Introduction

Each language is the best reflection of national world picture, historical experience and cultural heritage of its people. Notably, phraseological units are considered to play significant role in indicating these features. They are expressions that, in contrast to simple vocabulary, in many cases cannot be directly translated, have symbolic and multi-layered meanings. Phraseological units deeply reflect human thought, attitude to life and the values formed in society. Particularly, phraseological units with anthroponymic components – that is, phrases that involve personal names of famous historical, fictional and mythological people. They bring not only expressive, imagery and evaluative layers to the language, but also cultural nuances and historical references. They often depend on a specific period, historical identity, or cultural context, so they need to be analyzed grammatically, lexically, semantically and in terms of linguoculturology.

In this article, anthroponymic phraseological units in two non-related languages – English and Uzbek are studied on theory of semantics. Within the framework of the study, the semantic classification of these expressions and their denotative and connotative meanings are analyzed. Also, common and different aspects of phraseological units in the two languages are identified and their place in the national mentality and culture is highlighted.

Methods

This study employs a mixed-methods approach to examine phraseological units with anthroponymic components in terms of semantics in English and Uzbek languages, combining semantic analysis, comparative-contrastive, cross-cultural, discourse analysis. By using qualitative data analysis, the research aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of semantic load of personal names within these phraseological units, their denotative and connotative meanings, and evaluative features inherent in them.

Comparative analysis: the use of the method allows comparison of phraseological units in English and Uzbek languages. By comparing the anthroponymic components and their semantic properties in two languages, the method can determine the identity and similarities of each language. At the same time, the use of the method of grinding helps to understand the historical and cultural roots of phraseological units, which is useful in highlighting the various semantic meanings of the analyzed phraseological unit.

Semantic analysis: semantic analysis allows a deep understanding of the forms of meaning of phraseological units and the semantic load of anthroponyms used in them. With this method, it is possible to determine the literal and figurative meanings of phraseological units. Semantic analysis serves to show the connection between language and culture, as well as specific semantic layers of phraseological units.

Qualitative data is used in this study to identify uncertainties in human thought, culture and linguistic system, as well as specific contextual meanings of phraseological units. Qualitative data is important in making research related to phraseological units and their cultural role in linguistics. It allows the collection and analysis of information that reflects the method, the conditions under which the language has changed, social groups and individual thinking.

Discourse analysis: helps to understand the communicative and social context of phraseological units. The method is used to identify linguistic functions of phraseological units, including interactions between social groups and meanings related to cultural perspectives. With the help of discourse analysis, it is possible to understand in what cases phraseological units are used and their cultural content.

Cross-cultural analysis: allows for a deeper understanding of the social and cultural context of phraseological units. With the help of cultural analysis, the links between folk oral creativity and cultural traditions of the language are considered. This method reveals the historical and cultural identity of phraseological units and makes it possible to study phraseological units located at the intersection of linguistics and cultural studies. All these are very important methodological approaches to achieving the goal of the study, which, combining linguistics and cultural studies, serve to deeply analyze phraseological units and identify semantic differences between them.

Results

The result of the investigation reveal that based on the semantic analysis of the anthroponymic components of phraseological units in English and Uzbek, it was realized that they can be classified into different groups in terms of their content plan of anthroponyms included in phrasrological units. Monastyretskaya (2018) states that the cultural specificity of the analyzed phraseological units is manifested in various aspects of human activity, character traits, positive or negative personal qualities of people. The sources of national-specific features of phraseological units denoting character can be the features of the lifestyle, the nature of work, the value system, the historical conditions of the formation of the language of a particular ethnic group and other factors.

According to their analysis of practical material, they came to conclusion to develop a thematic classification of English phraseological units denoting personal names. It was based on the criterion of a positive, negative and neutral component of phraseological meaning, which, in turn, correlates with condemnation,approvalorlack of a pronouncedattitudeas a statementofasocially well-establishedassessmentofaphenomenon.Dependingon the quality of the evaluativecomponent,within the framework of thephrase-semanticgroup under study, severalsubgroupscan be distinguished:

1)phraseological units expressingnegativecharactertraits of a person;

2)phraseologicalunitsexpressingpositivecharactertraits of a person;

3) phraseological units of neutral assessment of a person's character.

Moreover, while classifying the semantic load of anthroponyms, their main meaning and figurative interpretation serves as the main criteria and according to Abdusamadov (2022), who studied national and cultural features of phraseological units with anthroponymic components, these linguistic means have been classified into two groups based on whether they have equivalence in both languages or not:

• Phraseological units with anthroponymic components with equivalence in English and Uzbek languages;
• Phraseological units with anthroponymic components with no equivalence in English and Uzbek languages.

Thus, in English and Uzbek with an anthroponymic component the proverbial names of people used in phraseologisms it is possible to classify differently according to its semantic characteristics.

Discussion

Considering semantic analysis of the phraseological units with anthroponymic components in English and Uzbek languages, we can classify them into groups based on a content plan. This provides an important ground for the study of the expression of popular thought, cultural worldview, moral standards and historical memory through phraseological units. In particular, the anthroponyms present in each phraseological unit indicate language imagery, value, and in many cases attitudes based on stereotypes accepted by the general public. As noted by Monastyretskaya (2018), anthroponymic components in phraseological units serve as a means of expressing human character, activity and social qualities. These units, in many cases, have a certain cultural context, in which the images expressed will directly depend on national world picture, lifestyle and the value system of the people. This state of affairs suggests that in addition to their national cultural characteristics, they also represent universal concepts. In the course of the study, the thematic classification of phraseological units also justified itself, especially, phraseological units based on individuals’ names were divided into three groups according to the semantic component of the evaluator:

1. positively marked phraseological units. In English:

Admirable Crichton – a person who excels in all kinds of studies and pursuits, or who is noted for supreme competence (The sense of raise in this expression is that of summoning a spirit, especially an evil one; similar sayings include raise the Devil and raise hell. A mid-19th-century expression originating in the USA, the particular form raise Cain is possibly a euphemism to avoid using the words Devil or hell. Cain, according to the biblical book of Genesis, was the first murderer.);

in Abraham's bosom – in heaven, the place of rest for the souls of the blessed (The phrase is taken from Luke 16:22: 'And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom', In the Bible, Abraham was the Hebrew patriarch from whom all Jews traced their descent);

In Uzbek: aqli Salim – aqlli, farosatli inson (“Salim” nomi donolik, sokinlik va tushunish bilan bog‘liq; xalq og‘zaki ijodida tez-tez uchraydi);

Yusufdek goʻzal – juda chiroyli, kelishgan yigit (Qur’oni Karimdagi Yusuf payg‘ambarning goʻzalligi ramziy ma’no olgan);

2. negatively marked phraseological units. In English:

raise Cain – create trouble or a commotion

the old Adam unregenerate human nature (in Christian symbolism, the old Adam represents fallen man as contrasted with the second Adam, Jesus Christ);

In Uzbek: Qoʻrqoq Hojiboy – juda qoʻrqoq, jur’atsiz odam (“Hojiboy” – ayrim an’anaviy xalq qissalarida kulgili-yu sust odam sifatida ifodalanadi);

Qoravoyga oʻxshamoq – sharmandali, kulgili holga tushmoq (“Qoravoy” – xalq og‘zaki ijodida bekorchi yoki kulgili odam sifatida koʻrsatiladi);

3. neutrally marked phraseological units. In English:

Joe Public – the average man ("Joe" is used for neutrality no strong emotions attached; reflects general citizenry);

Johnny Raw–beginner, freshman, novice;

In Uzbek: Toshpoʻlatni koʻrgan kabi – beparvo, loqayd munosabat (Toshpoʻlat – xalq orasida tez-tez uchraydigan, neytral ism sifatida ishlatiladi);

Toʻxta bilan gaplashgandek – Oddiy, tinch gaplashmoq (“Toʻxta” ismi neytral boʻlib, xalq tilida kinoyasiz, kundalik gapda ishlatiladi).

Such an approachis very important for identifying the communicative functions of phraseological units, understanding their socio-emotional meaning, and understanding the semantic differences that arise in their translation.

As noted by Abdusamadov (2022), phraseological units like this are divided into two groups according to the degree of equivalence:

1. Phraseological units with anthroponymic components with equivalence in English and Uzbek languages. In English:

(as) old as Adam (old, ancient);

In Uzbek: Odam atodan qolgan.

2. Phraseological units with anthroponymic components with no equivalence in English and Uzbek languages.

In English: A Herculean task;

In Uzbek: Musoning alamini Isodan olmoq.

This difference indicates the need to take into account cultural differences in the translation process. When non-equivalent phraseologisms are translated, it becomes necessary to understand their semantic basis in depth, and, if necessary, to apply context-specific cultural adaptation methods. At the same time, the figurative use of names in phraseological units, their portable meaning and their historical and cultural basis bring to the surface important issues related to the area of the intersection of the disciplines of semantics, phraseology and cultural Studies in linguistics. This study shows that through anthroponymic phraseologisms, language becomes not only a means of communication, but also an expression of cultural beliefs, values, social positions, stereotypical views and historical experience.

Conclusion

Analysis of phraseological units with anthroponymic components in English and Uzbek has shown that these units play an important role not only in linguistics, but also in cultural and historical contexts. During the study, it was discovered that anthroponyms have different semantic loading in phraseologisms, through which national character, social values and historical memories are reflected.

Anthroponymicphraseologismsbreak down into positive, negative, and neutral evaluative groups according to semantic criteria.This shows how they reflect human behavior, personal qualities, social status, or general human States as a means of language.Somephraseologicalunitsare semantically fully compatible withthe two languages, whileothers are differentiated due to national-cultural identity.Also, anthroponymswithinphraseologicalunitshaveconstantconnotations, the formation of which is tied to historical figures, literary heroes or typages popular among the people.This condition clearly demonstrates the inextricable connection between language and culture.

In general, the analysis of anthroponymic components within phraseological units not only reveals the semantic structure of linguistic units, but also helps to deeper understand how national thinking, cultural values and historical contexts are reflected in the language. This serves as an important resource in the study of the worldview and national identity of the people through phraseological units.