Karshi state university master of arts department

1.3. Formation of sign functions and characteristics of phraseological unit
The postulate of F. de Saussure that language is a system of signs obliges to determine what the sign nature of the phraseological unit is, how it is “secured” and what is its specificity, which allows to assert that phraseological phenomenon special kind of signs that differ from both verbal signs and from the word combining function. The main reason for the lack of a sufficient number of studies devoted to the study of symbolic functions and characteristics of phraseological unit, in our opinion, is that the search for signs of phraseology was not conducted “from the inside” of their own content side, predetermining how the sign relates to the world, and the relation of the sign to the speaker or speaker to the sign (his pragmatics), as well as the relation of the phraseological unit and its environment - the syntactic sign. The transition to a new cognitive paradigm involves connecting cognitive science through linguistic semantics to semiotics.
The cognitive paradigm reinterprets the peculiarity of the sign function of idioms, the postulate of which became, as Telia writes, “a kind of common coin, accepted by virtue of its self-evidentness almost without proof²⁵. The only serious attempt to prove that idioms possess specific significant features belongs to V.L. Arkhangelsky. He thought to discover universal, peculiar to all types of phraseological units, specific signs. This led him to the statement that “as applied to the language system, the following constant properties of a phrase phrase can be specified (the term“ phrase ”refers to the terms established in linguistics to denote other units of the language:“ phoneme ”, “morpheme”, “Seme»; the term “phrase” V.L. Arkhangelsky understood phraseological units with the structure of a word combination: the materiality of the shell of a sign (phonetically - auditory or graphic, visual); reparability of its integrands; the unity of the whole and its parts, combinatorial increments of meaning; the renunciation of the denotation and the possibility of a change of denotative attribution, to a certain extent, the arbitrary nature of attribution to reality at the speaker’s will, the constancy of the combination of strictly defined elements for the expression of an invariant value, the fusion of the value corresponding to the fusion of the form; morphological - syntactic construction of a combination or sentence; units of phraseology and its rules belong to the language system; the presence of pseudo-labeling elements in the structure of the sign and based on this fundamental possibility of ellipsis, when the signal fragment performs the replacement function of the whole; the possibility of losing the internal form, the suggestiveness of a phrase and other signs ”²⁶. And further: “Phrase signs are independent spiritual values. Like levers, they promote imagery and speed up thinking ”²⁷. The scientist described in detail the specific features of the “phrase sign”, the functions that the material envelope of this sign performs, are likened to levers that promote imagery and speed up thinking.
It is advisable to add that these “levers” should include the ability to express various kinds of attitude of the subject of speech to what is denoted, i.e. perform a pragmatic function. It would seem that the prevalence in the scientific literature of phrases such as “phraseological sign” or statements such as “idiom is a sign of a special property” indicates a solid foundation under the problem of phraseological semiosis. In fact, there are a lot of ambiguities and “white spots”, one of which, in our opinion, is the sign specificity of the phraseological unit. If phraseological units have their inherent sign specificity, then it should be found not in their structural-semantic organization, but in what features are characteristic for the correlation of the “body” of a sign (meaning) with the meaning of the sign, but by V.N. Telia, are fragments of reality designated by him²⁸. In other words - the specificity of the phraseological unit as a sign should correspond to the specifics of what they are denoted by such elements of reality that only phraseological unit are “covered”.
We mean everything that replaces the phraseological unit as a sign, unlike other signs. Thus, the nature of the sign function of the phraseological unit and their sign specificity lies in the type of the nomination itself.
The development of systemic sign properties and functions of phraseological unit takes place at the stage of potential phraseology and consists in creating the necessary level of sign redundancy. Redundancy is an absolutely necessary property of a language sign²⁹. With a general semiotic approach to redundancy in idioms, it is important from the very beginning to distract from the meaning of excess, unnecessary, which this word is endowed with in everyday speech, and try to firmly link it with the notion of“ repetitive replicable³⁰. A large role in this process is given to phraseological abstraction. Having not experienced the action of phraseological abstraction, the phraseological unit will not be able to acquire the necessary redundancy.