LECTURE № I.

THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE THEORY AND

PRACTICE OF TRANSLATION

PROBLEMS FOR DISCUSSION:

1. The subject matter of the theory of translation.
2. The main directions in the history of linguistic theory of translation.
3. Types of translation
4. The nature of translation.
5. Linguistic and extralinguistic aspects of translation.

KEY WORDS: translation, source language, target language, adequacy

INTRODUCTION
Unlike medicine and engineering, translation is a very young discipline in
academic terms. It is only just starting to feature as a subject of study in its own
right, not yet in all but in an increasing number of universities and colleges around
the world. Like any young discipline, it needs to draw on the findings and theories
of other related disciplines in order to develop and formalize its own methods; but
which disciplines it can naturally and fruitfully be related to is still a matter of
some controversy. Almost every aspect of life in general and of the interaction
between speech communities in particular can be considered relevant to
translation, a discipline which has to concern itself with how meaning is generated
within and between various groups of people in various cultural settings. This is
clearly too big an area to investigate in one go. So, let us just start by saying that, if
translation is ever to become a profession in the full sense of the word, translators
will need something other than the current mixture of intuition and practice to
enable them to reflect on what they do and how they do it. They will need, above
all, to acquire a sound knowledge of the raw material with which they work: to
understand what language is and how it comes to function for its users.
A number of fundamental contributions to this theory have been recently
made both in our country and abroad.
Theoretical studies in translation have kept abreast with the recent advances
in linguistics, which provided some new insights into the mechanism of translation
and the factors determining it.
The theory of translation has benefited from new syntactic and semantic
models in linguistics and from development of such hyphenated disciplines as
psycho – and – socio – linguistics. Equally insightful was the contribution to the
theory of translation by semiotics, a general theory of sign systems.
A condensation of the major problems of translation introduces the reader to
basic concepts and defines the terminology.
The subjects discussed include the subject – matter of the theory of
translation and the nature of translating, semantic and pragmatic aspects of
translation/these lectures were written by I.D.Shvaytser/, Grammatical problems of
translation and grammatical transformations (L.S.Barkhudarov), Lexical problems
of translation and lexical transformations (A.M.Fiterman), Stylistics aspects of
translation and its socio - regional problems (A.D.Shveitser).
The summary of the lecture is based on the syllables of foreign scholars:
prof.A.Neubet, prof.E.Nida, prof. Roger. T.Bell’s view points on theory and
practical of translation.
§1. THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE THEORY OF TRANSLATION
The theory of translation is subdivided into general theory, dealing with the
general characteristics of translation, regardless of its type, and special branches,
concerned with a theoretical description and analyses of the various types of
translation, such as the translation of fiction poetry, technical and scientific
literature, official documents, etc.
The general theory of translation has a clearly defined subject matter; the
process of translating in its entirely, including its results with due regard for all the
factors affecting it. Each special branch depends and specifies the general theory
for it is the job of the general theory to reflect what is common to all types and
varieties of translation while the special branches are mainly concerned with the
specifics of each genre.
The general theory of translation is an interdisciplinary area, predominantly
linguistic, but also closely allied to philology, sociology, ethnography and etc. It is
based on the application of linguistics theory to a specific type of speech behavior,
i.e. translating. It differs from contrastive linguistics in that the former seem to
compare different language systems with a view to determining their similarities
and distinctive features while the theory of translation has a subject matter of its
own (the process of translation) and uses the data of contrastive linguistics merely
as a point of departure.
& 2. THE MAIN DIRECTIONS IN THE HISTORY LINGUISTIC
THEORY OF TRANSLATION.
The earliest linguistics theory of translation was developed by Russian
scholars Y.L.Retsker and A.V.Fedorov who pioneered in a linguistic analysis of
translation problems. Their theory came to be known as the theory of regular
correspondences.
Translation, they argeed, is inconceivable without a sound linguistic basis,
and this study of linguistic phenomena and the establishment of certain
correspondences between the language of the original and that of the translation.
The authors of this theory were mainly concerned with the typology of relationship
between linguistic
зunits equivalents – permanent correspondences not sensitive to context such
as The League of Nations – Лига Наций, and context - Sensitive variant
correspondences , such as Slander – клевета нового поколения/ but also
investigated some of the translation techniques, such as antonimic translation (see
below, thus mapping out some ways of dealing with translation as a process.
In the 60 th some linguistics /N.U.Rozentsveig in Russia and L.E.Nida in the
USA / proposed a theoretical model of translation based on generative or
transformational grammar. E.Nida subdivided the process of translation into 3
stages; analysis where an ambiguous surface structure is transformed into non-
ambiguous kernel sentences to facilitated semantic interpretation / the foundation
of school/ somebody founded a school or a school has a foundation / transfer
where equivalent in the target language are found at a kernel or near – kernel level
and restructuring where target – language kernel sentences are transformed into
surface structures.
It is true that in some cases it is necessary to paraphrase the source –
language structure to facilitate it’s translation. Such transformations come in
hardly especially when the target – language, /e.g. He stood with his feet planted
wide a part; he stood, his feet were planted wide apart қ Он стоял, его ноги были
широко расставлены; oн стоял, широко расставив ноги.
But transformations in terms of generative are not the only type of
paraphrases used in translation. What is more, in some cases, especially when
close parallels exist between the Source – and target language structures, they are
not even necessary.
The structural model of translation is based on analysis in linguistics
developed others. It is based on the assumption that languages are somewhat
different sets of semantic components /constituents of meaning/ to describe
identical extra – linguistic situations, Russian verbs of motion contain the
component of move but not always the direction of movement while their English
equivalents are often neutral, the direction of / Вот он идёт - Here he comes / Here
he goes/.
The structural model provides some interesting insights into the mechanism
of translation, especially when a situation is described in different semantic
categories of /проточный пруд and spring – fed pond/ but does not seem to apply
to sentences going beyond a mere description of a situation.
Different translation models complement each other and should therefore be
combined in analyzing of translation as a process.

TYPES OF TRANSLATION
Any type of written text can be a candidate for translation, however, the translation
industry is often categorized by a number of areas of specialization. Each
specialization has its own challenges and difficulties. An incomplete list of these
specialized types of translation includes:
Administrative translation: The translation of administrative texts.
Commercial translation : The translation of commercial (business) texts. This
category may include marketing and promotional materials directed to consumers.
Computer translation: The translation of computer programs and related
documents (manuals, help files, web sites.)
The notion of localization, that is the adaptation of the translation to the target
language and culture, is gaining prevalence in this area of specialization.
(Note that the term "computer translation" is sometimes used to refer to the
practice of machine translation, using computers to automatically translate texts.)
General translation: The translation of "general" texts. In practice, few texts are
really "general"; most fall into a specialization but are not seen as such.
Legal translation: The translation of legal documents (laws, contracts, treaties,
etc.).
A skilled legal translator is normally as adept at the law (often with in-depth legal
training) as with translation, since inaccuracies in legal translations can have
serious results.
(One example of problematic translation is the Treaty of Waitangi, where the
English and Maori versions differ in certain important areas.)
Sometimes, to prevent such problems, one language will be declared authoritative,
with the translations not being considered legally binding, although in many cases
this is not possible, as one party does not want to be seen as subservient to the
other.
Literary translation: The translation of literary works (novels, short stories,
plays, poems, etc.)
If the translation of non-literary works is regarded as a skill, the translation of
fiction and poetry is much more of an art. In multilingual countries such as
Canada, translation is often considered a literary pursuit in its own right. Figures
such as Sheila Fischman, Robert Dickson and Linda Gaboriau are notable in
Canadian literature specifically as translators, and the Governor General's Awards
present prizes for the year's best English-to-French and French-to-English literary
translations with the same standing as more conventional literary awards.
Writers such as Vladimir Nabokov and Vasily Zhukovsky have also made a name
for themselves as literary translators.
Many consider poetry the most difficult genre to translate, given the difficulty in
rendering both the form and the content in the target language. In 1959 in his
influential paper "On Linguistic Aspects of Translation", the Russian-born linguist
and semiotician Roman Jakobson even went as far as to declare that "poetry by
definition [was] untranslatable". In 1974 the American poet James Merrill wrote a
poem, "Lost in Translation," which in part explores this subject. This question was
also explored in Douglas Hofstadter's 1997 book, Le Ton beau de Marot.
Translation of sung texts — sometimes referred to as a "singing translation" — is
closely linked to translation of poetry, simply because most vocal music, at least in
the Western tradition, is set to verse, especially verse in regular patterns with
rhyme. (Since the late 19th century musical setting of prose and free verse has also
come about in some art music, although popular music tends to remain
conservative in its retention of stanzaic forms with or without refrains.) A
rudimentary example of translating poetry for singing is church hymns, such as
German chorales translated into English by Catherine Winkworth.
Translation of sung texts is generally much more restrictive than translation of
poetry, because in the former there is little or no freedom to choose between a
versified translation and a translation that dispenses with verse structure. One
might modify or omit rhyme in a singing translation, but the assignment of
syllables to specific notes in the original musical setting places great challenges on
the translator. There is the option in prose, less so in verse, of adding or deleting a
syllable here and there by subdividing or combining notes, respectively, but even
with prose the process is nevertheless almost like strict verse translation because of
the need to stick as close as possible to the original prosody. Other considerations
in writing a singing translation include repetition of words and phrases, the
placement of rests and/or punctuation, the quality of vowels sung on high notes,
and rhythmic features of the vocal line that may be more natural to the original
language than to the target language.
Whereas the singing of translated texts has been common for centuries, it is less
necessary when a written translation is provided in some form to the listener, for
instance, as inserts in concert programs or as projected titles in performance halls
or visual media.
Medical translation
The translation of works of a medical nature.
Like pharmaceutical translation, medical translation is specialization where a
mistranslation can have grave consequences.
Pedagogical translation
Translation practiced as a means of learning a second language. Pedagogical
translation is used to enrich (and to assess) the student's vocabulary in the second
language, to help assimilate new syntactic structures and to verify the student's
understanding. Unlike other types of translation, pedagogical translation takes
place in the student's native (or dominant) language as well as the second language.
That is to say that the student will translate both to and from the second language.
Another difference between this mode of translation and other modes is that the
goal is often literal translation of phrases taken out of context, and of text
fragments, which may be completely fabricated for the purposes of the exercise.
Pedagogical translation should not be confused with scholarly translation.
Scientific translation: The translation of scientific texts.
Scholarly translation: The translation of specialized texts written in an academic
environment. Scholarly translation should not be confused with pedagogical
translation.
Technical translation: The translation of technical texts (manuals, instructions,
etc.).
More specifically, texts that contain a high amount of terminology, that is, words
or expressions that are used (almost) only within a specific field, or that describe
that field in a great deal of detail.
Translation for dubbing and film subtitles: Dialogs and narrations of feature
movies and foreign TV programs need to be translated for the local viewers. In this
case, translation for dubbing and translation for film subtitles demand different
versions for the best effect.

4. THE NATURE OF TRANSLATION.

Translation is the expression in target language of what has been said in
source language preserving stylistic and semantic equivalence.
Traditionally under translation is understood:
 1. the process, activity of reproduction source language originally in target
language.
2. the product of the process of translation.

Translators must have: changes its plane of expression / linguistic form/ while its
plane of context / meaning / should remain unchanged. In fact, an equivalent /
target – language/ me
a. knowledge of the languages / at least 2 languages /
b. cultural background: ability to interpret the text
c. the background of the subject knowledge of techniques, transformations
and procedous of quality translation.
The translators decode messages transmitted in one language and records
them in another.
As a interlingual communicative act in which at least 3 participants are
involved: the sender of source / the author of the source language message/, the
translator who acts individual capacity of the receptor of the source – language
message and as the sender of the equivalent target – language / message /, and the
receptor of the target – language /translation/. If the original was not intended for a
foreign- language receptor there is one more participant: the source – language
receptor for whom the message was originally produced.
Translation as such consists in producing a text / message / in the target
language, equivalent to the original text /message/ in the source language.
Translation as an interlingual communicative act includes 2 phrases:
communication between the sender and the translator and communication between
the translator and the receptor of the newly produced target – language text. In the
first phrase the translator acting as a source – language receptor, analysis the
original message. Extracting the information contained in it.
In the second stage, the translator acts as a target – language sender,
producing an equivalent message in the target – language and re – directing it to
the target language receptor.
In producing the target – language text the translator ssage, should match the
original in the plane of content. The message, produced by the translator, should
make practically the same response in the target – language receptor as the original
message in the source language receptor. That means, above all, that whatever the
text says and whatever it implies should be understood in the same way by both the
source – language user for whom it was originally intended and by the target –
language user. It is therefore the translator’s duty to make available to the target
language receptor the maximum amount of information carried by linguistic sighs,
including both their denotational / referential/ meanings / i.e. information about the
extralinguistic reality which they denote / and their emotive – stylistic connotation.
& 4. LINGUISTIC AND EXTRALINGUISTIC ASPECTS OF
TRANSLATION.

However the information conveyed by linguistic signs alone, i.e. the

messages overtly expressed in the text, would not be sufficient for adequate
translation. Some linguists distinguish between what they call translation, based
palely on the meaning expressed by linguistic sighs, and involving recourse to
extralinguistic information. In fact, the two are very closely interwined and in most
cases effective translation is impossible without an adequate knowledge of the
speech – act situation and the situation described in the text. The phrase “Two on
the aisle” / Два места ближе к проходу/ would hardly make much sense unless it
is known that the conversation takes place at a box – office / speech act situation /.
The phrase “ Поворотом рычага установить момент поступления
воздуха в цилиндр” was translated “turn the handle until the air comes into the
cylinder” because the translator was familiar with the situation described in the text
knowledge of the subject is one of the prerequisites of an adequate translation.
The translation of technical and amount of technical and scientific
knowledge.

QUESTIONS FOR SELF CONTROL:

1. What is translation?
2. What subjects is the translation of theory and practice based on?
3. What is the subject matter of the theory of translation?
4. What are the main directions in the history of translation?
5. What are the main types of translation?
6. What are the main features of the nature of translation?
7. What linguistic and extralinguistic aspects of translation do you know?

INDEPENDENT WORK:
1. The history of theory of translation
2. Development of translatology in Uzbekistan
3. Outstanding linguists in the sphere of translatology

OBLIGATORY LITERATURE:
1. Barkhudarov L.S. Language and translation. M. 1975.
2. Shvaytser A.D. Translation and linguistics .M. 1973.
ADDITIONAL LITERATURE:
1. Levitskaya T.R, Fiterman A.M. The problem of Translation on the
material of the contemporary English language. M. 1974.
2. Nida.E. Towards a science of translation. Leiden. 1964.
3. Roger. N. Bell. Translation and translating . (Theory and practice).
London, New York. 1995.

LECTURE № II 1.THE BASIC PROBLEMS OF TRANSLATION

PROBLEMS FOR DISCUSSION:

1.The basic problems of translation.
2. The types of lexical meanings and their realization within a context.
3.The choice of a word among synonyms.
4.The problem of translation of international words.
5.The problem of translation of neologisms.
6.Antonymic translation.
KEY WORDS: translation, lexical meaning, synonyms, international words,
neologisms, antonymic translation
.
The difference between educational and professional translation is as
follows:
The aim of professional translation is to acquaint the reader with the original
work of fiction; educational translation as a linguistic subject at the special institute
and at school is one of the methods of more conscious and profound study of the
foreign language by the way of showing up in the English text lexical, grammar
and stylistic peculiarities of the English language.
Before speaking of the basic principles of translating process the concept of
the term “faithfulness of translation” should be determined.
The translation is considered to be faithful when the content of the book, its
stylistic peculiarities are rendered by the linguistic means of the native language. It
means that very often we have to use such linguistic categories of the native
language, which formally don’t coincide with those of the English language but
have the same emotional and psychological effect on the Russian reader.
The process of educational translation presents 4 stages:
1. First of all the text should be thoroughly understood. It means that the
student should be acquainted with the whole book, should have some knowledge
of the history of literature and mode of life of the people from whose language the
translation is being done.
2. The student should realize the stylistic functions of lexical and grammar
and phonetic phenomena which are used to express the content of the text.
3. Then the work on the choice of corresponding means of expression in the
native language should be done.
4. The last stage is a work on the Russian or Uzbek text.

2.THE CHOICE OF THE WORD. THE TYPES OF LEXICAL MEANING

The choice of the word is one of the most difficult problems of translation,
which is closely connected with the following problems.
2.1. THE LOGICAL MEANING OF THE WORD.
Any grammatical phenomena or stylistic peculiarities do not always coincide
with those of the foreign language as well as the meaning of the separate words,
which are lexical equivalents. The ain meaning of the English word “table”
coincides with that of the Russian language. But the Russian “стол ” has one
additional meaning: “питание” “пансион” means while in English we have the
special words to express the idea: “board”,“room and board”. At same time
English “table” has the additional meaning to “таблица”. тable стол board
таблица питание room and board пансион

1. 2. INDEPENDENT AND CONNECTED MEANING OF WORD.

 The logical meaning of the word may be both independent and connected
with other words. The latter can be understood in the given combination of words.
A color bar – цветной /ярко окрашенный/ барьер was seen in the distance.
There exist a color bar (расовая дискриминация) in the South Africa.

2.3. EMOTIVE MEANING OF THE WORD

A lot of words may acquire emotive meaning and the same word in different
sentences may be rendered by different words.
- China is a large country( страна )
- We are ready to die for our country(родина)
While translating one should take into consideration on that in different
languages the words which are lexical equivalents mat arouse quite different
associations.
For Russians “зима” means snow and frost, for Englishmen - fog and cold
wind.
“Она ходит павой перед ним”- Дело Артaмоновых.
For Russians “пава” arouses the idea of something beautiful, stately,
majestic, proud /a sama – to величава, выступает будто пава -Пушкин /.
For Englishmen “ peahen” has nothing in common with these asociations.
That’s why it’s quite correct to translate the sentence as followes:
- “She poses proudly before him / to pose – позировать/
2.4. THE MEANING OF THE WORD AND ITS USE.
The meaning of the word shouldn’t be mixed with its use. Sometimes even a
monosemantic word can be combined with a lot of words and is rendered in
Russian by different words:
A young man Молодой человек
A young child Маленький ребёнок
Young in a crime Неопытный преступник
The night is young Началась ночь
Department of justice Министерство юстиции
Ministry of defense Министерство Oбороны
Board of trade Министерство торговли
Admiralty Морское министерство
The First Lord of Admiralty Военно- Mорской министр
Chancellor Министр финансов
War office Военное Министерство
A bad headache Сильная головная боль
A bad mistake Грубая ошибка
A bad weather Плохая погода
A bad debt Невозвращённый долг
A bad accident Тяжёлый / несчастный/ случай
A bad wound Тяжёлая рана
2.5. .CONTEXT
The word in the sentence may acquire so-called contextual meaning. It may
be not constant , as a rule we can’t find the contextual meaning of the word in the
dictionary . But it always has something in common with the main meaning of the
word.
“In the atomic war common and children will be first hostage.” The
dictionary gives only one meaning of the given word-“ заложник”, but in the
given sentence the word acquires a new meaning: “жертва ”. Its a great difficulty
to find out the contextual meaning of the word as the dictionary only gives hints
how to search for the necessary word in our native town language .
The majority of the words are known to be polysemantic and the context
becomes especially important while translating polysemantic words as translating
in different languages is quite different.
While translating one should remember he may use the words not included
in the dictionary because it’s impossible to include in the dictionary all the correct
meanings of the word, which it may acquire in the context.
“He was developing grammatical nerves” – У него развивалось
грамматическое чутьё.
We can find a lot of meanings of the word “nerves” “нервы, сила,
мужество, хладнокровие, дерзость, нахалство” but in our text it is rendered as
“чутьё”.
The student are to make out that thoughts, reflections should be translated
not by separate words. So it’s quite possible and natural either to introduce some
words and even:
- I lit my candle at the watchman’s/ Dickens/-Я зажёг свою свечу от
фoнaря ночного сторожа.
Sentences or omit them if one can manage without them.
&3.SYNONYMS
Besides finding the exact meaning of the word the students should be able to
choose the necessary word from corresponding number of synonyms in the native
language.
-“She was brave about it.”
“Brave” means “храбрый”, “смелый”, “благородный”, “прекрасный”
sentence and other words can be used in translating the given sentence and other
words should be given preference too: “отважный”, “мужественный”.
The English language is very rich in synonyms. Synonymous pairs are very
characteristic of the English language.
-The week and humble Jewo. (“The Path of Thunder” page 80)

&4.. THE TRANSLATION OF INTERNATIONAL WORDS.

Those words which have similar form and meaning in different languages
are called international words.
Some of them completely coincide in their meaning /such as football,
diplomacy, artillery/ some of them partially.
They may be different in their stylistic coloring e.g. “businessman”,
“cosmopolitan” are neutral in English while in Russian they have negative
meaning. Some of them have entirely different meaning: compositor – наборщик
 conductor – дирижёр,кондуктор
These words are called pseudo-international words: решительный- dramatic
pathetic – 1) трогательный 2) политический
наука и техника – science and technology
&5. TRANSLATION OF NEOLOGISMS.
The English language is very rich in neologisms – the word have been created
recently and perhaps will not live in the language for a long time. It is very seldom
that we find equivalent for the translation of neologisms and for the most part we
use descriptive translation and word-for-word translation /people of good will, top
level talks.
We usually make out the meaning of the new words with the help of the
context, but it is also necessary to take into consideration the way of their
formation.

&6. TRANSLATION WITH THE HELP OF ANTONYMS.

The translation with the help of antonyms can’t be escaped in case of
different structure peculiarities of the English, Uzbek and Russian languages.
1. The combination of negative prefixes with negative particles –
litotes/widely used in English but not typical of the Russian language.

He was not unfriendly to a particular type of prisoner.

-“Soames, with his set lips and his square chin, was not unlike a bulldog”
/Galm. The Man of Property/...
2. Negative conjunctions “until” and “unless” used with negation:

The United States didn’t enter the war until April 1917 – Соединённые
Штаты вступили в войну только в апреле 1917 г
QUESTIONS FOR SELF-CONTROL:
1. Is there any difference in the aim of educational and professional
translation?
2. What does the term “faithfulness of translation” mean?
3. What meaning is important in translation, dictionary or contextual? Why?
4. Say a few words about the international and pseudointernational words?
5. What is the main problem in translating neologisms?
6. What can you say about the role of antonymous translation?

INDEPENDENT WORK:
1. The main problems in the theory of translation
2. The adequacy as a criterion in translation
OBLIGATORY LITERATURE:
1. Barkhudarov L.S. Language and Translation. M. 1975.
2. Catford I.C. A Linguistic theory of translation. L.N/Y.
3. Shvaytser A.D. Translation and Linguistics. M.1973.
 4. Levitskaya T.R, Fiterman A.M. The problems of translation on the material
of thecontemporary English language. M.1974.

ADDITIONAL LITERATURE:
1. Nida.E. Towards a science of translation. Leiden. 1964.
2. Roger. N. Bell. Translation and translating . Theory and practice. London,
New York. 1995.
3. Salomov G. Tarjima nazariyasiga kirish. T. 1978.
4. Salomov G. Tarjima nazariyasi asoslari. T. 1983.

LECTURE III . PRINCIPLES OF TRANSLATION LEVELS OF

EQUIVALENCE AND THE CONCEPT OF ADEQUATE TRANSLATION.

PROBLEMS FOR DISCUSSION:

1. PPRINCIPLES OF TRANSLATION
2. LEVELS OF EQUIVALENCE. ADEQUATE TRANSLATION
3. EQUIVALENCE. SEMANTIC AND STYLISTIC
4. TRANSLATION AS A COMMUNICATION PROCESS

KEY WORDS: translation, equivalent, adequacy

& 1. PRINCIPLES OF TRANSLATION.

Although this is a theoretical subject we think that the following guidelines
will help the students to evaluate their own work on translation. Below are some
general principles which are relevant to all translation.
a) Meaning. The translation should reflect accurately the meaning of the
original text. Nothing should be arbitrarily added or removed, though
occasionally part of the meaning can be “transposed”, for example: He has limp
with fatigue..
Ask yourself:
is the meaning of the original text clear? if not what does the uncertainty mean? are
any words “loaded”, that is, are there any underlying implications?/ “correct me if
I’m wrong...” suggests I know I’m right”/.
- Is the dictionary meaning of a particular word the most suitable one?/ should
субверсия be subversion in English?/
- does anything in the translation sound unnatural or forced?
b) Form. The ordering of words and idea in the translation should match the
original as closely as possible/ this is particularly important in translating legal
documents, guarantees, contracts and etc./ But differences in language structure
often require changes in the form and order of words. When the doubt underline in
the original text the words on which the main stress falls.
c) Register. Languages often differ greatly in their levels of formality in a given
context /say the business letter/.To resolve these differences, the translator
mustdistinguish between formal or fixed expressions/ Le vous prie , madme,
d’agrier l’expression de mes sentiments distinguis, or please find enclosed/ and
personal expressions in which the written or speaker sets the tone.

Consider also:
- would any expression in the original sound too formal /informal , cold
/warm , personal / impersonal / ... if translated literally
- What is the intention of the speaker or writer / to persuade / dissuade,
apologize /criticize?/ Does come through in the translation?
d) Source language influence. One of the most frequent criticisms of translation is
that “It doesn’t sound natural. This is because the translator’s thoughts and choice
of words are too strongly molded by the original text.
A good way of shaking of the source language /SC/ influence a few
sentences aloud, from memory. This will suggest natural, patterns of thought in the
first language /LI/ which may not come to mind when the eye is fixed on the SL
text.
e) Style and clarity. The translator should not change the style of the original. But
if the text is stoppily written, for the reader’s sake, correct the defects.
f) Idioms. Idiomatic expressions are notoriously untranslatable. These include
similes, metaphors, verbs and sayings /as good as gold/, jargon, slang,
colloquialisms / user – friendly, the Big Apple, Yuppir, etc/, and / in English/
phrasal verbs. If the expressions cannot be directly translated, try any of the
following:
􀂾retain the original word, in inverted commas: “yuppie” replain the original
expression, with a literal expression in brackets; Indian summer /dry, hazy
weather in late autumn/
􀂾use a close equivalent: talk of the devil қveek na oratima/literally/ the
wolf at the door.
􀂾use a non- idiomatic or plain prose translation: a lot over the top қ
undue excessive.

The golden rule is: if the idiom does work in the LI, do not force in into
the translation./The principles outlined above are adopted from Frederic Fuller,
the translator’s handbook. For more detailed comments, see Peter Newmark:
Approaches to translation./
&2.LEVELS OF EQUIVALENCE AND CONCEPT OF ADEQUATE
TRANSLATION.
LEVELS OF EQUIVALENCE: This problem was briefly discussed in
previous lecture in connection with the distinction between semantic and
programmatic equivalence. In the theory of translation. For instance: V.G.Gark and
I.N.Levin distinguish the following types of equivalents: formal semantic and
situational. Formal equivalence may be illustrated by speech cases as: The sun
disappeared behind a cloud – солнце скрылось за тучей.
Here we find similarity of words and forms in addition to the similarity. The
differences in the plane of expression are in fact, those determined by overall
structural differences between Russian and English. The use of articles in English,
the use of perfective aspect, gender, forms, etc., in Russian.
Semantic equivalence exists when the same meanings are expressed in the
two languages in a way.
Example:- Troops were airlifted to the battlefield- войска были
переброшены по воздуху на поле.
The English word “airlifted” contains the same meaning as the Russian
phrase перебросить по воздуху. Although different linguistic devices are used in
Russian and in English /a word group and a compound word/ the sum of semantic
components is the same situational equivalence is established between that both
linguistic devices but, nevertheless, describe the same extralinguistic situation: to
let someone pass- уступит дорогу. It should be noted that formal equivalence
alone is insufficient. In fact the above examples pertain to two types of semantic
equivalence:
1. Semantic equivalence and formal equivalence.
2. Semantic equivalence without formal equivalence.

As to “situational equivalence”, it is in our view another variety of semantic

equivalence that differs from the first type in that it is based on the same semantic
components may be semantically equivalent /a+b/қ/c+d/, upside downқ вверх
ногами.
We shall therefore speak of two types of semantic equivalence;
componential /identity of semantic components/ and referential /reterential
equivalence of semantic components/. The later is preferable to “situational
equivalence” for descriptions of the same situation are not necessary semantically
equivalent.
We may thus distinguish the following levels of equivalence:

Formal Semantic Pragmatic

Component
equivalen equivalen equivalen
equivalence
ce ce ce
+ + + +
- + + +
- - + +
- - - +

&3.EQUIVALENCE SEMANTIC AND STYLISTIC.

Let us add to the definitions we have given so far a third which, in its
extended form, takes us directly into the problem we must address: the nature of
equivalence.
Translation is the replacement of a representation of a text in one language
by a representation of an equivalent text in a second language.
The authors continue and make the problem of equivalence very plain.
 Texts in different languages can be equivalent in different degrees/ fully or
partially equivalent/ in respect of different levels of presentation /equivalent in
respect of context, of semantics, of grammar, of lexic, etc./ and at different
ranks /word-for-word, phrase-for-phrase, sentence-for-sentence/.
It is apparent and has been for a very long time indeed, that the ideal of total
equivalence is a chimera. Languages are different from each other; they are
different in form having distinct codes and rules regulating the construction of
grammatical stretches of language and these forms have different meanings.
To shift from one language from another is, by definition, to alter the forms.
Further, the contrasting forms convey meanings which cannot but fail to coincide
totally; there is no absolute synonymy between words in the same language, so
why should anyone be surprised to discover a lack of synonymy between
languages?
Something is always lost / or, might one suggest “gained”?/ in process and
translators can find themselves being accused of reproducing only part of original
and so “betraying” the authors intentions. Hence the traitorous nature ascribed to
the translator by the notorious Italian proverb: Traduttore traditore.
If equivalence is to be “preserved” at a particular level at all costs, which
level is to be? What are the alternatives? The answer, it turns put, hinges on the
duel nature of language itself. Language is a formal structure – a code –which
consists of elements which can combine to signal semantic “sense” and, at the
same time, a communication system which uses the forms of the code to refer to
entities/in the word/and create signals which possess communicative “value”.
The translator has the option, then, of focusing on finding formal equivalents
which “preserve” the context –free semantic sense of the text at the expense of its
context-sensitive communicative value of the text at the expense of its context-
free semantic sense.
Each of these questions defines one or more parameters of variation.
What is the message contained in the text; the content of the signal; the
proposional content of the speech act. Why? orients us towards the intention of the
sender, the purpose for which the text was issued, the illocutionary forces of the
speech acts which constitutes the underlying structure of the text, the discourse.
These run the whole gamut from informing through persuading to flattering... and,
as we shall see, it is rare for a text to possess a single function. Multiply functions
are the norm rather than the exception for adult language so our task as receivers of
text, is to find out the primary function from those which are secondary. When? is
concerned with the time of the communication realized in the text and setting it in
its historical context; contemporary or set in the recent or remote past or future.
How? is ambiguous, since it can refer to:
a) manner of delivery; the tenor of the discourse; serious; flippant or ironic.
b) medium of communication; the mode of the discourse; the channel.
c) verbal / non-verbal, speech/ writing – selection to carry the signal.

Where? is concerned with the place of communication the physical location

of the speech level realized in the context.
 Who? refers to the participants involved in the communication; the sender or
receiver/s/. Both spoken and written texts will reveal to a greater or lesser extent
characteristics of the speaker or writer as an individual and also, by inference, the
attitude the sender adopts in relation to the receiver/s/ and to the message being
transmitted; tabulated above are the following major types of translation
equivalence/ formal equivalence + semantic componential equivalence +pragmatic
equivalence; semantic componential and/or referential equivalence +pragmatic
equivalence; pragmatic equivalence alone.
Pragmatic equivalence which implies a close fit between communicative
intent and the receptor’s response is required at all levels of equivalence. It may
sometimes appear alone, without formal or semantic equivalence, as in the case: С
днём рождения! – Many happy returns of the day!
& 4. TRANSLATION AS A COMMUNICATION PROCESS.
The translator, as we have been saying, is by definition a communicator who
involved in written communication. We might, therefore, began by providing a
rough, general model of the process of written communication before moving on to
the special and particularly problematic process in which translators are involved.
The model of communication process may contain 9 steps which take us
from encoding the message through its transmission and reception to the decoding
of the message by the receiver. It provides us with a starting point for the
exclamation of the process of communication, always limited to the monolingual
and, by implicating, to dyadic interaction; one sender and one receiver:
CODE
SENDER channel SIGNAL/MESSAGE/ channel RECEIVER
CONTENT
Monolingual communication. Even with these limitations, however, it
contains within it the elements and process which need to be explained and raises a
large number of questions which require an answer. If we are to succeed at all in
our attempt to make sense of the phenomenon of translation. We could describe
this process in terms of 9 steps:
1. the sender selects message and code
2. encodes message
3. selects channel
4. transmits signal containing message
5. receiver receives signal containing message
6. recognizes code
7. decodes signal
8. retrieves message
9. comprehends message.

We ought not, however, to assume that this is a simple, unidirectional and

linear process nor that each step must be completed before the next can be started.
Processing is by its very nature both cycling / the sender/ sends more
message at the receiver takes over the sender’s role/ and cooperative/ the sender
may well begin again at step 1 while the receiver is no future advanced than step 5
or 6.
The model of translating process is as follows:
1. Translator receives signal I containing message
2. Recognizes
3. Decodes signal I
4. Retrieves message
5. Comprehends message
6. Translator selects code II
7. Encodes message by means of code II
8. Selects channel
9. Transmits signal II containing message.

We might commit here. There are several crucial points of difference

between the monolingual communication and bilingual communication involving
translation/we are sticking to written communication in both cases/: there are two
codes, two signals/ or utterances or texts/ and given what we have been saying
about the impossibility of 100 % equivalence, the sets or content/ i.e more than one
message/.
It follows, then that in our modeling of translating, we shall need two kinds
of explanation:
1. Psycholinguistic explanation which focuses mainly on steps 7 – decoding
and encoding – and,
2. A more text – linguistic or sociolinguistic explanation which successes
more on the participants, on the nature of the message and on the ways on
which the resources of the code are drawn upon by uses to create – carrying
signals and the fact socio-cultural approach is required to set the process in
context.

QUESTIONS FOR SELF-CONTROL:

1. What are general principles which are relevant to all translation? Name
them.
2. What are the reasons for using translation in the classroom?
3. Speak about the levels of equivalence.
4. What is semantic equivalence?
5. What is stylistic equivalence?
6. What is formal equivalence?
7. What is situational equivalence?
8. What is a communication process?

INDEPENDENT WORK:
1. Different levels of equivalence in source language and target language
2. The role of translation into communication process

OBLIGATORY LITERATURE:
 1. Alan Duff. Translation. Oxford University press. 1972.
2. Barkhudarov L.S. Language and Translation. M.1975.
3. Frederick Fuller. The translation’s handbook. L.N/Y.
4. Catford I.C. A Linguistic theory of translation. L.N/Y.

ADDITIONAL LITERATURE:
1. Nida.E. Towards a science of translation. Leiden. 1964.
2. Roger. N. Bell. Translation and translating. Theory and practice. London, New
York. 1995.
3. Salomov G. Tarjima nazariyasiga kirish. T. 1978.
4. Salomov G. Tarjima nazariyasi asoslari. T. 1983.
5. Peter Newmark. Approaches to translation. London.
6. Shvaytser A.D. Translation and Linguistics. M. 1973
7. Levitskaya T.R, Fiterman A.M. The problems of translation on the material of
the contemporary English language. M.1974.

LECTURE № IV. SEMANTIC AND PRAGMATIC ASPECTS OF

TRANSLATION.

PROBLEMS FOR DISCUSSION:

1. The role of semantic, syntactic and pragmatic relations.
2. The effect of the pragmatic motivation of the original message.
3. The effect of the receptor of the text relation
4. The effect of the translator’s angel of view
5. The problem of translatability
6. The rendering of the words of national colouring
7. The way of rendering realies

KEY WORDS: translation, translatability, pragmatics, words of national colouring,

realie
& 1. THE ROLE OF SEMANTIC, SYNTACTIC AND PRAGMATIC
RELATIONS.
Semantics /the science investigating the general properties of sign system/
distinguish the following types of relations:
1. semantic (sign to object),
2. syntactic (sign to sign),
3. pragmatic (sign to man).

One of the two texts / the original and its translation should be semantically
equivalent sets a relationship between the linguistic science and their denatata
(referents). The goal of translation is to produce a text, bearing the same relation to
the extralinguistic situation as the original. Semantic equivalence of message does
not necessary to imply semantic identify of each linguistic sign. Semantically
equivalent utterances include not only those, made up of the semantically identical
signs/ as for instance, He lives in Paris – У Парижда яшайди, but also utterances
comprising different sets of signs which in the theory totality at up denotates the
same types of relationship to the extralinguistic world and denotate the same
extralinguistic situation (e.g. Wet paint – Эхтиёт булинг. Буялган).
Semantic relation effect translation both in the initial stage of analysis and in
producing the target – language text of the translator to As distinct from semantic
relations, syntactic relations are important only at the stage of analysis since
relations between linguistic signs are essential for their semantic interpretation
(e.g. Bill hits John and John hits Bill). But also they may be occasionally preserved
in translation, the translator does not set himself this goal, very often and
syntactically non-equivalent utterances prove to be semantically equivalent: He
was considered invisible – Уни енгилмас хисоблашарди.
Pragmatic relations are superimposed on semantic relations and play an
equally important role in analyzing the original text, and in producing an
equivalent text in the target language. Semantically equivalent message do not
necessary mean the same thing to the source and target language receptors, and
therefore are not necessary pragmatically equivalent. The phrases “ He made 15
yard and run”- « У 15 ярдга сакради» are semantically equivalent for they denote
the same situation but the American reader, familiar with American football will
extract far more information from it then Uzbek counterpart who would neither
understand the aim of the manourre nor appreciate the football player’s
performance. The pragmatic problem, involved in translation, arises from three
types of pragmatic relations. The relation of the source – language sender to the
original message; the relation of the target – language receptor to the target –
language message and the relation both messages.
& 2. THE EFFECT OF THE PRAGMATIC MOTIVATION OF THE ORIGINAL
MESSAGE
The first type of relations’ amount to the sender’s communicative intent or
the pragmatic motivation of the original message. The translator, in other words,
should be aware whether the message is a statement of fact a request, an entreaty
or a joke. Very often the speaker’s communicative intent differs from what of fact
in which case it would be translated as “Мен билмайман” but also expression or
hesitation “Сизга нима десам экан?» “What gives?” in American slang may
either a question “Нима янгиликлар бор?” or just a greeting “ Салом”. “Is Mr.
Brown there, please” is not a question but a distinguished request “Телефонга
жаноб Враунни чакириб юборсангиз”.
& 3. THE EFFECT OF THE RECEPTOR TO THE TEXT RELATION
Prof. A. Neubet / Text and Translation/ has proposed a classification of texts
depending on their orientation towards different types of receptors: Texts, Intended
for “domestic consumption” /local advertising, legislation, home news, etc./, texts
intended primarily for the source – language receptor but having also a universal
human appeal / belle- letters/ and texts without any specific national addresses /
scientific literature/.
Typically, in written translation the translator deals with the text, not
intended for target- language audience and therefore subject to pragmatic
adaptations. Allowances are made for sociocultural: psychological and other
differences in their background knowledge.
According to E.Nida / Linguistics and ethnology in translation problems/
/Language in culture and society; Language structure and translation. /, “snow” –
white is translated into one of the African languages as a feathers of a “white
heron.” Pragmatic factors mat effect the scope of semantic information conveyed
in translating. Differences in background knowledge call for the addition of
deletion of some information / e.g. “Part of the nuclear station in Cuberland has
been closed down”-«Каберленд элетростанциясидаги атом
электростанциясинингбир кисми ёпилган эди”; “According to Newsweek”-
“Ньюсвик журналининг хабар беришича”/. Some cultural realize may be
translated by their functional analogies/Америка империализмининг жандарми -
a watchdog of US imperialism – from story about the 7 th US Fleet/
& 4. THE EFFECT OF THE TRANSLATOR’S ANGLE OF VIEW.
Another pragmatic factor relevant to translation, is the socio-psychological
and ideological orientation of the translator himself.
Translation is a process, determined by quite a number of factors. In addition
to conveying the semantic information, contained in the text, the detonational
meanings and emotive-stylistic connotations, the translator has to take into account
the author’scommunicative intent the type of an audience for which the message is
intended socio-psiological characteristics and back-ground of knowledge. A
process governed by so many variables cannot have a single outcome.
A process, governed by so many variable cannot have a single outcome.
What is more, the synonymic and paraphrasing potential of language is so high that
these may be several ways of describing the same extralinguistic situation, and
even though they be not quite identical, the differences may be neutralized by the
context. It should also be remembered that the translator’s decision may very
depend on the receptor/ of the translation of realia, for the specialists and for the
laymen/ and the purpose of translation.
If the old and the modernized version of the Bible: a woman, who had an
evil spirit in her that had kept her such for 18 years... . A woman who for 18 years
had been ill from some psyological cause. Also the poetic translation of
Shakespeare by Pasternak and the scholarly translation by prof. Morozov.
& 5. THE PROBLEM OF TRANSLATABILITY
Conflicting views have been expressed by linguistic concerning the problem
of translatability ranging from entirely negative stand, typical of national spirit and
the nation’s world view and therefore regarded translation as an impossible task, to
an unqualified positive attitude, found in many contemporary writings on
translation. The very fact that translation makes interlinguial communication,
possible is in argument in favor of translatability.
Yet it is an oversimplication to claim that every meaningful element of the
text is translatable.
In the preface to the “Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” Mark Twain says,
that he had reproduces in the book “ painstakingly and with the...” support of
personal familiarity the shadings of a number of dialects/The Missouri Negro
dialects the backwoods – South- Western dialect, the Pike- country dialect, etc.../.
Naturally none of these fine distractions can be reflected in the translation.
Yet by using colloquial and substandard forms the translator can give an
adequate impression of the character’s socio and educational status and will render
the most essential, functional characteristics of these dialects features.
& 6. THE RENDERING OF THE WORDS OF NATIONAL/ LOCAL/
COLOURING
National or local coloring is one of the main features of national peculiarities
in literature. Here belong the following elements:
1. The world denoting things peculiar to the social and material life of the
Nation// реалии /- star chamber- вьездная палата; камин; дилитанс; клуб.
2. Proper names, geographical denominations, names of streets, big shops,
theatres.
3. The way of greetings, formulas of politeness/ Hello, sir /
4. Linear measures, liquid measures, day measures /мера сыпучих тел /.
The translation of realia usually presents some difficulties. It’s necessary to have a
thorough knowledge of the life of the nation to avoid ridiculous mistakes. Here are
some ways of translating the words of local coloring: by translator / cab –кеб, ser-
сер/. It helps to preserve foreign coloring in the translation, but the word translated
should be clear to the reader. Otherwise, the disruptive translation is desirable.
-“A tall man entered the room. He wore a tweed coat and a pair of hob-
nails”
-“Tweed” – a kind of Scottish woolen stuff dyed into two colors.
-«В комнату вошёл высокий человек. На нём была куртка сшитая из
твида и подбитые гвоздями сапоги».
But for the Russian and Uzbek readers it is not clear what the word “tweed”
means that’s why it’s better to translate the sentence as follows:
В комнату вошёл высокий человек, одетый в шерстяную куртку.
But if we have no idea of the context we can’t say if the translation is
correct. First of all we should find out for what reason the author mentioned the
fact that the coat was made of tweed. After the reading the story we learn that the
person who entered the room was a detective distinguished as a pleasant. So the
translation should be as follows:
-В комнату вошёл человек, одетый в простую крестьянскую куртку.
If the author wanted to accentual that it was cold outside he should have
translated it as follows:
-В комнату вошёл человек, одетый в тёплую шерстяную куртку.
7.THE WAYS OF RENDERING REALIAES.
Proper names, geographical denominations are rendered as a rule by means
of transliteration, but we should take into account concerning historical proper
names, geographical denominations, etc.
William the conquer – Вильгельм завоеватель
King Charles I – Карл I
/ But Charles Darwin – Чарлз Дарвин /
Hamlet – Гамлет
 Paris- Париж
England - Англия.
The names of political parties and state offices are usually not translated.
The names of newspapers and journals are usually translated, as well as the names
of firms and companies:
House of Commons – Палата общин
Security council –Совет безопасности
But Scotland yard –Скотленд ярд / управление Лондонской полиции/
Intelligence service – интележенс сервис/развед управления Англии/
But: modern languages - модерн ленгвижес
New time - новое время
We translate the proper names which make some semantic meanings:
dramatic / театральное/ persons of “ The Scholl for scandal” by Sheridan.
Sir Peter Teazle /ворс /
Sir Oliver Surface
Sir Harry Bumpler- /амортизатор, прибор, смягчающий удары/
Sir Benjamin Backbite –/ to blackbite - злословить за стеной, клеветать/
Joseph Surface
Charles Surface
Careless
Snake
Crabtree / crab- дикая яблоня/
Jady sneerwall- / to sneer – глушиться/
Mrs. Candour- / искренность, прямота/
Formulas of politeness are rendered by means of transliterations. But in
official documents and informations “Господин” and “ Госпожа” are usually
used.
As for as linear measures, liquid measures and etc. They are usually
rendered by means of transliteration, but the tradition is also taken into
consideration:
A pound of sterling – фунт стерлинг
Ounce – унция
Mile- миля
Pint –пинта
Some peculiarities of English measures are not reflected in Russian:
Six months- полгода
Eighteen month –полтора года
Fortnight- две недели
The peculiarities of the English language are extremely exact indications of
measures, which seem for Russian quite unusual:
He could take nothing for dinner but a partridge with an imperial “cab”.
1. Наёмный экипаж /we want for example to stress that the hero was rich/
2. Кеб /we have for an object to preserve national coloring/
3. Извозчик / russian coloring /
4. Такси /modern life/
 QUESTIONS FOR SELF-CONTROL:
. What is the role of semantic, stylistic and pragmatic relations in translation.
. What is the effects of the pragmatic motivation of the original message?
. Speak about the effect of the receptor to the text relation.
. What are the main features of rendering of the words of national colouring?
. How do you understand the problem of translatability?
.What is pragmatics?

INDEPENDENT WORK:
1. Pragmatics and translations
2. Translation as an act of communication
3. Translation and national world picture

OBLIGATORY LITERATURE:
1. Alan Duff. Translation. Oxford University press. 1972.
2. Barkhudarov L.S. Language and Translation. M.1975.
3. Frederick Fuller. The translation’s handbook. L.N/Y.
4. Catford I.C. F Linguistic theory of translation. L.N/Y.
5. Peter Newmark. Approaches to translation. London.
6. Pragmatics and translation. M.1990

ADDITIONAL LITERATURE:
1. Levitskaya T.R, Fiterman A.M. The problems of translation on the material of
the contemporary English language. M.1974.
2. Language Transfer Cross – Linguistic influence in language learning.
Cambridge University Press. 1993.
3. Nida.E. Towards a science of translation. Leiden. 1964
4. Nida.E. Linguistics and ethnology in translation problems. Language structure
and Translation. Atanford. 1975.
5. Roger. N. Bell. Translation and translating. Theory and practice. London, New
York. 1995.
6. Shvaytser A.D. Translation and Linguistics. M. 1973
7. Salomov G. Tarjima nazariyasiga kirish. T. 1978.
8. Salomov G. Tarjima nazariyasi asoslari. T. 1983.
9. Tommola Q. Translation as a psycho-linguistic Process. L.1986.

LECTURE 5 . LEXICAL PROBLEMS OF TRANSLATION

PROBLEMS FOR DISCUSSION:

1. Lexical problems of translation. Complete lexical correspondences.
2. Partial lexical correspondences.
3. Types of lexical transformations.
4. Absence of lexical correspondences.
 KEY WORDS: translation, lexical problems, correspondence,
transformation
&1.LEXICAL PROBLEMS OF TRANSLATION.
Due to the semantic features of language the meaning of words, their usage,
ability to combine with other words, associations awakened by them, the “ place”
they hold in the lexical system of a language do not concur for the most part. All
the same “ideas” expressed by words coincide in most cases, though the means of
expression differ.
As it is impossible to embrace all the cases of semantic differences between
two languages, we shall restrict this course to the most typical features.
The principal types of lexical correspondences between two languages are as
follows:
I Complete correspondences.
II. Partial correspondences
III. The absence of correspondences
COMPLETE LEXICAL CORRESPONDENCES
Complete correspondences of lexical units of two languages can rarely be
found. As a rule they belong to the following lexical groups.
1. Proper names and geographical denominations;
2. Scientific and technical terms / with the exception of terminological polysemy/;
3. The months and days of the week, numerals.

&3. PARTIAL LEXICAL CORRESPONDENCES

While translating the lexical units partial correspondences mostly occur.
That happens when a word in the language of the original conforms to several
equivalents in the language it is translated into. The reasons of these facts are the
following.
1. Most words in a language are polysemantic, and the system of word –
meaning in one language does not concur with the same system in another
language completely
/ compare the nouns “ house” and “table” in English, Uzbek and
Russian/.That’s why the selection of a word in the process of translating is
determined by the context.
2. The specification of synonymous order which pertain the selection of
words. However, it is necessary to allow for the nature of the semantic signs
which
an order of synonyms is based on consequently, it is advisable to account for
the concurring meanings of members in synonymic order, the difference in texical
and stylistic meanings, and the ability of individual components of orders of
synonyms to combine: e.g. dismiss, discharge / bookish/, sack, fire / colloquial/ the
edge of the table – the rim of the moon; ишдан бушатмок / адабий тилда /,
хайдамок /огиздаги нуткда/, столнинг чети / кирраси/, ойнинг кирраси / чети/.
3.Each word effects the meaning of the object it designates. Not
unfrequently languages “select” different properties and signs to describe the same
denotations. The way, each language creates it’s own “pecture of the word” , is
known as “ various principles of dividing reality into parts”. Despite the difference
of signs, both languages reflect one and the same phenomenon adequately and to
the same extent, which must be taken into account when translating words of this
kinds, as equivalence is not identical to having the same meaning /e.g. compare:
hot milk skin on it – каймок тутган иссик сут – горячее молоко с пенкой/.
4.The differences of semantic content of the equivalent words in two languages.
These words can be divided into three sub – groups:
a. words with a differentiated / undifferentiated/ meaning: e.g. in English: to swim/
of a human being/ , to sail / of a ship/, to float / of an inanimate object/; in Uzbek:
сузмок /одамлар хакида/, сузмок /кема хакида/ сув юзида калкиб
юрмок /предмет тугрисида/; in Russian: плавать, плыть
b. words with a “broad” sense; verbs of state / to be/, perception and brainwork /to
see, to understand/, verbs of action and speech / to go, to say/, partially
desemantisized words /thing, case/.
c. “adverbial verbs” with a composite structure, which have a semantic content,
expressing action and nature at the same time: e.g. The train whistled out of the
station.- Поезд хуштак чалиб станциядан жунаб кетди. – Дав свисток, поезд
отошёл от станции.
5.Most difficulties are encountered when translating the so called pseudo–
international words i.e. words which are similar in form in both languages, but
differ in meaning or use. The regular correspondence of such words, in spelling
and sometimes in articulation / in compliance with the regularities of each
language. Coupled with the structure of word-building in both languages may lead
to a false identification /e.g. English moment, in Uzbek-лахза; in Russian –
момент, важность, значительность/.
6. Each language has its own typical rules of combinability. The latter is
limited by the system of the language. A language has generally established
traditional combinations which do not concur with corresponding ones in another
language.
Adjectives offer considerable difficulties in the process of translation, that is
explained by the specific ability of English adjectives to combine. It does not
always coincide with their combinability in Uzbek or Russian languages on
account of differences in their semantic structure and valence. Frequently one and
the same adjective in English combines with a number of nouns, while in Uzbek
and in Russian different adjectives are used in combinations of this kind. For this
reason it is not easy to translate English adjectives which are more capable of
combining than their Uzbek and Russian equivalents /A bad headache, a bad
mistake -.../каттик бош огриги, купол хато...; сильная головная боль, грубая
ошибка./
A specific feature of the combinability of English nouns is that some of them
can function as the subject of a sentence, indicating one who acts, though they do
not belong to a lexico- semantic category Nomina Agentis. This tends to the
“predicate – adverbial modifier” construction being replaced by that of the “subject
– predicate”.
- The strike closed most of the schools in New – York.
- Иш ташлаш натижасида Нью-Йоркдаги мактабларнинг купчилиги ёпилди.
- В результате забастовки большинство школ Нью – Йорка было закрыто.
Of no less significance is the habitual use of a word, which is bound up with
the history of the language and the formation and the development of its lexical
system. This gave shapes to cliches peculiar to each language, which are used for
describing particular situations/ e.g. in English “ Wet point”, in Uzbek “Эхтиёт
булинг, буялган”, in Russian “Осторожно, окрашено”.
&3.TYPES OF LEXICAL TRANSFORMATIONS.
In order to attain equivalence, despite the differences in formal and semantic
system of two languages, the translator is obliged to do various linguistic
transformations. Their aims are to ensure that the text imparts all the knowledge
inferred in the original text, without violating the rules of the language it is
translated into the following 3 elementary types are seemed most suitable for
describing all kinds of lexical transformations:
I. lexical substitution;
II. supplementation;
III. omissions / dropping/
1. Lexical substitution.
1. In substitutions of lexical units words and stable word combinations are
replaced by others which are not their equivalents. More often 3 cases are met
with:
a) A concrete definition – replacing a word with a broad sense by one of a
narrower meaning: He is at school – Он учиться в школеж; У мактабда укийди.
He is in the army – Он служит в армии; У армияда хизмат килади.
b) Generalization- replacing a word’s narrow meaning by one with a broad sense:
A Navajo blanket – жун адёл; индийское одеяло.
c) An integral transformation: How do you do – Салом; Здравствуйте

2. Antonymous translation is a complex lexico – grammatical substitution of

a positive construction for the negative one / and vice – versa/, which is coupled
with a replacement of a word by its antonym when translated / Keep off grass –
Майса устидан юрманг – Не ходите по траве./
3. Compensation is used when certain elements in the original text cannot be
expressed in terms of the language it is translated into. In cases of this kind
the same information is communicated by other or another place to as to make up
the semantic deficiency:
“He was ashamed of his parents..., because they said don’t” and “she
don’t”... /Celindjer/ - У уз ота- онасидан уяларди, чунки улар сузларни нотугри
талаффуз килардилар- Он стеснялся своих родителей, потому что они
говорили “хочут” и “хотите”( перевод Раи Ковалёвой).
II. Supplementations. A formal inexpressibility of semantic components is
the reason most met with for using supplementation as a way of lexical
transformation. A formal inexpressibility of certain semantic components is
especially of English word combinations N + N and Adj + N
 Pay claim -Иш хаккини ошириш талаби, требование повысить
заработную плату
Logical computer- Логик операцияларни бажарувчи хисоблаш
машинаси, компьютер.
Ш. Omissions/ dropping /. In the process of lexical transformation of
omission generally words with a surplus meaning are omitted / e.g. Components of
typically English pair – synonyms, possessive pronouns and exact measures/ in
order to give a more concrete expressions. To raise one’s eye – brows – ялт этиб
карамок ; поднять брови – в знак изумления/.
&4.ABSENCE OF LEXICAL CORRESPONDENCES
Realiae are words denoting objects, phenomena and so on, which are typical
of people. In order to render correctly the designation of objects referred to in the
original and image associated with them it is necessary to know the tenor of life
epoch and specific features of the country depicted in the original work.
The following groups of words can be regarded as having no equivalents: 1.
realiae of everyday life – words denoting objects, phenomena etc, which typical of
a people / cab, fire – place/; 2. Proper names and geographical denominations; 3.
Addresses and greetings; 4. The titles of journals, magazines and newspapers; 5.
Weights, linear measures and etc.
When dealing with realiae it is necessary to take special account of the
pragmatic aspect of the translation because “the knowledge gained by experience”
of the participants of the communicative act turns out to be different. As a result,
much of which is easily understood by an Englishmen is in comprehensible to an
Uzbek or Russian readers or experts the opposite influence upon them. It is
particularly important to allow for the pragmatic factor when translating fiction,
foreign political propaganda material and advertisements of articles for export.
Below are three principle ways of translating words denoting specific
realiae: 1.Transliteration / complete or partial /, i.e., the direct use of word denoting
realiae or its roots in the spelling or in combination with suffixes of the mother
tongue / cab, дуппи, сандал, изба /;
2. Creation of new single or complex word for denoting an object on the
basis of elements and morphological relationships in the mother tongue /
skyscraper – осмонупар, небоскрёб /;
3. Use of a word denoting sometimes close to / though not identical with /
realiae of another language. It represents an approximate translation specified by
the context, which is something on the verge of description/ pedlar – таркатувчи,
торговец- разносчик /.
RESUME:
QUESTIONS FOR SELF-CONTROL:
1. What are the principal types of lexical correspondences between the two
languages?
2. What lexical units are liable for complete lexical correspondences?
3. What cases refer to partial lexical correspondences?
4. What is understood under lexical substitution?
5. In what cases is supplementation is applied?
 6. What are cases of absence of lexical correspondences?

INDEPENDENT WORK:
1. Lexical problem of translation
2. Translation of polysemantic words
3. Translation of Proper names and geographical names
4. Translation of words of measurement

OBLIGATORY LITERATURE:
1. Barkhudarov L.S. Language and Translation. M.1975.
2. Frederick Fuller. The translation’s handbook. L.N/Y.
3. Catford I.C. F Linguistic theory of translation. L.N/Y.
4. Peter Newmark. Approaches to translation. London.
5. Levitskaya T.R, Fiterman A.M. The problems of translation on the material of
the contemporary English language. M.1974.
6. Language Transfer Cross – Linguistic influence in language learning.
Cambridge University Press. 1993.

ADDITIONAL LITERATURE:
1. Nida.E. Towards a science of translation. Leiden. 1964
2. Nida.E. Linguistics and ethnology in translation problems. Language structure
and Translation. Atanford. 1975.
3. Roger. N. Bell. Translation and translating . Theory and practice. London, New
York. 1995.
4. Shvaytser A.D. Translation and Linguistics. M. 1973
5. Salomov G. Tarjima nazariyasiga kirish. T. 1978.
6. Salomov G. Tarjima nazariyasi asoslari. T. 1983.

LECTURE VI. PHRASEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF TRANSLATION.

PROBLEMS FOR DICUSSION:

1. Complete conformities in phraseological units.
2. Partial conformities in phraseological units.
3. Translation of phraseological units with n phraseological conformities:
􀂾verbatim translation;
􀂾translation by analogy;
􀂾descriptive translation.

KEY WORDS: translation, verbatim translation, phraseological units,

translation by analogy, descriptive translation
Translating a phraseological unit is not an easy matter as it depend on
several factors: different combinability of words, homonymy, polysemy,
synonymy of phraseological units and presence of falsely identical units, which
makes it necessary to take into account of the context. Besides, a large number of
phraseological units have a stylistic – expressive component in meaning, which
usually has a specific national feature. The afore-cited determines the necessary to
get acquainted with the main principles of the general theory of phraseology.
The following types of phraseological units may be observed : phrasemes
and idioms. A unit of constant context consists of a dependent and a constant
indicators may be called a phraseme. An idiom is a unit of constant context which
is characterized by an integral meaning of the whole and by weakened meanings of
the components, and in which the dependant and the indicating elements are
identical and equal to the whole lexical structure of the phrase.
Any type of phraseological unit can be presented as a definite micro- system.
In the process of translating of phraseological units functional adequate linguistic
units are selected / by comparing two specific linguistic principles. These
principles reveal elements of likeness and distinction. Certain parts of these
systems may correspond in form and content ( completely or partially ) or have no
adequacy.
The main types of phraseological conformities are as follows:
I. Complete conformities II. Partial conformities III. Absence of conformities

&.I. COMPLETE CONFORMITIES.

Complete coincidence of form and content in phraseological units is rarely met
with.
1. Black frost / phraseme/ - кора совук - сильный мороз
2. To bring oil to fire/idiom/ - алангага ёг куймок - подлить масло в огонь
3. To lose one’s head/ idiom/ - гангиб колмок - потерять голову
I. PARTIAL CONFORMITIES. Partial conformities of phraseological
units in two languages assume lexical, grammatical and lexico- grammatical
differences with identity of meaning and style, i.e. they are figuratively close but
differ in lexical composition, morphologic number and syntactic arrangement of
the order of words. One may find:
1) Partial lexical conformities by lexic parameters/ lexical composition/.
a) - To get out of bed on the wrong foot / idiom/ - Чап ёни билан турмок -
Встать с левой ноги
b) - To have one’s heat in one’s boots /idiom/ - Юраги оркасига кетмок -
Душа в пятку ушла
c) –To lose one’s temper / phraseme/ - Сабри чидамок - Выйти из себя,
потерять терпениe.
d)- To dance to somebody’s pipe / idiom/ - Бировнинг ногорасига уйнамок -
Играть под чью –либо дудочку

2) Partial conformities by grammatical parameters

3) Differing as to morphological arrangement / number/

a. To fish in troubled waters./ idiom/ - лойка сувда балик тутмок . - ловить рыбу
в мутной воде

b. From head to foot / idiom/ - бошдан оёгигача - с ног до головы

c. To agree like cats and dogs / phraseme/ - ит мушукдек яшамок - жить как
кошка с собакой .
d. To keep one’s head /idiom/ - узини йукотмаслик - не потерять голову

4. Duffering as to syntactical arrangement

a. Strike while the iron is hot. - темирни кизигида бос - куй железо пока горячо
b. Egyptian darkness - коп-коронги зимистон / гордек коронги / - тьма
египетская c. Armed to teeth - тиш – тирногигача куролланган -
вооружённый до зубов
d. All is not gold that glitters - барча ялтираган нарса олтин эмас - не всё
золото, что блестит

3.ABSENCE OF CONFORMITIES
Many English phraseological units have no phraseological conformities in
Uzbek and Russian. In the first instance this concerns phraseological units based
on realiae. When translating units of this kind it is advisable to use the following
types of translation:
A. A verbatim word for word translation.
B. Translation by analogy.
C. Descriptive translation.

A. VERBATUM TRANSLATION is possible when the way of

thinking / in thе phraseological unit / does not bear a specific national
feature.
1. To call things by their true names / idiom / - хар нарсани уз номи билан
атамок - называть все вещи своими именами .
2. The arms race / phraseme/ - куролланиш пойгаси - гонка вооружений
3. Cold war / idiom/ - совук уруш -холодная война

В. TRANSLATING BY ANALOGY; this way of translating is resorted

to when the phraseological unit has a specific national realiae.
1. “ Dick” said the dwarf, thrashing his head in at the door – “ my pet, my
pupil, the apple of my eye hey”. /Ch. Dickens “ The Old Curiosity Shop” ch
1 / idiom//.
- “Дик, азизим, толибим, кузимнинг нури”- хурсандлигидан хитоб
килди митти одам эшикка бошини сукиб
- “Дик, – воскликнул карлик, просовывая голову в дверь,- мой
любимец, мой ученик, свет моих очей”
2. To pull somebody’s leg / idiom/ - мазах килмок - одурачить кого-
либо.

C. DESCRIPTIVE TRANSLATION i.e. translating phraseological units by

a free combination of words is possible when the phraseological unit has a
particular national feature and has no analogy in the language it is to be translated
into.
 1. To enter the house / phraseme / - парламент аъзоси булмок - стать
членом парламента
2. To cross the flour of the house / idiom/ - бир партиядан бошка
партияга утиб кетмок - перейти с одной партии в другую

QUESTIONS FOR SELF-CONTROL:

1. What is a phraseological init and what types of them do you know?
2. What is understood under conformities in phraseological units?
3. Is it rare or often met?
4. What cases refer to partial conformties?
5. What are the mechanisms of translating phraseological units with no
phraseological conformities?
6. In what cases can we apply descriptive translation?

INDEPENDENT WORK:
1. Complete correspondences in Phraseological systems of the two languages
2. Translation of phraseological Units as cross-cultural problem
3. Ways of rendering different types of phraseological Units into Your native
language

OBLIGATORY LITERATURE:
1.Barkhudarov L.S. Language and translation. M. 1975.
2. Shvaytser A.D. Translation and linguistics .M. 1973.
3. Levitskaya T.R, Fiterman A.M. The problem of Translation on the
material of the contemporary English language. M. 1974

ADDITIONAL LITERATURE:
1. Salomov G. Tarjima nazariyasiga kirish. T. 1978.
2. Salomov G. Tarjima nazariyasi asoslari. T. 1983.
3. Мусаев К. Лексико-фразеологические вопросы художественного перевода.
Т.: 1980