INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 02,2025
Journal:
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 64
PHRASEOLOGICAL TERMS IN THE ENGLISH ECONOMIC DISCOURSE
Mansurova Nodira Anvaronva
Tashkent University of economics, PhD
Email:
ORCID: 0000-0002-4636-10777
Abstract:
This study focuses on the phraseological expressions found in English texts related to
economics. It examines the lexical-semantic, cognitive, pragmatic, and linguistic-cultural
characteristics of these phraseological units. The research identifies 50 phraseological
expressions sourced from linguistic studies, media content, and economic literature. These were
categorized into four semantic fields: “financial interactions,” “transactions,” “corporate
practices,” and “economic production relations.” The key term identified was “money,” which
carries a conceptual significance reflected in both positive and negative connotations.
Phraseological units represent abstract concepts that gain meaning through their specific contexts.
This study also discusses the inclusion of toponyms, anthroponyms, and zoonyms within these
expressions, along with the occurrence of unique lexemes. Other topics explored include the
primary sources of economic phraseological units, such as mythology, actual events, literary
characters, religious influences, and the cultural, psychological, ethnic, and socio-political
elements found within the English economic domain.
Key words:
English language, phraseology, phraseological unit, professional communication,
economic discourse, idioms
Introduction
Figurative language gradually integrates into the realm of business communication,
making its presence felt through economic journalism, news articles, interviews, and the analysis
provided by top economic authorities, as seen in television broadcasts and economics literature
(Kazakova, 2012). The overt incorporation of figurative language has historically been
characteristic of journalistic discourse. However, in economic discussions, the use of expressive
language was limited until economic journalism adopted a more modern and rule-defying
approach (Handford – Koester, 2010; Gleicher, 2011). We believe that the infusion of idioms
and metaphors into various sectors of professional economic communication results from the
current relaxation in English business discourse. Idiomatic expressions, derived from metaphors,
are employed not just to depict present economic realities (O'Halloran, 1999) but also to convey
personal expression within professional contexts (Kunin, 2005; Di Giovanni, 2008; Erll – Rigney,
2006).
Fixed phrases serve as an intrinsic way of understanding the world. Metaphorical
reinterpretation or metaphorization is a key method for developing phraseological vocabulary,
not to mention the emergence of numerous new abstract ideas arising from metaphoration
(Hadian – Arefi, 2016; Sasina, 2006; Sommer, 2004).
Taking this into account, examining the phraseological units present in English economic
communication not only helps in identifying these lexemes but also facilitates the exploration of
unique aspects of the English mindset, the specific characteristics of English socioeconomic and
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 02,2025
Journal:
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 65
socio-political dynamics, and the distinct features of English lifestyle (Skandera, 2007). From the
viewpoint of scholars, economic discourse represents a highly broad phenomenon. Some
researchers do not differentiate it from business or professional discourse (Boylan – Foley, 2005;
Samuels, 2013). Thus, the functional role, components, and linguistic limits of economic
discourse remain insufficiently explored. Economic discourse arose via communication within
the economic sector influenced by various factors: extralinguistic, pragmatic, sociocultural, and
so forth. Like other discourse forms, economic discourse is shaped not only by the situational
context and communicative/pragmatic intentions of the participants but also by extralinguistic
influences (socio-psychological and cultural-historical) (Shchyokina, 2001).
In terms of phraseological characteristics, economic discourse boasts several defining
traits, including logical clarity, precision, argumentative strength, and informativeness (Anderson,
2006; Shybika, 2003). These traits are characteristic of the terminological framework in any
language.
Phraseological units are comfortably situated within English economic discourse, as this form of
communication exhibits as much adaptability as any other discourse type (Kolotnina, 2001;
Bondi, 2010).
Overall, the English phraseological meaning system is a complex, intricately woven
substructure that has developed over centuries alongside human society and continues to evolve
(Apalat, 1999). Consequently, this system contains numerous elements that can be identified in
economic literature, offering a reservoir of significant ethnocultural insights (Gumovskaya, 2012;
Adolphs – Carter, 2007).
For this reason, it makes sense to examine phraseological meanings as distinctive culture-bound
linguistic units that represent the shared perspective of a nation based on various traits,
connections, associations, and more (Brody, 2003; Dirven, 2004; Taylor, 2002). Indeed, every
language encompasses concepts that articulate stereotypical values. These concepts can manifest
within the phraseological unit system. At this juncture, phraseological units can serve as a
pertinent subject for studies that meld linguistics and culture.
On the other hand, a significant characteristic of phraseological units is their stereotypical
nature. This is also relevant to the axiological aspects associated with phraseological meanings
(Sinelnikov, et al., 2015).
While frequently utilized in business environments, fixed phrases and collocations with
terminological significance have been largely overlooked in specialized research for a long
period. They were not regarded as linguistic expressions within the national framework.
Nevertheless, there has been substantial advancement in this field recently. This shift in attention
enables a broader exploration of the phraseological categories across various languages for
analysis (Sasina, 2006; Safina, 2002; Nerubenko, 2013).
In the realm of English economic discourse, a variety of phraseological units are
employed. However, their semantic and structural properties, classification, and intended usage
have not been thoroughly investigated. Thus, a new area of focus is to examine the English
phraseological domain within economic terminology, considering functional, lexical-semantic,
and structural semantic aspects (Kolotnina, 2001).
This study aims to evaluate the form and significance of the phraseological units that are
prevalent in English economic writings. The research encompasses an examination of lexical-
semantic, cognitive, pragmatic, and cultural-linguistic characteristics of established
terminological phrases. The objectives of the research include: - investigating the internal and
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 02,2025
Journal:
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 66
external influences that have defined and influenced English phraseological units; - identifying
the dominant lexemes based on the lexical-semantic relationships among the phraseological units
in economic discourse; - describing the context of phraseological units within economic
communication; - analyzing phraseological units and identifying the ethnic, psychological,
socio-political, and cultural constants within the English economic domain.
Research
This investigation focused on the idiomatic expressions utilized within the economic language of
English. The subject of this study, idiomatic expressions, was sourced from English economic
writings from the past five years, including documents, online content, journals, and newspapers
such as "The Economist," as well as works of fiction. The characterization of English idiomatic
expressions was further enhanced by references from lexicographic materials, which
encompassed phraseological, terminological, and etymological dictionaries, in addition to
dictionaries featuring specialized English vocabulary. This latter group includes resources like
the English-Russian Economic Dictionary, the Longman Dictionary, and a dictionary from
Slovar-vocab.com.
This study identifies 50 idiomatic terms derived from academic articles in linguistics,
media sources, and literature related to business and economics. These terms were categorized
into four phraseological and semantic domains: "monetary relations," "purchasing and sales,"
"business and management," and "economic and production relations."
The investigation employed various methods of linguistic analysis:
componential analysis. This method describes the semanteme, helps to understand the
meaning of the phraseological unit denoting an ethnic group, and investigates the lexical-
semantic structure of phraseological macro-groups of words;
- linguistic-cultural and ethnolinguistic analysis. This method allows determining the
cultural and axiological side of the phraseological content of terminological units;
- structural-semantic modelling. This method determines the regularities and concrete
mechanisms of the phraseological unit formation in the English language;
- functional analysis. This method is used to determine the relevant meaning of fixed
terminological units in the context of economic communication;
- continuous sampling. This method is aimed at obtaining the factual phraseological
material that prevails in the economic discourse;
- interpretation. This method is used to understand the meaning of phraseological units
and how they interrelate with each other in the context of a discourse.
Outcomes
The application of a phraseological unit within an economic document is influenced by
both external and internal elements. On one side, the evolution of language has resulted in the
formation of novel phraseological pairings in the realm of economics, such as:
to play economics – to resort to dishonest methods in economic activity; to play a
dishonest economic game;
Conversely, the field of economics frequently incorporates phraseological units that have
their roots in historical events, cultural customs, and similar sources. Certain phraseological units
are not entirely established, meaning that their key terms can vary. This arrangement of words
enables the modification of one part without compromising the overall meaning, as illustrated by:
to enter into a contract – to enter into an agreement.
Phraseological units act as finished language units with a stable structure and meaning,
for example, to catch the wind means to catch a wave, be successful at a certain time. Those
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 02,2025
Journal:
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 67
phraseological units that are used in economic discourse refer to non-abstract things and are
close to the people's everyday life. This, in turn, explains
the presence of a considerable number
of figurative nominations among the phraseological units in the terminological field. These
phraseological units include metaphoric meanings that denote economic realities, for example,
cats and dogs (speculative stocks) or lame duck (a company or businessperson facing financial
difficulties). Economic texts contain phraseological units that define money as an economic unit:
purse full of money, the root of all evil (money), money burns a hole in my pocket, nor for love
or money, to be stony-broke – to have no money, fry the fat out of (fry out fat) – obtain money
by pressure or extortion. The term ‘money’ in phraseological collocations is frequently used in
the context of illegal economic actions, for example: “trade-based money laundering” - the
misuse of commerce to get money across borders. Sometimes the aim is to evade taxes, duties or
capital controls; often it is to get dirty money into the banking system.
The ‘money laundering’ means the process of washing money obtained from criminal
activity. Phraseological units that denote money obtained from criminal activity are the
following:
- black money - But big rich countries still like to portray themselves as leaders in the
fight against black money (Dirty money. Rich smell, The Economist);
- dodgy money – Big rich countries often accuse small offshore financial centres, such as
Jersey and the Cayman Islands, of acting as willing conduits for dodgy money (Dirty money.
Rich smell, The Economist); - bloody money - Blood money from terrorism in the North
Caucasus to the boardrooms of Moscow, corruption is Russia's biggest problem (Corruption in
Russia. Blood money, The Economist).
The expression refers to the “bouncing off a dead cat,” which describes a quick increase
in the price of a financial asset following a time of decrease. This usually happens when losses
are reduced; it is temporary and does not suggest a reversal in the ongoing trend of falling stock
prices.
The expression is derived from the idea that even a dead cat will bounce if it falls from a
great height; - to smell a rat (someone who has been disloyal to you or deceived you): On the
face of it, this move seems sensible. But critics smell a rat. They point out that even the biggest
democracies, including America, have not always felt a need to increase the numbers of
representatives in line with the population (What’s Malay for gerrymandering? The Economist).
Discussion
The exploration of phraseological terms within economic discourse was analyzed through
examples from the German language. In German, the term for “money” is interpreted through
analogical or metaphorical shifts in language (Shybika, 2003; Fedyanina, 2005). Additionally,
the word “money” is often viewed in light of associated moral values (Kamyshanchenko, 2012;
Nerubenko, 2013). The overall communicative and pragmatic impact of widely recognized
economic literature relies on how thoroughly phraseological terminology is utilized
(Patseyevskaya, 2010). The findings can also be associated with Kunin's concept of phraseology
(Kunin, 2005). His viewpoint on phraseological identification posits that establishing a
phraseological meaning as a linguistic category is complex, given the varying interpretations of
the term, along with its component structure and breadth.
In this paper, phraseological units are regarded as an expression of cognitive processing,
highlighting a resemblance between two distinct linguistic situations; one serves as the
denotatum, whereas the other acts as a reference point. This is evidenced by the notion that a
phraseological unit denotes the existence of a stable, generalized idea that it represents (Potebnya,
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 02,2025
Journal:
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 68
2011). This implies that the potential of a phraseological unit is also geared towards challenging
ineffective stereotypes. Researchers adopt various perspectives on the issues, aims, and
functional foundations of phraseological units (Fedulenkova, 2015; Hunston – Francis, 2000;
Wierzbicka, 2009; Leroyer, 2013; Cheng, 2007; Taylor, 2002). Confusion frequently arises
concerning either specific terms or broader groups of terminology. There remains no unified
understanding of the conceptual framework of phraseological terminology within any particular
domain, including economics. Investigators are tasked with developing and enhancing the
qualitative aspects of the terminological meta-language.
Our study identified certain groups of phraseological units in the field of economics, which will
not only contribute to the lexicon of contemporary English but also enhance the research
potential within English economic discourse. The significance of this topic underscores the need
for further investigations into phraseology and its relationships with terminology and cognitive
studies.
Conclusions
The phraseological aspect of any language offers abundant material for linguistic
investigation, as it not only captures an individual's perception of the surrounding world but also
serves to convey the essential values and stereotypes inherent in national culture. Consequently,
phraseological terminology embodies the “axiological world image.” Examining its ties to ethnic
experiences and the intrinsic representation of culture, traditions, customs, and the environment
helps identify how ancient archetypal human concepts are embedded within language (Teliya,
1996).
Phraseological and terminological units in language convey two forms of information:
one that humanity has collectively acquired, and another that is specific to particular nations. We
argue that the knowledge found in the analyzed terminological phraseological units represents
the language and culture as semiotic elements that form a cohesive world image. Users of the
language interpret phraseological units as historical meanings that are context-bound. However,
they continue to exist as a societal phenomenon utilized for social functions.
The lexical-semantic significance of terminological phraseological units mirrors conceptual
micro-fields manifested in areas like individuality, space and time, fauna, objects and their
conditions, biology, medicine, and evaluative categories, among others.
In economic discourse, phraseological terminology pertains to currency types,
participants involved in market and stock exchange activities, economic relations among entities,
and evaluative economic indicators (for instance, a success rate), etc. The meanings of
phraseological units found in economic texts arise from diverse sources such as mythology,
scripture, historical contexts, and the unique cultural characteristics, habits, and traditions of a
given ethnic group. The primary aim of phraseological units in economic literature is to
influence reader perception. This is feasible due to the emotional and expressive nature of these
units.
The economic phraseological units encompass various lexical-semantic micro-fields, including
banking and finance, industry and production, and economic policy. Research has shown that the
categorization of these semantic micro-groups is somewhat arbitrary, as a single phraseological
unit with a specific terminological meaning may fit into multiple fields.
In economic discourse, the overarching notion of “money” carries an expressive
conceptual meaning linked to both positive and negative attributes. The lexical-semantic field
associated with negative implications features phrases like “black money,” “dodgy money,” and
“blood money.” Positive associations are typically represented by terms such as “white money”
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 02,2025
Journal:
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 69
and “honest money.” The concept of “electronic money” is particularly prevalent in
contemporary discussions.
Toponyms, anthroponyms, and zoonyms frequently appear within English economic
phraseological units. These units represent abstract ideas that materialize in particular contexts.
The primary sources for economic phraseological units include mythology, historical
occurrences, characters, literary works, and religious texts, including narratives from the Bible.
The examination of these phraseological units reveals the psychological, socio-political, and
cultural characteristics specific to the English economic context.
Bibliographic References:
1. Adolphs, S. − Carter, R. 2007. Beyond the word: new challenges in analyzing corpora of
spoken English. In: European journal of English studies, vol. 11, n. 2, pp. 133-146.
2. Anderson, W.J. 2006. The Phraseology of Administrative French: A Corpus-Based Study. In:
Language and Computers, 57 p.
3. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
4. Apalat, G.P. 1999. English Legal Terminology in Economic Texts. Foreign Philology. In:
Ukrainian Scientific Collection, vol. 111,pp. 208-212.
5. Bondi, M. 2010. Arguing in economics and business discourse: Phraseological tools in
research articles. In: Bulletin Suisse de Linguistique Appliquée, vol. 2, pp. 219 234.
6. Boylan, T. − FOLEY, T. 2005. Political Economy and Colonial Ireland: The Propagation and
Ideological Functions of Economic Discourse in the Nineteenth Century. New York:
Routledge.
7. BrodY, J. 2003. A linguistic anthropological perspective on language and culture in the
second language. In: Culture as the Core: Perspectives on Culture in Second Language
Learning, pp. 37-52. North Carolina: IAP.
8. Cheng, W. 2007. Concgramming: A corpus-driven approach to learning the phraseology of
discipline-specific texts. In:
9. Corell: Computer Resources for Language Learning, vol. 1, pp. 22-35. XLinguae, Volume 12
Issue 1, January 2019, ISSN 1337-8384, eISSN 2453-711X 235
10. Hadian, a.S. − Arefi, M. 2016. Metaphor, analogy, and the discourse of originality: five
Iranian case studies. In: Social Semiotics, vol. 26, n. 5, pp. 541-562.
11. Handford, M. − Koester, A. 2010. It’s not rocket science”: metaphors and idioms in
conflictual business meetings. In: Text & Talk-An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language
Discourse & Communication Studies, vol. 30, n. 1, pp. 27-51.
12. Hunston, S. − Francis, G. 2000. Pattern grammar: A corpus-driven approach to the lexical
grammar of English, 4. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
13. Kamyshanchenko, Y.A. 2012. Associative images in phraseological units that represent the
concept of “Money” in the German and English language. Furs, L.A.(ed.). In: Cognitive
Linguistic Studies: International Congress on Cognitive Linguistics Tambov, vol. 11 pp. 446-
448.
14. Kazakova, E.P. 2012. Ways to enhance the transparency of the internal form of the
phraseology of the English business discourse, 1.
15. Kolotnina, E.V. 2001. Metaphoric modelling of reality in Russian and English economic
discourse. Yekaterinburg.
16. Kozy, J. 2013. Economics and Armchair Psychology. Global Research.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 02,2025
Journal:
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 70
17. O'halloran, K. L. 1999. Interdependence, interaction and metaphor in multisemiotic texts. In:
Social Semiotics, vol. 9, n. 3, pp. 317-354.
18. Patseyevskaya, Y. 2010. Phraseological terms as markers of coherence in the Polish
scientific discourse. In: Kyiv Polish Studies: Collection of Research Papes, vol. 23 pp. 469–
476.
