TRANSLATING NON-EQUIVALENT VOCABULARY FROM UZBEK INTO ENGLISH IN LITERARY TEXTS: CULTURAL AND DIDACTIC APPROACHES
Keywords:
non-equivalent vocabulary, Uzbek-English translation, culture-specific items, literary translation, foreignization, domestication, translation pedagogyAbstract
This study examines the translation of non-equivalent vocabulary from Uzbek into English in literary contexts, focusing on cultural and didactic approaches that facilitate effective cross-linguistic communication. Non-equivalent vocabulary, particularly culture-specific items such as idioms, proverbs, and realia, presents significant challenges for translators due to the deep cultural embeddedness and lack of direct lexical correspondences between Uzbek and English. Through a qualitative-contrastive methodology, this research analyzes translation strategies employed in authentic literary texts, including works by prominent Uzbek authors such as Abdulla Qodiriy. The findings reveal that translators predominantly employ foreignization and domestication strategies, with varying degrees of success in preserving semantic, pragmatic, and cultural equivalence. The study proposes pedagogical implications for translation education, emphasizing the development of intercultural competence alongside linguistic proficiency. The research contributes to the growing body of knowledge on Turkic-English translation studies and offers practical insights for translators, educators, and language learners working with Central Asian literary texts.
References
1. Abdukarimov, U. (2025). Translating idioms and proverbs: Uzbek-English translation strategies. In Conference on International Scientific Developments, October 2025. Retrieved from https://insightpublishing.org
2. Alimova, D. (2022). Strategies for translating idiomatic expressions from English into Uzbek. Philology Matters, 5(3), 89–96.
3. Baker, M. (1992). In other words: A coursebook on translation. London: Routledge.
4. Floros, G. (2020). Pedagogical vs. professional translation: Towards a new convergence? inTRAlinea Special Issue: Volumes, 22. Retrieved from https://www.intralinea.org
5. González-Davies, M., & Soler Ortínez, D. (2020). Use of translation and plurilingual approaches to language learning. Translation and Plurilingual Approaches to Language Teaching and Learning, 32(2), 45–78.
6. Hatim, B., & Mason, I. (1997). The translator as communicator. London: Routledge.
7. House, J. (2009). Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8. Karimova, G. (2020). Cultural barriers in English-Uzbek translation: A linguistic perspective. Uzbekistan Journal of Language and Translation Studies, 2(1), 45–52.
9. Larson, M. L. (1984). Meaning-based translation: A guide to cross-language equivalence. Lanham: University Press of America.
10. Munday, J. (2001). Introducing translation studies: Theories and applications. London: Routledge.
11. Newmark, P. (1988). A textbook of translation. New York: Prentice Hall.
12. Popescu, T. (2011). Linguistic competence vs. translation competence: A pedagogic approach. In FLTLAL 2011 Proceedings: 1st International Conference on Foreign Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics (pp. 1183-1189). Sarajevo: International Burch University.
13. Reese, M. (2019). Bygone days [Translation of O'tgan kunlar by A. Qodiriy]. Washington, DC: Self-published. Retrieved from http://www.uzdaily.uz
14. Tan, Z. (2008). Towards a whole-person translator education approach in translation teaching. Meta: Journal des traducteurs, 53(3), 589-608.
15. Venuti, L. (1995). The translator's invisibility: A history of translation. London: Routledge.
16. Venuti, L. (1998). The scandals of translation: Towards an ethics of difference. London: Routledge.
