To sail under false colours -- to pretend to be what one is not; sometimes, to pose as a friend and, at the same time, have hostile intentions. The metaphor is that of an enemy ship that approaches its intended prey showing at the mast the flag ("colours") of a pretended friendly nation. To show one's colours -- to betray one's real character or intentions. The allusion is, once more, to a ship showing the flag of its country at the mast. To strike one's colours -- to surrender, give in, admit one is beaten. The metaphor refers to a ship's hauling down its flag (sign of surrender). To weather (to ride out) the storm -- to overcome difficulties; to have courageously stood against misfortunes.

To bow to the storm -- to give in, to acknowledge one's defeat.

Three sheets in(to) the wind (sl.) -- very drunk. Half seas over (sl.) -- drunk.

Though, as has been said, direct associations with seafaring in all these idioms have been severed, distant memories of the sea romance and adventure still linger in some of them. The faint sound of the surf can still be heard in such phrases as to ride out the storm or breakers ahead! (Take care! Danger'). Such idioms as to sail under false colours, to nail one's colours to the mast (to be true to one's convictions, to fight for them openly) bring to mind the distant past of pirate brigs, sea battles and great discoveries of new lands.

It is true, though, that a foreigner is more apt to be struck by the colourfulness of the direct meaning of an idiom where a native speaker sees only its transferred meaning, the original associations being almost fully forgotten. And yet, when we Russians use or hear the idiom первая ласточка, doesn't a dim image of the little bird flash before our mind, though, of course, we really mean something quite different? When we say на воре и шапка горит, are we entirely free from the picture built up by the direct meanings of the words? If it were really so and all the direct associations of the idioms had been entirely erased, phraseology would not constitute one of the language's main expressive resources. Its expressiveness and wealth of colour largely -- if not solely -- depend on the ability of an idiom to create two images at once: that of a ship safely coming out of the storm -- and that of a man overcoming his troubles and difficulties (to weather/ride out the storm); that of a ship's crew desperately fighting against a pirate brig -- and that of a man courageously standing for his views and convictions. The thematic principle of classifying phraseological units has real merit but it does not take into consideration the linguistic characteristic features of the phraseological units[11, p.95].

The considerable contribution made by Russian scholars in phraseological research cannot be exaggerated. We have already mentioned the great contribution made by Academician V. V. Vinogradov to this branch of linguistic science.

The classification system of phraseological units devised by this prominent scholar is considered by some linguists of today to be outdated, and yet its value is beyond doubt because it was the first classification system which was based on the semantic principle. It goes without saying that semantic characteristics are of immense importance in phraseological units. It is also well known that in modern research they are often sadly ignored. That is why any attempt at studying the semantic aspect of phraseological units should be appreciated.

Vinogradov's classification system is founded on the degree of semantic cohesion between the components of a phraseological unit. Units with a partially transferred meaning show the weakest cohesion between their components. The more distant the meaning of a phraseological unit from the current meaning of its constituent parts, the greater is its degree of semantic cohesion. Accordingly, Vinogradov classifies phraseological units into three classes: phraseological combinations, unities and fusions (R. фразеологические сочетания, единства и сращения).

Phraseological combinations are word-groups with a partially changed meaning. They may be said to be clearly motivated, that is, the meaning of the unit can be easily deduced from the meanings of its constituents.

E. g. to be at one's wits' end, to be good at something, to be a good hand at something, to have a bite, to come off a poor second, to come to a sticky end (coil.), to look a sight (coil.), to take something for granted, to stick to one's word, to stick at nothing, gospel truth, bosom friends.

Phraseological unities are word-groups with a completely changed meaning, that is, the meaning of the unit does not correspond to the meanings of its constituent parts. They are motivated units or, putting it another way, the meaning of the whole unit can be deduced from the meanings of the constituent parts; the metaphor, on which the shift of meaning is based, is clear and transparent.

E. g. to stick to one's guns (to be true to one's views or convictions. The image is that of a gunner or guncrew who do not desert their guns even if a battle seems lost); to sit on the fence (in discussion, politics, etc. refrain from committing oneself to either side); to catch/clutch at a straw/straws (when in extreme danger, avail oneself of even the slightest chance of rescue); to lose one's head (to be at a loss what to do; to be out of one's mind); to lose one's heart to smb. (to fall in love); to lock the stable door after the horse is stolen (to take precautions too late, when the mischief is done); to look a gift horse in the mouth (to examine a present too critically; to find fault with something one gained without effort); to ride the high horse (to behave in a superior, haughty, overbearing way. The image is that of a person mounted on a horse so high that he looks down on others); the last drop/straw (the final culminating circumstance that makes a situation unendurable); a big bug/pot, sl. (a person of importance); a fish out of water (a person situated uncomfortably outside his usual or proper environment).

Phraseological fusions are word-groups with a completely changed meaning but, in contrast to the unities, they are demotivated, that is, their meaning cannot be deduced from the meanings of the constituent parts; the metaphor, on which the shift of meaning was based, has lost its clarity and is obscure.

E. g. to come a cropper (to come to disaster); neck and crop (entirely, altogether, thoroughly, as in: He was thrown out neck and crop. She severed all relations with them neck and crop.); at sixes and sevens (in confusion or in disagreement); to set one's cap at smb. (to try and attract a man; spoken about girls and women. The image, which is now obscure, may have been either that of a child trying to catch a butterfly with his cap or of a girl putting on a pretty cap so as to attract a certain person. In Vanity Fair: "Be careful, Joe, that girl is setting her cap at you."); to leave smb. in the lurch (to abandon a friend when he is in trouble); to show the white feather (to betray one's cowardice. The allusion was originally to cock fighting. A white feather in a cock's plumage denoted a bad fighter); to dance attendance on smb. (to try and please or attract smb.; to show exaggerated attention to smb.).

It is obvious that this classification system does not take into account the structural characteristics of phraseological units. On the other hand, the border-line separating unities from fusions is vague and even subjective. One and the same phraseological unit may appear motivated to one person (and therefore be labelled as a unity) and demotivated to another (and be regarded as a fusion). The more profound one's command of the language and one's knowledge of its history, the fewer fusions one is likely to discover in it.

The structural principle of classifying phraseological units is based on their ability to perform the same syntactical functions as words. In the traditional structural approach, the following principal groups of phraseological units are distinguishable.

A. Verbal. E. g. to run for one's (dear) life, to get (win) the upper hand, to talk through one's hat, to make a song and dance about something, to sit.

B. Substantive. E. g. dog's life, cat-and-dog life, calf love, white lie, tall order, birds of a feather, birds of passage, red tape, brown study.

C. Adjectival. E. g. high and mighty, spick and span, brand new, safe and sound. In this group the so-called comparative word-groups are particularly expressive and sometimes amusing in their unanticipated and capricious associations: (as) cool as a cucumber, (as) nervous as a cat, (as) weak as a kitten, (as) good as gold (usu. spoken about children), (as) pretty as a picture, as large as life, (as) slippery as an eel, (as) thick as thieves, (as) drunk as an owl (sl.), (as) mad as a hatter/a hare in March.

D. Adverbial. E. g. high and low (as in They searched for him high and low), by hook or by crook (as in She decided that, by hook or by crook, she must marry him), for love or money (as in He came to the conclusion that a really good job couldn't be found for love or money), in cold blood (as in The crime was said to have been committed in cold blood), in the dead of night, between the devil and the deep sea (in a situation in which danger threatens whatever course of action one takes), to the bitter end (as in to fight to the bitter end), by a long chalk (as in It is not the same thing, by a long chalk).

E. Interjectional. E. g. my God! by Jove! by George! goodness gracious! good Heavens! sakes alive! (Amer.)

Professor Smirnitsky offered a classification system for English phraseological units which is interesting as an attempt to combine the structural and the semantic principles[12, p.175].

Phraseological units in this classification system are grouped according to the number and semantic significance of their constituent parts. Accordingly two large groups are established:

A. one-summit units, which have one meaningful constituent (e. g. to give up, to make out, to pull out, to be tired, to be surprised1);

B. two-summit and multi-summit units which have two or more meaningful constituents (e. g. black art, first night, common sense, to fish in troubled waters).

Within each of these large groups the phraseological units are classified according to the category of parts of speech of the summit constituent. So, one-summit units are subdivided into:

a) verbal-adverbial units equivalent to verbs in which the semantic and the grammatical centres coincide in the first constituent (e. g. to give up);

b) units equivalent to verbs which have their semantic centre in the second constituent and their grammatical centre in the first (e. g. to be tired);

c) prepositional-substantive units equivalent either to adverbs or to copulas and having their semantic centre in the substantive constituent and no grammatical centre (e. g. by heart, by means of).

Two-summit and multi-summit phraseological units are classified into:

a) attributive-substantive two-summit units equivalent to nouns (e. g. black art),

b) verbal-substantive two-summit units equivalent to verbs (e. g. to take the floor), c) phraseological repetitions equivalent to adverbs (e. g. now or never);

d) adverbial multi-summit units (e. g. every other day).

Professor Smirnitsky also distinguishes proper phraseological units which, in his classification system, are units with non-figurative meanings, and idioms, that is, units with transferred meanings based on a metaphor.

Professor Koonin, the leading Russian authority on English phraseology, pointed out certain inconsistencies in this classification system. First of all, the subdivision into phraseological units (as non-idiomatic units) and idioms contradicts the leading criterion of a phraseological unit suggested by Professor Smirnitsky: it should be idiomatic.

Professor Koonin also objects to the inclusion of such word-groups as black art, best man, first night in phraseology (in Professor Smirnitsky's classification system, the two-summit phraseological units) as all these word-groups are not characterized by a transferred meaning. It is also pointed out that verbs with post-positions (e. g. give up) are included in the classification but their status as phraseological units is not supported by any convincing argument.

The classification system of phraseological units suggested by Professor A. V. Koonin is the latest outstanding achievement in the Russian theory of phraseology. The classification is based on the combined structural-semantic principle and it also considers the quotient of stability of phraseological units.

Phraseological units are subdivided into the following four classes according to their function in communication determined by their structural-semantic characteristics.

1. Nominative phraseological units are represented by word-groups, including the ones with one meaningful word, and coordinative phrases of the type wear and tear, well and good.

The first class also includes word-groups with a predicative structure, such as as the crow flies, and, also, predicative phrases of the type see how the land lies, ships that pass in the night.

2. Nominative-communicative phraseological units include word-groups of the type to break the ice -- the ice is broken, that is, verbal word-groups which are transformed into a sentence when the verb is used in the Passive Voice.

3. Phraseological units which are neither nominative nor communicative include interjectional word-groups.

4. Communicative phraseological units are represented by proverbs and sayings.

These four classes are divided into sub-groups according to the type of structure of the phraseological unit. The sub-groups include further rubrics representing types of structural-semantic meanings according to the kind of relations between the constituents and to either full or partial transference of meaning.

The classification system includes a considerable number of subtypes and gradations and objectively reflects the wealth of types of phraseological units existing in the language. It is based on truly scientific and modern criteria and represents an earnest attempt to take into account all the relevant aspects of phraseological units and combine them within the borders of one classification system[13, p.102].

1.3 Ways of forming phraseological units

Phraseological units play a significant role in the vocabulary of the language. The vocabulary is complemented by the PhUs that are characterized by aptness, laconic brevity and emotive colouring . These factors presuppose the existence of PhUs in the language. The problem of the phraseological changeability was discussed by a number of linguists( J.Sinclair , N.Nesselhauf , M.Bakhtin , I.Arnold etc.).

The actuality of the research of PhUs is stipulated by the essential role they play in language and speech and their complex character. The objective of this article is to outline the ways of formation of PhUs in the language.

Phraseological unit is defined as a phrase developing a meaning which cannot be readily analysed into the several semantic elements which would ordinarily be expressed by the words making up a phrase .. It transcends the ordinary semantic patterns and must be studied as an indivisible entity, in itself. N.N.Amosova defines phraseological units as units of fixed context, i.e. phrases with a specific and stable sequence of certain lexical components and peculiar semantic relations between them [1; 25].

Phraseological units are word-groups that cannot be made in the process of speech, they exist in the language as ready-made units. American and British lexicographers call such units «idioms» [14, p.146].

We adhere to the theory of A.V. Koonin , who classified phraseological units according to the way they are formed. He pointed out primary and secondary ways of forming phraseological units [3; 30].

Primary ways of forming phraseological units are those when a unit is formed on the basis of a free word-group:

a) the most productive in Modern English is the formation of phraseological units by means of transferring the meaning of terminological word-groups, e.g. launching pad in its terminological meaning is « стартова площадка » , in its transferred meaning - « відправний пункт » , to link up - “ стикуватися ” , in its tranformed meaning it means - « знайомитися »;

b) a large group of phraseological units was formed by transforming the meaning of free word groups , e.g. granny farm - « пансионат для старих людей », Trojan horse - «a person or thing used secretly to cause the ruin of an enemy»;

c) phraseological units can be formed by means of alliteration , e.g. a sad sack - « нещасний випадок », culture vulture - « людина , яка цікавиться мистецтвом », fudge and nudge - « ухильність ;.

d) phraseological units can be formed by means of expressiveness , especially it is characteristic of forming interjections, e.g. My aunt!, Hear, hear! etc ;

e) phraseological units can be formed by means of distorting a word group , e.g. odds and ends was formed from «odd ends»;

f) phraseological units can be formed by using archaisms , e.g. in brown study means «in gloomy meditation» where both components preserve their archaic meanings;

g) phraseological units can be formed by using a phrase in a different sphere of life , e.g. that cock won't fight can be used as a free word-group when it is used in sports (cock fighting); it becomes a phraseological unit when it is used in everyday life, as it is used metaphorically;

h) phraseological units can be formed by the use of some unreal image , e.g. to have butterflies in the stomach - « відчувати хвилюваня » etc;

i ) phraseological units can be formed by using expressions of writers or polititians in everyday life , e.g. « corridors of power» (Snow), «American dream» ( Alby ), «locust years» ( Churchil ) , «the winds of change» (Mc Millan ) etc.

Secondary ways of forming phraseological units are those when a phraseological unit is formed on the basis of another phraseological unit; they are:

a) conversion , e.g. to vote with one's feet was converted into vote with one's feet;

b) changing the grammar form , e.g. Make hay while the sun shines is transferred into a verbal phrase - to make hay while the sun shines;

c) analogy , e.g. Curiosity killed the cat was transferred into Care killed the cat;

d) contrast , e.g. cold surgery - «a planned before operation» was formed by contrasting it with acute surger н , thin cat - «a poor person» was formed by contrasting it with fat cat;

e) shortening of proverbs or sayings , e.g. the phraseological unit to make a sow's ear with the meaning « помилятись » was formed from the proverb You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear by means of clipping the middle of it;

f) borrowing phraseological units from other languages , either as translation loans, e.g. living space (German), to take the bull by the horns (Latin), or by means of phonetic borrowings, e.g. meche blanche (French), corpse d'elite (French), sotto voce (Italian) etc.

Thus, we may conclude that, irrespective of the way of formation, the peculiarities of PhUs consist in the high degree of their semantic non-compositionality, indivisibility; the meaning of the whole unit is in almost all cases never influenced by the meaning of its components; further investigation may concern semantic and stylistic potential of PhUs .

The vocabulary of a language is enriched not only by words but also by phraseological units. Phraseological units are word-groups that cannot be made in the process of speech, they exist in the language as ready-made units. They are compiled in special dictionaries. The same as words phraseological units express a single notion and are used in a sentence as one part of it. American and British lexicographers call such units «idioms». We can mention such dictionaries as: L.Smith «Words and Idioms», V.Collins «A Book of English Idioms» etc. In these dictionaries we can find words, peculiar in their semantics (idiomatic), side by side with word-groups and sentences. In these dictionaries they are arranged, as a rule, into different semantic groups.

Phraseological units can be classified according to the ways they are formed, according to the degree of the motivation of their meaning, according to their structure and according to their part-of-speech meaning[15, p.209].

A.V. Koonin classified phraseological units according to the way they are formed. He pointed out primary and secondary ways of forming phraseological units.

Primary ways of forming phraseological units are those when a unit is formed on the basis of a free word-group :

a) Most productive in Modern English is the formation of phraseological units by means of transferring the meaning of terminological word-groups, e.g. in cosmic technique we can point out the following phrases: «launching pad» in its terminological meaning is «стартовая площадка» , in its transferred meaning - «отправной пункт», «to link up» - «cтыковаться, стыковать космические корабли» in its tranformed meaning it means -«знакомиться»;

b) a large group of phraseological units was formed from free word groups by transforming their meaning, e.g. «granny farm» - «пансионат для престарелых», «Troyan horse» - «компьюторная программа, преднамеренно составленная для повреждения компьютера»;

c) phraseological units can be formed by means of alliteration , e.g. «a sad sack» - «несчастный случай», «culture vulture» - «человек, интересующийся искусством», «fudge and nudge» - «уклончивость».

d) they can be formed by means of expressiveness, especially it is characteristic for forming interjections, e.g. «My aunt!», « Hear, hear !» etc

e) they can be formed by means of distorting a word group, e.g. «odds and ends» was formed from «odd ends»,

f) they can be formed by using archaisms, e.g. «in brown study» means «in gloomy meditation» where both components preserve their archaic meanings,

g) they can be formed by using a sentence in a different sphere of life, e.g. «that cock won't fight» can be used as a free word-group when it is used in sports (cock fighting ), it becomes a phraseological unit when it is used in everyday life, because it is used metaphorically,

h) they can be formed when we use some unreal image, e.g. «to have butterflies in the stomach» - «испытывать волнение», «to have green fingers» - »преуспевать как садовод-любитель» etc.

i) they can be formed by using expressions of writers or polititions in everyday life, e.g. «corridors of power» (Snow), «American dream» (Alby) «locust years» (Churchil) , «the winds of change» (Mc Millan).

Secondary ways of forming phraseological units are those when a phraseological unit is formed on the basis of another phraseological unit; they are:

a) conversion, e.g. «to vote with one's feet» was converted into «vote with one's f eet»;

b) changing the grammar form, e.g. «Make hay while the sun shines» is transferred into a verbal phrase - «to make hay while the sun shines»;

c) analogy, e.g. «Curiosity killed the cat» was transferred into «Care killed the cat»;

d) contrast, e.g. «cold surgery» - «a planned before operation» was formed by contrasting it with «acute surgery», «thin cat» - «a poor person» was formed by contrasting it with «fat cat»;

e) shortening of proverbs or sayings e.g. from the proverb «You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear» by means of clipping the middle of it the phraseological unit «to make a sow's ear» was formed with the meaning «ошибаться».

f) borrowing phraseological units from other languages, either as translation loans, e.g. « living space» (German), « to take the bull by the horns» ( Latin) or by means of phonetic borrowings «meche blanche» (French), «corpse d'elite» (French), «sotto voce» (Italian) etc.

Phonetic borrowings among phraseological units refer to the bookish style and are not used very often.

1.4 Classification of phraseological units in the Kazakh and English languages

Language is the most important forming way of people's knowledge about the world. Reflecting an objective world in activity process a person remains knowledge results in a word fixed. Human perception of the world which is fixed in a language manifests itself in the linguistic picture of the world. Each specific language encompasses national and original system that defines the world-outlook of native speakers and forms their worldview. The world-outlook of this ethnic group reflected in the substantial side of a language is becoming the foundation of all cultural stereotypes. Its analysis helps to understand the difference between national cultures and the complement of one another at the level of world culture. As it is known, phraseological units are the means of expression in which the so-called inner form of language and the richness of figurative language resources are manifested with a particular visibility, and at the same time they reveal distinctive culture as well as national stock of figurative thinking. The study of phraseology allows penetrating deeper into the past of not only language but also history and culture of its speakers; it contributes to better understanding of complex and diverse nature of stable combinations of words. [16, p.301].

The certain image of the world that is presented in language by semantic chain of concepts and typical for given language can overcome difficulties in intercultural communication. Naturally, these difficulties are connected with translation. As a rule, specific value of phraseological units is set on semantic basis not including their structural features.

Noting the little-study and absence of special research works we can face some difficulties while comparing phraseological units of the English with Kazakh languages. The history of phraseology origin as a linguistic discipline should be noted as well. The Swiss linguist Charles Bally introduced the term phraseology for the first time to mean “a branch of stylistics studying the related phrases”, but this term was not accepted by West European and American linguists and was used to mean:

1) choice of words, a form of expression, wording;

2) language, syllable, style;

3) expressions, word-combinations.

It is necessary to mention about the Kazakh outstanding scientist S.Amanzholov who began to study the notion of phraseology in the Kazakh language for the first time in 40s of the XX century. Lately linguists are more interested in comparative investigations. An appeal to cross-language analysis helps better understand regularities and peculiarities of studied linguistic facts‚ allows not only penetrate deeper into the structure of observed features of foreign language, but also fully comprehend idioethnic features of their native language.

Phraseological comparisons are stable and reproductive combination of lexemes, phraseological specific character of which is based on the traditional comparison. Comparison is a process of isolating the characteristic features of one object and its comparison with similar characteristics of another. Thus, the first classification of phraseological units from the point of semantic fusion was offered by Ch.Bally, who identified three types of phraseologisms. Later V.V.Vinogradov creatively reworked the classification of Bally by offering three types of phraseological units: fusions, unities andcombinations[17, p.196].

Phraseological fusions are semantically indivisible phraseological units the integral value of which completely non-correlative with the values of its components, for example: “at sixes and sevens” means “in confusion or in disagreement”; “to set one's cap at smb” means “to try and attract a man”; “to leave smb in the lurch” means “to abandon a friend when he is in trouble” .

Phraseological unities are semantically indivisible and complete phraseological units, the meaning of which is motivated by the meanings of its constituent words, for example: “to sit on the fence” means “in discussion”; “to lose one's head” means “to be at a loss what to do”; “to lose one's heart to smb” means “to fall in love”; “to ride the high horse” means “to behave in a superior way”.

Phraseological combinations are phraseological units containing words both with free and phraseologically bounded meanings. Phraseological combinations are formed from the words with free and phraseologically bounded meanings, for example: “to be good at smth, to have a bite, to take smth for granted, to stick at nothing, to be a good hand at smth” [18, p.223].

Phraseological expression is a phraseological unit consisting entirely of the words with free meanings. The difference between phraseological expression and free combination is the reproduction with stable socially accepted meaning and constant structure of words-components. Thus, the distinguishing features of phraseological expressions are:

1) reproduction in a speech with stable meaning and constant component composition;

2) presence of words with free meanings.

Phraseological expressions in the English language: a baby in arms (to be wet behind the ears), mistake the wish for the reality (wishful thinking), to be on the safe side (in a case of dire need) etc.; phraseological expressions in the Kazakh language: су сепкендей басылу (immediately to calm down), к?ле кіріп к??ірене шы?ты (double-faced) etc. In contradistinction to V.V.Vinogradov and N.M.Shansky the Kazakh scientist I.K.Kenesbayev basing on semantic and structural integrity of phraseologisms classified them into two types of phraseological units: fusions (idiom) and combinations (phrase).

I.K.Kenesbayev refer phraseological units to phraseological fusions a common sense of which does not depend on the lexical meaning of their constituent words. As an example we can take the phraseological unit of the Kazakh language «?ыр?и-?аба? болу» means “be at odds with smb, feel hurt”. The given meaning originated not only from separate components like «?ыр?и» «?аба?» «болу», but from its integral combination. The same is true about phraseological expression «тонны? ішкі бауындай» that gives such meaning as “very close like of one's own family” in accordance with integral combination of its separate components.

According to I.K.Kenesbayev phraseological fusions are such stable phrases the common meaning of which fully depends on the meaning of constituent words. Words in phraseological combination preserve the relative semantic independence, however might be bound showing its meaning only in combination with definite and exclusive circle of words, for example «ата жолын ?уу» (adhere to the traditions of the fathers), «егіліп жылау» (cry buckets), «шал?ар к?л» (boundless lake), «мидай дала» (wide steppe),etc [19, p.80].

Let us examine the classification accepted by the academician V.V.Vinogradov. By comparison of the Kazakh and English languages our task is to find some similarities in the classification of phraseological units. Comparative learning of the phraseological units gives an opportunity to reveal the universal and unique parameters of both the Kazakh and English languages.

We revealed the following types of Kazakh coincidences with phraseological units of the English language:

1. Phraseological analogues (Phraseological fusions) - coincide only stylistically and semantically. Non-motivated phraseological fusions i.e. idioms refer to this type.

2. Phraseological unities - coincidences of transferable phraseological units with transferable phrases semantically, stylistically and lexically.

3. Phraseological combinations (Partial equivalents) - coincide semantically, stylistically, partly lexically. From our point of view to the above-mentioned classification we would add another classification showing absolute equivalent coincidences of phraseological units in the Kazakh and English languages. By the absolute equivalent coincidences we mean coincidences of phraseological units semantically and lexically.

The fact that not all phraseological combinations can completely be translated into English and transfer its semantics is of great special interest. For example, the word in Kazakh «м?рынды?» is literally translated into the English language as “nose lead”. Combination «м?рынды? болу» means “be responsible for”, i.e. connecting link. It is logical, the word «м?рынды?» is related to special features of the Kazakh culture, since the Kazakh tribes were engaged by cattle breeding and were nomads. As an example let us take several original Kazakh phraseologisms:

1) «Абылай аспас асу» (literally: “the mountains, Abylai could not pass”, explanation: Abylai Khan - one of the famous khans of the Middle Juz, the son of Korkem Uali sultan, the grandson of Kansher, the descendant of Barak Khan) means “heavy-going, difficult of access and mountainous area”;

2) «Абыройы айрандай т?гілу» (literally: “to lose dignity as spilled airan”, explanation: Airan - the national Kazakh beverage consisting of sour milk and water) means “disgrace oneself, to lose dignity”;

3) «Азуы алты ?арыс» (literally: “molar tooth the size of which is 6 karyses”, explanation: karys - Kazakh measure of length) means “sharptongued, experienced”;

4) «?уырда?ты т?йе сой?аннан со? к?ресі?» (literally: “what is real kuyrdak you will know if to stab camel”, explanation: Kuyrdak - Kirghiz and Kazakh traditional ragout/soup made from meat and liver) means “there is worse to come”;

5) «Са?адай сай» (literally: “trump bone used in the game asyk”, explanation: Asyk is the Kazakh national widespread game transferred from generation to generation. “Saka” (trump bone) is the main attribute used in this game) means “in readiness”;

6) «Шашу шащу» (literally: “to throw shashu”) - the Kazakh tradition according to which “shashu” (coins, candies or kurt) is thrown under the feet of the bride for the happiness of newly married couple.

An example of unmotivated phraseological unit of the English language is phraseological unit “to send smb to Coventry” means “to boycott” («шет?а?пайлау»). Variable combination in the English language “send smb to Coventry” gives no imagination about the meaning of this phraseological unit because it is a homonym. However, etymology of the phraseologism set by Clander in his book “History of the Rebellion” indicates that during the Civil War in England, Coventry was a stronghold of the parliamentary system and the prison of Coventry contained many royalists. Originally the phraseological unit “send smb to Coventry” was connected with a definite situation highly essential for its time. When this situation has disappeared and the combination was reinterpreted, gradually the connection between the meaning of phraseologism and literal meanings of its components was broken. Thus, the analysis of phraseological units of the Kazakh and English languages shows that there are such phraseologisms that are original and generally accepted on the semantic level in Kazakh as well as in English. It can be proved by the translation of phraseoligical units because they can be translated literally. Based on our research, we can conclude that in the case of phraseological fusions the Kazakh and English translations coincide only stylistically and semantically. In the case of phraseological unities the Kazakh and English translations coincide semantically, stylistically and lexically. And in the case of phraseological combinations the Kazakh and English translations coincide semantically, stylistically and, partly, lexically. However, despite many phraseological differences of two languages, one can note the following: a man strived for making a language somewhat more diverse than using words in their direct meaning through observations of a character and human behavior. It should again be reminded, that, in Kazakh as well as in English, there are phraseological units with similar semantic meaning[20, p.310].

1.5 Phraseological units and their constant functions

The problem of functions is one of the most urgent issues in phraseology. Phraseological units (PUs) have a definite 'programme' of functioning which is predetermined by their essence itself, as Alexander V. Kunin puts it. Some PU functions are constant, i.e. inherent in all phraseological units in any case of their realization, other PU functions are variable, characteristic only of some classes of phraseological units. We maintain, after A.V. Kunin, that communicative, cognitive and nominative functions are constant functions of phraseological units.

The communicative function of phraseological units consists in their ability to serve as a communicative or message means. Communication presupposes a mutual exchange of statements, and message presupposes the transfer of information without a feedback with the reader or the listener. The communicative PU function is usually connected with the cultural identity of the utterance.

The nominative function of phraseological units is their relation to objects of the real world, including situations, and also replacement of these objects in speech activity by their phraseological denominations. The filling of lacunas in the lexical system of the language is characteristic of the nominative function of phraseological units. This function is peculiar to the overwhelming majority of phraseological units, as they do not usually have lexical synonyms. The nominative function embraces neutrally-nominal and nominal function. The neutrally-nominal function is the basic one for phraseological units, e.g. brown paper. In realization of such phrases in communication the fact of a designation of the object is important, and not the stylistic use of the phrase.

The nominal function is also characteristic of semantically transferred phraseological units, such as idiomatisms and idiophraseomatisms, but it is not neutral, it is stylistically marked, e.g.: new broom, desperate remedies, tales out of school, crocodile tears, Pandora's box, etc.

The function which is closely connected with the nominative one is the cognitive function, i.e. the socially-determined reflection of objects of the real world mediated by consciousness, promoting their cognition. The social determinacy is shown in the fact that, though potential phraseological units are created by separate individuals, these individuals are part of the society, and the realization of the cognitive function by them is possible only on the basis of previous/ background knowledge. Cognitive and nominative functions are realized within the limits of the communicative function, forming a dialectic unity, and all the other functions are realized within the limits of the given functions. The hierarchy of the functional aspect of the phraseological system is seen in it.

Among the semantic functions voluntative (from Latin voluntas - will), deictic, resultative, etc. functions are found out.

The voluntative function is the function of will expression, e.g.: wish smb well with the meaning of 'to wish good luck, success to smb, to treat smb benevolently': I wish Jane Fairfax very well; but she tires me to death (J. Austen).

The deictic function consists in an indication of spatial or time localization of the action, phenomenon, event which is relative to the reference point, relevant within the limits of one or another speech situation. Besides, personal deixis exists: a person, a place or time can be the reference point. According to this fact three types of deixis are singled out: personal, spatial and time ones, e.g.: Time and tide wait for no man; It is too late to lock the stable door when the horse is stolen; Don't swap horses when crossing a stream; Strike while the iron is hot[21, p.89].

The resultative function consists in a designation of the reason which has caused an action or a condition expressed by a phraseological unit, e.g.: come a cropper with the meaning of 'to fail, to get to a trouble': Gerald: I may as well tell you at once that I've had very bad luck. I wanted to make money and I've come an absolute cropper (W.S. Maugham).

The major function of any unit of language including the phraseological unit is the pragmatic function, i.e. purposeful influence of a language sign on the addressee. The pragmatic orientation is peculiar to any text which influences phraseological units used in the text, and that is promoted by their considerable pragmatic potential. Phraseological units strengthen the pragmatic orientation of the text or of its part - a context. From this point of view the sub-types of the pragmatic function are stylistic, cumulative, directive, evaluative and summarizing functions.

The stylistic function is a special, in comparison with the neutral way of expression, purposefulness of language means to achieve a stylistic effect with preservation of the general intellectual content of the statement. The stylistic function realizes connotative features of a phraseological unit in speech. In the language there is only stylistic colouring. The idea about it is given by marks and comments in stylistic dictionaries which, unfortunately, are still far from being perfect. Comparison of a phraseological unit with its variable prototypical combination of words also helps to reveal stylistic colouring.

Developing, on the Russian material, the phraseological theory in its functional-semantic aspect, S.G. Gavrin singles out some functions of phraseological units. These functions are also characteristic of English phraseological units: a) the expressively-figurative function (pull one's leg; put the cart before the horse); b) the emotionally-expressive function (damn your eyes!; My foot!); c) the function of speech concision by omitting some components (Don't teach your grandmother! instead of Don't teach your grandmother to suck eggs!).

Proverbs, especially short ones, even not of the reduced kind, carry out the function of speech laconization, e.g.: Give a dog a bad name and hang him meaning 'once someone has acquired a bad reputation, it is almost impossible for him to shake it off, and even his most innocent actions will be misunderstood' (DOEI). It is evident, that the definition is almost four times as long as the proverb itself. The semantic compression, characteristic of phraseological units, is one of the instances of language economy. All those functions, and also the function of hyperbolization and intensity are sub-types of the stylistic function: make a mountain out of a mole hill. Especially active in the function of hyperbolization are the phraseological units with a somatic component in their structure: din into smb's ears, from ear to ear, under one's nose, up to the ears, over ears, over head and ears, up to the eyes, cry one's eyes out, set one's eyes at flow, pipe one's/ the eye, be all eyes, be all ears, with all the eyes in one's head, strain one's ears, have one's hands full, not to stir a finger, not to lift a hand, e.g.: I will not lift a finger to save this reptile (B. Shaw).

The cumulative function is highly peculiar to proverbs (which are regarded as communicative phraseological units) as they are generalizing the life experience of the people. With the cumulative function 'one more function is closely connected - directly managing, directing, influencing, and, in a certain way, bringing up, forming a person. We named it directive'. To exemplify the directive function the following proverbs can be given: Never say die; Look before you leap; Don't cry out before you are hurt; Let every tailor stick to his goose; etc[22, p.355].

The summarizing function of a phraseological unit consists in the fact that it may serve as a short resume of the previous statement, e.g.: that's flat (coll.) meaning 'it is definitively solved, resolutely and irrevocably': Well, I will not marry her: that's flat (G.B. Shaw). The summarizing function in a context is characteristic of many proverbs, e.g.: Ill gotten, ill spent; In for a penny, in for a pound; After supper, mustard; As the call, so the echo; All's well that ends well;

The pragmatic character is also revealed in the evaluative function. A kind of the pragmatic function is the contact-establishing function consisting in creation of an easy dialogue between the author and the reader or the listener, and also among the characters themselves, e.g.: Introducing a luxury car that will not take you for a ride (The New Yorker). The given advertising heading concerns a car, and two meanings of the phraseological unit 'take smb for a ride' are played up -

1) to kill, finish off smb;

2) to inflate, deceive smb.

English proverbs are often employed in the function of confirmation of a thought. It is also one of the sub-types of the pragmatic function, e.g.: It is an ill bird that fouls its own nest - meaning 'only the bad bird defiles the nest': Augustus: ...Do you mean to say, you scoundrel, that an Englishman is capable of selling his country to the enemy for gold? - The Clerk: Not as a general thing I would not say it, but there's men here who would sell their own mothers for two coppers if they got the chance. - Augustus:... It's an ill bird that fouls its own nest (G.B. Shaw).

Interjectional phraseological units can carry out the compensatory function which is realized in the description of strong sincere emotional experience, affect, when one's speech is complicated and an interjectional phraseological unit is the only content of the whole remark, e.g.: oh dear meaning 'my God': Jimmy: They did not say much. But I think she's dying. - Cliff: Oh, dear (J. Osborne).

The text-building function / context-building function is characteristic of phraseological units in their context realizations. For the first time the question concerning text-building functions of phraseological units was raised by Irina I. Chernysheva. The proposition that phraseological units can serve a binding means of not only contexts, but also of context fragments seems relevant. This function has a diverse embodiment, therefore we will give a number of examples:

e.g. 1: Nina: You cannot do that to Sam. - Darrell (savagely): Like hell I cannot (E. O'Neill). A phraseological unit 'like hell' connects both remarks.

e.g. 2: Gerald (With his tongue in his cheek): Then good-bye (W.S. Maugham). The author emphasizes the irony of Gerald who pretended that he said goodbye indifferently. The author's remark and the words of Gerald form 'a phraseological configuration' (A.V. Kunin's term).

e.g. 3: 'Not was but a poor man himself,' said Peggotty, 'but as good as gold and as true as steel' (Ch. Dickens). Here the repetition of identically structural comparisons creates parallel constructions within the limits of a phrase context.

The more the phraseological meaning is abstracted from the grammatical meaning of the phraseological unit, the more independent of grammar the PU function is[23, p.515].

2. The peculiarities of translating idioms and stable expressions

Idiom is a phrase or expression whose total meaning differs from the meaning of the individual words. For example, to blow one's top (get angry) and behind the eight ball (in trouble) are English - language idioms. Idioms come from language and generally cannot be translated literally (word for word). Foreign language speakers must learn them just as they would learn vocabulary words.

Idiomatic or phraseological expressions are structurally, lexically and semantically fixed phrases or sentences having mostly the meaning, which is not made up by the sum of meanings of their component parts. An indispensable feature of idiomatic (phraseological) expressions is their figurative, i. e., metaphorical nature and usage. It is this nature that makes them distinguishable from structurally identical free combinations of words Cf.: red tape (free word-comb.) червона стрічка - red tape (idiom) канцелярський формалізм (бюрократизм); the tables are/were turned (free word-comb.) столи перекинуті/були перекинуті - the tables are fumed (idiom) ситуація докорінно змінилася; супротивники помінялися ролями/місцями; play with fire гратися з вогнем біля багаття (free word-comb.) гратися з вогнем - наражатися на небезпеку (idiom). phraseological unit idiom proverb

On rare occasions the lexical meaning of idiomatically bound expressions can coincide with their direct, i. e., not transferred meaning, which facilitates their understanding as in the examples like: to make way дати дорогу; to die a dog's death здохнути як собака; to receive a hero's welcome зустрічати як героя; wait a minute/a moment зачекайте хвилинку/ один момент; to tell (you) the truth правду казати/правду кажучи; to dust one's coat/jacket витрусити пальто/ піджака - дати духопеликів (idiom).

Some proper names can also be endowed with figurative meaning and possess the necessary expressiveness which are the distinguishing features of idioms²: Croesus, Tommy (Tommy Atkins), Yankee, Mrs. Grundy, Jack Ketch, etc. These proper names have acquired their constant meaning and can not be confused with usual (common) proper names of people. As a result their transferred meaning is conveyed in a descriptive way. So Mrs. Grundy means світ, люди, існуюча мораль; Jack Ketch кат; Croesus Крез, надзвичайно багата людина; Tommy Atkins англійський солдат; Yankee (in Europe) янкі/американець, etc.

...