2.2 Generic categorization of zoonimsin English and Uzbek

The study about the category of gender has an old tradition. The question on ways of language expression of distinction of sex of live beings interests many scientists. Owing to historically developed language traditions the gender of animals in English and Uzbek languages often does not coincide also a question on ways of language expression of distinction of a sex of live beings interests many scientists. At the same time studying of a category of gender in modern English language remains very important and actual problem. The given work is represented actual as research in it is spent in the tideway of cultural and cognitive linguistics.

In modern foreign and domestic linguistics there is a set of the references devoted to a problem of a category of gender in English language. Earlier various aspects of a problem of a grammatical gender were investigated. Within the limits of given article to shine the maintenance of all works it is impossible, however nevertheless it is necessary to state short hypotheses of different researchers about an origin and grammatical gender functions.

There are three basic hypotheses of an origin of a grammatical gender: semantic, morphological and syntactic. Supporters of the semantic concept (I.G. Gerder, J. Grimm, V. Humboldt, T. Jakobi, etc.) believe that at the heart of a grammatical gender opposition on a sex lies; the sex sign was translated by ancient Endo-Europeans on subjects of the lifeless nature. Thus all big, fast, active concerns a masculine gender, all small, quiet, passive - to female, and all artificial and collective - to an average.

Supporters of the morphological concept treat gender as a formal category.

Supporters of the syntactic concept of G. Shteyntal, J. Fyodor, V.V. Joffe believe that the gender is possible only in such languages in which there is such syntactic link, as the coordination. If in language the noun has gender category this category also the adjective necessarily has.

In Old English language gender was expressed morphologically, therefore expression of syntactic links between words by means of their coordination in a gender was its appointment except morphological classification of a noun. And in modern English language morphological indicators of a category of gender have appeared basically lost, therefore value of gender in English language is translationred: a) a lexical word meaning: a masculine gender-man, boy; a feminine gender-woman, girl; a neutral gender-table, house; b) personal pronouns-he, she, it; c) in structure of a word by means of suffixes-ess, - ine, - er: an actress, and heroine, a widower, a tigress; d) compound nouns: and woman-doctor; a he-wolf - a she-wolf.

In modern English language of a word are classified «by the nature of» through those subjects with which they correspond. Formally it is expressed, first of all, in a choice of various personal pronouns. This choice basically is based on an animate-inanimateness sign. Unlike Uzbek where usually animated names cannot correspond with a neutral gender, in English language there is a whole class of the nouns designating animals, birds and other beings which corresponds with a common gender and has a pronoun it.

The gender as actually grammatical category acting in the purest kind in Uzbek, in modern English language is absent; the gender as a lexical and grammatical category also has appeared partially lost English language in the course of its historical development. In this connection in modern English language, especially the great value gets a gender natural, that is prospective conformity between comes as a language category and natural or biological division on a sex. Unique appointment of a category of gender in English language is expression of semantic and lexical relations.

Also for research those original kinds of a categorization which are shown in the English literature concerning the words designating animals, birds, insects and other representatives of a class zoonims actual.

From this it is possible to draw a conclusion, as a patrimonial categorisation of the words designating animals, in these two languages occurs differently: if in Uzbek the words designating animals, correspond with that or other it come depending on the termination in English language zoonimsit is necessary to recognise a patrimonial categorisation any as formal characteristics of an accessory of those or others zoonimsto any gender do not exist.

The question of correlation of the borrowed names of animals with one of three grammatical genders in Uzbek is actual. Such words as a zebra, the kangaroo or the koala obtain a certain grammatical gender in compliance with grammatical rules of Uzbek, thus it is difficult enough to tell, the word of a kangaroo concerns what gender. In this case, obviously, a main role the context in which this word will appear will play.

«As it is known, the question of correlation of names of animals with that or other comes repeatedly rose in the literature, but it was discussed mainly in the general-theoretical plan. For example, R. Kvirk in the university English grammar gives classification of correlation of pronouns of the third party of a singular with zoonims. R. Kvirk notices that names of the higher animals correspond with that or other pronoun (he or she), first of all, depending on a gender of an animal and its practical importance for the person as for many animals there are words, both for a designation of the individual of a male, and for a designation of the individual of a female (for example, bull - cow, stallion - mare, tiger - tigress, etc.); And the lowest animals, according to classification of Kvirka, correspond with a neutral gender pronoun (it). However this classification has the generalized character and does not reflect the valid correlation by authors of literary fairy tales of personal pronouns with certain names of animals.

It is necessary to notice that in English language the same animal can correspond both with a feminine gender pronoun, and with a masculine gender pronoun, and this choice or completely depends from intuition the author, or is dictated by tradition and the norm accepted in fantastic products».

Recognizing that a grammatical gender often does not coincide with natural (i.e. with a sex), many scientists recognize that the form, (and also the object origin, carried out function if it is a question of the representative of fauna, an occupation, affinity speaking to the nature, its feature or its temperament and other factors), instead of value is a determinative in a considered problem that, however, is not relevant for modern English language.

Also for indirect instructions of a sex of an animal in English language there was variety of receptions. So, for example, wishing to let know that the given animal is a he-cat, instead of a she-cat, the Englishman will tell he-cat or tom-cat and if it will be a question of she-cat, will be told she-cat or pussy-cat. The English word «sparrow» is meant «by a sparrow in general», without instructions on its sex. If it is necessary to name a sparrow-male, it name «cocksparrow».

For a patrimonial categorization of zoonims in English language very important role is played by stereotypes as correlation of any word with social comes occurs on the basis of stereotypic classification. Stereotyping is connected with J. Grimma's mentioned concept that all active and strong is a male sign, and all weak and passive is the characteristic for all female.

By existing tradition in English folklore, poetry and fairy tales of the name of animals are comprehended, if there is a necessity in man's or a feminine gender. That in Uzbek the gender category is purely grammatical category, while translating often or the gender of an animal (if the translator does not manage to find an equivalent in «the necessary» gender) varies that sometimes conducts to loss of certain sense, or the gender remains same, as well as in the original text.

In practice translators offer some ways of translating zoonims from English into Uzbek.

Full translation is applied when the nouns which gender coincides in two considered languages, represent the most simple case for translation - the translator simply gives available equivalent of this word.

At discrepancy of a grammatical gender in English and Uzbek languages next ways of translating are applied.

Zero translation allows to avoid the use of pronouns of this or that gender (i.e. grammatical transformation of omission). Phraseological units with components - zoonims can be the vivid example of such translation:

He that sleeps with dogs must rise up with fleas - «?озонга я?инлашсанг ?ораси ю?ади»

However such transformation not always approaches for names of animals in fairy tales where animals are protagonists or occupy position, equivalent to the human.

Addition. If it is impossible to transform zoonim so that he specified in the necessary gender, the translator regenders by the way to addition of the words showing the necessary gender. For example, «When we were little», the Mock Turtle went on at last, more calmly, «we went to school in the sea. The master was an old Turtle - we used to call him Tortoise.»

In this example from «in the country of miracles» the turtle is connected by Alisy with man's image: he/she is «жаноб», «домла». In translationing the translator should add a word-carrier of a masculine gender («old man») that the initial embodiment was more natural in Uzbek context where a word «turtle» of a feminine gender does not associate with a male:

Functional replacement. At discrepancy of a gender the translator often does English replacement zoonims by Uzbek word with opposite it come.

The majority of linguists considers that in English language the gender exists as a lexico-semantic category. In English fairy tales the patrimonial categorisation of animals occurs depending on intuition the author, and on Uzbek these animals are translated already depending on translational possibilities. In cases when the gender of animals does not coincide also the translator decides to keep an original gender, he regenders to various translational receptions (for example, zero translation, addition, replacement, etc.).

2.3 Connotational peculiarities of English and Uzbek zoomorphic phraseologisms

Contemporary sociolinguistic direction in the study of phraseological units put forward the need for a detailed analysis of their ethno-cultural peculiarities and interlingual relations on the basis of culturally relevant evidences. Not by chance, most domestic and foreign cross-cultural researches in the field of phraseology is not focused on the mechanical detection of parallel structures of units in different languages, and the disclosure of internal connections and interdependence of the studied linguistic phenomena. In the ethnic culture of different peoples phaseologisms including the names of animals - is primarily a statement about the human-being, his spiritual and social terms.

Sufficiently a large number of English zoomorphic phraseological units have full or partial equivalents in other languages, because of the coincidence of mental maps of reality in carriers of different languages and common elements of culture the so-called «cultural universals». However due to differences in cultural factors, ethnic origin, different lingua world picture and the various literary sources, many zoomorphic set expressions contain an element of value, which is understandable only for the carriers of given culture, served by its language.

For example, in English, there are such verbal clichйs like «it rains cats and dogs» (a heavy rain), and «a rat race» (competition), «to suck the monkey» (about the manner of drinking from the bottle), and other. In Uzbek also such clichйs are found: «?ўй о?зидан чўп олмас» (about quiet and mild person); «дунёни бир четида» (a great distance away from); «?уён юрак» (the coward). In general, the traditional choice of zoonims in phraseological fund of Uzbek and English languages has much in common both in the aspect of theory nomination and in terms of valuation connotation.

Predominantly positive connotation of zoonim «horse» in semisphere of English and Uzbek ethnic culture confirmed by examples of contextual implementation, apparently goes back to ancient archaic trickster, embodied by the literary tradition. «A horse! My Kingdom for a horse!» - exclaimed Shakespeare's Richard III. Many period of evolutionary development a human-being and a horse passed together in the spiritual and physical harmony with each other. The world history has documented numerous instances of the sublime, grateful and respectful treatment of the owner to his horse. According to the testimony of Pliny the younger, a horse «sat» in the legislature such as the horse of the Roman emperor Caligula, which was «promoted to the senators and consuls». The image of a horse appears in all the world's great religions. In the Greek myth Poseidon and Medusa Gorgona had the son - winged Pegasus, a symbol of inspiration. In Buddhism it is Kantka, white horse of Gautama. In Islam - Al-Barak, in Christianity - the horses of the horsemen of Apocalypse. We observed the collection of Uzbek proverbs where were 350 proverbs about animals. Among them proverbs containing zoonim «horse» takes premier place and precisely all of them have positive connotation. Here we see the table

The highest percentage of examples with a negative evolutional connotation falls on donkey semisphere. Paradoxical nature of the interpretation of this image in English ethnic culture is that in ancient times, a donkey was considered as a sacred animal. Certain rituals associated with the glorification of the donkey went into the use of a Catholic and the Orthodox Church. In some counties of the United Kingdom and on the west of the USA such competitions as «donkey's beauty» and «donkey's parades» still take place to commemorate of the escape of the Holy Family on donkeys to Egypt. In Russia for a long time there was a ritual-Passover detour Kremlin by Patriarch riding on a donkey in memory of Christ's entry into Jerusalem. There is a unit in folklore and in phraseology, however, a donkey - a symbol of stupidity, stubbornness, laziness. Historically it was first mean of transport, transport which was employed by prophets. However, only some settled tribes of Uzbekistan used donkey as a mean of transport. So, Uzbek set-expressions and proverbs with zoonim «donkey» always have negative evaluative connotations. In the studied English phraseological fund only one proverb contains positive evaluative component: «Asses as well as pitchers have ears» (fools and children understand much more than the speaking people think).

Studying the results of cross-cultural research in phraseology enables to make the following conclusions:

Apparently, the most important legacy of archaic zoomorphism is not so much of its semantics (in most cases it is destroyed), is not mythic tradition, but the principle of unity of people and animals in the chain of wildlife within a particular ethnic culture.

Despite of the existence of similarities and structural and semantic parallels, zoomorphic phraseological units in different languages have vivid national characteristics, due to both intra-linguistic factors and features of the national - cultural environment.

Conclusion

The analysis of translating made us zoonims from English into Uzbek language has allowed to track following laws:

1. The gender as actually grammatical category in modern English language is absent, as this category has appeared is partially lost in the course of historical development. At the present stage of development of language it is possible to speak about presence of lexico-semantic value at a gender category.

2. The gender category in English language is traditionally allocated in connection with two phenomena: expression of distinctions of a sex and pronominalno-substantive correlation.

3. The patrimonial categorization of animals in English literary fairy tales differs from a traditional patrimonial categorization of animals in language. Uzbek nouns denoting male and female sex are of no grammatical significance in contrast to English and Russian ones. The grammatical significance of English nouns denoting male and female sex is observed when they are replaced by the pronouns he and she: I have a brother. He is a doctor. I have a sister. She is a teacher. Discrepancy of principles of a categorisation in two languages represents typological distinction between two given languages.

4. The literary work is closely connected with language system in which it is created. While translating speech should go not only about translating of a literary work from one language system to another, but also from one mental sphere in another where all relations and communications, and also cultural bases are not that, as in the first. While translating zoonims equivalence, and dynamic equivalence which together should participate in creation equivalent under the maintenance and an equal literary work on value on a target language should be considered as denotative.

5. The nouns, which gender coincides in two considered languages, represent the most simple case for translating - the translator simply gives available equivalent of this word.

6. At sending on an animal by means of a pronoun the translator keeps a pronoun gender if it keeps a gender of the animal.

The list of used literature

1. Арнольд И.В. Стилистика современного английского языка. Л.: «Просвещение», 1973

2. Бархударов Л.С. Очерки по морфологии современного английского языка. М.: «Высшая школа», 1975

3. Бархударов Л.С. Язык и перевод. М., 1975

4. Блох М.Я. Теоретическая грамматика английского языка: Учебник. - 2-е изд., М.: «Высшая школа», 1994

5. Бреус Е.В. Основы теории и практики перевода с русского языка на английский. М., 1998

6. Бурлакова В.В. «Дейксис» // «Спорные вопросы английской грамматики». Л.: Издательство ЛГУ, 1988

7. Варгина Н.В. «Местоимение» // «Теоретическая грамматика английского языка», Ред. Бурлакова В.В., - Л.: Изд-во ЛГУ, 1983

8. Влахов С.И. Флорин С.П. Непереводимое в переводе. М., 1980

9. Гачечиладзе Г. Художественный перевод и литературные взаимосвязи. М., 1980

10. Гин Я.И. Поэтика грамматического рода. Петрозаводск, 1992

11. Гин Я.И. Проблемы поэтики грамматических категорий. СПб, 1996

12. Гордон Е.М. Крылова И.П. Грамматика современного английского языка. М.: «Высшая школа», 1980

13. Даниленко В.Л. Ономасиологическое направление в грамматике. - Иркутск: Изд-во Иркут. ун-та, 1990

14. Демурова Н.М. О переводе сказок Кэрролла // Л. Кэрролл, Алиса. М., 1978

15. Ельмслев Л. О категориях личности-неличности и одушевленности-неодушевленности в сб. «Материалы к спецкурсу по структурной типологии языков» (сост. О.Г. Ревзина). М: МГУ, Лаборатория структурной типологии и лингвостатистики, 1975

16. Емельянова О.В. Функциональная и семантическая характеристика местоимения, // «Спорные вопросы английской грамматики», ред. Бурлакова В.В. - Л.: Изд-во ЛГУ, 1988

17. Жигадло В.Н., Иванова И.П., Иофик Л.Л. Современный английский язык - теоретический курс грамматики. М.: Издательство литературы на иностранных языках, 1956

18. Зализняк А.А. Категория рода одушевленности в русском языке // Вопросы языкознания. М., 1964, №1, c. 25-40

19. Иванова И.П., Бурлакова В.В., Почепцов Г.Г. Теоретическая грамматика современного английского языка. М.: «Высшая школа», 1981

20. Карпинская О.Г. Типология рода в славянских языках // Вопросы языкознания. М., 1961, №6, c. 61-76

21. Кирилина А.В. Гендер: лингвистические аспекты. М.: Институт социологии РАН, 1999

22. Кирилина А.В. Развитие гендерных исследований в лингвистике // Филологические науки. - 1998. - №3, с. 51-57

23. Комиссаров В.Н. Лингвистика перевода. М., 1980

24. Комиссаров В.Н. Современное переводоведение. М., 1999

25. Кошевая И.Г., Дубовский Ю.А. Сравнительная типология английского и русского языков. М.: Высш. школа, 1980

26. Маркус С. Грамматический род и его логическая модель, сб. «Математическая лингвистика» // «Мир». М., 1984, с. 122-144

27. Мейе А. Основные особенности германской группы языков. М., 2003

28. Найда Ю.Н. Наука перевода // Вопросы языкознания N. 4, М., 1970

29. Пушкина Е.Н. Проблема рода в современном английском языке, Автореферат дисс. к.ф.н., Горький, 1976

30. Ревзин И.И. Модели языка. М.: Изд. АН СССР, 1962

31. Рецкер И.Я. Теория перевода и переводческая практика. М.: «Международные отношения», 1974

32. Смирницкий А.И. Морфология английского языка. М.: Изд-во литературы на иностранных языках, 1959

33. Тимпко Л.А. Категория рода в современном английском языке, Автореферат дисс. к.ф.н., М., 1970

34. Тимпко Л.А. Род как историческая и социолингвистическая категория. М., 1985

35. Федоров А.В. Искусство перевода и жизнь литературы. М., 1983

36. Федоров А.В. Основы общей теории перевода. М., 1983

37. Шахмайкин А.М. Проблема лингвистического статуса категории рода // Актуальные проблемы современной русистики. Диахрония и синхрония. М.: МГУ, 1996, с. 226-273

38. Bell R.T. Translation and translating: theory and practice. London, New York: Longman, 1993

39. Blokh M.Y. A course of theoretical English grammar. Moscow, 1983

40. Corbett G. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991

41. Fodor J. The origin of grammatical gender. Lingua 8, № 1-2, 1989

42. Greenbaum S. The Oxford English grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996

43. Hatim B., Mason I. Discourse and the translator. London, New York: Longman, 1990

44. Ilyish B.A. The structure of modern English. М. - L., 1965

45. Jakobson R. Zur Struktur des russischen Verbums. Prague, 1932, S. 74-79

46. Jespersen O. Essentials of English grammar. London, 1943, p. 193

47. Klein J. Benachteiligung der Frau im generischen Maskulinum - eine feministische Schimдre oder psycolinguistische Realitдt? Oellers, Norbert (Hrsg.): Akten des Germдnistentags, Teil 1. Tьbingen, 1987, S. 310-319

48. Konishi T. The connotation of gender: A semantic differential study of German and Spanish // Word, 1994, Vol. 45, N3, P. 317-326

49. Lakоff G. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987

50. Leech G., Svartvik J. A communicative grammar of English. Moscow, 1983

51. Lohmann J. Genus und Sexus. Gttingen, 1960

52. Malinowski B. The problem of meaning in primitive languages // The Meaning of Meaning. Ed. by I.A. Richards. London, 1923

53. Nida E.A. Language structure and translation. Stanford, 1975

54. Quirk R., Greenbaum S., Leech G., Svartvik J. A University Grammar of English. Moscow, 1982

55. Romaine S. Communicating Gender. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 1999

56. Rosch E. Principles of categorization. // Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1975

57. Shuttleworth M., Cowie M. Dictionary of translation studies. Manchester, 1997

58. Towry G. Translation across cultures. New Delhi: Bahri, 1987

59. www.kn.sbc.com/wired/fil/pages/listenglishan2.html

60. www.wikinfo.org/index.php? title=English_studies&redirect=no

61. english.fullcoll.edu/noungender

62. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/typology

63. www.theaustralian.news.com.au/zoonims

Размещено на Allbest.ru