LEXICALGAPASAPROBLEMOF
LEXICALGAPASAPROBLEMOF
LEXICALGAPASAPROBLEMOF
net/publication/376389888
CITATIONS READS
0 10
1 author:
Abdumannon Khasanov
Institute of the Uzbek language, literature and folklore of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Uzbekistan
60 PUBLICATIONS 27 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Abdumannon Khasanov on 10 December 2023.
184
to the comparative study of languages, the research of their connections
and differences has increased. In these studies, the concept of lacuna is
described as an interval, lacuna, contradictory words, gaps, lacunae or
white spots on the language map, untranslatable words, no alternative,
zero word, no alternative or background lexicon, accidental lacunae,
untranslatable lexicon [1, p. 12]. Although it is named differently in
different sources, the views of researchers about this phenomenon, which
represents a concept (sememe) that does not have its own name (nomeme)
in the language, are close to each other.
Also, for a while, the phenomenon of lacuna was studied as a form
of non-equivalence. In that period, the term “realia” was not used, and
this phenomenon was also considered as words without equivalents.
Although the term “realia” appeared as early as the 20s of the last century,
its confusion with the phenomenon of lacunae and the expression of
controversial opinions in the description of non-equivalent words continue
to this day. The main reason for this is related to different interpretations
of the fact that realia is an element unique to the language and culture
of a particular nation. Although “realia are people, events, institutions,
things that make up the historical development and culture of a particular
nation” [2, p. 209], the relativity of defining their scope and boundaries
means that the interpretations of realia become diverse and different from
one another.
At this point, there is a need to clearly define the similarities and
differences between these two concepts [3, p. 30]. These two concepts
are felt and determined when comparing different languages and cultures;
there is no equivalent word for them in any of the comparable languages.
If we define a certain language (L1) and the language compared to it (L2)
conditionally as L1, L2, a lacuna is a unit that exists both as a concept
and a word in the L2 language, but only as a concept in the L1 language;
and realia is an entity that exists both as a concept and as a word in the
L1 language, but neither as a word nor as a concept in the L2 language.
There are still confusions in some works that pay more attention to the
connection between realia and the phenomenon of lacunae in translation:
based on the opinions of M. Shattlevorz, M. Kovie, N. Ismatullaeva,
who divided difficulties in translation into linguistic and cultural ones,
“the object units that cause linguistic difficulties are lacunae and lacunar
units, and object units that create cultural complexities should be
distinguished as realia” [4, p. 570]. It is not so difficult to realize that
the characteristics of realia are unusualness, strangeness, abnormality
and incomprehensibility. However, in some studies, there are those who
consider these characteristics to belong to the lacuna. Such views are also
the cause of confusion of lacuna and realia.
Realia and lacuna is that a lacuna is a concept that exists in the mind of
a particular nation, but is not named (not lexemized) in the language of that
185
nation; both representatives of this nation and speakers of other languages
can easily understand it. But realia is a bit difficult to understand and
imagine. Because realia are products of the traditions and the worldview
of a particular nation and do not exist in the consciousness (culture) of
other nations. Therefore, it seems unnatural and unusual to the speaker of
another language (and culture).
Every word has national-cultural characteristics as a product of the
culture and mentality, linguistic perception and worldview of the nation
that owns it. This feature is more vividly reflected in the words related
to specific realia – the unique culture of the nation. This is the main
reason why these words (and concepts) are perceived differently by
representatives of other nations [3, p. 181]. In lacuna, fire symbols take
precedence over national-cultural identity. In general, the understanding
of realia as a concept and word specific to a particular nation, and lacuna
as a concept without a noun (not lexemized) that can be understood and
used, ensures that the scientific goal is correctly obtained in this research.
Since most of the definitions given to lacuna refer to a linguistic
phenomenon determined by the comparison of two lexical systems,
it is necessary to name and describe them separately in order to better
understand the different and common aspects of both units being
compared.
When analyzing lacunae in a particular lexical system, many gaps
can be identified. However, the comparison of two lexical systems
in determining which of them is relevant to fill in ensures that a more
correct decision is made [2, p. 289]. In such processes, it is required to
pay attention to the separate and common aspects of the comparable units
in the two lexical systems.
Today, the study of lacunae is not only about identifying the differences
between two languages. In order to systematically fill and enrich the
language lexicon, it is necessary to study this linguistic phenomenon
in depth. By comparing their mother tongue with a foreign language,
researchers try to identify gaps at the lexical level and eliminate them,
as well as to objectively analyze the emergence of new concepts that are
formed in the mind and their naming processes related to thinking and
imagination. In Uzbek linguistics, it is important to revive the works
in this regard, in particular, to compare the Uzbek language with other
languages, to identify and fill the lexical gaps in it, as it serves to ensure
the development and purity of the language.
REFERENCES
1. Акай, О. М. Онтологические и гносеологические особенности
межъязыковых и внутриязычных лакунов / О. М. Акай // Вестник
Южно-Уральского государственного университета. Серия :
Языкознание. – Южно-Уральск, 2019. – Вып. 16. – С. 6–13.
186
2. Быкова, Г. В. Лакунарность как категория лексической
системологии / Г. В. Быкова. – Благовещенск : БГПУ, 2003. –
276 с.
3. Хасанов, А. М. Заполнение лексической лакуны в узбекском
языке диалектизмами (на материале животноводческой
лексики) / А. М. Хасанов // XXIII Всероссийская студенческая
научно–практическая конференция. – Нижневартовск : Изд-во
Нижневартовского государственного университета, 2021. –
С. 179–189.
4. Хасанов, A. M. Комментарии по диалектным словам и отношение
литературному языку / А. М. Хасанов // Приоритетные
направления развития спорта, туризма, образования и науки. –
2021. – С. 568–573.
Kiseleva А.M.,
Bachelor Student, 2nd year
FSBEI HE Siberian State University
of Physical Culture and Sport,
Оmsk, RF
187
Худякова И.С.
ОСОБЕННОСТИ ПЕРЕВОДА ДЕТСКОЙ
ХУДОЖЕСТВЕННОЙ ЛИТЕРАТУРЫ ...........................................156
Чмырь М.А.
КЛАССИФИКАЦИЯ ОШИБОК ПРИ ПЕРЕВОДЕ
С АНГЛИЙСКОГО ЯЗЫКА НА РУССКИЙ ................................159
Шемданова Э.Б.
ОСОБЕННОСТИ ПЕРЕВОДА НЕОЛОГИЗМОВ
С АНГЛИЙСКОГО НА РУССКИЙ ЯЗЫК
(НА МАТЕРИАЛЕ АНГЛОЯЗЫЧНОЙ ПРЕССЫ) ............................162
Шинкаренко Я.В.
ПРОБЛЕМАТИКА ОБУЧЕНИЯ ПЕРЕВОДУ
ЮРИДИЧЕСКИХ ТЕКСТОВ СТУДЕНТОВ ВУЗОВ
СИСТЕМЫ МВД ................................................................................165
Шлыгин Д.Ю.
АДЕКВАТНОСТЬ И ЭКВИВАЛЕНТНОСТЬ
КАК ОСНОВНЫЕ ЗАДАЧИ ПЕРЕВОДА ....................................167
Юркова Д.Ю.
К ВОПРОСУ МЕЖЪЯЗЫКОВОЙ ОМОНИМИИ:
СЛОЖНОСТИ ПЕРЕВОДА ИЛИ РАСШИРЕНИЕ
ЛЕКСИКО-СЕМАНТИЧЕСКОГО ЗАПАСА? ................................171
Котенко М.А.
ПЕРЕВОД ХРОНОНИМОВ В ТРИЛОГИИ
ВЕРОНИКИ РОТ «ДИВЕРГЕНТ».......................................................175
Dron А.А.
THE ORIGIN AND TRANSLATION
OF ENGLISH FOOTBALL TERMINOLOGY ...............................177
Dvortsevaia A.V.
MILITARY INTERPRETER: REQUIREMENTS
AND COMPETENCES .....................................................................180
Khasanov A.M.
LEXICAL GAP AS A PROBLEM OF LINGUISTICS
AND CULTURAL STUDIES ............................................................184
Kiseleva А.M.
INTERPRETATION OF ANGLICISMS AND AMERICANISMS
IN THE GERMAN LANGUAGE .....................................................187
Kuchesheva I.L.
ETYMOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF GEOGRAPHICAL
NAMES FROM THE FIELD
OF SPORTS AND DANCE ...............................................................190
Pakhomchik E.E.
TERMINOLOGY OF HIPPOTHERAPY
(BASED ON THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE) ..................................193
204