MODERN EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT
Выпуск журнала №-25
Часть–6_ Май –2025
3
DIFFERENT CLASSIFICATIONS OF PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS
Khaydarova Nigora
Scientific supervisor: Andijan state institute of foreign languages
Tursunboeva Haducha
Student of the group-304
Student, Department of Theory and Practice of the Russian Language
Andijan state institute of foreign languages
Abstract: This article explores various approaches to the classification of
phraseological units, which are an essential component of any language. The study
presents the most influential classification systems developed by Vinogradov, Arnold,
Smirnitsky, and Koonin, highlighting their criteria such as semantic cohesion,
structural composition, and functional usage. Each system reflects a unique linguistic
perspective, contributing to a deeper understanding of idiomatic expressions and their
role in language and communication. The paper emphasizes the importance of
phraseological classifications for linguistic research, translation studies, and
language teaching.
Keywords: phraseological units, idioms, classification, Vinogradov, Arnold,
Smirnitsky, Koonin, semantics, phraseology, fixed expressions, linguistic analysis
Introduction
Phraseological units, also known as idioms or set expressions, represent a
significant part of any language’s lexical system. They reflect cultural identity,
collective experience, and historical background. Due to their semantic complexity and
structural stability, phraseological units have been widely studied and classified by
linguists. This article aims to explore different classifications of phraseological units
suggested by prominent scholars in the field of phraseology.
1. Classification by Vinogradov
MODERN EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT
Выпуск журнала №-25
Часть–6_ Май –2025
4
V.V. Vinogradov, a prominent Russian linguist, proposed one of the most
widely accepted classifications. He divided phraseological units into three main types
based on the degree of semantic cohesion:
Phraseological fusions – fixed expressions where the meaning of the whole unit
is not deducible from the meanings of its parts (e.g., to kick the bucket = to die).
Phraseological unities – expressions where the meaning of the whole can be
guessed from the meanings of the parts, although it still differs from a literal
interpretation (e.g., to break the ice = to initiate communication).
Phraseological collocations – semi-fixed expressions where words are used
together frequently, but retain their individual meanings to some extent (e.g., make a
decision, pay attention).
2. Classification by Arnold
I.V. Arnold proposed a classification based on the structural-semantic
principle. She categorized phraseological units into:
Idioms – expressions with a transferred meaning (e.g., spill the beans).
Collocations – expressions that follow lexical restrictions (e.g., commit a
crime).
Clichés – fixed expressions often used in standard contexts (e.g., best wishes).
3. Classification by Smirnitsky
A.I. Smirnitsky offered a functional approach. He divided phraseological units
into:
One-summit units – consisting of one meaningful word and one or more
auxiliary words (e.g., to be late).
Two-summit units – consisting of two meaningful components (e.g., to lose
hope, to make friends).
4. Classification by Koonin
A.V. Koonin, another key figure in Russian phraseology, introduced a
synchronic approach. He classified phraseological units into:
Nominative – expressing a concept (e.g., a dark horse).
MODERN EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT
Выпуск журнала №-25
Часть–6_ Май –2025
5
Nominative-communicative – combining naming and communicative
functions (e.g., the coast is clear).
Communicative – full sentences expressing a complete thought (e.g., actions
speak louder than words).
Conclusion
The study of phraseological units has led to a variety of classification systems,
each highlighting different aspects: semantic, structural, functional, or pragmatic.
Understanding these classifications is essential not only for linguistic analysis but also
for effective language teaching, translation, and cross-cultural communication. As
phraseology continues to evolve, further research will enrich our understanding of this
complex and fascinating linguistic phenomenon.
REFERENCES
1. Arnold, I.V. The English Word. Moscow: Vysshaya Shkola, 1986.
2. Koonin, A.V. English Phraseology: A Course of Lectures. Moscow: Vysshaya
Shkola, 1996.
3. Vinogradov, V.V. The Main Types of Phraseological Units in Russian. Moscow:
Nauka, 1947.
4. Smirnitsky, A.I. Lexicology of the English Language. Moscow: Vysshaya Shkola,
1956.
5. Cowie, A.P., Mackin, R., & McCaig, I.R. Oxford Dictionary of Current Idiomatic
English. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.
6. Fernando, C. Idioms and Idiomaticity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.
7. Gläser, R. "The Stylistic Potential of Phraseological Units in the Light of Genre
Analysis." Phraseology: Theory, Analysis, and Applications, edited by C. Cowie,
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998, pp. 125–143.
