Phraseological Units as Components of Phraseology

American Journal Of Philological Sciences

186

https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps

VOLUME

Vol.05 Issue04 2025

PAGE NO.

186-188

DOI

10.37547/ajps/Volume05Issue04-46

Phraseological Units as Components of Phraseology

Muqaddam Abdugapir qizi Abduvakhobova

Independent Researcher, Fergana State University, Uzbekistan

Received:

23 February 2025;

Accepted:

19 March 2025;

Published:

22 April 2025

Abstract:

In recent decades, phraseological units have become a central focus of linguistic research, especially in

the study of language as a reflection of cultural identity. This paper explores the national and cultural specificity
of phraseological expressions in both global and Uzbek linguistic contexts. Emphasis is placed on the integral role

that phraseological units play in encoding a nation’s worldview, lifestyle, and historical consciousness. By

analyzing the classifications and interpretations of phraseological units by renowned linguists, this study highlights
the close interconnection between language and culture, and it affirms the status of linguoculturology as an
independent interdisciplinary field.

Keywords:

Phraseological units, linguoculturology, national worldview, cultural identity, idiomatic expressions,

semantic structure, Uzbek linguistics.

Introduction:

Phraseological units

–

Idiomatic

expressions that encapsulate cultural and historical
realities

–

have long fascinated linguists due to their

intricate blend of linguistic form and cultural content.
These expressions serve as mirrors of national identity,
conveying collective experiences, beliefs, and
traditions. As pointed out by Maslova (2001),
phraseological expressions reveal the unique ways in
which different nations perceive and conceptualize the
world. The study of phraseology has evolved
significantly over the centuries, transitioning from a
lexical curiosity to a core component of modern
linguistics and cultural studies. This paper aims to
examine the development, classification, and cultural
relevance of phraseological units within both Western
and Uzbek linguistic traditions.

Literature Review

The historical development of phraseology as a
discipline dates back to early Russian linguistics, with
significant contributions from V. M. Lomonosov, V. A.

Kunin, and E. D. Polivanov. Charles Bally’s foundational

works in French stylistics marked the introduction of
phraseology

into

Western

scholarship.

V.V.

Vinogradov, N.M. Shansky, and A.V. Kunin later
contributed

comprehensive

classifications

of

phraseological

units

—

fusions,

unities,

and

combinations

—

based on their semantic and syntactic

characteristics.

In

Uzbek

linguistics,

Sh.

Rahmatullayev’s theoretical contributions regarding

the structure and function of phrasemes underscore
the importance of semantic unity and cultural
grounding. A.A. Abduazizov offered a classification
framework that aligns clos

ely with Vinogradov’s

typology but incorporates culturally specific examples
relevant to Uzbek language and society. Further
contributions by A.E. Mamatov and H. Jamolkhonov
elaborated on the functional and structural aspects of
phrasemes, particularly in the Uzbek linguistic
landscape.

METHODS

This study adopts a descriptive-analytical method to
examine phraseological units within the framework of
linguoculturology. Comparative linguistic analysis is
employed to juxtapose Uzbek and Western approaches
to phraseology. Primary sources include theoretical
texts by leading scholars, lexicographic data, and
corpus examples. The study also incorporates elements
of semantic and structural analysis to classify and
interpret

selected

phraseological

expressions.

Attention is given to the socio-cultural contexts in
which these units are used, drawing on ethnolinguistic
data to support interpretations.

The main part

In recent years, phraseology has become one of the

American Journal Of Philological Sciences

187

https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps

American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN

–

2771-2273)

most extensively studied fields in linguistics. At present,
phraseological units are regarded in modern linguistics

as a means of reflecting a nation’s unique worldview,

ways of thinking and living, perception of the world,
and national-cultural characteristics.

As V.A. Maslova points out, phraseological units
directly or associatively convey information about a

particular nation’s view of the world and society

through a national-cultural prism. They reveal the

distinctive features of that nation’s worldview and, at

the same time, help shape it [V.A.Maslova, 2001].

The study of phraseology as an independent linguistic
discipline spans several centuries. In particular, in
Russian linguistics, researchers began showing interest
in phraseological issues as early as the 18th century.
Notably, V. M. Lomonosov, when compiling a
dictionary of the Russian literary language, emphasized

that along with words, “folk proverbs,” “idiomatic
expressions,” and phraseological units should also be

included [V.A. Kunin, 2005]. By the 1960s

–

1980s,

interest in phraseology was rapidly growing in foreign,
especially English-language, scholarly literature. Until
that time, there had been no dedicated works on
phraseology in Western and American linguistics. The
term phraseology (from the Greek phrasis

–

phrase/expression, logos

–

study) was first introduced

by Charles Bally in his work Précis de stylistique. As a
result, Charles Bally, a Swiss-French linguist, is widely
regarded as the founding figure in the study of
phraseology. In his works Sketch of Stylistics (1905) and
French Stylistics (1909), he included special chapters
devoted to word combinations and phraseological
expressions. Subsequently, many linguists showed
deep interest in phraseological studies and began
analyzing phraseological units at various levels of
language, thoroughly exploring their characteristics
and properties.

The idea of viewing phraseology as an independent
discipline was first proposed by the prominent Russian
linguist E. D. Polivanov, who returned to this issue on
multiple occasions. According to him, the newly
emerging field of phraseology should occupy a position
in relation to lexicology similar to the one syntax holds
in relation to morphology.

He wrote:

“...There is a growing need for the formation of a new

field equivalent to

syntax,” –

stated E. D. Polivanov,

–

“but while syntax studies the general types and

properties of word combinations, the newly forming
field would deal with specific, individual (lexical)
semantic features of combinations that arise from the
interaction

of lexemes.”

Polivanov referred to this newly emerging discipline as

phraseology or idiomatics [Polivanov 1928:144].

In linguistics, the term "phraseological unit" is
interpreted in various ways. For instance, in the
explanatory dictionary of linguistic terms, A. Khojiyev
defines a phraseological unit as a lexical unit which, in
terms of structure, is equivalent to a word combination
or a sentence, carries an integral, generalized meaning
from a semantic standpoint, and is not created in the
process of speech but introduced into speech as a
ready-made unit. Phraseological units differ from
regular word combinations in that they are stable
expressions conveying figurative meanings. When used
in speech, they contribute to expressiveness and vivid
imagery.

Sh. Rahmatullayev supports referring to this linguistic

unit in literature by the terms “phraseologism” and
“phraseological unit,” and suggests that the term
“phraseme” should be used similarly to “lexeme” and
“morpheme” [Sh. Rahmatullayev, 2016]. He also

emphasizes that a phraseme consists of at least two
lexemes [Sh. Rahmatullayev, 1992]. According to his
view, a phraseme emerges through the semantic and
syntactic interrelation of two or more lexemes, forming
a generalized figurative meaning [Sh. Rahmatullayev,
2016].

Scholar A.A. Abduazizov classifies phraseological units
into three types:

1.

Phraseological combinations

–

expressions

where one word is used in its literal sense and the other

in a figurative sense, e.g., “to have a rest” (rest –

literal;

have

–

figurative).

2.

Phraseological unities

–

expressions whose

components are semantically and grammatically
combined to form a generalized figurative meaning,

e.g., “skin and bones” (very thin).

3.

Phraseological fusions

–

expressions in which

there is no lexical link between the meanings of the
individual words and the overall meaning of the phrase,

such as “to rent a mouse hole” (meaning to be

extremely stingy) [A.Abduazizov, 2010, p. 79].

V.V. Vinogradov explains that phraseological fusions do
not retain any semantic connection with the meanings
of their components, nor do they hold any potential for
literal interpretation [V.V. Vinogradov, 1977, pp. 121

–

138]. Similarly, N.M. Shansky emphasizes that these
fusions are indivisible from a semantic standpoint and
that their integral meaning does not correspond at all
to the meanings of their components [M.N. Shansky,
1996, p. 67].

According to A.V. Kunin, phraseological unities are
motivated units with a single holistic meaning derived
from the merged meanings of lexical components [V.A.

American Journal Of Philological Sciences

188

https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps

American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN

–

2771-2273)

Kunin, 1996, p. 12]. N.M. Shansky also interprets these
as semantically indivisible and integral phraseological
expressions, where the meaning of the whole arises
from the fusion of the figurative meanings of the
constituent words [M.N. Shansky, 1996, pp. 65

–

68].

While V.V. Vinogradov notes that phraseological
combinations, despite their tightly interlinked lexical
components, still allow each word to retain its own
recognizable meaning [V.V. Vinogradov, 1977, pp. 121

–

138], N.M. Shansky highlights the presence of both
freely meaningful and phraseologically bound words in
such units [M.N. Shansky, 1996, pp. 65

–

68]. A.E.

Mamatov further points out that in phraseological
combinations, one component acquires a figurative
meaning only within a certain context [A.E. Mamatov,
2019, p. 26].

According to Sh. Rahmatullayev, a phraseme as a
linguistic unit consists of the unity of two aspects:
expression and content [Sh. Rahmatullayev, 2016]. H.

Jamolkhonov, in turn, defines the “expression plan” of

a phraseme as its phonological aspect, lexical structure,
and its equivalence to a phrase or sentence

construction. The “content plan” refers to its function

in naming, signifying, or denoting something [H.
Jamolkhonov, 2005, pp. 216

–

217].

Scientific and practical research has been conducted
both globally and within Uzbek linguistics regarding the
national and cultural peculiarities of phraseological
units and the interrelation between language and
culture. It is important to note that the analysis of
studies on phraseologisms within the framework of
linguistic cultural studies has led to the recognition of
linguoculturology as an independent and integrative
field of science.

Phraseological units, having developed over centuries,
serve as one of the k

ey elements that reflect a nation’s

history, culture, and way of life. Investigating the
semantic nature of these elements, including their
culturally specific meanings and forms that lack direct
equivalents

in

other

languages,

based

on

linguoculturological principles, remains a pressing issue
in contemporary linguistics.

CONCLUSION

Phraseological units, far from being mere ornamental
aspects of language, serve as repositories of cultural
knowledge and identity. Their analysis provides
valuable insight into the worldview and lived
experiences of the speakers who use them. As
demonstrated through this study, the integration of
linguocultural perspectives into the study of
phraseology enhances our understanding of how
language functions as a medium of cultural expression.
Moreover, the recognition of linguoculturology as an

independent and integrative discipline underscores the
growing importance of interdisciplinary approaches in
linguistic research. Continued investigation into
culturally specific phraseological units will enrich both
theoretical linguistics and practical language education,
especially in multilingual and multicultural contexts.

REFERENCES

Маслова В.А. Лингвокультурология.

-

Москва:

Академия, 2001.

-

С.436.

Кунин А.В. Курс фразеологии современного
английского языка. –

Дубна: Феникс, 2005. –

466 c.

Rahmatullayev Sh. Hozirgi o’zbek adabiyoti: darslik. –

T.: Universitet, 2016.

–

B.420.

Rahmatullayev Sh. O’zbek tilida fe’l frazemalarning
bog’lashuvi. –

T.: Universitet, 1992.

–

B.6.

Abduazizov A.A. Tilshunoslik nazariyasiga kirish.

–

T.:

Sharq, 2010.

–

B.79.

Шанский Н. М. Фразеология современного русского
языка: Учеб. пособие для вузов по спец. "Русский
язык

и

литература".

СПб.:—

Специальная

Литература, 1996. –

С.65

-68.

Виноградов В.В. Избранные Труды. Лексикология и
лексикография. –

Москва: Наука, 1977. –

С.121

-138.

Mamatov A.E. O’zbek tili frazeologiyasi: o’quv
qo’

llanma.

–

T.: Navro’z, 2019. –

B.26.

Jamolxonov H. Hozirgi o’zbek adabiy tili. –

T.: Talqin,

2005.

–

B.216-217.