TARONYMICINTERACTIONOFPHRASEOLOGICALUNITS

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23 American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 12,2025 Journal: https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai page 1697 TARONYMIC INTERACTION OF PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS Feruza Kamolovna Kholturaeva Lecturer, Department of Russian Language and Literature Private Educational Institution “University of Economics and Pedagogy”, Karshi, Uzbekistan [email protected] Abstract. The article examines the features of the functioning of taronymy within the phraseological system of the language. The mechanisms of involuntary mixing of set expressions are analyzed, manifesting themselves in the substitution of some phraseological units by others as well as in their contamination. It is shown that the interaction of phraseological units under conditions of taronymic “collision” leads to the emergence of hybrid constructions. Such constructions are found both in the speech of ordinary language users and in the utterances of public figures, as well as even in those of professional authors. It is concluded that the spheres of functioning of such formations are expanding and that they are of significant importance for the analysis of contemporary speech. Keywords: taronymy, phraseological units, collocations, contamination, mixing, speech errors. Аннотация. В статье рассматриваются особенности функционирования таронимии во фразеологическом составе языка. Анализируются механизмы непроизвольного смешения устойчивых выражений, проявляющиеся в формах подмены одних фразеологических единиц другими и в их контаминации. Показано, что взаимодействие фразеологизмов в условиях таронимического «столкновения» приводит к возникновению гибридных конструкций, которые обнаруживаются как в речи обычных носителей языка, так и в высказываниях публичных персон и даже профессиональных авторов. Делается вывод о расширении сфер функционирования подобных образований и их значимости для анализа современной речи. Ключевые слова: таронимия, фразеологические единицы, коллокации, контаминация, смешение, речевые ошибки. Introduction Taronymy is traditionally understood as a phenomenon associated with the unconscious mixing of linguistically similar units that differ in meaning. However, in the case of phraseological expressions, this process exhibits additional regularities. The phraseological system of a language—which includes both idiomatic expressions and stable collocational combinations— proves particularly susceptible to the mechanism of linguistic blending. This is due both to the structural integrity of phraseological units and to their internal semantic segmentation, which creates conditions for the mutual overlapping of elements. 1. Variants of Taronymic Interaction of Phraseological Units In general, two main scenarios of taronymic processes can be distinguished with regard to phraseology. 1.1. Substitution of One Phraseological Unit by Another INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23 American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 12,2025 Journal: https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai page 1698 The first type of interaction fully replicates the mechanism typical of individual words: an expression that is partially similar in sound or structure to the required one—but does not match it in meaning—is used in speech. In such cases, the interacting phraseological units often function as phraseological synonyms; however, their substitution leads to a violation of the precision of expression. Examples of this type are abundant: ne poteryat’ iz vidu → instead of the normative ne upustit’ iz vidu; zaglyadyvaya vperyod → instead of zabegaya vperyod. Both substitutions create an illusion of correctness because the expressions share common formal elements, while their semantic functions differ. 1.2. Contamination of Phraseological Units The second scenario is considerably more complex: instead of replacing one phraseological unit with another, there is an improper combination of elements from two different expressions, resulting in a new, unsystematic, and incorrect construction. Such “crossing” of stable combinations leads to the emergence of so-called phraseological hybrids or “centaurs.” Contamination, as a mechanism for blending different linguistic units, is one of the most dynamically developing processes in contemporary Russian. It encompasses word formation, semantic convergence, metaphorization, and especially phraseology. As Yu. A. Bel’chikov notes, “contamination is usually observed in the domain of colloquial speech” [Bel’chikov 1990: 238]. However, contemporary studies show a much wider distribution of this phenomenon. Supporting the researcher’s view, it should be emphasized that the “sphere of occurrence” of contaminated constructions extends far beyond everyday spoken language. Contaminated phraseological units function actively in oral public speech, television and radio discourse, as well as in oral academic speech (see [Lapteva 1997]). A substantial number of examples are found in written Internet communication: forums, guestbooks, comments, blogs, LiveJournal, and more. A classical example of this phenomenon is the expression igrat’ znachenie, which combines elements of the phraseological units imet’ znachenie and igrat’ rol’. An even clearer example is volosy stynut v dybom, representing the mechanical combination of volosy vstaut dybom and krov’ stynet v zhilakh. 2. Sources and Examples of Contamination Contamination is defined as the process of merging the structural or semantic components of two (or more) linguistic units to form a new hybrid unit (Alefirenko 2009; Levin 2010). In phraseology, this is reflected in the mixing of elements of well-known phraseological units, for example: bit’sya kak ryba iz setey (cf.: bit’sya kak ryba ob led + vyrvyvat’sya iz setey); delo v shlyape na nosu (cf.: delo v shlyape + eto uzhe na nosu). The blending may occur both involuntarily (error, slip of the tongue) and intentionally (wordplay, stylistic device). INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23 American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 12,2025 Journal: https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai page 1699 Such constructions appear not only in the spontaneous speech of ordinary speakers but also among professional authors. For example, in the work of A. Fadeev, the expression budet platit’ hot’ po grob doski combines elements of different phraseological units regarding durability and obligation. Examples from public speech are equally illustrative: ostavil neizgladimyy vklad (from vnesti vklad, ostavit’ sled, proizvesti neizgladimoe vpechatlenie); model’ v chistom vide etogo slova (v chistom vide and v pryamom smysle slova contamination); yazyk ne podnimetsya osudit’ (yazyk ne povorachivaetsya and ruka ne podnimaetsya); po pervomu manoveniyu dushi (from po pervomu poryvu and po manoveniyu dushi). These examples clearly demonstrate that the mechanism of contamination is systematic and that its outcome is a consistently reproducible type of speech error. 3. Contamination from a Taronymic Perspective Taronymy describes the mechanisms of interference between phraseological units similar in structure, sound, or semantic organization. In this context, contamination is considered: a consequence of the semantic proximity of phraseological units, which activates competing models in the linguistic consciousness; a result of cognitive overload during speech production; a manifestation of the flexibility and variability of the phraseological system of the language. Thus, contamination is not only a stylistic phenomenon but also a linguo-cognitive process reflecting the structure of a speaker’s mental lexicon (Aitchison 2003; Kubryakova 2012; Evans 2015). 4. Linguo-Cognitive Mechanisms of Contamination Researchers (Aitchison 2003; Levelt 1989; Kubryakova 2012) identify the following mechanisms: proximity of activation fields (lexical nodes in memory); semantic overlap of phraseological units; phonetic-graphic similarity of components; usage linkage (frequently used expressions interfere with each other). Contamination of phraseological units can also be considered a form of “lexical malfunction” arising from the simultaneous activation of two competing units. Conclusion Contamination of phraseological units is a significant and regular process in contemporary Russian. It manifests across different types of communication—from everyday oral speech to public discourse and Internet communication. The blending of phraseological units reflects INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23 American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 12,2025 Journal: https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai page 1700 cognitive mechanisms of language functioning and is closely linked with taronymy as the interaction of structurally similar units. Taronymic interaction of phraseological units is a complex, multi-stage process based on the involuntary mixing of elements of stable combinations. Substitution of phraseological units and their contamination represent two models of phraseological norm violation, differing in mechanisms and outcomes. Studying contamination allows a deeper understanding of speech production processes, the dynamics of the phraseological system, and the influence of the digital environment on the linguistic consciousness of contemporary speakers. References: 1. Bel’chikov Yu. A. Russkaya razgovornaya rech’. Moscow, 1990. p. 238. 2. Lapteva I. V. O nauchnoy rechi i yeye osobennostyakh. Moscow, 1997. 3. Aitchison J. Words in the Mind: An Introduction to the Mental Lexicon. Oxford: Blackwell, 2003. 4. Alefirenko N. F. Frazeologiya i kul’tura. Moscow: Flinta, 2009. 5. Levin Yu. I. Yazykovye mekhanizmy smesheniya: kontaminatsiya i yeye tipologiya. St. Petersburg, 2010. 6. Kubryakova E. S. Yazyk i znanie: kognitivnye issledovaniya. Moscow, 2012. 7. Evans V. The Language Myth. Cambridge University Press, 2015. 8. Levelt W. Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1989.