International Journal Of Literature And Languages
7
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue01 2025
PAGE NO.
7-9
10.37547/ijll/Volume05Issue02-02
The artistic and aesthetic significance of the translation
of Ibroyim Yusupov’s lyrics
Bekzod Sobirov
Assistant Teacher at the Department of Philology, Nukus Innovation Institute, Uzbekistan
Received:
12 December 2024;
Accepted:
14 January 2025;
Published:
16 February 2025
Abstract:
This article provides a scholarly and theoretical basis for the assertion that conveying the psycho-
emotional state in the translation of poetic texts is of critical importance, drawing on the works of Ibroyim Yusupov
as an illustrative example. It also presents evidence that the translator’s skill plays a pivotal role in literary
translation and that accurately highlighting the national color in the target text is a mark of genuine artistic
mastery.
Keywords:
Translation, artistic mastery, literary connections, translator’s skill, artistry, aesthetics, analysis, poetic
perception, national color.
Introduction:
Translating from languages that share
close kinship in terms of vocabulary, lifestyle, and
religious beliefs is in many respects more convenient
than translating from languages of entirely different
linguistic groups whose religion, customs, and
traditions are very different. Nevertheless, there is a
widespread but incorrect belief in Translation Studies
that translation from closely related languages is more
difficult than from distant ones. The main justification
given is the existence of so-
called “false equivalents”:
words that appear similar in form in both languages but
differ substantially in meaning. Such words, when used
incorrectly, can mislead the translator, slip into the
translation, fail to fulfill their function in the target text,
and
—
being used out of place
—
distort or alter the
author’s message. However, as the well
-known
translation schola
r G‘. Salomov put it, “When
translating from closely related languages, instances of
being misled by false equivalents generally stem from
the translator’s insufficient command of the source
language” [1.133]. In our context, the field of literary
translation from closely related languages has not
evolved sufficiently, its rules and principles remain
underdeveloped, and it receives relatively little
oversight. As a result, individuals without proper
mentorship often undertake translations “on their own
term
s,” so to speak. It seems that, due to this neglect
and lack of proper stewardship in Uzbek translation
studies, professional translators have been sidelined in
this field, and it is largely occupied by random,
unqualified individuals.
METHODOLOGY
In scholarly discourse, there is a phrase often referred
to as “strangely well
-
known.” It describes words,
expressions, and concepts that are, in fact, incorrect
but have become so widely adopted that they are
treated as “correct.” For
instance, the Uzbek word
avliyo (a plural form of valiy, meaning “saint”) is
sometimes further pluralized as avliyolar, or the word
axbor (already a plural form of “information”) is
sometimes given the plural suffix -ot, and so on. We can
observe similar phenomena in the shifts of certain
word meanings. For example, xoliq means “Creator,”
while maxluq means “a created being.” Historically,
maxluq carried a positive connotation, but now it is
used negatively or even as an insult. Likewise, today we
use dorilomon in the sense of a peaceful, tranquil life,
whereas in the past it denoted “the abode of peace,”
i.e., the afterlife [2.215].
RESULTS
An unwritten assumption seems to prevail that one
does not need full proficiency in a closely related
language to translate from it. This view may be
exacerbated by the fact that Turkmen, Kazakh, Kyrgyz,
Azerbaijani, Tatar, Bashkir, and Karakalpak
—
languages
closely related to Uzbek
—
are generally not formally
taught anywhere (in higher education institutions, only
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
8
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
International Journal Of Literature And Languages (ISSN: 2771-2834)
Turkish is usually offered among the Turkic languages).
Other Turkic languages are taught primarily to native
speakers in their respective schools, and Uzbek
speakers do not usually receive such instruction. There
are no standard textbooks, manuals, or dictionaries
available in these languages for Uzbek learners. Thus,
many translators who work with these languages often
have connections to both cultures. For instance, N.
Fozilov has ties to Kazakh heritage, Tursunboy
Adashboyev to Kyrgyz, Muzaffar Ahmad to Karakalpak,
and Abdulmo‘min Jumayev to Turkmen, each having a
cultural connection to the source language.
Professional translators like Mirtemir are relatively rare
in this field. If we look at the translators of Ibroyim
Yusupov’s works—
Jumaniyoz Sharipov, Jumaniyoz
Jabborov, Muzaffar Ahmad, Mirza Kenjabek, and
Abdumo‘min Jumayev—
none are formally trained
Karakalpak language specialists. Poet, writer, and
translation scholar J. Sharipov benefited from growing
up in Khorezm, where the local culture is somewhat
closer to Karakalpak culture compared to other regions,
and M. Ahmad, being a Karakalpak native, was already
familiar with the language [3.84].
It is well-known that when translating from closely
related languages, many words and phrases, lines, and
even entire stanzas can be transferred into the
translation almost unchanged. As the saying goes,
“every benefit has its drawback,” and indeed, there is a
negative side to this convenience
—
it can discourage
the translator from genuine creative effort and foster
laziness. Two situations arise in this context. First, when
translators notice that many words, sentences, lines,
and stanzas have made their way into the translation
unchanged, they may abuse this opportunity by
preserving even the rest as is, simply adding footnotes
for certain unfamiliar words. Consequently, the
number of footnotes in the translation becomes
excessive. For example, in one translation of Ibroyim
Yusupov’s poems, around 300 notes were given.
“Naturally, having too many notes ma
kes the
translated work difficult to read” [5.48]. Yet it must be
remembered that this is a translation, not the original.
If we were to publish the poet’s verses in the original
Karakalpak, we would likely include as many or perhaps
even more notes. Second, in our context, translation
from closely related languages is often not regarded as
a creative endeavor; rather, it is treated like a simple
conversion from one language to another, merely
swapping out any unclear words for more
understandable ones. As a result, such translations are
undertaken without significant preparation, leading to
more errors than one might find in translations from
more distant languages. The Russian translation scholar
M. Rilskiy emphasized
—
aptly, it seems
—
that
translating from closely related languages can be more
challenging than translating from distant languages.
When working with distant languages, a translator
usually undergoes rigorous preparation, scrutinizing
every word and sentence in the original, extracting its
essence, and carefully evaluating its shades of
meaning. In translation from closely related languages,
however, the translator may neglect this responsibility
and become somewhat complacent. Consequently,
they may be misled by words, phrases, and proverbs
that appear similar on the surface (and thus seem
understandable even without a dictionary), leading to
numerous glaring errors that remain unnoticed. One
might say there are three main reasons for mistakes in
translation from sister languages:
1.
Inadequate proficiency in the source language.
2.
Being misled by similar but not identical words,
idioms, or concepts.
3.
Carelessness, lack of responsibility, and
inattentiveness.
From ancient times, art has sought to explore the needs
and interests of human beings. The gap between
aspiration and reality shapes art’s existential scope.
Every literary interpretation, in turn, attempts to
address the “mystery of existence” inherent in human
nature, to the extent possible. More precisely, the
boundaries of artistic expression and aesthetic choice
demand this. In that sense, the system of literary
thought exhibits both a complete and holistic
philosophical reflection as well as the unified flow of
emotion and reason, capturing images and expression
in a concise and focused manner. Hence, the inclination
to generalize human essence by harmonizing states of
being and actions in an integrated manner signifies the
breadth of lyrical perception. Within it, the spiritual
tone of the depiction and the enlightenment of analysis
merge into a single coherent meaning. When an author
depicts the poetic impetus inspired by personal
experience, the primary goal is to give the reader an
opportunity to observe an emotional journey. This is
where creative essence finds wholeness:
When Navoi and Berdakh wrote their epics,
When Babur departed his homeland,
When Mashrab’s ghazals cried out,
Did they ultimately fulfill their cherished dreams?
[4.141].
CONCLUSION
A literary work is a unified system
—
systemic
wholeness
—
composed of interconnected elements. It
is not a monolith; rather, the relationships among its
parts are so crucial that failing to understand them fully
can lead to incomplete or distorted interpretation.
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
9
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
International Journal Of Literature And Languages (ISSN: 2771-2834)
Each element is incorporated with an eye toward the
entire
work’s demands, which means the whole is
understood through its parts, and each part’s meaning
is fully revealed only within that whole. Thus, when
reading a literary work, one must, first, view every
element in relation to the others, and second, envision
the work as a complete entity. In a long novel, for
example, a seemingly minor element at the beginning
may resonate with another at the end, forming a
thematic connection that the author does not explicitly
signal but that is essential to grasping the overall
meaning. It is like touching two wires connected to a
power source: only when these two elements come
into contact in the mind of the reader does a “spark”
occur, revealing a new facet of the text’s significance.
This is why reading is referred to as a creative process
—
merely linking disparate parts into a coherent whole is
an act of creation. Different readers perceive a text
differently partly because their ability to identify and
connect these hidden relationships varies. There is
another subtlety here: systemic wholeness demands
the unity of the object (artistic reality) and the subject
(the creator). Hence, a genuinely creative approach to
the literary text is only achieved when the reader,
during the reading process, mentally assumes the role
of the author, immersing themselves in the unique
artistic-spiritual experience present at the moment of
creation. The text itself, as a model of the creative
process, can facilitate this immersion. A commonly
accepted rule for understanding a systematic whole is
quite simple: the whole is understood through its parts,
and the parts through the whole. Without visualizing
how these components interrelate, and how they
collectively shape a coherent entity, it is nearly
impossible to grasp the deeper meanings of the text.
Sometimes, neglecting just a single element can distort
the overall meaning. After all, structure is the logical
arrangement of meaning; without grasping that logic,
capturing the intricacies of a literary work’s content is
very difficult.
Because human psychology is morally directed, the
gradual philosophical development of humankind is
connected to real-world necessities. In the process of
artistic expression, interpretation and analysis not only
take center stage but also integrate with one another.
In other words, artistic and psychological essence,
syntactic selection, and creative capacity complement
each other. Accordingly, the criteria for evaluation
stem from philosophical and artistic generalizations. In
this framework, the method of analysis or validation
becomes a measure that determines the value of the
literary reality. The completeness of this expression
reveals the socially and aesthetically charged depth of
emotional perception. In other words, the poetic idea
converges with personal, social, and ethical interests.
REFERENCES
Salomov G., Boboyev T. (1973). Tarjima sanʼati [The Art
of Translation]. Tashkent: Adabiyot va sanʼat.
Isomiddinov Z. (1995). Turkiy epos va tarjima masalalari
[Issues of Turkic Epos and Translation]. Tashkent:
Universitet.
Dilmanov I. (2007). Folklor aloqalari va badiiy tarjima
[Folklore Connections and Literary Translation]. Nukus:
Bilim.
Yusupov I. (1994). Sahro bulbuli [The Desert
Nightingale]. Tashkent: Adabiyot va sanʼat.
Xolbekov M. (2016).
O‘zbekistonda tarjima va
tarjimashunoslik [Translation and Translation Studies in
Uzbekistan]. Xorijiy filologiya [Foreign Philology], №3,
P.16.
Salomov G‘. (n.d.). Tarjima nazariyasiga kirish
[Introduction to Translation Theory] (p. 95).
Musayev Q. (2005). Tarjima nazariyasi asoslari
[Foundations of Translation Theory] (pp. 27
–
28).
Tashkent: Fan.
