HUMAN CHARACTER IN PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS (BASED ON GERMAN AND ENGLISH MATERIALS)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32782/2412-933X/2026-XXVII-4Keywords:
structural-semantic analysis, phraseological units, phraseological unitsanthroponomian, concept, character traits, condensed microtextAbstract
The article presents an analysis of phraseological units to denote human character traits based on German and English materials. Positive, negative and neutral components of phraseological units are highlighted. The purpose of the study is to conduct a structural and semantic analysis of phraseological units denoting human character in German and English. The meanings based on condemnation, approval or the absence of a clearly expressed attitude as a statement of a socially established assessment of any phenomenon. Accordingly, the FOs denoting the character of a person were divided into 3 main groups of PUs in the compared languages – positive assessment, negative assessment and neutral evaluative value. The quantitative distribution of phraseological units by the identified groups indicates the presence of a general pattern, similarities between the phraseological microsystems of PUs reflecting the character of a person in the German and English languages. The classification of PUs from the semantic aspect is considered in detail. The analysis of PUs denoting negative traits of a person’s character indicates a significant similarity of PUs of the English and German languages, and often both sides, both quantitative and qualitative. However, when comparing the volume of phraseology of some subgroups, a certain unevenness is revealed. PUs of a neutral assessment of a person’s character can have a neutral meaning that does not depend on the surrounding context, for example: negative virtue - “passive” virtue (about people who do not cause harm, but do not wish good); easy game (prey, meat) - a gullible person; by simplicity of soul (heartfelt) – someone naive, gullible. Other PUs of a neutral assessment, on the contrary, depend on the context. Depending on it, their meaning can take on different shades of positive or negative assessment. The results of the study of the semantic features of these phraseological units indicate the predominance of isomorphic phenomena over allomorphic ones, which can be explained by the commonality of the surrounding world, the selective reflective ability of human thinking, and the similarity of people’s behavior in the same conditions.
References
Barantsev, K.T. (2005). Anhlo-ukrainskyi frazeolohichnyi slovnyk [English–Ukrainian Dictionary of Idioms]. Retrieved from: https://archive.org/details/enukrfr [in Ukrainian].
Harbera, I. (2020). Kontsept liudyna v ukrainskii literaturnii frazeolohii: somatychnyi kod kultury [The Concept of the Human Being in Ukrainian Literary Phraseology: The Somatic Code of Culture]. Naukovyi visnyk Uzhhorodskoho universytetu. Seriia : Filolohiia. Vol. 1 (43). (pp. 80–85) DOI: https://doi.org/10.24144/2663-6840. [in Ukrainian].
Melnychuk, O.S. (2006). Etymolohichnyi slovnyk ukrainskoi movy: u 7 t. [Etymological Dictionary of the Ukrainian Language: in 7 vols]. (Vol. 5). Kyiv: Naukova dumka. [in Ukrainian].
Myronova, O.P. (2021). Frazeolohizmy anhliiskoi movy yak sposib vyrazhennia emotsiinoho stanu osobystosti [English Phraseological Expressions as a Means of Expressing a Person’s Emotional State]. Suchasni tendentsii fonetychnykh doslidzhen. (pp.130–134). Kyiv: KPI im. Ihoria Sikorskoho, Vyd-vo “Politekhnika” [in Ukrainian].
Mizin, K. I. (2005). Nimetsko-ukrainskyi frazeolohichnyi slovnyk. (ustaleni porivniannia) [German–Ukrainian Dictionary of Idioms]. Vinnytsia: Nova knyha [in Ukrainian, in German].
Mizin, K. I., & Petrov, O. O. (2018). Zistavna linhvokulturolohiia : metodolohichni problemy ta perspektyvni metodyky: monohrafiia [Comparative Linguistic and Cultural Studies: Methodological]. Pereiaslav-Khmelnytskyi; Vinnytsia; Kremenchuk : Vyd-vo PP Shcherbatykh O. V. 280 р. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kostiantyn-Mizin-2/publication/363645485_Zistavna_l i n g v o k u l t u r o l o g i a _ m e t o d o l o g i c n i _ p r o b l e m i _ t a _ p e r s p e k t i v n i _ m e t o d i k i _ m o n o g r a f i a /
links/6327412e071ea12e364296ba/ Zistavna-lingvokulturologia-metodologicni-problemi-ta-perspektivnimetodiki- monografia.pdf [in Ukrainian].
Ovsiienko, L.O. (2022). Frazeolohizmy na poznachennia rys kharakteru liudyny u nimetskomovnomu khudozhnomu teksti [Idioms denoting human character traits in German-language literary texts]. Ukrainski studii v yevropeiskomu konteksti. [Ukrainian Studies in a European Context]. №5, 104–110 DOI: https://eprints.cdu.edu.ua/id/eprint/5460 [in Ukrainian].
Chaenkova O.K. (2020). Frazeolohichni odynytsi iz somatychnym komponentom holova (na materiali ukrainskoi, turetskoi ta anhliiskoi mov). [Phraseological units with the somatic component ‘head’ (based on Ukrainian, Turkish and English languages)]. Vcheni zapysky Tavriiskoho natsionalnoho universytetu imeni V. I. Vernadskoho. Seriia: Filolohiia. Sotsialni komunikatsii Vol. 31(70), № 2(3). 141–146 [in Ukrainian].
Online Etymology Dictionary. (2026). Retrieved from: https://www.etymonline.com. [in English].
Gawris, W.I. & Prorotschenko, O.P. (1981). Deutsch-ukrainisches phraseologisches Wörterbuch in zwei Bänden. Band II. 355–377 [in German].
Herzog, A. u.a. (2022). Idiomatische Redewendungen von A-Z: Ein Übungsbuch für Anfänger und Fortgeschrittene. – Leipzig, Berlin, München: Langenscheidt – Verlag Enzyklopädie [in German].
Fleischer, W. (1997). Phraseologie der deutschen Gegenwartsprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Text: direkt.
