Science and education scientific journal

Аннотация:
В этой статье будет рассмотрено понятие культурных слов, их 
классификация, а также синхронный перевод культурных слов, встречающихся 
в 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 
"Prospects of Development of Science and Education" Conference Proceedings
24 May 2022
131

---

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 
"Prospects of Development of Science and Education" Conference Proceedings
24 May 2022
132

---

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].