American Journal Of Philological Sciences
366
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue05 2025
PAGE NO.
366-369
10.37547/ajps/Volume05Issue05-98
Theory of Lexical Units of Translation in Modern
Translation Studies
Tursunov Elmurod Umrzoqovich
Senior teacher, Dept. of Theoretical Aspects of the English Language No. 1, Uzbekistan State World Languages University, Tashkent,
Uzbekistan
Received:
31 March 2025;
Accepted:
29 April 2025;
Published:
31 May 2025
Abstract:
From the beginning of translation studies to the present, many translation schools, literature on
translation studies, and terms and specific terms that directly unearth the secrets of this science have emerged.
One such term is “a unit of translation”. This article discusses this term, which has emerged in translation studies.
According to the definition given to this term by various translators and translation scholars, a translation unit can
be a phoneme, a morpheme, a word, a phrase, and a text. The article discusses the lexical translation unit, and
the author presents the opinions and comments expressed by various scholars, translation experts, and linguists
on this unit. In addition, examples of lexical translation units are given.
Keywords:
A unit of translation, equivalence, perevodema, translema, fragment, correspondence.
Introduction:
Translation is an “invisible golden bridge”
connecting people from different cultures and speaking
different languages and serves the interests of other
people. In other words, new signs of life sprout for the
work, gradually serving to create new ideas, a new
aesthetic reality”[1.16]. In the domain of translation,
our country has achieved significant achievements
since independence. For example, many literary
masterpieces from English and other languages have
been translated into Uzbek, and Uzbek literary legacy
has been translated into English and other languages.
From the beginning of the science of translation studies
to the present, many schools of translation, literature,
and terms that directly unearth the secrets of this
science, as well as specific terms, have emerged. One
of such terms is the term “a unit of translation”.
METHOD
Although the science of translation studies itself has a
history of several thousand years, the term a unit of
translation which is considered its “internal working
mechanism” came to life in the 1960s. This term was
first mentioned by Jean-Paul Vinay & Jean Darbelnet in
their work on tra
nslation theory entitled “Comparative
Stylistics of French and English: A Methodology for
Translation” which showed not only the importance of
identifying a unit of translation, but also the existence
of many and diverse approaches to tackling this issue.
According to Canadian linguists, “We could define the
unit of translation as the smallest segment of the
utterance whose signs are linked in such a way that
they should not be translated individually.” [2.21].
Since then, much scientific literature has been
published on defining this term, interpreting it,
isolating it in context, providing a detailed explanation
of this concept in linguistics, comparing it with other
units in the language, studying its content, and
classifying it. The translator perceives the text in a
certain sequence and recreates it into the translation
text. In other words, translation is a gradual, “step
-by-
step” process. The individual parts that participate in
the entire translation process can be called translation
units [3.248].
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
The most striking aspect of the uniqueness of a word
combination, its creation, is that it is “cultivated”,
formed, and becomes an actual unit in the process of
speech. A word combination arises from the
interconnection of words (lexemes) with independent
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
367
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
meanings. A word combination acquires a certain
contextual meaning, and this contextual meaning is
based on the meanings of the words in the
combination. The semantics of a phrase arises from
“combining” of the meanings of several
words, their
interconnected
relationship,
and
their
chain
connection. A compound word expresses a thing, sign,
or action not in isolation, but through the
interconnectedness of two or more words [4.377].
Therefore, the general semantics of the term a unit of
translation consists of the combination and blending of
the sets of meanings expressed by the words
translation and unit, and the separate chain of
meanings of the two lexemes that make up this
combination. The term translation is defined in the
explanatory dictionary of the Uzbek language as
follows: “Translation is a type of literary work
consisting in recreating a text in one language in
another” [5.680]. The concept of a translation unit itself
is in some sense conditionally accepted and cannot be
an unchanging or constantly applied unit. Researchers
have made many attempts to introduce the term
translation unit into the science of translation theory.
A.F. Shiryaev notes that the activity of a simultaneous
interpreter is “explained by two interrelated
features.
One of them is the possession of a multi-stage
property, and the other is the possession of a single-
stage property” [6.19]. However, not only is the work
of a simultaneous interpretation based on sequencing,
but the entire translation process i
tself is carried out “in
stages.” In fact, sequencing is based on the sequence of
speech activity itself [7.79].
Thus, Shiryaev states that “the very concept of a
translation unit is contradictory from the point of view
of terminology” [8.71]. Shiryaev ci
tes as evidence the
following definition of “translation unit” given by the
German researcher O. Kade, “a translation unit is the
smallest part (unit) of the translated text that, due to
potential equivalence relations, is contrasted with
other parts of the translated text and retains the
invariance of the content of the original text” [9.90].
According to A. Schweitzer, the fact that translation
theory considers a part of the original text as a unit, and
not certain terms, as in linguistics, shows that it is
impossible to define a translation unit. “As for the
translation process,” the researcher says, “it is never
formed by a simple combination of units. Here we are
talking about a more complex process” [10.71].
Meanwhile, the scientist, while studying the category
of equivalence, which is considered the central
category of translation theory, emphasizes that “when
discussing the issue of equivalence, it is important to
remember that in translation theory, the equivalence
of the text is more important than the equivalence of
its constituent parts” [11.94]. Some translation scholars
have made a number of observations regarding the
impossibility of defining a translation unit. First, let us
pay attention to the characteristics of the term
“translation unit” a
nd the phenomenon called units.
According to N.G. Valeyeva, “a word performs the
function of a connection and takes on the status of a
small speech unit.” [12.180] For example, the word
lives in the English sentence she lives in Moscow
corresponds to the Uzbek word yashaydi in the Uzbek
sentence u Москвада yashaydi, but the word staying in
the English sentence she is staying in the Plaza
corresponds
to
the
combination
u
Plaza
mehmonxonasida vaqtincha yashab turibdi.”
According to L.K. Latyshev, “In the tran
slation process,
the translator (in most cases) divides the original text
into parts with certain meanings and then reconstructs
them in the target language.” It follows that the
translated text is the result of the sequential
adaptation of small parts present in the original text to
other parts that correspond to them. Describing such
practical units that serve as a lighthouse in the search
for variants that are suitable (consistent with the
meaning) for the unit being translated, the scientist
emphasizes that translation units can be considered as
grammatically independent units of the original text.
[13.169-171].
In many cases, one word in the original corresponds to
another word in the translated text. However, units can
be matched to different degrees. That is, a word to a
word, a word to a phrase, or vice versa, a phrase to a
phrase, etc. The same idea is also emphasized by Uzbek
translation scholars. “In translation, cases where one
concept corresponds to one concept are relatively rare.
Experience on translation shows that a-word-to-a-
word, a-phrase-to-a-word, a-sentence-to-a-sentence
corresponds are always observed” [14.57].
L.K. Latyshev emphasizes that translation units are of
paramount importance in finding an alternative version
in translation, while at the same time the original text
should be perceived as a grammatically independent
unit.
V.N. Komissarov proposes several methods for
determining a translation unit, and he approaches it
differently. He calls the translation unit perevodema (r.,
–
perevod (translation) + leksema (lexeme)) in French
and emphasizes that the translation unit can be any
unit (or units) that can be distinguished in the language,
or it can be a completely specific unit, “used specifically
in the translation process.” [15.1
86].
According to V. N. Komissarov, a method of
determining the translation unit is focused solely on the
content of the original text. The translation unit is
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
368
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
considered to be the smallest meaningful unit of the
original text that is re-expressed in the translation text.
As a kind of generalizing remark, one can take the
opinion expressed on the subject by Y. I. Retsker.
According to him, in the process of translating a written
text, a word, a phrase, a syntagm, a whole sentence, a
paragraph, or even the entire text to be translated can
serve as a translation unit [16.29].
For example, in chapter 13 of the novel “Navoi” by
Oybek, the following sentence appears: “Ulfatchilik
ayni qizigan paytda lapanglab mag‘rur To‘g‘onbek kirib
keldi
–
egnida zarrin yoqali
ko‘k shohi chakmon,
boshida mo‘g‘ulcha qalpoq, belida rang
-barang toshlar
qadalgan serbar kamar, qo‘lida kumush bandli
qamchi…”...” [17.190] This sentence can be translated
as follows: “When the feast was just flaring up,
Tugonbek went in waddling and proudly with his blue
garment with gilded collars on, a lash with a silver
handle on his hand, a Mongolian cap on his head and
wearing a wide belt adorned with various stones...”
During the translation process, a simple sentence in
Uzbek that involved several separate determiners was
translated into English as a compound sentence with a
subordinate clause and a coordinating determiner. In
the English translation of this work, the excerpt has
been translated into English as follows: “In the midst of
the fun came Togonbek. On the shoulders of his blue
silk checkmen and adorned with on embroidered collar
on his head was a Mongolian cap; on over tightly milled
belt studded with a silver handle”[18.53].
It is obvious that some parts given in the original did not
find their equivalent in the translation. First, the lexeme
of ulfatchilik (a feast) in the novel is expressed in the
translation text through the word fun, which cannot
fully reveal the lexical-semantic meaning understood
through this word, because the word fun is translated
into Uzbek as xurdsandchilik, oʻyin
-
kulgu, vaqtichogʻlik.
The English word feast is a word that is relatively similar
in content to the Uzbek lexeme ulfatchilik, ziyofat. On
the other hand, the word combination ayni qiziqan
paytda in the original is given in the translation of the
work as a prepositional phrase in the midst of, and the
middle of the feast is taken as a midst of the feast.
However, any part of the feast (beginning, middle, or
end) can be its most pleasant part. In doing so, it is
important to pay attention to the gallery of semantic,
psychological, social, and paralinguistic meanings that
a given combination conveys. It would be appropriate
to translate this combination using the verb phrase to
flare up. In addition, although in this book a certain
degree of correspondence is established between the
excerpt and its English translation at the level of some
units, the correspondence and adequacy between the
general expressive content of both sentences (in the
original and the translated texts) is not fully
established.
In linguistics, a language unit is understood as a unit
that cannot be divided into smaller parts [19.170], units
belonging to the certain category of the language
system according to their formation and function
[20.149]. The nature of each aspect of the language is
manifested in the uniqueness of the language units in
it. For phonetics, such a language unit is speech sounds,
phonemes; for lexicology, a word in terms of meaning
and use; for grammar, word forms, as well as word
combinations and sentences; for word formation, a
morpheme, in terms of structure and formation
[21.190].
As an example, we can take an excerpt from the English
translation of the novel “Navoi” by Oybek. The work
contains the following sente
nce: “Birpasta uy ichi
kanizaklar bilan to‘ldi.” In the translated version of the
work, this sentence is translated as “The room was
filled with crying girls.” In this case, as noted by
Barkhudarov, in order to achieve full equivalence
between the original and translated texts, the sentence
that constitutes the original text and is considered a
unit of thought expression is divided into five main
content fragments. (1) Birpasda / (2) uy(ning) (3)
ich(kar)i(gi qismi) / (4) kanizaklar bilan / (5) to‘ldi.
Taking into consideration of the internal characteristics
of the target language, its syntactic and morphological
characteristics and other aspects, these fragments can
be translated as follows, “In a little while the inner
room was filled with maidservants (
kanizs)”. However,
in the translation of the work, the content units in
Uzbek and English did not match. In addition, the word
kanizaklar in the original was not replaced by a suitable
word in the translation. Instead, the noun phrase
“crying girls” was gi
ven. A word in one language may be
expressed in another language not as a single word, but
as a phrase, word, or other unit of speech. For example,
the English sentence “The house is on fire” is translated
into Uzbek as “Uy yonayapti.” Here, it is clear th
at
although the correspondence is established at the level
of the noun that comes as the subject of both simple
sentences (The house = Uy), in the subsequent part of
the sentence, the correspondence is carried out in a
series of different grammatical categories (simple noun
with a prepositional predicate = kesim) (… is on fire =
yonyapti).
CONCLUSION
Texts can be attributed to speech activity rather than
linguistic units. Barkhudarov does not distinguish
language and speech from each other in classifying
linguistic units and says that in the translation process
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
369
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
the translator works with speech. From the above, it is
clear that the concept of “translation unity”, which
arises on the basis of the unity of language and speech,
has a relatively broad meaning.
REFERENCES
G‘. Salomov. Tarjima nazariyasi asoslari. Toshkent.
“O‘qituvchi”. 1983. 16
-bet
Vinay J.P., Darbelnet J. Stylistique comparée du français
et de l'anglais. Paris. p 36.
Garbovskiy N.K., Teoriya perevoda, Izdatelstvo
Moskovskogo universiteta. 2007. st-248.
Nargiza Erkaboyeva. O’zbek tilidan ma’ruzalar toplami,
Toshkent. 2017. 377-bet.
O‘zbekiston respublikasi fanlar akademiyasi Alisher
Navoiy nomidagi til va adabiyot instituti, O‘zbek tilining
izohli lug‘ati, Birinchi jild, “O‘zbekiston milliy
ensiklopediyasi” davlat ilmiy nashriyoti, 2006. 680
-bet.
Shiryaev A.F. Sinxronnыy perevo
d. M., 1979. s. 19.
Shiryaev A.F. Sinxronnыy perevod. M., 1979. s. 19.
Leontev
A.A.
Problemы
matematicheskogo
modelirovaniya rechevoy deyatelnosti // Osnovы teorii
rechevoy deyatelnosti. M., 1974. s. 79.
Shveyser A.D. Perevod i lingvistika. s 71.
O Kade. Kommunikationswissenschaftliche Probleme
der
Tramslation.
In:
“Grundfragen
der
Übersetzungswissenschaft” (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift
Fremdsprachen) Leipzig C.90
Shveyser A.D. Perevod i lingvistika. s. 71.
Shveyser A.D. Teoriya perevoda. s. 94.
Valeeva N. G., “Vvedenie v perevodovedenie”
- M.:
Izdatelstvo RUDN, 2006. s 169- 171.
Latыshev L. K. Kurs perevoda (ekvivalentnost perevoda
i sposobы ee dostijeniya).
M.: Mejdunarodnыe otnosheniya, 1981. s 168
-171.
Qambarov N.M. ,Tarjima leksik muammolarini xal
etishda konteksning ahamiyati. Filologiya masalalari.
(Ilmiy-metodik jurnal).Toshkent, 2011. 57-bet.
Retsker YA. I. Teoriya perevoda i perevodcheskaya
praktika. M.: R. Valent, 2006. s 29.
Oybek. Navoiy. Roman. «SHarq» nashriyot-matbaa
aksionerlik kompaniyasi bosh tahririyati, Toshkent,
2004, 190-bet..
Oybek. «Navoiy». «YAngi asr avlodi», 2016-yil, 53-bet.
Kondakov N.I. Logicheskiy slovar-spravochnik. M.,
1975. s. 170.
Lingvisticheskiy ensiklopedicheskiy slovar. M., 1990. s.
149.
K. Qosimova, S.Matchonov, X. G’ulomova, Sh.
Yo’ldosheva, Sh. Sariyev. Ona tili o‘qitish metodikasi. –
T.: “Noshir”. 2009. 190
-bet.
Oybek. Navoiy. Roman. «SHarq» nashriyot-matbaa
aksionerlik kompaniyasi bosh tahririyati, Toshkent,
2004, 57-bet.
