ASPECT OF TRANSLATING PROCESS

178 ASPECT OF TRANSLATING PROCESS Boboeva Madina, PhD, associate professor Oriental university +998909544115 Abstract This article provides a systematic account of the translating process as one of the central problems of translation theory, emphasizing its cognitive, linguistic, and methodological dimensions. Translation is presented as a dual mental activity of comprehension and verbalization, which, due to its non-observable nature, is explained through theoretical models. The discussion examines three major frameworks: the situational model, which interprets translation as mediation through extra-linguistic reality; the semantic–transformational model, formulated by E. Nida, which conceptualizes translation as a three-stage sequence of analysis, transfer, and synthesis; and the semantic model, which assumes universal “deep” categories shared across languages. These models are shown to function not only as explanatory tools but also as practical procedures in translator training. Keywords: translation theory, translating process, situational model, semantic– transformational model, semantic model, equivalence, lexical problems, phraseological problems, grammatical problems, translation strategies. Annotatsiya Ushbu maqola tarjimashunoslik nazariyasining markaziy masalalaridan biri sifatida tizimli tahlil qiladi hamda uning kognitiv, lingvistik va metodologik xususiyatlariga alohida e‟tibor qaratadi. Tarjima tushunish va ifodalashdan iborat ikki bosqichli aqliy faoliyat sifatida talqin qilinadi. Ushbu jarayon bevosita kuzatib bo„lmasligi sababli, u nazariy modellardan foydalanish orqali izohlanadi.Bu maqolada uchta asosiy modellarda ifodalanadi: holat modeli, u tarjimani ekstralingvistik voqelik orqali vositachilik sifatida ko„radi; E. Nida tomonidan ishlab chiqilgan semantik–transformatsion model, u tarjimani tahlil, transfer va sintezdan iborat uch bosqichli jarayon sifatida tavsiflaydi; hamda semantik model, u tillararo umumiy “chuqur” kategoriyalarning mavjudligini nazarda tutadi. Mazkur modellarning nafaqat tushuntirish vositasi, balki tarjimonlarni tayyorlashda amaliy qo„llanma sifatidagi ahamiyati ham asoslab beriladi. Kalit so‘zlar: tarjima nazariyasi, tarjima jarayoni, situatsion model, semantik– transformatsion model, semantik model, ekvivalentlik, leksik muammolar, frazeologik muammolar, grammatik muammolar, tarjima strategiyalari Description of the translating process is one of the major tasks of the translation theory. Here we deal with the dynamic aspects of translation trying to understand how the translator performs the transfer operation from the source text to the target text. 179 Psychologically viewed, the translating process must needs include two mental process understanding and verbalization. First, the translator understands the contents of the source text, that is, reduces the information it contains to his own mental program then he develops this program into the target text. The problem is that these mental processes are not directly observably and we do not know much of what that program is that development operation are performed. That‟s what translating process has to be describing in some indirect way. The translation theory achieves this aim by postulating a number of translation models. A model is a conventional representation of the translating process describing mental operations by which the source text or some part of it may be translated irrespective of whether these operations are actually performed by the translator. It may describe the translating process either in a general form or by listing a number of specific operations through which the process can, in part, be realized. The existing models of the translating process are, in fact, based on the same assumptions which we considered in discussing the problem of equivalence, namely, the situational model is based on the identity of the translations described in the original text and in the translation, and semantic – transformational model postulates the similarity of basic notions and nuclear structures in different languages.[1] These postulates are supposed to explain the dynamic aspects of translation. In other words, it is presumed that the translator actually makes a mental travel from the original to some interlingua level of equivalence and further on to the text of translation. In the situational model this intermediate level is extra linguistic. It is described reality, the facts of life that are represented by the verbal description. The process of translating presumably consists in the translator getting beyond the original text to the actual situation described in it. This is the first step of the process, i.e. the break - through to the situation. The second step is for the translator to describe this situation in the target language. Thus the process goes from the text in one language through the extra linguistic situation to the text in another language. The translator first understands what the originally is about and then says “the same things” in the target language. A different approach was used by E. Nida who suggested that the translating process may be described as a series of transformations. The transformational model postulates that in any two languages there is a number of nuclear structures which are fully equivalent to each other. Each language has an area of equivalence in respect to the other language It is presumed that the translator does the translating in three transformational strokes. 1.the stage of analysis – he transforms the original structures into the nuclear structures, i.e. he performs transformation within the source language. 2. the stage of translation proper – he replace the source language nuclear structures, with the equivalent nuclear structures in the target language. 3. the stage of synthesis – he develops the latter into the terminal structures in the text of translation. Thus if the English sentence “It is very strange this domination of our intellect by our digestive organs” (J.K.Jerome) is translated into Russian as “Странно, до 180 какой степени пищеварительные органы властвуют над нашим рассудком” we presume that the structures “domination of our intellect” and “domination by our digestive organs” were first reduced to the nuclear structures “organs dominate” and they dominate intellect respectively. Then they were replaced by the equivalent Russian structures “органы властвуют” and “они властвуют над нашим рассудком”, after which the nuclear structures were transformed into the final Russian variant. A similar approach can be used to describe the translation of semantic units. The semantic model postulates the existence of the “deep” semantic categories common to the source language and the target language. It is presumed that the translator first reduces the semantic units of the original to these basic semantic categories and then expresses the appropriate notions by the semantic units of the target language. Thus if he comes across the sentence “John is proud owner of a new car”, he is first to realize that it actually means that “John has a new car”, and that “he is proud because of that”. After transferring these basic ideas to Russian and converting them to the semantically acceptable phrases he will get the translation “У Джона (есть) новая машина, которой он очень гордится”. In describing the process of translating we can explain the obtained variants as the result of the translator applying one or all of these models of action. This does not mean that a translation is actually made through the stages suggested by these models. There are not, however, just abstract schemes. Training translators we may teach them to use these models as practical tools. Coming across a specific problem in the source text the translator should classify it as situational, structural or semantic and try to solve it by resorting to the appropriate procedure. If, for instance, in the sentence “he is a poor sleeper” the translator sees that the attributive group cannot be directly transferred into Russian, he finds that the transformational model will do the trick for him here and transform the attributive group into a verb – adverb phrase: “он плохо спит”. The type of operation is identified by comparing the initial and the final texts. The first group of operations is characterized by imitation of the form of a word or of a collocation. In the first case the translator tries to represent the pronunciation or the spelling of the foreign word with the target language letters. In the second case the translator creates a blueprint collocation in the target language by using a loan translation. This result in such forms as “мозговой трест” (brain trust), “работа по правилам” (work to rule). The second group of operations includes all types of lexical transformations involving certain semantic changes. As a result, the meaning of a word or word combination in the source text may be made more specific, more general or somewhat modified as a way to discovering an appropriate equivalent in the target language. The choice of a more specific word in translation which gives a more detailed description of the idea that does the word in the English – Russian translating process. English often makes use of general terms to describe very definite objects or actions. The following sentence refers to a frightened woman trying to hide from an intruder who had suddenly burst into the room where she was pensively looking into the fire: 181 My mother had left her chair in her agitation, and gone behind it in the corner. An attempt to use regular Russian equivalents for such general English verbs as “to leave” and “to go” will produce a ludicrous Russian phrase like this: “Матушка оставила своё кресло и пошла за него в угол”. The third group of translating procedures comprises all types of transformations involving units of the source language grammar. The translator may solve his problems by preserving the syntactic structure of the source text and using the analogous the target language grammatical forms or “a word-for-word” translation. This may be called “a zero transformation”. There are three types of difficulties of translation. They are : lexical, phraseological and grammatical problems. Lexical problems of translation - due to the semantic features of language the meaning of words, their usage, ability to combine with other words, associations awakened by them, the “place” they hold in the lexical systems of a language do not concur for the most part. All the same “ideas” through the means of expression differ. As it is impossible to embrace all the cases of semantic differences between two languages, we shall restrict this course to the most typical features. The principal types of lexical correspondences between two languages are as follows: I. Complete correspondences. II. Partial correspondences. III. The absence of correspondences. Phraseological problems of translation - translating a phraseological unit is not an easy matter as it depends on several factors: different combinability of words, homonymy, synonymy, of phraseological units and presence of falsely identical units, which makes it necessary to take into account of the context. Besides, a large number of phraseological units have a stylistic – expressive component in meaning, which usually has a specific national feature. The afore-cited determines the necessity to get acquainted with the main principles of the general theory of phraseology. Any type of phraseological unit can be presented as a definite micro-system. In the process of translating phraseological units functional adequate linguistic units are selected by comparing two specific linguistic principles. These principles reveal elements of likeness and distinction. Certain parts of these systems may correspond in form and content or have no adequacy. The main types of phraseological conformities are as follows: I. Complete conformities II. Partial conformities III. Absence of conformities Complete conformities are rarely met with: 1) black frost (phraseme) - qora sovuq /- сильный мороз 2) To bring oil to fire (idiom) - alangaga yog’ quymoq /- подлить масло в огонь Partial conformities of phraseological units in two languages assume lexical, grammatical and lexico-grammatical differences with identify of meaning and style. Many English phraseological units have no phraseological conformities in Uzbek and Russian. In the first instance this concerns phraseological units based on relay. 182 Grammatical problems of translation - every language has a 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 heterogenous. English and Russian belong to the Germanic and Slavonic group respectively of the Indo – European family of languages; The Uzbek language pertains to the Turkic group of the Altaic family. As to grammar the principal means of expression in languages possessing an analytical character is the order of words (through all the four basic grammatical means – grammatical inflections, function words – are found any language).[2] The other two means are of secondary importance. The grammatical inflections are the principals means used in such language as Russian and Uzbek, though the rest of grammatical means are also used but they are of less frequency than the grammatical inflections. In English the order of words is fixed. The model of simple declarative sentences in this language is as follows: Subject – predicate. This means that the subject is placed in the first place and the predicate in the second position. If the predicate is expressed by a transitive verb, then in the third position we find the object. Any violation of this order of words brings about a change of the meaning.[3] In conclusion, let us recall that any word may become equivalent – lacking if the particular context makes it impossible to use its regular equivalent and forces the translator to resort to some semantic transformation. Translating equivalent – lacking words call for a good deal of ingenuity and imagination on the part of the translator who should be well trained to use the appropriate semantic transformations, whenever, necessary. At the same time, he must be prepared to look for new ways of solving his problems. REFERENCES: 1.Буранов. Ж. Б. Инглиз ва Узбек тиллари киесий грамматикаси. Т., 1973. 87 бет. 2. Саломов Г. Таржима асослари. Т.,1976. 106 – 108 б. 3. V.N. Komissarov. A.L. Korolova. A manual of translation from English into Russian. 1990 p 30. 4. Ghazala H. Translation as Problems and Solutions (4th ed).Syria: Dar El Kalem El-Arabi. 1995 5. Munday J. Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications. New York: Routledge. 2001