Science and education scientific journal

Keywords: simultaneous interpretation, culturally marked words, classification of culturally marked words, political speech, non-equivalent vocabulary.


Аннотация: В этой статье будет рассмотрено понятие культурных слов, их классификация, а также синхронный перевод культурных слов, встречающихся

• 
  политической речи на английском языке, на узбекский язык и проблемы, возникающие в этом процессе.
  

Ключевые слова: синхронный перевод, культурно маркированные слова, классификация культурно маркированных слов, политический речь, без-эквивалентная лексика.

Culturally marked vocabulary in a language the most vivid illustration of the difference between worlds reflected by different languages belonging to different peoples is the so-called culturally marked vocabulary. Indeed, differences in the real world surrounding different peoples lead to the formation of a certain layer of vocabulary in each language, denoting objects and phenomena of reality that are specific only to this linguistic community and therefore have no equivalents in other languages [Ter-Minasova, 2008: 143]. A foreigner studying Uzbek language will not understand the meaning of words such as “oqsoqol”, “mahalla”, “do’ppi”, if he has not encountered the objects or phenomena behind them. Despite a large number of studies devoted to the analysis of culturally marked language units, there is still no single term in linguistics denoting this group of vocabulary. Various authors describe discrepancies in languages and cultures as a cultural component, a national vocabulary, linguistic-specific vocabulary, lacunae, non-equivalent vocabulary, background knowledge, realias, and cultural names. It seems important to briefly dwell on the terms that are used to denote nationally labeled vocabulary in various linguistic studies. In cases where the correspondence of one or another lexical unit of one language in the vocabulary of another language is completely absent, it is customary to speak of a nonequivalent vocabulary. E.M. Vereshchagin and V.G. Kostomarov gave the most accurate definition. By non-equivalent vocabulary, they understand words that serve to express concepts that are absent in another culture and

131

"PROSPECTS OF DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE AND EDUCATION" CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS

24 MAY 2022

in another language, words related to cultural elements characteristic only of culture A and absent in culture B, as well as words that do not have a translation into another language in one word, having no equivalents outside the language to which they belong [Vereshchagin, 2005]. At the same time, it is noted that a characteristic feature of non-equivalent words is their untranslatability into other languages by means of a certain lexeme, their inconsistency with some word of another language. But this does not mean that they are completely untranslatable. The ability to correctly convey the designations of the things in question in the original and the images associated with them presupposes knowledge of the reality depicted in the translated work. Behind this knowledge, both in country studies and in comparative linguistics and translation theory, the definition of "background" has been fixed. Background knowledge is "a set of ideas about what constitutes the real background on which the picture of the life of another country, another people unfolds" [Fedorov, 2002: 165]. In the works of such authors as V.Gudikunst and Y.Kim, R.Scollon and S.Wong Scollon, it means all our knowledge about the world around us. The structure of background knowledge includes, first of all, universal knowledge, although, of course, objective phenomena of reality can be perceived differently by speakers of different languages. Background knowledge includes regional information. The third type of background knowledge is the information that all members of a certain ethnic and linguistic community have. This information is related to the national culture. E.M.Vereshchagin and V.G.Kostomarov in their works emphasize the linguistic and cultural nature of background knowledge. According to the definition of O.S.Akhmanova, background knowledge is "mutual knowledge of the realities of the speaker and the listener, which is the basis of language communication" [Akhmanova, 1966: 487]. In another work, O.S.Akhmanova and I.V.Gubbenet define background knowledge as a socio-cultural background that characterizes perceived speech [Akhmanova, 1977].

In cultural studies, the concept of "lacuna" is also used. It was introduced by Canadian linguists J.Wine and J.Darbelne. Their theory of lacunarity arose in response to the need of society to understand foreign-language texts in the context of intercultural contacts. A lacuna ( void, semantic void, blank space, gap) is an "empty space", a "gap", something that does not exist in the language and culture of one people, but is present in another people and is revealed as such when compared with the language and culture of this people. In the most general understanding, a lacuna is a discrepancy that occurs when comparing conceptual, linguistic, emotional and other categories of two or more linguistic and cultural communities [Barkhudarov, 2008; Bykova, 2003]. In Russian psycholinguistics, the beginning of developments in the field of lacuna theory was laid by Yu.A.Sorokin and I.Yu.Markovina in a number of publications. The authors introduced the concept of lacunae as a signal of the

132

"PROSPECTS OF DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE AND EDUCATION" CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS

24 MAY 2022

specificity of linguistic and cultural community, developed a conceptual and terminological apparatus for describing the phenomenon of lacunarity, identified and systematized varieties of lacunae, and introduced the concepts of filling and compensation as ways of eliminating lacunae. In Russian science, it is customary to distinguish between: - linguistic lacunae (lexical, grammatical, stylistic, etc.); - cultural lacunae (ethnographic, psychological, behavioral, kinesic, etc.) [Tarasova, 2003: 227]. Obviously, the term "lacuna" is interpreted very broadly. Words with a cultural component denote lexical units, the peculiar semantics of which reflects the specifics of the culture of the people. The denotation, which is designated by such a word, on the one hand, can be universal, have widespread distribution, and on the other hand, it can belong only to a given region or a given culture. Words with a cultural component belong to the category of non-equivalent vocabulary, which is revealed when comparing languages of different cultures [Alexandrova, 2007: 29]. The concept of a cultural component as part of the semantic structure of a word was introduced into scientific circulation by N.G.Komlev (2006) and presented in the works of E.M. Vereshchagin and V.G.Kostomarov (1980), V.I.Goverdovsky (1989), Yu.P. Solodub (2005), etc. The cultural component is considered by researchers as the dependence of the semantics of language on the cultural environment of an individual; reflection in the meaning of the national-specific perception of a particular people of any realities, fragments of reality and even pure constructs of popular consciousness; something different from its lexical meaning , additional information to the lexical meaning. The nature of the cultural component, which ensures its functional purpose, is to be a means of transmitting background information [Ivanishcheva, 2003: 38]. The cultural component is a part of the content of a language sign, which reflects the knowledge of culture. The term "reality" appeared in translation studies in the 40s of the XX century to denote a nationally specific object or phenomenon. L.S. Barkhudarov gives a rather concise definition of realias: "... words denoting objects, concepts and situations that do not exist in the practical experience of people speaking another language" [Barkhudarov, 2008: 95]. According to A.V.Fedorova realias are not words, but those objects, situations, and so on that are designated by words. The author suggests talking not about realias, but about "names of realias". A.D.Schweitzer defines realias as "concepts studied by external linguistics related to the state structure of a given country, history, material and spiritual culture of a given people" [Schweitzer, 1988: 153]. By definition, G.D.Tomakhin, realias are "names of objects of material culture inherent only to certain nations and peoples, historical facts, state institutions, names of national and folklore heroes, mythological creatures, etc." [Tomakhin, 1997: 13].