DOI: 10.25136/2409-8698.2020.4.30799

Abstract: Despite the fact that youth jargon in a certain way reflects the worldview of young people, the Russian linguistics did not dedicated due attention to this question. At some point, significant contribution to the research of this problematic was made by the experts in linguistics such as A. M. Selischev, E. D. Polivanov, M. A. Grachev, V. M. Mokienko, etc. However, there are still gaps and multiple controversial issues in studying this phenomenon. One of them pertains to terminological definition of this concept, since there is no evident characteristics and properties that allow to clearly differentiate it from other linguistic phenomena, such as argot, slang, dialect, sociolect. There is also no unified system of dictionary noted for lexicographic fixation of jargon units, as well as systematized description for youth jargon in various Russian regions. Youth jargon represents rich material for linguistic analysis, since it has diverse lexical composition – alongside multiple neologisms and foreign borrowings, it contains a significant portion of archaic lexicon. Examination of jargon reveals certain mechanism of word formation, uncommon for the standard lexicon. Knowledge and application of such lexicon is essential for better understanding of the modern fiction literature and periodicals, modern colloquial, translation activity, as well as social differentiation of national language.

DOI: 10.7256/2409-8698.2015.4.18018

Abstract: In this article phraseological units of the subject "family" in the English and Turkish languages are chosen as an object of research. Phraseological units of this subject make considerable group in phraseological funds of both languages and are one of the brightest and figurative. It is necessary to find such equivalent units on the basis of which it is possible to create communicatively equivalent statements in two languages and which are found only during theoretical research by comparison of originals to their translations in process of conversion of phraseological units. In this article by comparison of phraseological units of the English and Turkish languages we consider the following types of the interlingual relations: full equivalents, partial equivalents. Works of the famous domestic linguists have formed methodological base of this article. In this research the comparative and typological method, a method of phraseological identification, a kontrastivny method, a method of the transformational analysis are applied. Results of comparative studying of FE promote identification of the common and peculiar features of their structural models, identification of the facts of influence of system of one language on another, and also to detection of regularities of the translation of FE from one language on another. Full interlingual equivalents are presented by a small amount of phraseological units in both languages and only substantive FE with structures of Adj + to N, N + N. The phraseological units differing with the structural organization, but having the general figurative basis act as partial equivalents.