This study focuses on the phraseological expressions found in English texts related to economics. It examines the lexical-semantic, cognitive, pragmatic, and linguistic-cultural characteristics of these phraseological units. The research identifies 50 phraseological expressions sourced from linguistic studies, media content, and economic literature. These were categorized into four semantic fields: “financial interactions,” “transactions,” “corporate practices,” and “economic production relations.” The key term identified was “money,” which carries a conceptual significance reflected in both positive and negative connotations. Phraseological units represent abstract concepts that gain meaning through their specific contexts. This study also discusses the inclusion of toponyms, anthroponyms, and zoonyms within these expressions, along with the occurrence of unique lexemes. Other topics explored include the primary sources of economic phraseological units, such as mythology, actual events, literary characters, religious influences, and the cultural, psychological, ethnic, and socio-political elements found within the English economic domain.

English language, phraseology, phraseological unit, professional communication, economic discourse, idioms

Adolphs, S. − Carter, R. 2007. Beyond the word: new challenges in analyzing corpora of spoken English. In: European journal of English studies, vol. 11, n. 2, pp. 133-146.

Anderson, W.J. 2006. The Phraseology of Administrative French: A Corpus-Based Study. In: Language and Computers, 57 p.

Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Apalat, G.P. 1999. English Legal Terminology in Economic Texts. Foreign Philology. In: Ukrainian Scientific Collection, vol. 111,pp. 208-212.

Bondi, M. 2010. Arguing in economics and business discourse: Phraseological tools in research articles. In: Bulletin Suisse de Linguistique Appliquée, vol. 2, pp. 219 234.

Boylan, T. − FOLEY, T. 2005. Political Economy and Colonial Ireland: The Propagation and Ideological Functions of Economic Discourse in the Nineteenth Century. New York: Routledge.

BrodY, J. 2003. A linguistic anthropological perspective on language and culture in the second language. In: Culture as the Core: Perspectives on Culture in Second Language Learning, pp. 37-52. North Carolina: IAP.

Cheng, W. 2007. Concgramming: A corpus-driven approach to learning the phraseology of discipline-specific texts. In:

Corell: Computer Resources for Language Learning, vol. 1, pp. 22-35. XLinguae, Volume 12 Issue 1, January 2019, ISSN 1337-8384, eISSN 2453-711X 235

Hadian, a.S. − Arefi, M. 2016. Metaphor, analogy, and the discourse of originality: five Iranian case studies. In: Social Semiotics, vol. 26, n. 5, pp. 541-562.

Handford, M. − Koester, A. 2010. It’s not rocket science”: metaphors and idioms in conflictual business meetings. In: Text & Talk-An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language Discourse & Communication Studies, vol. 30, n. 1, pp. 27-51.

Hunston, S. − Francis, G. 2000. Pattern grammar: A corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English, 4. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Kamyshanchenko, Y.A. 2012. Associative images in phraseological units that represent the concept of “Money” in the German and English language. Furs, L.A.(ed.). In: Cognitive Linguistic Studies: International Congress on Cognitive Linguistics Tambov, vol. 11 pp. 446-448.

Kazakova, E.P. 2012. Ways to enhance the transparency of the internal form of the phraseology of the English business discourse, 1.

Kolotnina, E.V. 2001. Metaphoric modelling of reality in Russian and English economic discourse. Yekaterinburg.

Kozy, J. 2013. Economics and Armchair Psychology. Global Research.

O'halloran, K. L. 1999. Interdependence, interaction and metaphor in multisemiotic texts. In: Social Semiotics, vol. 9, n. 3, pp. 317-354.

Patseyevskaya, Y. 2010. Phraseological terms as markers of coherence in the Polish scientific discourse. In: Kyiv Polish Studies: Collection of Research Papes, vol. 23 pp. 469–476.