American Journal Of Philological Sciences
333
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue04 2025
PAGE NO.
333-337
10.37547/ajps/Volume05Issue04-82
Terminological Precision and Linguistic Challenges in
Technical Translation
Abdullayeva Fotima Bakhromovna
Jizzakh state pedagogical university, Senior lecturer of the Department of English language teaching methodology, Uzbekistan
Received:
28 February 2025;
Accepted:
29 March 2025;
Published:
30 April 2025
Abstract:
This article explores the distinct features of technical translation in contrast to literary translation,
emphasizing the critical role of precision, clarity, and consistency in scientific and technical texts. It highlights the
challenges posed by neologisms, polysemy, synonymy, and term creation, and examines the differences in lexical
and terminological meanings. The article also analyzes how language-specific sentence structures and the
systematic organization of terminology affect translation accuracy. Through examples, it demonstrates the
importance of a well-developed terminology system for effective communication and knowledge transfer in
science and technology. Mastery of terminology is presented as essential for professional technical translation.
Keywords:
Technical translation, terminology, neologisms, polysemy, synonymy, lexical meaning, terminological
meaning, precision, scientific texts, term creation, language structure, clarity, consistency, semantic analysis,
communication.
Introduction:
The translation of technical literature
differs from the translation of literary literature in
several distinctive ways. These distinctive features are
primarily related to the specific nature of the language
used in technical literature. The main requirements for
the language of scientific and technical literature are
style, manner of expression, brevity, and the clarity of
the ideas being conveyed. At the same time, scientific
and technical literature is characterized by the use of
specialized terms (and abbreviations), the tradition of
word usage, and the preference for certain syntactic
constructions over others.
METHODS
The presence of a large number of specialized terms in
the text, especially those that have recently emerged
(neologisms) and have not yet been recorded in
dictionaries, creates significant challenges in the
translation process. The richness of scientific and
technical literature with new terms is explained by the
fact that the terminology of the language is inherently
a dynamic layer of the vocabulary. Typically, the
primary goal of scientific and technical literature is to
reflect the latest achievements in science and
technology, and neologisms form a relatively large
percentage of the overall lexicon.
The translation of technical literature differs from the
translation of literary literature in several distinctive
ways. These distinctive features are primarily related to
the specific nature of the language used in technical
literature. The main requirements for the language of
scientific and technical literature are style, manner of
expression, brevity, and the clarity of the ideas being
conveyed. At the same time, scientific and technical
literature is characterized by the use of specialized
terms (and abbreviations), the tradition of word usage,
and the preference for certain syntactic constructions
over others.
The presence of a large number of specialized terms in
the text, especially those that have recently emerged
(neologisms) and have not yet been recorded in
dictionaries, creates significant challenges in the
translation process. The richness of scientific and
technical literature with new terms is explained by the
fact that the terminology of the language is inherently
a dynamic layer of the vocabulary. Typically, the
primary goal of scientific and technical literature is to
reflect the latest achievements in science and
technology, and neologisms form a relatively large
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
334
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
percentage of the overall lexicon.
In general, terminology, particularly technical
terminology, forms a part of the national language. In
it, the elliptical nature of expression is especially
evident, and this primarily occurs from the perspective
of the requirements for scientific precision and
abbreviation. Another key stylistic feature of technical
literature is the conciseness of the presentation of
material and the fluency of expressions.
One of the distinctive characteristics of the English
scientific-technical language, and of English in general,
is that in it, semantic saturation weakens towards the
end of a sentence. In Russian, however, the opposite
occurs, meaning that the semantic growth develops
from the beginning to the end of the sentence. As for
the
Uzbek
language,
neither
of
the
two
aforementioned observations can be fully applied; in
our opinion, this is influenced in some sense by the
emphasis placed on the predicate in Uzbek sentences.
Thus, in English, the point that requires attention often
comes first, while in Russian, it is typically placed at the
end. The Uzbek language, on the other hand, consists
of sentences that require an even distribution of
emphasis.
In addition to characteristics such as abbreviation and
precision, which are typical of scientific-technical
literature, technical texts also stand out for their
richness in technical figurative phraseological
expressions. For example, "the wire is alive"
–
провод
под током –
"a wire under electrical voltage," "dead
engine landing"
–
посадка с выключенным
двигателем –
"landing with the engine turned off" are
some of the examples. In such cases, a full (adequate)
translation is achieved not only by accurately conveying
the meaning but also by delivering all the elements of
the figurativeness from the original text to the reader.
[2, 5]
One of the distinctive features of scientific-technical
literature is that, despite the large number of
specialized terms, it also includes a significant
percentage of words and phrases used in general
language. A large portion of general-use words consists
of polysemous words. In some cases, knowing the
grammatical features of polysemous words is not
enough to determine their meaning; it is also necessary
to understand their lexical relationships. A typical
example of such polysemous words in English technical
terminology are lexical units such as to suggest, to
stem, to claim, and to understand.
Another important aspect of translating technical texts
is that, in many cases, the translator has to create
equivalents in the target language for new concepts.
This is because it is precisely the terms that create
difficulty when translating technical material.
When translating literary works, understanding the text
in a foreign language generally does not present
significant difficulties, and the main issue arises in
recreating the aesthetic and ideological world of the
original text in the target language. In contrast,
understanding scientific or technical texts in English is
usually associated with a series of challenges, each
varying in significance. At the initial stages, the specific
features of the foreign language's grammar usually
present difficulties. As the translator's skill improves,
grammatical challenges tend to subside; however,
determining the meanings of unknown terms remains
a constant necessity. It is not always possible to find the
meaning of an unfamiliar term. Often, the translator is
compelled to conduct a contextual and specialized
(morpho)-semantic analysis of the term.
The phrases encountered in technical literature belong
to two categories: one consists of general vocabulary,
while the other includes specialized (scientific or
coined) terms. So, what exactly is a term, and how does
it differ from other words?
Let’s compare words and phrases from both categories
as an example:
qog‘oz –
base, substrate; chiroyli
–
hidden.
It should be emphasized that the first type of word is
widely used and is understandable to any literate
person. However, this definition cannot be applied to
the words in the second part of the examples. This is
because these words express highly specialized
scientific and industrial concepts and are only used in
specific fields of science and technology. Thus, the
primary difference between scientific and industrial
terms and other general vocabulary words is that they
represent specific scientific and technical concepts.
Terms also differ from ordinary words in their higher
degree of semantic precision. This can be seen when
comparing the general-use verb to go with the
technical term to mill (meaning to crush or grind).
The high precision of terms is ensured by their separate
recording and definition in specialized dictionaries.
The precision of terms is primarily based on their
original meaning. The original meaning (or semantic
structure) of a term usually corresponds partially to its
real-world meaning. For example, the original meaning
of the te
rm атомоход refers to an object moving from
one place to another using atomic energy. Its actual,
practical meaning, however, is "a ship with an atomic
engine." The original meaning of a term, its semantic
structure, must reflect one of the most important
characteristics of the object (thing or phenomenon) it
represents. In terminology, the semantic structure (or
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
335
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
matrix) is directly related to the precise scientific
understanding, clear description, and classification of
the given concept.
A concept or phenomenon that lacks a precise scientific
description and classification cannot have a clear name
that reflects its specific characteristics.
For example, in the terms zarba kuchi, kuchli zarba, and
tirik kuch, the word kuch only represents real, literal
force in the second term. In the first and third terms, it
is used in the meanings of impuls and quvvat (energy).
As we can see, when these terms were created, the
concepts of kuch, impuls, and quvvat were not
sufficiently differentiated, which led to the situation
described above. [9]
The concept of samolyot itself is defined as follows: "an
aircraft that is heavier than air, with a stationary
external supporting structure and a power (current)
device that ensures its flight." From the examples
provided, it is clear that terms in different languages
often differ in their original meanings, even when they
refer to the same object. However, in any case, the
original meaning of a term always reflects a particular
characteristic or feature of the object it represents. We
have become so accustomed to the words in our native
language that we generally do not pay attention to
their core meaning. In contrast, when translating an
unfamiliar word from a foreign language, we tend to
focus on its original or root meaning.
Therefore, it is essential that a term includes the
necessary features or characteristics. However, this
alone is not sufficient. The necessary feature or
characteristic does not provide a complete and precise
description of the object being termed. This is why, in
the construction of meaning, adequate features and
characteristics must also be reflected. However, if only
the sufficient features and characteristics, rather than
the necessary ones, are taken as a basis, then, with the
future changes in the object being termed, the
semantic structure of the term may no longer align with
its actual meaning. This, for example, occurred with the
English term sweeper, which now refers not only to a
brush-type sweeping machine but also to a pneumatic
(air-compressed) broom [7]. In the process of term
creation, both necessary and sufficient features and
characteristics must be considered. [1] Only the
combination of necessary and sufficient features fully
describes the object and distinguishes it from similar
concepts.
Specific characteristics in language are expressed
through lexical markers. A specific characteristic is, in
general, a concept related to the field that the term
represents. A lexical marker, on the other hand, is a
linguistic concept. However, by lexical marker, we
mean the lexical material through which the "specific
characteristics" are expressed in the construction of
the term’s meaning. In this way, the motivation
(justification) of a term depends on two factors: first,
the characteristic of the object being termed in its
entirety; and second, the selection of the material used
to express this descriptive characteristic.
The descriptive, specific characteristic expressed
through a lexical marker ensures and brings about the
lexical meaning of the term. By the lexical meaning of a
term, we understand the meaning of the word or word
combination derived from the semantic structure (i.e.,
the meaning of the lexical elements that constitute the
term) used as a term and its practical use in general
language. However, in translation, the lexical and
specific (i.e., terminological) meanings of a term
(whether simple, coined, complex words, or stable
word combinations) must differ. [6, 5]
As a unit of a particular technical terminology system,
the meaning of a term refers to the lexical meaning that
is clarified and defined by the term's defining element
within that system.
For example, the lexical meaning of the word wing (in
Uzbek qanot) is “flight organ,” while the meaning of the
aviation term wing is “one of
the main parts designed
to create lift during the forward motion of an aircraft,
having a shape that is tilted and flattened in the flow
direction.” The phrase qanot burunchasi (wing tip)
means simply “the front part of the wing,” but the term
qanot burunc
hasi has the meaning of “the front part of
the wing up to the first longitudinal spar or the first rib.”
At first glance, even when the lexical and terminological
meanings appear to match, there is always some
distinction between them. The lexical meaning pertains
to all objects that are characterized by specific features
that directly reflect the object in the term's meaning
structure, providing a full description of the object and
differentiating it from similar objects. Terminological
meaning, however, includes the aspects that are not
explicitly expressed but are always implied, serving as
limiting factors.
For example, the lexical meaning of the term attaching
parts might apply to any parts that connect objects,
such as wires or even ropes, and closely aligns with the
phrase birlashuvchi detallar in Uzbek. At the same time,
according to the definition of this term, it specifically
refers to parts like bolts, nuts, washers, pins, and
similar components, aligning with the term
mahkamlovchi qismlar in Uzbek. [8] As we can see, the
conceptual content of the lexical and terminological
meanings generally matches. However, due to
additional restrictions, the scope of the terminological
concept is smaller than that of the corresponding word
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
336
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
or word combination used as a term.
Therefore, the literal translation of a foreign term, even
if it accurately reflects the essence of the scientific
concept in practice, can introduce additional nuances
of meaning that were not present in the original.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The precision of terms in terminology means the
absence of homonymy and polysemy. If a term is
understood in multiple ways, it cannot be considered
precise. In fact, context should not affect the meaning
of a term; unfortunately, in many terminology systems,
we often encounter polysemous terms. To express a
new concept, a term is often borrowed from one that
has previously referred to a different concept, object,
or phenomenon (for example, the term qayiq (boat)
was used to describe the fuselage of a hydroplane).
Initially, the meaning of a univocal term "loosens"
during its usage, and as a result, it frequently acquires
multiple meanings.
The presence of synonymous terms also has a negative
impact on the terminology system. Polysemy and
synonymy are of positive importance in literary works,
as the richness, beauty, and vividness of the narrative
are achieved precisely because of them. However, in
terminology, polysemous and synonymous terms often
lead to misunderstandings, which is why there is always
an effort to avoid them. Therefore, at first glance, such
a paradoxical phenomenon is considered surprising in
language; the number of synonyms in a terminology
system (especially in fields that have emerged recently
or have developed relatively more) is greater than the
number of synonyms present in the general literary
lexicon.
The fact that scientific and technical terminology is
saturated with synonyms can be explained by the
relatively recent creation of many terms. Usually, the
emergence of new concepts leads to the simultaneous
creation of several terms by different specialists. When
we add that the new concepts themselves are not yet
clearly and precisely defined, it becomes clear why the
terminology of new fields in science and technology is
so rich in synonymous terms.
For example, there are several synonyms for the term
"twin-spool turbojet engine" in English: turbo-fan
engine, ducted-fan engine, by-pass engine, augmented
jet engine. Over time, the scope, size, and meaning of
new concepts are clarified. The process of identifying
the necessary and sufficient attributes of the concept
being terminologized (i.e., the concept that is acquiring
the status of a term), and either creating a new term or
selecting from existing ones that meet the required
criteria, becomes possible. The remaining "less active"
terms gradually become less used and give way to the
selected terms. [4]
Thus, the richness of terminology in relation to
synonyms, although not eagerly welcomed, is an
inevitable
consequence
of
the
unstoppable
development of science and technology.
Among synonyms (as in the literary lexical layer), it is
necessary to distinguish between absolute synonyms,
which have exactly the same meaning, and relative
synonyms, whose meanings only partially overlap.
Absolute synonyms are considered an unnecessary
burden for terminology, as synonymic duplicates do
not perform any additional function relative to the
main member of a synonymic group. Therefore, during
the development of a terminology system, absolute
synonyms either fall out of usage in speech or writing,
or their meanings diverge. For example, when the term
"aircraft missiles" was first used, this new type of
weapon had names such as flying bomb, winged bomb,
jet-propelled projectile, glider bomb, doodle bomb,
doodle bug, and buzz bomb. Over time, only the term
"flying bomb" remained; the others have fallen out of
use.
For example, in recent years, the English synonym
terms de-icer and anti-icer have shown a tendency to
differentiate in meaning. The "English-Russian Aviation
Dictionary" provides a single translation for these
terms, antiobledenitel
–
a substance or agent against
freezing (icing). However, in reality, the meanings of
these terms do not completely overlap. This can also be
seen in the following micro-context example: "In a
typical four-turboprop transport installation, the wing,
stabilizer, fin, and propeller blades are de-iced." With
the development of aviation technology, many types of
anti-icing systems emerged, and the term de-icer
began to refer not to any system of anti-icing devices,
but specifically to systems that periodically act to melt
the ice that has formed.
The term anti-icer began to refer to systems of devices
that provide continuous action, meaning those that
completely prevent the formation of ice.
Other important characteristics of terminology are its
consistency and regularity.
The terminology of a specific science is not only a set of
terms that express the concepts of this particular
science, but also a system of terms that reflects the
interrelation of the concepts emerging in the process of
the development of that science.
This can be demonstrated using a group of terms
related to the wave motion of liquids: gravitational
(based on laws of attraction) waves, capillary
(extremely thin, delicate) waves, capillary-gravitational
waves, forced waves, surface waves, internal waves,
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
337
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
space waves, plane waves, and so on. All of the terms
listed here are interconnected and dependent on each
other. The meaning of each term relates to the
meanings of the other terms in the group.
In addition to the specific characteristics of terminology
discussed above, another important aspect is its future
potential for creating terms, meaning the creation of
derived (secondary) terms and their use in
terminological word combinations. As a result, this
characteristic also shows how correctly the word
formation model has been chosen.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the translation of scientific and technical
literature demands a deep understanding of
terminology, precision, and linguistic nuance. Unlike
literary translation, where artistic expression prevails,
technical translation prioritizes clarity, accuracy, and
consistency. Challenges such as neologisms, polysemy,
and synonymy require translators to conduct thorough
semantic and contextual analyses. Effective term
creation, distinction between lexical and terminological
meanings, and awareness of language-specific
structures are essential. A well-structured terminology
system not only ensures efficient communication
within scientific fields but also facilitates future term
development, reflecting the evolving nature of science
and technology. Thus, mastering terminology is key to
successful technical translation.
REFERENCES
“American Aviation”, №22, 1994,
- B. 145.
«Научно
-
техническая
терминология»,
Реферативная информация, 1973, №8,
-
Б. 5.
Borisova L.I. Lexical Difficulties in Translating Scientific
and Technical Literature from English to Russian. 1979,
264 pages.
Daniyarov R. Formation and Development of Technical
Terminology in the Uzbek Language. ADD, Baku, 1982.
Degtereva T.A. Forms of Manifestation of Semantic
Laws. "Laws of Semantic Development in Language." -
Moscow: Higher School and AON, 1981, pp. 3-4.
Desheriev Y.D. Laws of Language Development and
Interaction in Society. - Moscow: Nauka, 1966, p. 131.
G‘ulomov A.G‘. On the Methods of Word Formation in
the Uzbek Language. Works of the A.S. Pushkin
Institute of Language and Literature. "Materials from
the Grammar of the Uzbek Language," Volume One. -
Tashkent: O‘zFAN, 1979, p. 39.
Gulyamov A.G. Problems of Historical Word Formation
in the Uzbek Language, Affixation, Part I, Word-forming
Affixes, ADD, Tashkent, 1955, p. 2.
Ibrohimov S. The Vocabulary of Professions and Trades
in the Fergana Dialects. -
Tashkent: O‘zFA, 1979, p. 154.
Ibrohimov S. The Vocabulary of Professions and Trades
in the Fergana Dialects. -
Tashkent: O‘zFA, 1979, p. 164.
Konjin A.N. Compound Nomenclature in the Russian
Language. "Thoughts on the Modern Russian
Language." - Moscow: Prosveshcheniye, 1969, p. 35.
Kononov A.V. Grammar of the Modern Uzbek Literary
Language; M. Mirzaev, S. Usmonov, I. Rasulov. Uzbek
Language. - Tashkent: Ukituvchi, 1970, p. 112.
Ma’rufov Z. Word Composition. Nouns and Adjectives.
-
Tashkent: O‘zFA, 1956, p. 43.
Sevornen E.V. Affixes of Noun Word Formation in the
Azerbaijani Language. - Moscow: Nauka, 1996, p. 139.
