On the Mechanisms of Grammatical Implementation of the Euphemistic Meaning

The relevance of the work has been determined by the necessity to study the features of derivative transformations that do not correspond to the ritually expected grammatical mechanisms (grammar mistakes (inconsistency)) of the euphemism explication in the language (In media discourse, in particular), which has a peculiar scientific appeal in the context of the analysis of the psycholinguistic factor (data collection), and also expands and deepens the existing linguistic concepts of the euphemism study. The purpose of the article is to describe some of the psycholinguistic features of the euphemism formation through combining or overlapping of semantic combinations of different types with various grammatical functionality. To achieve the set goal, we have used the following methods: the descriptive method with its inherent techniques of external and internal interpretation, which made it possible to reveal the structural and contentrelated signs of euphemism, to locate and systematize grammatically deviant constructions as one of the forms of semantic predication, ‘highlighting’ the speaker’s intentions while exteriorizing euphemism; methods of complex and contextual-semantic analysis contributing to the study of euphemism formation in the aspect of textual environment and structuring. The findings of the conducted analysis reveal that the formation of a euphemism, which is a product of linguistic adaptation in society, is limited by the adaptive behavior of interlocutors, which can be traced at the stage of the formation of an unfinished proposition, where the compilation of different types of meanings into the form of cognitive singularity, which is necessary for the emergence of a euphemistic meaning, is obvious. Conclusion. In the context of communicative cooperation, there occurs assimilation of social-cognitive and linguistic processes, expressed at the syntactic level in the speaker’s choice to sacrifice the principles of grammatical accuracy in favor of semantic efficiency, which is objectified by grammatical inaccuracy on the one hand and the only correct psycholinguistic decision on the other.