Zahiriddin muhammad bobur nomidagi andijon davlat universiteti ingliz tili grammatikasi kafedrasi

LECTURE 15 (2 hours)
THEME: ISOMORPHIC AND ALLOMORPHIC FEATURES OFMODERN ENGLISH AND UZBEK/ RUSSIAN AND TEACHING LANGUAGES AND PROBLEMS OF TRANSLATION
Plan:

1. 
   Isomorphic and allomorphic features of Modern English and Uzbek/ Russian
   
2. 
   The types of languages the compared languages represent
   
3. 
   The fators perconditioning the isomorphic and allomorphic featuees of the compared languages
   
4. 
   Comparative typological data and translation.
   
5. 
   Comparative typological data and lexicography.
   
6. 
   Comparative typological data and text book compiling.
   
7. 
   Comparative typology and its links with methods of teaching English.
   
8. 
   Comparative typological data of Modern English , Uzbek and Russian at the service of
   
9. 
   Methods of teaching English.
   
10. 
    Typical mistakes in using English by students (Uzbeks, Russians) and factors causing mistakes, dissimilarities and similarities.
    
11. 
    Notion of language interference and ways of doing it away with.
    
12. 
    Conclusion.
    
13. 
    Key words: types of languages,fators perconditioning the isomorphic and allomorphic featuees, comparative typological data and translation, comparative typology and methods of teaching English, notion of language interference.
    

The course of the lecture:
Now that we have more or less got acquainted with the phonological, morphological, and syntactical systems of Modern English and Uzbek/Russian which are typologically totally different language types, English being predominantly analytical, Uzbek agglutinative and Russian demonstrating a flective language type.
As we have seen at the above mentioned lectures we face more isomorphic features than allomorphic ones on all the existing levels of language hierarchy(phonological, morphological, lexical, syntactical, phraseological and textological levels)
At the discussed lectures we have established phonologicallyqualitative and quantitative similarities and dissimilarities( th-, r, in English; ц, щ, ы. дж. in Russian and қ, ғ. etc.) morphologically( gerund, article, in English; preposition in English and Russian), деепричастие in Russian and Uzbek, postposition in Uzbek,etc.), lexically frontbranching, middlebranching and backbranching in English and Russian, whereas in Uzbek there is only backbranching in the word structure) syntactically ( basic word order in a sentence SVO in English and Russian and SOV in Uzbek, conjunctions are prepositive in English and Russian,whereas pure Uzbek(turkic) conjunctions are postpositivein complex sentences of the three compared languages. Such similarities and dissimilarities cause certain difficulties in translation and teaching activities.and comparative typology helps us to elliminate the aforementioned similarities and dissimilarities pushing off from the aBelow we will focus our attention onto themestablished comparative typological data of the three compared languages..
Let's consider, first, the correlations between comparative typology and translation (both theoretical and practical).
Comparative typological investigations on different levels of language hierarchy are supposed to supply translation with valuable comparative typological data which might be of great use in doing away with such difficulties that spring up in the process of translation (both oral and written).
As we know, in the translation process one may come across the following difficulties:

1. 
   phonetico-phonological
   
2. 
   lexical
   
3. 
   grammatical
   
4. 
   pragmatically
   
5. 
   paralinguistic
   
6. 
   stylistic
   
7. 
   phraseological
   

These difficulties can be successfully done away with in case we are provided with reliable comparative typological data of the languages compared. Expecially the cases of ample use of translatory transcriptions and transliterations in coping with the phonetico-phonological difficulties of the type:
Uzbek English Russian
кук-ку-кук-ку cock-a-dool-do кукареку
вов-вов bark-bark гав-гав
миев-миев miyau-miyau мияув-мияув
вой-вой ouch-ouch ой-ой
баракалла bravo браво
яша well-done (there's молодец (молочина)
a good boy/girl)
хей hei! (the hei!the hi!) эй!
So, as in seen from the above illustrations language units of onomotopeic character can be either transcribed or transliterated in the translation.
We can speak of various language means that have an onomotopeic structure such as "Ол-ла, Ух-ху!" in Uzbek, Vou! Hoo! In English, "Ух-ты! Вотэтада!", "Воттебена!" in Russian etc, which need an original approach in translation.
As far as the lexical difficulties are concerned, we can overcome them by the help of synonimical or explanatory translations or by using different lexical, syntactical and textological transformations.
In this connection we have to apply the theory of translation units (or "translatemes") and while translating one has to use the comparative typoloical data of the compared languages in their lexical and syntactical systems, for lexical and syntactical categories are often interchangeable, which means that some lexical categories, for example, of gender semantics in English and Uzbek correspond to Russian grammatical category of "gender".
She came Она пришла
У келди He came Он пришел
It came Онопришло
Or let's take the Russian words of the type:
учительница - укитувчи - woman teacher
работница - ишчи (аел) - female worker
If we take the Uzbek words of the type:
укитувчи учитель - man teacher
учительница - woman teacher
шифокорврач - male doctor
врачиха - female doctor
In translation one may come across such words which are relevant to one language only and are therefore called "realemes". The latter may be illustrated by the following language units of English, Uzbek and Russian:
English Uzbek Russian
machine машина машина
football футбол футбол
toffee чой ва кофе чай и кофе
(тофе) (тофе)
We can enumerate here many other realemas such as in Russian; щи, борщ, сутки, душегрейка, окрошка, etc., in Uzbek: палов, чучвара, сандал, тўн, дўппи, etc., in English: "lunch", brunch (breakfast and lunch together) weekend - coffeemate, etc., which cause great difficulties in translation and are more subject to either translatory translation or transcription rather than an explanatory one.
Besides lexical difficulties in translation there are also pragmatic and paralinguistic problems linked with the typological features of the languages in comparison. All such problems in translation can be solved only by the help of the comparative typological data of the pragmatic and paralinguistic means of the languages under study, in which the prime attention, should be focused on the pragmatic and paralingiustic fields of language means, all possible ways of translating suchmeans from one language into the other being in the centre of the whole process of interlanguage correspondences.
The comparative linguistic data can be successfully utilized in creating bilingual conversational manuals, or textbooks or references based on the compa-rative method, such as "Comparative Grammar of Modern English and Modern Uzbek (or Russian)", Comparative Lexicology of Modern English and Uzbek (or Russian), Comparative Stylistics of Modern English and Modern Uzbek (or Russian) or making such manuals on translation both oral and written: "Manual on translation from English into Uzbek and Russian" or visa versa.
The comparative Typology is, indeed, an initial stage (phase) in pure linguistic typological investigations, because it provides the latter with the valuable comparative data of the languages under study, or if the worse, comes to the worst it can be used in or verifying the typological data of the languages in question.
If we sum up the aforesaid, we can conclude that the comparative typology of languages helps us to promote lexicographical, linguolexicographical research, translation work (both oral and written), linguistic typological investigations, and linguadidactic activities linked with the methods of teaching languages and translation.
The comparative typological studies are of great importance for linguodi-dactic lexicography, because while compiling dictionaries of various kinds the comparative typological data of the compared languages play a significant role. Especially they are of greater importance when bilingual and polylingual dictionaries are compiled, manuals (books, references, textbooks) of comparative character are made, the latter being very much in demand in life nowadays.
Besides that the comparative typological data are used, when such fundamental research as creating "Universal grammar" is carried out and in this connection the comparative typological data lays a solid foundation for such branches as those mentioned above, the former being used even in the verification of language and linguistic universals as common or dominatiory features or constants of world languages. Moreover, today we feel some shortage of comparative typological scientific research, which may and can be coped with, if we have reliable comparative data of the languages under study that can be extensively used in making textbooks on "Comparative Typology of Modern English and Modern Uzbek (or Russian)" and in compiling various dictionaries for academic or scientific purposes.
Hence, to cut a long story short, comparative typology is a reliable source of information for getting comparative linguistic data, which may be very useful for translation activities and for lexicographical research.
Translation, then, absorbs the needed information about the idiomatic features of the languages involved in transltion, neologisms or even dialectisms, as well as primitivisms (like: She sells china).
In such cases of realemes to be translated from one language into the other translatory transciption and transliteration are widely used or sometimes explanatory translation is also applied and such translation activities are impossible without comparative typologucal data of the languages under study.
Such idiomatic expressions or cliches as "айланай, ургилай, онангургилсин, акангбуйингдан, онангкокиндик, онанггиргиттон, кузичогим, буталогим, чирогим, жигарим, cause certain difficulties in translation and here their counter parts in English are to be searched for and used carefully, or else there may be a loss of elements of content (semantics), because of the weak knowledge of the translator of cross-cultural phonemena of the languages compared.