Semantic features of English proverbs

CONTENT
Introduction
I. Chapter one. Proverbs in Englishlanguage
1.1 Phraseologyas a subsystem of language
1.2 Phraseologicalunits and their types
1.3 Proverbsas a phraseological unit
II.  Chaptertwo. Semantic characteristics of proverbs
2.1 Classification of proverbs
2.2 Types of proverbs on meanings motivation
2.3Proverbs as the way expressing people’s wisdom andspirit and literary works
Conclusion
The list of the used literature

INTRODUCTION
In folklore among all thevariety and richness of its poetical significance and form it is difficult tofind more interesting and researchable genre than proverbs and sayings. It wasthe subject of deep study of scientists in most different ideological branches.Most of the scientists agreed that the pro verbs are folklore speech. Where wasnot only the person’s point of view but also general people’s outlook isexpressed. Proverbs and sayings play important role in language. They giveemotionality, expressiveness to the speech. They have certain pure linguisticfeatures that must always be taken into account in order to distinguish themfrom ordinary sentences. Proverbs are brief statements showing uncondensed formof the accumulated life experience of the community and serving as conventionalpractical symbols for abstract ideas. They are usually didactic and imagebearing. Many of them become very polished and there is no extra word inproverbs and sayings. Summarizing above mentioned information the following definitioncan be given to a proverb: It is a short, meaningful has the rhythmicorganization in poetic style — that people had created for centuries in theirsocial and historical life.
The actuality of the study of the proverbs in Uzbek, English is thatthe usage of proverbs in speech is very important. The correct usage of theseproverbs is also important, while translating any other work of art we shouldpay close attention to this point, and that is the reason of the study of thetheme we have taken under discussion. So express any idea or plot of the workin translation as in original demands a person’s high skill and deep knowledge.Translator ought to know the rules of translation, furthermore the history,slang, life, customs and traditions of the people whose language he / shetranslating into.
The novelty of this qualification paper is that the analysis of theproblem of the folk proverbs have been taken under discussion in related andnon related languages. Modem and classic writers’ works have been used incollecting the examples. The qualification paper also includes the Shakespeareansand other proverbs used by English poets. The aim of the qualification paper isto study the proverbs and to distinguish the cultural features in everylanguage that was taken under discussion. This qualification paper mainly discussesthe Uzbek proverbs and their translation into foreign languages.
The aim of the qualification paperis:
2.2.1.1.1.1 togive the definition of the phraseological units;
2.2.1.1.1.2 to classifyproverbs and sayings ;
2.2.1.1.2 to showthe difference of proverbs and sayings;
Thefollowing task has been solved in thisqualification paper:
1. Todeal with the history of the proverbs and analyze them. To show theircomponents or equivalents if they exist in compared languages, and the ways oftheir translation.
2. Topoint out the difference between proverbs and sayings.
3. Toresearch the structural type of English proverbs, to differ in the groups oftypes of proverbs according to their equivalents and synonymic row.
The practical value of this paper is that,practical result and all the given examples can be used in practical lessons, writingcompositions in colloquial and written speech. This qualification paper alsocan be useful to other students who are’ interested in this field as in thisqualification paper there is given the table of the most often used proverbs inEnglish.
The theoretical value of the qualificationpaper is to investigate the structural types of proverbs and sayings inEnglish, to give their equivalents in related and related languages, to analyzeand differentiate proverbs and sayings in investigated languages.
The structure of this qualificationpaper is as follows: introduction, main part, conclusion, the list of usedliterature.
Introduction, main part, conclusion and the list of usedliterature.
The introduction is the brief plot of the qualification papertheme, and also it gives us information about the structure of thequalification paper.
The main part consists of two chapters
Chapter one has three paragraphs: phraseologyas a subsystem of language, a short information about phraseological units, theproverbs and sayings and their definitions.
Chaptertwo includes three paragraphs which deal with theproblems of the study of the history of the origin of proverbs and sayings, scientistswho worked on proverbs and sayings, the semantic classes of proverbs andsayings.
Conclusiondeals with the theoretical and practical result of the work.
Thelist of used literature directs us to the list of literatures that have beenused in carrying out the work.
Thesources of the qualificationpaper.While investigating the diploma work we have widely used the followingliterature: ‘Фразеологияанглийскогоязыка’by V.A. Koonin, textbooks on lexicology, onstylistics, scientific literature on • phraseologyand phraseological units, books on origin and translation of proverbs andsayings in English, A universal proverb definition. Scholars around the worldcontinue to find their own so-called «working definitions,» of whichsome of the most recent attempts in the English language are those by ShirleyArora, Nigel Barley, Otto Blehr, Margaret Bryant, David Cram, Alan Dundes,Galit Hasan-Rokem, George Milner, Peter Seitel,Jan Fredrik Kindstrand «The Greek Concept ofProverbs,» Bartlett Jere Whiting, «The Nature of the Proverb.» 1932,V.I. Dal “dictionary of vivid Russian language”,V.L Dai «the proverbs of Russian nation»,Benjamin Franklin ‘Poor Richard’s Almanac’, TheAdvanced Learner’s Dictionary by A. Hornby, E. Gatenby, H. Wake-field; TheUniversal English Dictionary by H. Wild and ЛGeneral Service List of English Words with SemanticFrequencies by M, West, English idioms in: LoganSmith. Words and Idioms. London,
Word-Groupsand Phraseological Units’ and a lot other work of scientists. We have also hadinformation on internet sites.

CHAPTER I. PROVERBS IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE
1.1PHRASEOLOGY AS A SUBSYSTEM OF LANGUAGE
Byphraseology I mean the branch of linguistics dealing with stable word-combinations characterized by certain transference of meaning.
Despitedifferences of opinion, most authors agree upon some points concerning thedistinctive features of phraseological units, such as:
1.  Integrity(or transference) of meaning means that none of the idiom components isseparately associated with any referents of objective reality, and the meaningof the whole unit cannot be deduced from the meanings of its components;
2.  Stability(lexical and grammatical) means that no lexical substitution is possible in anidiom in comparison with free or variable word-combinations (with an exceptionof some cases when such substitutions are made by the author intentionally).The experiments conducted in the 1990s showedthat, themeaning of an idiom is not exactly identical to its literal paraphrase given inthe dictionary entry. That is why we may speak about lexical flexibility ofmany units if they are used in a creative manner. Lexical stability is usuallyaccompanied by grammatical stability which prohibits any grammatical changes;
3.  Separabilitymeans that the structure of an idiom is not something indivisible, certainmodifications are possible within certain boundaries. Here we meet with theso-called lexical and grammatical variants. To illustrate this point I shallgive some examples: «as hungry as a wolf (as a hunter)», «assafe as a house(houses)» in English, «как(будто,словно,точно)вводуопушенный»,«оседлатьсвоего(любимого)конька»,«раскидыватьумом(мозгами)Раскинуть(пораскинуть)умом(мозгами)»in Russian.
4.  Expressivityand emotiveness means that idioms are also characterized by stylisticcolouring. In other words, they evoke emotions or add expressiveness.
Onthe whole phraseological units, even if they present a certain pattern, do notgenerate new phrases. They are unique.
Interlanguagecomparison, the aim of which is the exposure of phraseological conformities,forms the basis of a number of theoretical and applied trends of modernlinguistic research, including the theory and practice of phraseography. Butthe question of determining the factors of interlanguage phraseologicalconformities as the main concept and the criterion of choosing phraseologicalequivalents and analogues as the aspect concepts is still at issue.
Theanalysis of special literature during the last decades shows that the majorityof linguists consider the coincidence of semantic structure, grammatical (orsyntactical) organization and componential (lexeme) structure the main criteriain defining the types of interlanguage phraseological conformities/disparitieswith the undoubted primacy of semantic structure.
Comparingthe three approaches discussed above (semantic, functional, and contextual) wehave ample ground to conclude that have very much in common as,the main criteria of phraseological units appear tobe essentially the same, i.e. stability and idiomaticity or lack of motivation.It should be noted however that these criteria as elaborated in the threeapproaches are sufficient mainly to single out extreme cases: highly idiomaticnon-variable and free (or variable) word- groups.
Thusred tape, mare’s nest, etc. According to the semantic approach belong tophraseology and are described as fusions as they are completely non-motivated.According to the functional approach they are also regarded as phraseologicalunits because of their grammatical (syntactic) inseparability and because theyfunction, in speech as word-equivalents. According to the contextual approachred tape, mare’s nest, etc. make up a group of phraseological units referred toas idioms because of the impossibility of any change m the ‘fixed context’ andtheir semantic inseparability.
Thestatus of the bulk of word-groups however cannot be decided with certainty withthe help of these criteria because as a rule we have to deal not with соmp1eteidiomaticity and stability but with a certain degree of these distinguishingfeatures of phraseological units. No objective criteria of the degree ofidiomaticity and stability have as yet been suggested. Thus, e.g., to win avictory according to the semantic approach is a phraseological combination becauseit is almost completely motivated and allows of certain variability to win, togain, a victory. According to the functional approach it is not aphraseological unit as the degree of semantic and grammatical inseparability isinsufficient for the word-group to function as a word-equivalent. Small hoursaccording to the contextual approach it is literal meaning. If however weclassify it proceeding from the functional approach is a word-groups which arepartially motivated is decided differently depending on which of the criteriaof phraseological units is applied.
Thereis still another approach to the problem of phraseology in which an attempt ismade to overcome the shortcoming of the phraseological theories discussedabove. The main features of this new approach which is now more or lessuniversally accepted by Soviet linguists are as follows:1
1. Phraseology is regarded as aself-contained branch of linguistics and, not as a part of lexicology.
2. Phraseology deals with a phraseologicalsubsystem of language and not with isolated phraseological units.
3.Phraseology is concerned with all types of setexpressions.
4.Set expressions are divided into three classes:phraseological units (e.g. red tape, mare’s nest, etc.), phraseomatic units(e.g. win a victory, launch a campaign, etc.) and borderline cases belonging tothe mixed class. The main distinction between the first and the second classesis semantic: phraseological units have fully or partially transferred meaningswhile components of, phraseomatic units are used in their literal meanings.
5. Phraseological and phraseomatic unitsare not regarded as word- equivalents but some of them are treated as wordcorrelates.
6. Phraseological and phraseomatic unitsare set expressions and their phraseological stability distinguishes them fromfree phrases and compound words.
7. Phraseological and phraseomatic unitsare made up of words of different degree of wordness depending on the type ofset expressions they are used in. (cf. e.g. small hours and red tape). Theirstructural separateness, an important factor of their stability, distinguishesthem from compound words (cf. E.g. blackbird and black market).
Otheraspects of their stability are: stability of use, lexical stability andsemantic stability.
8. Stability of use means that setexpressions are reproduced ready-made and not created in speech. They are notelements of individual style of speech but language units.
9. Lexical stability means that thecomponents of set expressions are either irreplaceable (e.g. red tape, mare’snest) or party replaceable within the bounds of phraseological or phraseomaticvariance: lexical (e.g. a skeleton in the cupboard – a skeleton in the closet).grammatical(e.g. to be in deep water – to be in deep waters), positional (e.g. head overears – over head and ears), quantitative(e.g. to lead smb a dance- to lead smb a prettydance), mixed variants (e.g. raise (stir up) a hornets’ nest about one’s ears-arouse (stir up) the nest of hornets).
10. Semantic stability is based on thelexical stability of set expressions. Even when occasional changes areintroduced the meaning of set expression is preserved. It may only bespecified, made more precise, weakened or strengthened. In other words in spiteof all occasional phraseological and phraseomatic units, as distinguished fromfree phrases, remain semantically invariant or are destroyed. For example, thesubstitution of the verbal component in the free phrase to raise a question bythe verb to settle (to settle a question) changes the meaning of the phrase, nosuch change occurs in to raise (stir up) a hornets’ nest about one’s ears.
11. An integral part of this approach is amethod of phraseological identification which helps to single out setexpressions in Modern English.
Thediachronic aspect of phraseology has scarcely been investigated. Just a fewpoints of interest may be briefly reviewed in connection with the origin ofphraseology has scarcely been investigated. Just a few points of interest maybe briefly reviewed inconnection with the origin of phraseological units and the ways they appear inlanguage. It is assumed that almost all phrases can be traced back to freeword-groups which in the course of the historical development of the Englishlanguage have acquired semantic and grammatical process of grammaticalizationor lexicalization.
Casesof grammaticalization may be illustrated by the transformation of freeword-groups composed of the verb have, a noun (pronoun) and Participle II ofsome other verb (e.g. hз hїfde hine) intothe grammatical form- the Present Perfect in Modern English. The degree ofsemantic and grammatical inseparability in this analytical word-form is so highthat the component has seems to possess no lexical meaning of its own.
Theterm lexicalization implies that the word-group under discussion develops intoa word-equivalent, i.e. a phraseological unit or a compound word. These twoparallel lines of lexicalization of free word-groups can be illustrated by thediachronic analysis of, e.g., the compound word instead and the phraseologicalunit in spite (of). Both of them can be traced back to structurally1identical free phrases.[1] (cf. OE.In spede and ME. In despit.)
Thereare some grounds to supposethat there exists a kind of interdependence between these two ways of lexicalizationof free word-groups which makes them mutually exclusive. It is observed, forexample, that compounds are more abundant in certain parts of speech, whereasphraseological units are numerically predominant in others. Thus, e.g.,phraseological units are found in great numbers as verb-equivalents whereascompound verbs are comparatively few. This leads us to assume thatlexicalization of free word-groups and their transformation into words orphraseological units is governed by the fewer phraseological units we arelikely to encounter in this class of words.
Verylittle is known of the factors active in the process of lexicalization of freeword-groups which results in the appearance of phraseological units. Thisproblem may be viewed in terms of the degree of motivation. We may safelyassume that a free word-group is transformed into a phraseological unit when itacquires semantic inseparability and becomes synchronically non-motivated.
Thefollowing may be perceived as the main causes accounting for the less’ ofmotivation of free word-groups:
a)  Whenone of the components of a word-group becomes archaic or drops out of thelanguage altogether the whole word-group may become completely or partiallynon-motivated. For example, lack of motivation in the word-group kith and kinmay be accounted for by the fact that the member-word kith dropped out of thelanguage altogether except as the component of the phraseological unit underdiscussion. This is also observed in the phraseological unit under discussion.
b)  Whenas a result of a change in the semantic structure of a polysemantic word someof its meanings disappear and can be found only in certain collocations. Thenoun mind, e.g., once meant ‘purpose’ or ‘intention’ and this meaning survivesin the phrases to have a mind to do smth., to change one’s mind, etc.
c)  Whena free word-group used in professional speech penetrates into general literaryusage, it is often felt as non-motivated. To pull (the) strings (wires), e.g.,was originally used as a free word-group in its direct meaning by professionalactors in puppet shows. In Modern English, however, it has lost all connectionwith puppet-shows and therefore cannot also be observed in the’ phraseologicalunit to stick to one’s guns, which can be traced back to military English, etc.
Sometimesextra-linguistic factors may account for the loss of motivation, toshow the white feather- ‘to act as a coward’, e.g., can be traced back to the days when cock-fightingwas popular. A white feather in a gamecock’s plumage denoted bad breeding andwas regarded as a sign of cowardice. Now that cock-fighting is no longer apopular sport, the phrase is felt as non-motivated.[2]
d)When a word-group making up part of a proverb or saying begins to be used aself-contained unit it may gradually become non-motivated if its connection withthe corresponding proverb or saying is not clearly perceived. A new broom,e.g., originates as a component of the saying new brooms sweep clean. New broomas a phraseological unit may be viewed as non-motivatedbecause the meaning of the whole is not deduciblefrom the meaning of the components. Moreover, it seems grammatically andfunctionally self-contained and inseparable too. In the saying quoted above thenoun broom is always used im the plural; as a member-word of the phraseologicalunit it mostly used in the singular. The phraseological unit a new broom ischaracterized by functional inseparability. In the saying new brooms sweepclean the adjective new functions as an attribute to the noun brooms, in the phraseologicalunit a new broom (e.g. Well he is a new broom!) the whole word-group isfunctionally inseparable.
e)When part of a quotation from literary sources, mythology or theBible begin to be used as a self-contained unit, itmay also lose all connection with the original context and as a result of thisbecome non-motivated. The phraseological unit the green-eyed monster (jealousy)can be easily found as a part of the quotation from Shakespeare «It is thegreen-eyed monster which doth mock the meat it feeds on» (Othello, II, i. 165).In Modern English, however, it functions as a non-motivatedself-contained phraseological unit and is also used to denote the T.V. set.Achilles heel — ‘the weak spot in a man’s circumstances or character’ can betraced back to mythology, but it seems that in Modern English this word-groupfunctions as a phraseological unit largely because most English speakers do notconnect it with the myth from which it was extracted.
1.The final criterion in the semantic approach is idiomaticity whereas in thefunctional approach syntactic inseparability is viewed as the final test, andin the contextual approach it is stability of context combined withidiomaticity of word-groups.
2. The concept of idiomaticity is notstrictly defined. The judgement as to idiomaticity is passed sometimes withinthe framework of the English language and sometimes from the outside — from thepoint of view of the mother tongue of the investigator.
Itis suggested here that the term idiomaticity should be interpreted as anintralingual notion and also that the degree of idiomaticity should be takeninto consideration since between the extreme of complete motivation and lack ofmotivation there are numerous intermediate group.
3. Each of the three approaches has itsmerits and demerits. The traditional semantic approach points out the essentialfeatures of all kinds of idiomatic phrases as opposed to completely motivatedfree word-groups. The functional approach puts forward an objective criterionfor singling out a small group of word-equivalents possessing all the basicfeatures of words as lexical items. The contextual approach makes the criterionof stability more exact.
4. All the three approaches are sufficientto single out the extreme cases: highly idiomatic phraseological units and freeword-groups. The status of the bulk of word-groups possessing different degreesof idiomaticity cannot be decided with certainty by applying the criteriaavailable in linguistic science.
5. The distinguishing feature of the newapproach is that phraseology is regarded as a self-contained branch oflinguistics and not as a part of lexicology. According to this approachphraseology deals with all types of set expressions which are divided intothree classes: phraseological units, phraseomatic units and border-line cases.
1.2PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS AND THEIR TYPES
Ithas been repeatedly pointed out that word-groups viewed as functionally andsemantically inseparable units are traditionally regarded as the subject matterof phraseology. It should be noted, however, that no proper scientificinvestigation of English phraseology has been attempted until quite recently.English and American linguists as a rule confine themselves to collectingvarious words, word- groups and sentences presenting some interest either fromthe point of view of origin, style, usage, or some other feature peculiar tothem. These units are habitually described as idioms but no attempt has beenmade to investigate these idioms as a separate class of linguistic units or aspecific class of word-groups.
Thevocabulary of a language is enriched not only by words but also byphraseological units. Phraseological units are word-groups that cannot be’ madein the process of speech, they exist in the language as ready-made units. Theyare compiled in special dictionaries. The same as words phraseological unitsexpress a single notion and are used in a sentence as one part of it. Americanand British lexicographers call such units «idioms». We can mention suchdictionaries as: L.Smith «Words and Idioms»[3],V.Collins «АBook of English Idioms»[4] etc.  In these dictionaries we can findwords, peculiar in their semantics (idiomatic), side by side with word-groupsand sentences. In these dictionaries they are arranged, as a rule, intodifferent semantic groups. Phraseological units can be classified according tothe ways they are formed, according to the degree of the motivation of theirmeaning, according to their structure and according to their part-of-speechmeaning.
A.V.Koonin classified phraseological units according to the way they are formed. Hepointed out primary and secondary ways of forming phraseological units.
Primaryways of forming phraseological units are those when a unit is formed on thebasis of a free word-group:
a)The most productive in Modem English is the formation of phraseological unitsby means of transferring the meaning of terminological word-groups, e.g. incosmic technique we ran point out the following phrases: «launching pad» in itsterminological meaning is «стартоваплощадка»,in its transferred meaning — «вiдправнийпункт»,«to link up» — «стикуватися,стикуватикосмiчнiчовни»in its tranformed meaning it means — «знайомитися»;
b) a large group of phraseological unitswas formed from free word groups by transforming their meaning, e.g. «grannyfarm» — «пансионатдлястарыхлюдей»,«Troyan horse» — «компьютернаяпрограма,яканавмиснестворенадляприведениязладукомпьютера»;
c) phraseological units can be formed bymeans of alliteration, e.g.«a sad sack» — «нещаснийвипадок»,«culture vulture» — «людина,якацiкавитьсямистецтвом»,«fudge and nudge» — «ухильнiсть».
d) they can be formed by means ofexpressiveness, especially it is characteristic for forming interjections, e.g.«My aunt!», « Hear,hear !» etc
e) they can be formed by means ofdistorting a word group, e.g. «odds and ends» was formed from «odd ends»,
f) they can be formed by using archaisms,e.g. «in brown study» means «in gloomy meditation» where both componentspreserve their archaic meanings,
g) they can be formed by using a sentencein a different sphere of life, e.g. «that cock won’t fight» can be used as afree word-group when it is used in sports (cock fighting),it becomes a phraseological unit when it is used ineveryday life, because it is used metaphorically,
h) they can be formed when we use someunreal image, e.g. «to have butterflies in the stomach» — «вiчуватихвилювання»,«to have greenfingers» — «досягатиycnixiвяксадовод-любитель»etc.
i) they can be formed by using expressionsof writers or polititions in everyday life, e.g. «corridors of power» (Snow),«American dream» (Alby) «locust years» (Churchil),«the winds of change» (Mc Millan).
Secondaryways of forming phraseological units are those when a phraseological unit isformed on the basis of another phraseological unit; they are:
a)conversion, e.g. «to vote with one’s feet» was converted into «vote with one’sfeet»;
b) changing the grammar form, e.g. «Makehay while the sun shines» is transferred into a verbal phrase — «to make hay while the sun shines»;
c) analogy, e.g. «Curiosity killed the cat»was transferred into «Care killed the cat»;
d) contrast, e.g. «cold surgery» — «a planned before operation» was formed bycontrasting it with «acute surgery», «.thin cat» — «a poor person» was formed by contrasting it with«fat cat»;
e) shortening of proverbs or sayings e.g.from the proverb «You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear» by means ofclipping the middle of it the phraseological unit «to make a sow’s ear» wasformed with the meaning «помилятись».
f) borrowing phraseological units fromother languages, either as translation loans, e.g. «living space» (German), «to take the bull by the horns» (Latin) or by meansof phonetic borrowings «meche blanche» (French), «corpse d’elite» (French),«sotto voce» (Italian) etc.
Phoneticborrowings among phraseological units refer to the bookish style and are notused very often.
Thereare different combinations of words. Some of them are free, e.g. to read books(news papers, a letter, etc.) others are fixed, limited in their combinativepower, e.g. to go to bed,, to make a report. The combinations of words whichare fixed (set-expressions) are called phraseological units.
Afree combination is a syntactical unit, which consists notional and form words,and in which notional words have the function of, independent parts of thesentence. In a phraseological unit words are not independent. They formset-expressions, in which neither words nor the order of words can be changed.Free combinations are created by the speaker. Phraseological units are used bythe speaker in a ready form, without any changes. The whole phraseological unithas a meaning which may be quite different from the meaning of its components,and therefore the whole unit, and not separate words, has the function of apart of the sentence.
Phraseologicalunits consist of separate words and therefore they are different words, evenfrom compounds. Word have several structural forms, but in phraseological unitsonly one of the components has all the forms of the paradigm of the part ofspeech it belongs to e.g. to go to bed, goes to bed, went to bed, gone to bed,going to bed, etc., the rest of the components do not change their form.
Bythe classification of Academician V.Vinogradov phraseological units are devidedinto three groups: phraseological combinations, phraseological unities andphraseological fusions.
Phraseologicalcombinations are often called traditional because words are combined in theiroriginal meaning but their combinations are different in different languages,e.g. cash and carry — (self-serviceshop), in a big way(in great degree) etc. It is usually impossible to account logically for thecombination of particular words. It can be explained only on the basis oftradition, e.g. to deliver a lection (butnot to read a lecture).
Inphraseological combinations words retain their full semantic independencealthough they are limited in their combinative power, e.g. to wage wax (but notto lead war), to render assistance, to render services (but not to renderpleasure).
Phraseologicalcombinations are the least idiomatic of all the kinds of phraseological units.In other words, in phraseological combinations the meaning of the whole can beinferred from the meaning of the components, e.g. to draw a conclusion, lo lendassistance, to make money, to pay attention to.
Inphraseological combinations one of the components (generally the componentwhich is used fugiratively) can be combined with different words, e.g. to talksports, politics, business (but to speak about life), leadingworker, leadingarticle (but the main problem), deadly enemy,deadly shot (but a mortal wound), keen interest, keen curiosity, keen sence ofhumour ( butthe great surprise).
Wordsof wide meaning, as to make, to take, to do, to give, etc. Form manyphraseological units, e.g. to take an examination, to take a trip, to take achance, to take interest, tomake fun of, to make inquiries, to make a statement, to make friends, to makehaste.
Sometimestraditional combinations are synonyms of words, e.g. to make inquiries =to inquire, to make haste=to hurry.
Sometraditional combinations are equivalents of prapositions, e.g. fry means of, inconnection with.
Somephraseological combinations have nearly become compounds, e.g. brown bread.
Traditionalcombinations often have synonymous expressions, e.g. to make a report=todeliver a report.
Phraseologicalcombinations are not equivalents of words. Though the components ofphraseological combinations are limited in their combinative power, that is,they can be combined only with certain words and cannot be combined with anyother words, they preserve not only their meaning, but all their structuralforms, e.g. nice distinction is a phraseological combinations and it ispossible to say nice distinctions, nicer distinction, etc., or to clench one’sfist. (clenchedhis fists, was clenching his fists, etc.).
InProf. A. Smirnitskv’s[5] opiniontraditional combinations are not phraseological units, as he considers onlythose word combinations to be phraseological units which are equivalents ofwords.
Inphraseological unities the meaning of the whole can be guessed from themeanings of its components, but it is transferred (metaphorical ormetonymical), e.g. to play the first fiddle (to be a leader in something), oldsalt (experiencedsailor) etc. The meaning of the whole word combination is not the sum of themeanings of its components, but it is based on them and the meaning of thewhole can be inferred from the image that underlies the 1whole expression, e.g. to get on one’snerves, to cut smb short, to show one’s teeth, to be at daggers drawn.
Phraseologicalunities are often synonyms of words, e.g. to make a clean breast of=to confess;to get on one’s nerves=to irritate.
Phraseologicalunities are equivalents of words as 1) onlyone of components of a phraseological unity has structural forms’ e.g. to play (played,is playing, etc.) the firstfiddle (but not played the first fiddles); to turn (turned, will turn,etc.) a new leaf ( butnot to turn newer leaf or new leaves); 2)the whole unity and not its components are parts ofthe sentence in syntactical analysis, e.g. in the sentence He took the bull bythe horns (attacked a problem boldly) there are only two parts: he — the subject, and took the bull by the horns — the predicate.
Inphraseological fusions the degree of motivation is very low, we cannot guessthe meaning of the whole from the meanings of its components, they are highlyidiomatic and cannot be translated word for word into other languages, e.g… topull one’s leg (to deceive); at sixes and sevens (incomfusion); a mare’s nest (a discovery which turns out to be false orworthless); to show the white feather (toshow cowardice); to ride the high horse (toput on airs).
Phraseologicalfusions are the most idiomatic of all the kinds of phraseological units.
Phraseologicalfusions are equivalents of words: fusions as well as unities form a syntacticalwhole in analysis.
Prof.A.I.Smirnitsky worked out structural classification of phraseological units, comparingthem with words. He points out one-top units which he compares with derivedwords because derived words have only one root morpheme. He points out two-topunits which he compares with compound words because in compound words weusually have two root morphemes[6].
Amongone-top units he points out three structural types;
a) units of the type «to give up» (verb +postposition type), e.g. to art up, to backup, todrop out, to nose out, to buy into, to sandwich in etc.;
b) units of the type «to be tired».Some of these units remind the Passive Voice intheir structure but they have different prepositions with them, while in thePassive Voice we can have only prepositions «by» or «with», e.g. to be tiredof, to be interested in, to be surprised at etc. There are also units in thistype which remind free word-groups of the type «to be young», e.g. to be akinto, to be aware of etc. The difference between them is that the adjective«young» can be used as an attribute and as a predicative in a sentence, whilethe nominal component in such units can act only as a predicative. In theseunits the verb is the grammar centre and the second component is the semanticcentre;
c)prepositional — nominalphraseological units. These units are equivalents of unchangeable words: prepositions,conjunctions, adverbs, thatis why they have no grammar centre, their semantic centre is the nominal part,e.g. on the doorstep (quite near), on the nose (exactly), in the course of onthe stroke of, in time, on the point of etc. In the course of time such unitscan become words, e.g. tomorrow, instead etc.
Amongtwo-top units A.I. Smirnitsky points out the following structuraltypes:
a)attributive-nominal such as: a month of Sundays, grey matter, a millstone roundone’s neck and many others. Units of this type are noun equivalents and can bepartly or perfectly idiomatic. In partly idiomatic units (phrasisms) sometimes thefirst component is idiomatic, e.g. high road, in other cases the secondcomponent is idiomatic, e.g. first night. In many cases both components areidiomatic, e.g. red tape, blind alley, bed of nail, shot in the arm and manyothers.
b) verb-nominal phraseological units, e.g.to read between the lines, tospeak BBC, to sweep under the carpet etc. Thegrammar centre of such units is the verb, the semantic centre in many cases isthe nominal component, e.g. to fall in love. In some units the verb is both thegrammar and the semantic centre, e.g. not to know the ropes. These units can beperfectly idiomatic as well, e.g. to burn one’s boats, to vote with one’s feet,to take to the cleaners’ etc.
Veryclose to such units are word-groups of the type to havea glance, to have a smoke.These units are not idiomatic and are treated in grammar as a specialsyntactical combination, a kind of aspect.
c)  phraseologicalrepetitions, such as: now or never, part and parcel,country and westernetc. Such units can be built on antonyms, e.g. ups and downs,back and forth;often they are formed by means of alliteration, e.g. as busy as a bee.Components in repetitions are joined by means of conjunctions. These units areequivalents of adverbs or adjectives and have no grammar centre. They can alsobe partly or perfectly idiomatic, e.g. cool as a cucumber (partly), bread andbutter (perfectly).
Phraseologicalunits the same as compound words can have more than two tops (stems in compoundwords), e.g. to take a back seat, a peg to hang a thing on, lock, stock andbarrel, to be a shaddow of one’s own self, at one’s own sweet will[7].
Phraseologicalunits can be clasified as parts of speech (syntactical classification)… Thisclassification was suggested by I.V. Arnold. Here we have the following groups:
a)noun phraseologisms denoting an object, a person, a living being, e.g. bullettrain, latchkey child, redbrick university, Green Berets.
b) verb phraseologisms denoting an action,a state, a feeling, e.g. to break the log-jam, to get on somebody’s coat tails,to be on the beam, to nose out, tomake headlines.
c) adjective phraseologisms denoting aquality, e.g. loose as a ‘goose, dull as lead.
d) adverb phraseological units, such as:with a bump, in the soup, like a dream,like a dog with two tails.
e) preposition phraseological units, e.g.in the course of, on the stroke of
f) interjection phraseological units, e.g.«Catch me!», «Well, I never!» etc.
Thereis one more type of combinations, also rigid and introduced into discourceready-made but different from all the types given above in so far as it isimpossible to find its equivalent among the parts of speech. These are formulasused as complete utterances and syntactically shaped like sentences, such asthe well-known American maxim Keep smiling! or British Keep Britain tidy[8].
A.I.Smirnitsky was the first among Russian scholars who paid attention to’sentences that can be treated as complete formulas, such as How do you do? Or Ibeg you pardon; it takes all kinds to make the world; can the leopard changehis spots? They differ from all the combinations so far discussed because theyare not equivalent to words in distribution and are semantically analysable[9]. The formulas discussed by N.N. Amosova are on the contrary semantically specific,e.g. save your breath ‘shut up’or tell it to the marines (one of the suggested,origins is tell that to the horse marines; such a corps being non-existent, asmarines are sea-going force, the last expression means ‘tell it to someone whodoes not exist because rel people will not believe it’) very often suchformulas, formally identical to’ sentences, are in reality used only asinsertions into other sentences: the cap fits ‘the statement is true'(e.g.«He called me a liar.» — «Well, you should know if the cupfits.») Cf. also: Butter would not melt in his mouth; His bark is worsethan his bite.
Andone more point: free word combinations can never be polysemantic, while there arepolysemantic phraseological units, e.g.
Tobe on the go 1.to be busy and active
2. to be leaving
3. to be tipsy
4. to be near one’s end
havedone with 1.Make an end of
1. give up
2. reach the end of
Twotypes of synonymy are typical of phraseological units:
1. Synonymy of phraseological units that donot contain any synonymous words and are based on different images, e.g.
Toleave no stone unturned = tomove heaven and earth
Tohaul down colours = to ground arms
Infree word combinations synonym}’ is based on the synonymy of particular words (anold man = elderlyman).
2. Phraseological units have word synonyms:To make up one’s mind = todecide
Tohaul down colours = tosurrender
Americanand English dictionaries of unconventional English, slang and idioms and otherhighly valuable reference books contain a wealth of proverbs, saying, variouslexical units of all kinds, but as a rule do not seek to lay down a reliablecriterion to distinguish between variable word-groups and phraseological units.Paradoxical as it may seem the first dictionary in which theoretical principlesfor the selection of English phraseological units were elaborated was publishedin our country.[10]
Attemptshave been made to approach the problem of phraseology in different ways. Uptill now, however, there is a certain divergence of opinion as to the essentialfeature of phraseological units as distinguished from other word- groups andthe nature of phrases that can be properly termed phraseological units.
Thecomplexity of the problem may be largely accounted for by the fact that theborder-line between free or variable word-groups and phraseological units isnot clearly defined. The so-called free word-groups are only relatively free ascollocability of their member-words is fundamentally delimited by their lexicaland grammatical valency which makes at least some of them very close toset-phrases. Phraseological units are comparatively stable and semanticallyinseparable. Between the extremes of complete motivation and variability ofmember-words on the one hand and lack of motivation combined with completestability of the lexical components and grammatical structure on the other handthere are innumerable border-line cases.
However,the existing terms,[11] e.g.set-phrases, idioms, word-equivalents, reflect to a certain extent the maindebatable issues of phraseology which centre on the divergent views concerningthe nature and essential features of phraseological units as distinguished fromthe so-called free word-groups. The term set-phrase implies that the basiccriterion of differentaition is stability 6f the lexical components and grammatical structure of word-groups. The term idioms generally implies that theessential feature of the linguistic units under consideration is idiomaticityor lack of motivation. The term habitually used by English and Americanlinguists is very often treated as synonymous with the term phraseological unituniversally accepted in our country.[12] Theterm word-equivalent stresses not only the semantic but also the functionalinseparability of certain word-groups and their aptness to function in speechas single words.
Thusdifferences in terminology reflect certain differences in the main criteriaused to distinguish between free wore-groups and a specific type oflinguistic units generally known as phraseology.These criteria and the ensuing classification are briefly discussed below.
Phraseologicalunits are habitually defined as non-motivated word-groups that cannot be freelymade up in speech but are reproduced as ready-made units. This definitionproceeds from the assumption that the essential features of phraseologicalunits are stability of the lexical components and lack of motivation.[13]It is consequently assumed thatunlike components of free words-groups which may vary according to the needs ofcommunication, member-words of phraseological units are always reproduced assingle unchangeable collocations.
Thus,for example, the constituent red inthe free word-group red flower may, if necessary, be substituted for by anyother adjective denoting colour (blue, white, etc.), without essentiallychanging the denota-tional meaning of the word- group under discussion (aflower of a certain colour). In the phraseological unit red tape (bureaucraticmethods) no such substitution is possible, as a change of the adjective wouldinvolve a complete change in the meaning of the whole group. A (blue(black, white, etc.) tape would mean ‘a tape of acertain colour’. It follows that the phraseological unit red tape issemantically non-motivated, i.e. its meaning cannot be deduced from the meaningof its components and that it exists as a ready-made linguistic unit which doesnot allow of any variability of its lexical components.
Itis also argued that non-variability of the phraseological unit is not confinedto its lexical components. Grammatical structure of phraseological units is toa certain extent also stable. Thus, though the structural formula of the word-groups red flower and red tape is identical (A ++N), the noun flower may be used in the plural (redflowers), whereas no such change is possible in the phraseological unit redtape; red tapes would then denote ‘tapes of red colour’ but not ‘bureaucraticmethods’. This is also true of other types of phraseological units, e.g. whatwill Mrs. Grundy say?, where the verbal component is invariably reproduced inthe same grammatical form.
Takinginto account mainly the degree of idiomaticity phraseological units may beclassified into three big groups: phraseological fusions, phraseologicalunities and phraseological collocations.[14]
Phraseologicalfusions are completely non-motivated word-groups, such as red tape- ‘bureaucratic methods’; heavy father– ‘serious or solemn part in a theatrical play’; kickthe bucket — ‘die’;and the like. The meaning of the components has no connections whatsoever, atleast synchronically, with the meaning of the whole group. Idiomaticity is, asa rule, combined with complete stability of the lexical components and thegrammatical structure of the fusion.
Phraseologicalunites are partially non-motivated as their meaning can usually be perceivedthrough the metaphoric meaning of the whole phraseological unit. For example,to show one’s teeth, to wash one’s dirty linen in public if interpreted assemantically motivated through the combined lexical meaning of the component wordswould naturally lead one to understand these in their literal meaning. Themetaphoric meaning of the whole unit, however, readily suggests ‘take athreatening tone’ or ‘show an intention to injure’ for show one’s teeth and’discuss or make public one’s quarrels’ for wash one’s dirty linen in public.Phraseological unities are as a rule marked by a comparatively high degree ofstability of the lexical components.
Phraseologicalcollocations are motivated but they are made up of words possessing specificlexical valency which accounts for a certain degree of stability in suchword-groups. In phraseological collocations variability of member-words isstrictly limited. For instance, bear a grudge may be changed into bear malice,but not into bear a fancy or liking. We can say take a liking (fancy) but nottake hatred (disgust). These habitual collocations tend to become kind ofcliches[15], wherethe meaning of member-words h to some extent dominated by the meaningof the whole group. Due to this phraseologicalcollocations are felt as possessing a certain degree of semanticinseparability.
Thecurrent definition of phraseological units as highly idiomatic word- groupswhich cannot be’ freely made up in speech, but are reproduced as ready- madeunits has been subject to severe criticism by linguists of different schools ofthought. The main objections and debatable points may be briefly outlined as follows:
1. The definition is felt to be inadequateas the concept ready-made units seems to be rather vague. In fact this term canbe applied to a variety of heterogeneous linguistic phenomena ranging fromword-groups to sentences (e.g. proverbs, sayings) and also quotations frompoems, novels or scientific treatises all of which can be described asready-made units.
2. Frequent discussions have also led toquestioning this approach to phraseology’ from a purely semantic point of viewas the criterion of idiomaticity is found to be an inadequate guide in singlingout phraseological units from other word-groups. Borderline cases betweenidiomatic and non-idiomatic word-groups are so numerous and confusing that thefinal decision seems to depend largely on one’s «feeling of thelanguage». This can he proved by the fact that the same word- groups aretreated by some linguists as idiomatic phrases and by others as freeword-groups. For example, such word-groups as take the chair—’presideat a meeting’, take one’s chance—’trustto luck or fortune’, take trouble (to do smth)—’tomake efforts’ and others are marked in some of the English dictionaries’ asidioms or phrases, whereas in others they are found as free word-groupsillustrating one of the meanings of the verb to take or the nouns combined withthis verb[16].
Theimpracticability of the criterion of idiomaticity is also observed in thetraditional classification of phraseological collocations. The extreme cases,i.e. phraseological fusions and collocations are easily differentiated butthe borderline units,as for example phraseological fusions and phraseological unities orphraseological collocations and free word-groups, are very often doubtful andrather vaguely outlined. We may argue, e.g., that such word-groups as high treasonor show the white feather are, fusions because one finds it impossible toinfer the meaning of the whole from the meaning ofthe individual components. Others may feel these word-groups as metaphoricallymotivated and refer them to phraseological unities.
Theterm idiomaticity is also regarded by some linguists as requiringclarification. As a matter of fact this term is habitually used to denote lackof motivation from the point of view of one’s mother tongue. A word-group whichdefies word by word translation is consequently described as idiomatic. Itfollows that if idiomaticity is viewed as the main distinguishing feature ofphraseological units, the same word-groups in the English language may beclassified as idiomatic phraseological units by Russian speakers and as non-idiomaticword-groups by those whose mother tongue contains analogous collocations. Thus,e.g., from the point of view of Russian speakers such word-groups as take tea,take care, etc., are often referred to phraseology as the Russian translationequivalents of these word-groups (питьчай,заботиться)do not contain the habitual translation equivalentsof the verb take. French speakers, however, are not likely to find anythingidiomatic about theseword-groups as there are similar lexical units in theFrench language (cf. prendre du the, prendre soin). This approach toidiomaticity may be termed interlingual as it involves a comparison, explicitor implicit of two different languages.
Theterm idiomaticity is also understood as lack of motivation from the point ofview of native speakers. As here we are concerned with the English language,,this implies that only those word-groups are to be referred to phraseology whichare felt as non-motivated, at least syuchronically, by English speakers, e.g.red tape, kick the bucket and the like. This approach to idiomaticity may betermed intralingual. In other words the judgement as to idiomaticity is passedwithin the framework of the language concerned, not from the outside. It isreadily observed that classification of factual linguistic material into freeword-groups and phraseological units largely depends upon the particularmeaning we attach to the term idiomaticity. It will be recalled, for example,that habitual collocations are word-groups whose component member or memberspossess specific and limited lexical, valency, as a rule essentially differentfrom the lexical valency of related words in the Russian language.[17] A number of habitual collocations, e.g.heavy rain, bad mistake, take care and others, may be felt by Russian speakersas peculiarly English and therefore idiomatic, whereas they are not perceivedas such by English speakers in whose mother tongue the lexical valency ofmember words heavy, bad, take presupposes their collocability with rain,mistake, care.
3.The criterion of stability is al so criticized asnot very reliable in distinguishing phraseological units from other word-groupshabitually referred to as phraseology. We observe regular substitution of atleast one of the lexical components. In to cast smth in smb’s teeth, e.g. theverb cast may be replaced by fling; to take a decision is found alongside withto make a decision; not to care a twopenny is just one of the possible variantsof the phrase, whereas in others the noun twopenny may be replaced by a numberof other nouns, e.g. farthing, button, pin, sixpence, fig, etc.
Itis also argued that stability of lexical components does not presuppose lack ofmotivation. The word-group shrug cue’s shoulders, e.g., does not allow of thesubstitution of either shrug or shoulders; the meaning of the word-group,however, is easily deducible from the meanings of the member-words, hence theword-group is completely motivated, though stable. Idiomatic word-groups may bevariable as far as their lexical components are concerned, or stable. It wasobserved that, e.g., to cast smth in smb’s teeth is a highly idiomatic butvariable word- group as the constituent member cast may be replaced by fling orthrow; the word-group red tape is both highly idiomatic and stable.
Itfollows that stability and idiomaticity may be regarded as two differentaspects of word-groups. Stability is an essential feature of set,-phrases bothmotivated and non-motivated. Idiomaticity is a distinguishing feature ofphraseological units or idioms which comprise both stable set-phrases andvariable word-groups. The two features are not mutually exclusive and may beoverlapping,’ but are not interdependent.
Stabilityof word-groups may be viewed in terms of predictability of occurrence ofmember-words. Thus, e.g., the verb shrug predicts the occurrence of the nounshoulders and the verb clench the occurrence of either fists or teeth. Thedegree of predictability or probability of occurrence of member-words isdifferent in different word-groups. We may assume, e.g., that the verb shrugpredicts with a hundred per cent probability the occurrence of the nounshoulders, as no other noun can follow this particular verb. The probability ofoccurrence of the noun look after the verb cast is not so high because cast maybe followed not only by’ look but also by glance, light, lots and some othernouns. Stability of the word- group in clench one’s fists is higher than incast a look, but lower than in shrug one’s shoulders as the verb clenchpredicts the occurrence of either fists or teeth.
Itis argued that the stability of all word-groups may be statistically calculatedand the word-groups where stability exceeds a certain limit (say 50%)may be classified as set-phrases.
Predictabilityof occurrence may becalculated in relation to one or more than one constituent of the word-group.Thus, e.g., the degree of probability of occurrence of the noun bull after theverb take is very low and may practically be’ estimated at zero. The twomember-words take the bull, however, predict the occurrence of by the hornswith a very high degree of probability.
Stabilityviewed in terms of probability of occurrence seems a more reliable criterion indifferentiating between set-phrases and variable or free word-groups, butcannot be relied upon single out phraseological units.
1.3PROVERBS AS A PHRASEOLOGICAL UNIT
Proverbis a brief saying that presents a truth or some bit of useful wisdom. It isusually based on common sense or practical experience. The effect of a proverbis to make the wisdom it tells seem to be self-evident. The same proverb oftenoccurs among several different peoples. True proverbs are sayings that havebeen passed from generation to generation primarily by word of month. They mayalso have been put into written form. The Book of Proverbs in the Hebrew Bible,or old Testament, is the most notable collection of such sayings. They include:Hope deferred month the heartsick.
Agood name is rather to be chosen than great riches.
Asoft answer turneth away.
Pridegoeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall.
Proverbsoften find their way into literature. Hany of the lower-class characters in the Canterbury tales. By Geoffrey Chaucer[18]refer to proverbs. Miguel de Ce rvantes'[19]novel Don qui xote (1005, 1615)[20] contains manyproverbs. Cervantes collected the proverbs from the Spanish pea sands. The termitself phraseological units to denote a specific group of phrases wasintroduced by Soviet linguists and is generally accepted in our country.
Whosupposedly could early on a sensible conversation for a whole evening innothing but proverbs. Benjamin Franklin used many proverbial expressions in hisPoor Richard’s Almanac”, issued every year from 1733to 1758 Franklinwrote many of them himself, and took the rest from other sources.
Proverbs,Book of is a book o f the Hebrew Bible, or old Testament. It is also known asthe Proverbs of Solomon because according to tradition king ‘Solomon wrote it.However scholars believe that the book’s assortment of moral and religioussaying, poems and warnings come from various periods in the history of ancientform until after the period of the Babylanian Exile, which ended in 538B.C.
TheBook of Proverbs is a product of ancient Israel Children, were educatedprimarily at home. The introduction value of many sections of Proverbs reflectsthe teachings of parents trying to raise their children to become successfuland responsible adults. Other sections of the Book of Proverbs may come from apalace school for the training of government officials.
TheBook of Proverbs has earned universal appeal because it contains materialvaluable to all people who hope to live a life of wisdom, honesty,esponsibility, for God Hany as the book’s saying have become part of everydaySpeech.
Proverbswere always the most vivacious and at the same time the most stable part of thenational languages, suitable competing with the sayings and aphorisms pfoutstanding thinkers. In the proverbs and sayings picturesqueness of nationalthinking was more vivid expressed as well as their features of nationalcharacter. The proverbs and sayings are the paper of folklore which is shortbut deep in the meaning. They express the outlook of the amount of people bytheir social and ideal functions. Proverbs and sayings include themselves thesome certain features of historical development and the culture of people.
Thesemantic sphere of proverbs is very wide and cannot limit them. The proverbsdescribe the every branch of people’s life. The fact is that proverbs andsayings are similar in meaning in spite of their diversity in form andlanguage. To prove the said above some examples:
Abird in hand is worth two in the bush.
Untiens vaut mieux que deux tu’auras.
Unchien vivant vaut mieux qu’un lion mort.
Лучшесиница в руках, чем журавль на небе.
Nasiyasaryog’dan,naqd о’pkayaxshi.
Evenif the form, the word structure and the stylistic structure of these proverbsare different they have the same meaning. The proverbs change their meaning andform very rare, they have long living features. Thespreading of any proverb among people is implemented as slow as it is created.Proverbs are retest by geographic area which is going to admit it only afterthat the proverb can become its property.
Manyscholars tried to do the researches to show the differences between proverbsand sayings in order to point out their border of limit. One of the outstandingRussian scholars the author of «dictionary of vivid Russian language»and «the proverbs of Russian nation» V.I. Dal[21] wrote: saying is the bud and proverb is thefruit. So from this point of view we can see that proverbs express the fullfinite meaning and saying is a phrase which expresses the fugitive meaning. Thesayings are considered to be the half part of the proverbs. We can also addthat proverbs and sayings are separate genres which are different from eachother. The meaning and explanation of these terms in Turkish language show thatthe semantically their meanings are various and this fact confirms our above givenideas. For example in the dictionary «o’zbektilining izohli lug’ati»[22] there are given two meanings. The firstmeaning is that it does not express complete meaning and it is emphatic phraseand wise words. This explanation can express the folk saying. Another meaningrefers to Arab word «masal» that (in English means fable) was changedphonetically. The explanation can be used for emphatic phrase and incompletemeanings that is sayings.
Thereare some features that can be helpful in identifying the proverbs from sayings.
1. When there are tow logical countersbecame complete composition the brief summarizing thought appeared. Thatexplains the lack of spare word or description.
2. to express the idea straightly andlogically proverbs are characterized by their features. Every proverb values orappreciates any event both positively and negatively. Such kind of featuresserve to make the proverbs popular among people.
3. Proverbs express wise and complete ideaand sayings express the description of something but donot give complete meanings. They consist of onecompositional composition.
4. Proverbs can be used in neutralfigurative meaning. This features of proverbs widen the sphere of their usagethematically. That’s why proverbs are famous among different nations andpeople. Sayings are characterized by limited usage in one or two nations whoare near to each other geographically and in non related languages. For examplein Russian «заморитьчеловека»means to eat something has no equivalent orcomponent in Uzbek or English languages and translated by analogy. The same wayof translation is used while translating such sayings as «qovuntushurmoq» and etc.
5. The sayings are the means of devices orpointing in speech the function of proverbs is to prove any event or situation.
Inspite of their own specific features proverbs have general sides which alsobelong to the other types of folklore. One of such features of the proyerbs isthat they are created in language in a very long time and disappear in a longperiod. It is connected with the formal feature of the content of the proverb.To turn some wise thoughts into proverbs some conditions are required. And thisconditions may be the followings: first of all the proverbs should describe theeconomic, social and politic life of the people. To the instruction to thedictionary of Dal, Shoiochov[23] wrotethat among all the proverbs which are closer and more important for them andreject those which are old and not sitable for them to build a new life. Forexample in Russian we can find the proverb «Гдехан,тамиОрда»,«СтаршихивОрдепочитают»;these kind of proverbs can be considered as old onesand are not used in nowadays, because they do not describe the nowadays lifeand politics. But such kind of proverbs could be changed and said «Гдецарь,таминарод».
Secondarythe idea expressed in the proverb must have global character. It means thatthose proverbs that describe the characters related to the human beings are thesame in all the languages.
Thirdlythe idea that can be used as sample and answers to the above conditions must becomplete in literary Christianized form. When the pattern idea answers thesethree questions it turns to be a proverb. Also it should be pointed out thatthe character of immediate creation of proverbs are connected with sociablestructure, the dominance and non dominance of politic, cultural, social — economic life. The content expressed in proverbchanges depending on the change in. of social life.
Itcan be approved from the above mentioned proverb about «хан»and «Орда».It either widens or narrows and it gives completelyanother meaning. In this term we can see that second feature of the proverb isthat it is connected with social life, and it is close to people’s way ofliving.
Proverbsserve as rare base in researching or studying of people: the level of theircultural, politic, economic life in ancient time or periods. As proverbsreflect the life practice of people over different periods and also theyreflect moral norms and religious faith of nation. One more feature of proverbsis that proverbs are often used in colloquial speech of people and are extendedin varied forms.
phraseology proverbs literary

2.CHAPTER II. SEMANTICCHARACTER ISTICS OF PROVERBS
2.1CLASSIFICATION OF PROVERBS
Aswe know, proverbs do not function as mere ophical phrase mongering. As a rule,they are used for some practical, pragmatical purposes in various circumstancesof everyday communication. With the aid of a proverb on poetic adornments ofspeech; neither are they used, normally, to meet man’s needs for philose canaim to provide an endorsement to his statements and opinions, forecastsomething, express doubts, reproach someone with something, accuse someone ofsomething, justify or excuse somebody, mock somebody, comfort somebody, jeer atsomebody’s misfortune, repent something, warn against something, advisesomething or interdict somebody from doing something, and so on, and so forth.It is unthinkable to consider the proverb apart from such pragmatic functions.
Unfortunately,paremiologists have so far only some vague ideas of the functions of proverbs.”«Moreover, the proverb lies just somewhere on the borderlandsbetween language and folklore, and shares its functions with both of them, andone cannot say there is a notable agreement between the conceptioris ofdifferent authors on the functions of language or folklore, neither is there anotable unity in the terminology used by different authors who have written onthese matters. We accept here a more simple and widespread scale, namely theset of three degrees:
Statement→evaluation→ prescription
Wesuppose, however, this scale should fit in with the nature of the proverb, andit has, incidentally, thevirtues that it operates with concepts general enough, andallows to consider the set of its subfunctions (orfunctional aspects) as a unified system.The functional aspects mentioned are in certain relationship withgrammatical moods of the sentence. Hence theillusion may arise that proverbs can be classified functionally straight on theground of their „superficial“ grammatical moods, so that the proverbswith stating (designative, informative) function were represented withindicative sentences, and those with normative (prescriptive, evocative)function, respectively, with imperative sentences. This illusion, however,would be immediately shattered against two complications:
1. The evaluative, (emotive, expressive)function has no separate or distinct manifestation (or „surfaceequivalent“) in the shape of any grammatical mood;
2. As affirmed by several authorities,every verbal utterance fulfills not only one function, e.g. that correspondingto its grammatical mood, but all its main functions (or at least severaldifferent functions) simultaneously; otherwise, a context-free proverb, likeany other utterance, is functionally indefinite.
Theplace of proverbs, sayings and familiar quotations with respect to setexpressions is a controversial issue. A proverb is a short familiarepigrammatic saying expressing popular wisdom, a truth or a moral lesson in aconcise and, imaginative way. Proverbs have much incommon with set expressions because their lexicalcomponents are also constant, their meaning is traditional and mostlyfigurative, and they are introduced into speech ready-made. That is why somescholars following V. V. Vinogradov[24] thinkproverbs must be studied together with phraseological unities. Others like J.Casares2 and N. N. Amosova[25] think that unless they regularly form partsof other sentences it is erroneous to include them into the system of languagebecause they are independent units of communication.N. N. Amosov[26]even thinks that there is no more reason to consider them as part ofphraseology than, for instance, riddles and children’s counts. This standpointis hardly acceptable especially if we do not agree with the narrow limits ofphraseology offered by this author. As to the argument that in many proverbsthe meaning of component parts does not show any specific changes when comparedto the meaning of the same words in free combinations, it must be pointed outthat in this respect they do not differ from very many set expressions,especially those which are emotionally neutral. Another reason why proverbsmust be taken into consideration together with set expressions is that theyoften form the basis of set expressions. For example; the last straw breaks thecamel’s back: the last straw; a drowningman will clutch at a straw: to clutch at a straw; it is useless to lock thestable door when the steed is stolen: to lock the stable door ‘take precautionswhen the accident they are meant to prevent has already happened’. Both setexpressions and proverbs are sometimes split and changed for humorous purposes,as in the following quotation where the proverb. All is not gold that glitterscombines with an allusion to the ‘set expression golden age: It will be an agenot perhaps of gold, but at least of glitter.
Takinga familiar group of words: A living dog is better than a dead lion (fromEcclesiastes) and turning it around, a fellow critic once said that Hazlitt wasunable to appreciate a writer till he was dead»that Hazlitt thought a dead ass is better than aliving lion. A. Huxley is very fond of stylistical, mostly grotesque, effectsachieved in this way. So, for example, paraphrasing the set expression marryinto money he says about one of his characters, who prided herself on herconversation, that she had married, into conversation.
Lexicologydoes not deal more fully with the peculiarities of proverbs created infolklore, they are studied by folklorists, but in treating units introducedinto the act of communication ready-made we cannot avoid touching upon themtoo.
Asto familiar quotations, they are different from proverbs in their origin. Theycome from literature but by and by they become par and parcel of the language,so that many people using them do not even know that they are quoting and veryfew could accurately name the play or passage on which they are drawing evenwhen they are aware of using a quotation from Shakespeare.
Forexample: Something is rotten in the state of Denmark; Brevity is the soul ofwit.
Quotationsfrom classical sources were once a recognized feature of public speech ‘timeschange, and we change with them’; I fear the Greeks, even when bringing gifts’.Now they are even regarded as bad form because they are unintelligible to thosewithout a classical education. So, when a speaker ventures a quotation of thatkind he hastens to translate it. A number of classical tags neverthelesssurvive in educatedspeech of many countries, in Korean no less than in English. There are thewell-known phrases, such as for this special reason’; ‘in good faith’.
Ingiving this review of English set expressions we have paid special attention tothe fact that the subject is a highly complex oneand that it has been treated by differentscholars in very different ways. Each approach and each classificationhave their advantages and their drawbacks. Thechoice one makes depends on the particular problem one has in view and even sothere remains much to be studied in the future. It is likely unreasonable toimagine that the proverb could have its say, about the matters which have nosocial relevance or topicality, or in situations including no alternatives, orthat it could state something with entire indifference, or put forward statementswhich let no strategic (prescriptive) advices or hints to be derived from them.It also appears to be obvious that a proverb cannot order, interdict, adviseanything without qualifiying previously as good or bad (or axiologicaliyirrelevant) either the suggestable or forbiddable activity or attitude itselfor something linked to this activity or attitude, e.g., its end, means, degreeof intensity, speed, time, place, etc.; and if the proverb puts forwardappraisals, these appraisals are, in turn, likely to be founded on somecognized truths, laws and, regularities (or current opinions, beliefs or atleast prejudices).
Theproblem of defining a proverb appears to be as old as man’s interest in them.People who consciously used them or began to collectthem in antiquity obviously neededto differentiate proverbs from other gnomic devices such as apothegms,maxims, aphorisms, quotations, etc. Jan FredrikKindstrand[27]reviewed some of these early definition attempts in his fascinating paper on«The Greek Concept of Proverbs,» and Bartlett Jere Whiting[28] had already in 1932assembled dozens of definitions from ancient timesto the modern age in his remarkable essay on «The Nature of theProverb.» The last fifty years since Whiting’s detailed study have*witnessed highly scholarly articles, monographs and even books which all seekto come to terms with э universalproverb definition. Scholars around the worldcontinue to find their own so-called «workingdefinitions,» of which some of the most recent attempts in the Englishlanguage are those by Shirley Arora, Nigel
Barley,Otto Blehr, Margaret Bryant, David Cram, Alan Dundes, Galit Hasan-Rokem, GeorgeMilner, Peter Seitel, etc[29]. Andyet, despite their erudite and important new definitions based on structural,semiotic or linguistic insights, all must eventually agree with the contentionof the old master proverb scholar Archer Taylor that «an incommunicablequality tells us this sentence is proverbial and that one is not.» Thenewer definitions might in fact fit those sentences which we know already to beproverbial, but, again in the words of the insightful Taylor, «nodefinition will enable us to identify positively a sentence asproverbial.» A definition cannot deal with such aspects as currency,tradition and familiarity which certainly are necessary ingredients for a trueproverb.
Thefollowing tentative typology draws of the material of Korean proverbs. Theclassification criteria are as follows:
(1) the «normality» versus thecontradictory or «broken» nature of the literal sense of the proverbtext;
(2)  the presence versus absence of semantictransformation (trope);
(3)  the totality versus partiality of thesemantic transformation.
Theclasses will represent different combinations of those alternatives. The resultis not an exhaustive typology but rather a list of predominant combinationsthat is bound to get us into a scrape in more complex cases, being unable todecide between competing alternatives while trying to classify certain concreteproverbs.
Proverbsin traditional Korean society differ from those of western societies, in thatthey are a cultural heritage of the lower class of society and therefore theyare not shared by the upper class, who had for their cultural vehicle the«sijo» poetry, the three-lined, forty-five syllabled form ofvernacular language. Though there are some proverbs borrowed from Chinese andKorean classics, the majority of Korean proverbs were made by the common peopleas lessons and guidelines of lifefor themselves. This explains why the language is vulgar and coarse in mostcases. The Korean word for proverb,«sokdam», in fact, means a vulgar saying ofthe common people.
Proverbsoften have scatological and abusive references, reflecting the crude anduncouth pattern of life. The common people used the proverbs to describe theinner « thoughtsof their hardship, to warn against the dangers of life, to vent their grievanceagainst the oppressions of the ruling upper class, and to express the joys oflife. In short the proverbs disclose most revealingly the realities of lowerclass life. The proverbs in this sense function as important social documents.What is mirrored in these proverbs show how poor the common people were whothese poorvulgar people were, how they struggled to survive in tough circumstances,and what their philosophy of life was. These arerandom selections from Korean proverbs which typically portray the life of thecommon people. They show a picture of a poor man, who does not like rich men,and who hates the noble, ruling’ class. Although he is always victimized, he issecretly longing for the days when he can have his revenge. Meanwhile he has tobe quiet and careful not to make mistakes. All he can do is to help educate hischildren for a future opportunity.
Inthis paper I try to describe who the poor peoplewere, what their identities were, how they lived, and what they regarded as themost important purpose of life. In so doing I aim at defining the core of thecommon culture of the traditional society of Korea.
Asthat trend goes on, English proverbs which are part of traditional culture losetheir conventional significance. The proverb used to be a form of collective’consciousness and has evolved in its language based on traditional experiences.Transmission of proverbs was an essential part of culture and a prerequisitefor education and the formation of self. Those past proverbs, however, havebeen driven away from education. What is more, the proverb is even on the vergeof extinction. The proverb has been left as mere information which isindividualistic, but not imperative or social at all.
2.2TYPES OF PROVERBS ON MEANINGS MOTIVATION
Butlet us leave the world of the serious paremiologist for a moment and consider Taylor’s «maxim» of the incommunicaole quality that supposedly tells us what a proverbis. What do non-specialists of proverbs think about them and what are proverbsto them? How do they in fact identify a statement as a proverb and what are thecharacteristic elements that comprise a proverb in their minds? In other words,what is a proverb today to the general public? In order to answer this questionlet us look at a sample of 55 proverbdefinitions which I collected from students, friends and acquaintances in thepast year or so. To my knowledge nobody has ever bothered to undertake such asurvey, and even though my sample is a relatively small one, it should still beable to give us a basic idea of what people today think a proverb to be. Tothis I will add an analysis of a number of popular articles on proverbs inmagazines and’ newspapers which have also not been considered by proverb scholars.These essayistic treatments that appeared from 1877to 1984 insuch publications as The Ne w York Times, Saturday Review, Atlantic Monthly,Time, Newsday and others will certainly help to come to terms with a generaldefinition of the proverb as the «folk,» and not the scholar, seesit.
Beforestarting this discussion, it might be wise to mention here at’ least some ofthe English proverbs which in themselves are folk definitions of a sort:«A good maxim is never out of season»; «All the good sense ofthe world runs into proverb»; «Proverbs are the children ofexperience»; «Proverbs are the wisdom of the streets»;«Nothing can beat a proverb»; «Proverbs cannot becontradicted»; «Though the old proverb be given up. it is none theless true»; «The old saying cannot be excelled»; «Thewisdom of the proverb cannot be surpassed»; «Common proverb seldomlies»; «The old saying, long proved true, shall never bebelied»; «Old saws speak truth»; «Every- proverb istruth»; «Old proverbs are the children of truth»; «Whateveryone says is true»; etc. It appears that to the mind of proverb users,i.e. the general population in all walks of life, the proverb contains a gooddose of common sense, experience, wisdom and above all truth.[30] Do such «definitions» still holdtrue today,or do modern adults in a technological society see proverbs in a much morecritical light? Are proverbs still considered to besolid kernels of wisdom and truth, or are they laughed off as antiquated bitsof moral teaching? The following 55 recentdefinitions of proverbs might include some surprises when one considers thatthey come from members of a sophisticated and highly educated society. Thedefinitions were collected by merely asking various people to write theirdefinition of a proverb on a piece of paper without any previous discussion ofproverbs whatsoever. They represent spontaneous reactions to the simpleisolated question «How would you define a proverb?» Here are thefascinating answers in alphabetical order:
1.  Aproverb consists of a short sentence which contains a general piece of wisdom.
2.  Aproverb contains wisdom which has been handed down from one generation to thenext.
3.  Aproverb describes situations which happened before and which are repeated againand again.
4.  Aproverb expresses folk wisdom in formulaic, short and metaphorical language.
5.  Aproverb has been passed down through many generations. It sums up, in one shortphrase, a general principle or common situation, and when you say it, everyoneknows exactly what you mean. It is often graphic, symbolic or rhyming, so thatit is easily remembered.
6.  Aproverb is a common expression whose origin is not known or has been forgotten.It expresses wisdom concerning life.
7.  Aproverb is a common, repeated and generally known phrase which expresses ageneral idea taken to be true. It usually draws upon everyday occurrences orevents in nature which are easily understood.
8.  Aproverb is a commonly-known, easily understandable example of descriptive,colorful, «folksy» wisdom, which, independent of the era, carries alesson to and conveys a philosophy of life for the common man.
9.  Aproverb is a commonly-known, often-quoted, concise saying which expresses ageneralization concerning some aspect of everyday existence.
10.  Aproverb is a commonly used or known phrase, expressing knowledge, a conclusionor an attitude about aspects of life that are universally familiar to mankind.
11.  Aproverb is a complete sentence which usually contains a moral or didactic«message»
12.  Aproverb is a condensed form of age-old folk sayings and biblical teachings. Theproverb attempts to teach us, via the trials and tribulations of others whowere not as fortunate as we. Proverbs can be positive or negative in nature;unfortunately, far too many of them are anti-women in their conclusions.
13.  Aproverb is a condensed version of basic opinions, prejudices and beliefs commonto a group of people. These are usually in the form of very short, easy-to-remember sentences or phrases.
14.  Aproverb is a fixed-phrase, metaphorical statement.
15.  Aproverb is a fixed phrase piece of folklore consisting of a comparison oranalogy, applying one set of circumstances to a different but similarsituation.
16.  Aproverb is a formulaic expression of a certain truth which is applicable onlyin a special situation. Used generally a proverb is only half a truth.
17.  Aproverb is a linguistic attempt to express a general truth or wisdom in a fewwords.
18.  Aproverb is a metaphorical statement that illustrates a lesson of behavior.
19.  Aproverb is a one-sentence statement which encapsulates an element of folkwisdom; a specific reference which applies to many generalized situations ormeanings.
20.  Aproverb is a phrase or sentence, accepted and integrated into common verbalusage of the general population, although often regional in character, which ismost likely generated by astute, humanistic, albeit didactic, assessment of thehuman experience, offering tidbits of wisdom applicable to these paradigms ofexistential encounter.
21.  Aproverb is a pictorial phrase in which a message is given, many times a pictureof an oft done action.
22.  Aproverb is a pithy statement or comment usually involving advice or a moral.
23.  Aproverb is a saying or generalization often accepted as truth; it contains wordsof wisdom.
24.  Aproverb is a saying that is known to the public; sometimes a moral or a threat.
25.  Aproverb is a saying with which people often identify because it is universaland meaningful in some way or other.
26.  Aproverb is a sentence or phrase which expresses the generally accepted thoughtor belief of a group and which has, through use, become of a group and whichhas, through use, become standardized in form.
27.  Aproverb is a sentence that has been developed orally and is still used by thepeople of a region. It has usually come about from experience and it is astatement that teaches the learning within an experience.
28.  Aproverb is a short and general statement which is handed down by tradition andwhich changes its meaning according to the speaker and the situation.
29.  Aproverb is a short, and poetic statement used by the folk to express rules orwisdom concerning life.
30.  Aproverb is a short, concise, colloquial saying, easily memorized, andcontaining traditional beliefs taken to be true.
31.  Aproverb is a short, concise phrase which states a moral principle, bit of folkwisdom or similar rule by which one should live.
32.  Aproverb is a short condensation of a piece of folk wisdom, formed in such a waythat it will be memorable. Its main goal is thus to teach, whether it be asemi-scientific fact or a viewpoint.
33.  Aproverb is a short expression known by many people. It usually contains acommonly held view of life.
34.  Aproverb is a short phrase. It is used to convey a traditional bit of folk wisdom
35.  Aproverb is a short saying which teaches a point or establishes a cultural normbased on the tradition of the people who use it. It is generally to beunderstood analogically — atleast I have never heard of a proverb fundamentalist.
36.  Aproverb is a short, sentence or phrase which capsulizes a thought about humannature, values or ideals, and is generally thought to be for instructive/exemplarypurposes.
37.  Aproverb is a short sentence or saying which expresses a rather simple didacticconcept, and which usually implies a right as opposed to a wrong action.Proverbs are brief, often not direct (metaphoric), and a great majority of thecommunity will be familiar with the proverb and its meaning.
38.  Aproverb is a short, traditional statement which teaches or gives advice on asubject. Comparisons are often used to illustrate the point.
39.   Aproverb is a small saying that describes wisdom in a way that either teaches ormakes fun of it.
40.  Aproverb is a statement often articulated in parallel or allegorical terms withthe intent of expressing a general truth
41.  Aproverb is a traditional, fixed-phrase saying, usually one sentence thatexpresses an opinion, often considered wisdom, on a subject or recommends acourse of action.
42.  Aproverb is a traditional saying or sentence which summarizes an attitudetowards something or describes a certain sitation. It is an often used sayingthrough which one learns. A «picture» or «image»accompanies, or is within the expression, which gives light to the lesson to belearned. This lesson is often referred to as a moral.
43.  Aproverb is a traditional wisdom, advice or statement in a fixed phrase. It isshort and precise, consists of at least two parts, and contains actor and verb.
44.  Aproverb is a well known saying which belongs to folk poetry and which is usedby everyone.
45.  Aproverb is a well known spying without a known author, passed on fromgeneration to generation, which gives advice, admonitions or a moral lesson — usually a few words to not more than one sentence inlength and stated in a manner that is easily remembered i.e. rhyme, workablelanguage, alliteration, analogy, etc. It is related to man as a whole and oftenbegins with who.
46.  Aproverb is a witticism which combines clarity and precision of thought withbrevity and profundity of word usage. The statement generally applies to asituation which is commonly understood and appreciated by all peoples of agiven culture.
47.  Aproverb is an expression in colloquial or biblical terms which illustrates amoralistic point.
48.  Aproverb is an often repeated and metaphorical expression.
49.  Aproverb is generally used to provide «wisdom» in a concise way. Itspares the speaker of the proverb the chore of being philosophically original.
50.  Aproverb is the wisdom of many, the wit of one. This is known as defining aproverb with a proverb. It doesn’t hold up too well as a definition, but itsticks in my mind.1
51.  Certainprinciples and conditions of everyday life are expressed in proverbs, which inturn help people to understand the world and to learn from experience.
52.  Ina few words proverbs explain human problems and behavior.
53.  Proverbsare general statements of truth which can apply to certain instances in acommentary fashion, and which can act as wise words for future actions.
54.  Proverbsare golden words of folk wisdom that have been treasured from generation togeneration.
55.  Proverbsare short and aphoristic expressions of wisdom which reflect basic humansituations and concerns[31].
Aword analysis of these definitions results in aninteresting composite of what a general definition of a proverb might looklike. Taking the frequency of nouns first, the following picture emerges (thenumber :n parentheses indicates how often a particular noun appearsin the 55 definitions):wisdom; phrase; sentence, saying; statement; folk; situation; expression; life;truth, moral, people; generation,’ experience, advice, lesson, word; principle,analogy, belief, behavior, meaning, action; language, generalization, attitude,message, opinion, picture, comment, thought, comparison, tradition, rule,viewpoint; origin, idea, occurrence, philosophy, knowledge, conclusion,prejudice, folklore, paradigm, threat, form, norm, nature, value, ideal, image,poetry, author, admonition, rhyme, alliteration, witticism, brevity,profundity, clarity, precision, culture, condition, concern. From this itbecomes clear that a proverb is commonly thought of as «a phrase, saying,sentence, statement or expression of the folk which contains above all wisdom,truth, morals, experience, lessons and advice concerning life and which hasbeen’ handed down from generation to generation.» This compositedefinition basically includes all those words that appear from 4to 20 timesin the collected definitions. But since the words phrase, saying, sentence,statement and expression simply define a proverb as a basic sentence, it cancertainly be stated that the shortest general definition of a proverb is simply«A proverb is wisdom expressed in a sentence.»
Lookingat modifying verbs, adjectives and adverbs in the 55definitions, the following frequency picture arises:short; general; known; common, teach, traditional; metaphorical; concise, fixed; repeated, remembered,everyday, didactic; handed down, formulaic, true, understandable, often quoted,universal, moralistic, colloquial, memorizable, learned, familiar, biblical,human; sum up, graphic, symbolic, rhyming, colorful, descriptive, old,linguistic, regional, pictorial, pithy, standardized, accepted, oral, poetic,parallel, precise, aphoristic, cultural, instructive, exemplary, small,allegorical. If one adds the 18 occurrencesof «short» togetherwith the 4 of«concise,» the one of «precise» and the one of«small» it is clear that 24 oralmost half of the definitions stress the shortness of the proverb. Adding tothis a few more of the frequent descriptive words, a composite definition couldbe something like «A proverb is a short, generally known sentence thatexpresses common, traditional and didactic views in a metaphorical and fixedform and which is easily remembered and repeated.» But again, the shortestcommon denominator for this group of descriptive words would simply1result in the definition «A proverb is a short sentence.»
Thereare several types of proverbs describe below:
Universalproverbs –On comparing proverbs of culturally unrelated partsof the world, one finds several ones having not only the same basic idea butthe form of expression, i.e. the wording is also identical or very similar.These are mainly simple expressions of simple observations or simple ethicalconcepts, but not all expressions of simple observations became proverbs inevery language.
Regionalproverbs – In culturally related regions — on the pattern of loan-words — many loan-proverbs appear beside the indigenousones. A considerable part ot them can be traced back to the classicalliterature of the region’s past, in Europe the Greco-Roman classics, and in the Far East to the Sanskrit and Korean classics.
LocalProverbs – In a cultural region often internaldifferences appear, the classics (e.g. the Bible or the Confucian Analects) arenot equally regarded as a source of proverbs in every language. Geographicalvicinity gives also rise to another set of common local proverbs. Theseconsiderations are illustrated in several European and Far-Eastern languages,as English and Korean.
Proverbswere always the most vivacious and at the same time the moststable part of the national languages, suitablecompeting with the sayings and aphorisms pf outstanding thinkers. In theproverbs and sayings picturesqueness of national thinking was more vividexpressed as well as their features of national’ character.
Theproverbs and sayings are the paper of folklore which is short but deep in themeaning. They express the outlook of the amount of people by their social andideal functions. Proverbs and sayings includethemselves the some certain features of historical development and the cultureof people.
Thesemantic sphere of proverbs is very wide and cannot limit them. The proverbsdescribe the every branch of people’s life. The fact is that proverbs andsayings are similar in meaning in spite of their diversity in form andlanguage.
Whileinvestigating on the given qualification theme we have analused proverbs on thesemantic point of view. We have come across on the following noticeable themes,such as Friendship, Motherland, Time, Knowledge, Beauty, Health, Work, and alot other different subjects. We have classified some example on the giventopics:
Friendship
1. A friendship in need is a friend indeed.
2. A friend’s frown is better than a foe’ssmile.
3. Among friends all things are common.
4. Even reckoning makes long friends.
5. Who keeps company with the wolf, willlearn to howl.
Motherland
1. East or West home is best.
2. Every bird likes its own nest.
3. There is no place like home.
4. Never cast dirt into that fountain ifwhich you have sometimes drunk.
5. Don’t cut the bough you are standing on.
Time
1. Time and tide wait for no man.
2. Time cures all things.
3. Time flies.
4. Time is money.
5. Time is wonders
6. Cost time is never found again.
Knowledge
1. To everything is to know nothing.
2. Soon learnt soon forgotten.
3. Live and learn.
4. It’s never too late to learn.
5. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Beauty
1. All that glitters is not gold.
2. Appearances are deceptive
3. Handsome is as handsome does.
4. There is no rose without the thorn.
Health
1. An apple a day keeps the doctor away.
2. A sound mind in a sound body.
3. Early to bed and early to rise makes aman health’s, wealth’s and wise.
4. Good health is above wealth.
5. Health is not valued till sicknesscomes.
Work
1. A bad workman always blames his tools.
2. A good beginning is half the worn.
3 A good beginning makes a good ending.
4. An attempt is not tortue.
5. AH is well that ends well.
6. As you sow so you reap.
7. Chickens are counted in autumn.
8. Man proposes bad disposes.
9. Never put off till tomorrow what you cando today
10. Nogain without plan.
11. Speak less but do more.
2.3PROVERBS AS THE WAY EXPRESSING PEOPLES WISDOM ANDSPIRIT IN LITERARY WORKS
Apsychological method of analysis has been developed (Detje, 1996)and will be presented in order to show whichpsychological mechanisms the proverbs use to reach their goal of giving help(or advise) for human action regulation and human action organization. Someexamples will be given to show which psychological insight there is inside theproverbs. Comer’s theory of human action organization (e.g. Dorner, 1990,1991) is used in this first analysis andcompared with a lot of proverbs taken from Simrock, 1846.It can be shown that the proverbs have a much’ differentiated”‘knowledge” about human action organization and errors people makewhile planning and acting; even in complex and uncertain situations. Proverbsare «Guides to Right Behavior». This also means that a lot ofpsychologists’ ideas of action organization arealready included in «grandma’s wisdom»,although the proverbs use (of course) a quite different language.[32] Sincepsychologists have used proverbs mainly for testingand differentiating groups of
personsit will be very interesting to have an exchange between paremiologists andpsychologists about the psychological significance of the wisdom in theproverbs.
Manypeople have loved proverbs for the wisdom embedded in them. Others havetreasured proverbs for the vividness or earthiness of their imagery. Butstudents of the subject are impressed by still another characteristic of theproverb: its verbal economy. Proverbs are rarely wordy. The usual proverb isspare and austere in expression, and some are marvels of compactness.
«Wisdom»and «shortness» doubtlessly belong to the popular notion of whatmakes up a proverb. Even when a scholar such as Mario Pei wrote a short pieceon «Parallel Proverbs» (1964)[33]for the Saturday Review, he basically adhered to this general view ofthe proverb in his article dealing with national and international proverbs,their cynicism, philosophy and humor, their obvious misogyny and theircontradictor) comments on life’s experiences around the world: Proverbs areamong the most ancient of human institutions. Criticism of life, in brief andpithy form, is characteristic of proverbs, while their popular philosophy isindeed, proverbial.
«Proverbsare the wisdom of peoples» goes an Italiansaying. This is perhaps an exaggeration, but there is no doubt that much of anation’s folk-philosophy gets into proverbs, along with the spice of nationalcustoms and, above all, the peculiar flavor of the nation’s language andphraseology… Proverbs are generalizations of human experience, condensationsof oft-repeated occurrences of the trial-and-error variety. Above all, they arethe fruit of observation and inductive reasoning, two of the great faculties ofthe human mind… A generalization… caught on, became popular, and was passedfrom mouth to mouth, from generation to generation.
Ultimatelyit became an integral part of the group’s folklore, and was repeated wheneverthe situation it described recurred. Every proverb tells a story and teaches alesson.
Thislengthy discussion of the nature of the proverb by Pei reads almost as anattempt of summarizing the common understanding of proverbs. Many of the 55definitions stated above are similar to Pei’s points, and it is amazing to notice how congrous these definitions are to those definingattempts printed in magazines and newspapers. There certainly is much agreementin the non-scholarly world of what a proverb is even if scholars seem to beunable to agree on a reasonable definition at all.
Aproverb is by definition a popular maxim. Proverbs are among the most ancientliterary forms, and among the most universal. Enough if it [the proverb] holdsits measure of truth. Proverbs are anonymous wisdom-literature of the commonman in ages past.[34] MattiKuusi once defined proverbs simply as «monumenta humana,»and this is exactly what they are to the generalpopulation. Our survey of 55 non-academicdefinitions has shown that proverbs are thought to express human wisdom andbasic truths in a short sentence. Popular articles in magazines and newspapersfend to share this view of the proverb. Altogether proverbs are stillseen as useful generalizations about life, even ifat times their value of appropriateness in certain situations might bequestioned. We can poke fun at proverbs, we can ridicule them or we can parodythem, but eventually we are all governed by their insights to some degree.Proverbs and their wisdom confront us’ daily, and modern people seem to have aclear idea of what proverbs are, what they express and what they can do for us.Proverb scholars would do well to pay more attention to the present use ofproverbs while obviously also continuing to tackle the frustrating question ofwhether a universal proverb definition can be found. But in their enduringsearch for such an erudite definition, they can take solace in the fact thatthe people using proverbs do know in their minds what makes a good proverb — an incommunicable quality tells them that a shortand repeated statement of wisdom, truth and experience must be a proverb.
Comparingthe three approaches discussed above (semantic,functional, and contextual) we have ample ground toconclude that have verymuch in common as the main criteria of phraseological units appearto be essentially the same, i.e. stability andidiomaticity or lack of motivation.It should be noted however that these criteria as elaborated inthe three approaches are sufficient mainly to singleout extreme cases: highlyidiomatic non-variable and free (or variable) word-groups.
Themain features of this new approach which is now more or lessuniversally accepted by Soviet linguists are asfollows:[35]
12.  Phraseologyis regarded as a self-contained branch of linguistics and not as a part oflexicology.
13.  Phraseologydeals with a phraseological subsystem of language and not with isolatedphraseological units.
14.Phraseology is concerned with all types of set expressions.
15.Set expressions are divided into three classes:phraseological units (e.g. red tape, mare’s nest, etc.), phraseomatic units(e.g. win a victory,launch a campaign, etc.) and borderline casesbelonging to the mixed class. The main distinction between the first and thesecond classes is semantic: phraseological units have fully or partiallytransferred meanings while components of phraseomatic units are used in theirliteral meanings.
16.  Phraseologicaland phraseomatic units are not regarded as word-equivalents but some of themare treated as word correlates.
17.  Phraseologicaland phraseomatic units are set expressions and their phraseological stabilitydistinguishes them from free phrases and compound words.
Phraseologicaland phraseomatic units are made up of words of different degree ofwordness depending on the type of set expressionsthey are used in. (cf. e.g. small hours and red tape). Their structuralseparateness, an important factor of their stability, distinguishes them fromcompound words.

CONCLUSION
Thevocabulary of a language is enriched not only by words but also byphraseological units. Phraseological units are word-groups that cannot be madein the process of speech, they exist in the language as ready-made units.
Theyare compiled in special dictionaries. The same as words phraseological unitsexpress a single notion and are used in a sentence as one part of it. Americanand British lexicographers call such units «idioms». We can mention suchdictionaries as: L.Smith «Words and Idioms»[36],V.Collins «АBook of English Idioms»[37] etc In these dictionaries we can findwords, peculiar in their
semantics(idiomatic), side by side with word-groups and sentences. In thesedictionaries they are arranged, as a rule, intodifferent semantic groups.
Phraseologicalunits can be classified according to the ways they are formed, according to thedegree of the motivation of their meaning, according to their structure andaccording to their part-of-speech meaning.
A.V.Koonin classified phraseological units according to the way they are formed[38]. Hepointed out primary and secondary ways of forming phraseological units.
Bythe classification of Academician V.Vinogradov phraseological units are dividedinto three groups: phraseological combinations, phraseological unities andphraseological fusions[39].
Proverbis a brief saying that presents a truth or some bit of useful wisdom. It isusually based on common sense or practical experience. The effect of a proverbis, to make the wisdom it tells seem to be self-evident. The same proverb oftenoccurs among several different peoples. True proverbs are sayings that havebeen passed from generation to generation primarily by word of month. They mayalso have been put into written form.
Aproverb consists of a short sentence which contains a general piece of wisdom.
Aproverb contains wisdom which has been handed down from one generation to thenext.
 Aproverb describes situations which happened beforeand which are repeated again and again.
Universalproverbs –On comparing proverbs of culturally unrelated partsof the world, one finds several ones having not only the same basic idea butthe form of expression, i.e. the wording is also identical or very similar.These are mainly simple expressions of simple observations or simple ethicalconcepts, but not all expressions of simple observations became proverbs inevery language.
Regionalproverbs – In culturally related regions — on the pattern of loan-words — many loan-proverbs appear beside the indigenousones. A considerable part ot them can be traced back to the classicalliterature of the region’s past, in Europe the Greco-Roman classics, and in the Far East to the Sanskrit and Korean classics.
LocalProverbs –In a cultural region often internal differencesappear, the classics (e.g. the Bible or the Confucian Analects) are not equallyregarded as a source of proverbs in every language. Geographical vicinity givesalso rise to another set of common local proverbs. These considerations areillustrated in several European and Far-Eastern languages, as English andKorean.
Proverbswere always the most vivacious and at the same time the most stable part of thenational languages, suitable competing with the sayings and aphorisms ofoutstanding thinkers. In the proverbs and sayings picturesqueness of nationalthinking was more vivid expressed as well as their features of nationalcharacter.
Proverbswere always the most vivacious and at the same time the most stable part of thenational languages, suitable competing with the sayings and aphorisms ofoutstanding thinkers. In the proverb-; and sayings picturesqueness of nationalthinking was more vivid expressed as well as their features of nationalcharacter. The proverbs and sayings are the paper of folklore which is shortbut deep in the meaning. They express the outlook of the amount of people bytheir social and ideal functions. Proverbs and sayings include themselves thesome certain features of historical development and the culture of people.
Thesemantic sphere of proverbs is very wide and cannot limit them.
Theproverbs describe the every branch of people’s life.
Thefact is that proverbs and sayings are similar in meaning in spite of theirdiversity in form and language.
Whileinvestigating on the given qualification theme we have analused proverbs on thesemantic point of view. We have come across on the> following noticeablethemes, such as Friendship, Motherland, Time, Knowledge, Beauty, Health, Work,and a lot other different subjects. We have classified some example on thegiven topics:
Friendship
1. A friendship in need is a friend indeed.
2. A friend’s frown is better than a foe’ssmile.
3. Among friends all things are common.
4. Even reckoning makes long friends.
5. Who keeps company with the wolf, willlearn to howl.
Motherland
1. East or West home is best.
2. Ever}’ bird likes its own nest.
3. There is no place like home.
4. Never cast dirt into that fountain ifwhich you have sometimes drunk.
5. Don’t cut the bough you are standing on.
Time
1. Time and tide wait for no man.
2. Time cures all things.
3. Time tlies.
4. Time is money.
5. Time is wonders
Knowledge
1. To know everything is to know nothing.
2. Soon learnt soon forgotten.
3. Live and learn.
4. It’s never too late to learn.
5. A little knowledge is adangerous thing.
Beauty
1. All that glitters is not gold.
2. Appearances are deceptive
3. Handsome is as handsome does.
4. There is no rose without the thorn.
Health
5. An applea day keeps the doctor away.
6. A sound mind in a sound body.
7. Early to bed and early to rise makes aman health’s, wealth’s and wise.
8. Good health is above wealth.
9. Health is not valued till sickness comes
Work
1. A bad workman always blames his tools.
2. A good beginning is half the worn.
3. A good beginning makes a good ending.
4. An attempt is not tortue.
5. All is well that ends well.

THELIST OF THE USED LITERATURE
1.A.A.Schachmatov. Syntax. Schachmatov’s work
2.  A.V.Kunin’sАнгло-русскийфразеологический словарь, 1956.
3.  A.V.Kunin English Idioms.3d ed. M., 1967.
4.  Auniversal proverb definition. Scholars around the world continue to find their ownso-called «working definitions,» of which some of the most recentattempts in the English language are those by Shirley Arora, Nigel Barley, OttoBlehr, Margaret Bryant, David Cram, Alan Dundes, Galit Hasan-Rokem, GeorgeMilner, Peter Seitel
5.  BartlettJere Whiting, «The Nature of the Proverb.» 1932
6.  BenjaminFranklin ‘Poor Richard’s Almanac’.
7.  CollinsV. «А Book of English Idioms»
8.  Englishidioms in: Logan Smith. Words and Idioms. London, 1928.
9.   Word-Groupsand Phraseological Units’, § 1,p. 64.
10. I.V. Arnold, A.I. Smirnitsky theinterpretation of these term in the textbooks on lexicology
11.  JanFredrik Kindstrand «The Greek Concept of Proverbs,»
12.  «ParallelProverbs» (1964).
13.  Shalant,and Soyoo Hyunjoo Park «The Sun and the Moon.»
14.  SmithL. «Words and Idioms».
15.  TheAdvanced Learner’s Dictionary by A. Hornby, E. Gatenby, H. Wake-field; TheUniversal English Dictionary by H. Wild and ЛGeneral Service List of English Words with SemanticFrequencies by M, West.
16.  V.V.Vinogradov. Investigation of English phraseology A.V. Kunin (A.B. Кунин).
17.  V.I.Dal «dictionary of vivid Russian language»
18.  V.T.Dal «the proverbs of Russian nation»
19.  YooYushin. «The Legend of Tan-gun.» Golden Pond Press, 1987.-270p.
20.  A.B.Кунин.Английская фразеология. M.,1970.
21.  Англо-русскийфразеологический словарь. М., 1955).
22.  А.И.Смирницкий. Лексикология английского языка. М., 1956.
23.  «o’zbektilining izohli lug’ati»
24.  www.cogweb.com
25.  www.proverbs. com