Ideographical characteristics of the thematic group of phraseological units 'character traits of a man in relation to other people' in the Ukranian and English languages

The article deals the phraseological microsystem to designation of the character traits of a man in relation to other people in Ukrainian and English languages. The choice of the theme is connected with intensification of interest in linguistics to description of phraseological microsystems, obscurity of many theoretical and practical problems of phraseological ideography. The hierarchical structure of phraseological units ideographic classification offered by Y.F. Pra-did is used in the research: synonymic range ^ semantic group ^ semantic field ^ thematic group ^ thematic field ^ ideographic group ^ ideographic field ^ archifield. The achievements of the modern psychology and linguoculture are widely used in the research poper. Thematic groups of phraseological units ‘The character traits of a man in relation to other people’ is a layered structure and are characterized by complex relationships between hierarchical links. The structural scheme of the thematic group in Ukrainian and English languages is synonymous chain with is semantic group ^ semantic field. In both microsystems scheme synonymic range is absent. Thematic groups of phraseological units ‘The character traits of a man in relation to other people’ is represented in Ukrainian and English by 14 phraseological microsystems. Semantic groups ‘Kindness’, ‘Generosity’, ‘Flattery’, ‘Ambitiousness, despotism’, ‘Submissiveness’ present in the thematic groups of the two languages. The greatest difference is fixed at the level of semantic fields. In the Ukrainian language these are ‘Stealth, uncommunicative’, ‘Sociability’, ‘Importance’, ‘Meanness’, ‘Insolence, immorality’; in English - ‘Cruelty’, ‘Insolence, immorality’, ‘Hypocrisy’, ‘Arrogance, arrogance’. Some factors that influence on the filling of language’s thematic group are analyzed. In the thematic group ‘Character traits of a man in relation to other people’ dominate somatic and zoonim conceptospheres. This methodic can be used for the description other phraseological microsystems in language.

Keywords

Authors

References