Философия - К-09.20.22
Социология - К-09.10.22
Искусствоведение - К-09.20.22
История - К-09.20.22
Культурология - К-09.20.22
Медицина - К-10.05.22
Педагогика - К-09.10.22
Политология - К-10.05.22
Право - К-09.15.22
Психология - К-09.10.22
Техника - К-10.05.22
Филология - К-09.20.22
Экономика - К-09.10.22
Информатика - К-10.05.22
Экология - К-10.05.22
Религиоведение - К-09.20.22
Научный мультидисциплинарный журнал
русский, английский, чешский
Идёт приём материалов
Информатика Искусствоведение История Культурология Медицина Педагогика Политология Право Психология Религиоведение Социология Техника Филология Философия Экология Экономика
N. Turapova Research student,
Tashkent state institute of oriental studies,
The language picture of the world has traces of mythological thinking, which are common in the given language community, as well as associations and existing means for creating imagery of internal forms. The internal form of majority of idioms contains meanings, which give them cultural and national color.
V. N. Teliya notes, “The phraseological composition of language is a mirror in which linguistic and cultural generality identifies their national identity, and it is phraseology which imposes specific world view and situations on the native speakers. For example, information about everyday life of the Russian people (Holy corner, idle-chatter), about etiquette (one is not fit for; sure as eggs; (as sure as fate); with cap in hand, bow and scrape before somebody) about traditions and customs (to pass something from hand to hand, to catch in a deception (in a lie), etc.” 
It should be noted that the phraseological world of each language is distinguished by its national identity. This distinction appears in its national imagery, which has no correspondence in the phraseological system of the other language and they are called nonequivalent phraseological units. As the name shows, it renders phraseological units (hereinafter referred to as "PhU") by lexical rather than phraseological means. In most cases phraseological units originated on national customs and traditions, accepted norms of morality and relations, and phraseological units that appeared on the basis of popular beliefs and superstitions, cannot be translated component by component.
It is not possible to render non-equivalent phraseological units with the help of a phraseological equivalent or analogue. Taking into account all the possibilities of context, such translation can hardly be called complete: there are always some losses, for example, imagery, expressiveness, aphoristic character and shades of meaning. In translation of phraseological units is necessary to take into account that the emotive component of a phraseological unit is based on imagery. Therefore, in order to convey the emotive component of phraseological unit in translation, it is necessary to preserve its figurative meaning. However, it should be noted that phraseological units are idiomatic expressions, characteristic of a certain language, and many of them have a vivid national coloring as they include words that denote objects and phenomena of national culture.
For example: お民は今度は川向かうの桑畑へも手を広げると云いはじめた...отами-ва кондо-ва кавамукау-нокувабатакэ-хэмо тэ-о хирогэру-то ихадзимэта – Otami spoke about widening the mulberry gardens at the other side of the river. Отами теперь заговорила о том, чтобы расширить тутовые сады по ту сторону реки… – Отами дарёнинг у томонидаги тутзорни кенгайтириши ҳақида айтди... ; 有馬勝平はこれくらいの事態に手を焼くような男ではなかった…арима кацухэй-ва корэкурай-но дзитай-ни тэ-о яку ё:на отоко-дэванакатта – Arima Katsuhey was not a person who would give in to difficulties – Арима Кацухэй майда-чудалар олдида бошини эгмайдиган одамлардан; 長引く不景気で、口が干上がる人が増えた-нагабику фукэйки-дэ, кути-га хиагару хито-га фуэта – Due to the prolonged crisis a lot people were left destitute – узоқ давом этган қийинчиликлардан кўпчилик одамлар қашшоқлашиб қолди.
The above examples show that the phraseological units of the Japanese language have no equivalents in the Uzbek language. In this case, it is impossible to make a literal translation, that is, knowing the context it is better to use contextual substitution (generalization), which allows to adequately convey the contextual meaning of the original phraseological unit. To overcome the above difficulties, it is necessary to use the basic methods of translation of the non-equivalent figurative phraseological unit:
• Linguistic and cultural analysis of nonequivalent phraseological units;
• Non-phraseological translation (descriptive, calque);
• national-pragmatic aspect in translation
National cultural semantics plays an important role in every language, which is present at all, its levels: phonetics, vocabulary, grammar. But it is especially evident in phraseology. In phraseology, as part of the linguistic picture of the world, the national mentality of the native speaker is reflected.
Lack of coincidence of the lexical structure is often due to the mismatch of the images that form the basis of meaning. The national originality of phraseology can be traced in the study of any aspect of it, but most clearly, they appear at the semantic level.
At this level, there is a selection of the non-equivalent phraseological units of the Japanese language and ways of translating them into the Uzbek language. According to Nirmal Shakunbala, "the national and cultural semantics of phraseology is determined not only by the internal laws of the development of language, but also by various extralinguistic factors that directly affect the mentality and through it the ethnic language" . The extralinguistic factors include social, cultural, ideological, social conditions, and prerequisites for the intra-structural and functional development of the language, which play a significant role in the formation and development of phraseological units, determining their national character. National-cultural semantics of phraseological units is revealed in their grammatical structure, lexical composition, semantic structure and stylistic features.
Pyrikov notes, "Phraseological units reflect the features of psychology, modes of thought, specific conditions for development of the native speakers’ material and spiritual life. It also reflects the national and cultural specifics, various ethnographic, geographical, socio-political realia" . Such phraseological units, by their idiomatic nature and national culture, are considered to be one of the most difficult to lexical elements of the text: realia and proper names, and the presence of lexical archaisms. Therefore, many such phraseological units are translated by lexical rather than phraseological means. According to V. A. Maslova: "The easiest way is to understand and explain the linguocultural aspect of those phraseological units in the meaning of which the denotative aspect plays an important role."
For example, let's analyze phraseological units, one or more components of which are the names of objects of national culture. 足駄をはいて首てっけだасида-о хайте кубитэккэда – lit.put on asida (wooden shoes) – to be head over heels in love – жигаридан урган ;鉢巻をするхатимаки - о суру – lit. roll up one's sleeves – енг шимармоқ (курашга тайёр);河童のように泳ぐкаппа-но ёни оёгу – lit. swim like kappa (water spirit)- (сув девидек сузмоқ),わらじを履くварадзи-о хаку – lit. put on varaji – take to one's legs – қуён бўлмоқ ,下駄を履くまでгэта-о хаку мадэ – lit. put on geth (wooden sandals)-to the bitter end, to one's last breath – биронта иш тугамагунча, охиргача. These phraseological units in their lexical composition contain an indication of the sphere of material culture – asida (wooden shoes), hachimaki (a scarf strapped around the head to prevent sweat from the forehead from flowing into the eyes), kappa (water spirit), varaji (straw sandals) and geth (wooden sandals). Phraseological units reflecting the ethnic history, national proper names which contain country specific knowledge and their comprehension is connected with the meaning of concrete historical facts. For example: こぼ筆を選ばずко:бо фудэ-о эрабадзу – lit. Master Kobo does not pick and choose a brush. – уста Кобо мўйқалам танламайди. In the given proverb, a historical character Kobo is mentioned. The meaning of the proverb is that for a genuine master the quality of the source material or tool does not play any role, and in particular, it cannot serve as an excuse for a poor piece of work;
ふるなの弁фуруна но бэн –– lit.“ Eloquence of Purna” (Purna – one of 10 best eloquent pupils of Buddha) –– brilliant eloquence- гапга чечан; じぞうとえんまは一つДзидзо то Эмма ва хитоцу – lit. Dzidzo and Emma act together (with); play the same game (as) (Dzidzo – is a deity, patrons of children and travelers, Emma is a lord of hell in Buddhism) – it's all the same to smb.; what the devil's the difference! – Али хўжа, хўжа Али – иккиси бир хил.
Among the original Japanese phraseological units, we can distinguish phraseological units that are associated with the Japanese realia, customs, historical facts, etc. They contain words related to art, sport, the Japanese household objects, clothes, food, religion and historical facts. Lack of knowledge of the meaning and etymology of the words can result in distortion of sense, semantic errors in translation.
Linguo-culturological analysis of phraseological units with ethnic-cultural semantics helps to determine the meaning, consequently the translation of a number of the Japanese phraseological units. Peculiarities of the behavior of an animal express the same initial imagery ideas and determine the close forms of verbal expression in different cultures. But "symbolism usually coincides in different languages only in the most common part, but it can seriously differ in details and functioning of the symbol. For example, in the Japanese language the word "dzia" – snake metaphorically can mean "a bitter drunkard", and in the Russian and Uzbek languages "a mean, cunning person". In imagery of the Japanese and the English people, the hardest work is performed by the horse, the Russians – a wolf, the Uzbeks have the donkey: basiauma, but yoni hataraku (Japanese); to work like a horse, to work like a wolf (Russian), to work as a donkey – эшакдек ишламоқ(Uzbek).
The most typical phraseological units in the Japanese language are those which do not have complete analogues in the Uzbek language as they are based on different images or they are different realia: 相撲 の よ う に 強 い 男 sumo but Yoni tsuoy Otoko –lit. strong like Sumo - strong as a bear - девдай кучли (相撲 Sumo – a Japanese form of wrestling), か ご の 歩 みで kago-but de Ayumi – lit. to walk as a snail-to walk slowly - ташбақа юриш,, す ず め の 涙 ほ ど Suzume-no namida Hodo – lit. like tears of a sparrow – very small – жиндек, 蚊 の す ね の よ う に や せ た 人 Cano Sune, but Yoni yaseta hito – lit. skinny as shin of a mosquito – skinny as a toothpick – эти устухонига ёпишган – き り ぎ り す のよ う に や せ て い るlit. to be thin as a rail – қоқсуяк は り ほ ど の こ と を 棒 ほ ど に 言 う – lit. to talk about a needle as a stick - to make a mountain out of a molehill – нинадек нарсани туядек қилмоқ, пашшадан фил ясамоқ, 親 の す ね を か じ る oyano Sune-on Kadziro – lit. to gnaw father's shin – to be a burden to father – отасининг қарамоғида яшамоқ.
Thus, the following conclusions can be made:
· Due to superficial knowledge of the facts of reality and insufficient attention to the national specifics of the phraseological units, errors and inaccuracies in the translation of phraseological units can be made, and it leads to incomplete perception of the information contained in the text.
· The impact of extralinguistic factors on the language and on its phraseology is enormous. All the phenomena of national culture and art leave traces in the vocabulary of the language. In interaction of "language and culture», the language acts as the guardian of the national culture.
· Imagery thinking of the people, in the given context imagery thinking of the Japanese people turns to be unique and specific and it makes the phraseology of the language a national unique phenomenon.
1. Nirmala Shakumbala, National-cultural component in the phraseology of qualitative assessment of the person in Russian in comparison with the Malayalami language. – M., 1988. – P. 7.
2. Telia V. N. Semantic, pragmatic and linguo-culturological aspects. – M., 1996. – 284 p.
3. Pyrikov E. G. Vocabulary and terminology of modern Japanese in comparative light. – M., 1990. – 43 p.
4. Maslova V. A. Linguistic and cultural studies. – M., 2001. – 81–87 p.
5. Maltseva G. D. Country studies in the mirror of phraseology. – М., 1991. – P. 3.
1. Kodansya. Japanese-Russian dictionary. – Tokyo, 1981.
2. Bykova S. A. Japanese-Russian phraseological dictionary. – M., 2000.
3. Conrad N. I. Comprehensive Japanese-Russian dictionary. – M., 1970.
4. Neverov S. I. Russian-Japanese educational dictionary. – M., 1968.
5. Kindhaiti H. Nihondzin, linguistic expression of the Japanese. – Tokyo 1975.