¹ 2( 2) 2015
Minuten, and as phraseological unit: jmdn. auf den Arm nehmen- jmdn. necken, sich? ber jmdn. lustig machen. Free variables or phrases are considered as a unit of speech, such as syntax linguistics, speech, speech activity, and phraseological units ' study phraseology.
Phraseology is an young branch of linguistics, which was formed as a linguistic discipline in the middle of 20th century. It became independent linguistic discipline in 1940 ' s. 20th century in Soviet linguistics with its problems of phraseology studying is not exhausted.
Despite the diversity of the development of many current issues, relevant to this day, a comparative study of phraseological systems of different languages remains. Mutual correlation, comparing and contrasting of items, forms, categories and other linguistic phenomena appears as a prerequisite characteristic of each, as well as establishing significant formal and conceptual connections between them. The main element of the linguistic comparison is identification of identical and differing of characteristics comparing the facts of language [ 2 ]. The comparison makes it possible to identify the similarities and differences between languages. Problems of comparative phraseology receive widespread coverage in the literature in recent years.
The first who paid attention to a special category in the system of word combinations and noted them as stable phrases, introduced the term of phraseological unit, worked out special criteria for their identification, was S. Bally. However, the basis of phraseology as a separate independent linguistic discipline was developed by an academician Vinogradov, who created a semantic theory of phraseological units classification.
In the modern theory of phraseology narrow and broad understanding of the phraseology and interpretation of it as a lexical syntagmatic are distinguished. It goes back to the ideas of E. D. Polivanov that phraseology refers to the lexicon in the same way as syntax to morphology. This idea was developed by M. M. Kopylenko and Z. D. Popova [ 2 ].
In the history of phraseology as a special branch of linguistics there are three periods: classical, modern and postclassic [ 1 ], and each of them has its own research problems and issues. A comparative study of the phraseology puts even in its classical period, although at this time it is more in terms and categories of purely phraseological science in descriptive and historical vein. Comparative study of phraseology was prompted by a variety of factors. Collation and comparison as one of the areas in linguistics, is aimed at identifying the common foundations of human language, patterns of development, change, interaction and mutual influence of different languages in the world and in relation to relevant phraseology of all languages. These include practical reasons and applications of order- the teaching and learning of foreign languages and the theory and practice of translation, including machine translation.
There is a great impact of these factors on the division within a comparative analysis of phraseology, comparative, structural and typological and areal phraseology. The first is focused on a comparative study of related and unrelated languages, it touches the transfer of phraseological units, the second is in the center of attention, there are issues related to the creation, nature and characteristics of phraseology, areal analysis combines phraseological units by geography [ 3 ]. Intensive development is characterized by the differentiation of the phraseology of the subject of research, methods of its study and the involvement of new problems, which are based on existing theoretical framework. Comparative analysis of different languages forms a special section- comparative phraseology. The special position of phraseological units in the language leads to constant comparison of them not only with other phraseological units, but also with the formation of other levels, tokens, regular combinations of words, structural and syntactic patterns.
LINGUISTICS
According to Reichstein, everything within a linguistic comparison requires the fulfillment of such basic terms as the presence of base mapping, certain fundamental identity, against which it is seen as more specific similarities and differences between the compared objects and should apply a unified theory, a single method and a single conceptual terminological apparatus of the description of the compared objects. Thanks to the research in this area many challenges for further work and the regularities and principles are overcome.
One of the most significant achievements in the field of comparative study is the work of A. D. Reichstein. It is taking the first practical synthesis of the main areas of comparative studies of phraseology, with the following lines: a) Nature and number of the compared languages; b) Nature of the compared phraseological units; c) Nature of the phenomena being compared. Critical thinking about the work of these areas allows the author to reveal some features of comparative-phraseological research of his time. These include studies such as comparing phraseological units ' level of interlingual equivalents, synonyms, variations, structural-semantic, lexical and grammatical, semantic categories and groups, formal and semantic characteristics of the phraseological units. In the comparative study of phraseological units of related and unrelated languages, classical and postclassical period of phraseology the favorite objects of phraseological benchmarking emerge as comparative, semantic phraseological units [ 2 ], and completely unaffected areas and issues of phraseology. As pointed out by Reichstein individual couples and groups of languages and the whole system of phraseological language in them. In other words, there is identifying the identity and the differences of individual languages, groups, places of phraseological units in different languages, but not the whole phraseological system. A. D. Reichstein puts in the work task to fill this gap in the comparative study of the phraseology of related languages, and outlines the main points in this kind of comparative study of phraseology. They consist of the following issues: a) What is the most significant and profound similarities and differences between phraseological system of two or more languages; b) How they appear in the main aspects of the language- functional, semantic, formal, semantic, and structural; c) What intralingual and extralinguistic factors they are due [ 17.1980 ]. A. D. Reichstein phraseology comparative study was conducted at three levels: at the level of individual phraseological units, phraseological groups and phraseological systems.
At the first level in the center of attention are matters of ethnic linguistic services, that is, identity, partial identities and differences in various phraseological units aspects of linguistic organization: a) Formal semantic( structural-syntactic and lexical) c) Total content( signifying connotation-and comparativepragmatic). At the second level there is the subject of a comparative study which did not separate specific phraseological units of two languages, and have whole groups of phraseological units, paradigmatic associations of phraseological units, in particular, phraseological rows, groups, fields, schedules, united by a common sense. The main purpose of the comparative analysis here is to reveal the laws of dialectics and the relationships and interactions between the very prototypes of the phraseological units and thus identify the structural and semantic models, both in synchrony and in diachronic. In these work significant models for these invariants at different levels of linguistic organization of phraseological unit component, situational invariants are revealed. The third level provides a comparative study of the characteristics of the organization throug hout the
36