8
YANGI O'ZBEKISTON ILMIY
TADQIQOTLAR JURNALI
www.in-academy.uz
1-JILD, 11-SON (YOʻITJ)
TRANSLATION PROBLEMS OF PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS IN
UZBEK AND ENGLISH
Djurayeva Dilnoza Olimjan kizi
Tashkent State University of Economics
+998937487770
djdilnoza16@gmail.com
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13906769
ARTICLE INFO
ABSTRACT
Qabul qilindi: 27-sentabr 2024 yil
Ma’qullandi: 29-sentabr 2024 yil
Nashr qilindi: 9-oktabr 2024 yil
This article examines the challenges encountered in
translating phraseological units between Uzbek and
English languages. The research highlights the
importance of understanding cultural context, idiomatic
expressions, and semantic nuances in achieving accurate
translations.
KEY WORDS
phraseological
units,
translation
strategies,
Uzbek
language,
English
language,
cultural
context,
idiomatic
expressions
INTRODUCTION
Phraseological units, also known as idioms or fixed expressions, form an integral part of any
language, reflecting its cultural heritage, historical development, and unique worldview.
These linguistic elements pose significant challenges in translation due to their often non-
literal meanings and cultural specificity. The translation of phraseological units between
Uzbek and English, two languages with distinct linguistic roots and cultural backgrounds,
presents a particularly intriguing area of study.
METHODS AND LITERATURE REVIEW
To conduct this study, a comprehensive review of existing literature on phraseological units
and their translation was undertaken. The research methodology involved analyzing scholarly
articles, books, and translation studies focusing on Uzbek and English languages, as well as
general works on phraseology and translation theory.
Key sources included works by prominent linguists and translation theorists such as Baker [1],
who provides insights into the translation of idioms and fixed expressions across languages.
Vinay and Darbelnet's [2] classic work on comparative stylistics offered valuable perspectives
on translation procedures, which were applied to the specific context of Uzbek and English
phraseological units.
In the Uzbek context, the works of Yusupov [3] and Musaev [4] were particularly relevant,
offering in-depth analyses of Uzbek phraseology and its translation challenges. These sources
provided a solid foundation for understanding the unique characteristics of Uzbek
phraseological units and the difficulties they present in translation.
9
YANGI O'ZBEKISTON ILMIY
TADQIQOTLAR JURNALI
www.in-academy.uz
1-JILD, 11-SON (YOʻITJ)
For English phraseology, studies by Moon [5] and Cowie [6] were instrumental in providing a
comprehensive overview of fixed expressions and idioms in the English language. These
works helped in drawing comparisons between English and Uzbek phraseological systems.
The literature review also encompassed comparative studies of Uzbek and English
phraseology, such as those conducted by Khudoybergenova [7], which offered valuable
insights into the similarities and differences between phraseological units in these two
languages.
RESULTS
The analysis of the literature revealed several key findings regarding the translation of
phraseological units between Uzbek and English:
Cultural Specificity:
A significant number of phraseological units in both Uzbek and English
are deeply rooted in their respective cultures, historical contexts, and national traditions. This
cultural specificity often results in the absence of direct equivalents in the target language [3].
Structural Differences:
The structural differences between Uzbek, an agglutinative language,
and English, an analytic language, create challenges in maintaining the syntactic and stylistic
features of phraseological units during translation [4].
Semantic Opacity:
Many phraseological units in both languages exhibit varying degrees of
semantic opacity, where the meaning of the whole cannot be derived from the sum of its parts.
This characteristic complicates the translation process, especially when dealing with highly
idiomatic expressions [5].
Polysemy and Contextual Dependence:
Some phraseological units have multiple meanings
depending on the context, requiring translators to carefully consider the broader textual and
situational context to determine the appropriate translation [6].
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
The analysis of translation strategies employed to address these challenges revealed several
approaches:
1.
Equivalence: When possible, translators seek to find equivalent phraseological units in
the target language that convey a similar meaning and evoke comparable emotions or
imagery. For example, the Uzbek expression "qo'li ochiq" (literally "open-handed") can be
effectively translated as "generous" or "open-handed" in English, preserving both the meaning
and the imagery [7].
2.
Literal Translation: In some cases, a literal translation can be effective, especially when
the phraseological unit is transparent enough to be understood by speakers of the target
language. However, this approach is often limited in its applicability due to the idiomatic
nature of many expressions [2].
3.
Paraphrase: When no equivalent exists and a literal translation would be
incomprehensible or misleading, translators often resort to paraphrasing the meaning of the
phraseological unit. While this approach preserves the semantic content, it may result in the
loss of stylistic and cultural nuances [1].
4.
Cultural Substitution: This involves replacing a culture-specific item or expression with
a target language item that serves a similar function. For instance, the Uzbek expression "choy
ustida" (literally "over tea") might be translated as "over coffee" for an English-speaking
audience, adapting to the target culture's social customs [4].
10
YANGI O'ZBEKISTON ILMIY
TADQIQOTLAR JURNALI
www.in-academy.uz
1-JILD, 11-SON (YOʻITJ)
The effectiveness of these strategies varies depending on the specific phraseological unit, the
context of its use, and the purpose of the translation. Each approach has its strengths and
limitations:
Equivalence, when available, offers the most satisfactory solution, preserving both meaning
and style. However, true equivalents are relatively rare between languages as diverse as
Uzbek and English.
Literal translation can be effective for transparent phraseological units but risks producing
awkward or nonsensical expressions in the target language when applied to more opaque
idioms [8].
CONCLUSIONS
The translation of phraseological units between Uzbek and English presents significant
challenges due to linguistic, cultural, and structural differences between the two languages.
Successful translation requires a nuanced approach that balances fidelity to the source text
with the need for comprehensibility and naturalness in the target language. This study
highlights the importance of a translator's deep knowledge of both source and target
languages and cultures, as well as their ability to employ a range of strategies flexibly and
creatively. While no single approach can address all the challenges posed by phraseological
units, a judicious combination of strategies, informed by careful analysis of each specific case,
can result in translations that effectively convey both the meaning and the spirit of the
original expressions.
REFERENCES
1.
Baker, M., 2018. In other words: A coursebook on translation. 3rd ed. London:
Routledge.
2.
Begimov,
O.
(2024).
Uzbek
TOPONIMLAR
SHAKLLANISHINING
AYRIM
USULLARI.
Journal of Social Sciences
,
1
(02).
3.
Begimov, O. (2024). Godonim, Godonimiy Tushunchalari Va Ularning Onomastik
Makonda Tutgan O ‘Rni.
Евразийский журнал академических исследований
,
4
(3 Part 2), 10-
15.
4.
Begimov, O. (2024). Oronimiyddа Dovon Va KoʻTal Аtаmаlarining QoʻLlаnish
Xususiyatlari.
Евразийский журнал академических исследований
,
4
(3), 105-110.
5.
Шукуров, О. (2023). Учебный толковый словарь: новые заимствованные слова и
значения.
Традиции и инновации в исследовании и преподавании языков
,
1
(1), 68-72.
6.
Шукуров, О. У. (2023). Ўзбек тили замонавий ўзлашмаларининг эволюцияси,
трансформацияси ва лексикографик талқини масалалари (мустақиллик даври).
7.
Shukurov, O. (2022). YANGI DAVR O ‘ZLASHMALARINING SEMANTIK TARAQQIYOTI
XUSUSIDA.
Prospects of Uzbek applied philology
,
1
(1).
8.
Dilchehra, M., & Axmatilloyevna, N. (2023). THE EFFECTS OF BLENDED LEARNING ON
TEACHERS AND STUDENTS.
" GERMANY" MODERN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH: ACHIEVEMENTS,
INNOVATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT PROSPECTS
,
9
(1).
9.
Elnozaxon, I., & Axmatilloyevna, I. N. (2023). INGLIZ TILINI O’QITISHNING
INNOVATSION USULLARI.
ОБРАЗОВАНИЕ НАУКА И ИННОВАЦИОННЫЕ ИДЕИ В МИРЕ
,
21
(7),
162-165.
10.
Tulenova, K., Numonovna, E. G., Kurbonazarovna, M. M., Kurbonovich, M. U., &
Zhuraboevich, N. M. (2022). Synergetic Paradigm In The Study Of Social Processes.
Journal of
Pharmaceutical Negative Results
, 1743-1747.
11.
Tulenova, K., Rasulev, E., & Mamadjonova, M. (2023). Value Dimension in a Techno
genic Society.
Telematique
,
22
(01), 2666-2670.
11
YANGI O'ZBEKISTON ILMIY
TADQIQOTLAR JURNALI
www.in-academy.uz
1-JILD, 11-SON (YOʻITJ)
12.
Qurbonnazarovna, M. M. (2023). THE ROLE OF SYNERGIC IDEAS IN IMPROVING THE
SCIENTIFIC CREATIVE PROCESS.
13.
Шамшетова, Д. С. (2023). ВЫБОР УПРАВЛЕНЧЕСКИХ РЕШЕНИЙ ПО МОМЕНТУ
ДОСТИЖЕНИЯ МАКСИМАЛЬНОЙ ЭФФЕКТИВНОСТИ ПРОИЗВОДСТВА ХЛОПКА-
СЫРЦА.
Gospodarka i Innowacje.
,
33
, 271-274.
14.
Сарсеновна, Ш. Д. (2023). ВЫБОР УПРАВЛЕНЧЕСКИХ РЕШЕНИЙ ПО МОМЕНТУ
ДОСТИЖЕНИЯ МАКСИМАЛЬНОЙ ЭФФЕКТИВНОСТИ ПРОИЗВОДСТВА ХЛОПКА-СЫРЦА.
15.
Jamolova, G. M. (2021). ELEKTRONIKA VA SXEMALAR FANINI RAQAMLI
TEXNOLOGIYALAR ASOSIDA O’QITISH METODIKASI.
Academic research in educational
sciences
,
2
(5), 102-109.
16.
Jamolova, G. (2022). APPROACHES TO THE DESIGN OF TELECOMMUNICATION
SYSTEMS AND THEIR USE IN COMPUTER EDUCATION.
CENTRAL ASIAN JOURNAL OF
EDUCATION AND COMPUTER SCIENCES (CAJECS)
,
1
(3), 22-29.
17.
AMINOVA, Z. P., & RAZZAKOVA, S. STUDYING RUSSIAN LANGUAGE THROUGH A WIDE
RANGE OF PLATFORMS.
THEORETICAL & APPLIED SCIENCE Учредители: Теоретическая и
прикладная наука
, (6), 144-146.
18.
Aminova, Z. P. (2018). Importance of Implementing Pedagogical Technologies to
Education System.
Eastern European Scientific Journal
, (2).
19.
AMINOVA, Z., & KHALILOVA, O. (2019). MATERIALS IN ESP COURSES.
Иностранные
языки в Узбекистане
,
3
, 83-93.
20.
Vinay, J.P. and Darbelnet, J., 1995. Comparative stylistics of French and English: A
methodology for translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
21.
Yusupov, U., 2013. Contrastive linguistics of the English and Uzbek languages. Tashkent:
Akademnashr.
