Comparative analysis of phraseological units with anthroponymic components in Polish and Ukrainian languages

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Bohdan Khmelnytskyi National Academy of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS WITH ANTHROPONYMIC COMPONENTS IN POLISH AND UKRAINIAN LANGUAGES

Mychkovska Vanda Rostyslavivna

Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences,

Associate Professor Associate Professor in the

Foreign Languages Department

Khmelnytskyi City



Abstract

The article deals with the concept of phraseological units with anthroponymic components in the Polish and Ukrainian languages.

Phraseology is an integral part of the literary language and our communication. They constitute a bright and colourful layer of the Ukrainian and Polish phraseological system, and the anthroponymic component is an expression of national colouring.

The relevance of the article is in the need for a thorough study of phraseological units with anthroponymic components in the Polish and Ukrainian languages for both linguists and people interested in this topic, the essence of language interaction, the subtleties of translation of language units, their cultural aspect, and the specifics of improving interlingual communication between the Polish and Ukrainian populations.

The article investigates the specifics of semantic, structural and functional aspects of phraseological units with anthroponymic components on the basis of two languages - Polish and Ukrainian.

In the course of the study, several key aspects are revealed. Semantic aspect: phraseologisms with anthroponymic components carry significant semantic meaning. In the Ukrainian and Polish languages, they are used to express various concepts, shades of emotions and images. Structural aspect: the structure of phraseological units with anthroponymic components reveals diversity in their composition. To create new expressions, they can be built from a variety of first or last names and combined with many linguistic elements. Functional aspect: phraseologisms with anthroponymic components are actively used in various spheres of speech practice: in literature, journalism, communication, media, education and business. They contribute to the expressiveness of speech and create the basis for the development of speech culture.

The importance of phraseological units with anthroponymic components in language practice and cultural context, their diversity and importance for translation, study and understanding of the linguistic features of the Polish and Ukrainian languages are emphasised.

Keywords: phraseological units, anthroponyms, phraseological units with anthroponymic component, translation, semantic, structural, functional components. phraseological anthroponymic polish language



Анотація

Мичковська Ванда Ростиславівна кандидат педагогічних наук, доцент, доцент кафедри, Національна академія Державної прикордонної служби України

КОМПАРАТИВНИЙ АНАЛІЗ ФРАЗЕОЛОГІЗМІВ З АНТРОПОНІМНИМИ КОМПОНЕНТАМИ В ПОЛЬСЬКІЙ ТА УКРАЇНСЬКІЙ МОВАХ

У статті розглядається поняття фразеологізмів з антропонімними компонентами в польській та українській мовах.

Фразеологізми є невід'ємною частиною літературної мови та нашого спілкування. Вони становлять яскравий колоритний шар української та польської фразеологічної системи, а антропонімний компонент є виразником національного забарвлення.

Актуальність статті полягає в необхідності ґрунтовного вивчення фразеологізмів з антропонімними компонентами в польській та українській мовах як для мовознавців, так і людей, які цікавляться цією тематикою, сутності взаємодії мов, тонкощів перекладу мовних одиниць, їх культурологічного аспекту, специфіки покращення міжмовної комунікації польськомовного та українського населення.

У статті досліджується специфіка семантичного, структурного та функціонального аспектів у складі фразеологічних одиниць з антропонімними компонентами на матеріалі двох мов - польської та української.

У ході дослідження ми розкрили декілька ключових аспектів, а саме:

Семантичний аспект:

Фразеологізми з антропонімними компонентами несуть у собі значне семантичне значення. В українській та польській мовах, вони використовуються для вираження різноманітних концепцій, відтінків емоцій та образів.

Структурний аспект:

Структура фразеологізмів з антропонімними компонентами виявляє різноманітність у своєму складі. Для створення нових виразів, вони можуть будуватись з різноманітних імен або прізвищ, а також поєднуватися з багатьма лінгвістичними елементами.

Функціональний аспект:

Фразеологізми з антропонімними компонентами активно використовуються в різних сферах мовленнєвої практики: у літературі, публіцистиці, спілкуванні, медіа, освіті та бізнесі. Вони сприяють виразності мови та створюють підґрунтя для розвитку мовленнєвої культури.

Отже, проведене нами дослідження підкреслило значущість фразеологізмів з антропонімними компонентами в мовній практиці та культурному контексті, їх різноманітність та важливість для перекладу, вивчення та розуміння лінгвістичних особливостей польської та української мов.

Ключові слова: фразеологізми, антропоніми, фразеологічні одиниці з антропонімним компонентом, переклад, семантичний, структурний, функціональний компоненти.



Problem statement

Phraseology is an integral part of the literary language and our communication. They constitute a bright and colourful layer of the Ukrainian and Polish phraseological system, and the anthroponymic component is an expression of national colouring. Phraseological units are a source of knowledge about the mentality, history and culture of the people. They represent a great diversity of cultural heritage.

Phraseology is a treasure of cultural heritage, heroic, household and historical events. The study of formation, organisation and functioning peculiarities of phraseological units makes it possible to understand the nature and essence, deepens the understanding of specific properties that determine the language capabilities to be a means of cognition and communication.

The relevance of the article is in the need for a thorough study of phraseological units with anthroponymic components in the Polish and Ukrainian languages for both linguists and people interested in this topic, the essence of language interaction, the subtleties of translation of language units, their cultural aspect, and the specifics of improving interlingual communication between the Polish and Ukrainian populations.

Analysis of recent research and publications

The analysis of national and foreign scientific works on phraseological units with anthroponymic components shows that both domestic and foreign scholars have dealt with this issue.

The problem of antonyms in phraseology was studied by V. Herasymchuk, Yu. Kovaliuk, V. Mykhailenko, Ye. Brysina, who focus on proper names in dialectal phraseology. The works by A. Kravchuk, E. Solodukho are dedicated to the comparative study of Polish and Ukrainian phraseology. A. Kravchuk suggests that a proper name should not be interpreted as a meaningless identifier; it is more logical to recognise that in language, and especially in speech, a proper name is filled with semantic content [1, P.185]. Among Western linguists, it is worth noting Sh. Bally, A. Sechehaye, L.P. Smith, E. Partridge, F. de Saussure.

The purpose of the article is to study the specifics of functioning and semantic, structural and functional aspects of phraseological units with anthroponymic components on the basis of two languages - Polish and Ukrainian.

To achieve the purpose, the following tasks need to be completed:

- to study the peculiarities of phraseological units with anthroponyms of both languages, their valuable contribution to modern linguistics;

- to characterise anthroponymic components in idioms; syntactic and morphological aspects of phraseological units;

- to carry out a comparative analysis of the cultural and mental characteristics of Polish and Ukrainian phraseology.

Presentation of the main research material

A phraseological unit is an established turn of phrase, a stable combination of words that appears in the language as a single, indivisible and integral expression [2, P. 1548].

The meaning of a phraseological unit is not formed by the meanings of its components. The use of phraseological units as signs of secondary nomination determines the expressiveness of speech. In literary practice, phraseological units expand the possibilities of artistic speech, but cause difficulties when translating a work into another language. Writers resort to variation of phraseological units by introducing various components into their composition, contamination, artificial renewal of the original meaning, and undermining their `inviolable' unity. A phraseological unit is an object of study in phraseology [3, p. 546].

According to H. Udovychenko `Phraseological units are semantically connected and structurally closed minimal syntactic units with a nominative function in the communicative system of the language, the semantic structure of which is not motivated by the lexical meaning of their permanent components' [4, P. 3].

Phraseological units are the most complex and interesting linguistic phenomena. They provide an insight into the mentality and way of thinking and the peculiarities of the culture and life of the people.

Phraseological units are lexically indivisible, stable in their composition, integral in meaning, combinations of words that are reproduced in the language.

The most widespread and studied in Polish and Ukrainian phraseology are anthroponyms (names of people, names of religious and mythological origin, names of literary heroes and prominent figures).

Anthroponym is a proper name for a person [2, p.35]. It exists in the language, and the peculiarities of its functioning are determined by the language rules. A proper name exists in society, and the narrower the society is, the more vivid the features of the name's functioning are [2, p. 45]. Proper names appear when an individual distinction becomes socially significant. The following classes of proper names are distinguished: personal names of people; names of geographical objects; names of space objects; names of deities; mythical creatures; animal names; names of organisations, industries and public associations; names of time periods, events; names of individual objects (ships, hurricanes, works of spiritual culture, musical pieces, paintings, films, etc.).

A name is an officially assigned title to an individual in order to distinguish him or her from a number of similar people.

A classification is needed that would systematise the sources of origin of phraseological units with an onomastic component.

Polish researcher S. Bomba identifies the following sources of anthroponyms [5, p. 15]: - classical heritage: Od a do zet; Alfa i omega; - literary texts: Za krola Cweczka; Salomonowy wyrok; - bible: Zebro Adama; Od Adama i Ewy wyjasniac; - mythology and images of Greek and Latin antiquity: Puszka Pandory; Janusowe oblicze; Stajnia Augiasza; Pi^Kny jak Apollo; - real people, rarely legendary figures: Bartek - za piecem wychowany; Czy Pawel, czy Gawel - to jedno; Chlop nas zdradzil, skrzynka przyskrzynila, kruk oko wydziobal, ryba zatopila (a hint at the leaders of the 1830-1831 uprising - Chlopicki, Skrzynski, Krukowiecki); - popular culture: Panna Trzepalkowska; Bodaj ci<? Winiarska obmyla.

According to T. Shutkovskyi, anthroponyms in phraseological units are represented in the following groups [6]:

1) A person by nationality, territory, place of residence, place of stay;

2) A person by intellectual-emotional-physical state, by properties and qualities and its manifestation;

3) A person by social position, action, function, personal and social relations, connections;

4) A person by profession, speciality, occupation, nature of activity and related actions and relationships;

5) A person by physical, physiological, mental state, property, action;

6) A person in an occasional state caused by a situation, circumstances, event Kudina identifies five main sources [7, P. 301]:

1. Evangelical or biblical mythology, for example, Chodzic od Annasza do Kaifasza - `unnecessary work'.

2. Ancient mythology, for example, Syzyfowa praca - `a difficult, fruitless task'.

3. Historical events with which a person or geographical object is associated and which have certain characteristic features, for example, Antek z Podwala - `a historical figure of a local hangman'; Za krola Sasa jedz, pij i popuszczaj pasa - `no matter what, have fun'.

4. Legends, fairy tales, folklore, for example, Swieta Agnieszka wypuszcza skowronka z mieszka - `the joy of the first snow'.

5. Fiction, for example, Wystrojona jak rosienska Magdalena - `indicates the beauty, slenderness and elegance of a girl of this area'.

We can distinguish common types of names by their origin in Polish and Ukrainian phraseology: Roman: Amour/Cupid (Strzala Kupidyna, Cupid's arrow); ancient Hebrew: Adam (Adam zjadl jablko, a nam skom$ uszynil, Adam in paradise, Adam's rib, from Adam); Greek: Achilles (Pi<?ta Achillesowa, Achilles' heel).

Anthroponyms name, but do not give any traits or qualities, because there are no unique names that would be created for each individual person.

They reflect the ethno-nationality of the language community; i.e. certain names are popular in different territories:

1. Ukrainian: Kindrat, Odarka, Motria, Khveska

2. Polish: Jan, Mateusz, Jacek, Katarzyna.

This group includes the names of historical figures and prominent people:

1. Ukrainian: Taras (association - Taras Shevchenko); Polish: Adam (association - Adam Mickiewicz);

2. Ukrainian: Bohdan (association - Bohdan Khmelnytskyi); Polish: Lech (association - Lech Walesa).

Phraseological units are classified in different ways. There are various numbers of groups. There are phraseological fusions (idioms), phraseological unities, phraseological combinations and phraseological expressions. Idioms (phraseological splices) are indivisible, their meaning is motivated and derived from the meaning of individual components, and semantic independence is completely lost.

Karpenko O. distinguishes the following classifications [8. P.243]: semantic - describing the meaning of the phraseological unit and its semantic features; genetic - indicating the origin of the phraseological unit, its history and connections with certain cultural aspects; ideographic - related to imagery and ideas; functional - considering its impact on the expression, expressiveness or performance of a specific communicative function; expressive and stylistic - which determines the expressiveness and stylistic colouring of phraseological units, their impact on the emotional component of speech; morphological - which analyses the structure of phraseological units, their word-formation, internal structure and form.

Regarding the peculiarities of creating phraseological units:

1. Phraseological units are formed on the basis of free syntactic constructions in the course of communication. Verb-noun phrases serve as a derivational base [9, p. 110].

In this case, the verb form is more often used either in the imperfect or the perfect form. The structural basis is verb-pronoun, verb-adjective, and verbs combined with substantive adjectives. Prototypes of phraseological units are also verb-adverb, verb-verb phrases. The productive category of adjective-noun phraseological units, noun-noun, noun-pronoun, numeral- noun, pronoun-pronoun, pronoun-pronoun, pronoun-adverb, etc. Multi-word (three or more) phrase structures function in different combinations. A certain part of phraseology is formed on the basis of different types of sentences.

2. The formation of phraseological units on the basis of individual words can be associated with implication - explication. Thus, implication enhances the sign character of the linguistic unit, and explication - the expressiveness. The development of individual words into a phraseological unit occurs by expanding the original word in case of clarification of its meaning [9, p. 11-112].

3. Creating phraseological units based on proverbs and sayings: justification of phraseological derivation is found primarily in the works of

O. Potebnia (`condensation of thought'), B. Larin (`fragments of proverbs'), V. Arkhangelsky, who, based on the work of I. Baudouin de Courtenay and Ye. Polivanov on the `economy of language work', comprehensively covered elliptical processes in stable phrases. L. Roizenzon proposes to clearly distinguish between lexical derivation and phraseologisation (the process of formation of phraseological units). Word formation is a phenomenon of modelling, and phraseology is dual in nature. According to the scientist, it acts both as a modelled phenomenon (phraseological series) and as a derivational act of an unmodelled type (L. Roizenzon ) [9, p. 117]. We consider the term `phraseological derivation' to be the most correct, since it correlates with the term `lexical derivation'.

Phraseological expressions have not only the structure of a complete sentence. They are inherently didactic, instructive, and encourage conclusions. Examples are proverbs and aphorisms. If the phraseological expression does not contain a message, or has a certain omission, it is a catchphrase or saying. For example, the sayings: Ukrainian: Хто рано встає, тому Бог подає; Polish: Kto rano wstaje, temu Pan Bog daje. Proverbs: Ukrainian: Коли рак на горі свисне; Polish: Co kraj, to obyczaj!

The phraseologist H. Udovychenko came up with a personal concept of derivation. The process of regressive derivation is manifested primarily in the phraseology of proverbs and sayings by explicitly actualising, as a rule, the first part of proverbs and sayings and omitting the second part [4].

Therefore, phraseological derivation is the process of creating derivative phraseological units on the basis of already existing idioms or paraphrases due to linguistic or extra-linguistic factors through modification in semantics, grammatical arrangement (irregularly) and structure (regularly). It is part of a broader phenomenon - phraseologisation, the formation of national idiom - and is the result of dynamic processes.

4. Creation of Ukrainian phraseological units on the basis of Polish ones. For example: `від моря до моря'. Pol. `od morza do morza'. It is used in different ways: `...наша Польська відродиться, немов фенікс, у новому крулевстві і під опікою генія, можливо, знову розправить крила від моря й до моря!' (M.S. Harytskyi): зійти на пси, перевестися на пси `gradually lose importance; decline' (zejsc na psy), `Тепер наш Борислав зовсім на пси зійшов!' (I.Franko); золота вольність `civil liberties; ideal society' (zlota wolnosc) - from the name of the ancient Polish coat of arms [10; 11].

Next, we move on to the semantic analysis of phraseological units with anthroponyms. There are different classifications of phraseological units. The most famous is the classification of phraseological units developed by the French linguist Ch. Bally.

According to this classification, phraseological units are divided into phraseological splices, phraseological unities and phraseological combinations [10; 11].

1. Phraseological fusions are semantically indivisible phraseological units, the meaning of which does not follow from the meaning of their components.

Phraseological splices are also called idioms (from the Greek idioma `original turn of phrase'), which are phraseological units with a complete loss of internal form. Explaining how the meaning of idioms evolved is a complex etymological problem. Idioms cannot be translated literally into another language. So, to an idiom in another language, one can only find a matching idiom, if any, or translate it into a single word or free phrase.

2. Phraseological unities are semantically indivisible phraseological units, the holistic meaning of which is motivated by the meaning of their components.

The meaning of phraseological unity arises from the generalised figurative meaning of a free phrase. This is the result of an imaginative metaphorical reinterpretation of the phrase. As we can see, phraseological unities are characterised by semantic duality. Taken separately and isolated from the context, such phrases cannot be unambiguously identified, because such phrases can be used as free in the literal sense and as phraseological in the figurative sense, i.e. they are homonymous.

3. Phraseological combinations are phrases in which the independent meaning of each word is absolutely clear, but one of the components has a related meaning. They are mostly formed with the help of metaphors, which are derived from various areas of public life. For example, the expression ogniem i mieczem - by fire and sword (solving the problem with the use of special measures) has been transferred from Polish to Ukrainian.

Here is an analysis of some Polish and Ukrainian phrases:

Semantics of a person:

Names and surnames of people: (Pol. Kredka, Wladzia, Bolek, Lolek; Ukr. Palazhka, Paraska, Marko, Martin)

Most of the anthroponyms included in the phraseological units formed by metaphorisation are the names of gods and heroes of ancient Greek mythology, characters from European literature, historical heroes and characters from popular television series, animated films and fairy tales.

For example, mythology: Pol. Puszka Pandory. Pudlo Pandory - `a container of evil, an evil gift' [21, vol. 2, 220]; Pol. Praca herkulesowa [22, vol. 3, p. 32]; Pol. Miecz Damoklesowy wisi nad kims, nad czyj^s glow^ - `trouble, danger, the sword of Damocles' [22, vol. 2, p. 60]; = Ukr. дамоклів меч [14, p. 70]; Ukr. скриня Пандори - `a container of evil, an evil gift' [14]; Ukr. геркулесова праця - `Herculean work, exceptionally hard work' [14, p. 62]

The motivation of book phraseological units is connected with the hero of ancient Greek mythology, Asklepios, the god of medicine: Pol. uczen Eskulapa `doctor' Ukr. Сізіфова праця `hard, fruitless and endless work', у костюмі Єви `without clothes'.

The characters of popular cartoon series are associated with slang school phrases in Polish: bolki i lolki `policemen' (Bolek and Lolek are the characters of the Polish animated series of the same name, which was broadcast on Polish screens in the 1970s ) [11].

Pun and metaphorisation play an important role in the creation of phraseological units with anthroponymic components in the Polish and Ukrainian languages. There are semantic differences and similarities in both languages. Names and surnames that form phraseological units are often associated with literary figures and common names, with heroes of ancient Greek mythology. Phraseological units often share a common semantics, but their lexical composition and structure may differ, reflecting cultural and historical connections. The use of anthroponymic elements in phraseological units contributes to the creation of figurative expressions that reflect the peculiarities of cultural perception and expression of semantic concepts in different languages.

A) panna Babska

B) pan Fikalski

C) pan Parowy

D) ciocia Bakteria

E) pani Pierwiastek

Puns on surnames in Polish:

`midwife' (Babska from babka `midwife')

`dancer' (Fikalski from fikac `to dance')

`sausage maker' (Parowy from parowka `sausage')

`biology teacher' (Bakteria from bakteriolog `specialist in biology')

`chemistry teacher' (pierwiastek - in chemistry, `element')

Many phraseological units in Ukrainian and Polish contain irony, joke, and sometimes mockery, indicating mental disability:

Polish language

Co Jasio, do mnie Kazio.

Jak Kuba Bogu, wez Bog Kubie.

Janek jest glupi, trzyma r$k$ na pulsie.

Kowalski glupi, zeby i kowadlo glupi.

Janek m^dry, jak koza w garncu.

M^dry Polak poniosl szkod?.

Ukrainian language що Кирило, то й дурило; HayMe, Науме, дурний твій уме; Гриць мас голову з дурниць; дурний Мартин узяв мило за сир; учив Мартин Мартина, а сам дурний, як тростина; випий, Іванку, бляшанку, а за дві заплати; дурний Іван, дурний і пан; не смійся, кума, що дурень Хома, бо всі люди кажуть, що й ти без ума;

Phraseological units with anthroponymic components of folklore origin:

Баба Палажка і баба Параска (loquacious, arrogant, conceited);

Як Марко (Сивко) у пеклі товктися

Як Марко з пасльону Як Мартин до мила У всякого Мусія своя затія

Позичати у Сірка очі Не до Петра, а до Різдва

Лис Микита

(unceasingly, incessantly, without interruption; without need);

(suddenly, unexpectedly, inappropriately);

(without a sense of proportion; greedily, eagerly);

(Everyone has their own plans or business. Everyone has their own goals and objectives);

(be very vigilant and careful); (to implement something not immediately);

(an offensive expression to describe a cunning person who cheats)

Here are examples of various semantic loads of proper names in Ukrainian phraseology:

Mythonyms (цар Горох, цар Опенько, цар Пенько, etc.) are presented in phraseological expressions associated with the first ideas about time, about golden times, about the beginning of all things. Historical phraseology representing specific historical figures indicates the characteristic features of the bearer of a given proper name. The social and domestic spheres are described separately, in which proper names became a means of typification. A certain qualitative classification of names is indicated; some of them were assigned the role of neutral, some positive, and a number of names were unlucky. They were assigned the function of idiots, idlers, etc. (Гапка, Химка, Хведько, etc.) [12, P 43-47]. In Polish, similar names that can have a similar functional load are `Zbyszko' or `Maciek', which are mentioned in the works of Henryk Sienkiewicz.

It is worth noting another symbol of the anthroponym Ivan - a fool: Pol. Iwan: ni Bogu, ni nam - `helpless man' [21, vol. 1, p. 808] - Ukr. Іван ні Богу ні нам (about an incompetent, unhelpful man) [18, vol. 2, p. 287]. As for the Ukrainian anthroponym Ivan, it has a much higher phrase-formation activity than in Polish.

The researcher L. Skrypnyk noted that `the index of stable verbal formulas with people's names - proverbs, sayings, folk calendar observances, various rhymed proverbs that tease people in one way or another, etc. - includes hundreds of units, among which the names Ivan, Andrii, Aliosha, Omelko, Pylyp, Stetsko, Petro, Khoma, Hanna, Mariia, Khyma, etc. are particularly notable for their phrase-making.' [13, p. 112].

L. Skrypnyk notes that the name Ivan `most often embodies the social concept of “common man”, “hard worker”, “poor man”: Ukr. Як не буде Івана, то не буде пана; Що вільно панові, то не вільно Іванові; Пан з паном погодиться, а Іван у спину дістане; Не дай, Боже, з Івана пана та ін.' [13, p. 113].

The following names are available in Polish: Pol. Dobra psu mucha, a Matiaszowi plotka [21, vol. 2, p. 361]; Niech pan panem b<?dzie, a wygod^ sluga, Bartosz do siekiery, a Maciek do pluga [21, vol. 1, p. 64]; Glupi Maciek [21, vol. 2, p. 361] etc.

We will carry out a structural analysis of phraseological units with anthroponyms. Phraseologisms are divided into groups according to the degree of unity of components. However, phraseological units also have other characteristics. It performs a certain syntactic function, combines with other members of the sentence, can express temporal and spatial relations, e. it is an element of the grammatical system.

Among the structural and grammatical types there are different semantic and grammatical groups of phraseological units:

1) Phraseologisms organised according to the model of conjunctive word combinations (ні сном ні духом, ні холодно ні жарко, вогнем і мечем) and subordinate phrases (виточити кров з кого, на місяць вити).

2) combination of full and service words.

The phraseological fund includes many phrases with sentence structure.

L. Skrypnyk, analysing phraseological units in synchronicity, distinguishes two `grammatical and structural classes' [13, P. 23]:

1) Phraseological units organised according to the model of a phrase (less often a sentence); their semantic and structural feature is their correlation with a single word and functioning as a member of a sentence; they have the organisation of simple or complex sentences.

Here are some examples of morphological and syntactic characteristics:

1. Phraseological model adjective + noun:

Ukrainian: добрий радник - a person who gives good advice.

Polish: szalony pomysl - a crazy idea, an extraordinary plan.

2. Phraseological model noun + noun in genitive case:

Ukrainian: ради батька - in favour of or for the benefit of the father.

Polish: dla matki - in favour of or for the benefit of the mother.

3. Phraseological model noun + noun:

Ukrainian: вітер сходу - wind blowing from the east.

Polish: slonce zachodu - the sun setting in the west.

Subgroups of phraseological units:

- Noun-name + noun-surname:

Ukrainian: Іван Петрович - a typical representative of Ukrainians.

Polish: Jan Kowalski - a typical representative of Poles.

- Noun denoting kinship + noun-anthroponym:

Ukrainian: брат Ігор - synonymous with unfaithful brother.

Polish: brat Michal - synonymous with brat zdradziecki (traitorous brother).

- Noun denoting a respectful address to a man + noun anthroponym:

Ukrainian: пан Іван - a respectful way of addressing a man.

Polish: pan Jan - equivalent of the Ukrainian Mr Ivan.

- Noun for units of measurement + noun anthroponym':

Ukrainian: сажень Іван - a unit of measurement, the distance that Ivan

can walk in a fathom.

Polish: miara Szymon - similarly, but with the name Szymon.

Thus, there are differences and similarities in structure between Polish and Ukrainian phraseology.

In Ukrainian and Polish, phraseological units with anthroponymic components have a similar structure and are used to express similar concepts.

- Phraseological units containing personal components is the widespread use of surnames in the creation of language patterns that reflect various aspects of life -- from relationships between individuals to the designation of specific phenomena or events. Therefore, they are deeply rooted in the cultural context and are used to convey ideas and feelings with meanings that can be understood by people who are familiar with the cultural characteristics of these languages.

- Phraseological units consisting of adjectives and nouns reflect human characteristics or qualities associated with a particular being. This structure creates a figure of speech that is easy to understand through well- known associations.

1) In phraseological units with a noun in the genitive case, we usually talk about a certain connection with a person, the influence of this person on a situation or event.

2) The structure `noun + noun' is used for figurative comparison or designation of specific phenomena or natural phenomena. These expressions use specific names or concepts to clarify a situation or emphasise certain features [10].

Next, we move on to the functional analysis of phraseological units with anthroponyms.

I would like to highlight the following aspects of use:

1) Communicative - significantly reduce the volume of speech, but no less accurately allows you to respond to situations; help to express strong emotions in short phrases and phrases that can accurately describe the context of a given situation.

2) Cognitive - images of specific people, historical events, cultural features are evoked and cultural education is contributed to; help to form associations and deepen understanding of the cultural and historical aspects of the language and country.

3) Identification - help a person to better understand the specifics of the country whose language they learn and speak, identify its context, reflect cultural and historical features in communication.

4) Expressive - add stylistic colour to the text, help to prove factual information. Strengthen a person's attitude to a certain situation or phenomenon, more precisely indicate their opinion and assessment of them.

Phraseological units with anthroponymic elements perform not only communicative tasks but also have a significant cultural impact. They form associations, convey emotional colour and identify the language environment. These expressions enrich speech by using first names, surnames and other anthroponyms as a means of conveying meaningful concepts and emotions.

Thus, we can highlight the following key points: symbolisation of historical events - personification of certain historical facts, reminder of heroic or culturally important events of the past. Reflection of cultural peculiarities - expression of the peculiarities of tradition. They become part of the cultural experience and express the specificity of the mentality; diversity of emotional perception - a variety of emotional shades (from a sense of humour to sadness or offensiveness), which adds expressiveness to speech; cultural exchange - improved understanding of the specifics of culture in the speech of countries; formation of speech creativity - creation of new images and ways of expression, increases speech creativity.

This list cannot be limited to the above examples, as phraseology has a significant impact on the cultural and communication sphere of life.

The following areas of life and activities are covered: education and training; everyday communication; political sphere; media and advertising; literature and art.



Conclusions

In the course of the study, we revealed several key aspects, namely:

Semantic aspect:

Phraseologisms with anthroponymic components carry significant semantic meaning. In the Ukrainian and Polish languages, they are used to express various concepts, shades of emotions and images.

Structural aspect:

The structure of phraseological units with anthroponymic components reveals diversity in their composition. To create new expressions, they can be built from a variety of first or last names and combined with many linguistic elements.

Functional aspect:

Phraseologisms with anthroponymic components are actively used in various spheres of speech practice: in literature, journalism, communication, media, education and business. They contribute to the expressiveness of speech and create the basis for the development of speech culture.

Consequently, our study has emphasised the importance of phraseological units with anthroponymic components in language practice and cultural context, their diversity and importance for translation, study and understanding of the linguistic features of the Polish and Ukrainian languages.



References

1. Kravchuk A. (2003). Semantyka antroponimiv u polskii frazeolohii [Semantics of Anthroponyms in Polish Phraseology]. Problemy slovianoznavstva [Problems of Slavic Studies]. № 53. P. 185-191 [in Ukrainian].

2. Busel V.T. (2005). Velykyi tlumachnyi slovnyk suchasnoi ukrainskoi movy (z dod. i dopov.) [Great Explanatory Dictionary of the Modern Ukrainian Language (with addendum and supplement)]. Kyiv; Irpin: VTF “Perun”. 1728 p. ISBN 966-569-013-2. C. 35 [in Ukrainian].

3. Kovaliv Yu. I. (2007). Literaturoznavcha entsyklopediia: Udvokh tomakh [Literary encyclopaedia: In two volumes]. Vol.2. Kyiv: VTs «Akademiia». 546 p [in Ukrainian].

4. Udovychenko H. (1984). Frazeolohichnyi slovnyk ukrainskoi movy [Phrasebook of the Ukrainian language]. Kyiv: Dovira. 758 p [in Ukrainian].

5. B^ba S. (1994). Zmiany znaczen frazeologizmow. Prace komisji jgzykoznawczej. Poznanskie Towarzystwo Przyjaciol Nauk, Wydzial FilologicznoFilozoficzny. Poznan, P. 9 - 14.

6. Szutkowski T. (2005). Obraz liudyny v polskykh frazeolohizmakh z androponomichnym kompotentom [Human image in Polish phraseological units with androponomic component]. Stowo.Tekst. Czas. Materialy Konferencji Naukowej [Word.Text. Time. Materials of the Scientific Conference]. Szczecin. P. 186-196 [in Ukrainian].

7. Kudina O., Prorochenko O. (2005). Perlyny narodnoi mudrosti. Nimetski pryslivia ta prykazky [Pearls of folk wisdom. German proverbs and sayings]. Vinnytsia: Nova knyha. 319 p [in Ukrainian].

8. Karpenko O. (2006). Problematyka kohnityvnoi onomastyky: monohrafiia [Problems of cognitive onomastics: monograph]. Odesa: Astroprynt. 374 p [in Ukrainian].

9. Uzhchenko V.D., Uzhchenko D.V. (2005). Frazeolohiia suchasnoi ukrainskoi movy: posibnyk [Phraseology of the modern Ukrainian language: Textbook]. Luhansk: Alma-mater. 399 p [in Ukrainian].

10. Funktsionalna klasyfikatsiia - klasyfikatsiia frazeolohizmiv - Dovidnyk z ukrainskoi movy [Functional classification - classification of phraseological units - A guide to the Ukrainian language]. Retrieved From https://osvita.ukr-lit.com/funkcionalna- klasifikaciya-klasifikaciya- frazeologizmiv/ [in Ukrainian].

11. Katarzyna Glowinska. (2000). Popularny stownik frazeologiczny. Krakow: Wydawnictwo Wilga. 790 p.

12. Herasymchuk V.A. (2005). Vlasni imena v ukrainskykh frazeolohizmakh [Proper names in Ukrainian phraseology]. Dyvoslovo. Kyiv. No. 4. P. 43-47 [in Ukrainian].

13. Skrypnyk L. (1973). Frazeolohiia ukrainskoi movy [Phraseology of the Ukrainian language]. Kyiv: Naukova dumka. 278 p.

14. Miroshnychenko I.M. (2016). Frazeolohizmy z onomastychnym komponentom na poznachennia profesii [Phraseological units with onomastic components for denotation of professions]. Retrieved from http://surl.li/nrgxa [in Ukrainian].

15. Koval A. P., Koptilov V V. (1975). Krylati vyslovi v ukrainskii literaturnii movi [Winged expressions in the Ukrainian literary language]. Kyiv: Vyshcha shkola. 335 p [in Ukrainian].

16. Vehesh Anastasiia. (2021). Problemy ukrainskoi literaturno-khudozhnoi antroponimiky [Problems of Ukrainian literary and artistic anthroponymy]. Metodychnyi posibnyk dlia studentiv 5-6 kursiv filolohichnoho fakultetu [Study guide for 5-6-year students of the Faculty of Philology]. Uzhhorod. 6 p [in Ukrainian].

17. Frazeolohizm z imenamy [Phraseology with names]. Retrieved from https://dovidka.biz.ua/frazeologizmi-z-imenami [in Ukrainian].

18. Terentii A.S., Kushch N. V., Popova O. A. (2021). Strukturno-semantychni osoblyvosti frazeolohizmiv u romani Ye. Hutsala «Pozychenyi cholovik» [Structural and semantic features of phraseological units in the novel by Ye. Hutsal `A borrowed man']. Vcheni zapysky TNU imeni V. I. Vernadskoho. Seriia: Filolohiia. Zhurnalistyka [Scientific Notes of Vernadsky Kyiv Polytechnic National University. Series: Philology. Journalism]. Vol. 32 (71). No. 5. Part 1. P. 64-69 [in Ukrainian].

19. Franko I. (1901). Halytskoruski narodni prypovidky: Etnohrafichnyi zbirnyk [The Galician Russian folk proverbs: Ethnographic collection]. Ed. by I. Ya. Franko. Lviv: Naukove Tovarystvo imeny Shevchenka [in Ukrainian].

20. Khmara V.V (2019). Zistavnyi analiz vlasnykh imen u skladi frazeolohichnykh odynyts u zakhidnohermanskykh ta skhidnoslovianskykh movakh [Comparative Analysis of Proper Names in Phraseological Units in West Germanic and East Slavic Languages]. Zakarpatski filolohichni studii [Transcarpathian Philological Studies]. P. 92-95. Retrieved from http://surl.li/nxbhp [in Ukrainian].

21. Udovychenko H. (1965). Predmet frazeolohii ta semantychni typy frazeolohizmiv [The subject of phraseology and semantic types of phraseological units]. UMLSh. No. 2. P. 24-28 [in Ukrainian].

22. Krzyzanowski J. (1969). Dzieje przyslowia polskiego w toku pi^ciu wiekow. Nowa ksigga przystow i wyrazen przystowionych polskich. Ed. by J. Krzyzanowski, S. Swirko. Vol. 1-4. Warszawa: Panstwowy Instytut Wydawniczy. 1210 p.

23. Michal Szymczak (1992). Stownik jgzyka polskiego. Vol. 1-3. Warszawa: PWN. 1500 p.

Література

1. Кравчук А. Семантика антропонімів у польській фразеології. Проблеми слов'янознавства. 2003. № 53. С. 185-191.

2. Великий тлумачний словник сучасної української мови (з дод. і допов.) / Уклад. і голов. ред. В.Т. Бусел. К.; Ірпінь: ВТФ «Перун», 2005. 1728 с. ISBN 966-569013-2.

3. Ковалів Ю.І. Літературознавча енциклопедія: У двох томах. Т.2. К.: ВЦ «Академія», 2007. 546 с.

4. Удовиченко Г. Фразеологічний словник української мови. Київ: Довіра. 1984. 758 с.

5. B^ba S. Zmiany znaczen frazeologizmow. Prace komisji j^zykoznawczej. Poznanskie Towarzystwo Przyjacidt Nauk, Wydziat FilologicznoFilozoficzny. Poznan, 1994. S. 9-14.

6. Шутковски Т. Образ людини в польських фразеологізмах з андропономічним компотентом. Stowo.Tekst. Czas. Materiaiy KonferencjiNaukowej. Szczecin, 2005. S. 186-196.

7. Кудіна О., Пророченко О. Перлини народної мудрості. Німецькі прислів'я та приказки. Вінниця: Нова книга, 2005. 319 с.

8. Карпенко О. Проблематика когнітивної ономастики: монографія. Одеса: Астропринт, 2006. 374 с.

9. Ужченко В. Д., Ужченко Д. В. Фразеологія сучасної української мови: посібник. Луганськ: Альма-матер, 2005. 399 с.

10. Функціональна класифікація - класифікація фразеологізмів - Довідник з української мови. [Електронний ресурс] - Режим доступу: https://osvita.ukr- lit.com/funkcionalna-klasifikaciya- klasifikaciya- frazeologizmiv/.

11. Katarzyna Glowinska. Popularny slownik frazeologiczny. K.: Wydawnictwo Wilga, 2000. 790 s.

12. Герасимчук В. А. Власні імена в українських фразеологізмах. Дивослово. К., 2005. № 4. C. 43-47.

13. Скрипник Л. Фразеологія української мови. Київ: Наукова думка, 1973. 278 с.

14. Мірошниченко І. М. Фразеологізми з ономастичним компонентом на позначення професій. [Електронний ресурс] - Режим доступу: http://surl.li/nrgxa.

15. Коваль А. П., Коптілов В. В. Крилаті вислові в українській літературній мові. Київ: Вища школа, 1975. 335 с.

16. Вегеш Анастасія. Проблеми української літературно-художньої антропоніміки. Методичний посібник для студентів 5-6 курсів філологічного факультету. Ужгород. 2021. 6 с.

17. Фразеологізм з іменами. [Електронний ресурс] - Режим доступу: https://dovidka.biz.ua/frazeologizmi-z-imenami.

18. Терентій А. С., Кущ Н. В. Попова О. А. Структурно-семантичні особливості фразеологізмів у романі Є. Гуцала «Позичений чоловік». Вчені записки ТНУ імені В. І. Вернадського. Серія: Філологія. Журналістика. Том 32 (71), № 5, Ч.1, 2021. C. 65-66.

19. Франко І. Галицькоруські народні приповідки: Етнографічний збірник / [авт. -упоряд. І. Я. Франко.] Львів: Наукове Товариство імени Шевченка, 1901 - (...) Т. 1. Вип. 1 (А- Відати). 200 с.; Т. 1. Вип. 2 (Відати-Діти). 195 с.; Т. 2. 1097. Вип. 1 (Діти-Книш). 300 с.; Т. 2. Вип. 2 (Кравець-Пять). С. 301- 612; Т. 3. 1910. Вип. 1 (Рабунок-Час). 300 с.; Т. 3. Вип. 2 (Час- Ячмінь). С. 301-541.

20. Хмара В. В. Зіставний аналіз власних імен у складі фразеологічних одиниць у західногерманських та східнослов'янських мовах. [Електронний ресурс] - Режим доступу: http://surl.li/nxbhp.

21. Удовиченко Г Предмет фразеології та семантичні типи фразеологізмів. УМЛШ, 1965. № 2. С. 24-28.

22. Krzyzanowski J. Dzieje przyslowia polskiego w toku pi^ciu wiekow. Nowa ksigga przyslow i wyrazen przystowionych polskich: t. 1-4 / [red. J. Krzyzanowski, S. Swirko.]. Warszawa: Panstwowy Instytut Wydawniczy, 1969-1978. 1210 s.

23. Slownik j^zyka polskiego: t. 1-3. / [Pod red. Michala Szymczakа.]. Warszawa: PWN, 1992. 1500 s.

Размещено на Allbest.ru