Berdakh karakalpak state university faculty of foreign languages and literature department

1.2 Semantic analysis of phraseological units
Semantics is a brunch of linguistics that studies the meaning of language units. Semantic analysis is used as a study tool. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, semantics was often also called semasiology.
Semantics is an activity that is to clarify the meaning of human statements. Its purpose is to reveal the structure of thought hidden behind the external form of language. The main focus of modern semantics is the semantic representation: instead of talking about meanings (and changes in meanings), it seeks to model them and present them in the form of explicit formulas. Currently, it is widely believed that the basis of semantics should be the modeling of meanings, so that for natural language to be suitable as a semantic metalanguage, it must be appropriately “ordered”. Semantic analysis is inevitably associated with simplification. The essence of the problem is to select the smallest possible part of the natural language and, in particular, to determine the minimum list of words and expressions that would be sufficient to represent the meanings of all other words and their relationship. The first modern linguist, to focus on finding the elementary semantic units, was, apparently,
Edward Sapir (1921),who wrote in the early 30-ies a series of works devoted to logical relations in the language: “Universality”, “Expression of endpoint relations in English, French and German” (together with Morris Swadesh) and “Degrees. Essays on Linguistics”. Meanwhile, in the forties and fifties, due to the research of scientists such as Louis Hjelmslev and Holger Sorensen, a deeper and more distinct understanding of the purely theoretical aspects of the search for elementary meanings was achieved. Hjelmslev proposed distinguishing elementary components, which he called “figures”, at two levels –content and expression. Sorensen advanced Hjelmslev’s analysis one more
step further, replacing the somewhat vague concept of “figures” with the concept of undetectable signs. In 1963, Katz and Fodor made an attempt to introduce the component analysis into the generative grammar, a very important consequence of
this attempt was that the ranks of previously quite a few researchers interested in component semantic analysis were replenished due to the influx of a large number of generativists. It fell to Manfred Вiеrwisсhto make the first concrete semantic analysis, carried out in the framework of the corresponding practical ideas. Among modern researches in the field of component semantic analysis, a special place is occupied by the works of Yu. Apresyan. He considers semantic analysis as a kind of translation from a natural language into a “semantic” language, the “words” of which are what he calls “elementary meanings”. A fundamental and carefully developed research plan was the first to be proposed by Andrei Boguslavsky in 1965-1966. In accordance with the central position of Boguslavsky’s program, involuntary and universal elementary units of content should be sought among elements of the most complete semantic interpretations of expressions, in other words, in their indefinable components. These indefinable elements, obtained through the full interpretation of expressions, according to Boguslavsky, should represent those “ultimate components of the world” that have long been the subject of philosophers' searches (Vezhbitskaya, 1999). Componential analysis is one of the ways of formalizing or giving absolute accuracy to semantic relationships between tokens. As the name of the method shows, it consists in decomposing the meaning of the token into its component parts (components). An alternative term for componential analysis is lexical decomposition (Cowie, 1998). The semantic relations can be of two types: substitutional and combinatorial (or, in more familiar to linguists, Saussure’s terms, –paradigmatic and syntagmatic). Substitutional relationships are relationships that exist between interchangeable members of the same grammatical category; combinatorial relations usually exist, although not necessarily, between expressions of different grammatical categories (for example, nouns and adjectives, between verbs and adverbs, etc.), which can be combined into grammatically correctly constructed combinations (or constructions). For example, a substitutional
relationship (of a specific kind) exists between the nouns “bachelor” and “spinster”, while a relationship existing between the adjective “unmarried” and nouns “man” and “woman”, is combinatorial. Many words can be described semantically only as part of expressions, large in volume, phrases or sentences. Such an expression is called a sentimental or situational form. The description of the meaning of words in sentimental forms creates the necessary bridge through which we move from the field of lexical semantics to the field of sentence semantics. The meaning of the word should be presented in the form of a structure consisting of elements of meaning and syntactic relations connecting them.
In addition, Alisher Navoiy combined literary works with politics. Being a high-ranking official, he made a great contribution to the socio-economic improvement of the life of the country; sponsored the development of science, science, and art
always strived for peace and harmony. Alisher Navoiy's work has been thoroughly studied. In the article we want to talk about the skill of our ancestor Navoiy, the sultan of the word property, in the use of phraseology. Navoiy's poetry paid special attention to the semantic analysis of phraseology in "Devoni Foniy", its purposeful use both in the speech of semantic characters and in the speech of the author-narrator. Therefore, in this play we do not encounter any inappropriately used, excessive phraseology. Over the next half century, Uzbek linguistics has developed a structural grammatical structure of phraseology, Significant achievements have been made in the field of semantic-methodological and functional-pragmatic, comparative-typological studies, a number of new monographs, pamphlets, textbooks, created scientific articles, phraseological dictionaries, several PhD and
doctoral dissertations were defended. A.Khojiev divides phraseologies into own and mastered layers and interprets them as follows: Just like in lexicon, phraseology has its own and mastered layer. The main part of phraseology consists of phraseologisms belonging to its own layer; the absorbing layer is a small amount. But, firstly, the acquisition of phraseology is much less than the
acquisition of words, and secondly, the acquisition of phraseology from another language is not exactly the same, but mainly assimilated. For example: The phraseology of the brick moved from the mold to the Tajik language хишт аз қолиб бархестан phraseology is a masterpiece. There are so many phraseologies with the same meaning in Tajik and Uzbek languages that it is difficult to say exactly which language they are derived from: how the wind blew – кадом шамол парронд, let the head be of stone – сараш аз санг шавад, orate – гап фурӯхтан and others. In literary language, the principles of saving units, using their short forms are common. Any national language is constantly enriched and developed not only on the basis of its own internal capabilities, but also under the influence of other languages. Such progress can also be observed in the process of mastering the phrase. For any true poet, writer, phraseology is manifested not only as a means
of expression, of expression of experiences, but also as a way of life, a way of life. Like any phrase, phraseology acquires a certain meaning according to the ideological and aesthetic purpose of the work of art reveals its new facets of meaning through the content at the base. We have tried to elucidate this idea mainly on the basis of examples taken from Navoiy's poetry.
Speaking about different ways of forming phraseological meaning, E.V. Kuznetsova identifies three factors underlying these methods (Kuznetsova 1989,199). We will not well on the first two, since they are associated with the formation of both separate words and stable reproducible turns of a nominative character, with a dismembered meaning (phraseological combinations and expressions). The third, most powerful factor in education is the factor of metaphorization. There is a wide and narrow understanding of metaphor. This is
how N.D. Arutyunova: “Metaphor (from the Greek metaphora - transfer) is a trope or mechanism of speech, consisting in the use of a word denoting a certain class of objects, phenomena, etc. to characterize or name an object belonging to another class, or the name of another class of objects, similar to this in any respect. In a broad sense, the term "metaphor" is applied to any kind of use of words in an
indirect sense. "A metaphor in the narrow sense is defined as a transfer of a name based on similarity (Kalinin 1978, 25). Examples of phraseological metaphors: milk on the lips has not dried up - someone is still very young and inexperienced; lying on your side - messing around; sit back - do nothing, do nothing; expose a leg to someone - deliberately harm. At the same time, there are phraseological units, the figurative meaning of which is formed on the basis of contiguity (metonymy; Kalinin 1978, 30) or the relationship of a part and a whole (synecdoche; Kalinin 1978, 34). For example: shave your forehead - take a soldier; a strong hand is an influential patron; the right hand is the first assistant, the main confidant; tongue without bones someone is very talkative. It should also be noted the difference between metaphor and metonymy in the syntagmatic aspect.
“Metonymy gravitates towards the position of the subject and other reference members of the sentence,” writes N.D. Arutyunov. - It cannot be used in a predicate. Metaphor, on the other hand, in its primary function is strongly associated with the position of the predicate. This distribution follows from the nature of each trail” (Arutyunova 1990, 31).