SEMANTIC FEATURES OF ENGLISH PROVERBS AND IDIOMS WITH ANTONYMOUS COMPONENTS
Abstract
This article is devoted to the analysis of semantic features of English proverbs and idioms with antonymous components. The antonymous equivalents of proverbs and idioms in English language are given with their meanings.
Understanding semantic features of English proverbs and idioms with antonymous components is essential for analyzing and describing the meaning and relation between words in a language. They provide a framework for studying lexical semantics and contribute to a deeper understanding of language and its structure. These methods are used to do the research: 1) The method of description of phraseological units; 2) The method of semantic analysis of idioms, proverbs and sayings. From the results it is obvious that idioms as a form of figurative language, employ various semantic mechanisms such as antonym, hyperbole, irony, metaphor, metonymy, and synecdoche to convey meaning in a concise and memorable manner.
Idioms are often used to replace a literal word or expression for stylistic or rhetorical purposes. Because they make the text richer, adding depth to the intended meaning. In short, although proverbs employ figurative language, they are more literal sayings that convey a general truth or piece of advice. On the other hand, idioms have a figurative or metaphorical meaning that is different from the meaning of the words used in the context. We think that the system analysis of antonyms used in English proverbs, idioms and sayings will contribute to further research not only in the field of linguistics and literature, but also psycho-ethno-linguistics and even some pedagogical issues. It should be mentioned that the problems of antonym are not new in linguistics at present time.
Keywords
Semantic feature, Idioms, analysis, proverbs, figurative language, the collection of phrases and words, semantics meanings, formal, lexical, conceptual.How to Cite
References
Anderson, S,R. “On the role of deep structure in semantic interpretation”. Foundation of Language. 1971. 386-396 p.
Andrews, A. D. The major functions of the noun phrase. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2007. pp. 64-154.
Baker, M. C. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 1988.
Baker, M. C. Thematic roles and syntactic structure. In L. Hageman (Ed.), Elements of grammar: Handbook in generative syntax .pp. 72-137. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 1997
Beavers, J. T. Argument/oblique alternations and the structure of lexical meaning. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation. 2006.
Belletti, A., & Rizzi, L. Psych-verbs and θ theory. Natural Lan guage and Linguistic Theory, 6, 291-352. 1988.
Bowerman, M. Early syntactic development. Cambridge: Cam bridge University Press. 1973.
Bowerman, M. F. Discussion summary—Development of con cepts underlying language. In R. L. Schiefelbusch, & L. L. Lloyd (Eds.), Language perspectives—Acquisition, retardation, and inter vention (pp. 191-209). Baltimore, MD: University Park Press. 1979.
Bowerman, M. Mapping thematic roles onto syntactic functions: Are children helped by innate linking rules? Linguistics.1990.
Bowerman, M., & Croft, W. The acquisition of the English causative alternation. In M. Bowerman, & P. Brown (Eds.), Cross linguistic perspectives on argument structure New York, pp. 279-307. 2008.
Chunming Gao and Qianzhen Zheng. A linguistic study of antonymy in English texts. 2014.
Boeva N.B. Grammaticheskaya antonimiya v sovremennom angliyskom yazyke . Grammar antonymy in modern English. PhD Thesis. Moscow State Pedagogical University. 2001.
Chomsky, N. The generative enterprise: A discussion with Riny Huybregts and Henk van Riemsdijk. Dordrecht: Foris. 1982.
Davis, A. R. Linking by types in the hierarchical lexicon. Stan ford, CA: CSLI Publications. 2001.
Davis, A. R., & Koenig, J.-P. Linking as constraints on word classes in a hierarchical lexicon. Language, 2000. 56-91.
Dowty, D. On the semantic content of the notion of “thematic role”. In G. Chiercha, B. H. Partee, & R. Turner (Eds.), Properties, types and meaning. Dordrecht: Kluwer.pp.69-129. 1989
Dowty, D. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 1991.
Fillmore, C. J. The case for case. In E. Bach, & R. T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. p. 56-88 1968.
Fillmore, C. The grammar of hitting and breaking. In R. A. Jacobs, & P. A. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar. Waltham, MA: Ginn. 120- 133. 1970
Fillmore, C. J. Form and meaning in language, vol. 1. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information. 2003.
Fortus, R. Semantic relations in the acquisition of language: An analysis of one child’s first word combinations. MA Thesis, Jerusa lem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem. 1996.
22. Gelman, S. J. E. Development of the animate inanimate distinction. In U. Goswami, Handbook of childhood cognitive development. 2002.
Gleitman, L. R. Gleitman, H., Miller, C., & Ostrin, R. Similar, and similar concepts. Cognition. 1996.
Goldberg, A. E. Constructions at work: The nature of generali zation in language. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 2006.
Grimshaw, J. Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1990.
Gropen, J, Pinker, S. Hollander, M., & Goldberg, R. Affectedness and direct objects: The role of lexical semantics in the acquisition of verb argument structure. Cognition, 1991. P, 153-195.
Gropen, J. Pinker, S., Hollander, M., & Goldberg, R. Syntax and semantics in the acquisition of locative verbs. Journal of Child Language, 1991. 115-120 p.
Guberman, A. The development of the verb category in the He brew child language. Ph.D. Thesis, Jerusalem: Hebrew University. 1992.
Hopper, P. J. Thompson. S. A. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 1980. pp.251-299.
Hudson, R.So-called “double objects” and grammatical relations. Language, 1992.
Jackendoff, R. The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 1987, 369-411.
Taranenko L. Zhanrovi osoblyvosti ta funktsionalne pryznachennia tekstu anhliiskoho pryslivia. Genre peculiarities and functional use of the English proverb text.
Амосова Н. Н. «Основы английской фразеологии». - Л.: ЛГУ, 1963.
Abdullaeva N.E. Semantic and linguocultural features of English and Uzbek proverbs with concept of friendship // Problems of Modern
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Irodaxon Khamidova
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
