European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research
and Management Studies
22
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijmrms
TYPE
Original Research
PAGE NO.
22-25
DOI
OPEN ACCESS
SUBMITED
23 April 2025
ACCEPTED
19 May 2025
PUBLISHED
21 June 2025
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue06 2025
COPYRIGHT
© 2025 Original content from this work may be used under the terms
of the creative commons attributes 4.0 License.
Idiomatic Word Formation
Based on Dictionary
Examples
Safarov Farrux Muzaffarovich
National University of Uzbekistan named after Mirzo ulugbek, Tashkent
Uzbekistan
Abstract:
The article examines the phenomenon of
idiomatic word formation in the Russian language, its
theoretical aspects, examples from explanatory and
phraseological dictionaries, and studies by Russian
linguists. It analyzes the processes of semantic
transformation of words, their consolidation in the
language, and the influence of context on the
perception of idiomaticity. Modern trends in the
development
of
idiomatic
formations,
their
lexicographic fixation, and the role of metaphorization
are considered.
Keywords:
Idiomaticity, word formation, phraseology,
semantics, metaphor.
Introduction:
Modern Russian studies pay considerable
attention to the study of idiomatic processes in
language, as well as the ways of reflecting such
phenomena in lexicographic sources. The term
"idiomatic word formation" implies such linguistic
formations that go beyond the usual transparent
morphological structure and acquire a special
phraseological or semi-phraseological meaning. At the
same time, in the language they function as units close
in status to phraseological units or stable word
combinations [5, p. 675]. In this paper, we will consider
how Russian linguists interpret the concept of idiomatic
word formation, what examples are given in the largest
dictionaries of the Russian language (for example, in the
explanatory dictionaries of D. Ushakov, S. Ozhegov and
modern phraseological dictionaries), and also analyze
the results of studies devoted to this issue. Idiomatic
word formation in Russian is considered as a set of ways
of forming words, in which a familiar morphological
structure is formally observed, but the semantics of the
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research
and Management Studies
23
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijmrms
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Management Studies
resulting word is fully or partially fixed by the tradition
of use and is not reduced to a simple sum of the
meanings of its components. Simply put, with this
mechanism, a word arising from suffixes, prefixes or
combined roots acquires a stable meaning, which does
not follow directly from the addition of the meanings
of morphemes. In Russian linguistics, the term
"idiomatic" has long been discussed in connection with
phraseological units. Classical definitions, given back in
the middle of the 20th century, associate "idiomatic"
with the fact that individual components of a linguistic
unit lose their original semantic independence.
However, in phraseological units this usually concerns
combinations of words, while in idiomatic word
formation a similar process occurs within a single
lexeme. For example, in the word “crazy” we see a
suffix-
prefix structure (the prefix “su
-
”; the root “
-ma-
” from “um”, a change within the root), but the
meaning “crazy” (moreover, phraseologically colored)
is not directly derived from the simple combination
“um + a + shed”. Among the Russian scientists who
paid special attention to this area, we can name V.V.
Vinogradov, who emphasized the importance of the
“semantic alloy” in derivative words [4], as well as N.N.
Amosova, who studied phraseological units proper,
but periodically touched on idiomatic formations
within a word [1]. S.I. Ozhegov played a significant role
in formulating the principles of distinguishing between
idiomatic and motivated (transparent) words, since in
his dictionary one can find notes to some lexemes,
indicating a difficult motivational connection between
the generating and derivative words [11].
Some researchers (for example, E. A. Zemskaya and her
colleagues) point out that idiomaticity can accumulate
even within the framework of a regular word-
formation process, if a particular word is often used in
a figurative sense, turning from a “transparent”
derivation into a lexeme with a phraseologically fixed
meaning [4, p. 111]. Such studies are especially
relevant for the dynamics of modern language, where
new word-formation models are constantly appearing,
including those borrowed from social networks, youth
slang, and professional jargons. Pre-revolutionary
Russian lexicography, especially related scientific
research, mainly focused on describing “noticeable”
cases of morphological opacity of words, often
associating such phenomena with folk etymology or
what today would be called “school” mistakes and
rethinking. Thus, V.I. In his Explanatory Dictionary of
the Living Great Russian Language (the first edition was
published in parts in 1863
–
1866), Dal often included
ethnographic observations in articles, pointing out
oddities or special transfers of meaning [5]. For
example, in articles devoted to words such as
“svyatki,” “maslenitsa,” and “govenie,” he pointed out
that these were not just a combination of morphemes,
but entire complexes of cultural and linguistic tradition,
which essentially gave them partial phraseological
fixation.
In the Soviet period, especially in the 1930s
–
1950s,
when the Soviet school of lexicography was actively
forming (primarily at Moscow and Leningrad
Universities), more and more attention was paid to
questions of phraseology. Following this, interest in
borderline cases also grew: stable combinations within
one word, phraseologically reworked affixes, changed
roots, etc. It was already noted then that some prefixes
(for example, "iz-", "pre-", "s-", "za-") can acquire a non-
standard, purely idiomatic meaning. For example, in
such verbs as "izvesti" (meaning "to destroy"), "prebyt"
(meaning "to be"), "sbudit's'" (about dreams or
forecasts), etc., one can observe what, by modern
standards, can be called partial or complete
idiomatization. Subsequent studies in the second half of
the 20th century continued to refine the criteria that
make it possible to distinguish transparently motivated
word formation from idiomatic. In particular, the theory
of "semantic transformations" within a word was
actively developed. Thus, G. A. Zolotova, N. A.
Lukyanova, V. N. Telia and other scientists contributed
to the understanding of how figurative meaning is
formed at the morpheme level, and how this is reflected
or not reflected in dictionary entries [7; 9; 12].
Dictionaries as the basis of lexicographic practice not
only register new words, but also set standards for their
use, indicate features of lexical meaning, stylistic and
grammatical marks. For idiomatic word formation, it is
important how lexicographers describe: firstly, whether
they explain the internal form, whether they indicate
transparency or opacity of structural elements;
secondly, whether they indicate that the word has a
figurative or highly specialized meaning that does not
directly arise from the sum of morphemes; thirdly, for
example, the marks “colloquial,” “vernacular,” “fam.”
(familiar), etc., which may indirectly indicate that the
lexeme has an idiomatic character; and finally, they
show that the word is used not in the literal sense, but
in a rethought, “fused” one. Explanatory dictionaries by
V. I. Dahl, D. N. Ushakov, S. I. Ozhegov, as well as more
modern editions of the "Big Academic Dictionary of the
Russian Language" from the Institute of Russian
Language of the Russian Academy of Sciences,
phraseological dictionaries edited by A. I. Molotkov, V.
N. Telia and others actively include in their volumes
words that can be characterized as idiomatic in their
word-formation structure. However, there is usually no
uniformity in the notes. In some cases, it is indicated:
"Peren.", "Joke.", "Iron.", etc., which directly hints at the
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research
and Management Studies
24
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijmrms
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Management Studies
impossibility of a literal (direct) interpretation. In other
situations, lexicographers leave the user to guess that,
for example, a prefix or suffix does not have the usual,
"school-understandable" meaning, and the word is
perceived as a single whole without parsing.
For clarity, let us turn to specific examples recorded in
well-known
explanatory
and
phraseological
dictionaries. The word "zatverzhit" (to hold back), at
first glance, is a transparent formation from the prefix
"za-" and the verb "zatverzhit" (to hold back).
However, in some contexts the word acquires specific
figurative meanings, for example, "to hinder
development", "to prevent the opportunity to prove
oneself". In the dictionary of S. I. Ozhegov, several
meanings of the verb "zatverzhit" (to hold back), one
of which can well be considered as partially idiomatic:
"to hold back the development of the organism" (in a
medical or general biological context) [11, p. 444].
Here "za-" not only indicates an action to the side (as
in "zakryt", "zamknut"), but already carries a functional
load associated specifically with suspension or
inhibition.
Or consider the word "дожигать" (to
live to see),
which, of course, seems logical in modern language:
"до
-" indicates reaching a limit. But if you look into
historical dictionaries, you can find that in the 19th
century and earlier, the use of "дожигать" (to live to
see) with the addition "до чем" (to what) was not
always perceived as a simple combination of a prefix
and a root, but had the meaning "to endure", "to reach
some result" [13, p. 165]. This was slightly different
from the simple idea of completing an action. Thus, an
element of idiomaticity is included here: the speaker
could mean not only the achievement itself, but also
the figurative "to suffer through". In another example,
"засучать" (to get bored), on the one hand, it can be
transparent: "за
-" + "to get bored" (to start getting
bored or to get bored more deeply). However, in a
colloquial context, it can acquire additional emotional
and evaluative shades that go beyond the simple sum
of "напускать" (to start getting bored). Thus, in some
dialects, "to get bored" can also mean "to feel languor,
sadness, turning into melancholy", and this meaning is
not fully motivated by the prefix "za-". Whereas, the
word "bezobraznichat'". If we break down this word:
prefix "bez-", root "-obraz-", suffix "-nich-", ending "-
at'". Formally, it means "to behave without (some)
image", but the history of the word and its semantics
are closely connected with the idea of "inappropriate
behavior", hooliganism, violation of accepted norms.
Ushakov's dictionary gives the interpretation: "to act
inappropriately, to hooligan" [14, p. 1141]. As a result,
"bezobraznichat'" is understood as a single, long-stable
form, the meaning of which is largely idiomatic. And
finally, we can give an example of the word "obaldet'".
The root "-
балд
-" does not exist in the Russian language
as an independent one, and only in folklore or colloquial
expressions do we encounter "балда" (often meaning
"head", "stupid person"). The prefix "о
-" here gives the
verb a specific expressive-evaluative meaning: "to be
amazed", "to lose the ability to think" (sometimes in a
positive sense - "to be amazed"). In lexicographic
descriptions, this word is indicated as colloquial, often
used in contexts of strong emotions, and in essence it is
idiomatic, since the connection between "о
-" and
"балд
-" cannot be considered purely morphologically
transparent [8, p. 898]. There are many similar
examples: “crazy”, “to go berserk”, “to work oneself to
death” (meaning “to immerse oneself in work until
oblivion”), “to have fun” (in youth slang –
“to have a
g
ood time”), etc. Each of them, being recorded in
dictionaries,
demonstrates
certain
aspects
of
idiomaticity.
In order to understand where the "usual" word
formation ends and the "idiomatic" begins, linguists
must pay attention to the following criteria: a) the
impossibility of deriving the meaning from the sum of
morphemes, when the speaker, familiar with the basic
meanings of prefixes and suffixes, still cannot
understand the meaning of the new word without
referring to the living language or dictionary, then we
are most likely talking about idiomaticity; b) a change in
the form of the root or suffix, not explained by phonetic
laws. It should be noted here that often in idiomatic
formations the root is distorted, or contains elements
that have lost their o
riginal meaning, as in "обалделет";
c) fixed figurative meanings - the word is used mainly in
a figurative, metaphorical sense, and this meaning is
stable and manifests itself in many contexts (not only in
colloquial speech, but sometimes in literary texts). In a
number of dictionaries, we can see how different
authors place different emphasis when describing the
same word. For example, in the Explanatory Dictionary
of the Russian Language edited by D. N. Ushakov, there
may be a note “colloquial” [14], whil
e in the Dictionary
of the Russian Language by S. I. Ozhegov, there may be
an explanation such as “used usually in a figurative
sense” [11]. Sometimes, in new dictionaries (for
example, in the Large Explanatory Dictionary of the
Russian Language edited by Kuznetsov), instead of
directly indicating idiomaticity, they use the formulation
“used in the meaning of...” [8], hinting that a literal
interpretation does not work.
Such diversity in lexicographic practice indicates that
idiomaticity does not have a clear boundary: for some
authors, a word may still seem transparent (albeit with
some figurative connotation), while for others, it may
already be phraseologically “fused”. In the course of
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research
and Management Studies
25
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijmrms
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Management Studies
numerous studies conducted in the light of modern
science, several conclusions were made that help to
systematize knowledge about idiomatic word
formation. Thus, it was established that many words
gradually move to idiomatic status. At first, they may
have a relatively transparent internal form, but as
figurative use is consolidated, speakers lose the sense
of morphological motivation. At a certain point, the
word begins to be perceived as a single unit. According
to N. D. Arutyunova, V. N. Telia and other researchers,
metaphor is the key mechanism that leads to
idiomaticity. Through metaphor, figurative meanings
"grow" to the word, and then are consolidated in the
language as a fact of convention [2; 12]. It was revealed
that colloquial and vernacular speech is often richer in
idiomatic formations than the official business or
scientific style. However, when such units move from
the colloquial sphere to the literary-normative sphere,
a re-
evaluation or elimination of the “lowered”
connotation may occur, and the word becomes
established as quite standard. An example is the verb
“свихнутся” (meaning “to lose one’s mind, to get into
a difficult psychological situation”). Previously, this was
considered a vivid colloquialism, but now it is
sometimes encountered in journalism and popular
literature. According to a number of experts (E. A.
Zemskaya, A. I. Molotkov, O. N. Trubachev), the most
reliable way to establish that a word has acquired the
status of an idiomatic one is to find a stable fixation of
the transfer of meaning in several authoritative
dictionaries [6; 10; 13]. If it is mentioned everywhere
for decades and is accompanied by a note indicating
that the meaning cannot be derived from the
composition, then the language has successfully
integrated this formation.
In works on cognitive linguistics (for example, T. V.
Bulygina, A. D. Shmeleva) it is emphasized that
idiomaticity should be studied not only at the level of
word-formation models, but also within the
framework of conceptual schemes that a native
speaker uses to understand these words [3, p. 78].
Sometimes the speaker is not aware of the
morphological structure at all, perceiving the word as
an “atomic” unit. Consequently, research confirms that
idiomatic word formation is a dynamic and multi-level
process directly related to the cultural and speech
experience of native speakers, as well as to the
activities of lexicographers. Thus, idiomatic word
formation is one of the complex and at the same time
fascinating aspects of the Russian language. It
demonstrates how language, on the one hand, follows
certain patterns (models of prefixes, suffixes, roots),
and on the other hand, constantly rethinks and
redesigns its own resources, giving birth to new units
whose meaning cannot be reduced to a simple sum of
morphemes. The results of the research indicate the
gradual, multifaceted and contextual determinacy of
idiomatization. In addition, most of the new words that
arise as a result of mixing languages, slang vocabulary
and the official Russian language almost immediately
demonstrate signs of idiomaticity: roots and affixes are
“glued together” in such a way that without a cultural
background and tradition of use it is difficult to
understand them.
REFERENCES
Амосова Н. Н. Основы английской фразеологии. Л.:
Изд
-
во ЛГУ, 1963. 208 с.
Арутюнова Н. Д. Метфорические модели в языке как
интерпретационные схемы // Вопросы языкознания.
1978. № 4. С. 19–
33.
Булыгина Т.
В., Шмелёв
А.
Д.
Языковая
концептуализация мира (на материале русской
грамматики). М.: Школа «Языки русской культуры»,
1997. 224 с.
Виноградов В. В. Основные типы фразеологических
единиц в русском языке // Вопросы языкознания.
1947. № 1. С. 15–
32.
Даль В. И. Толковый словарь живого великорусского
языка: В 4 т. М.: Гос. изд
-
во иностранных и
национальных словарей, 1955. Т. 1–4. 3876 с.
Земская Е. А. Словообразование как деятельность.
М.: Наука, 1992. 238 с.
Золотова Г. А. Коммуникативные аспекты русского
синтаксиса. М.: Наука, 1982. 264 с.
Кузнецов С. А. Большой толковый словарь русского
языка. СПб.: Норинт, 1998. 1536 с.
Лукьянова Н. А. Фразеологические процессы в
современном русском языке. М.: Наука, 1985. 192 с.
Молотков А. И. Фразеологический словарь русского
языка. М.: Русский язык, 1986. 1008 с.
Ожегов С. И., Шведова Н. Ю. Толковый словарь
русского языка. –
4-
е изд., испр. и доп. М.: Русский
язык, 1999. 944 с.
Телия В. Н. Русская фразеология: семантический,
прагматический
и
лингвокультурологический
аспекты. М.: Языки русской культуры, 1996. 288 с.
Трубачёв О. Н. Историко
-
этимологический словарь
русского языка. М.: Наука, 1974. 384
с.
Ушаков Д. Н. Толковый словарь русского языка: В 4 т.
М.: Гос. изд
-
во иностранных и национальных
словарей, 1935–1940. 4000 с. (в сумме по четырем
томам).
