59 AMERICAN Journal of Language, Literacy and Learning in STEM Education www. grnjournal.us AMERICAN Journal of Language, Literacy and Learning in STEM Education Volume 02, Issue 07, 2024 ISSN (E): 2993-2769 The Linguocultural Content of the Concept “Holiday” in the English and Uzbek Languages Aslonov Firdavs Bakhtiyor ugli Doctoral student, English teacher of Samarkand State Institute of Foreign Languages, Samarkand, Uzbekistan Abstract. The present article investigates English and Uzbek phraseological units which reflect the content of the concept “holiday”. The author gives examples of such units and reveals their historical, ethnic-cultural and national-specific potential. Key words: concept, holiday, phraseological unit, national-cultural specific, lingual-cultural potential. A person receives a set of information about the world in different ways – in a simple perception of the world, in acts of contact with reality throughout the course of a person's life, but also during the implementation of different types of his subject-cognitive and practical activities, and most importantly, in the processes of thinking about the feelings he experiences about the world and about people surrounding a person, in the processes of comprehension of what has been seen, felt and experienced, and – which, of course, is especially important – in the processes of scientific and theoretical knowledge of the world and human education throughout his conscious life and familiarization with various descriptions of the laws of the world in various manuals and textbooks, reference books, dictionaries, scientific and fiction. Speaking about the knowledge acquired by a person throughout his life, the term "cognition" should be explained. Cognition is an English–language term (cognition), which is difficult to translate unambiguously into Russian, since its content differs from the closest Russian-language term "cognition". In other words, unlike the term "cognition", "cognition" means both the cognitive process itself – the process of acquiring knowledge, and the results of this process – knowledge [1, p. 11]. To reveal the national-cultural features of linguistic units, it should be noted that today there are a number of directions in linguistics, various methodological foundations and methods are used [8, p.45]. The differences in methods are explained by the fact that linguistics moved away from structuralism and the immanent-semasiological paradigm at the end of the last century and entered the anthropological paradigm. In this direction, "language is widely studied existentially in connection with the human psyche, language and thinking." The national-cultural peculiarity of each language existed at all stages of the development of the language system, but its study began at the end of the 20th century. Problems with language culture often rely on uncontested vocabulary. They contain information related to consciousness, thinking, nationality. This information is activated in the speech of two interlocutors. 60 AMERICAN Journal of Language, Literacy and Learning in STEM Education www. grnjournal.us The term "cognitive phraseology" was introduced into scientific use by Russian linguists A.P. Babushkin and D.O. Dobrovolsky. Within the framework of cognitive phraseology, national phraseoconcepts are described, as well as the mental spaces of native speakers of a certain linguistic culture are compared. A.P. Babushkin understands the concept as any discrete meaningful unit of collective consciousness reflecting the subject of the real or ideal world and stored in the national memory of native speakers in a verbally designated form. Later, the cognitive aspect in phraseology began to be studied by linguists A.I. Baranov, V.N. Telia, Z.D. Popova. N.F. Alefirenko studies the cognitive-semiological essence of phraseological units. Theories such as conceptualization and categorization, cognitive metaphor, frame semantics, prototypical semantics, extension theory, theory of conceptual domains, mental spaces and conceptual integration are emerging in the depths of cognitive semantics. This article collects English and Uzbek phraseological units representing the concept of "holiday" in terms of language culture. The basic concept of cognitive linguistics is, of course, the concept. In modern linguistics, there are many definitions of the term "concept". Thus, D.S. Likhachev believes that concepts are "some substitutions of meanings hidden in the text, "substitutes", some "potencies" of meanings that facilitate communication and are closely related to a person and his national, cultural, professional, age and other experience" [5, p. 64]. Concepts represent those ideal, abstract units, meanings that a person uses in the process of thinking. They reflect the content of the acquired knowledge, experience, and the results of his knowledge of the surrounding world in the form of certain units, "quanta" of knowledge. Following V.I. Karasik, we consider concepts to be primary cultural formations expressing the semantic content of words, having meaning and appearing in various spheres of human existence [2, p. 61]. He also defines the concept as a multidimensional mental unit with a dominant value element. E.S. Kubryakova offers a concise definition of the concept of "concept": "Concept is an operational meaningful unit of thought, unit, or quantum of structured knowledge" [3, p. 90]. The prototype of phraseological units plays a large role in this, since they create the basis for the disclosure in these units of unique semantics related to the national culture and a specific people. Linguistic cultural studies, comparing the phraseological units in different languages and the concepts of "standard," "stereotype," "symbol" contained in them, determines the national-cultural nature of the phraseological system. As a result of this analysis, it can be concluded that the phraseology system is activated in close contact with linguistics. Indeed, the semantics of phraseological units reflect various historical events, cultural traditions, religious views, customs, holidays. It would therefore not be a mistake to regard phraseological unity as a means of expressing cultural concepts as a linguoculture. V. N. Telia rightly noted that in each language there are certain phraseological units that transmit knowledge related to national culture from generation to generation [7, р. 26]. When determining the national-cultural nature of phraseological units, concepts are studied as a "national system of consciousness." In this context, Y.S. Stepanov’s concept is described as a "cultural fragment of human consciousness," that is, as a form into which culture penetrates the inner world of man. To describe the concept, of course, the opinions of philosophers and linguists, as well as artistic texts are taken into account. In the modern Uzbek language, phraseological units are widely used, which are the concept of "holiday." Among them are the “bazmi of Jamshidi” - a large festive table, a luxurious feast [6, p. 26]. On holidays, representatives of the Uzbek people wish each other a festive mood. It should be noted that the Uzbek lexeme "bayram," referring to the concept of "holiday" is found in many proverbs. In English, the concept "holiday" is formed around the lexeme "holiday": Bank holiday – the day when the English clerks do not serve citizens. In addition to Sundays, English organizations have six days when they don’t serve citizens and are called banking. Among them: 61 AMERICAN Journal of Language, Literacy and Learning in STEM Education www. grnjournal.us Great Friday, Christmas, Monday following Easter, Spirit Day, Day of Worship, which is celebrated on the first Monday of August and December 26. All these are religious holidays and rites. Blind man’s holiday means “night” [4, p. 473]. The phraseological unit Busman’s holiday has an interesting semantics and means that every day during the holidays a person is busy with ordinary work. This phrase was taken from the lives of bus drivers, as they taught young and inexperienced drivers to drive buses when they first started working on holidays. The phraseological unit holiday speeches (terms or words) means “high speech” [4, р. 473]: Aye, aye, sir, I know your worship loves no holiday speeches (W. Scott, “Red Gauntlet”, chapter 3). Some phraseological associations associated with the holiday have an ancient history: as in Roman holiday – to organize the holiday at the expense of others. The fact is that in ancient Rome on holidays, fierce battles of gladiators were organized: Barney knew that Lamb and John West liked to match boxers who went in to be cut to pieces to make a Roman holiday for crowds (F. Hardy, “Power without Glory”, chapter 7). Thus, English and Uzbek phraseology provide very rich and interesting material for teaching the concept of "holiday" and create the basis for revealing the linguistic and national-cultural, ethno- historical features of peoples. Literature used: 1. Болдырев Н.Н. Когнитивная семантика: Курс лекций по английской филологии: учебное пособие. Изд.5-е, стер. – Москва-Берлин: Direct Media, 2016. – 168 с. 2. Карасик В.И., Слышкин Г.Г. Лингвокультурный концепт как единица исследования // Методологические проблемы когнитивной лингвистики. – Воронеж, 2001. – С.103-112. 3. Кубрякова Е.С. Язык и знание. На пути получения знаний о языке: части речи с когнитивной точки зрения. Роль языка в познании мира. – Москва: Языки славянской культуры, 2004. – 560 с. 4. Кунин А. В. Англо-русский фразеологический словарь. – Изд. 3-е, испр., в двух книгах. – Москва: СЭ, 1967. – Т.1. – 738 с.; Т.2. – 739-1264 с. 5. Лихачёв Д.С. Очерки по философии художественного творчества. – Санкт-Петербург: Информац. центр БЛИЦ, 1996. – 159 с. 6. Садыкова М. Краткий русско-узбекский словарь устойчивых выражений. Қисқача русча- ўзбекча барқарор иборалар луғати. – Ташкент: Ўқитувчи, 1994. – 96 с. 7. Телия В.Н. Русская фразеология. Семантический, прагматический и лингвокультурологический аспекты. – Москва: Наука, 1996. – 334 с. 8. Cultural, psychological issues in cognitive linguistics / Ed. by Higara M.K. e.a. – Amsterdam; Philadelphia: Benjamins, 1999. – 338 p.