Сравнительный анализ метафоры и метонимии в узбекском и

Список использованной литературы
1.
Будагов Р.А. Метафора и сравнение в контексте художественного целого // Рус. речь. –
1973.
2.
Маҳмудов Н, Нурмонов А. Ўзбек тилининг назарий грамматикаси. – Т.: Ўқитувчи, 1995.
3.
Миртожиев М. Ўзбек тилида полисемия. – Т.: Фан., - 1975.
4.
Мукаррамов М. Ўзбек тилида ўхшатиш. – Т.: Фан., - 1976. 5. Мамажонов А., Маҳмудов
У. Услубий воситалар. – Фарғона, 1996.
Metaphor, for most people, is a device of the poetic imagination, and
rhetorical stroke is a matter of unusual rather than ordinary language. Moreover, metaphor
is usually seen as a characteristic of language alone, more a matter of words than of thought
or action. For this reason, most people think they can do just fine without metaphors. On the contrary, we find that metaphor is widespread in everyday
life not only in language, but also in thought and action. Our ordinary conceptual system,
within which we think and act is inherently metaphorical. The idea of using
metaphors, advanced by Lakoff G. and Johnson M., has inspired many linguists to delve again and
consciously to delve into the study of metaphor. For they were indeed right ,
when they asserted the aforementioned claim.A growing number of scholars and scholars
had the stereotypical view that only a limited range of people were capable of
to handle this kind of stylistic device. Johnson and Lakoff argue that
"the most important claim we have made so far is that metaphor
is not simply a matter of language, that is, of mere words. We argue that, on the contrary, human
thought processes are in many ways metaphorical. This is what we mean when we say
we say that the human conceptual system is metaphorically structured and defined.
Metaphors as linguistic expressions are possible precisely because metaphors are in
human conceptual system." Until recently, metaphor was mainly studied by
philosophers, rhetoricians, literary scholars, psychologists, and linguists, such as
Aristotle, Hume, Locke, Vico, Herder, Cassirer, Buehler, I. A. Richards, Whorf, Goodman, Max
Black, and others. to mention just a few of the thousands of people who have worked on
metaphor over the last two thousand years. Today, a growing number of cognitive scientists, including
including cognitive linguists, are engaged in research on metaphor. The reason is,
that metaphor plays a role in human thinking, understanding, and reasoning and, in addition
this, in the creation of our social, cultural, and psychological reality. Thus
Thus, trying to understand metaphor means trying to understand a vital part of
of who we are and the world we live in.
Metaphor has also been thoroughly studied by Uzbek linguists. Some
scholars have devoted their research to conveying a general meaning ("ko'chim"), while
Others have chosen one particular type of transfer of meaning, such as metaphor (sometimes
called "istiora"). If we turn to the Explanatory Dictionary of the Uzbek language, metaphor
is defined as follows: "the use of a word or phrase on the basis of similarity or
or the use of a word or word combination in this meaning, istiora, mayoz,
e.g., a tuner dutar (musical instrument) is figuratively called an 'ear'.
Since it can be observed that a metaphorical word or phrase in one language cannot
be commensurate with conveying the same meaning in another. We shall mention only a few names among the thousands of people who have worked on
metaphor over the last two thousand years. Today a growing number of cognitive scientists, including cognitive linguists
including cognitive linguists, are doing research on metaphor. The reason is,
that metaphor plays a role in human thinking, understanding, and reasoning and, in addition
this, in the creation of our social, cultural, and psychological reality. Thus
Thus, trying to understand metaphor means trying to understand a vital part of
of who we are and the world we live in.
Metaphor has also been thoroughly studied by Uzbek linguists. Some
including cognitive linguists, are doing research on metaphor. The reason is,
that metaphor plays a role in human thinking, understanding, and reasoning and, in addition
this, in the creation of our social, cultural, and psychological reality. Thus
Thus, trying to understand metaphor means trying to understand a vital part of
of who we a Wre and the world we live in.
Metaphor has ae shall mention only a few names among the thousands of people who have worked on
scholars have devoted their research to conveying a general meaning ("ko'chim"), while
Others
have chosen one particular type of transfer of meaning, such as metaphor (sometimes
called "istiora"). If we turn to the Explanatory Dictionary of the Uzbek language, metaphor
is defined as follows: "the use of a word or phrase on the basis of similarity or
or the use of a word or word combination in this meaning, istiora, mayoz,
e.g., a tuner dutar (musical instrument) is figuratively called an 'ear'.
Since it can be observed that a metaphorical word or phrase in one language cannot
be commensurate with conveying the same meaning in another. As in the example above,
we say the "ear" of a dutar, rubaba, and the like, whereas in English it
called a tuning stake, in turn, there is also a metaphor, as they call
a hook, usually something to hang on it, like a clothespin. As mentioned earlier,
many linguists have touched on the subject of transfer of meaning and defined it in more or less
in their own way. If we observe some of them, we may encounter reasonable
approaches. According to Gobuljonova G., the lexeme is the most important unit of language. It
serves to name objects existing in the world. It is not only limited to
naming, but also has such functions as the transmission of knowledge to generations (cumulative),
awareness (perceptual), impact on the hearer (expressive). It also
argues that it has the important role of comparison in cognition of the world. A new object or event is always
is compared with previous realized objects or events, which leads to
The latter are referred to by the names of the previous onesWe shall mention only a few names among the thousands of people who have worked on
metaphor over the last two thousand years. Today a growing number of cognitive scientists, including cognitive linguists
including cognitive linguists, are doing research on metaphor. The reason is,
that metaphor plays a role in human thinking, understanding, and reasoning and, in addition
this, in the creation of our social, cultural, and psychological reality. Thus
Thus, trying to understand metaphor means trying to understand a vital part of
of who we are and the world we live in.
Metaphor has also been thoroughly studied by Uzbek linguists. Some
including cognitive linguists, are doing research on metaphor. The reason is,
that metaphor plays a role in human thinking, understanding, and reasoning and, in addition
this, in the creation of our social, cultural, and psychological reality. Thus
Thus, trying to understand metaphor means trying to understand a vital part of
of who we a Wre and the world we live in.
Metaphor has ae shall mention only a few names among the thousands of people who have worked on
scholars have devoted their research to conveying a general meaning ("ko'chim"), while
Others
have chosen one particular type of transfer of meaning, such as metaphor (sometimes
called "istiora"). If we turn to the Explanatory Dictionary of the Uzbek language, metaphor
is defined as follows: "the use of a word or phrase on the basis of similarity or
or the use of a word or word combination in this meaning, istiora, mayoz,
e.g., a tuner dutar (musical instrument) is figuratively called an 'ear'.
Since it can be observed that a metaphorical word or phrase in one language cannot
be commensurate with conveying the same meaning in another. As in the example above,
we say the "ear" of a dutar, rubaba, and the like, whereas in English it
called a tuning stake, in turn, there is also a metaphor, as they call
a hook, usually something to hang on it, like a clothespin. As mentioned earlier,
many linguists have touched on the subject of transfer of meaning and defined it in more or less
in their own way. If we observe some of them, we may encounter reasonable
approaches. According to Gobuljonova G., the lexeme is the most important unit of language. It
serves to name objects existing in the world. It is not only limited to
naming, but also has such functions as the transmission of knowledge to generations (cumulative),
awareness (perceptual), impact on the hearer (expressive). It also
argues that it has the important role of comparison in cognition of the world. A new object or event is always
is compared with previous realized objects or events, which leads to
The latter are referred to by the names of the previous ones.She also acknowledges that metaphor was considered a literary device and attracted mainly
mainly by poets and literary scholars. She comments on the fact that since the 1970s it has been
actively studied, and she singles out the works of M. Mirtojiev Since approaches to the definition of
She puts forward her own version: "Metaphor is the transfer of the name of an object, its attribute, its meaning, its meaning, its function and the way it is expressed in the language of Uzbekistan.
transfer of the name of an object, attribute, action to the name of another object, attribute, action
respectively, on the basis of mutual similarity." She also distinguishes types of metaphor, viz.
simple and extended in formation, as well as literary and linguistic
metaphors. Gobulzhonova also emphasizes that in scientific research metaphor
is illustrated in two forms: linguistic and speech. Mirtozhiyev, according to the denotative similarity of
metaphors, divides them into three groups: 1) Simple metaphors; 2) Olivation (calling
inanimate object by the name of an animate object); 3) Synaesthesia (a perceptual phenomenon in
In which stimulation of one sensory or cognitive pathway leads to automatic,
involuntary experiences of a second sensory or cognitive pathway). He also
notes the vitality of multiplicity in shaping the transmission of meaning. Gobulzhonova, at the beginning of
of her study points to Aristotle's theory, (it is traditional because
Aristotle first put forward the original notion of metaphor as an epiphora): "the generic term
for metaphorical mobility preceding any objectification of figurative
meaning. " 4 . In line with this, she argues that metaphor is the juxtaposed or
translated word from gender to type, or from type to gender, or from type to type, not referring to
subject matter. As an example from sex to type, "My brother's boat is standing," in which "standing"
means figurative meaning; from type to gender "Thousands of great deeds Odysseus has done..."
"thousands" in the figurative meaning to "many"; from type to type "with copper you lose your soul..." and
"with copper you cut a drop of water..." the metaphorical words here are "cut" and
"to lose." Commenting on the flaw in this theory, she says that Aristotle defined
metaphor, but did not explain how this resemblance occurs. A.A. Potebnya defines metaphor
as "Metaphor is an abbreviated comparison": She was as beautiful and delicate as a flower.She
was a delicate and beautiful flower. Analyzing the theories and approaches of other linguists, she
notes that many scholars have included attributes of either synecdoche
or comparison, sometimes even metonymy. Thus, there is confusion about this
about it. She refers to this definition by Aristotle and says that many linguists
have referred to it and may have come to such conclusions as a result. Commenting
Rahmatullaev S., she emphasizes that metaphor has the possibility of being used with
other types of transfer of meaning, such as metaphor-functionality, metaphor-
metonymy, metaphor-synecdoche, etc. As an example, an airplane wing is presented,
which is compared not only by functionality, but also by similarity. Similar
information is presented in one of the other sources on the linguistics of the Uzbek language.
It is argued that the transfer of meaning of one object, feature, or action to others on the
based on external resemblance is called a metaphor. This resemblance is based on the relation
object to color, shape, action/state, attribute, place, and time. For example, the spout
of a kettle is compared to a human nose, the part of the sea going into the land is compared to
the armpit of a man. The metaphor is most often formed in comparison with the names
human body (head, face, nose, mouth, ear, tongue, foot); part of the fabric (apron, collar);
names of animal, bird, insect body parts (wing, tail). The word "otlannok" in the
in the past was used in the meaning "to go somewhere on a horse" (definitely, represented
on a horse), but nowadays it means "to go somewhere," let it be either on
horse, or on horseback. or on foot, or in a car. There is only an outward semblance of
action. The similarity between the subject and the event is as follows: Similarity of form: - odamning
kulog'i - kozonning kulog'i, - kush uchdi - odam uchdi; Similarity of position: - itnning dumi -
The content similarity: - tomdan yikilmok - - tomdan yikilmok - tomdan yikilmok - tomdan yikilmok.
the content similarity: - tomdan yikilmok, - sovuk havo - sovuk khabar, - kainok suv - kainok line, - achchik o't -
achchik sovuk, - tomdan tushmok - manzabdan tushmok, - odam o'tirdi - factory utirdi ,
accumulator o'tirdi. As can be seen from the above definitions and examples, metaphor in the
of the two languages is practically close. For example, "davlat boshi" in Uzbek, "head of state"
in English"; "achchik sovuk" in Uzbek, "bitter cold" in English; "qaynoq liniya" in
in Uzbek, "hotline" in English; "face of the building" in English,
"binoning yuzi" in Uzbek, "wing of an airplane" in English corresponds to "airplane
kanoti".In these examples, there is a semantic and verbal correspondence between Uzbek and
English. However, there are words that are a metaphor in one language and not in the
the second one is not. As an example, "chojnakning burni" is a metaphor in Uzbek, but it is not
a metaphor in English, because there is a word for it (spout), it will sound
awkward if you say "kettle nose"; "sovuk khabar" in Uzbek is a
a metaphor, but in English there is no cold news or cold information
(rather say bad news, terrible news, etc.); the metaphor "qozonning qulog'i" in
Uzbek cannot be a metaphor in English because it is called a pen,
not an ear. As can be seen from the above definitions and examples, metaphor in the two languages
are practically close. For example, "davlat boshi" in Uzbek, "head of state" in
English"; "achchik sovuk" in Uzbek, "bitter cold" in English; "qaynoq liniya" in
in Uzbek, "hotline" in English; "the face of the building" in English,
"binoning yuzi" in Uzbek, "wing of an airplane" in English corresponds to "airplane
kanoti". In these examples there is a semantic and verbal correspondence between Uzbek and
English languages. In conclusion, we tried to study metaphor, which is
one of the important techniques of poetic imagination and rhetorical stroke, a subject
of extraordinary rather than ordinary language. We will explore metaphor in depth
in the following studies in the future.