Introduction: Idioms are semantically and structurally fixed expressions which, in essence, are kind of accumulation of culture. Take Chinese for example, over thousands of years, Chinese people has gradually formed their own language on the basis of their specific living and thinking habit. Each generation does not absolutely accept the cultural heritage of the last generation. Instead, they both develop what is useful and discard what is not. In this process, the essence culture in the past is retained in language and passed on as fixed language expressions. How idioms distinctively reflect a nation’ s culture rests on the following factors.

Virtually all theoretical component models of FL reading include vocabulary and structural knowledge in some form as key elements of reading ability. For example, Grabe (1991: 379) posited ‘vocabulary and structural knowledge’ as one of six components of fluent FL reading. In a more recent model, Grabe (2009) maintains vocabulary and syntactic knowledge as crucial components of FL reading comprehension, but lists them as two separate elements rather than one integrated unitary component as in his earlier model. This comparison of Grabe’s models illustrates that while scholars agree that these aspects of linguistic knowledge are key to FL reading comprehension, there are considerable differences in their conceptualizations. Most often, a dichotomous view of vocabulary and syntax is favored, assuming a separability of the elements. However, this has been problematized from several research perspectives. Guo and Roehrig (2011), for instance, established in a confirmatory factor analysis that vocabulary knowledge and syntactic awareness should be collapsed into a single ‘language’ factor, indicating an inseparability of these psycholinguistic constructs. In computational readability research, Vajjala and Meurers (2012) found that combining lexical and syntactic features improved readability classifications. Ro¨mer (2009), in a corpus linguistic approach, also states that vocabulary and syntax are inseparable (see Alderson and Kremmel 2013 for further discussion of this issue). Nevertheless, the traditional view of vocabulary as form-meaning knowledge of individual words and syntax as the way ‘words are put together to form sentences’ (Sampson 1985: 38) has led to several studies into the relative significance of each of these components for FL reading ability. This body of research, however, has yielded inconclusive findings. Most studies identified a prevalence of vocabulary (e.g. Sternberg 1987; Brunfaut 2008), but some studies suggest that structural knowledge might be an equally, if not more, important predictor of successful FL reading (Droop and Verhoeven 2003; Van Gelderen et al. 2003, 2004; Shiotsu and Weir 2007; Nergis 2013). All of these studies, however, neglect the formulaic nature of language and fail to account for phraseological knowledge as a potentially influential contributor to reading ability. Phraseological knowledge can be roughly defined as knowledge of formulaic sequences or multi-word expressions (MWEs). Although numerous definitions have been put forward for formulaic sequences (e.g. Wray 2002, 2008), most see them as ‘matching a single meaning or function to a form, although that form consists of multiple orthographic or phonological words’ (Martinez and Schmitt 2012: 299). They are combinations of words that co-occur more frequently than would be expected by chance and can take very different forms. Siyanova Chanturia and Martinez (2014: 1) loosely define them as ‘(semi) fixed, recurrent phrases, such as collocations (strong tea), binomials (black and white), multiword verbs (put up with), idioms (spill the beans), proverbs (better late than never), speech formulae (What’s up), lexical bundles (in the middle of), and other types’. The present article focuses on knowledge of phrasal expressions, that is, (semi)fixed sequences of ‘two or more co-occurring but not necessarily contiguous words with a cohesive meaning or function that is not easily discernible by decoding the individual words alone’ (Martinez and Schmitt 2012: 304)

The strong relationship between the vocabulary measure and the phraseology measure as well as between the vocabulary measure and the reading measure could, to a certain extent, be due to the nature and design of the vocabulary measure. It tested vocabulary items in embedded contexts and also tested more than merely form-meaning link knowledge (e.g. collocations). Thus, the operationalization of the construct in this test seems closer to a reading measure or a phraseology test, respectively, than a discrete vocabulary measure purely focusing on the form-meaning link of individual words. In sum, however, the fact that the inclusion of the phraseological knowledge measure not only increased the overall variance explained, but also emerged as the strongest contributor, suggests two conclusions. First, the incorporation of phraseological knowledge into the component ‘vocabulary and structural knowledge’ as conceptualized in reading research (Grabe 1991), is necessary to ensure a full representation of the construct of linguistic knowledge. Secondly, the findings suggest that understanding of MWEs might be more relevant to fluent reading than estimated so far. While we still question whether the components vocabulary knowledge and syntactic knowledge are indeed ‘theoretically distinct and empirically isolable constituents’ (Hoover and Tunmer 1993: 4), particularly in light of the high intercorrelations between component parts in this and other studies (e.g. Brunfaut 2008; Shiotsu 2010), the findings certainly substantiate the claim that conceptualizations and studies that do not take phraseological knowledge into account fail to provide a comprehensive picture of the significance of linguistic knowledge for reading. Following from our finding that phraseological knowledge contributes importantly to EFL reading test comprehension, we sought to understand how exactly advanced EFL readers make use of these expressions in reading (RQ2). The examination of 15 verbal protocols in Study 2 showed that, overall, knowing the MWE in isolation coincides with being able to answer the reading comprehension item correctly. Although the influence of other factors involved in reading cannot be ruled out, participants appeared to be able to make use of the MWE in a reading context for comprehension purposes, if they knew the MWE. Moreover, participants used their MWE knowledge in different ways –  paraphrasing, explicitly elaborating on, implicitly using, or even ignoring phrasal expressions in context. Unsurprisingly, the more attention learners paid to the MWEs, the more likely it was that they arrived at the correct answer.

Methods. In 1780, Tytler wrote the first significant book on translation in the world: Essay on the Principles of Translation, and presented three main principles: Translation text should fully express the idea of the original text; 

The writing tones and styles should be the same;

The translation text should be with ease and grace. He held the view that the excellent translation works can make the readers have the same understanding as the native readers. In 1965, the English linguist Catford published a book called A Linguistic Theory of Translation. He classified translation into three ways: word for word translation, literal translation, and free translation. Linguistic surface structure is divided into a scale of sentences-sense groups-words-morphemes. In free translation, the equivalence may cover each element in the scale, even extends to sentences. Word for word translation, obviously, limits between words. While literal translation is between word for word translation and free translation. Newmark presented two translation methods: communicative translation and semantic translation. The former aims at making the readers have the same idea no matter they read the original work or the translation work. The latter aims at reproducing the information of the source language on the basis of complying with the grammatical and semantic rules.

It should be pointed out that a full-fledged translation of the entire content of a phraseological   unit, or idiom, is   impossible   without   taking   into   account   the polysemantic   properties   of   the   semantic   components   that   are   present   in   its composition. Translation of idioms cannot be literal, that is, literal, in translation, first of all, one should give preference to semantic translation, translation of content.  In this regard, the translation of idioms requires the creation of a semantic basis for the semantic frame of this idiom and the conditions for its application, only in this case an adequate translation is possible. To comprehend the content concentrated in each idiom, it is necessary to perceive it integrally, since the idiom expresses a specific meaning characteristic only of this idiom, regardless of the number of words that make up the idiom and the semantics of the words that make up it. Most idioms are imaginative.  It is around this imagery that the structure of the idiom is constructed. When translating idioms from English into Uzbek, it is first of all required to comprehend this particular imagery.  The  figurativeness  of  idioms  is  formed  on  the basis   of   epithets,   allegories,   metaphors,   allusions,   euphemisms,   comparisons, epiphores, antitheses, ironies.To  find  the  identity  and  fully  corresponding  semantic  unity  of  the  original  and its  translation,  special  efforts  and  efforts must  be  made,  since  during  literary translation,  each  word  in  the  original  text  can  carry  a  different,  sometimes  opposite and multifaceted semantic coloring and show different shades of the same meanings. According to our observations, when translating English idioms into Uzbek, there are the following translation features:-complete  absence  in  the  translation  language  of  the  content  adequate  to  the original or an equivalent ready-made expression or phraseological unit;-partial  presence  in  the  target  language  of  an  expression  that  only  in  content corresponds  to  the  semantics  of  the  original,  and  in  its  structure  does  not  repeat  the original;-partial  presence  in  the  target  language  of  an  expression  that  has  a  specially formed and unique structure of its own and corresponds in content to the original. An important feature of the translation of English idioms into Uzbek is the need for a clear designation of the semantic  perspective of the imagery of the original in order  to  find  a  figurative  perspective  that  is  adequate  in  its  content  in  the  translated language. For example, the idiom ‘to give smb. the finger ‘literally translates to give someone your finger’. In the idiom, the content of the image is based on an empty promise.  In fact, this means that no one is going to give the finger to anyone, since you cannot give it away if you do not cut it off. Therefore, the figurative expression of this idiom fits the meaning of ‘promise to give what you’re not going to give’. The impossibility of performing this action proves the opposite -nothing will be given to anyone.  The specifics of the translation of English idioms into Uzbek will no be given to anyone. Figuratively, this idiom fits the Russian fixed expression ‘promise from three boxes, promise mountains of gold’. If we look in the Uzbek language for a stable word combination that would correspond to the content involved in the idiom, then we can easily find the following expression: “Birovning qo‘ynini puch yong‘oqqa to‘ldirmoq”. It literally means’ to fill someone bosom is empty nuts’, that is, the nuts are given away, but there is no core in them, which means that there is nothing in them. In these three phrases, imagery is built on different key words, in English it is a finger, in Russian -three boxes, golden mountains, and in Uzbek -empty nuts

The volume contains four major sections. Section 1, ‘Phraseology: theory, typology and terminology’sets the scene: it delimits the field, introduces major categories of word combinations and the terms used to refer to them as well as highlighting the role played by phraseology in several linguistic theories. Section 2, ‘Corpus-based analyses of phraseological units’ turns theory into practice by means of a series of corpus-based case studies of different categories of word combinations. Section 3, ‘Phraseology across languages and cultures’, focuses on a crucial perspective in phraseology, viz. the contrastive perspective, cast in two different lights: purely linguistic and cultural. Section 4, as its title ‘Phraseology in lexicography and natural language processing‘ suggests, brings together lexicographical and natural language processing perspectives, two perspectives which used to be separate but are now moving progressively closer. At the end of the volume, we have reproduced the extended abstract of John Sinclair’s plenary presentation at the Phraseology 2005 conference, whose title “The phrase, the whole phrase and nothing but the phrase” seems to sum up his legacy to linguistics quite perfectly. The volume contains six overview chapters: Gries on phraseology and linguistic theory, Granger & Paquot on categorization and terminology, Colson on crosslin guistic approaches, Piirainen on cross-cultural issues, Moon on phraseology and lex icography and Heid on phraseology and natural language processing (NLP). These chapters provide an excellent starting point for researchers who are not particularly familiar with phraseological studies. The other chapters tackle more specific aspects of phraseology, particular theoretical approaches, methodologies, research frameworks or particular categories of word combinations. While each chapter has been classified into one of the four sections, it is worth noting that many are at the intersection of two or more sections. The volume is interdisciplinary, not only because it brings together studies from different disciplines but also, encouragingly, because several studies are intrinsically interdisciplinary. The next section of this introduction briefly outlines each chapter and highlights some major trends emerging from the volume.

A pivotal dimension of our analysis pertained to the semantic transparency of adjectival idioms, elucidating the degree to which their meanings are readily apparent. English idioms exhibited a tendency towards transparency, facilitating relatively straightforward interpretation. In contrast, Uzbek idioms often displayed greater semantic opacity, necessitating deeper cultural context for comprehension. This disparity underscores the importance of cultural sensitivity and contextual awareness in deciphering the figurative meanings embedded within idiomatic expressions. Cultural dimensions emerged as a focal point, revealing the intrinsic connection between adjectival idioms and the values, beliefs, and historical contexts of their analysis with cultural interpretation, we gleaned valuable insights into the expressive language and unique perspectives of English and Uzbek societies. Such insights hold implications for various domains, including education, translation, and cross-cultural communication, underscoring the importance of fostering linguistic and cultural competence in an increasingly interconnected world. In conclusion, the comparative analysis of adjectival idioms in English and Uzbek transcends mere linguistic inquiry, offering a profound exploration of cultural identity, communication dynamics, and the human experience. By embracing the diversity of idiomatic expressions across languages, we enrich our understanding of the intricate tapestry of human language and culture, fostering mutual respect, empathy, and appreciation for the myriad ways in which we communicate and connect with one another. respective societies. Through idiomatic language, cultural values are perpetuated and societal norms are encapsulated, providing a window into the collective psyche of language communities. Whether it be the English idiom "salt of the earth," embodying virtues of hard work and humility, or the Uzbek idiom “rangi oppoq,” symbolizing notions of frailty and insecurity, adjectival idioms serve as cultural artifacts imbued with layers of significance. Our methodological approach facilitated a comprehensive examination of adjectival idioms, drawing on diverse sources ranging from dictionaries to literary works.

Results. When translating idioms, substantive adequacy is of great importance. The concept of the adequacy of the translation means an accurate presentation of the real meaning of the original text while maintaining   the language rules. When translating idioms, their substantive adequacy is more than the adequacy of mere linguistic means.  In the process of translating idioms, purely linguistic patterns recede into the background.  Translation of an idiom, first of all, means the exact reproduction of the content of the idiom, the restoration of its meaning through another language. Considering the fact that English and Uzbek are different types of language, in the process of translation there is some transformation of the language characteristics of the original. Language equivalence refers to the performance of one speech unit of the functions of another speech unit. Moreover, speech units can be inherent in two different languages.  ‘Equivalent idioms’ are essentially identical in content. In   English phraseology, one of the first attempts to create a structural classification of English idiomatic expressions belongs to L.  Blacksmith, who collected an extensive collection of phraseological units that went beyond all the existing idiom collections at that time.  In his classification, L.  Kuznets, taking into account the peculiarities of the existing English language, distinguishes IP of an adverbial nature, which are combinations of sentences with existing and applied ones, for   example, forever.   "Forever   and   ever; such   a   combination   of   verbs   with postpositions, which   he   calls, phraseological   verbs, for   example, keep   down, suppress, keep in subjection.

Adjectival idioms, as linguistic expressions, offer a window into the cultural nuances and cognitive processes of different language communities. This comparative analysis delves into the linguistic and cultural dimensions of adjectival idioms in English and implications Grammatical Function: In both languages, adjectival idioms function as adjectives, modifying nouns to convey figurative or idiomatic meanings. Semantic Transparency: English idioms tend to be more transparent in meaning, making their interpretation more straightforward. Conversely, Uzbek idioms often exhibit greater semantic opacity, requiring cultural context for comprehension. Cultural Values and Beliefs: Adjectival idioms reflect the cultural values and beliefs of the respective societies. For example, the English idiom "salt of the earth" connotes hardworking and down-to-earth people, while the Uzbek idiom “rangi oppoq” (pale-faced) suggests a person who is pale, weak, and lacking confidence. Historical Context: The historical context of a language influences the development and meaning of adjectival idioms. For instance, the English idiom "rule of thumb" originated from a carpenter’s practice of using their thumb to Uzbek, highlighting their similarities, differences, and for intercultural communication. Structure: English adjectival idioms typically follow noun + adjective combinations (e.g., "blue-collar worker"), while Uzbek idioms often employ adjective + noun structures (e.g., "qizil yuz" [red-faced person]). The exploration of adjectival idioms in English and Uzbek unveils a rich tapestry of linguistic nuances and cultural insights, underscoring the intricate interplay between language, culture, and communication. Through this comparative analysis, we have delved into the structural patterns, grammatical functions, semantic transparency, and cultural dimensions of adjectival idioms in both languages, shedding light on their similarities, differences, and implications for intercultural understanding. In scrutinizing the linguistic characteristics of adjectival idioms, we discerned distinct patterns in their formation and syntactic arrangements. While English adjectival idioms predominantly follow noun + adjective structures, Uzbek idioms often employ adjective + noun constructions. This variance in structural patterns reflects not only linguistic conventions but also cultural preferences in expression and communication styles.

Discussion. Virgin Mary is adequately translated as ‘Bibi Maryam’, that is, Grandmother Maria. "O‘shalar oralig‘i bo‘ylab devorning yuqori xaddiga chaqaloqli Bibi Maryam tasviri solingan oynavand gardish osilgan. " -In the intervals between them, a glazed round frame was hung along the upper edge of the wall, in which the Virgin Mary with a baby was depicted. In A. Iminov’s translations, the richness of the Uzbek language, its colorfulness and meaningfulness are  used to the maximum to convey stable English phrases. His translation contains many phraseological combinations identical to the original, which served to enrich the target language. In the given examples, despite the fact that phraseological combinations typical of the Uzbek language are used, the target language reflects English flavor, not Uzbek.  Thus, when translating English idioms into account: a) literal translation of English idioms into Uzbek is impossible, only translation is possible that conveys the content of the idiom by means of another language; b) it is necessary to try to find an adequate or equivalent stable phrase (proverbs, sayings, phraseological units, winged words, etc.)  in  the  target  language,  which conveys the content of the original; c)  it  is  not  possible  to  fully  convey  the  content  of  the  original  idiom  when translated into Uzbek, therefore, a meaningful perspective is used, which can convey one semantic direction, to the detriment of the entire general semantics of the idiom; d)  in  the  absence  of  a  stable  word  combination,  Uzbek  translators  use  the richness  of  the  Uzbek  language  itself  in  accordance  with  the cultural  halo  of  the original language in order to preserve the national flavor of the translated literature. Empirical  research  supports  the  significance  of  phraseology  in  language  learning. Pawley  and  Syder  (1983)highlight  the  ‘native-like  selection’  of  phraseological  units as  a hallmark of fluency, observing that native speakers’ ease and accuracy in language use are largely  attributable  to their  extensive  knowledge  of  PUs. Schmitt (2004)emphasizes  the importance  of  phraseological  knowledge  for  non-native  speakers,  noting  that  a  solid understanding of idiomatic expressions and collocations can dramatically improve learners’ listening  comprehension  and  spoken  fluency.  The  study of  phraseology  has  profound implications  for  language  teaching  methodologies. 

The Lexical Approach,  advocated  by Lewis  (1993), emphasizes  the  centrality  of  ‘chunks’  of  language  rather  than  isolated words  or  grammatical  rules.  This approach  has  influenced  the  development  of  teaching materials  and  strategies  that  focus  on  the  acquisition  of  collocations  and  idiomatic expressions  as  integral  elements  of  language  learning.  The theoretical  background  of phraseology underscores its critical role in language proficiency. The research and theories reviewed highlight  the  necessity  of  integrating  phraseological  knowledge  into  language education,  advocating  for  a  shift  in  teaching  methodologies  towards  a  more  lexical  focus. Teaching phraseology presents a unique set  of challenges in the context of language education. These challenges stem from the inherent characteristics of phraseological units (PUs),  the  diversity  of  learner  backgrounds,  and  the  constraints  of  traditional  language teaching methodologies. Addressing these challenges requires a nuanced understanding of both   the   nature   of   phraseology   and   the   pedagogical   strategies   best   suited   to   its instruction. Phraseological  units  encompass  a  wide  range  of  linguistic  phenomena,  including collocations,  idioms,  proverbs,  and  formulaic  expressions. 

Each  type  presents  its  own challenges  in  terms  of  linguistic  complexity  and  variability.  Idioms  and  proverbs,  for example, often contain metaphoric meanings that can be difficult for learners to decipher without  sufficient  cultural  and  contextual  knowledge (Moon,  1998).Collocations,  while not   necessarily   idiomatic,   require   learners   tounderstand   subtle   nuances   in   word combinations  that  may  not  have  direct  equivalents  in  their  first  language (Nesselhauf, 2003).Phraseology  is  deeply  embedded  in  cultural  and  contextual  frameworks,  making  the teaching  of  PUs  challenging  for  learners  fromdiverse  linguistic  and  cultural  backgrounds. The meaning and usage of certain expressions can be highly context-dependent, requiring a level of cultural understanding that learners may not possess. This cultural specificity can lead  to  misunderstandings  or  inappropriate  use  of  language  in  different  social  contexts (Kecskes, 2000).Learners  come  to  the  language  classroom  with  varying  levels  of  exposure  to  the target language, different learning styles, and distinct cognitive abilities. These differences affect their capacity to acquire and use phraseological units effectively. To  address  these  challenges,  language  educators  are  encouraged  to  adopt  a  more contextualized  and  culturally  sensitive  approach  to  teaching  phraseology.  This  might involve  the  use  of  authentic  materials  that  present  PUs  within  their  natural  discourse context,  enabling  learners  to  grasp  both  their  meaningsand  their  appropriate  uses (Schmitt,  2004).Additionally,  employing  a  variety  of  teaching  strategies  that  cater  to different  learning  styles – such  as  interactive  exercises,  corpus  analysis,  and  exposure  to native speakers’ language use – can enhance the acquisition of phraseological competence. The  challenges  in  teaching  phraseology  are  significant,  yet  they  are  not  insurmountable. Through   informed   pedagogical   strategies   that   acknowledge   the   complexity,   cultural richness,  and  contextual  nature  of  phraseological  units,  educators can  facilitate  a  deeper, more  intuitive  understanding  of  the  target  language,  thereby  enhancing  overall  language proficiency.The  study  of  phraseology  in  language  learning  and  teaching  has  prompted  the development  of  various  methodological  approaches  designed  to  integrate  phraseological units  (PUs)  effectively  into  language  education.  These  methodologies  aim  to  enhance language  proficiency  by  focusing  on  the  acquisition  and  use  of  idiomatic  expressions, collocations,  and  other  fixed  expressions  that  constitute  a  significant  part  of  natural language  use.  Below, we  explore  several  key  methodological  approaches  that  have  been influential in the field. The current phraseological boom is evidenced by the numerous specialist publi cations and conferences on the subject. There are many niche areas of research buzzing with activity. It would seem however, that there is very little contact between these dif ferent areas of activity.

Natural language processing researchers are often unfamiliar with work related to the typology of phraseological expressions. Researchers trying to draw uprigorous phraseological typologies are often equally unfamiliar with work be ing carried out in the automatic extraction of phraseological units. Similarly, there is very little contact between psycholinguistic researchers attempting to define the role of phraseology in language acquisition, comprehension and production and educa tional researchers aiming to give phraseology a higher profile in language teaching. In general terms, corpus linguistics studies describing phraseological expressions in large computer corpora are undeservedly little known. This lack of contact between different areas of phraseological research is problematic for two reasons: first, it means there is a very real chance of researchers ‘reinventing the wheel’; second, and more importantly, it increases the likelihood of researchers coming up with erroneous data analyses. The aim of the conference was thus to enable researchers working in the f ield of phraseology to meet other researchers studying the same types of expressions from perhaps quite different perspectives. The current volume is meant to reflect this interdisciplinary dimension. Most of the chapters in the volume are based on presen tations made at the conference. There are, however, a series of specially commissioned chapters that aim to give an overview of the different perspectives on phraseology. The volume targets both would-be and experienced phraseologists and provides readers with a variety of ways into the field. For those who are intrigued by the general idea of phraseology without fully knowing what it encompasses, the volume provides a rich overview and introduces a wide range of methodological approaches. For those already experienced phraseologists, the volume is an invitation to look at the field with different eyes. Despite its wide scope, the volume does not claim exhaustivity, however. For a fully comprehensive view of phraseology, the reader is referred to other volumes (notably the other two volumes emanating from the conference and Burger et al.’s recent two-volume handbook of phraseology).