MAIN FEATURES OF PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS: STABILITY, IDIOMATIC MEANING, REPRODUCIBILITY, AND EXPRESSIVENESS. VINOGRADOV'S CLASSIFICATION

INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC AND PRACTICAL CONFERENCE “INTEGRATION OF MODERN LINGUISTICS WITH SCIENCE, EDUCATION, AND PRACTICE IN THE PROCESS OF GLOBALIZATION: NEW APPROACHES, OPPORTUNITIES, AND CHALLENGES”, DECEMBER 4, 2025 293 MAIN FEATURES OF PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS: STABILITY, IDIOMATIC MEANING, REPRODUCIBILITY, AND EXPRESSIVENESS. VINOGRADOV’S CLASSIFICATION Sattorova Malikakhon Ilhomjonovna, Hayitmurodova Durdona Hayitmurod qizi, Abduazizova Nozima Sherzod qizi, Muxsinova Rohat Mo'min qizi, Utayeva Malika Akmalovna Navoi State University https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17810243 Abstract. This article highlights fixed expressions including idioms, collocations, and set phrases and their main features in the context of linguistics. Also, this paper points out Vinogradov’s classification and its relevance with examples. Keywords: stability, idioms, fusion, expressiveness, collocations, idiomatic meaning, reproducibility. Annotatsiya: Mazkur maqolada tilshunoslik nuqtayi nazaridan idiomalar, kollokatsiyalar singari turg‘un iboralar hamda ularning asosiy xususiyatlari yoritiladi. Shuningdek, ushbu maqolada Vinogradov tasnifi va uning ahamiyati misollar asosida ko‘rsatib beriladi. Kalit so‘zlar: barqarorlik, idiomalar, uyg‘unlik, ifoda, kollokatsiyalar, idiomatik ma’no, qayta qo‘llanish imkoniyati. INTRODUCTION In English linguistics, there is one category called phraseological units (PUs) — variously termed set expressions, idioms, or fixed expressions — occupy a central place in studies of lexis and phraseology because they combine lexical stability with semantic nuance. While the study of phraseological units spans several theoretical traditions and languages, certain core properties recur in the literature: stability (fixedness), idiomatic meaning (semantic noncompositionality), reproducibility (psycholinguistic storage and reuse), and expressiveness (stylistic and pragmatic colouring). This article explicates these features and situates them in the framework of V.V. Vinogradov’s classical classification of phraseological types, showing how his typology continues to illuminate contemporary accounts of idiomatic language. Firstly, stability is the most immediately observable property of many PUs. Unlike free combinations, phraseological units resist arbitrary internal change: word order, morphological form, and lexical constituents are often fixed or only partially variable (e.g., passive/active transformations, limited inflectional change etc.). This fixedness is not absolute — some phrases allow limited substitution or inflection — but the relative immutability of form distinguishes PUs from creative, compositional phrases (Benson, Benson, & Ilson, 1986). Stability has both synchronic and diachronic dimensions. Synchronic stability explains why native speakers reproduce idioms with great fidelity; diachronic stability reflects the historical fossilization of certain collocations. From a pedagogical viewpoint, stability underpins the argument for teaching idioms as lexical chunks rather than derived compositions (Moon, 1998). Closely linked to stability is idiomatic meaning — the property that the semantic value of the whole phrase is not recoverable from the meanings of its parts. Idiomaticity manifests on a continuum: some expressions are fully opaque (their meaning cannot be deduced), while others INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC AND PRACTICAL CONFERENCE “INTEGRATION OF MODERN LINGUISTICS WITH SCIENCE, EDUCATION, AND PRACTICE IN THE PROCESS OF GLOBALIZATION: NEW APPROACHES, OPPORTUNITIES, AND CHALLENGES”, DECEMBER 4, 2025 294 are partially motivated by metaphor or metonymy (Fernando, 1996). For instance, kick the bucket (to die) exhibits near-complete semantic opacity, whereas break the ice (to initiate friendly interaction) retains some image-based motivation. The existence of this continuum has theoretical implications: strictly compositional semantic models cannot adequately account for fully idiomatic PUs, which require lexicalized entries in mental lexicons or special treatment in semantic theory (Benson et al., 1986). Cognitive approaches attempt to reconcile idiomaticity with conceptual metaphor and image-schemas for partially motivated idioms, but fully fused idioms remain lexical primitives in many models. Reproducibility refers to the recourse of speakers to memorize and retrieve PUs as readymade units. Psycholinguistic and corpus evidence indicate that frequent multiword sequences become entrenched as single lexical items or “chunks” in the mental lexicon (Moon, 1998). This entrenchment facilitates rapid production and comprehension: speakers access phraseological units holistically rather than assembling them word-by-word. Reproducibility interacts with frequency and register: highly frequent idioms are more resilient and widely understood, while register-specific collocations may be reproduced only within particular speech communities. From the second-language acquisition perspective, the chunking of PUs reduces processing load and increases fluency, motivating pedagogical approaches that emphasize memorization and contextualized practice (Fernando, 1996). Phraseological units are potent vehicles of stylistic nuance: they add humour, irony, emphasis, regional color, or social identity to utterances. Expressiveness is not merely ornamental; it modulates illocutionary force and shades of meaning. For example, idioms often encode attitude (e.g., contempt, affection) or stance and can index social identity (e.g., dialectal or sociolectal idioms). The expressive potential of PUs also explains their prevalence in literary and rhetorical discourse, where they contribute imagery and rhythm (Benson et al., 1986). Importantly, the pragmatic force of an idiom may vary with context and prosody: the same phrase can function as jocular, sarcastic, or literal depending on situational cues. Thus, expressiveness must be analyzed both semantically and pragmatically. V.V. Vinogradov’s typology (Vinogradov cited in standard phraseology literature) provides a principled way to relate the four main features above to degrees of semantic cohesion and compositional transparency. Vinogradov distinguished three major types of phraseological units: phraseological fusions (or idioms proper), phraseological unities (semi-motivated idioms), and phraseological collocations (support-verb or fixed collocations). This classification maps directly onto idiomaticity and stability: Phraseological fusions are the opaquest and the most stable: their meaning is wholly unpredictable from constituents (e.g., spill the beans in contexts where cultural history has obscured literal relevance). Fusions exemplify high stability, strong idiomaticity, high reproducibility, and a concentrated expressive potential because their metaphorical import is conventionalized. Phraseological units are partly motivated by metaphor or imagery. They are relatively stable but allow some motivated reinterpretation. These units balance semantic transparency and lexicalization: speakers may infer meaning from the image but still rely on stored usage patterns for fluent production. Phraseological collocations (sometimes called phraseological combinations) display the weakest idiomaticity. One component typically has a conventionalized, bound meaning (e.g., make a decision, where make collocates particularly with decision), but the combination remains INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC AND PRACTICAL CONFERENCE “INTEGRATION OF MODERN LINGUISTICS WITH SCIENCE, EDUCATION, AND PRACTICE IN THE PROCESS OF GLOBALIZATION: NEW APPROACHES, OPPORTUNITIES, AND CHALLENGES”, DECEMBER 4, 2025 295 largely compositional. Collocations are less opaque yet still exhibit limited substitutability and notable reproducibility due to frequent co-occurrence (Benson et al., 1986). Vinogradov’s strength lies in locating phraseological phenomena on a continuum of idiomaticity and stability. Contemporary corpus linguistics and cognitive semantics have elaborated this continuum with empirical measures (frequency counts, mutual information scores) and cognitive mechanisms (chunking, conceptual metaphors), but the underlying insight — that multiword units differ systematically in semantic cohesion — remains central (Moon, 1998). The four main features described above are not independent; they interact in predictable ways. Higher degrees of idiomaticity tend to correlate with greater stability and stronger reproducibility in native usage. Expressiveness can be high both for opaque idioms (whose figurative force is conventionalized and therefore striking) and for more transparent metaphorical unities (whose imagery is readily available to speakers). For language teaching, this interaction suggests differential instructional strategies: fully idiomatic fusions require explicit memorization and contextualized practice, whereas transparent unities can be taught via metaphor and imagery techniques; collocations benefit from collocational drills and exposure to authentic corpora (Fernando, 1996; Moon, 1998). CONCLUSION Phraseological units are complex lexical phenomena characterized by stability, idiomatic meaning, reproducibility, and expressiveness. Vinogradov’s tripartite classification remains a valuable heuristic for mapping the degree of idiomaticity across types, offering theoretical clarity and practical guidance for language description and pedagogy. Contemporary approaches enrich Vinogradov’s legacy with corpus-based evidence and cognitive accounts of chunking and conceptual motivation, but the basic insight persists: multiword units must be treated as lexicalized wholes whose internal dynamics shape meaning, usage, and communicative effect. REFERENCES 1. Benson, M., Benson, E., & Ilson, R. (1986). The BBI Dictionary of English Word Combinations. John Benjamins. 2. Cowie, A. P. (Ed.). (1998). Phraseology: Theory, Analysis, and Applications. Oxford University Press. 3. Fernando, C. (1996). Idioms and Idiomaticity. Oxford University Press. 4. Moon, R. (1998). Fixed Expressions and Idioms in English: A Corpus-Based Approach. Clarendon Press. 5. Vinogradov, V. V. (1947). On the main types of phraseological units in the Russian language. In Selected Works on Lexicology and Lexicography (p. 150). Moscow: Nauka. 6. Vinogradov, V. V. (1977). Lexicology and Lexicography: Selected Works. Progress Publishers.