the significance of the whole can be guessed from the significances of its constituents, but it is transferred ( metaphorical or metonymical ) , e.g. to play the first violin ( to be a leader in something ) , old salt ( experient crewman ) etc. The significance of the whole word combination is non the amount of the significances of its constituents, but it is based on them and the significance of the whole can be inferred from the image that underlies the 1whole look, e.g. to acquire on one ‘s nervousnesss, to cut smb short, to demo one ‘s dentition, to be at stickers drawn.

Phraseological integrities are frequently synonyms of words, e.g. to do a clean chest of=to confess; to acquire on one ‘s nerves=to irritate.

Phraseological integrities are equivalents of words as 1 ) merely one of constituents of a phraseological integrity has structural signifiers ‘ e.g. to play ( played, is playing, etc. ) the first violin ( but non played the first violins ); to turn ( turned, will turn, etc. ) a new foliage ( but non to turn newer foliage or new foliages ); 2 ) the whole integrity and non its constituents are parts of the sentence in syntactical analysis, e.g. in the sentence He took the bull by the horns ( attacked a job boldly ) there are merely two parts: he – the topic, and took the bull by the horns – the predicate.

In phraseological mergers the grade of motive is really low, we can non think the significance of the whole from the significances of its constituents, they are extremely idiomatic and can non be translated word for word into other linguistic communications, e.g.. to draw one ‘s leg ( to lead on ); at 6s and fantans ( in comfusion ); a female horse ‘s nest ( a find which turns out to be false or worthless ); to demo the white plume ( to demo cowardliness ); to sit the high Equus caballus ( to set on poses ) .