Taras 

Shevchenko National University of Kyiv

Institute of Philology
Department of English Philology and InterculturalCommunication
 
 
 
 
 
 
“Comparative idioms with the zoo component in Modern English”

 
 
 
 
Course paper 
written by the 2nd year of studies 
of bachelor’s programme
“English Studies and Translation and Two Western European Languages”
Yana Babenko
 
Supervised by 
Olena Popivniak, PhD
 
 

Kyiv – 2021
 CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................3

1. IDIOMS IN LINGUISTIC STUDIES.........................................................5

1.1. Definition, general characteristics and functions of idioms.....................5

1.2. Classification of Idioms...........................................................................8

1.3. Specific features of comparative idioms in English.................................9

1.4. Types and classifications of comparative idioms...................................11

2. THE USAGE OF COMPARATIVE IDIOMS WITH THE ZOO

COMPONENT IN MODERN ENGLISH..............................................................15

2.1. Semantic characteristics of comparative idioms with the zoo

component...............................................................................................................15

2.2. Comparative idioms with the zoo component in media.........................19

2.3. Comparative Idioms with the zoo component in literature....................21

2.4. Comparative idioms with the zoo component in songs..........................23

CONCLUSIONS...........................................................................................28

REFERENCES..............................................................................................30

LIST OF DATA SOURCES.........................................................................34

 3

INTRODUCTION

The urgency of the work is due to the stability of scientific interest in the
problems of phraseology. Although this topic has been studied by many experts
around the world, it is necessary to further address the issue of solving the
peculiarities of the systematization of idioms, their component analysis and, in
particular, comparative idioms with a zoo component. This problem is related to
linguistic and cultural differences, as well as the specifics of the component
structure of the idiom.
Idioms have been studied by such scientists as B. Altenberg, H. Artiushina,
R. Afanasieva, A. Cowie, C. Fernando, B. Fraser, R. Gibbs, R. Gläser, O. Kunin,
A. Makkai, R. Moon, N. Sidenko, J. Strässler, and others. Different components of
idioms were studied by K. Hafarova and others.
Comparisons as a linguistic phenomenon were studied by I. Arnold,
V. Fedortsova, N. Pelevina, N. Razinkina, N. Razmakhnina, I. Shenko,
Yu. Ushakova, O. Yasinetska, L. Yefimov, and others.
Such scientists as A. Romanchenko, O. Shchepka, A. Tarasova, I. Tsybrii
and others paid attention to comparative idioms.
Zoonym as a lexical unit and zoo component in different language units has
been the subject of analysis by such scientists as K. Vahner, O. Halimova,
A. Holovnia, Z. Dubravska, A. Kipriianova and others.
Idioms with a zoo component were analyzed by such scientists as
S. Androsova, Zh. Bahana, N. Colin, Z. Dubravska, L. Zakirova, O. Kovalenko,
M. Sahova, A. Sushchevska, O. Yakovleva, and others.
A. Holovnya, H. Kapnina, and others studied comparative idioms with a zoo
component.
The object of research is comparative idioms.
The subject of research is English comparative idioms with a zoo
component.
 4

The purpose of the study is to theoretically investigate the features of

English comparative idioms, and practically analyze the features of the functioning
of English comparative idioms with a zoo component in modern English.
Objectives of the study .
1. To define the essence of the concept of “idiom” and general
characteristics and functions of idioms.
2. To identify the features of the classification of Idioms.
3. To investigate specific features of comparative idioms in English.
4. To identify types and classifications of comparative idioms
5. To investigate semantic characteristics of comparative idioms with the
zoo component
6. To carry out an analysis of comparative idioms with the zoo component in
media.
7. To analyze comparative idioms with the zoo component in literature.
8. To analyze comparative idioms with the zoo component in songs.
Research methods. Linguistic analysis was used to study idioms with
a zoo component, synthesis was used to summarize the conclusions of
scientists and our own research results, classification was used to determine
the parameters of comparative idioms with zoo component, quantitative
analysis was used to calculate obtained data, graphical methods were used
to illustrate the results of the study.
Work structure. The work consists of an introduction, two chapters,
conclusions, references, and list of data sources.
 5

1. IDIOMS IN LINGUISTIC STUDIES

1.1. Definition, general characteristics and functions of idioms

Idioms or phraseologisms are complex semantic phenomena that are

sufficiently diverse in their structure. These are inexhaustible language sources that
feed on broadcasting of any style orientation. Idioms fill the speech with a deep
freshness; give it lexical and syntactic elegance, completeness. The meaning of
idioms is a special kind of meaning that does not match the meaning of the words
that make up its composition. Phraseological units have always been the subject of
philological controversy. Despite the fact that the very concept of phraseological
unit was formulated in the XIX century, since then, scientists have not reached
common views on its nature.
The phraseology gives expressiveness and originality to the speech by virtue
of the semantic abundance, figurativeness, laconicalness and brightness.
Phraseology (from Greek “phrasis” ‘expression’, “logos” ‘doctrine’) is a science
about phraseological units, i.e. about stable (set) combinations of words with the
complicated semantics, which are formed not by means of structural and semantic
models of variable combinations [3.: 109].
English and American linguistic traditions did not pay sufficient attention to
phraseology. By the early 20th century, foreign linguists were not interested in
phraseology. This fact is to some extent explained by the strong influence of
behaviorism and generativism [23.: 32]. Phraseological sustainability has been
associated with idiomaticity in English linguistics. According to N. Sidenko, a
collection L. P. Smith’s articles “Words and Idioms” (1925) was one of the first
works on phraseology [23.: 32]. L. P. Smith collected examples of idioms,
conducted classification, working in the best traditions of etymology. The author
mentions the concept of an idiom, but does not pay attention to the structural and
semantic features of these expressions.
 6

Within the framework of the generative theory, B. Fraser, U. Weinreich and

others conducted their research. B. Fraser studied the syntactic behavior of idioms,
established the gradual nature of idiomaticity, based on the semantic principle in
its definition [37.]. U. Weinreich coined the term “phraseological unit”, which
encompasses the idiom as a subclass [44.]. Formation of phraseological units
weakens the contradiction between demands of thinking and the limited lexical
resources of language. In the same cases when the phraseological unit has a lexical
synonym, they usually differ in the stylistic aspect. The denotational meaning
belongs to the word-group as a single semantically inseparable unit. Thus,
functionally and semantically inseparable word-groups are traditionally regarded
as the subject matter of phraseology [16.]. The term “phraseological unit” was
introduced by linguists to denote a specific group of phrases [16.].
Phraseology appeared in the domain of lexicology and is undergoing the
process of segregating as a separate branch of linguistics. Therefore the opinions of
different scientists on the following questions are: principles of allocation of
phraseological units, methods of their studying, classification, internal form of
phraseological units, the structural and semantic and grammatical characteristic of
phraseological units, national-cultural specific character in phraseology, as well as
uncertainties concerning translation of phraseological units are taken up.
A. Makkai was the representative of the stratification approach of
approaches to the study of phraseology. In early writings, he recognized the
idiomacity of lexemes and semes, but then believed that idiomacity is inherent in
every language level, and the connection between the idioms of these levels
depends on the meaning and structure of discourse, distinguishing pragmatic
idioms, i. e. implicatu res [41.: 215].
New approaches in the context of the discursive scientific paradigm in
linguistics compile with the theoretical foundations of behaviorism that prevailed
for many years in Anglo-American linguistics, and English phraseology very
quickly began to develop from the 1980s to the 1990s to a greater extent. R. Moon,
B. Altenberg, C. Fernando, A. P. Cowie focus on the communicative-pragmatic
 7

aspect of analyzing the functioning of phraseological units; J. Strässler focuses on

the sociolinguistic aspect; R. W. Gibbs focuses on the psycholinguistic aspect.
R. Moon and B. Altenberg worked in the tradition of corpus linguistics in
line with the structural-pragmatic aspect and the discursive approach. Following
the Anglo-American tradition, R. Moon refers phrase lexemes with a wholly or
partially redefined meaning to idioms. Idioms are distinguished between metaphors
and proverbs, comparisons (formulae). She gives a special status to the “unusual”
phrases (anomalous collocations) approaching idioms. To distinguish a group of
phrases, the scientist takes the lexical and grammatical parameters of these units as
the basis. She takes semantic principle for the group the idiom and a pragmatic or
discursive approach for paremias and comparisons [42.: 79, 84]. Phraseological
sustainability is seen by R. Moon in the presence of variants, distinguishing quasi-
systems that exhibit regularity and pseudovariants (occasional replacements) [42.:
92, 94].
C. Fernando explored the transformation of idioms [36.: 35 – 36]. J.
Strässler chose pragmatics as an intermediary in the sociolinguistic direction and
identified the idiom as a pragmatic phenomenon, a functional element [43.].
Psycholinguists have contributed to the understanding of idiomaticity.
According to the hypothesis of R. W. Gibbs (direct access view/ lexical
representation hypothesis), interpretation of the actual meaning of a constant
expression occurs without resorting to its literal understanding, so it is not
necessary to draw conclusions about the essence of linguistic categories based on
psycholinguistic phenomena [38.]. But the empirical results of psycholinguists find
application in the development of phraseological competence in the study of
English as a foreign language.
Stylistic function is a peculiar potential of linguistic means. Using a stylistic
image helps writer to deeper convey the content of the text, informs the reader
about expressive, emotional, evaluative or aesthetic information.
Thus, simile is a multifunctional language mean.
 8

N. Razinkina [18.: 99, 143] believes that the main function of simile is the
provision of a subject of a new quality or complex of qualities by specifying or
generalizing this subject. N. Pelievina observes that the main function of simile is
the inputing of new images to the fiction text, which are not the main in the general
content of the work [17.: 157].
I. Schenko divides functions of figurative (simile) and logical comparisons.
He believes that a logical comparison is used by the writer to provide the reader
with additional information about the object. Logical comparison also gives the
artistic image of new features, separates it from the category of similar images
[29.: 157]. Depending on the writer’s purpose, the figurative simile distinguishes
various signs of the image: it may be the intensification of its quality, adding a new
quality to the subject, or even creating a new image. [29.: 158].
The functions of the simile depend on the context, the option and the style of
the statement. The opinions of scientists regarding the basic function of simile
diverge.

1.2. Classification of idioms

In foreign linguistics, there are various grounds for classifying idioms.

B. Altenberg states that phraseology is a fuzzy part of language [32.: 102]. It
embraces the conventional rather than the productive or rule-governed side of
language, involving various kinds of composite unite and “pre-patterned”
expressions such as idioms, fixed phrases, and collocations [35.: 26]. B. Altenberg
believes that English phraseology includes components such as idioms, persistent
phrases, collocations, and proverbs [32.: 111]. B. Altenberg does not prioritize the
concept of phraseology, distinguishing among idioms fixed phrases and phrases on
the principle of reproducibility in finished form [32.: 101].
The semantic stability is mentioned by R. Gläser. She defines its gradual
character, and clearly distinguishes systemic variations [40.: 264 – 279].
According to R. Gläser, idiom is word group in common use, which is lexicalized,
 9

reproducible bilexemic or polylexemic. Idiom has relative semantic and syntactic

stability, it may be idiomatized, it may carry connotations, and it may have an
intensifying or emphatic function in a text [39.: 53]. R. Gläser does not include the
proverbs represented by sentences in the phraseology.
Despite the intensification of phraseological research, phraseology is not
distinguished in a separate section of linguistics in British and American
linguistics. This has led to the absence of clear classifications of phraseological
units. C.Fernando groups idioms into [36.: 35 – 36]:
- actually idioms (non-literal word combinations),
- semi-idioms (phrase combinations that have literal and non-literal
components),
- literal idioms whose meanings are simply derived from the combined
meaning of the components [36.: 36] to satisfy the communicative intentions of the
speaker.
So, the scientist distinguishes different degrees of idiomaticity.
Consequently, the development of the notion of phraseology and
phraseological unit in the English linguistic tradition was particularly developed in
the late 1970s and 1980s, when functionalism was gaining ground. It is then that
English and American scholars highlight the concept of phraseology as basic in the
study of functional features of phraseological units and begin to actively study the
language of idiom, paying particular attention to applied aspects.

1.3. Specific features of comparative idioms in English

The simplest systematization in modern science is the division of similes

into two main types: similes and the comparisons.
O. Shchepka gives the following definition of comparative idioms:
“comparative phraseological units are stable, reproducible, partially or completely
rethought expressive units of language that have formal signs of comparability in
 10

the form of comparative conjunctions or other comparative constructions” [30.:

212].
Comparative idioms always contain at least 2 elements and a comparative
component, such as as. They form a special structural-semantic group of
phraseological units [21.]. Their semantic specificity is that the first element
retains its direct meaning, and the second is subject to complete or partial
rethinking, which turns it from an element of comparison into an element of
refinement or quality intensifier, which is contained in the first component.
V. Tsybrii identifies some structural features of comparative idioms [27.:
279]:
a) two-component. The first element of such a phraseological unit describes
the property, feature or state of the denoted object and is usually expressed by an
adjective. The second structural element is a comparative word or phrase used by
the conjunction as. The comparative conjunctions as, like unite the components of
phraseological unity and turn them into one semantic whole.
b) a special connection between the elements. The second component of a
comparative phraseological unit characterizes the property, feature or state
represented by the first component. The comparison is made through a certain
image, the comparison with which shows the extent to which this or that quality is
represented. Typically, such comparisons have a three-member structure. In the
structure of the act of comparison there are:
1) the compared object (comparant);
2) the object to be compared (comparator);
3) the basis of comparison is a property or state that is common to both
components and by which they are compared.
Similes in English can be expressed on three levels: morphological
(morphemic), lexical and syntactic [26.].
On the morphological (morphemic) level comparative constructions can be
expressed in degrees of comparison of adjectives, namely, the higher comparative
 11

degree is expressed by means of the suffix -er, and the highest one is expressed by
means of the suffix -is.
I. Arnold as a morphological means of forming similes also allocates
suffixes -ish, -like, -some, -у [2.: 39]. Similes created using these suffixes are
usually adjectives derived from nouns.
At the lexical level, similes can be expressed through the use of word
markers, such as like and as, as well as verbs resemble, seem to, look like, feel like
etc. In addition, similes are often expressed using complex words, usually created
by the author [2.: 39].
Similes at the syntactic level can be expressed by phrases, complex
comparative constructions, as well as have a structure of sentence. Some of them
are persistent, reproduced and recorded in dictionaries; others are linguistic
formations, one-time author’s similes.
Comparative idiomatic units can be spread by syntactically related words
that complement and specify the meaning of the phraseology. Such an addition has
an attributive character and occurs with the help of adjectives or adverbs.

1.4. Types and classifications of comparative idioms

Classification of comparative idioms in the grammatical aspect is mainly

carried out on their very grounds, on which similes and comparisons are classified.
Y. Skrebniov shares the similes on figurative similes and hyperbolic ones
[34.: 148]. He talks about various signs of 1) simile and 2) comparison (logical
comparison). The scientist observes that the first type is characterized by a
comparison of various objects that have significant semantic differences.
Comparison of such concepts is based on imagery. The second type includes
comparisons in which comparable objects are compared on the principle of
semantic community. Comparison of concepts of the second type is based on logic
[34.: 147–148].
 12

Yu. Ushakova considers the person the central figure of simile [25.: 53].
The researcher singles out two groups of comparative constructions. The first
group includes similes with the use of subject-matter vocabulary (flowers, plants,
household things, etc.). The second group includes similes with the use of animal
names for the purpose of comparison with man [25.: 54]. The similes of both
groups, according to Yu. Ushakova, exist in the fiction texts in four variants.
According to Yu.Ushakova, these groups of phrases express:
1) affiliations,
2) action or condition of a person,
3) comparison, devoid of content or associative links,
4) pronouncement of probable affiliation or comparison [25.: 54].
Y. Ushakova observes that such semantic relations between words take place
only in the context [25.: 55].
In the basis of the classifications of D. Buvro and Yu.Levine laid the
identification of the metaphor and the simile. The systematizations of these
scientists are based on semantic-content relationships between parts of
comparative constructions.
D. Buvro distinguishes four semantic-syntactic types of metaphors-similes:
1) the simile,
2) softened identification;
3) identification
4) the metaphor [Op. by: 28.: 154–155].
According to I.Shenko, the advantage of D. Buvro’s classification is the
isolation and analysis of intermediate species of the specified types [28.: 155].
Yu Levin distinguishes the following types of similes:
1) simile,
2) metaphorical simile,
3) metaphor-simile,
4) the metaphor-mystery,
5) a metaphor with the properties of another object [Op. by: 28.: 156].
 13

H. Paul and I. Shenko, N. Razmakhnina and M. Cheremisina are tracing the

functional-syntactic peculiarities of similes and comparative phrases. I. Shenko
believes that similes (or figurative similes) and comparisons (subject-logical or
comparative comparisons) are devoid of a clear formal set of distinguishing
features. They differ in the context only in functionally-semantic qualities [29.:
153].
I. Shenko, analyzing the classification of his predecessor H. Paul, draws
attention to the syntactic relation between simile and predicate. Depending on the
place of the predicate, the comparative phrase, according to H. Paul, can act as an
independent definition, depending on the predicate of the definition or the
circumstance of the mode of action, to be dependent or independent of the
predicate by a sentence with its own subjective and a predicate. I. Shenko, relying
on the classification of his predecessor, distinguishes five types of similes. But the
scientist takes the content characteristics of the categories to be compared as a base
on systematization:
- similes of the first type include structures in which there is a comparison of
a single object or a person with a class of similar objects or persons;
- the second type, according the researcher includes similes of similar types
of objects or individuals;
- the third type of simile is the comparison of similar actions or states,
- the fourth type of simile is the comparison of similar signs of action,
- the fifth type of simile is the phrases-comparisons of convergent situations
[29.: 154–155].
N. Razmakhnina and M. Cheremisina distinguish four types of syntactic
comparative constructions:
- both parts are predicative in constructions of the first type,
- constructions of the second type are actually simple similes, both parts of
which are unpredictable,
- the third type is a simple similes complicated by comparative phrases. In
such structures, the first part is predicative, and the second one is unpredictable,
 14

- the fourth type includes simple, in which, on the contrary, the first part is
unpredictable, and the second, predicative [19.: 19–20].
L.Yefimov and O. Yasinetska also pay attention to the structural features of
the similes.
1. Scientists distinguish this type of similes, the formal indicator of which is
a conjugate as or like [11.: 64]. N. Razmakhnina calls this type of conjugates
comparative type and notes that these simple conjugates are most productive in the
formation of similes [19.: 19].
2. The next type of similes include adverbial complex sentences with
conjugates as, as if, as though [11.: 64]. N. Razmakhnina calls such structures
complex modal comparisons. The researcher points out the synonymity and
functional-semantic similarity of this conjugates. [20.: 3, 4].
3. L. P. Yefimov and A. A. Yasinetska refer the definitions in the
comparative degree to the third type of similes [11.: 64].
4. The fourth type is similes formed with the help of adverbial phrases with
prepositional attributes.
5. Fifth type is constructions that contain an informal indication of similes
[11.: 64].
Thus, systematization of L. Yefimov and O. Yasinetska is the most
meaningful.
.
 15

2. THE USAGE OF COMPARATIVE IDIOMS WITH THE ZOO

COMPONENT IN MODERN ENGLISH

2.1. Semantic characteristics of comparative idioms with the zoo

component

According to Zh. Bahana, animals occupy a large niche in human life [4.].
The role of animals in human life is extremely large, especially in the early stages
of human development, when animals and humans coexisted in close proximity. In
ancient times, some tribes identified themselves with some animals, considered
them relatives, later man began to treat animals differently, but as an echo of the
past, zoonyms still evoke in man, first, associations with external signs, phenotype,
and , secondly, emotional assessment. And today human qualities are often
metaphorically compared to the life of animals, which is reflected in idioms.
Nominations of animals, which are a component of the idiom, are involved
in complex semantic processes. However, in modern linguistics to date there is no
single content of the mechanism and patterns of functioning of words-components.
Some scholars believe that the component of an idiom can be a unit of the lexical
system, because in the process of forming phraseology components behave like
full words [8.: 55]. V. Vynohradov notes that the degree of tightness, closeness of
the phrase, the nature of imagery, and consequently the degree of independence of
verbal components can be very different [6.: 181]. The semantics of most idioms
with a zoo component are based on real situations in which ancient people
encountered animals, so the activity of using the zoo component in different
phraseological units is different. The absence of animals in the fauna distributed in
the territory of the ethnos implies the replacement of some animals with others
[33.].
The names of animals are an integral part of the zoonymic phraseological
world mapping, i.e. figurative, “humanized” model of the world, in which man
realizes himself part of reality and everything around is perceived through images
 16

of animals [12.: 112]. Zoomorphic assessment of man plays an important role in

the psychology of communication, interpersonal communication, in the
development and formation of personality, the assimilation of culture. It allows
you to create a set of ideas that relate to the concept of “linguistic personality”, i.e.
a synthesized image of the bearer of linguistic consciousness [22.: 101].
Sometimes a person attributes to animals human traits inherent in them, from his
subjective point of view, which, in fact, cannot be inherent in animals at all or only
remotely resemble their habits.
In phraseology, there are many synonymous concepts for the definition of
idioms with a zoo component: “idioms with an animalistic component” [1.],
“idioms with a zoonymic component” [13.; 22.], “idioms with zoosemisms” [15.],
“idioms with zoomorphisms” [14.] etc. Such synonymy is not accidental, because
such concepts as “animalism”, “zoonym”, “zoosemism” are synonyms. These
terms mean the names of birds, animals and insects. The term “zoomorphism”
approaches them in meaning, but there are some differences: zoomorphism means
the representation of people in the images of animals. But such a figurative
meaning is generally inherent in phraseology. And researcher O. Halimova defines
the concept of “zoonym” close to the concept of “zoomorphism”: zoonym is a
lexical and semantic variant of the word, which acts as a generic name of the
animal, and has a metaphorical nomination in the analysis of vocabulary in terms
of human characteristics [7.]
In this paper, we use the term “comparative idioms with zoo components” as
a key.
Zoo components as separate lexical units and as components of idioms are
widely represented in English and Ukrainian and are among the oldest and most
common. They, as a kind of expressive vocabulary, are used to identify positive or
negative human qualities by transferring the qualities of animals, respectively, to
humans. The metaphorical comparison of human qualities with the life of animals
is reflected in phraseology. Metaphors and comparisons often reveal certain traits
of character, behaviour and habits of animals that clearly reflect the characteristics
 17

of human nature and behaviour. These traits can be described as positive (courage,
insidiousness, insignificance, diligence of obedience) and negative (stubbornness,
self-confidence, vulgarity, greed, courage, tenderness, demanding, anger, isolation)
concepts on motivational grounds.
Each nation has predetermined the ways of understanding the world that are
reflected in its language. These differences can be explained by history,
experience, and certain cultural ties that each nation has.
For example, Ukrainians see a talkative person as a magpie: балакучий наче
сорока. The British also compare such a person to a magpie: she is like a magpie;
be as garrulous as a magpie; chatter like a magpie. It is worth noting that the
shape of these similarities may change, while the values and objects remain the
same. Such cross-cultural aspects are important in translation. The meanings of
these idioms are the same or similar, but cultural differences are clearly seen in
both the idioms and the objects used in them.
In Ukrainian folklore, there are many idioms that very often refer to animals.
For example, a person who is afraid can be compared to a hare: заяча душа. Such
image is often used in English: as timid as a hare with a difference in its structure
‘боязкий, як заєць’.
To denote a large group of people indoors, the British use the following
idioms: packed like sardines або packed like rabbits in a warren. Ukrainians say:
багато людей, як плав пливе; багато, як трави; багацько, хоч греблю гати;
як оселедці у бочці. As we can see, in some English and Ukrainian idioms a
similar object is a fish, although of a different type: the British borrowed from the
Spaniards an idiom with the component “sardines”, and the Ukrainians prefer
“herring”. However, each language has synonymous expressions that reflect the
world differently and have no literal equivalent in other languages. The British talk
about rabbits in the rabbit hutch (packed like rabbits in a warren), and Ukrainians
see a large number of someone or something in the grass (як трави) or filled – the
river flows (хоч греблю гати).
 18

Before analyzing comparative idioms with a zoo component, let’s define the
grounds for analysis.
The semantic basis for the classification of idioms with a zoo component is
laid, for example, by A. Holovnia and others.
Thus, A. Holovnia, researching idioms with a zoo component to denote
human character, distinguishes lexical and semantic groups by individual character
traits (positive and negative) and classifies idioms with zoo components according
to them [9.].
For example:
I. Characteristics that determine the positive features of human character:
1.1. Courage.
1.2. Hard work, etc.
ІІ. Characteristics that determine the negative traits of human nature:
2.1. Stubbornness.
2.2. Self-confidence, etc.
For our work we consider important the classification of idioms by
zoo component. Such an analysis will help address the problem of idiom
meanings. Thus, according to the zoo component, Z. Dubravska offers to
analyze idioms [10.]. The researcher divides idioms according to the animals
whose image is present in this or that idiom and determines the main
characteristics that speakers invest in phraseology with one or another
animalistic image. However, its groups are too narrow, so do not allow to
consider many species of animals. After all, zoonyms are one of the most
multifaceted lexical and semantic groups. Because the zoonymic
components are quite complex to analyze, this problem is particularly acute.
In connection with this fact in the researches devoted to lexical and semantic
group of zoonyms, use the adapted scientific biological classification of
zoonyms, as, for example, K. Vahner [5.]. We agree with the researcher that
the international scientific classification can serve as an international
classification, which allows to distinguish such classes of animals:
 19

1) FISH,
2) AMPHIBIANS,
3) REPTILES,
4) BIRDS,
5) MAMMALS,
6) INSECTS.
Thus, idioms with a zoo component occupy an important place in the
language fund of the English language. Moreover, they serve as a window to
another culture that enriches our own world.

2.2. Comparative idioms with the zoo component in media

The use of idioms in a media discourse is a rather important

phenomenon, since they are used as in newspapers, magazines, television,
various advertising, politicians’ speeches for more emotional enrichment.
Usually, idioms are used to do, to some extent, a game of words, mini pun,
to attract the attention of buyers. The main understanding of certain idioms
used in the media is the correct transmission of the meaning, without loss of
the present comic subtext.
We analyzed comparative idioms with a zoo component in media
discourse on the example of newspapers. Here are some examples
Slippery as an eel, and terrifyingly strong, it took all my determination to
hang on (The Independent. 17.09.2011: URL). 
This idiom uses a zoo component such as FISH, in particular, eel.
Semantically, this idiom belongs to the group “Characteristics of human practical
qualities”, in particular, characteristics of the ability to get out of difficult life
circumstances.
Remember, his boss as stubborn as a mule and he was groomed by Uncle
Sam (The Independent. 23.09.2019: URL).
 20

This idiom uses a zoo component such as MAMMAL, in particular, mule .

Semantically, this idiom belongs to the group “Characteristics of human strong-
willed qualities”, in particular, characteristics of stubbornness.
Conservative activist calls president ‘wise as an owl’ – seemingly unaware
that this is an insult in India (The Independent. 25.08.2020: URL).
This idiom uses a zoo component such as BIRD, in particular, owl.
Semantically, this idiom belongs to the group “Characteristics of human cognitive
qualities”, in particular, characteristics of wisdom.
Now, it is dumb as an oyster about Beijing’s explicit pressure (Korea
Herald. 25.11.2017: URL). 
This idiom uses a zoo component such as AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES,
in particular, oyster. Semantically, this idiom belongs to the group “Characteristics
of human communicative behaviour qualities”, in particular, characteristics of
silence. The author of the article touches the emotional sphere and a sense of a
reader’s humour, expressing his personal attitude towards events taking place. It
creates with the help of idiomatic expressions, subtext, which identifies relations
between countries with animal behaviour. This creates a sarcastic effect and
enhances the impression that occurs under the influence of digits and facts. Idioms
act as pragmatic elements, which, in the absence of open criticism, express the
negative attitude of the author to the situation.
As one can see, the features of comparative idioms with a zoo component in
media discourse are that they are used as accurately as possible, without
transformations, sometimes even in quotation marks.
Idioms in media discourse have all the same signs and characteristics as in
the usual spheres of their application. They are only submitted for the audience.
The media language has the ability to combine a variety of receptions of
information transmission.
In the conditions of the information market and the struggle for the audience,
the media is more importance to the introduction of information than content, and
 21

phraseologisms play an important role in building bright, noticeable headers, and

cause, interest to readers, spectators and even listeners.
Consequently, idioms in the language of modern media discourse are the
construction material, to create new, unexpected, expressive images, or a linguistic
game to attract attention in society.

2.3. Comparative Idioms with the zoo component in literature

Fiction uses various artistic means that perform various functions are used in
artistic literature, including idioms. It is important to consider features of idioms in
artistic literature. The analysis of comparative idioms with a zoo component in
fiction was based on J.R. Tolkien’s novel “The Hobbit”.
In fiction, the pragmatic functions of idioms are particularly noticeable.
Almost all idioms are occasionally transformed.
Signal function helps to cause the reader a certain reaction: to be afraid with
the hero or to spare him, etc. It is close to the previous symptomatic function,
because the reactions often come from feelings, but they are more spontaneous.
Here is an example.
He came up again spluttering and clinging to the wood like a rat, but for all
his efforts he could not scramble on top (Tolkien J.R. The Hobbit: URL).
This example describes as a hero, having fallen to the water, can not again
return to his boat. The author describes how heavily proves the hero, this should
cause the reader’s reaction of sympathy.
This transformed idiom uses a zoo component such as MAMMAL, in
particular, rat. Semantically, this idiom belongs to the group “Characteristics of
human physical qualities”, in particular, characteristics of ability to climb.
Here is another example.
 22

Off Bilbo had to go, before he could explain that he could not hoot even
once like any kind of owl any more than fly like a bat (Tolkien J.R. The Hobbit:
URL).
In the example above, author does not specify, with the skill of which the
owl he compares the ability of the hero.
The transformed idiom could not hoot even once like any kind of owl uses a
zoo component such as BIRD, in particular, owl. Semantically, this idiom belongs
to the group “Characteristics of human physical qualities”, in particular,
characteristics of ability to make loud noises. The transformed idiom fly like a bat
uses a zoo component such as MAMMAL, in particular, bat. Semantically, this
idiom belongs to the group “Characteristics of human physical qualities”, in
particular, characteristics of ability to fly.
The function of attracting attention helps to focus the reader’s attention on a
certain fragment of the text, identify important milestone of stories.
For example.
There is little or no magic about them, except the ordinary everyday sort
which helps them to disappear quietly and quickly when large stupid folk like you
and me come blundering along, making a noise like elephants which they can
hear a mile off (Tolkien J.R. The Hobbit: URL). 
This idiom uses a zoo component such as MAMMAL, in particular,
elephants. Semantically, this idiom belongs to the group “Characteristics of human
behavior qualities”, in particular, characteristics of noisy behavior.
Symptomatic function serves to express certain feelings – sympathy,
indignation, annoyance, etc.
Here is an example.
 If you have ever seen a dragon in a pinch, you will realize that this was only
poetical exaggeration applied to any hobbit, even to Old Took’s great-grand-uncle
Bullroarer, who was so huge (for a hobbit) that he could ride a horse (Tolkien
J.R. The Hobbit: URL).
 23

In this example, the author tries to trigger a surprise reaction. Earlier, he

described the size of the hobbits, and it was clear from this description that they
were small. So, the fact that some hobbit is a giant may to impress the reader.
This transformed idiom uses a zoo component such as MAMMAL, in
particular, horse. Semantically, this idiom belongs to the group “Characteristics of
human physical qualities”, in particular, characteristics of great growth.
Bilbo had just enough wits left, when Bert dropped him on the ground, to
scramble out of the way of their feet, before they were fighting like dogs, and
calling one another all sorts of perfectly true and applicable names in very loud
voices (Tolkien J.R. The Hobbit: URL).
The author for what to show the naughty nature of the trolls, writes that they
are fighting like dogs. But the word fighting is rather neutral.
This transformed idiom uses a zoo component such as MAMMAL, in
particular, dog. Semantically, this idiom belongs to the group “Characteristics of
human behavior qualities”, in particular, characteristics of fight behavior.
As we can see, the peculiarities of comparative idioms with a zoo
component in fiction are that they are transformed by the author of the work.

2.4. Comparative idioms with the zoo component in songs

We researched comparative idioms with a zoo component in songs on the

basis of various songs of the XX and XXI centuries.
Mr. Henry stumbles home
When the evening’s done
He’s as poor as a church mouse
High on the Meyer’s rum
Tugging (Tom Waits. Mr. Henry: URL).
 24

This idiom uses a zoo component such as MAMMAL, in particular, mouse.

Semantically, this idiom belongs to the group “Characteristics of human social
status”, in particular, characteristics of poverty.
She’s cunning as a fox
Clever as a crow
Solid as a rock
She is stubborn as a stone
She’s a hardheaded woman
And the best one that I know
And I love her
Yeah, well I love her (Passenger. And I Love Her: URL).
The idiom cunning as a fox uses a zoo component such as MAMMAL, in
particular, fox. Semantically, this idiom belongs to the group “Characteristics of
human moral qualities”, in particular, characteristics of cunning. The idiom clever
as a crow uses a zoo component such as BIRD, in particular, crow. Semantically,
this idiom belongs to the group “Characteristics of human cognitive qualities”, in
particular, characteristics of rationality.
I wanna rock this block like a bull in a china shop
Give me more time and I’ll do it again, again, again
I wanna rock this block like a bull in a china shop
Give me more time and I’ll do it again, again, again (Switchfoot. Bull in a
China Shop: URL).
This idiom uses a zoo component such as MAMMAL, in particular, bull.
Semantically, this idiom belongs to the group “Characteristics of human physical
qualities”, in particular, characteristics of clumsiness.
No friendly persuasion could ever change my mind
Like water off a duck’s back
It’s wasted time (The Hollies. I Got What I Want: URL).
 25

This idiom uses a zoo component such as BIRD, in particular, duck.

Semantically, this idiom belongs to the group “Characteristics of human practical
qualities”, in particular, characteristics of the ability to get out of difficult life
circumstances.
Quantitative analysis was performed to determine the frequency of
comparative idioms with different zoo components in the illustrative material –
media discourse, fiction discourse and song discourse. The results of quantitative
analysis are shown in the diagram in Fig. 2.1.

AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES; 6.7

FISH; 6.7

BIRD; 26.6

MAMMAL; 60

Fig. 2.1. Frequency of groups of English comparative idioms with different

zoo components, %

From Fig. 2.1 it can be concluded that the most common comparative idioms
of the group ANIMAL in the analyzed material – almost two thirds of all cases
(60%). Idioms from the groups AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES and FISH are
the least common (6.7% by each). Comparative idioms with zoo components of
the group BIRD have an average frequency (26.6%).
 26

Thus, the main groups of comparative idioms by zoo component were

identified. However, the semantics of idioms are not always directly related to the
zoo component they contain. Sometimes it is difficult to establish even an
approximate association between the zoo component, imagery and semantics.
Therefore, we additionally analyzed the main lexical and semantic groups, which
include comparative idioms with a zoo component..
The frequency of using comparative idioms of units with zoo components in
different lexical and semantic groups was analyzed. The results of the analysis are
shown in Fig. 2.2.

Characteristics of
Characteristics of human practical
human behavior qualities; 13.3
qualities; 20

Characteristics of
human moral qualities;
6.7
Characteristics of
human physical
qualities; 33.3
Characteristics of
human social status; 6.7

Characteristics of
human strong-willed
qualities; 6.7
Characteristics of human cognitive
qualities; 13.3

Fig. 2.2. Frequency of using comparative idioms with zoo components

in different lexical and semantic groups, %

We can conclude that most often comparative idioms with a zoo component
function in such lexical and semantic group as “Characteristics of human physical
qualities”. As we can see, this group contains a third (33.3%) of all analyzed
idioms. The average frequency was demonstrated by comparative idioms included
in the lexical and semantic groups “Characteristics of human behavior qualities”
 27

(20%), “Characteristics of human practical qualities”, and “Characteristics of

human cognitive qualities” (13.3% by each). And the lowest frequency is inherent
in the idioms of the groups “Characteristics of human strong-willed qualities”,
“Characteristics of human social status”, and “Characteristics of human moral
qualities” (6.7% by each).
Thus, the semantics of comparative idioms with a zoo component does not
always depend on the semantic meaning of the specified component. Lexical and
semantic groups cover various spheres of human life.
 28

CONCLUSIONS

Phraseological units (American and British lexicographers call such

units “idioms”) form the open flexible system with a possibility of
combinations transition closer to a kernel or further from it up to an output
from the phraseological fund. By means of phraseological expressions the
aesthetic aspect of language amplifies. The information aspect of language is
supplemented with the sensual-intuitive description of the world
Idioms are non-motivated word group that cannot be freely made up
in speech but is reproduced as a ready-made unit.
Units of phraseological fund represent a special, specific layer of the
lexicon possessing varied structure, carrying out different functions in
speech and endowed with special semantic cohesion. Semantics of the
idioms is very closely connected with context and as a rule with expressive
component of the meaning.
The development of the notion of phraseology and phraseological unit
in the English linguistic tradition was particularly developed in the late
1970s and 1980s, when functionalism was gaining ground. It is then that
English and American scholars highlight the concept of phraseology as basic
in the study of functional features of idioms and begin to actively study the
language of idiom, paying particular attention to applied aspects.
Comparative idioms are stable, reproducible, partially or completely
rethought expressive units of language that have formal signs of
comparability in the form of comparative conjunctions or other comparative
constructions.
The zoo component in an idiom is the main component that identifies
a particular animal and that is part of the idiom. Accordingly, a comparative
idiom with a zoo component is a set phrase with a complete or partially
rethought meaning of its components, which contains a core semantic
component, in particular, a zoo component, which denotes an animal.
 29

Analysis of comparative idioms with different zoo components in the media

discourse, fiction discourse and song discourse was performed.
It can be concluded that the most common comparative idioms of the group
ANIMAL in the analyzed material – almost two thirds of all cases (60%). Idioms
from the groups AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES and FISH are the least common
(6.7% by each). Comparative idioms with zoo components of the group BIRD
have an average frequency (26.6%).
The most often comparative idioms with a zoo component function in such
lexical and semantic group as “Characteristics of human physical qualities”. As we
can see, this group contains a third (33.3%) of all analyzed idioms. The average
frequency was demonstrated by comparative idioms included in the lexical and
semantic groups “Characteristics of human behavior qualities” (20%),
“Characteristics of human practical qualities”, and “Characteristics of human
cognitive qualities” (13.3% by each). And the lowest frequency is inherent in the
idioms of the groups “Characteristics of human strong-willed qualities”,
“Characteristics of human social status”, and “Characteristics of human moral
qualities” (6.7% by each).
Thus, the main groups of comparative idioms by zoo component were
identified. However, the semantics of idioms are not always directly related to the
zoo component they contain. Sometimes it is difficult to establish even an
approximate association between the zoo component, imagery and semantics.

.
 30

REFERENCES

1. Андросова С., Сущевская А. Роль компонента-анимализма в составе

французских характерологических анималистических фразеологизмов.
Филологические науки. Вопросы теории и практики. 2014. № 2 (32). Ч. I. C.
25-27.
2. Арнольд И.В. Стилистика. Современный английский язык. М.: АСТ,
2012. 422 с.
3. Артюшина Г., Афанасьева О. Лексикология английского языка. M. :
Дрофа, 2016. 288 с.
4. Багана Ж. Фразеологические африканизмы, содержащие зоонимные
компоненты с некоторыми представителями фауны. Современные проблемы
языкознания, литературоведения, межкультурной коммуникации и
лингводидактики. Белгород: НИУ БелГУ, 2014. С. 38-43.
5. Вагнер К. Лексемный анализ компонента «зооним» в составе
русских и английских народных примет. Общественные науки. 2016. № 5. С.
38 – 46. 
6. Виноградов В. Русский язык: грамматическое учение о слове. М.,
1947. 550 с
7. Галимова О. Этнокультурная специфика зоонимической лексики,
характеризующей человека: на материале русского и немецкого языков:
дис. ... канд. филол. наук: 10.02.20. Уфа, 2004. 309 с.
8. Гафарова К. Компонентный состав фразеологического оборота как
основа его образности. Вестник Института языков. 2012. № 3 (7). С. 55-59.
9. Головня А. Зоонім як складова порівняння на позначення рис
характеру людини. URL: https://er.nau.edu.ua/bitstream/NAU/19854/1/29.pdf
10. Дубравська З. Зооніми як окремі лексичні одиниці та як компоненти
сталих виразів. Молодий вчений. 2018. № 3.1 (55.1). С. 51 – 54.
11. Єфімов Л. П., Ясінецька О. А.Стилістика англійської мови і
дискурсивний аналіз. Вінниця : НОВА КНИГА, 2014. 240 с.
 31

12. Закирова Л. А. Человек как общественное существо в зоонимной

фразеологической картине мира (на материале английского, русского,
башкирского, и татарского языков). Вестник ВЭГУ. 2008. № 4. С. 112-117.
13. Капніна Г. Компаративні фразеологізми із зоонімічним
компонентом у німецькій мові. URL:
http://movoznavstvo.com.ua/download/pdf/2013_3/12.pdf
14. Киприянова А. Функциональные особенности зооморфизмов :
автореферат на соискание науч. степени канд. филол. наук : спец. 10.02.17.
Краснодар, 1999. 23 с.
15. Коваленко О., Рзаєва В. Функціонування зоосемізмів у
фразеологізмах німецької та української мов.Одеський лінгвiстичний вiсник.
2013. Вип. 2. С. 30 – 39.
16. Кунин А.В. О переводе английских фразеологизмов в англо-
русском фразеологическом словаре. URL:
http://samlib.ru/w/wagapow_a_s/transl-book-kunin.shtml.
17. Пелевина Н. Ф. Стилистический анализ художественного текста.
Л. : Просвещение, 1980. 272 с.
18. Разинкина Н. М. Функциональная стилистика [на материале
английского и русского языков]. М. : Высшая школа, 2014. 272 с.
19. Размахнина Н. К. Система сравнительных союзов по результатам
статистического распределения. В помощь преподавателям иностранных
языков. 1976. Вып. 7. Новосибирск: Наука, 1976. С. 18–36.
20. Размахнина Н. К. Сложные модальные сравнения в английском
языке с союзами as if, as though. В помощь преподавателям иностранных
языков. 1975. Вып. 6. Новосибирск: Наука, 1975. С. 3–27.
21. Романченко А. П. Про суть компаративних фразеологізмів та їх
семантико-структурні особливості. Записки з українського мовознавства.
Одеса: «Астропринт», 2004. Вип. 14. С. 40–49.
 32

22. Сагова М. Аксиологический аспект зооморфных фразеологических

единиц английского и ингушского языков. Вестник университета
Российской академии образования. 2011. № 4. С. 101-102.
23. Сіденко Н. Поняття фразеологічної усталеності: ґенеза розвитку.
Лінгвістика. 2015. Вип. 23. С. 30 – 36.
24. Тарасова А. В. Відтворення англійських компаративних
фразеологізмів українських перекладах: дис…. канд. філол. наук: 10.12.16.
Дніпропетровськ, 2017. 220 с.
25. Ушакова Ю. Ю. Лицо как субъект сравнения в субстантивной
генитивной двучленной метафоре. Филологические науки. 2005. № 3.С. 53–58.
26. Федорцова В.Н. Перевод авторских сравнений с английского
языка на русский (по роману Дж. Оруэлла «1984» и переводу В. Н.
Голышева). Известия Самарского научного центра Российской академии
наук. 2013. Выпуск № 2-4. Том 15. С. 45 – 51.
27. Цибрій В. Особливості компаративних ідіом в англійській мові.
URL: https://jvestnik-sss.donnu.edu.ua/article/view/9284/9228
28. Шенько И. В. К вопросу об отношениях между компаративными
тропами (сравнением и метафорой). Стилистика романо-германских языков.
Л. : РТП ЛГПИ им. А. И. Герцена, 1972. С. 151–165.
29. Шенько И. В. Синтактико-смысловые и функциональные
разновидности предметно-логических сравнений. Язык и стиль английского
художественного текста. Л.: РТП ЛГПИ им. А. Герцена, 1977. С. 152–161.
30. Щепка О. А. Типологія компаративних фразеологічних одиниць в
українській і російській мовах: порівняльний аспект. Лінгвістичні студії.
2011. Вип. 23
31. Яковлева Е. Особенности фразеологических единиц с компонентом-
зоонимом (на материале китайского и английского языков): дис. ... канд.
филол. наук: 10.02.19. Саратов, 2018. – 309 с.
 33

32. Altenberg B. Phraseology of spoken English: The Evidence of Recurrent

Word-combinations. Cowie A. P. Phraseology. Theory, Analysis and Application.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998. – P. 101 – 122
33. Colin N. English and Swedish Animal Idioms A Study of
Correspondence and Variation in Content and Expression. Höstterminen, 2005.
34. Skrebnev Y. M. Fundamentals of English Stylistics. М.: Астрель.
2000. 224 с.
35. Cowie A.P. Phraseology: Theory, Analysis, and Applications. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1998.
36. Fernando C. Idioms and Idiomaticy. URL:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/124030.Idioms_and_Idiomaticity
37. Fraser B. Idioms within a Transformational Grammar. URL:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25000426
38. Gibbs R. W. Speaker’s Assumptions about the Lexical Flexibility of
Idioms. URL: https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03199557
39. Gläser R. Phraseologie der englischen Sprache. Leipzig : Enzyklopädie,
1990. 201 S.
40. Gläser R. The Grading of Idiomaticity as a Presupposition for a
Taxonomy of Idioms. URL:
https://www.degruyter.com/viewbooktoc/product/72244
41. Makkai A. On redefining the Idiom. Lacus Forum. 2009. № 36. P. 215
42. Moon R. Frequencies and Forms of Phrasal Lexemes in English. Cowie A.
P. Phraseology. Theory, Analysis and Application. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998.
P. 79 – 100.
43. Strässler J. Idioms in English: a pragmatic analysis. URL:
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/460179/summary
44. Weinreich U. Explorations in semantic theory. URL:
https://philpapers.org/rec/WEIEIS
 34

LIST OF DATA SOURCES

Korea Herald. URL: https://en.yna.co.kr

Passenger. And I Love Her. URL:
https://www.lyrics.com//lyric/34251236/Passenger/And+I+Love+Her
Switchfoot. Bull in a China Shop. URL:
https://www.lyrics.com//lyric/32973838/Switchfoot/Bull+in+a+China+Shop
The Hollies. I Got What I Want. URL:
https://www.lyrics.com//lyric/33744351/The+Hollies/I+Got+What+I+Want
The Independent. URL: https://www.independent.co.uk
Tolkien J.R. The Hobbit. URL: http://flibusta.is/b/195691/read
Tom Waits. Mr. Henry. URL:
https://www.lyrics.com//lyric/6719221/Tom+Waits/Mr.+Henry