Boymirzayeva Zarina Usmanovna Functional semantic analysis of idioms in expressing different relationships in English Language

Chapter II. 
Semantic and structural features of the English and Russian idioms
Phraseology is considered to be a microsystem of the general 
system of a language. Phraseological system reflects the rich 
historical heritage and customs of any nation; it is passed on from 
one generation to another. Abundance of idioms forming the system 
is a result of enriching a language and speech. The interrelations 
between the components of idioms form a phraselogical system. 
“The complex of phraseological unities or idioms form the 
phraseological layer of any language.” Idioms are the word 
combinations comprised of two or more words which are 
inseparable and constant according to semantic and structural 
formation. Idioms are used for figurative sense and have definite 
norms of historical usage. Their meanings are revealed during a 
certain discourse. Although idioms possess the forms of word 
combination or even sentence they deeply differ from these speech 
patterns. As a lexical unity they are mostly close to words; most of 
the features concerning a word are inherent in idioms too. Idioms 
are not made during the speech like a word combination or 
sentence, but is ready-made pattern in a language as words. So 
idioms are considered to be a language phenomenon not the speech 
one. It is possible to research the similarities and differences 
between the English and Russian languages studying them through 
comparative- typological analysis. In both languages which are 
being compared idioms are formed by two or more words and are 
semantic and structural constant unities. They have peculiar 
morphological and syntactic formation and grammatical and 

---

semantic connection of the words makes a whole meaning. Russian 
linguist V.V. Vinogradov divides idioms in both languages into three 
groups according to semantics. (Table 1) As the linguist G.B. 
Antrushina says, “this division is the first semantic one and hasn’t 
lost its value in linguistics” [1, 189].