Abstract. The article presents a comparative analysis of phraseology with zoonymic components in the German and Ukrainian worldviews, which are closely related to national culture. In most phraseologies with the component-zoonym there is a type of metaphorical transfer, which uses the names of animals to describe the characteristics of man, the designation of certain qualities, appearance, character, mental abilities. In addition, zoonyms are often symbols of moral and intellectual qualities of man. The purpose of research is to study phraseological systems with zoomorphic components in a pair of German - Ukrainian, which allows to identify important values of each nation. Results of research. During the study of zoonyms in phraseology, it was noted that the metaphorical nature of zoomorphic phraseology, their inherent subjective-evaluative connotation, the specificity of their semantic parameters and syntactic structure is largely due to their scope, based on their expressed anthropocentrism as a manifestation of traditions of attributing to animals certain traits of human character. In the ethnoculture of different peoples, phraseology, including the names of animals - is primarily a statement about man, his spiritual and social traits. Thus, phraseology with the names of animals can reflect: physical qualities, capabilities; appearance; mental qualities (character traits); intelligence; habits, abilities, skills. Also, the paper explores the common and distinctive features of phraseology of the Ukrainian and German languages, namely the zoocomponents that form complete equivalents. Such phraseological units are equivalent, ie their lexical volume, semantic meaning and meaning are symmetrical. The second group includes partial equivalents. In German and Ukrainian, such phraseological units have the same meaning, but differ in the composition of lexical components, and, consequently, the internal form. The third group includes phraseologies that have no equivalents in another language and are characterized by the fact that these concepts do not have a common object. Such phraseological units often remain outside the scope of bilingual phraseological dictionaries, which is why it is only possible to explain the meaning. Originality is determined by the fact that our study makes a contribution to the development of phraseology in terms of studying phraseological units, namely the animalism of the German and Ukrainian languages. Conclusion. The presence of common and distinctive features in the structures of phraseology of the studied languages, the nature and content of associations are determined not by the properties of animals, but by their life in the national folklore-mythological and literary contexts of each nation, its worldview, human existence.
The observer countries of the Arctic Council: a comparative analysis of the human development
