Keyword: «phraseological units»

Knowledge of a foreign language is impossible without knowledge of its phraseology and euphemisms. It is proposed to compare phraseological units with the phraseology of the native language when teaching students of non-philological specialties Russian as a foreign language. The results of the comparison prove the existence of commonalities in many everyday and cultural realities .in the life of different peoples.

The article deals with the most mobile part of the language system – vocabulary. The authors are interested in the ways of its renewal taking place in the modern Russian language. Sports vocabulary is chosen as an illustrative material. Based on theoretical research and practical observations, it is proved that the language of sports is becoming one of the most intensively developing lexical systems. A classification of sports vocabulary is proposed. The most productive lexical groups are singled out, due to which the words of sports topics are replenished. Anglicisms, neologisms, phraseological units and slang are described in detail.

The key role of somatisms in the structure of phraseology of various languages emphasizes the inherent human tendency to rely on bodily experience in order to make sense of the world around us. In the dialects of the Russian old-timers of Yakutia, this phenomenon is not only widespread, but also rich in cultural specificity and metaphorical depth. In this article, we explore the metaphorical application of somatisms in the phraseological units of these dialects, showing how parts of the human body are not just referred to literally, but are used to convey complex concepts, emotions and cultural narratives. Our research is based on the recognition of the fact that somatisms–words or expressions related to the body – are often used in a figurative manner to express ideas beyond the tangible and physical. This metaphorical use is evidence.

The article discusses the features of studying phraseology in Russian language lessons according to the updated Federal State Educational Standard, as well as the possibilities of using an integrated learning approach in this branch of linguistics. Some methodological recommendations are given on the use of an integrated approach in studying phraseological units in Russian language lessons and literature lessons.

The relevance of this research stems from the need to work out materials for teaching foreign students Russian colloquial speech, and syntactic phraseological units are among its most important components. The aim of the work was to describe the procedure for selecting syntactic phraseological units with an evaluative component for the initial stage of teaching Russian as a foreign language. The main research methods used were the analysis of syntactic phraseological units, the classification of these units, and methods for selecting the constructions under consideration. The result of the study is a developed procedure for selecting phraseological units, consisting of five main stages: determining the selection unit, creating a general frame, compiling a sample set, minimizing the resulting sample set, and compiling a phraseological minimum. An identification criterion (to determine whether the analyzed unit belongs to a group of syntactic phraseological units), an evaluation criterion (to identify the prevailing semantic component), a criterion for taking into account the learning stage (to distinguish units by initial and middle stage), a nuclear-peripheral criterion (to distinguish active and passive phraseological units), a criterion of structural complexity (to find the degree of simplicity or complexity of syntactic connections in the structure of the analyzed units, that is, to determine the typicality of a phraseological structure) were worked out for the first four stages. At the first stage, the units of selection were described – syntactic phraseological units with the meaning of evaluation. As part of the second stage, a general frame was created, consisting of more than one hundred syntactic phraseological units. In the third step, a sample set of fifty-three units was created. At the fourth stage, the corps was minimized to thirty-three units. At the fifth step, a list of syntactic phraseological units was compiled including sixteen units with an evaluation meaning. The theoretical significance of the study lies in the description of the procedure for selecting syntactic phraseological units. And the practical significance lies in the fact that the developed minimum can be used in RFL classes as the main or additional material.