CC BY
19
The original document and its translation are texts, which as other types of texts should meet seven standards of textuality:
cohesion informativity
coherence situationality
intentionality intertextuality
acceptability
Translations are not made in a vacuum; they function in a given culture at a given time [3, p. 14]. As we approach cultural boundaries transferred texts become increasingly difficult to understand until we give up a translation. And at this point we know that we have moved from one culture to another. So, when we need a translation of a particular document, we have to do with different cultures. It is translation that bridges the cultural gap between the sender and the receiver in our case. The main cultural concern of translation theory, which is typical for all public documents, is the so-called "realia" (it comes from Latin "realis". meaning "object"). Realia are words and combinations of words denoting objects and concepts characteristic of the way of life, the culture, and the social and historical development of one nation and thus alien to another, since they express local and all historical colour, which does not have exact equivalence in any other languages. Translation in its strict sense is not applicable to "realia".
Another important feature which a translator should pay attention to is the style. Style is a key notion for a translator. When he first reads a text getting ready to translate it, he draws some conclusions in regards to the style of the text. Later on he tries to reproduce the original message in such a way as to secure the stylistic or pragmatic effect for the reader as well. In translation of documents the regulations of the specific style should be observed. Sentences in various certificates and diplomas are short and contain maximum information, they follow simpler grammatical principles than those characteristic for the literary style.
References
1. Robinson D. (1997) "Becoming a Translator" Hardcover: 320 pages; Publisher: Routledge; 2 edition.
2. Blum-Kulka S. 1986. "Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation." In: L. Venuti (ed.), 2000. "The Translation Studies Reader" London: Routledge, P. 298-313.
3. McGuire S.B. Translation Studies. New York, 1989.
4. Biguenet J.,SchulteR (1989). The Craft of Translation.
5. Holmes J. (1970). The Nature of Translation.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PHRASEOLOGICAL CHANGE Karimova Z.A.
Karimova Zaynab Abdumaitovna - English language Teacher, DEPARTMENT "FOREIGN LANGUAGES THROUGH FACULTIES", PHILOLOGY FACULTY, GULISTANSTATE UNIVERSITY, GULISTAN, REPUBLIC OF UZBEKISTAN
Abstract: every word or phrase in English has its own peculiar feature. The following article gives a brief distinction to that features in a form of changes. The author claims that the role of changes is very important in constructing the sentences. And also these changes mostly occur in phraseological units.
Keywords: phrases, grammaticalization, lexicalization, polysemantic, variation.
The diachronic aspect of phraseology has scarcely been investigated in the works done by Ginsburg. Just a few points of interest may be briefly reviewed in connection with the origin of phraseological units and the ways they appear in language. It is assumed that almost all phrases can be traced back to free word-groups which in the course of the historical development of the English language have acquired semantic and grammatical inseparability. It is observed that free word-groups may undergo the process of grammaticalization or lexicalization.
The notion lexicalization implies that the word-group under discussion develops into a word-equivalent, i.e. a phraseological unit or a compound word. These two parallel lines of lexicalization of free word-groups can be illustrated by the diachronic analysis of, e.g., the compound word instead and
the phraseological unit in spite both of them can be traced back to structurally identical free phrases. The process of lexicalization may be observed in Modern English too. The noun yesterday, e.g., in the novels by Thomas Hardy occurs as a free word-group and is spelled with a break yester-day. Very little is known of the factors active in the process of the lexicalization of free word-groups which result in the appearance of phraseological units. This problem may be viewed in terms of degree of motivation. We may safely assume that a free word-group is transformed into a phraseological unit when it acquires semantic inseparability and becomes synchronically non-motivated.
There are certain causes accounting for the loss of motivation of free word-groups such as:
a) one of the components results in archaic or drops out of language and the whole word-group may become completely or partially non-motivated e.g. kith and kin, to and fro;
b) result of change in the semantic structure of a polysemantic word e.g. to have a mind to do something, to change one's mind, etc.;
c) when a free word-group used in professional speech penetrates into general literary usage, to stick to one's guns, to pull (the) strings (wires), etc. Some extra linguistic factors may cause in loss of motivation to show the white father;
d) when a word-group making up part of a proverb or saying begins to be used as self-contained unit it may gradually become non-motivated e.g. a new broom originates from new brooms sweep clean;
e) When part of a quotation from literary sources, mythology or the Bible begins to be used as self-contained unit it may also lose all connection with the original context and as a result of this become non-motivated e.g. the green-eyed monster is found as part of quotation "It is the green-eyed monster which doth mock the meat it feeds on" [1. p. 165].
Apart from contributing to an understanding of phraseology for its own sake, a study of change in word combinations has a broader relevance, as lexical innovation is frequently associated with phraseological patterns. Some neologisms may only be interpretable with reference to existing word combinations: a tooth skin marginal, a phrase coined by a journalist to describe a parliamentary constituency held by a MP with a very small majority, which would be held in an election with difficulty. This can only be understood via knowledge of by the skin of one's teeth. Perhaps fewer newly-coined word combinations become institutionalized than do single words or senses because of their arbitrariness, low frequency and precise cultural associations that make them ephemeral. This leads to important issues of standards and competence: can all phraseological innovations be regarded as 'acceptable' and can all native speakers be regarded as fully phraseologically competent?
An initial difficulty is to distinguish between intentional, creative variation and unintentional deviation from standard forms. This distinction is clearly necessary in order to understand the creative processes that might lead to change. The chief way is through consideration of the context, medium, genre, register and style: whether the item is spoken or written, from a newspaper headline, formal interview, conversation etc. the more formal and written the style, the more likely it is to be deliberate; non-standard forms found in spontaneous speech are probably unintentional. However, matters are not as simple as that: some items are found in printed sources though the origin may be speech.
References
1. Cowie A.P. Phraseology. Theory, Analises, and Applications. Oxford University Press, 2001.
2. Ginsburg R.S. and others. A Course in Modern English Lexicology. M., 1979.
3. Karimova Z.A. Phraseology as a branch of linguistic science. «Nauka i obrazovanie segodnya».
№ 5 (16), 2017. P. 43.
