American Journal Of Philological Sciences
327
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue06 2025
PAGE NO.
327-330
10.37547/ajps/Volume05Issue06-85
Translation Issues Of Craftsmanship Realia In English
And Uzbek
Nuraliyev Ilyos
Basic Doctoral Student At Denau Institute Of Entrepreneurship And Pedagogy, Uzbekistan
Received:
13 April 2025;
Accepted:
17 May 2025;
Published:
27 June 2025
Abstract:
The article explores the linguistic and cultural difficulties that arise when translating craftsmanship realia
between English and Uzbek. Craftsmanship realia
—
names of traditional tools, materials, techniques, workplace
practices and stylistic conventions
—
constitute a densely allusive lexical stratum that encodes the technological
history and value systems of artisanal communities. Accurate transfer is complicated by the absence of direct
equivalents, the coexistence of multiple in-culture synonyms, and strong connotative overtones. The study
integrates a 512 436-word parallel corpus of museum catalogues, UNESCO nomination files, export documents,
tourist brochures and academic monographs with semi-structured interviews of fifteen professional translators.
A five-value taxonomy
—
borrowing, phonological adaption, descriptive translation, functional substitution and
omission
—
guides the coding of 1 116 realia pairs. Quantitative analysis shows that descriptive translation
dominates, accounting for 56 percent of Uzbek-to-English and 44 percent of English-to-Uzbek renderings,
expanding text length by an average of 43 percent and increasing terminological drift. Borrowing appears mainly
with high-
visibility artefacts (“ikat”, “suzani”, “pichoq”), whereas functional substitution prevails in promotional
genres targeting non-specialists. Interview data confirm that house-style guidelines, audience expectations and
fear of misinterpretation drive domestication. The article proposes a salience-based hybrid model that calibrates
borrowing, description and supplementation according to ethnographic prominence and communicative function.
Recommendations include a bilingual terminological database, integrated visual glossing for museums and a
training module on craft heritage for translators.
Keywords:
Craftsmanship realia; translation equivalence; English
–
Uzbek bilingual corpus; ethnolinguistics;
cultural terminology; intangible heritage; descriptive strategy; terminological database.
Introduction:
Traditional craftsmanship is a living
repository of cultural memory. Techniques for
throwing Rishtan pottery on a slow electric wheel,
dyeing Margilan silk yarns with indigo and walnut-husk
solutions, or engraving floral arabesques on a copper
teapot transmit tacit knowledge that binds artisans to
place, lineage and collective identity. Language acts as
the primary vehicle of that knowledge, not only by
naming objects but by embedding processual
sequences and evaluative meanings that distinguish a
master’s signature from an apprentice’s imitation.
When such culture-bound lexemes travel beyond their
natal speech community, translators face the double
imperative of semantic precision and affective
resonance.
Despite a burgeoning literature on realia translation in
Slavic and Romance contexts, scholarship devoted to
Turkic languages remains fragmentary. Previous Uzbek-
language studies have generally produced isolated
glossaries rather than systematic analyses grounded in
translation theory, while most English-language
contributions stop at anecdotal observations about
“untranslatable items.” The present study addresses
two interrelated questions: which translation
strategies
currently
dominate
in
bilingual
craftsmanship discourse and what sociolinguistic
factors condition those choices.
Craftsmanship realia are defined here, following
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
328
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
Florin’s classic formulation, as lexical units designating
objects, phenomena and social relations unique to a
particular ethnoculture. Within that broad field the
article focuses on tool names, fabric-structure terms,
surface-treatment techniques and artisan rank titles.
Four emblematic Uzbek crafts
—
ceramics, silk weaving,
woodcarving and metal chasing
—
provide the empirical
arena because of their strong terminological traditions
and growing English-language presence.
The growing international appetite for ethically
sourced craft products further raises the stakes of
precise terminology. Labels used at trade fairs in
Frankfurt or New York must guide buyers keen on
authenticity narratives yet unfamiliar with local idioms;
misrendering beshketmon as “cotton jacket” erases its
five-panel construction, whereas exoticising adjectives
risk commodifying heritage. Digital-humanities projects
complicate the picture: multilingual museum databases
depend on internally consistent nomenclature, and any
inconsistency at the translation stage hampers
semantic search. By integrating corpus linguistics with
ethnographic interviewing, this study contributes a
mixed-methods approach that captures both usage
patterns and translator rationales.
This study adopted a convergent mixed-methods
design that integrates corpus linguistics, ethnographic
interviewing, and experimental back-translation in
order to triangulate quantitative frequency data with
translators’ decision
-making rationales and end-user
comprehension. The corpus component began with the
systematic harvesting of bilingual and monolingual
sources published between 2000 and 2024 that
demonstrably contain craftsmanship terminology.
Search strings combined Uzbek and English core craft
lemmas (e.g., beshketmon, pichoq, suzani, ikat) with
genre indicators such as catalogue and customs
declaration. After de-duplication and OCR cleaning, 43
document sets were retained, yielding 512 436 running
words (256 814 in English; 255 622 in Uzbek). Sentence
alignment was performed with LFaligner 5.2 and
manually validated; alignment error remained below
2.7 percent as assessed on a 1 500-sentence gold
standard.
Candidate realia tokens were extracted with a hybrid
approach that combined part-of-speech filtering
(nouns and noun compounds) and chi-square keyword
analysis against a 15-million-word general Uzbek
–
English reference corpus. Two craft historians and one
terminologist performed expert validation, reducing
the list to 1 116 lemma pairs with confirmed cultural
specificity. Each pair was annotated independently by
two trained coders using the five-category strategy
taxonomy derived from Vinay and Darbelnet, extended
with a ‘borrow
-plus-
gloss’ tag that captures cases
where translators supply a brief explication
immediately after a loan. Inter-annotator reliability
reached κ = 0.81; residual disagreements were
adjudicated in plenary sessions.
Statistical analysis proceeded in R 4.3 with the
tidyverse and lme4 packages. Logistic mixed-effects
models predicted strategy choice from fixed effects of
source language, document genre, and morphological
complexity (syllable count and affix density), with
random intercepts for translator and term. Goodness-
of-fit was assessed via conditional R² and likelihood-
ratio tests. To probe semantic shift, a controlled back-
translation experiment was conducted: eight bilingual
craft specialists unfamiliar with the original texts re-
translated 120 English excerpts back into Uzbek and
vice versa. Information loss was quantified by overlap
scores computed with the Sørensen
–
Dice coefficient
and manually checked for false positives.
The qualitative strand comprised semi-structured
interviews with fifteen professional translators (mean
experience = 9.4 years; five museum-based, six
freelance, four in publishing houses). Interviews,
conducted in Uzbek or English as preferred, explored
institutional constraints, risk perceptions, and
metalinguistic awareness of craft heritage. Transcripts
were coded in NVivo 14 using a constructivist
grounded-theory protocol, generating 148 axial codes
that were subsequently mapped onto the quantitative
findings.
Methodological
rigour
was
further
strengthened
through
member
checks
with
interviewees, an audit trail of coding decisions, and
reflexive memos addressing researcher positionality.
Ethical clearance was obtained from the Tashkent State
Linguistic University ethics board (Approval № 2024
-
27), and all participants gave informed consent.
Direct borrowing appeared in 7.3 percent of Uzbek-to-
English and 2.1 percent of English-to-Uzbek
translations, clustering around artefacts already
familiar to global audiences. Calque translation
accounted for 12.4 percent, chiefly in template-driven
UNESCO files. Descriptive renderings dominated at 56
percent in the Uzbek-to-English direction and 44
percent in the reverse, inflating sentence length by an
average of 43 percent, with customs documents
tolerating the greatest expansion. Regression analysis
showed morphological complexity to be a significant
predictor of descriptive strategy (β = 0.61, p < 0.01).
Functional substitution registered 20 percent overall
but rose to 35 percent in luxury-retail catalogues aimed
at non-specialist readers, illustrating audience-driven
simplification. Omission remained rare (below five
percent) and surfaced mainly in promotional blurbs
constrained by character limits. Error analysis revealed
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
329
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
semantic drift in eight percent of cases, including
mistranslation of artisan rank titles as material
descriptors and conflation of distinct dyeing techniques
under the umbrella term “ikat.”
Interviewees confirmed that house-style guides, target
reader expectations and potential editorial push-back
encourage domestication. Museum translators,
however, defended borrowing when artefacts are
exhibited alongside images, arguing that visual context
mitigates comprehension issues.
The findings refine debates on foreignising versus
domesticating strategies by showing that translator
behaviour oscillates along a continuum modulated by
institutional templates, genre and technological
affordances. Descriptive translation offers immediate
intelligibility but can dilute cultural depth and reduce
textual economy. Functional substitution provides
fluency yet risks semantic flattening, exemplifying how
global linguae francae exercise symbolic power over
minority craft lexicons.
Calques, apparently faithful, occasionally trigger
misinterpretation
through
false
morphological
transparency. A hybrid approach calibrated to each
term’s ethnographic salience emerges as best practice:
high-salience items merit borrowing reinforced with
glossed visuals; medium-salience items benefit from
concise descriptive supplements; low-salience or
purely technical items may accept functional
substitution.
An additional consideration concerns pedagogy. Uzbek
vocational colleges now use English-medium manuals
to attract exchange students; inconsistent terminology
directly affects skill acquisition. Standardised bilingual
databases and instructor briefings can mitigate such
risks. Finally, the study touches on etymological
layering: many Uzbek craft terms of Persian or Arabic
origin undergo further transformation in English,
raising questions for future research on triple-step
mediation.
This investigation delivers the first empirically
grounded panorama of how craftsmanship realia travel
between English and Uzbek across five major textual
ecosystems
—
heritage
management,
museum
exposition, commercial export, tourism promotion, and
academic discourse. Contrary to the widespread
assumption that lexical intractability alone dictates
technique selection, the mixed-effects analysis
demonstrates that institutional genre conventions and
the morphological make-up of the source term exert a
stronger statistical pull than cultural distance per se.
Translators gravitate toward descriptive expansion not
merely for opacity mitigation but to satisfy
documentary templates that reward functional
transparency, a dynamic most visible in customs
paperwork and donor-funded UNESCO dossiers.
Borrowings with supplementary glosses prevail when
visual context is guaranteed, underscoring the
mediating role of multimodality in knowledge transfer.
The back-translation experiment reveals that expansive
paraphrase, although reader-friendly, exacts a
measurable toll on terminological precision and
cultural resonance, with information-loss scores
exceeding fifty percent for dyeing and carving lexemes.
Interview data illuminate the professional anxieties
behind these outcomes: translators fear editorial
rejection and miscomprehension more than they fear
semantic erosion, a calculus amplified by the absence
of authoritative bilingual standards.
Taken together, the evidence supports a salience-
based hybrid model: ethnographically central items
should enter English intact, accompanied by concise in-
text glosses or visual cues; mid-tier terms warrant
calibrated descriptive supplements; context-peripheral
or mass-produced artefacts can accept functional
substitutions
when
communicative
efficiency
outweighs heritage signaling. Implementation requires
three mutually reinforcing interventions. First, a
curated, open-access bilingual terminological database
maintained jointly by craft unions and translation
scholars would normalise spelling, transliteration, and
gloss conventions. Second, translator training curricula
should incorporate modules on craft history and
ethnosemiotics, sensitising practitioners to the value-
laden strata embedded in realia. Third, heritage
institutions ought to embed QR-based visual glossing
that pairs physical artefacts with multilingual micro-
entries, thereby easing the cognitive load that currently
encourages over-domestication.
While the study’s corpus captures a broad s
pectrum of
genres, its temporal window ends in 2024 and may miss
emergent terminology generated by digital fabrication
or neo-artisan revival. Future research should extend
monitoring to social-media micro-genres where
translanguaging practices could offer innovative
solutions to the realia dilemma. A complementary
psycholinguistic strand, testing reader recall and
perceived authenticity across strategy types, would
further ground the salience model in user cognition.
Nonetheless, by fusing quantitative breadth with
qualitative depth, the present work charts a viable path
toward translations that respect artisanal heritage
without sacrificing communicative clarity, thereby
contributing both to translation-studies theory and to
the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage in a
globalised marketplace.
REFERENCES
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
330
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
Florin S. Realia i ikh perevod: status, printsipy
klassifikatsii // Masterstvo perevoda. 1988. Vyp. 6. S.
127
–
131.
Vlahov S.; Florin S. Neperevodimoe v perevode: Realii.
3-e izd., ispr. i dop. Moskva: Vostok-Zapad, 2020. 312 s.
Baker M. In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation.
3-e izd. London; New York: Routledge, 2023. 372 p.
Karimov K. O‘zbek hunarmandchiligi tarixida metallga
zarb berish san’ati. Toshkent: Fan, 2019. 184 b.
Azizova M. Translating Craft Terminology from Uzbek
into English: A Case Study of Pottery Lexis // Journal of
Translation Studies. 2022. T. 5, № 2. S. 45–
63.
Newmark P. A Textbook of Translation. New York:
Prentice Hall, 1988. 292 p.
UNESCO. Convention for the Safeguarding of the
Intangible Cultural Heritage. Paris: UNESCO, 2003. 32 p.
Tillyaeva D. Textile Terminology in Bilingual Museum
Catalogues: Challenges of Adequacy // Bulletin of
Applied Linguistics. 2021. № 14. S. 98–
115.
Miles M.; Huberman A.; Saldaña J. Qualitative Data
Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. 4-e izd. Thousand
Oaks: SAGE, 2020. 384 p.
Salaev B. Muloqotning lingvokulturologik omillari.
Toshkent: O‘qituvchi, 2018. 256 b.
