Bosh sahifa
Diplom ishlar
Ingliz tili
The problem of frequent verbs and their translation into English
The problem of frequent verbs and their translation into English
Yuklangan vaqt:
26.09.2019
Ko'chirishlar soni:
0
Hajmi:
105.9990234375 KB
Ko'chirib olish
O'xshashlar
“Effective usage of synonyms on the novel of “Mice and Men” by John Steinbeck
Translation problems of compound nouns with the structure “Man”
Lexical and phraseological unit
Designing vocabulary tasks for beginners of English as a second language
“Look” so`zining lingvistik tahlili
![indirectly, by means of the abstract thought or reference in our brains (“reference” is used by Ogden and Richards in a different way than in most of the more recent linguistic theories, where it denotes either the relationship between a full linguistic sign and an extra linguistic referent or the action of a speaker/writer referring to an extra-linguistic object by means of a linguistic sign). According to Ogden and Richards, there is then no direct relationship between the word or the symbol “dog” and a particular class of living beings or a specific element of this class. They stress the point that the meaning of the linguistic symbol (sign), as a concept or thought, has to be clearly distinguished from the extra-linguistic object denoted by it. Words, as linguistic signs, are therefore indirectly related to extra-linguistic referents. F unctional approach to meaning. In most present day methods of lexicological analysis of words are studied in context, a word defined by its functioning within a phrase or a sentence. This functional approach is attempted in contextual analysis, semantic syntax and some other branches of linguistics. The meaning of linguistic unit is studied only through its relation to other linguistic units. So meaning is viewed as the function of a word in speech. All major works on semantic theory have so far been based on referential concepts of meaning. The essential feature of this approach is that it distinguishes between the three components closely connected with meaning: the sound form of the linguistic sign; the concept of underlying this sound of form, and the actual referent. For more convincing evidence of the conventional and arbitrary nature of the connection between sound form and meaning all we have to do is to point to the homonyms. The word “seal [si:l], e.g. means” a piece of wax, lead, etc. Stamped with a design; its homonym seal [si:l] possessing the same sound form denotes a sea animal. Besides, if meaning were inherently connected with the sound form of linguistic unit, it would follow that a change of meaning. We know, however, that even considerable changes in the sound-form of a word in the course of its historical development do not necessarily affect its meaning. The sound form of the Old English word lufian [luvian] has undergone great changes, and has been 8](/data/documents/bc751163-4624-41df-83c0-7ff101b06fa1/page-8.png)
![transformed into love [l ^ v], yet the meaning “hold dear, bear love”, etc has remained essentially unchanged. The criticism of the referential theories of meaning may be briefly summarized as follows: -Meaning, as understood in the referential approach, comprises the interrelation of linguistic signs with categories and phenomena outside the scope of language. As neither referents (i. e. actual things phenomena, etc.) nor concepts belong to language, the analysis of meaning is confined either to the study of the interrelation of the linguistic sign and referent or that of the linguistic sign and concept, all of which, properly speaking, is not the object of linguistic study. The functional approach treats the meaning as the relation of one word to another. By this approach the meaning can be studied only through context, through its relation to other word. We can observe this in the following examples: to take a tram (a taxi), to take off, to take care of, to take ill, to take degree, to take cold, to take it easy, to take on, to take five minutes, to take place, to take tea, to take a bath, to take notice, to take part in, to take a book, etc. Word meaning is studied by the branch of lexicology called semasiology. Among the word’s various characteristics meaning is the most important. There are different theories of the nature of meaning. Usually meaning is defined as the realization of a notion (or concept, in other terms) by means of a definite language system. It is usually said that a word denotes objects, qualities, actions, phenomena, or expresses corresponding notions. The complex relationships between referent (object, denoted by the word), notion (concept, thought) and word (symbol, sound-form) are traditionally represented by the following triangle: notion, word, referent. Word meaning is made up of various components which are usually described as types of meaning. The two main types of meaning are grammatical and lexical meanings. Grammatical meaning unites words into parts of speech. Such words as goes, stops, works have different lexical meanings, but are united by a 9](/data/documents/bc751163-4624-41df-83c0-7ff101b06fa1/page-9.png)
![Words that are used most often have the greatest number of meanings: do, go, see, etc. Various meanings of the word represent lexico-semantical variants and constitute its semantic structure. One of the meanings in the semantic structure of the word is primary, the others are secondary. For example, the word table has the primary meaning “a piece of furniture” and a number of secondary meanings: “a supply of food”, “an act of assembling to eat”, “a group of people assembled a t a table”, etc. Meanings can also be direct and figurative, concrete and abstract, central and peripheral, general and special. There are two main types of the organization of the semantic structure of a poly semantic word: the radial and the chain one. Various meanings of a word are united by the existence of a common semantic component, even though they are different in their denotation and sometimes also connotation meanings. In the course of historical development word meanings undergo various changes. Lexicology investigates causes of semantic changes, the nature of semantic change and the results of semantic change. The causes of semantic change are traditionally divided into historical, or extra linguistic, and linguistic. Extra linguistic causes are connected with changes in the life of the nation, its industry, culture, science which bring about changes in word meaning. The word mill can be taken as an example: when the first factories appeared there was no other word to denote them, so the word mill developed a new meaning – “to’qimachilik fabrikasi”, “po’lat zavodi”, etc. Linguistic causes of semantic change are factors acting within the language system. One of these factors is the differentiation of synonyms which is connected with borrowing. For example, the Old English word deer meant “any animal”; when beast was borrowed from French, it ousted word deer in thus meaning and deer began to denote a concrete species. Then the Latin animal ousted [au] beast in the meaning “any animal” and the word beast now has the meaning “mammal” . Other linguistic causes are ellipsis [li] (in a phrase made up of two words one of these is omitted and 11](/data/documents/bc751163-4624-41df-83c0-7ff101b06fa1/page-11.png)
![its meaning is transferred to its partner: daily newspaper daily and analogy (when one of the synonyms develops a new meaning, other synonyms acquire a new meaning too: e.g. when catch developed the meaning “understand”, its synonyms grasp, get developed this meaning too) 4 . All cases of change of meaning are based on some association. The process of change of meaning is termed transference. There are two types of transference: 1) transference based on similarity and 2) transference based on contiguity (real connection between the two objects). The first type of transference is called linguistic metaphor: neck (of a human being) → neck (of a bottle). The second type is known as linguistic metonymy: hands (“limbs of a human body”) → hands (“a worker”). Semantic change may result in the change of the range of meaning. In the process of vocabulary development some words develop narrower or broader meanings than those they used to have. The first process is called narrowing (specialization) of meaning. Thus, Old English fugol (“any bird”) came to denote a domestic bird (fowl [au] ), the word girl meant “a child of either sex”, but gradually developed the meaning “a female child”. The second process is termed widening (generalization) of meaning. The word ready (Old English ræde) originally meant “prepared for a ride”, picture meant “something painted”, the word uncle meant “mother’s brother”, etc. Semantic change also results in the change of the connotation structure of the word. The thing denoted by a word may acquire certain positive or negative characteristics, which are reflected first in the denotation then in the connotation component of word meaning. The process when the object to which the word refers acquires negative characteristics, and the meaning develops a negative evaluative connotation, is termed degradation of meaning. The old English word cnafa (Modern English knave) meant “a boy”, then a “boy servant” and finally– “a swindler, a scoundrel”. The Modern English word boor originally meant “peasant”. So, the words acquired a negative connotation. The development of a positive evaluative connotation is called elevation(amelioration) of meaning. 4 А. О. Долгова Лексикология Минск 2013 P -12-15. 12](/data/documents/bc751163-4624-41df-83c0-7ff101b06fa1/page-12.png)
![The analyses of translation of verbs used in the story showed that, some phrasal verbs don`t correspond with the one in original text. For example, to pull off — olmoq . Ex. Bill and me had a joint capital of about six hudred dollars, and we needed just two thousand dollars more to pull off a fraudulent town-lot scheme in Western Illinois with.[3.P.13] — O’sha paytda Bill bilan birga jamg’arib kelayotgan pulimiz olti yuz dollarcha bo’lib, harbiy Illinoysdayer-suv oldi-sotdisi bilan bog’liq “ishbilarmonligimiz” ni boshlab yuborish uchun naq ikki ming dollar yetmay turgandi [2, P. 223]. To talk sth over- ...ni muhokama qilmoq. Ex. We talked it over on the front steps of the hotel [3, P.13] — Mehmonxona oldida o’tirib, bu haqda obdon gaplashdik [ 2, P. 223 ]. The aspect of these types of phrasal verbs that unifies them under the single banner phrasal verb is the fact that their meaning cannot be understood based upon the meaning of their parts taken in isolation. When one picks on someone, one is not selecting that person for something, but rather one is harassing them. In analyzed story we faced it very often, so Uzbek translation of some phrasal verbs draw our attention: To stir up-qo’zg’amoq: Ex. Philoprogenitiveness, says we, is strong in semi-rural communities therefore, and other reasons, a kidnapping project ought to do better there than in the radius of newspapers that send reporters out in plain clothes to stir up talk about such things [3, P.13]. Yarim qishloq joylarning odamlari bolajon bo’ladi, shuning uchun, yana boshqa sabablarga ko’ra odam o’g’irlash rejamizni aynan shu yerda amalga oshirish osonroq bo’ladi, degan qarorga keldik. Boshqa joyda qilsak, gazetchilar e’tiborini tortardik va ular buni darrov shov-shuv qilib har tomonga ayg’oqchi muxbirlarini jo’natishardi [ 2, P. 223-224]. One of properties of the fiction, it from other products of a book word, its semantic capacity is distinguishing. It is shown in ability of the writer to tell more, than speaks direct sense of words in their set, in its skill to force to work both ideas, and feelings, and imagination of the reader. The semantic capacity 53](/data/documents/bc751163-4624-41df-83c0-7ff101b06fa1/page-53.png)
![of a literary work is shown or in forms of realistic typification, or in allegorical meaning, or in the general diversity of art speech. While analyzing translation materials we observe semantic changes in translation: To melt down- erimoq: Ex. Bill and I figured that Ebenezer would melt down for a ransom of two thousand dollars to a cent. [3, Р .15] — Bill bilan xom cho’timizga ko’ra, Ebenezer o’g’li uchun bizga oz emas, ko’p emas, naqd ikki ming dollarni shu zahoti qurtdek sanab berardi. [ 2, Б . 224 ]. Translating verbs and appropriating its synonyms to the target language verb meaning requires also stylistic knowledge. In the above given example melt down is used by its positive meaning, but in Uzbek variation “qurtdek sanab bermoq” may seems negative meaning. To put up- tan bermoq: Ex. That boy put up a fight like a welter-weight cinnamon bear ; but, at last, we got him down in the bottom of the buggy and drove away[ 3, P.18]- Bola emas, balo ekan . Mitti ayiqdek biz bilan rosa olishdi , lekin oxir-oqibat uni bir amallab arava tubiga tiqishtirdik-da, u yerdan jo’nab qoldik [2, P. 225]. In this example we meet Uzbek proverb “bola emas balo ekan”, but the translator prefers using “to put up” and by choosing this combination “put up a fight like a welter-weight cinnamon bear” he constitutes stylistic appropriate translation. One more characteristic feature of fiction is a strongly pronounced national painting of the maintenance and the form. It is important as well close communication between historical conditions and images of product reflecting it. On all these features, characteristic for fiction, also the individual manner of the writer comes to light. The analyzed phrasal verbs contain national coloring: To camp out — lagerga chiqmoq. Ex. I never camped out before...[3, P.22] —Hech qachon o’rmonda yashamagandim ...[2, P. 226]. 54](/data/documents/bc751163-4624-41df-83c0-7ff101b06fa1/page-54.png)
![To pick up-termoq, olmoq: To pick up something or somebody (or pick something or somebody up ) is to lift something or somebody by using your hands. Ex. Every few minutes he would remember that he was a pesky redskin and pick up his stick rifle and tiptoe to the mouth of the cave to rubber for the scouts of the hated paleface [ 3, P.23-24] — Bolakay har besh daqiqada qizil tanli ekanini eslab qolar, o’zi qurol deb aytayotgan tayoqni qo’liga olib , oyoq uchida g’or og’ziga biqsinib borar, jirkanch kelgindilarning ayg’oqchilarini poylardi [2, Pp. 226-227]. To spread down- yoymoq, tarqatmoq: Ex. We spread down some wide lankets and quilts and put Red Chief between us. [3, P.25]- Jun va qavima choyshablarni yerga to’shab , o’rtasiga Qizil tanlilar Sardorini yotqizdik, o’zimiz esa ikki chetiga yonboshladik. [2, P. 227] To fix up- aniqlamoq, tuzmoq: Ex. But we have got to fix up some plan about the ransom. [3, P.35]-Lekin tovon masalasida qandaydir reja o’ylab topishimiz kerak [2, P. 230]. To knock out-hushidan ketkazmoq, hushsiz qilmoq, yengmoq: Ex. Just then we heard a kind of war-whoop, such as David might have emitted when he knocked out the champion Goliath. [3, P.36-37] — Shu payt vahimali jangovor na’rani eshitdik. Axilles Gektorni jangga chorlaganda , xuddi shunga o’xshash na’ra tortgandirov [2, P. 230]. To send smb to smb- aytib yubormoq. Ex: If I meet him, I shall send him to you.- Agar yo’lda ko’rinib qolsa shohim, albatta, aytib yuboraman. In this sentence the verb “send” is used as the meaning “report, inform”. To find smth- ko’rinmoq. Ex: If I find it at the market, I shall bring it for you 18 .- agar u bozorda ko’rinsa, yanagi kelishimda men ham olib kelaman. In this example if a translator use the verb “see” instead of “find” it would be incorrect 18 “O’zbek xalq ertaklari” Xusan Sodiqov (collector and painter)-T.:Sharq, 2009, P-102 55](/data/documents/bc751163-4624-41df-83c0-7ff101b06fa1/page-55.png)
