Logo GenDocs.ru

Поиск по сайту:  


Лекции по теории перевода - файл 1.doc

Лекции по теории перевода
скачать (309 kb.)

Доступные файлы (1):

1.doc309kb.17.11.2011 05:16скачать



1   2   3
Реклама MarketGid:

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.


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:

  1. 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

  2. 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/.

  3. “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”.


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:

  1. I. lexical substitution;

II. supplementation;

  1. 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:

  1. 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.

  2. Generalization- replacing a word’s narrow meaning by one with a broad sense: A Navajo blanket – жун адёл; индийское одеяло.

  3. 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/.


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 / skyscraber – осмон упар, 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/ peddler – таркатувчи, торговец- разносчик /.



  1. What are the principal types of lexical correspondences

between the two languages?

  1. What lexical units are liable for complete lexical


  1. What cases refer to partial lexical correspondences?

  2. What is understood under lexical substitution?

  3. In what cases is supplementation is applied?

  4. What are cases of absence of lexical correspondences?


  1. Lexical problem of translation

  2. Translation of polysemantic words

  3. Translation of Proper names and geographical names

  4. Translation of words of measurement


  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.


  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.




  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:

  1. Complete conformities

  2. Partial conformities

  3. Absence of conformities


  2. Complete coincidence of form and

  3. content in phraseological units is rarely met with.

  1. Black frost / phraseme/

  • кора совук

  • сильный мороз

  1. To bring oil to fire/idiom/

  • алангага ёг куймок

  • подлить масло в огонь

  1. To lose one’s head/ idiom/

  1. - гангиб колмок

  2. - потерять голову

  1. ^ 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/

  1. - 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

  1. Partial conformities by grammatical parameters

  2. Differing as to morphological arrangement / number/

  1. To fish in troubled waters./ idiom/

- лойка сувда балик тутмок

  • ловить рыбу в мутной воде

  1. From head to foot / idiom/

  • бошдан оёгигача

  • с ног до головы

  1. To agree like cats and dogs / phraseme/

  • ит мушукдек яшамок

  • жить как кошка с собакой

  1. To keep one’s head /idiom/

  • узини йукотмаслик

  • не потерять голову

4. Duffering as to syntactical arrangement

  1. Strike while the iron is hot.

  • темирни кизигида бос

  • куй железо пока горячо

  1. Egyptian darkness

  • коп-коронги зимистон / гордек коронги /

  • тьма египетская

  1. Armed to teeth

  • тиш – тирногигача куролланган

  • вооружённый до зубов

  1. All is not gold that glitters

  • барча ялтираган нарса олтин эмас

  • не всё золото, что блестит


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:

  1. A verbatim word for word translation.

  2. Translation by analogy.

  3. Descriptive translation.

  1. ^ 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

  1. The arms race / phraseme/

  • куролланиш пойгаси

  • гонка вооружений

  1. 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”

  1. 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. 1. To enter the house / phraseme /

  • парламент аъзоси булмок

  • стать членом парламента

  1. 2. To cross the flour of the house / idiom/

  2. - бир партиядан бошка партияга утиб кетмок

  3. - перейти с одной партии в другую


  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?


  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


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


  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




  1. Levels of grammatical correspondence.

  2. Morphological correspondence:

  • Complete;

  • Partial;

  • Absence of morphological correspondence.

  1. Syntactic correspondence:

  • Complete;

  • Partial;

  • Absence of syntactic correspondence.

KEY WORDS: translation, correspondence, morphologic, syntactic, complete, partial, absence of syntactic correspondence.

&1. Levels of grammatical correspondence

Every language has a specific system which differs from that of any others. This is all the more so with respect to English, Uzbek and Russian, whose grammatical systems are typologically and genetically heterogeneous. English and Russian belong to the Germanic and Slavonic groups respectively in the Indo - European family of languages. The Uzbek language patronize to the Turkish group of the Altaic family. Concerning the morphological type both English and Russian are inflected, though the former is notable for its analytical character and the latter for its synthetic character in the main, Uzbek is an agglutinative language.

As to grammar the principle means of expression in languages possessing in analytical character / English / is the order of words and use of function words / though all the four basic grammatical means – grammatical inflections, function words, word order and intonation pattern are found in any languages/. The other two means are of secondary importance.

The grammatical inflections are the principal means used in such languages as Russian and Uzbek, though the rest of grammatical means are also used but they are of less frequency than the grammatical inflections.

The comparison of the following examples will help to illustrate the difference between the language considered;

The hunter killed the wolf

Овчи бурини улдирди

Охотник убил волка

In English the order of words is fixed. The model of simple declarative sentences in this language is as follows.


This means that the subject /S/ is placed in the first position /V/ - in the second position. If the predicate is expressed by a transitive verb when in the third position we find the object / O/ that is:

S - Vtr - O

Any violation of the order of the word brings about a change or distortion of the meaning. The corresponding Russian silence adheres to the patters S – Vtr – O. But it permits the transposition of the word i.e.

Охотник убил волка

Волка убил охотник.

These patterns are not equivalent. The first allows transposition of words, which leads to stylistic marking / characteristic of poetry/. Besides, the ending “NI” expresses an additional meaning of definiteness. The second pattern doesn’t tolerate transposition of words.

The principal types of grammatical correspondences between two languages are as follows:

  1. complete correspondence

  2. partial correspondence

  3. the absence of correspondence.


a. complete morphological correspOndence.

Complete morphological correspondence is observed when in the languages considered there are identical, grammatical categories with identical particular meanings.

In all the three languages there is a grammatical category of number. Both the general categorial and particular meanings are alike:



Such correspondence may be called complete.


Partial morphological correspondence is observed when in the languages examined there are grammatical categories ways identical categorial meanings but with some differences in the particular meanings.

In the languages considered there is a grammatical category of case in nouns. Though the categorial meaning is identical in all three languages the particular meanings are different both from the point of view of their number and the meanings they express. English has 2 particular meanings while Uzbek and Russian have 6. Though latter two languages have the same quantity of particular cases, their meanings do not coincide.

The differences in the case system or in any other grammatical categories are usually expressed by other means in languages.


Absence of morphological correspondence is observed when there are corresponding grammatical categories in the languages examined. As for instance in Uzbek there is a grammatical category of possessiveness, which shows the affixation of things to one of the three grammatical persons, e.g. :


Китоб – им

Китоб – инг

Китоб – и

This grammatical category is neither found in English nor in Russian. These languages use pronouns for this purpose.

English Russian

My book моя книга

Your book твоя книга

His / her book его / её книга

In English we use certain grammatical means to express a definite and indefinite meanings, that is articles. But there are no equivalent grammatical means in Uzbek and Russian. They use lexical or syntactic means to express those meanings. / see substitution/



By complete syntactic correspondence is understood the conformity in structure and sequence of words in word – combinations and sentences.

Complete syntactic correspondence is rarely to be found in the languages examined here. However, the pattern adj +noun is used in word –combination: red flags – кизил байроклар, красные знамёна. The same may be said of sentences in cases when the predicate of the simple sentences is expressed by an intransitive verb: he laughed – у кулди , он засмеялся.


By partial syntactic correspondence in word – combinations is understood the conformity in meaning but discrepancy in the structure of phase.

Partial syntactic correspondence in word- combinations are found in this following patterns.

  1. Attributes formed by the collocation of words.

Owing to the fact that English is poor in grammatical inflections, attributes are widely formed by means of mere collocation of words in accordance with the pattern N(1)+N(2) which expressed the following type of relations.


English Uzbek Russian

Glass – tube шиша- найча стеклянная трубочка

N (1) + N( 2) N(1)+ N(2) ADJ + N

In this example English and Uzbek translation is unmarked while Russian is marked.


English Uzbek Russian

House –plan a)уй плани план дома

N(1)+ N(2) N (1)+N (2) (n) N(1)+ N(2) (a)

b)уйнинг плани

N(1нинг)+N(2) (n)

The Uzbek and Russian versions are marked, while English is unmarked. Besides, in Russian the transposition is observed.

As it is seen in the examples cited, languages differ as to the way they express these relations, though they maintain identical relations between the components of word –combinations.

  1. word – combination whose first component is expressed by a numeral.

One book Битта китоб Одна книга

Two books Иккита китоб Две книги

Three books Учта китоб Три книги

Four books Туртта китоб Четыре книги

Five books Бешта китоб Пять книг

The order of words in these combinations is the same in all the three languages, though the manner of expressing plurality differs in the second components.


English Uzbek Russian

Num + N (pl) Num + N sing from two to five

Num + N(sin) rod. p

From five on

Num + N (pl) rod.p

2. As is seen in English and Russian the second components are grammatically marked, though the markers do not coincide.

In Uzbek it is unmarked.

3. Partial syntactic correspondence is also observed in complete polycomponent prepositive attributes with inner predication as in the following examples:

Тhis is to be or not to be a struggle – Хаёт мамот кураши, борьба не на жизнь а на смерть Go- to – hell voice - Дагал овоз, грубый голос

By partial syntactic correspondence in sentences is understood the divergence in the order of the words, omission or partial substitution of parts of sentences:

It is forbidden to smoke here – бу ерда чекиш ман килинган, курить здесь запрещено.

With that he blue out his candle – у шамни учирди, он задул свечи (P.Stivenson)


By absence of syntactic correspondence we mean lack of certain syntactic construction in the target languages, which were used in the Source language. In English this concerns syntactic constructions with non- finite forms of the verb, which compose the extended part of a sentence with an incomplete or secondary predications.

The semantic function of predicative construction can be formulated as intercommunication and interconditionality of actions or states with different subjects.

These constructions have no formal grammatical connection with the main parts of sentences though there is always a conformity between them. The degree of attendance of action or condition in predicative constructions determines the choice of complex, compound or simple in translation. Compare :

I heard the door open... –Эшик очилганини эшитдим, Я услышал как открылась дверь.

In the English sentences the predicative construction which functions as an object is composed of a noun in the common case and an infinitive. In Uzbek this construction corresponds to the word-combination “эшик очилганини” which carries out the same function, though there is neither structural nor morphological conformity: it is a word combination expressed by a noun and participle. Thus, an English predicative construction when translated into Uzbek gets nominalized. In Russian this construction is expressed by a complex sentence with a subordinate object clause.


1. What family of languages do the English, Uzbek and Russian languages belong to? How does it account for peculiarities of grammatical systems of these languages?

  1. What are the levels of morphological correspondences?

  2. How would you deal with cases of absence of morphological correspondence?

  3. What are the mechanisms of translating cases with absence of syntactic correspondence?


  1. Grammatical problems of translation

  2. Translation of the corresponding grammatical forms

  3. Cases of absence grammatical correspondence and the transformation used to overcome this problem

  4. Typical grammatical transformation


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.


  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.



  1. Types of grammatical transformations

  2. Substitution as a type of grammatical transformation.

  3. The mechanism of transposition

  4. Omission and addition as types of grammatical transformations.

KEY WORDS: translation, transformation, transposition, omission


In order to attain the fullest information from one language into another one is obliged to resort numerous interlinguistic lexical and grammatical transformations.

Grammatical transformations are as follows:

  1. substitution;

  2. transposition;

  3. omission;

  4. supplementation.

The cited types of elementary transformations as such are rarely used in the process of translating. Usually they combine with each other, assuming the nature of “complex” interlinguistic transformations.


By substitution we understand the substitution of one part of speech by

another or one form of a word by another. Consequently, there are two kinds of substitutions constituting a grammatical type of transformations; substitution of parts of speech and the grammatical form of a word. Transformation by substitution may be necessitated by several reasons: the absence of one or an other grammatical form or construction in the target language; lack of coincidence in the use of corresponding form and construction as well as lexical reasons – different combinability and use of words, lack of a part of speech with the same meaning.

An example of the substitution of a word-form may be the interpretation of the meaning of the grammatical category of postriority of the English verb, which is presented in two particular meanings: absolute posterity /he says he will come / and relative posterity / he said he would come /. Uzbek and Russian verbs do not possess word form of this kind and communicate their meaning with use of other grammatical means: У келишини айтаяпти. Он говорит,что придёт.

У келишини айтди. Он сказал, что придёт.

In Uzbek the meaning of this category is expressed by a substantivized participle ending in – jak or by the infinitive ending in –(i)sh; in Russian the future tense form of a verb is used.

There are two types of substitution of parts of speech; obligatory and non-obligatory. The obligatory substitution is observed when in the target language there are no part of speech corresponding to that used in the source language e.g. the English articles and may be used for emphasis. In cases of the kind it is necessary to substitute them with functionally – adequate means of expression in Uzbek and Russian.

E.g. When we were in Majorka, there was a Msr. Leech there and she was telling us most wonderful things about you. ( A.Christie).

Биз Малоркада булганимизда, у ерда кандайдир миссис Лич бор эди. У бизга Сиз тугрингизда жуда куп кизикарли нарсаларни айтиб берди.

Когда мы были в Малорке, там была некая миссис Лич, которая рассказывала очень много интересного о Вас.

In Uzbek and Russian an indefinite pronoun is used for translating the indefinite article.

Non obligatory substitution is a substitution undertaken by the needs or demandes of the context:

The climb had been easier than he expected.

Кутарилиш у кутгандан осонрок булди.

Подняться оказалось легче, чем он ожидал.

A noun in the English sentence is substituted by infinitives in the Uzbek and Russian languages.


“Transposition” (as a type of transformation used in translations) is understood to be the change of position/order) of linguistic elements in the Target language in comparison with a Source language.

Transposition (change in the structure of a sentence / is necessitated by the difference in the structure of the language( fixed or free order of words etc), in the semantic of a sentence, and others. There are two types of transpositions; transposition (or substitution) of parts of a sentence and transposition occasioned by the change of types of syntactic connection in composite sentence.


Active defenders of the national interests of their people, the Communists, are at the same time true internationalists.(W. Foster).

Коммунистлар уз халкларининг миллий манфаатларини химоя киладилар ва айни бир вактда улар хакикий интернационалистлар хамдир.

Активно защищая национальные интересы своего народа, коммунисты в то же время являются истенными интернационалистами.

The first component of the English attributive word-combination “active defenders” is an adverb while the second becomes the predicate when translated into Uzbek. In Russian the same word – combination is expressed by an adverbial word combination. The means used to express the semantic core of a statement by not be identical.

In English the indefinite article, the construction it is ...that ( who) inversions of different kinds are used for this purpose, while the order of words is the most frequent means of expression in Uzbek and Russian: words, communicating new information are not placed at the beginning of the sentence:

A big scarlet Rolls Royce had just stopped in front of the local post office. ( A.Christie).

Махаллий алока булими олдида кизилрангдаги катта Ролс Ройс автомашинаси тухтади.

У местного почтового отделения остановилась комфортабельная автомашина алого цвета Ролс Ройс.

In the English sentences the semantic core is expressed by the indefinite article while in Uzbek and Russian it is assigned to the second and third places accordingly.

When translating English component sentences into Uzbek and Russian, the principal and subordinate clauses may be transposed. This is explained by the fact that the order of words in compound sentences does not always coincide in the languages considered. Compare:

A remarkable air of relief overspread her countenance as soon as she saw me. (R.Stevenson).

Мени куриши биланок, унинг юзида енгил тортганлик аломати пайдо булди.

Как только она увидела меня, на её лице выразилось чувство облегчения.


As a type of grammatical transformation – omission is necessitated by grammatical redundancy of certain forms in two languages.

He raised his hand.

У кулини кутарди.

Он поднял руку.

Addition, as a type of grammatical transformation can be met with in cases of formal inexpressiveness of grammatical or semantic components in the language of the original text.

Also, there was an awkward hesitancy at times, as he essayed the new words he had learnt.

Баъзида у якиндагина урганган янги сузларини талаффуз килишда хозирланиб, тухтаб коларди.

Иногда он запинался, готовясь произнести слова, которые он только недавно выучил.

The meaning of the verbal form is expressed in Russian by the words “только недавно”, and in Uzbek by the adverb “якиндагина”.

It must be emphasized that the division into lexical and grammatical transformations is, to a great extent, approximate and conditional. In some cases a transformation can be interpreted as one pr another type of elementary transformation. In practice the cited types of lexical and grammatical transformations are seldom met with in “pure form”. Frequently they combine to form complex transformations.


  1. What are the main types of grammatical transformations?

  2. What is the mechanism of substitution?

  3. What is the mechanism of transposition?

  4. In what cases do we apply one of the following grammatical transformations: omission or addition?


  1. The role of transformations in the process of translation

  2. The problem of translatability of English syntactical constructions

  3. Typical transformations for achieving equivalency


  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

  7. Levitskaya T.R, Fiterman A.M. The problems of translation on the material of the contemporary English language. M.1974.


  1. Language Transfer Cross – Linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge University Press. 1993.

  2. Nida.E. Towards a science of translation. Leiden. 1964

  3. Nida.E. Linguistics and ethnology in translation problems. Language structure and Translation. Atanford. 1975.

  4. Roger. N. Bell. Translation and translating . Theory and practice. London, New York. 1995.

  5. Shvaytser A.D. Translation and Linguistics. M. 1973

  6. Salomov G. Tarjima nazariyasiga kirish. T. 1978.

  7. Salomov G. Tarjima nazariyasi asoslari. T. 1983.

  8. Tommola Q. Translation as a psycho-linguistic process. L.1986.



  1. Stylistic aspect of translation

  2. Handling stylistically-marked language units

  3. Translation of stylistic devices

KEY WORDS: communication, stylistic effect, stylistically-marked units, stylistic devices, compensation

1   2   3

Скачать файл (309 kb.)

Поиск по сайту:  

© gendocs.ru
При копировании укажите ссылку.
обратиться к администрации