PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS AS A CRUCIAL ELEMENT OF LITERARY TEXT ("The Headless Horseman" by T.M. Reid)

Dekabr, 2025-Yil 62 PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS AS A CRUCIAL ELEMENT OF LITERARY TEXT (“The Headless Horseman” by T.M. Reid) Djalilova Nilufar Dilshodovna TUIT named after Muhammad al-Khwarezmi. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17840152 Phraseological units are linguistic universals and are present in all languages. The establishment of English as a mean of international communication exacerbates certain linguistic problems, the solutions to which, in turn, elicit varied reactions from both native speakers and learners of the language. The relevance of this research lies in the fact that our speech represents only a part of what is encompassed by the concept of "language," and the regulation of linguistic relationships is connected to background knowledge. "The inner form, the image underlying the meaning or usage of a word, can only be understood against the backdrop of the material and spiritual culture within which it originated." Phraseology is a branch of linguistics that studies stable word combinations in different languages [1]. As a linguistic discipline, it emerged relatively recently, and linguists have not yet reached a consensus on what phraseological units are, their origin and classification, and translation techniques. According to the Oxford Dictionary, PEs represent "phrase or sentence whose meaning is not obvious through knowledge of the individual meanings of the constituent words but must be learned as a whole." The concept of "phraseologism," long entrenched in linguistics and the subject of numerous serious studies, is interpreted differently by scholars. Some classify all stable word combinations as phraseologisms, while others limit the list of Russian phraseologisms to only certain groups. Some scholars consider proverbs, sayings, proverbs, catchphrases, and aphorisms to be part of the phraseological composition of the language (Shansky 1985:44; 1987; Kopylenko, Popova 1972:15; Vendina 2001; Mokienko 1989:232; Shulezhkova 2002; Kuznetsova 1998, etc.), while others exclude the latter from consideration within the framework of phraseology (Vinogradov 1996; Molotkov 1977; Alefirenko 1981; Amosova 1964, 1966; Lekant 2002; Dibrova 2006, etc.). Furthermore, various analytical figures of speech, compound terms, and the like are often included in the phraseological composition of the Russian language. In a certain sense, phraseological units are stable associations linked to the concept of the phenomena they designate. The classification of certain meanings as "figurative" in lexicographic descriptions indicates that they are perceived in connection with other meanings, i.e., are derivationally connected. V.N. Telia qualifies this type of derivational relationship as motivated: "Phraseologisms carry the symbolic function of a naive, everyday worldview. They reflect the experience of the people, which they reproduce, serving as quasi-stereotypes and quasi-standards of popular understanding. From the standpoint of pragmatic load, phraseological units are characterized as the most vivid and active lexical and grammatical periphery of language, demonstrating the principles of linguistic economy" (Telia 1996:152). A.V. Kunin considers that “a phraseological unit is a stable combination of words with a completely or partially reinterpreted meaning” (Kunin 1970:210). According to Kunin the main indicators of phraseological stability are: Dekabr, 2025-Yil 63 • stability of use – this indicates that a phraseological unit is a linguistic unit, a public property in a given language community, and not an individual expression used by a particular author. The use of a phraseological unit is not quotational and is always associated with phraseological abstraction; • semantic complexity, which manifests itself differently in phraseological units of different classes. Various types of semantic complexity include: complete or partial reinterpretation of meaning, non-figurative transformations of meaning, the presence of archaic elements in phraseological units, and others; • separateness of form, which implies a structural feature of syntactic unity, consisting in the fact that its constituent units are separate words, i.e., grammatically formed components. The typologies of phraseological units in Russian linguistics were initiated by the work of Academician V.V. Vinogradov, thanks to whom phraseological units received a specific and wellfounded definition as lexical units with a special semantic uniqueness (Vinogradov 1996). V.V. Vinogradov distinguished three types of phraseological units: 1) phraseological fusions, or idioms – unmotivated units that act as equivalents of words; 2) phraseological unities – motivated units with a single, integral meaning, arising from the fusion of the meanings of lexical components; 3) phraseological combinations – turns of phrase in which one of the components has a phraseologically related meaning, manifested only in connection with a strictly defined range of concepts and their verbal designations. According to V.M. Mokienko, a phraseological unit is a combination of words that possesses relative stability, reproducibility in ready-made form, expressiveness, and integral meaning (Mokienko 1987: 5). This opinion is also shared by V.V. Vinogradov (1996), B.A. Larin (1996), S.I. Ozhegov (1974), and A.M. Babkin (1970). The phraseological resources of a language are extremely broad and diverse. Phraseologisms can arise from figurative representations of reality, reflecting the everyday or cultural-historical experience of a particular language community: typical situations or historical events that are still alive in the consciousness of native speakers, or have already been forgotten in detail. Phraseological units can represent remnants of folklore, religious, mythological, or literary texts that take the form of a "compressed" plot with a clear moral (cf., for example, the myth of Achilles and the idiom "Achilles' heel", proverbs and sayings - “Still waters run deep, idioms – “blow one’s top”, phraseological combinations – “give up”, “by heart”). Fundamentally different, often contradictory, tendencies unfold in the phraseological composition of language, caused by profound differences in phraseological units both in semantics and in their functional-syntactic and stylistic meaning. Thus, while some phraseological units used for predication are characterized by a combination of conceptual content and concrete representation, i.e., a tendency to preserve a vibrant internal form that conveys information about the denotate, whose properties form the basis of meaning, in phraseological units used in an identifying position, internal form is erased and plays no role, becoming an obstacle to direct reference to the designated entity. The structure of a phraseological unit depends on which part of speech serves as its core element. Dekabr, 2025-Yil 64 Accordingly, verbal, substantive, adjectival, adverbial, and pronominal phraseological units are distinguished. All of these can be represented as structural schematic models. Models are examples of a linguistic unit. The task of a literary translator is to help readers to understand the work's meaning, but also to convey the writer's unique, inimitable style and reveal the specific character of their work. Therefore, the translator's perception and assimilation of the work as a whole, as well as conveying these meanings to the reader through the lens of their own vision, are crucial. References 1. Арсентьева Е.Ф. Сопоставительный анализ фразеологических единиц: (На материале фразеологических единиц. Семантическая справка. О человеке в английском и русском языках) / Е.Ф. Арсентьева. Казань: Изд-во Казанского университета, 1989, – 126 с. 2. Кунин A.В. Курс фрaзеoлoгии сoвременнoгo aнглийскoгo языкa / A.В.Кунин. – М.: Высшaя шкoлa, 1986. – 336 с. 3. Кунин A.В. Курс фрaзеoлoгии сoвременнoгo aнглийскoгo языкa: Учеб. для ин-тoв и фaк. инoстр. яз. – 2-е изд., перерaб. – М.: Высш. шк., Дубнa, Изд. центр Феникс, 1996. – С.5 4. Тер-Минасова Л.Г. Язык и межкультурная коммуникация / Л.Г. Тер-Минасова. М., 2000. – 480 с. 5. Федоров А. В. Основы общей теории перевода (лингвистические проблемы) / А. В. Федоров. М.: Высшая школа, 1983, – 303 с.