Abstract: Despite the fact that youth jargon in a certain way reflects the worldview of young people, the Russian linguistics did not dedicated due attention to this question. At some point, significant contribution to the research of this problematic was made by the experts in linguistics such as A. M. Selischev, E. D. Polivanov, M. A. Grachev, V. M. Mokienko, etc. However, there are still gaps and multiple controversial issues in studying this phenomenon. One of them pertains to terminological definition of this concept, since there is no evident characteristics and properties that allow to clearly differentiate it from other linguistic phenomena, such as argot, slang, dialect, sociolect. There is also no unified system of dictionary noted for lexicographic fixation of jargon units, as well as systematized description for youth jargon in various Russian regions. Youth jargon represents rich material for linguistic analysis, since it has diverse lexical composition – alongside multiple neologisms and foreign borrowings, it contains a significant portion of archaic lexicon. Examination of jargon reveals certain mechanism of word formation, uncommon for the standard lexicon. Knowledge and application of such lexicon is essential for better understanding of the modern fiction literature and periodicals, modern colloquial, translation activity, as well as social differentiation of national language.

Abstract: Abstract: the phrase-semantic field of “family” subject, which we have distinguished in two genetically unrelated, distant languages – English and Turkish – unites in its composition a large group of phraseological units. All the units under analysis are structurally subdivided into collocations and sentences. Within their composition there can be evolved the following types: substantival, verbal, communicative, adverbial, adjectival. To the study of the sentence structure phraseological units we have engaged proverbs and sayings, as far as the latter possess imagery, metaphoric, originality and high stability of the components. In the article we apply the comparative and typological method, the method of phraseological identity by professor Kunin A.V., the contrastive method, the method of transformational analysis. The source of the research is the material collected through the continuous sampling from phraseological dictionaries. On the basis of single criterion a comparative analysis of the phraseological structure has been carried out in the phraseological systems of systematically different, unrelated languages. Consequently, among the English and Turkish phraseological units there can be defined either similar or different structural models. For example, the English language units are characterized by the schemes: noun+and+noun, noun+prep+noun, and the Turkish language units by: noun+verb, noun+noun+verb types.