Introduction

In the contemporary era of globalization and intensive development of digital technologies, international business communication has become more critical than ever. Successful communication in this sphere requires not only a grasp of grammatical rules but also a deep understanding and appropriate use of the most nuanced and culturally rich layer of a language: its phraseological units. The idioms specific to a particular field, such as business, serve as a vivid reflection of the unique mindset and corporate culture of its representatives. This article, which presents the conceptual framework and preliminary findings of an ongoing doctoral dissertation by G.B. Atayeva (Tashkent, 2025), addresses the integration of the functional-pragmatic potential and lexicographical description principles of idiomatic units in English business communication. This topic holds significant theoretical and practical importance for modern comparative linguistics, translation studies, and lexicography.

The study of phraseology has a rich history, with foundational work by scholars such as V.V. Vinogradov, N.M. Shanskiy, and A.V. Kunin in the Russian school of linguistics, who laid the groundwork for the semantic and structural classification of phraseological units (Vinogradov, 1977; Kunin, 1996). In Western linguistics, scholars like Ch. Fillmore, G. Lakoff, and R. Jackendoff have explored idioms from cognitive, semantic, and constructionist perspectives (Fillmore, Kay, & O’Connor, 1988; Lakoff, 1986). In Uzbek linguistics, the field has been significantly advanced by the research of Sh. Rahmatullayev, A. Hojiyev, and B. Yo‘ldoshev, who have analyzed the nature and function of phraseological units in the Uzbek language (Rahmatullayev, 2006; Hojiyev, 2002).

Despite this extensive body of research, several critical gaps remain. Firstly, there is a significant terminological inconsistency across different linguistic schools. Terms like “phraseological fusion,” “phraseological unity,” “idiom,” “phraseme,” and “collocation” are often used with overlapping or conflicting definitions, creating a “terminological synonymy” that hinders cross-linguistic and cross-cultural research. Secondly, while many general phraseological dictionaries exist, there is a lack of specialized resources that provide a comprehensive, multi-parameter description of idioms used specifically in business communication. Existing dictionaries often limit their scope to a simple definition and an example, neglecting the idiom's functional, pragmatic, connotative, and paradigmatic characteristics.

This dissertation research aims to address these gaps. Its primary goals are:

1. To conduct a comparative-typological analysis of existing phraseological terminology and classifications (in Russian, English, and Uzbek linguistics) and, based on this analysis, to develop a unified conceptual model for their systematization.
2. To systematically investigate the paradigmatic relations (synonymy, antonymy, variation), semantic field distribution, and functional-pragmatic features of idiomatic units in English business communication.
3. To create an innovative, 12-point comprehensive lexicographical description model that allows for a holistic analysis of each idiomatic unit.
4. To apply this model in the creation of a modern online explanatory dictionary and an interactive didactic platform for English business idioms, thereby integrating philology with innovative technology.

This article will outline the methodological approach of the dissertation and present its core conceptual outcomes, namely the proposed model for terminological unification and the new framework for lexicographical description.

Methodology

The research presented in this dissertation employs a mixed-method approach, integrating qualitative and quantitative analysis to achieve its objectives. The methodological framework is built upon several core linguistic methods:

• Comparative-Typological Analysis: This method is used to analyze and compare the terminological paradigms and classification systems of phraseological units across Russian, English, and Uzbek linguistic traditions. By identifying common principles and divergent approaches, this analysis forms the basis for the proposed unification model.
• Component Analysis: This method is applied to break down the semantic structure of idiomatic units. It helps in identifying the core semantic components (semes), the level of semantic fusion, and the contribution of each word to the overall figurative meaning.
• Contextual and Discourse Analysis: Idioms are analyzed within their natural habitat – the discourse of business communication. This involves examining authentic texts from business media, corporate reports, and academic case studies to determine the functional, pragmatic, and stylistic roles of each idiom.
• Semantic Field Theory: Idiomatic units are grouped into thematic semantic fields (e.g., Finance, Management, Negotiation, Marketing) to reveal the systemic nature of the business phraseological lexicon and to understand how different aspects of the business world are conceptualized.
• Corpus-Based Analysis: To ensure the empirical validity of the research, the selection of high- and medium-frequency business idioms is based on data from modern language corpora, such as the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) and specialized business English corpora. This allows for an objective assessment of an idiom’s relevance and usage patterns.
• Lexicographical Modeling: Based on the critical analysis of existing phraseographic practices (Kunin, 1984; Rahmatullayev, 1992) and the data gathered through the above methods, the dissertation develops a novel, multi-parameter model for describing idiomatic units.

The overarching strategy of the dissertation is to move from a theoretical synthesis of existing knowledge to the creation of a practical, innovative tool. This process is personalized to the dissertation of G.B. Atayeva and its specific contribution to the field.

Results

The research has yielded several key results that form the basis for a new understanding of business phraseology. This section will present the structure of these findings, with illustrative examples.

A Unified Model for Phraseological Terminology

The comparative analysis of classifications by Vinogradov (1977), Kunin (1996), Fernando (1996), and others revealed that despite different terminologies, most systems are implicitly based on a single, fundamental criterion: the degree of idiomaticity, or the extent to which an expression's meaning is derivable from its components. The dissertation proposes a unified framework that categorizes all phraseological units along this spectrum:

1. Pure Idioms (High Idiomaticity): These are non-motivated, semantically indivisible units whose meaning cannot be deduced from their components (e.g., to kick the bucket). In business discourse, examples include red tape (excessive bureaucracy) or to go belly up (to go bankrupt). These correspond to Vinogradov’s “”
2. Semi-Idioms (Medium Idiomaticity): These are motivated units with a clear figurative basis, where the overall meaning is a metaphorical or metonymic extension of its components. This is the most productive category in business English. Examples include to get the green light (to get permission) or to think outside the box (to think creatively). These correspond to Vinogradov’s “”
3. Pseudo-Idioms / Collocations (Low or No Idiomaticity): These are structurally stable, conventionalized combinations where one component may have a restricted or specialized meaning, but there is little to no figurative transfer. They are highly predictable and function almost like complex terms. Examples include to draw up a contract, to pay attention, or return on investment. These correspond to Vinogradov's “”

This unified model helps to overcome terminological confusion and provides a clear and consistent basis for classification.

A Comprehensive 12-Point Lexicographical Description Model

A central outcome of this dissertation research is the development of an innovative, 12-point model for the lexicographical description of idiomatic units. This model goes far beyond a simple definition, aiming to provide a complete “profile” of each idiom. The model comprises the following parameters:

1. The Idiomatic Unit: The headword and its common variants.
2. Semantic Field: The thematic group it belongs to (e.g., Negotiation, Finance).
3. Degree of Idiomaticity: Classification as a Pure Idiom, Semi-Idiom, or Collocation.
4. Connotation: Indication of whether the idiom is Positive, Negative, or Neutral, along with stylistic markers (e.g., Formal, Informal, Humorous).
5. Structural-Grammatical Type: Its syntactic structure (e.g., Verbal, Nominal) and function in a sentence.
6. Semantic Plane: A clear definition in English, an explanation of the figurative basis, and a literal translation to reveal its underlying image.
7. Expressive Plane: Analysis of the key components and their roles.
8. Uzbek Equivalent/Analogue: Provision of direct equivalents, functional analogues, or descriptive translations in Uzbek.
9. Primary Function in Discourse: Its main pragmatic role (e.g., Evaluative, Expressive, Hedging).
10. Paradigmatic Relations: Listing of its synonyms, antonyms, and variants in English.
11. Etymology: A brief history of its origin, if known.
12. Illustrative Examples: 2-3 authentic examples from business contexts with their Uzbek translations.

An Example of Application: bail out a company: Using this model, an idiom like bail out a company would be analyzed as a Semi-Idiom belonging to the Financial/Crisis Management semantic field. Its connotation is neutral but implies a negative situation. Its structure is a verbal phrase (Verb + Particle + Object). Its figurative basis comes from bailing water out of a sinking boat. Its Uzbek functional analogue would be “kompaniyani moliyaviy qiyinchilikdan qutqarmoq.” Its primary function is nominative and descriptive. This systematic approach ensures a deep and multi-faceted understanding.

Discussion

The results presented above have significant implications for our understanding of business phraseology and lexicography.

The dominance of semi-idioms and collocations in the analyzed corpus strongly suggests that business communication, while utilizing figurative language, prioritizes clarity, conventionality, and low ambiguity. Highly opaque Pure Idioms, which often require specific cultural or historical knowledge, are used more sparingly, likely to avoid misinterpretation in high-stakes professional contexts. This reflects the pragmatic nature of business discourse, where the primary goal is the efficient and accurate transfer of information.

The striking lack of direct, image-for-image equivalents in Uzbek provides powerful evidence of lingvo-cultural divergence. The conceptual metaphors that underpin English business idioms (e.g., BUSINESS IS A JOURNEY, BUSINESS IS WAR) do not always have a parallel in the Uzbek worldview. This finding is critical for translation theory and practice. It confirms that translating idioms is not a process of word-for-word substitution but a complex act of cultural transfer, requiring the translator to find a functional analogue that serves the same communicative purpose in the target language (Retsker, 2004).

The proposed 12-point lexicographical model directly addresses the shortcomings of existing phraseographic practices. By providing a multi-dimensional profile of each idiom, it equips learners, translators, and professionals with the deep knowledge required for its accurate comprehension and appropriate use. It moves the task of the lexicographer from simply defining to holistically describing. This approach aligns with modern cognitive and pragmatic linguistics, which view language units not as static items but as dynamic tools for communication (Teliya, 1996).

This dissertation research, therefore, contributes a methodological toolkit for the systematic study of specialized phraseology. It argues that to truly master business English, one must develop “idiomatic competence,” which includes understanding an idiom’s semantics, structure, function, connotation, and cultural underpinnings.

Conclusion

This article has presented the conceptual framework and key preliminary outcomes of the ongoing doctoral dissertation on the idiomatic units of English business communication. The research addresses the critical issues of terminological inconsistency in phraseology and the need for a more comprehensive lexicographical approach.

The primary contributions outlined here are threefold:

1. A proposal for a unified classification system for phraseological units based on the universal criterion of “degree of idiomaticity.”
2. A detailed analysis of the functional, semantic, and paradigmatic landscape of idioms in the specific domain of business communication.
3. The development of an innovative 12-point lexicographical model that provides a systematic and holistic description of each idiomatic unit.

These theoretical and methodological advancements have been practically applied in the creation of an online explanatory dictionary and an interactive didactic platform, which are key outputs of the dissertation. The findings underscore that business discourse favors functional clarity over opaque figurativeness and that the translation of business idioms requires a deep understanding of lingvo-cultural differences rather than a search for literal equivalents.

Ultimately, this research provides a robust framework for future studies in specialized lexicography and offers valuable insights for translators, educators, and professionals navigating the complexities of international business communication. By personalizing and systematizing the study of idioms, it paves the way for more effective teaching and learning of this vital linguistic layer.