Introduction. Language serves as a mirror of a society’s culture, history, and worldview, with phraseological units-such as idioms, proverbs, and fixed expressions-acting as especially vivid reflections of collective experience and values. When these expressions incorporate anthroponyms (personal names), they gain an additional layer of cultural resonance, often alluding to historical figures, folklore, social archetypes, or shared cultural knowledge. This study undertakes a national-cultural analysis of phraseological units containing anthroponomic components in both English and Uzbek. By comparing the ways personal names are embedded within the idiomatic expressions of these two distinct linguistic and cultural systems, the research aims to reveal both universal patterns and unique national features that shape their respective worldviews. Special attention is given to the metaphorical meanings and cultural implications associated with particular anthroponyms, exploring how these names reflect societal attitudes, historical context, and collective memory in each culture.

Methods. This research employs a comparative analysis approach to investigate the national-cultural dimensions of phraseological units containing anthroponyms in the Uzbek and English languages. By examining and contrasting the usage, semantic nuances, and cultural connotations of these expressions in both linguistic systems, this study aims to identify both shared patterns and language-specific characteristics in how personal names contribute to idiomatic meaning and cultural representation. The data for this study will be primarily drawn from several key sources. For English, these will include comprehensive dictionaries of English idioms and phraseological verbs (e.g., Oxford Dictionary of Idioms, Longman Dictionary of Phrasal Verbs), as well as examples identified in English literature and online corpora (such as the Corpus of Contemporary American English - COCA, or the British National Corpus - BNC) to provide context of use. For Uzbek, the primary sources will be authoritative dictionaries of Uzbek phraseology (e.g., O‘zbek tilining izohli frazeologik lug‘ati by Sh. Rahmatullayev, O‘zbek tili frazeologiyasi by A. G‘ulomov and M . Asqarova), alongside examples found in Uzbek literary works and potentially Uzbek language corpora if accessible.

Phraseological units, encompassing idioms, proverbs, and other fixed expressions, are characterized by their semantic indivisibility, stability of lexical components, and often, their figurative or transferred meaning. These units frequently serve as condensed carriers of cultural information, reflecting a society’s history, values, beliefs, and stereotypes. The inclusion of anthroponyms within these units can further amplify their cultural significance, grounding them in specific cultural contexts, historical events, or shared social understandings.

In the context of this research, anthroponyms within phraseological units can serve various functions:

• Representing Social Archetypes: Names can stand in for typical individuals or social roles (e.g., "Every Tom, Dick, and Harry" representing ordinary people).
• Evoking Historical or Legendary Figures: Some idioms reference historical or legendary figures, embodying specific traits or stories (e.g., names of national heroes or figures from folklore).
• Reflecting Cultural Attitudes: The way names are used in idioms can reveal underlying cultural attitudes, stereotypes, or values.

English Examples and Analysis:

1. "Every Tom, Dick, and Harry"
   • Meaning: Refers to ordinary, undistinguished people; anyone and everyone.
   • Cultural Implications: Reflects a certain egalitarianism, suggesting inclusivity, but can also imply a dismissive attitude toward the common person.
2. "Keeping up with the Joneses"
   • Meaning: Striving to match or surpass one’s neighbors in material possessions and social status.
   • Cultural Implications: Reflects the competitive nature of consumer culture and the pressure to conform to societal standards of success.
3. "What W. Scott introduced"
   • Meaning: This idiom is connected to the famous writer, Sir Walter Scott.
   • Cultural Implications: Represents a cultural link between literacy and intelligence.

Uzbek Examples and Analysis:

1. "Boyqaro bo‘lib qolmoq" (To become like Boyqaro)
   • Meaning: To emulate a legendary or folkloric figure, often implying the adoption of positive attributes.
   • Cultural Implications: This idiom reflects the importance of cultural heroes and the desire to embody their positive traits.
2. "Qoravoydek yetim" (An orphan like Qoravoy)
   • Meaning: A very unfortunate or pitiable orphan.
   • Cultural Implications: Evokes empathy and highlights the vulnerability of orphans in Uzbek society.

Comparative Insights:

The examples above illustrate key differences in how anthroponyms function within English and Uzbek phraseological units. English idioms often use common names to represent general social types or behaviors, sometimes with a humorous or critical tone. Uzbek idioms, on the other hand, are more likely to reference specific cultural figures or narratives, emphasizing moral values or historical consciousness.

Results. The results of the comparative analysis confirm that phraseological units containing anthroponyms represent a rich and meaningful component of the linguistic and cultural systems of both English and Uzbek. These units not only demonstrate the stability and figurative nature characteristic of phraseological expressions but also reflect the unique national identities, cultural heritage, and collective consciousness embedded within each language. In the English language, anthroponym-based phraseological units frequently employ common personal names – such as Tom, Jack, or John – to symbolize archetypal roles or general categories of people. For example, the idiom every Tom, Dick, and Harry refers to ordinary or unspecified individuals, conveying a sense of universality and anonymity. Similarly, expressions like Jack of all trades or Johnny-come-lately attach behavioral traits or judgments to specific male names. These idioms often derive from historical usage, literature, or social stereotypes and, over time, have become fixed units within the lexicon. In contrast, Uzbek phraseological units incorporating anthroponyms are more likely to reference culturally specific names – such as Boyqaro, Qoravoy, or Ravshan – which may originate from folklore, oral traditions, or historical narratives. These names often carry localized meanings, evoking familiar images or values rooted in Uzbek societal norms. For instance, such names might symbolize naivety, cleverness, laziness, or nobility, depending on their traditional connotations within the community. The metaphorical extension of these names within idioms serves as a vehicle for expressing culturally grounded attitudes, morals, and character types. One important finding of the study is that while both English and Uzbek languages use anthroponyms metaphorically, their cultural encoding differs significantly. English tends to universalize idiomatic meaning through globally recognized or generically Western names, often detaching them from a specific ethnic or geographical identity. Uzbek, however, tends to retain a more ethnically and culturally distinct use of names, directly tied to shared national experiences, values, and folklore. Another noteworthy observation is the functional diversity of these phraseological units. In both languages, anthroponomic idioms serve multiple purposes: they may entertain, instruct, criticize, or reinforce social norms. However, they also demonstrate functional shifts when applied to specific contexts, such as political satire, humor, education, or media discourse. Moreover, in some cases, anthroponyms appear in professional or medical jargon, especially in metaphorical or humorous registers. For example, names may be used to label conditions, behaviors, or stereotypes in a personified manner, further emphasizing the creative role of names in language. The study also highlights the relevance of educational approaches to anthroponomic idioms. In both English and Uzbek, learners are often introduced to idioms without sufficient emphasis on the cultural background of embedded names. Understanding the origin, context, and figurative role of anthroponyms can enhance linguistic and intercultural competence, especially in philological disciplines. This suggests the need for deeper integration of cultural semantics in phraseology teaching. Ultimately, the results affirm that anthroponym-based idioms serve as both linguistic artifacts and cultural narratives. They preserve societal values, represent historical memory, and function as markers of group identity. Their analysis allows scholars to decode cultural meanings and trace how nations conceptualize individual identity, morality, and social behavior through the lens of language.

Discussion. The findings of this study affirm that phraseological units with anthroponomic components occupy a distinctive place within the cultural-linguistic landscapes of both English and Uzbek. These expressions, which incorporate personal names to convey figurative meanings, are not arbitrary linguistic constructs but are deeply embedded in the sociocultural and historical experiences of each speech community. As a reflection of national identity and collective worldview, anthroponym-based idioms act as condensed carriers of meaning, transmitting not only linguistic information but also cultural assumptions, values, and stereotypes.

In English, anthroponyms in phraseological units often represent generalized social roles or behavioral archetypes. Names like Tom, Jack, John, or Mary frequently appears in idioms to signify the "average person," anonymity, or stereotypical characteristics. These idioms are widely recognized and typically bear a neutral or humorous tone. Their recurrence in English phraseology suggests a tendency toward abstraction and generalization, aligning with broader Western cultural norms of individualism, egalitarianism, and informality. Furthermore, many English idioms with anthroponyms have roots in historical texts, folklore, or literary works, thereby linking language to the cultural memory of the society. In contrast, Uzbek phraseological units containing anthroponyms are more locally grounded and culturally specific. Names such as Boyqaro, Qoravoy, or Ravshan are not merely placeholders for the generic individual; they often carry connotative meanings tied to folklore, oral narratives, or well-known historical or fictional figures. These idioms tend to be more evaluative or judgmental, attaching positive or negative traits to the named individuals in ways that reflect shared moral codes, traditional values, and social norms. The use of these names within idioms contributes to the preservation and reinforcement of cultural archetypes, communal memory, and intergenerational knowledge. The discussion of anthroponyms in phraseology also highlights a broader semiotic function. Names, as linguistic signs, gain symbolic power when used in fixed expressions. They become emblematic of certain behaviors or identities, transforming individual proper nouns into culturally meaningful referents. This transformation illustrates how phraseology serves as a repository of cultural semiotics, embedding social commentary within compact linguistic forms.

From a comparative perspective, the contrast between English and Uzbek idioms reveals important insights into how language encodes national character. While English anthroponomic idioms often lean toward universal application and informal registers, Uzbek idioms retain ethnocentric specificity and a didactic function. This reflects differing cultural priorities – such as the Anglo-American preference for generalization and humor versus the Uzbek emphasis on tradition, storytelling, and moral instruction. Moreover, the study underscores the potential of anthroponym-based idioms in cross-cultural education and translation. Given their deeply rooted cultural meanings, these expressions pose challenges in language learning and intercultural communication. Literal translations often fail to capture the socio-historical background or the emotional resonance of the original expression. Therefore, the teaching of idiomatic expressions with anthroponyms should include cultural commentary and contextual analysis, allowing learners to grasp both the literal and symbolic significance of names within phraseological units.

Conclusion. This study has explored the national-cultural dimensions of phraseological units containing anthroponyms in English and Uzbek, revealing how personal names embedded within idioms serve as potent carriers of cultural information. Through a comparative analysis, the research has illuminated both universal patterns and unique national elements in the way these expressions reflect societal attitudes, historical contexts, and collective memory. The analysis revealed that while both languages utilize anthroponyms to create vivid imagery and cultural references, they often do so in distinct ways. English idioms tend to employ common names to represent generalized social types or behaviors, sometimes with a humorous or critical tone, for example "every Tom, Dick, and Harry." In contrast, Uzbek idioms are more inclined to reference specific cultural figures or narratives, emphasizing moral values or historical consciousness, as evidenced by the example "Boyqaro bo‘lib qolmoq."These differences underscore how language encodes cultural values and perspectives, shaping linguistic worldviews that are both shared and unique. By examining anthroponymic phraseological units, this research contributes to a deeper understanding of the intricate relationship between language, culture, and identity. The insights gained from this study can inform further investigations in linguistic anthropology, intercultural communication, and phraseology, as well as promote cross-cultural awareness and understanding.