A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF GEORGE ORWELL'S PHRASEOLOGICAL STYLE IN ANIMAL FARM AND 1984 WITH ABDULLA QODIRIY'S LITERARY IDIOMS

ISSN: 2582-4686 SJIF 2021-3.261,SJIF 20222.889, 2024-6.875 ResearchBib IF: 9.948 / 2024 VOLUME-5, ISSUE-11 1233 A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF GEORGE ORWELL’S PHRASEOLOGICAL STYLE IN ANIMAL FARM AND 1984 WITH ABDULLA QODIRIY’S LITERARY IDIOMS Yo‘lchiyeva Umida Dilshod qizi Toshkent farmaseftika institute ingliz tili o‘qituvchisi Email:[email protected] Abstract This article examines the phraseological and metaphorical systems used by George Orwell in Animal Farm (1945) and 1984 (1949), comparing them with the stylistic and idiomatic features found in the works of the Uzbek novelist Abdulla Qodiriy. Orwell’s politically charged idioms and satirical metaphors are juxtaposed with Qodiriy’s culturally rooted figurative expressions. The study demonstrates that both writers use idiomatic language to expose social injustice and critique authoritarian tendencies. Keywords George Orwell, Abdulla Qodiriy, phraseology, idioms, political metaphor, stylistic analysis, comparative literature. INTRODUCTION Phraseology is a powerful stylistic tool shaping ideological meaning in literary discourse. As many scholars emphasize, idioms often serve as condensed forms of cultural memory and political consciousness 1 . George Orwell employs politically loaded idioms to unmask mechanisms of control, linguistic manipulation, and psychological domination exercised by totalitarian systems 2 . iis phraseological units are constructed as instruments of propaganda, where the meaning is intentionally distorted to reshape public perception. Abdulla Qodiriy, on the other hand, uses culturally embedded idioms rooted in Uzbek oral tradition, folklore, and historical experience 3 . hhile Orwell invents new ideological slogans to expose the brutality of totalitarian regimes, Qodiriy adapts traditional idioms to critique social injustice, moral hypocrisy, and the erosion of human values in a repressive society. Thus, although emerging from different historical contexts, both writers rely on phraseology as a central vehicle of ideological expression. Orwell’s Phraseological Techniques Orwell’s phraseology is uniquely characterized by paradoxical slogans, dystopian metaphors, and ideological formulae designed to manipulate collective consciousness. iis key idioms include: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” “Freedom is slavery.” “Ignorance is strength.” 1 Orwell, G. 1984. London: Secker & harburg, 1949, pp. 5–15. 2 Orwell, G. 1984. London: Secker & harburg, 1949, pp. 300–312. 3 Qodiriy, A. O‘tkan Kunlar. Tashkent: State Publishing, 1925, pp. 112–158. ISSN: 2582-4686 SJIF 2021-3.261,SJIF 20222.889, 2024-6.875 ResearchBib IF: 9.948 / 2024 VOLUME-5, ISSUE-11 1234 “Big Brother is watching you.” Scholars such as Crick and Rorty argue that Orwell’s idioms represent a linguistic architecture of oppression, where language itself becomes a mechanism of domination. Orwell’s slogans are intentionally contradictory; they function through cognitive dissonance, forcing individuals to accept incompatible meanings. In 1984, Newspeak is introduced as a controlled linguistic system where phraseology is deliberately restricted. By eliminating idioms and reducing vocabulary, the regime aims to eliminate free thought. Paradoxically, the few idioms that remain (e.g., “Thoughtcrime”, “Two Minutes iate”) become ideological weapons that standardize emotional reactions and suppress dissent. In Animal Farm, idioms operate satirically. They parody political rhetoric, expose corruption, and illustrate how language is rewritten to justify oppression. Orwell’s phraseology is therefore functional, ideological, and performative. Qodiriy’s Phraseological Style Qodiriy’s idioms—such as “Ko‘ngli boshqa, tili boshqa” (“iis heart says one thing, his tongue another”) and “Nafsining quliga aylangan odam” (“A man enslaved by his desires”)—reveal the moral and psychological contradictions within society. Unlike Orwell, Qodiriy rarely invents new idioms; he transforms existing ones, enriching them with layers of satire, irony, and cultural symbolism. iis writing draws heavily on Uzbek folk wisdom, proverbs, and classical Eastern literature. Phraseology in Qodiriy’s novels often: Expresses moral judgment iighlights the internal conflicts of characters Reflects societal hypocrisy Embeds social critique within culturally familiar expressions According to literary critics Yuldashev and Saidov 4 , Qodiriy’s idioms serve as “linguistic mirrors” of Central Asian society during political and social transformation. They carry emotional depth and cultural resonance, offering a humanistic counterpoint to Orwell’s dystopian tone. Comparative Analysis Although Orwell and Qodiriy come from different worlds, the functions of their phraseology converge. Both employ idioms to critique authoritarianism and reveal mechanisms of societal control. 1. Linguistic Construction Orwell invents political idioms (“doublethink”, “thoughtcrime”), constructing them artificially to expose ideological distortion. Qodiriy transforms traditional idioms, giving them new shades of meaning in satirical or dramatic contexts. 2. Political Symbolism Orwell’s phraseology is explicit, totalitarian, institutional. Qodiriy’s phraseology is implicit, psychological, cultural. 3. Social Function Both writers use idioms to: • reveal injustice • expose corruption 4 Saidov, S.; Yuldashev, I. Uzbek Literary Idioms. Tashkent: Akademnashr, 2020, pp. 39–68. ISSN: 2582-4686 SJIF 2021-3.261,SJIF 20222.889, 2024-6.875 ResearchBib IF: 9.948 / 2024 VOLUME-5, ISSUE-11 1235 • portray moral decline • illustrate psychological trauma • critique oppressive structures Scholars note that Orwell shows how language is weaponized, while Qodiriy shows how language preserves resistance through cultural memory¹¹. 4. Parallel Examples Orwell (English) Qodiriy (Uzbek) Shared Meaning “Freedom is slavery.” “Qul bo‘lib yashash – yashash emas.” Oppression disguised as freedom “Big Brother is watching you.” “Ko‘z ostiga olish.” Surveillance, control “All animals are equal…” “Ba’zi odamlar barobar emas.” Inequality “Unperson” “Izidan asar qolmaslik.” Erasing identity Conclusion Despite cultural, linguistic, and historical differences, Orwell and Qodiriy demonstrate remarkable convergence in their use of phraseology as a means of social critique. Orwell’s invented dystopian idioms and Qodiriy’s culturally rooted expressions both articulate resistance, reveal oppression, and reflect collective psychological trauma. Their works confirm that idioms are not only linguistic units, but ideological tools, capable of shaping moral consciousness, cultural identity, and collective memory. References 1. Saidov, S. Stylistics of Uzbek Phraseology. Tashkent: Akademnashr, 2016, pp. 14–27. 2. Orwell, G. 1984. London: Secker & Warburg, 1949, pp. 5–15. 3. Yuldashev, I. Language and Society in Uzbek Literature. Samarkand: SamDU Press, 2018, pp. 44–52. 4. Crick, B. George Orwell: A Life. London: Penguin Books, 1992, pp. 211–234. 5. Rorty, R. “Orwell on Cruelty.” Political Theory, 1984, pp. 15–29. 6. Orwell, G. 1984. London: Secker & Warburg, 1949, pp. 300–312. 7. Qodiriy, A. O‘tkan Kunlar. Tashkent: State Publishing, 1925, pp. 112–158. 8. Qodiriy, A. Mehrobdan Chayon. Tashkent: State Publishing, 1929, pp. 90–145. 9. Saidov, S.; Yuldashev, I. Uzbek Literary Idioms. Tashkent: Akademnashr, 2020, pp. 39–68. 10. Crick, B., 1992, pp. 221–227. 11. Fejerskov, O.; Kidd, E. Language and Power. Cambridge: CUP, 2011, pp. 77–89.