In recent years, significant changes have been observed in the language system, especially in the lexical layer, which is considered its most active and dynamic part. These changes mainly lead to the economically efficient management of language resources, the reuse of existing units in a new context, and their semantic restructuring. One of such linguistic phenomena is the transformation of phraseological units. Phraseological units have a permanent semantic load, a stable form, and an emotional-expressive color, and their transformation reflects the creative potential of the language. Through transformation, phraseological units change structurally, semantically, or stylistically, adapting to new speech tasks. This process, especially in scientific discourse, serves to form neutral, clear, and concise expressions. Therefore, the problem of the transformation of phraseological units is relevant and important in modern linguistics.

Within the framework of modern linguistics, the issue of structural, semantic, and stylistic changes in phraseological units is directly related to the dynamic nature of the language and its adaptation to modern communicative needs. Phraseological units are ready-made, often figurative and metaphorical expressions specific to a particular language, which are used in a ready-made form in the language. However, the change, renewal or adaptation of these units to the context in terms of form and content in the practical speech process is one of the important scientific problems that linguists are interested in. The transformation of phraseological units is the process of their departure from their traditional form and their transformation based on certain stylistic, semantic or grammatical factors. Transformed phraseologisms usually serve the author’s stylistic goals, such as increasing the expressiveness of the text or ensuring speech coherence. This phenomenon is particularly observed in scientific, journalistic, and literary texts.

In world linguistics, the problem of transformation of phraseological units has been studied by many scientists. Particularly in Russian linguistics, the issues of phraseological unit transformation have been extensively researched in the works of scholars such as I.M. Abramovich, A.M. Babkin, K.L. Shadrin, Ye.I. Dibrova, V.P. Kovalev, D.O. Dobrovolsky, A.M. Melerovich and V.M. Mokiyenko [Aбрaмович 1964: 213-219; Бaбкин 1970; Шaдрин 1972: 78-97; Дибровa 1979; Добровольский 2007: 27-31; Мелерович, Мокиенко 2005].

In Uzbek linguistics, the issues of phraseological synonymy and variation have been comprehensively and systematically studied by Professor Sh. Rahmatullayev. According to the scholar, “the relationship between phraseological variants should meet several basic requirements: they should differ in form while being semantically close to each other, all should be rooted in a single source, based on the same image, and express identical lexical content. Additionally, at least one common lexical component must be preserved in the variants” [Rahmatullayev 1966: 146-149]. As the scientist emphasized, “the process of phraseological variation can occur within the framework of the semantic-structural integrity of the unit. If this integrity is violated, the phraseological unit either loses its form or a completely new phraseological structure emerges” [Rahmatullayev 1966: 146-149]. Therefore, the possibility of variation is linguistically acceptable only if the internal systemic constraints of the phraseological unit and the harmony of meanings are observed.

In agreement with these views, it can be emphasized that the phenomenon of variation in phraseological units is closely linked to the internal laws of the language system. The main criterion of this phenomenon is that it occurs without compromising the semantic and structural integrity of the phraseological unit. Professor Sh. Rahmatullayev’s approach is analyzed in conjunction with the historical formation process of phraseological units, their contextual adaptability, and speech activity.

Phraseological variation arises, first of all, as a response to the stylistic and expressive needs of speech. Synonymous alternation, phonetic or grammatical changes in one of the components of a unit can be accepted as a variant only if the general meaning is preserved. Otherwise, as a result of this change, a completely new phraseological structure is formed, which belongs to another semantic layer. Therefore, variation is a process that demonstrates a balance between stability and variability. It plays an important role in increasing the lexico-semantic potential of phraseological units, enriching their communicative activity and stylistic load. This approach is relevant not only for theoretical linguistics, but also for applied phraseography, translation, and stylistics.

According to V.N. Vakurov: “The semantic and structural change of phraseological units is primarily associated with the need to revive and enhance their expressiveness. The main reason for such a transformation stems from the need to adapt the semantic, emotional, and stylistic features of phraseological units to the unique communicative conditions of the specific context” [Вакуров 1983: 112]. Indeed, transformation, by its very nature, allows us to interpret the phraseological unit not as a static linguistic phenomenon, but as a dynamic, contextually adaptive tool. Such transformations are usually carried out by neutralizing the connotative layer of the unit or, conversely, by imposing new expressive semes. As a result, phraseological units go beyond their original semantic and stylistic boundaries and appear in discourse in a functionally enriched form. Therefore, the transformation of phraseological units is considered one of the important pragmalinguistic phenomena that determines the degree to which language units adapt to discursive reality.

L.V. Grichenko defines the transformation of phraseological units as a phraseological unit that works in context and is not recorded in lexicographic sources, differs from the usual one in semantics, lexical composition, or structure, but maintains some connection with it [Гриченко 2017: 126-132]. It should be noted that this point of view corresponds to the opinion of most authoritative Russian scholars dealing with the issues of transformation of phraseological units.

Based on the conducted research, it can be said that phraseological units attract the attention of many researchers because they have their own characteristics, religious, national, cultural, and historical roots. Moreover, they serve to create a vivid and unique image. Moreover, the study of phraseological units allows us to expand our knowledge of language, its structure, and functioning. For this reason, researchers study phraseological units as a crucial aspect of the language system.

According to A.E. Mamatov and B. Boltayeva, “in linguistics there are two important linguistic phenomena that have opposite characteristics – ellipsis and pleonasm. In elliptical constructions, a certain language unit is omitted to achieve conciseness. In this case, the excess elements in the expression are excluded, while the semantic load is preserved. In pleonasm, on the contrary, excessive language elements are used to enhance information, increase emotional impact, or for stylistic purposes. Both phenomena are considered factors that form the communicative and expressive features of speech” [Mamatov, Boltayeva 2018: 59]. Agreeing with these points, it should be noted that ellipsis and pleonasm, as stylistic means of speech, enrich the expressive and functional possibilities of language. While elliptical constructions ensure conciseness and semantic compactness of expression, pleonastic structures serve to increase the strength of emotional impact and create stylistic coloring. Both phenomena, depending on the context, reveal the semantic and stylistic transformation of phraseological units and serve to increase their communicative effectiveness.

Thus, the transformation of phraseological units is a targeted change in the traditional stable structure and semantic core of phraseological units in linguistics in accordance with contextual and communicative needs. This process usually stems from the need to strengthen the expressive potential of the unit, clarify its semantic essence, and ensure its stylistic and pragmatic adaptation to a specific speech situation.

Based on the analysis of the above-mentioned scientific and theoretical sources and modern research devoted to the transformation of phraseological units, we will consider the typological manifestations of this process, i.e., the main types of phraseological transformation in scientific research:

1) Alternative use of one of the lexical components (transformation based on synonyms or antonyms). For example, in Russian scientific texts, the variant “акцентировать внимание” (to emphasize attention) of the fixed compound “обратить внимание” (to pay attention) is widely used. In this example, as a result of replacing the lexeme “обратить” with its synonym “акцентировать”, a synonymous variant of the phrase is created, which is more frequently used in technical writing and analysis. In another example, we can see that the phraseological unit “поднять вопрос” (to raise a question) is replaced with its synonym “затронуть вопрос” (to touch upon a question). In this case, the lexeme “поднять” is also substituted with its synonym “затронуть”, which is commonly used in scientific texts.

Поэтому для наших целей было бы правильно затронуть вопрос о взаимосвязи креативности с интеллектом и воображением (Старченко М.Г «Тайны творческого мозга». Сaнкт-Петербург: Изд-во АСТ. – 2022. – 223 с.).

Ряд ученых акцентирует внимание на различных сторонах текста как элемента системы коммуникации (Уракова Ф. К. Текст как объект лингвистики //Культурная жизнь юга России. – 2007. – №. 6. – С. 64-66).

In English scientific texts, the phraseological unit “to shed light on”, widely used in the English language, has a metaphorical character and means “illuminating”, that is, helping to understand a certain topic. Stylistically, the phrase “shed light on” gives more vividness to the text, but in official scientific texts it is somewhat informal. Therefore, in scientific research, this phraseological unit is replaced by formal and literal lexical units, that is, instead of this phrase, a broader and deeper meaningful equivalent “provide insight into” is used, which means to make information understandable. Such transformation is carried out in order to avoid terminological accuracy and imagery. Especially in scientific articles, idioms are transferred to formal alternatives, since it is important to express them in a clear, consistent language.

2) Structural expansion (Altering their form by adding elements or rearranging existing ones while maintaining or modifying the original meaning. In other words, completion of the phraseological structure with additional elements). For example, in English scientific texts, the phrase “to play a role” is used in the following  expanded form “cultural background plays a significant role in shaping individual perspectives”. This phraseological unit is supplemented by a defining (significant), contextual concept (cultural background, individual perspectives). As a result, we can see that the phraseological unit is directed from abstract speech to a specific problem. Stylistically, the phraseological unit is combined with scientific evidence and analytical evaluation, and the structure corresponds to the style of a scientific article.

3) Wedging (the act of forcing or inserting something into a tight space, or the state of being so fixed). For example, in Uzbek scientific research texts, the phraseological unit “yorqin namuna bo‘lmoq” (to be a bright example) often appears in a transformed form, such as “ko‘z bilan ko‘rmasdan, dil bilan his qilish, o‘ziga xos yorqin namuna bo‘la oladi” (feeling with the heart without seeing with the eyes can serve as a unique bright example). Here, the insertion “ko‘z bilan ko‘rmasdan, dil bilan his qilish” is used to deepen the scientific and conceptual content of the phraseological unit and to reveal its conceptual basis more broadly. This phrase serves to enhance the expressiveness of the unit.

4) Elliptical transformation (omission of certain components). For example, the English idiom “easier said (...than done)” means “it is not easy to implement what has been said”. In this case, the part “than done” is omitted because it is understood from the context, and the transformed version “easier said” is used instead.

Thus, the transformation of phraseological units in scientific research shows that this phenomenon is a multifaceted and complex process. Their lexico-semantic, morphological, syntactic, and stylistic renewal, at the same time, represent a mechanism for expanding the communicative capabilities of phraseological units, adapting them to modern speech needs, and meeting the requirements of scientific discourse. Transformed phraseological units are a form of traditional units interpreted in a new meaning, expression, and style. They are an expression of the author’s position, individual style, cognitive approach, and discursive goals. Also, such units ensure semantic compactness, terminological accuracy, expressiveness, and stylistic integrity in scientific discourse.

In conclusion, the transformation of phraseological units demonstrates not only their finding new life, but also the creative and intellectual potential of the language. A deep scientific study of this process is one of the important tasks facing modern linguistics. In addition, the study of the problems of transformation in phraseology allows us to identify various aspects of this process, from historical and linguistic factors to sociocultural and cognitive aspects.