https://scientific-jl.com/luch/
Часть
-47
_ Том
-3_
июнь
-2025
211
ENGLISH GRAMMAR DIFFICULTIES IN TRANSLATION
Isroilova Nilufar Akromjon qizi
Teacher at Polytechnic N 1. Asaka district.
ABSTRACT
Every language has specific system which differs from that of any other. 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 group’s respectively of the Indo –
European
family of languages; the Uzbek language pertains to the Turkic 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. The
importance of grammar in translating sentences and their meaning are discussed in
this article.
Keywords: grammar, grammatical means, grammatical correspondences,
morphological corresponce, syntactic correspondence, analytical character.
As to grammar the principal means of expression in languages possessing an
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 language). 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 languages considered:
https://scientific-jl.com/luch/
Часть
-47
_ Том
-3_
июнь
-2025
212
The hunter killed the wolf.
Оvchi bo‘rini o‘ldirdi
Охотник
убил
волка
.
In English the order of words is fixed. The model of Simple declarative
sentences in these languages is as follows:
Subject
–
Predicate
This means that the subject (S) is placed in the first position and predicate (V)
–
in the second position. If the predicate is expressed by a transitive verb then in the
third position we find the object (O), that is S
–
Vtr - O
Any violation of this order of words brings about a change or distortion of the
meaning.
O. But it permits the transposition of the words.
Охотник убил волка.
Волка убил охотник
and so on .
The Uzbek model S
–
O
–
Vtr differs from the English and Russian models
by the order of words and morphological arrangement of the object which may be
marked or unmarked.
Compare:
Оvchi bo‘rini o‘ldirdi
Оvchi bo‘ri o‘ldirdi
These patterns are not equivalent. The first allows transposition of words,
which leads to stylistic marking. (Characteristic of poetry). Besides, the ending
“НИ” expresses an additional meaning of definiteness. The second pattern does
none tolerate transposition of words.The principal types of grammatical
https://scientific-jl.com/luch/
Часть
-47
_ Том
-3_
июнь
-2025
213
correspondences
between
two
languages
are
as
follows;
a) complete correspondence;
b) partial correspondence;
c) The absence of correspondence.
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
categorical
and
particular
meanings
are
alike;
Number
–
singular
-
plural
Such correspondence may be called complete.
Partial morphological correspondence. Partial morphological correspondence
is observed when in the languages examined there are grammatical categories with
identical categorical meanings but with some differences in their particular
meanings. In the languages considered there is a grammatical category of case in
nouns. Though the categorical meaning is identical in all the three languages the
particular meanings are different both from the point of view of their number and
the meanings they express. English has two particular meanings while Uzbek and
Russian have six.
Though the 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
Absence of morphological correspondence is observed when there are no
corresponding grammatical categories in the languages examined. As for instance
https://scientific-jl.com/luch/
Часть
-47
_ Том
-3_
июнь
-2025
214
in Uzbek there is grammatical category of possessiveness, which shows the
affixations of things to one of the three grammatical persons, eg…:
Uzbek
Kitob - im
Kitob - ing
Kitob
–
i
This grammatical category is neither found in English nor in Russian. These
languages use pronouns for this purpose.
English. Russian
M
y book моя книгa
Y
our book. твоя книга
In English weuse the certain grammatical means to express definite and
indefinite meanings, which is an article. But there are no equivalent grammatical
means in Uzbek and Russian. They use lexical or syntactic means to express those
meanings.
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+N is used in
word
combination:
Red flags - Qizil bayroqlar. The same may ba said of sentences in cases when the
predicate of a simple sentence is expressed by an intransitive verb:
He laughed.
–
U kuldi.
Partial syntactic correspondence
By partial syntactic correspondence in word combinations is understood the
conformity in meaning but discrepancy in the structure of phrase.
https://scientific-jl.com/luch/
Часть
-47
_ Том
-3_
июнь
-2025
215
Partial syntactic correspondence in word combinations are found in the 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 N1+N2 which
expresses the following type of relations.
Attributive
English Uzbek Russian
Glass
–
tube shisha
–
naycha стеклянная трубочка
N1+ N2 N1+N2 Adj +N
In this example English and Uzbek translation is unmarked while Russian is
marked.
House
–
plan a) uy plani план дома
N1+N2 N1+N2 (i) N1+N2 (a)
б) uyning plani
N1(ning) + N2(i)
As it is seen from the examples, Uzbek and Russian are marked while English is
unmarked. Besides, Russian there is atransposition of words. Gran silo incident -
elavatordagi hodisa; инцидент в элаваторе. The Uzbek version is marked by
means of the suffix - dagi; Russian - by a functional word and the case ending.
Besides there is a transposion of words. The English version is unmarked.
Actions to its subject:
W
orks club ishchilar klubi клуб рабочих
N1+N2 N (lar + ning) +N2(i) N2+N1
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 cites, languages differ as to the way they express this
https://scientific-jl.com/luch/
Часть
-47
_ Том
-3_
июнь
-2025
216
relations, though they maintain identical relations between the components of
wordcombinations.
1. Word-combinations, whose first component is expressed by a numeral,.
One book bitta kitob
Two books ikkita kitob
Three books uchta kitob
F
our books to‘rtta kitob
Five books beshta kitob
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
Num+Npl Num+Nsing
As it 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:
This to be or not to be struggle-hayot-momot kurashi
Go-to-
hell voice dag‘al ovoz
By partial syntactic correspondence in sentences is understood the divergence in
the order of words, omission or partial substitution of parts of sentences:
It is forbidden to smoke here
Bu yerda chekish man qilingan.
With what he blew out his candle.
U shamni o‘chirdi
https://scientific-jl.com/luch/
Часть
-47
_ Том
-3_
июнь
-2025
217
Absence of syntactic correspondence. By absence of syntactic correspondence
we mean lack of certain syntactic constructions in theTarget language, which were
used in the Source language. In English these concern syntactic constructions with
non-finite forms of the verb which compose the extended part of a sentence with
an incomplete or secondary predication. The semantic function of predicative
constructions can be formulated as intercommunication and inter conditionality of
actions or states with different subjects.
These constructions have no formal grammatical connection with the main
part of sentences, though there is always conformity between them. The degree of
attendance of action or conditions in predicative constructions determines the
choice of complex, compound or simple sentences in translation.
C
ompare: I heard the door open… Eshik ochilganini eshitdim.In the English
sentence 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 “eshik ochilganini” 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 norminalized. In Russian
this construction is expressed by a complex sentence with a subordinate object
clause.
1.Absova
N.N.
English
contextology.
Leningrad,
1960.
2
. Амосова Н.Н. Основы английской фразеологии. –
Л.: ЛГУ, 1963. –
208 с.
3
. Бархударов
JI
. С. Язык и перевод. Москва. 1980.
4. Жўраев К. Таржима санъати. –
Тошкент: Фан, 1982. –
60 б.
5.Йўлдошев Б. Ўзбек фразеологияси ва фразеографиясининг
шаклланиши ҳамда тараққиёти. Монография. –
Самарқанд: СамДУ нашри,
https://scientific-jl.com/luch/
Часть
-47
_ Том
-3_
июнь
-2025
218
2011.
–
116
б.
6. Muminov O., Sunnatov O. translation history. Tashkent. "Russian and Uzbek
literatures", 2004.
7. Oxford advanced Learner’s Dictionary of current English, London: Oxford
University.
Press,
1980.
8. www.englishinvestigation.org
