Лексические проблемы перевода словесной грамматической формы на английском языке

№127-1,

филологические науки

Данная статья посвящена лексическим проблемам перевода словесной грамматической формы в английском языке. В статье выделены словесно-грамматические категории английского языка как проблемные вопросы перевода.

Похожие материалы

English verb forms have long been of interest to syntacticians. Verbal grammatical forms and phrases display a combination of nominal and verbal properties that pose a problem for any syntactic structure associated with translation, especially for cross-linguistic translations of languages originating from different language families and groups. Various approaches have been proposed to address these problems, but they all involve rejecting a fundamentally desirable theoretical assumption or adopting a highly abstract framework for which independent motivation is difficult to find, or both.

A verbal grammatical form is a word derived from a verb that functions as a noun or modifier rather than as a verb. Verbals include infinitives, gerunds, and participles. Verbal grammatical words and phrases display a mix of nominal and verbal properties which provide a challenge to any syntactic framework that deals with cross-linguistic translation. As English verbals differ greatly according to their grammatical form and order in the sentence, there are dozens of problems that every single translator will face while translating from one of these languages to another. This article will focus on what these problems are and ways of translating verbals in an appropriate way from English into Uzbek and vice versa.

Language is the greatest means of communication among people, especially for those who naturally tend to get closer via speech. It is clear that human-beings are sociable by nature and translation seems to be a necessity due to the fact of language diversity all over the world. Thus, they try to overcome the language barrier through translation. On this way various forms, that is, written, oral or simultaneous translations are used. Translation has played a great role in all fields of life: politics, diplomacy, government administration, science, technology and religious activities. Out of this vital part in communication among different peoples, cultures and races through different ages, translation has always been there.

Language, for the linguist, is from; sounds, letters, their combination into larger unit such as words, sentences and so forth [T. Roger, 1981]. Such a set of forms would be expected to have meanings and the elements and sequences, by virtue of having meaning would naturally be expected to use for communication between individuals who shared some rules.

Typically, the linguist sees languages as a closed system, like those of mathematics, chemistry, symbolic — internally consistent but insulated from the environment in which it occurs. The numbers of mathematics for example, have no external meaning. They mean the same whether they refer to atoms, human beings, stars or whatever.

The language is a code for human scientist, a given communication.

We accept that there are several elements, which may or may not combine, and that combination has meanings and that there is arbitrariness in the system. What thing intrigue us is not so much the code itself but the people whose infinitely flexible artifact it is.

Сommonly, scientists view the language as an open system interacting and changing its environment. They see the language as a part of culture, perhaps even it is the most distinctive defining characteristic. Wherever we place it in relation to the other aspects of human behavior, the emphasis will be on humanity, human language and its place in society as one of the most necessary and complex of all social skills, which exist. We began our description at the very point at which the linguist intends to stop the pragmatics — arguing that language is a social skill, used so as to satisfy individual and group needs. This view towards language will be broader that of the linguist, since we want to include the description of “language” as not only linguistic knowledge (the knowledge of grammatical rule system) but also knowledge of, and ability to use, linguistic and social knowledge to create communicative acts, which are grammatically correct and socially appropriate.

Usually a linguists considers languages as a closed system, similar to systems of mathematics, chemistry, symbolism — internally consistent, but isolated from the environment in which it occurs

They see the language as a part of culture, perhaps even it is the most distinctive defining characteristic. Wherever we place it in relation to the other aspects of human behavior, the emphasis will be on humanity, human language and its place in society as one of the most necessary and complex of all social skills, which exist. We began our description at the very point at which the linguist intends to stop the pragmatics — arguing that language is a social skill, used so as to satisfy individual and group needs. This view towards language will be broader that of the linguist, since we want to include the description of “language” as not only linguistic knowledge (the knowledge of grammatical rule system) but also knowledge of, and ability to use, linguistic and social knowledge to create communicative acts, which are grammatically correct and socially appropriate.

Linguistics may be defined as the scientific study of languages. This definition is hardly sufficient to give reader any positive indication of the fundamental principles of the subject. It may be made a little more revealing by drawing in greater detail the implications contained in the qualification “scientific”. For the moment, it will be enough to say that the scientific study of language means its investigation by means of controlled and empirically verifiable observations with reference to some general theories of language structure [John Lyons, 1971].

We cannot imagine any language without grammar and grammatical forms.The divergent experts reveal some definitions of grammar. Here, the writer cites three of them:

  1. A grammar is a finite of rules, which enumerates (or generates) an infinite number of grammatical (or well formed) sentences of a language and no ungrammatical ones and assigns to each sentence generated is paper structural description [Andreas Koutsoudas, Writing Transformatical Grammar: An Introduction].
  2. Grammar is technical knowledge of the language generally employed by poets and writers [P. Francis, An Introduction to General Linguistics].
  3. Grammar is the rules of a language set out in a terminology, which is hard to remember, with many exceptions appended to each rule [Wilga, M. Rivers, 1981].

From these definitions, we can conclude that grammar is the technical knowledge of the language with the rules of course.

People need grammar to make their speaking understandable, suppose when someone speaks using a strange unacceptable construction, nobody will understand what he means. In contrast when the people speak to him using their rules he can understand what they mean. A language has its own rules. People who want to understand these rules or grammar should deeply highlight on them.

Список литературы

  1. Barot. M. Grammar of English Teachers. Cambridge University Press. 112p.2000
  2. Bassnett-McGuire. S. Translation studies. London: Methuen. 2p.1980
  3. Catford. J.C. A linguistic theory of translation. An essay in applied linguistics. London: Oxford University Press. 49p.1974
  4. John Lyons. “Introduction to theoretical linguistics”, Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 November 2008
  5. Wilga M. Rivers. “Teaching Foreign-Language Skills”, 1981