How Fairy Tales Reflect Culture — and Why Kazakh and English Tales Are More Alike Than They Seem

A people can be understood not only through history or music, but also through the way they tell fairy tales. The researchers note that knowledge of linguistic nuance is one way for a person to engage with both world culture and national culture. In their study, they compare fixed expressions — phraseological units — in English and Kazakh fairy tales in order to understand how language shapes worldview.

The results turned out to be remarkably similar. Both Kazakh and English stories have their own magical beings: Жалмауыз кемпір (old witch), fairies, elves, trolls, talking animals, and talking trees. Yet all of them serve the same purpose: to show the struggle between good and evil, honesty and cunning, strength and intelligence. According to the authors, fairy tales are a mirror of a people, reflecting traditions, mentality, and moral values.

Phraseological expressions do more than embellish speech. They are condensed formulas of folk wisdom, encoding images, emotions, and the experience of many generations. They teach people how to behave in life, what kind of person to become, and what to avoid.

The researchers emphasize that although the phraseological units of the two cultures are built according to their own linguistic rules — different word order and different grammar — in essence they carry the same message. This proves that even different languages can speak about the same thing: human values.

 

One Fairy Tale, Two Languages: Phraseological Units in English and Kazakh Fairy Tales

Imagine opening a book of English fairy tales and immediately coming across the magical “Once upon a time…” Now look at a Kazakh fairy tale: its captivating opening sounds like “Күндердің бір күнінде…” The spirit of fairy tales among different peoples is surprisingly similar. Both expressions, meaning “one day” or “once,” are examples of phraseological units: stable combinations of words with figurative, almost magical meaning. English and Kazakh fairy tales are full of such vivid expressions. They make the narration bright and memorable and help portray characters and events.

Surprisingly, fairy tales are similar not only in how they begin, but also in how they end. English-language fairy tales often close with “They all lived happily ever after,” while in Kazakh tales we read almost the same thing: “Олар бақытты ғұмыр кешті.” These fixed narrative formulas help the reader immediately enter the right mood: this is a story about kindness and adventure, set long ago and ending well.

Another shared feature is the portrayal of characters. A trickster hero in an English fairy tale may be “sly as a fox,” while his Kazakh counterpart is “түлкідей қу,” meaning just as cunning as a fox. To describe a mighty giant, English speakers may say “enormous as a giant,” while Kazakh uses “таудай дәу” or “таудай алып,” meaning huge as a mountain. So in describing heroes and in bringing the plot to a close, both cultures rely on similar expressive turns of phrase.

Both fairy-tale traditions are treasure houses of phraseological units, or, as linguists call them, fixed expressions. Fixed expressions are word combinations that carry not a literal meaning, but a figurative one. For example, the English idiom “to kick the bucket” literally appears to mean striking a bucket with one’s foot, but in fact it means “to die.” Its Kazakh equivalents are “қаза табу” and “мерт болу,” both meaning “to pass away.” In the same way, English “to pass away” and “to give up the ghost” mean “to die,” while Kazakh has “бақилық болу.” Another example: English “to come into existence” corresponds to Kazakh “дүниеге келу,” meaning “to be born.”

 

The Main Features of Phraseological Expressions

Linguists identify several defining features of such fixed expressions. The first and most important is semantic unity. This means that the meaning of the whole expression cannot be derived from the meanings of its separate words. If we take the idiom apart, its meaning slips away: “kick” means one thing, “bucket” another, but together they do not naturally produce the meaning “to die.” That is why such expressions are also called idioms. For a general reader, the rule is simple: when words mean something together that they do not mean separately, you are dealing with an idiom. The same applies in Kazakh: “ақырын сөйлеу” literally means “to speak quietly,” but in idiomatic context it can mean “to submit” or “to back down.”

The second feature is stability: the words or their order cannot be freely changed without losing the meaning. An ordinary phrase can often be reworded: instead of “give a smile,” one can simply say “smile.” But the idiom “to give up the ghost” cannot be rearranged or altered word by word; otherwise the meaning “to die” disappears. In other words, an idiom cannot be dismantled into separate parts. This applies both to vocabulary and grammar: normally, we do not change endings or rearrange elements unless there is a specific stylistic purpose. The words in a phraseological unit “stick” to one another as if magnetized.

The third feature is limited variability. There are not many expressions that are absolutely unchangeable; most allow a certain amount of fuzzy modification while remaining recognizable. In English, for instance, one may say “as hungry as a wolf” or “as hungry as a hungry wolf,” and even “as hungry as a hungry hunter,” while the general image of being wolfishly hungry remains. A Kazakh example is “қасқырдай аш,” meaning “hungry as a wolf.” A similar construction, “Өз үйім – өлең төсегім,” roughly “my home is my own comfort,” may be varied as “Өз үйім – өлең төсегің,” shifting the possessive form while preserving the basic idea. In other words, the components of a phraseological unit may change slightly: words may be added, the plural may change, or a small part of the construction may shift, while the meaning remains visible.

The fourth feature is expressiveness and emotional force. Phraseological units often make speech more vivid and create the desired mood. For example, “careful attention” in English can be compared with the Kazakh “құлағына құйып алды,” literally “poured it into the ear,” meaning “listened very attentively.” A poetic English image such as “heart-warming smile” may correspond to Kazakh “күлкісі жүрегіңді елжіретеді,” meaning “a smile that melts the heart.” Such expressions immediately set the tone for the reader: this is not faceless prose, but a poetic and emotionally charged picture.

Thus, both English and Kazakh rely on roughly the same basic criteria for phraseological units: semantic wholeness, structure, and context. The most important criterion is meaning. After all, to translate or compare these expressions, what matters is not the specific words they contain, but what they mean. These features are clearest at the extremes: in highly idiomatic expressions on the one hand and fully motivated combinations on the other. Between them lies a mixed area, which we will discuss below.

 

Three Types of Phraseological Expressions According to Vinogradov

One classic approach was proposed by the well-known Russian linguist Viktor Vinogradov. He divided such fixed combinations into three types, depending on how deeply idiomatic they are.

Phraseological fusions are expressions that are completely unmotivated and cannot be understood from their parts. Their meaning cannot be guessed from the separate words; they are almost like a private code that must be learned as a whole. For example, the English expression “show the white feather” literally refers to showing a white feather, but it means “to lose courage” or “to give in.” A Kazakh parallel is “ақырын сөйлеу,” literally “to speak quietly or softly,” but used in the sense of shrinking back or surrendering. Another example is “to talk through one’s hat,” meaning to speak nonsense; in Kazakh this corresponds to “ауызына келгенді айту,” meaning to say whatever comes into one’s mouth. Or take “a fishy story,” meaning a suspicious story, while the Kazakh example “ақымақ болу” means to act foolishly. These examples show clearly that we are dealing with idioms, not merely colorful metaphors.Phraseological unities are expressions that are partly motivated: their meaning can be partly inferred from the words, but not fully. For example, “to show one’s teeth” means to threaten or defend oneself, and it corresponds to the Kazakh “біреуге тісін қайрау,” literally to sharpen one’s teeth at someone. Another example is “to skate on thin ice,” meaning to take a risk; the Kazakh counterpart is “басын бәйгеге тігу,” literally to stake one’s head. Here part of the meaning is understandable, but the whole expression still carries the idiomatic force. Sometimes one word in such expressions may be replaced by a synonym. For instance, English has “to stick to one’s ground,” “to hold one’s ground,” and “to stand one’s ground,” all meaning not to yield; in Kazakh this is “өз ойынан қайтпау,” meaning not to retreat from one’s position. Similarly, “old boy,” “old chap,” and “old fellow” are forms of address meaning something like “mate” or “fellow”; Kazakh has “жігіт,” “бозбала,” and “жасөспірім,” meaning a young man or youth. The English “for a rainy day” or “against a rainy day” corresponds in meaning to Kazakh “басына іс түскенде,” referring to a time of trouble.Phraseological combinations, or collocations, are expressions in which one element retains its direct meaning while another is figurative or bound by usage. For example, “to meet the demand” and similar expressions such as “to meet the requirements,” “to meet a necessity,” or “to meet needs” use “meet” in a fixed sense. Kazakh expresses the same idea as “талапқа сай болу” or “қажеттілікке сай болу,” meaning to correspond to a requirement or need. Another example is “to break a promise,” “break an agreement,” or “break a rule”; in Kazakh this is “сөзін бұзу” or “уәдесін бұзу,” meaning to break one’s word or promise. Here the meanings of “break” and “бұзу” remain close to “damage” or “violate,” but the expression as a whole acquires the meaning of failing to keep one’s word. Such combinations are closer to ordinary syntax, yet they are still used as stable expressions.

All three types appear in folk tales. Storytellers draw from the language those fixed expressions that fit the meaning and sound of the story, following their own morphological and syntactic norms. Interestingly, it is sometimes difficult to decide which type a given expression belongs to. Much depends on context. For example, “to win a victory” is almost completely transparent and motivated; English speakers would likely treat it as a free combination or a collocation rather than a deeply idiomatic expression. The Kazakh equivalent, “жеңіске қол жеткізу,” meaning to achieve victory, is also clear from the meaning of its words. On the one hand, the meaning is very similar; on the other, the expression is not fused enough to be considered a pure idiom. That is why in linguistic research such cases are sometimes treated as borderline forms between fixed and free phrases.

 

A New View: Phraseological and Phraseomatic Units

Modern linguists try to account for the boundaries between these types. They point out that phraseology is an independent branch of linguistics and studies not only fully fused idioms, but stable word combinations in general. According to this classification, fixed expressions are divided into two main types.

Phraseological units proper are expressions whose meaning is fully or partly figurative. For example, “once in a blue moon,” meaning very rarely, may be compared with the Kazakh “айға қол созу,” to reach for the moon, referring to something unattainable. Another example is “to cry for the moon,” meaning to ask for the impossible; Kazakh has a similar expression, “Аспанға қол созу,” to stretch one’s hand toward the sky. Another example is “under the rose,” meaning secretly; the Kazakh expression “аузын ашпақ түгілі астын да баспайды” conveys the idea of not letting even a word slip.Phraseomatic units are fixed combinations in which the words mostly preserve their direct meaning. For example, English “to win a victory” is a formal expression, and Kazakh “жеңіске жету,” to reach victory, is similar in structure. Such expressions are not considered strongly idiomatic. Other examples include “to come to one’s senses,” compared with Kazakh “ойынан қайту”; “to fall into a rage,” corresponding to “ашуға міну”; and “to come home,” compared with “есін жию,” meaning to regain consciousness. The semantics are not always identical, but the general idea of returning to a normal state is close.

There are also borderline cases that fall between these two classes: something between deep idioms and simple fixed expressions. The main difference between phraseological units and phraseomatic units is semantic: phraseological units transfer meaning, while the components of phraseomatic units remain close to the literal. Yet both types function as stable units and cannot be broken into separate words without loss of meaning.

Several additional points are important. Fixed expressions are not identical to individual words, although they can sometimes replace a word semantically. For example, the English “a millstone round one’s neck,” meaning a heavy burden, echoes the Kazakh “ауыр жүк көтеру,” to carry a heavy load. Such an expression is not translated word for word; an equivalent is used to preserve the meaning.

These expressions are reproduced as ready-made blocks rather than invented anew each time. They come to the tongue the way words do: speakers know the accepted form and do not normally rearrange it at random. For example, English “at one’s own sweet will,” meaning according to one’s own wish, corresponds to Kazakh “өз еркімен”; both are stable and are not altered just for the sake of variation. Consider also the comparisons “as good as gold” and “алтындай сары,” literally yellow as gold, or “red as a cherry” and “құлпынайдай қызыл,” red as a strawberry. In both languages, these are fixed expressions repeated in a recognizable form.

Such phrases also have lexical durability and semantic stability. This means that related words may sometimes be used inside them, but the overall meaning does not change. In English, for instance, there are the variants “a skeleton in the cupboard” and “a skeleton in the closet,” while Kazakh has “үй артында кісі бар,” literally someone is behind the house, meaning a secret that can damage one’s reputation. Or take “to be in deep water” and “to be in deep waters,” meaning to be in trouble; Kazakh says “үндемегеннен үйдей бәле шығады,” suggesting that serious trouble can grow out of silence. Other examples include “head over heels” and “over head and ears”; in Kazakh the idea is “басынан аяғына дейін,” from head to foot. There is also “to lead somebody a dance” and “to lead somebody a pretty dance,” both meaning to cause someone trouble or mislead them; the Kazakh expression “біреуді биге шақыру,” literally to invite someone to a dance, also conveys the idea of entangling or confusing someone. Even the vivid image “to raise or stir up a hornets’ nest about one’s ears,” meaning to create a noisy and dangerous disturbance, can be compared with Kazakh “тыныш отырған бүркітті құйрығын шұқып үркітті,” literally to poke the tail of a quiet eagle and frighten it. In all these examples, some words may vary, but the general sense of disturbance, trouble, or discomfort remains the same.

Finally, the meaning of such proverbs and fixed phrases usually remains stable over time. Even if the word order changes slightly or an explanation is inserted, the essence remains. For example, the proverb “The last straw breaks the camel’s back” is closely conveyed by Kazakh “Соңғы түйенің жүгі ауыр,” meaning the last load proved heavy. Both say that even a small additional burden, if it comes at the limit, can break even the strongest. The saying “Like husband, like wife” is conveyed in Kazakh by “Апама жездем сай, ағама жеңгем сай,” expressing the idea of a fitting match within the family. Kazakh linguists Alipova and Bekkozhanova have noted that phraseological expressions in different languages may rely on similar but not identical images, and that this is often enough. Take the English “Burnt child dreads the fire”; Kazakh has “аузы күйген үріп ішеді,” meaning that someone who has been burned blows before drinking. The images differ, but the idea is the same: a person who has suffered once becomes cautious.

 

Why This Matters for Writers and Translators

All storytellers and writers draw on living language and fill their works with it. Since phraseological units are among the most vivid layers of speech, they are often used to shape characters and convey national color. Such expressions make a text bright and memorable.

Translators, however, must be especially careful: phraseological units cannot be translated word for word, or their meaning and nuance may disappear. They are replaced with analytical equivalents — equally stable expressions in the target language. For example, a literal rendering may produce nonsense. But if a translator knows that “Once upon a time” corresponds to “Күндердің бір күнінде,” they can choose the right phrase and preserve the magic of the fairy-tale opening. Likewise, the expression “burnt child dreads the fire” is not translated by focusing on burning flames, but through the Kazakh analogue “аузы күйген үріп ішеді,” which is clear to Kazakh readers.

It is important to remember that the idea, plot, and mood of the fairy tale must remain the same. For example, the English phraseological unit “to raise a hornets’ nest about one’s ears,” meaning to stir up trouble, means in a fairy tale that someone has created a serious problem. Kazakh has a similar image: “тыныш отырған бүркітті құйрығын шұқып үркітті,” close in meaning to making needless noise or waking a dangerous creature. In other words, a direct translation is sometimes impossible, but the meaning of the expressions can still coincide.

 

Conclusion

Phraseological units are not merely ornaments of speech; they are bridges between cultures. The study shows that the fairy tales of England and Kazakhstan are surprisingly close in spirit. In both cultures, characters speak in fixed expressions where wisdom, emotion, and poetry are woven together. These phrases live for centuries and carry the imprint of a people’s character.

Comparing English and Kazakh fairy tales makes it possible not only to compare linguistic forms, but also to better understand how two peoples see the world. Their phraseological units reveal shared motifs: good and evil, trial and reward, love and courage. Even when the images differ, the essence is the same: in both cultures, fairy tales teach people to be kind, honest, and resilient.

The results of the analysis became a basis for systematizing fairy tales and their linguistic forms. The comparison of fixed expressions showed that English and Kazakh use almost identical types of phraseological units. The difference lies only in the details of imagery, while the meaning coincides. By studying such expressions, one can understand not only the language, but also come closer to the culture: its emotions, humor, and worldview.

Proverbs and sayings are an important part of phraseological wealth. The analysis showed that most of them are based on life experience and generalized folk wisdom. They reflect the everyday life, philosophy, and morality of both cultures. In them, one can find universal truths that are understandable to any person, regardless of language.

Phraseology is not only part of the vocabulary; it is a cultural system in its own right. It can be studied from the perspectives of linguistics, history, psychology, and ethnography. Phraseological units are complex linguistic formations, and to understand them it is important to consider every side: semantics, or meaning; structure, or internal organization; and syntax, or their role in a sentence.

The language of fairy tales is the universal language of humanity. Through fixed expressions, we see how two peoples separated by geography think in similar ways: they love goodness, value courage, and respect wisdom. In this similarity we find not merely a philological observation, but proof that culture and language can bring people closer together more powerfully than national borders can divide them.