Of the republic of uzbekistan gulistan state university

The object of the work is learning phraseology in English
The subject of the work is problem between Fixed anda free Compounds. Novelty and results achieved in the work. The work consists of the theoretical part and practical part where one can find theoretical issues of classroom interaction modes in teaching English. The course paper brings all view points and opinions and approaches phrasal verbs,their types and fixedand free compounds.
Practical value of the paper. There are a lot of theoretical and practical materials in the work which can be used in studying the course about phraseology. The materials and results given in the course paper can be used in lexicology. The information brought in the paper may also serve as a material during the pedagogical practice by the students of philological faculties.
Theoretical value of the work. The work reviews works of linguists defining fixed and free compounds words like idioms,phrasal verbs.
Structure of the paper. The course paper consists of introduction where we give brief description of the work and course paper. The main part and its three chapters, concluding part and the list of used literature.
The first chapter is on the review of related literature and origin of the phraselogy and what things it concluds for example types of Compounds.
The second chapter mainly deals with the issues of fixed and free compounds .
The third chapter continues main information about problems of fixed and free compounds.
The conclusion gives general overview of the work done during compiling the research and practical implications of using group work.
The list of used literature contains more than 10 items of literature on English language teaching and materials of the internet.

CHAPTER I. LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1.Phraseology in English language
Phraseological units absorb values of the ages in which it lives. The problem of understanding the meaning of a phraseological unit is linked with a possibility of increasing our knowledge about the world diachronically. The authors underline the importance of phraseological studies as it demonstrates the interrelation between the language and the society. The role of phraseological units as specific structures in forming vocabulary and linguacultural competence of students is very significant because they encapsulate a national, country's cultural outlook. Usage-based theories of language learning suggest that phraseology must be studied as a part of vocabulary. Teaching phraseology is a part of cultural approach in foreign teaching methodology and arranging vocabulary studying though structure of component meaning is linguistic approach. This article begins by establishing a theoretical framework to help find the answer to the question: “what do the words in a phraseological unit mean?”. From there, major phraseological concepts on the problem are reviewed. Complex methodology is applied: method of phraseological identification, semantic analysis. Finally, the article concludes with a discussion of four types of word-components in phraseological units: real words; potential words; “former” words; “ghost-words and possible paths for future research.Natalia Zerkina and Nikolaevna Kostina / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences.One area that is a source of some confusion in second language acquisition is the field of phraseology that is defined as the study of word combinations and a phraseological unit is defined as being made up of at least two words. It is rather difficult to define the meaning of a phraseological unit as it is connected with many lingual and extra lingual aspects – logical and psychological, historical and philosophical. Lexis and syntax, or vocabulary (phraseology as a part of vocabulary) and grammar, have traditionally been viewed as discrete aspects of language in teaching (Hoey, 2005; Romer, 2009), but a growing number of scholars from a variety of theoretical camps within applied linguistics and second language acquisition argue that the two are in fact inseparable (e.g. cognitive linguists, constructionists, and corpus linguists). The importance of phraseological studies is permanently discussed as it demonstrates the interrelation between the language and the society. The article is centered on the problem of meaning of word-components in a phraseological unit. Considering all possible points of view, the authors keep to the four types of word-components in phraseological units: real words– word-components with ad verbum meaning; potential words– word-components with weak meaning; “former” words – word-components with re-comprehended meaning..Natalia Zerkina and Nikolaevna Kostina / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences Phraseological MeaningA phraseological value is a category which is interpreted in different ways depending on understanding of the nature of a phraseological unit, its components and volume of phraseology. A definition of a phraseological meaning originates from the essence of the phraseological unit. According to A.V. Kunin, the phraseological unit is a fixed combination of words which fully or partially change their meanings. It means that a character, which is above the word level, stability and changed meanings of words in the combination are criteria of phraseological units together ¹with other linguistic units, which define their special status in the language structure. As you know, word combinations which are turned into phraseological units are included in complex semantic processes. Phraseologists have not yet reached a common opinion on a mechanism and regularities of changing a semantic essence of words-components of phraseological units. A formal semantic structure of the phraseological unit, i.e. the study of its plane of content and plane of expression, represents a special issue. In other words, the question is how elements of semantics of phraseological units are classified by their lexical components, i.e. a degree of a so-called semantic combination and semantic dividedness of the phraseological unit.Points on Phraseological Components: History and Contemporaneity Researchers in the field of phraseology agree on the point that a lively discussion of semantic properties of phraseological unit components has resulted in two initially extreme points of view: 1.Phraseological components do not have anything semantic in common with words, being included in phraseological units not as independent meaning units, but just having distinctive characteristics. 2. Phraseological components do not have significant semantic differences from words: both are bearers of separate semes, phraseologically bound meanings. According to A.V. Zhukov, a common drawback of the above views is “absolutization of different properties of components which are, in fact, common to not all components, revealed to a different degree or have a potential nature” (Zhukov, 1984). A word character of components is not supported by V.P. Zhukov, A.I. Molotkov, A.L.Oniani, E.Kh. Rott, V.N. Teliya and other scientists on the ground that components of phraseological units loose a correlation to the object, including a lexical meaning and a nominative function which were formerly present. V.P. Zhukov, supporting his opinion, writes that components of a fixed phrase have no proper semantic markers of words, although different types of fixed phrases show different degrees of getting closer to (or further from) words . A.I. Molotkov adheres to the most extreme positions on the issue under consideration, denying the word character of phraseological unit components not only from a plane of content, but also from a plane of expression: “components of fixed phrases are not an essence of words not only due to their failure to have a lexical meaning, but also in terms of a form,…components of a fixed unit lost various grammatical categories which were characteristic of their genetic source – a word…the component keeps only a sound picture of the word, its sound appearance”. A.L. Oniani also adheres to the first point of view and believes that as components of phraseological units fall together with words for the plane of expression only, components of a fixed unit cannot be united in a concept of the word. The author states categorically that components of phraseological units are not to be deemed not only as ordinary words, but also as having a specific use . E.Kh. Rott defines phraseological units as “former words” and calls them “a moneme”, because they lose their character, word nature and are transformed into an exclusively structural component. E.Kh. Rott states that “components are included in idioms as solely structural elements, “shaking off” their own sememe” and is confident that “components of idioms acting as monemes represent elements which lost their “word character”, it means that they are former words” . The word character of components of phraseological units is also denied in early papers of V.N. Teliya, who believes that components of 146 Natalia Zerkina and Nikolaevna Kostina / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 199 ² 143 – 148 were deprived of a reference and system correlation and “suffered the same process of de-etymologization as morphemes in words pillow, taste (sense of measure)”. A common feature of all theories of equivalence of phraseological units to words is a one-sided approach to the analysis of phraseological units lying in the fact that semantics of phraseological units and words get too closely on the ground that they allegedly have a lexical meaning, or because their single characteristic is deemed to be the semantic monolithic nature. N. N. Amosova for the first time put into question the theory of equivalence of phraseological units to words . Phraseology needs in English because most people who use English language try to speak quickly and shortly thatʼs why phrasal verbs help them to do this Most of them always hurry .In addition,I sometimes can not understand their speech when I watch Emglish movie or videos or comedy. In recent years this theory finds less and less support.