А.Т. Кайдарова» деген тақырыпта баяндама жасадым. Ең қызығы, Әбекеңді
бұл жақта жақсы танитын кісілер көп болып шықты. Тіпті Алтай өлкесіндегі
жалғыз қазақ «Қаракөл орта мектебінің» директоры Баринова Нұрғайша апа-
мыз Әбекеңмен Алматыда жүздесіп, көмек алыпты да. Әрине, бұл жерде менің
кеудемді ұстазыма деген мақтаныш сезімі кернегені сөзсіз. Ең қызығы, Әбекенің
шәкірттері бір-бірімен өте тату, тығыз ғылыми шығармашылық ынтымақтастықта.
Бұл қасиет бізге ұстазымыздан жұққан болар, өйткені академиктің өзі ұстазы
К. Юдахинді өмір бойы пір тұтып, сыйлаған, жиі хат жазысып тұрған (Әбекеңнің
жеке мұрағатында К. Юдахиннің 35 хаты сақталған).
ӘДЕБИЕТТЕР ТІЗІМІ
1. Копыленко М.М. Основы этнолингвистики / М.М. Копыленко. – Алматы, 1995.
– 178 с.
2. Қайдаров А.Т. Қазақ тілінің өзекті мәселелері / А.Т. Қайдаров. – Алматы, 1998.
– С. 34.
3. Қайдар Ә. Халық даналығы қазақ мақал-мәтелдерінің түсіндірме сөздігі және
зерттеу / Ә. Қайдар. – Алматы: Толағай Т, 2004. – Б. 45, 560
4. Зарубежные рецензии на работы обществоведов Казахстана. Реферативный
сборник. Вып. 1. – Алма Ата: Наука, 1979. – С. 52-53, 159.
5. Нурсапаева С.И. Развитие современного уйгурского языка / С.И. Нурсапаева //
Советская тюркология. – 1970. – №2. – С. 117-119.
6. Қайдар Ә. Ғылымдағы ғұмыр. – Алматы: Атамұра, 2000. – Б. 17, 37, 68-73, 196,
217, 314.
7. Асланов В.И. Советская тюркология / В.И. Асланов. – 1986, №6. – С. 68-73.
8. Жилкубаева А.Ш. Научная школа академика А.Т. Кайдарова: матер. Межд.
науч.-практ. конф.: «Наука, Образование, Общество, Модернизация и Инновации» /
А.Ш. Жилкубаева. – Барнаул, 2014. – 28 мая.
9. Кайдаров А.Т. Структура односложных корней и основ в казахском языке /
А.Т. Кайдаров. – Алма –Ата: Издательство «Наука» Казахской ССР. – 322 с.
REFERENCES
1. Kopylenko M.M., Osnovy etnolingvistiki. Almaty, 1995, 178 (in Russ).
2. Kaydarov A.T., Kazak tіlіnіn ozektі maselelerі. Almaty, 1998 (in Russ).
3. Kaydar A., Khalyk danalygy kazak makal-matelderіnіn tusіndіrme sozdіgі zhane
zertteu, Almaty Tolagay T, 2004, 560 (in Kaz).
4. Zarubezhnye retsenzii na raboty obshchestvovedov Kazakhstana. Referativny sbornik.
Vypusk 1. Alma Ata: «Nauka», 1979, 52-53 (in Russ).
5. Nursapayeva S.I., Razvitiye sovremennogo uygurskogo yazyka. Sovetskaya
tyurkologiya, 1970, 2, 117-119 (in Russ).
6. Abduali Kaydar, Gylymdagy gumyr. Almaty: Atamura, 2000, 314 (in Kaz).
7. Aslanov V.I., Sovetskaya tyurkologiya 1986, 6, 68-73 (in Russ).
ҚОҒАМДЫҚ ЖӘНЕ ГУМАНИТАРЛЫҚ ҒЫЛЫМДАР
156
№ 3 (63), 2014
Regional Bulletin of the East
8. Zhilkubayeva A.Sh., Nauchnaya shkola akademika A.T. Kaydarova. Materialy Mezh-
dunarodnoy nauchno-prakticheskoy konferentsii: «Nauka, Obrazovaniye, Obshchestvo, Mod-
ernizatsiya i Innovatsii». Barnaul, 28 maya, 2014 (in Russ).
9. Kaydarov A.T., Struktura odnoslozhnykh korney i osnov v kazakhskom yazyke. Izda-
telstvo Nauka Kazakhskoy SSR. Alma-Ata, 322 (in Russ).
UDC 81’1’373.611
G.K. KAPYSHEVA
S. Amanzholov East-Kazakhstan State University, Ust-Kamenogorsk, Kazakhstan
THE REPRODUCTION OF NATIONAL-CULTURAL FEATURES
OF ENGLISH COMPARATIVE PHASEOLOGICAL UNITS INTO
KAZAKH LANGUAGE
This article deals with comparative study of languages of different systems, their nation-
al-cultural features and methods of reproduction.
Keywords: phraseological units, compative phraseological units, internal form, the ba-
sis of comparison, comparison standard, culture.
АҒЫЛШЫН ТІЛІНДЕГІ КОМПАРАТИВТІ ФРАЗЕОЛОГИЯЛЫҚ
БІРЛІКТЕРДІҢ ҰЛТТЫҚ-МӘДЕНИ ЕРЕКШЕЛІКТЕРІНІҢ
ҚАЗАҚ ТІЛІНЕ БЕРІЛУ ЖОЛДАРЫ
Мақалада әртүрлі жүйелі тілдердің салыстырмалы зерттеу жұмысы, ұлттық-мәде-
ни ерекшеліктері және оларды бір тілден екінші тілге жеткізу әдістері қарастырылады.
Түйін сөздер: фразеологиялық бірліктер, компаративті фразеологиялық бірлік-
тер, ішкі құрылым, салыстыру сатысы, салыстыру стандарты, мәдениет.
ПЕРЕДАЧА НАЦИОНАЛЬНО-КУЛЬТУРНЫХ ОСОБЕННОСТЕЙ
КОМПАРАТИВНЫХ ФРАЗЕОЛОГИЗМОВ АНГЛИЙСКОГО ЯЗЫКА
НА КАЗАХСКИЙ ЯЗЫК
В статье рассматривается сопоставительное исследование разносистемных
языков, их национально-культурные особенности и способы их передачи.
Ключевые слова: фразеологические единицы, компаративные фразеологические
единицы, внутренняя форма, сравнительная степень, стандарты сравнения, культура.
The relatively recent emergence of phraseology as a linguistic discipline is one
of the reasons of still insufficient development of many problems in this area. This
branch of linguistics studies specific language component, namely the set expressions
of different structure, semantics and functions. In linguistics they are called phraseo-
logical units, set word-complexes. According their structure, phraseological units are
specific phrases of a language, characterized by the fact that they exist in the language
G.K. KAPYSHEVA
157
Шығыстың аймақтық хабаршысы · Региональный вестник Востока № 3 (63), 2014
as ready language formations and in the ready form are used in speech.
Phraseology - is a branch of linguistics, studying set expressions in the language,
of a different structure, semantics and functions. As an independent linguistic dis-
cipline phraseology appeared relatively recently. This is one of the reasons of still
insufficient development of many problems in this area. Still among linguists there is
no common understanding of phraseology object and as a result of this - disorder of
phraseological terminology. Abundance of terms is explained by insufficient develop-
ment of the basic concepts of phraseology, many of which are synonymous and most
of them are distinguished by polysemy, and some cannot even be called terms, so they
are not accurate.
Lack of consensus on the scope of phraseology does not allow getting a clear
idea of
what set word- complexes are characteristic for a particular language or for a
particular set of languages.
The ideas of the French linguist Charles Bally influenced the development of
phraseology, he is considered to be the ancestor of the theory of phraseology, because
he was the first to systematize combination of words in his book «French stylistics», in
which he included a chapter about phraseology.
As for the British and American linguistic literature, there is a large number of
works specifically devoted to the theory of phraseology. Even in the most significant
works of A. McKay, U. Weinreich, L.P. Smith, there are no such fundamental issues
as the science-based criteria of phraseological units selection, correlation of phraseo-
logical units and words, phraseology systemacy, phraseological variation, formation
of phraseological units, method of studying phraseology and so on. Also, British and
American scientists do not raise questions of phraseology as a linguistic science. This
explains the lack of the term for this discipline in English.
Central issue for the phraseology was the attempt to answer the question, what is
the specificity of
idioms meaning unlike the meanings of words, what is the structure
of the content of this meaning. In other words, phraseological units-idioms continued
to be studied «in themselves and for themselves», apart from their ability to perform
certain communicative settings and roles in the organization of an utterance.
During this period there was found the whole palette of phraseological units-
idioms meanings - its objective content, as well as the whole range of evaluating-
expressive «shades», setting the tone to the stylistic coloring of the meaning.
Expressive potential of phraseological units the most thoroughly described in the
works of A.I. Fedorov, who connected it with their «connotative essence» and argued
that phraseological units are not for the name of any new developments, but for the
concretization and figurative-emotional evaluation of objects, phenomena , qualities,
which were already mentioned in the language.
Considerable attention is paid to the study of synonymy of phraseological units-
SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES
158
№ 3 (63), 2014
Regional Bulletin of the East
idioms by such linguists as A.D. Reichstein, Y.P. Solodub, M.V. Mokienko. They also
engaged in comparing phraseological units of languages with different structures
at the
level of identity or similarity, lying on the base of images.
Since phraseology as linguistic phenomenon is a system of interconnected and
correlative with the words and with each other, insofar phraseological units should be
studied from different perspectives. This discipline helps to learn the literary norms
of word usage, namely the use of set phrases, because mistakes in speech reduce its
expressiveness and effectiveness.
Words are givens, already existing in the language and embodied in the hu-
man mind during the development of language as means of communication, and word
combinations and sentences are formed in the speech. Compatibility freedom is never
absolute, it is always relative. However, in language there are many phrases that occur
in the speech and are used in it as ready verbal units. They are so-called set expressions
or, as they are often called, phraseological units, set phrases [1]. Thus, in the phraseol-
ogy all set expressions are studied: the units, which are equivalent to the word and the
units, which are proper to the sentence in the semantic and structural relation [2].
In the system of phraseological units of any language in this sense a special
place is occupied by comparative phraseological units, because they reflect the central
form of mental operations of people, and in this respect in every language there are
their own stereotypes and national preferences in the comparative thinking, in building
imaginative analogies and comparisons.
According the grammatical structure phraseological units can be phrases, pred-
icative combinations and sentences. Leaning on the nature of the meaning, resulting
from the structure interaction, compatibility and semantic transformation of compo-
nent composition, M.D. Stepanova and I.I. Chernyshev deduce the structural-semantic
classification of phraseological units [3]. It comprises three groups:
1) phraseological unities;
2) phraseological combinations;
3) phraseological expressions.
It should be noted that M.D. Stepanova and I.I. Chernysheva also include to
the group of phraseological unities word pairs and comparative phraseological units,
which are the subject of our study. They call them phraseological unities with ex-
pressed structural properties.
The main structural feature of word pairs is that they are binary combinations,
they consist of two tokens, belonging to the same part of speech. Word pairs are very
productive group. Along with the old ones, we can observe a large number of word
pairs, formed just recently. From the point of view of semantics, word pairs have re-
sumptive character.
G.K. KAPYSHEVA
159
Шығыстың аймақтық хабаршысы · Региональный вестник Востока № 3 (63), 2014
V.V. Eliseeva, considering structural types of phraseological units, argues that
«despite its unsemulatedness, phraseological units are quite well distributed according
the types of forming structures» [4]. On this basis she marks:
1) Phraseological units, which are identical with the corresponding free phrases
according their form (take silk, break the ice);
2) In this group coordinative structures are formed (pick and choose, rain or
shine, light to darkness, for love or money, by hook or by crook);
3) Phraseological units with predicative structure (as the matter stands, before
you could say Jack Robinson, as they crow flies). This group includes phraseological
units in the form of imperative mood (Take it easy! Bless my soul! Take your time!),
and also units of comparative character (as dead as door-nail, as mad as a hatter).
Unimodal structures stand separately, consisting of one full-meaning word and one or
more auxiliary words (behind the scenes, in the blood, for good), and verbal-postpos-
itive phraseological units, located on the border of idiomatic fund (to bear up, to give
in).
Comparative phraseological units are stable and reproducible combination of
words, phraseological specificity of which is based on the traditional comparison.
Another important classification is the classification of V.S. Vinogradov, in his
opinion, if we set pragmatic goals, it is advisable to subdivide set combinations into
three large groups:
1. Lexical phraseological units. They are semantically correlated with the words,
conceptually similar to them. For example: синий чулок, смывать удочки, a bull in a
chine shop, tough nut to crack.
2. Predicative phraseological units. They are usually complete sentences, fixed in
the language in the form of stable formulas. For example: шила в мешке не утаишь,
седина в бороду, лучше синица в руках, чем журавль в небе, better late than never,
in for a penny, in for a pound.
3. Comparative phraseological units. They were fixed in the language as a stable
comparisons. For example: здоровый как бык, твердый как камень, as brave as a
lion, as cool as cucumber [1].
As we can see from the above set of classifications, not all linguists add com-
parative phraseological units to a group, it proves once again that there is no consensus
about what phraseological unit is , hence there is no unity of views on the composi-
tion of these units in language. Some researchers (L.P. Smith, V.P. Zhukov, V.N. Telia,
N.M. Shansky, etc.) include set combinations to the phraseology, others (N.N. Amoso-
va, A.M. Babkin, A.I. Smirinitsky, etc.) include only certain groups. So, some linguists
(including academician V.V. Vinogradov) do not include proverbs, sayings and winged
words to the phraseological units, believing that they on the semantics and syntax
SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES
160
№ 3 (63), 2014
Regional Bulletin of the East
structure differ from phraseological units. Differences in opinion and attitudes says
that the phraseology as a special branch of linguistics is not always on the same place
and constantly evolving.
The paper deals with comparative phraseological units of impredicative type that
relate to the specific method of comparison expression. They are a system of expres-
sion means, in which significance of inner form, the wealth of fine language resources
become apparent with special clearness and at the same time the originality of the
national culture, national mentality of imaginative thinking are revealed.
Comparative phraseological units of impredicative type are stable and replicable
combination of words, phraseological specifics of which is based on the traditional
comparison, that is, those set phrases that consist of two or more components having
the semantics of comparison and combined in one unit, for example: as like as two
peas – похожи как две капли воды – аузынан түсіп қалғандай.
Comparison is one of the oldest ways of knowing reality. It expressively, clearly,
vividly describes a person, natural phenomena, everyday situations. The analysis of
comparative components gives the opportunity to address the fact of language, where
the choice of the subject for comparison only committed, as well as to trace the forma-
tion of the internal form of comparative component.
Traditionally, comparative phraseological units of impredicative type are sub-
divided depending on the nature of the base of comparison into adjectival, verbal,
substantive, partial and with implicit module.
Comparative phraseological units constitute the largest category of adjectival
phraseological units. Adjectival phraseological units are those that functionally cor-
related with adjectives, i.e., phraseological units, the core component of which is an
adjective. The share of adjectival phraseological units in the total value of studied
phraseological units is negligible.
Among adjectival phraseological units in English, Kazakh and Russian languag-
es two main structural subclasses should be divided, they are common for phraseologi-
cal units in these languages
.
I. Adjectival comparative phraseological units. They are phraseological units,
that have in their composition comparing component (as, как, сияқты). This subclass
most fully represented in English: (as) open as the day, greedy as the wolf, soft as
butter, as cool as cucumber; in the Russian language it is relatively small in num-
ber: трусливый как заяц, гордый как павлин, свободный как птица; in Kazakh:
абжыландай арбады, судай сапырды.
In English as a dependent component proper name may be performed: patient as
Job, (as) proud as Lucifer, pleased as Punch.
English phraseological units also allow interchangeability of both core and de-
G.K. KAPYSHEVA
161
Шығыстың аймақтық хабаршысы · Региональный вестник Востока № 3 (63), 2014
pendent components: (as) changeable as the moon (Weathercock), close as an oyster,
true as a flint, cheerful as a lark.
II. Phraseological units with the structure adj+prep+n: green with envy, full of
beans, dead from the neck up, злой на язык, нечист на руку. The core and dependent
components, which are in postposition, are connected to each other by adjoining. Be-
tween the components of phraseological units attributive syntactic relations are identi-
fied, hence for this phraseological units adjectival-nominal-prepositional subtype of
attributive-prepositional type with postposition and adjoining are typical. Dedicated
class is a very small and atypical in these languages.
The English language has another subclass with the structure adj+and+adj: high
and mighty, fair and square, rough and ready, prim and proper. Between the compo-
nents of phraseological unit of this subclass there is coordinative bond, uniting equal
components of phraseological units [5].
According to M.D. Stepanova and I.I. Chernysheva, comparative phraseologi-
cal units are stable and reproducible combination of words, phraseological specificity
of which is based on the traditional comparison. Structural and semantic peculiarity
of phraseological units of this group is that the characteristic of properties or action
occurs through the comparative group or comparative subordinate clause. Character-
istic conjunctions for such structures are equivalents in Russian language как (будто,
точно), in English as (like). For example: as close as an oyster. Comparative group or
subordinate clause describes the property or action, the condition through the concrete
image, which shows a comparison. Within the semantics of comparative phraseology
the meaning is characteristic, representing the intensity of the movement, the degree of
manifestation of a property, assessment. For example: as daft as a brush – глупый как
пробка – тауықтың миындай ми жоқ. Semantic transformation is that the compari-
son group in combination with the component receives the new meaning. The second
distinguishing feature of the comparative phraseological units is firmly fixed compat-
ibility of stable comparison with strictly defined terms of adjectives, verbs. This allows
to consider comparative phraseological units as binomial structures.
Researchers of the structure of comparative phraseological units in English, Ger-
man and French hold the opinion that the comparative phraseological units have mainly
two-component structure (I.I. Chernyshev, A.V. Kunin, A.G. Nazarian). Comparative
phraseological units of impredicative type really mostly consist of two components,
which are connected with the corresponding comparative conjunction:
1) The basis, the object of comparison, which, because of its variability, is not
included to the comparative phraseological unit;
2 ) Comparison part, through which the characteristic properties or actions are
made.
SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES
162
№ 3 (63), 2014
Regional Bulletin of the East
The bases of comparison are the words that denote qualitative attributes (ad-
jectives and adverbs) and words, expressing various processes (verbs). On the basis
of permanently fixed relations of the two constant components phraseological units
occurs the transformation of comparison element into the element of intention and
generalized characteristics.
The viewpoint about ternary composition of comparative phraseological units
caused by the logical construction of a «comparison operation», consisting of three
things: a comparison object, the image of comparison and indication of similarity.
However, the comparison object is not constant, and its inclusion to the composition
of comparative phraseological units would enter into conflict with one of the main
features of phraseological unit - consistency of lexical structure.
Proponents of a single-component composition of comparative phraseological
units come from the fact that rethought part of comparative phrase is the comparison
group itself, and the word, that expresses a sign of similarity, is used in its basic nomi-
native meaning. It does not take into account the special nature of this type of phra-
seological units, which demonstrates itself a mix of both components of comparative
phraseological units rather than their individual meanings
, i.e. qualitative (imagery)
and quantitative (intention) characteristics are achieved as a result of the act of com-
parison.
Like all phraseological units, comparative phraseological units are furnished
separately. A significant number of comparative phraseological units allows change
of both the first and second components. Such usage does not mean only a greater de-
gree of feature, as used to increase the expressiveness of comparative phrasema. The
change of the first part of phraseological units has become increasingly common, for
example, comparative phraseological unit as large as life had not had the compara-
tive degree. However, in the twentieth century this comparative phraseological unit
became widely used in the comparative degree in English, American and Australian
culture. For example: All her emotions are quite sincere, but she cannot help being a
little larger than life (J.B. Priestley).
It should be noted the wide development of variance in the comparative phraseo-
logical units, forming their separately furnishing. Each adjective phraseological unit
may be used both with primary conjunction as and without it. The second conjunction
never drops. There is a tendency to omit the initial conjunction as in elliptical sentenc-
es, that are not answers to the question, with omitted subject and link-verb. «You can
not talk to him», said uncle Rodney. «Mad as a hatter». Conjunction as is often omitted
where the comparative phraseological unit is moved to the beginning of the sentence
or if before phraseological unit stands the conjunction but or yet. For example: ...nice
fellow as ever lived, but soft as butter.
G.K. KAPYSHEVA
163
Шығыстың аймақтық хабаршысы · Региональный вестник Востока № 3 (63), 2014
Comparative phraseological units with as and with omitted conjunction are a
kind of quantitative variants, normative, rather than occasional. The availability of
such options is indicative of separately furnishing of comparative phraseological units.
This kind of quantitative variance differs from all other types of variance that it is char-
acteristic for all comparative phraseological units, having in its composition double
conjunction as…as.
It should be noted that the deviation from the norm is the use of conjunction like
instead of as. It’s safe to say that in such cases there is the emergence of a new form, as
in spoken English there has been a tendency to use like as a conjunction. For example:
like a bear with a sore head – сильно рассерженный, злой как черт.
For adjective comparisons, as well as for other types of comparisons, double-
planning of meaning is characteristic: one is
compared with another. This structure of
meaning allocates it as a phraseological meaning of special kind, namely compara-
tive.
СПИСОК ЛИТЕРАТУРЫ
1. Виноградов В.С. Введение в переводоведение (общие и лексические вопросы)
/ В.С. Виноградов. – М., 2001.
2. Makkai A. Idiomaticy as a language universal. Universals of human language. Ed. by
J.H. Greenberg. Standford, 1998.
3. Greenberg J.H. Language universals: a research frontier. In: Greenberg J. language,
culture and communication. Essays by J.H. Greenberg. Selected and introduced by A.S. Dil.
Stanford, 1991.
4. Lakoff G. Linguistik gestalts. In: Papers from the ХIII Regional Meeting of Chicago
Linguistic Society.13. Chicago 1997.
5. Аюпова Р.А. Проблемы сопоставительной фразеологии английского и русского
языков / Р.А. Аюпова. – Казань: Казан. гос. ун-т, 2004.
REFERENCES
1. Vinogradov V.S., Vvedenie v perevodovedenie. Оbshhie i leksicheskie voprosy. V.S.
Vinogradov. 2001 (in Russ).
2. Makkai A., Idiomaticy as a language universal.Universals of human language. Ed.
by J.H. Greenberg. Standford, 1998 (in Eng).
3. Greenberg J.H., Language universals: a research frontier. In: Greenberg J. language,
culture and communication. Essays by J.H. Greenberg. Selected and introduced by A.S. Dil.
Stanford, 1991 (in Eng).
4. Lakoff G., Linguistik gestalts. In: Papers from the ХIII Regional Meeting of Chicago
Linguistic Society. 13. Chicago 1997 (in Eng).
5. Ayupova R.A., Problemy sopostavitel’noj frazeologii anglijskogo i russkogo jazykov
/ R.A. Ajupova. Kazan’: Kazan. gos. un-t, 2004 (in Russ).
Достарыңызбен бөлісу: |