This article presents a diachronic and synchronic comparative analysis of the linguocultural features of phraseological units containing the zoonymic components ‘sobaka’ (Rus. “dog”) and ‘it’ (Uzb. “dog”). Drawing upon examples from literary texts, the study reveals the significative and connotative meanings of these units and identifies the similarities and differences in the semantics of phraseological and paremiological expressions In Russian and Uzbek languages that include these components. It is noted that animals - in particular, the Russian ‘sobaka’ and Uzbek ‘it’ - occupy a special place in human life. Due to their multifunctionality (e.g., for hunting, guarding, walking, riding), they have long served humans faithfully and are considered symbols of loyalty. The study establishes that the behavior, lifestyle, and character traits of the animal ‘sobaka/it’ (dog), which form the basis for many stable expressions with their names, are often associated with people who possess similar qualities. This article also includes a review of scholarly works related to the topic. The prevailing view among researchers is that phraseologisms involving the zoonym ‘sobaka’ typically convey a strongly negative emotional and expressive evaluation of human actions, often associated with concepts such as “vileness,” “meanness,” or “sycophancy,” as the lexeme is frequently used in everyday Russian speech as an invective term. In addition to the comparative analysis of the semantic structure of the concept in question, the article addresses the etymology of the lexemes ‘sobaka’ and ‘it’, citing scientifically grounded theories and hypotheses proposed by notable scholars who have debated these zoonyms. It is particularly noteworthy that In Russian and Uzbek linguocultures, there is a significant difference in the roles assigned to this animal. In Russian culture, the ‘sobaka’ is used for hunting, guarding, riding, walking, and as a domestic companion. In contrast, among Uzbeks, the ‘it’ is typically used only for hunting and guarding, as keeping dogs without practical necessity is generally deemed inappropriate due to religious beliefs.
Okil Latipov (Thu,) studied this question.