Abstract
Translation theory distinguishes two fundamental approaches: direct translation and indirect translation. This paper investigates the comparative challenges and advantages of these two strategies within contemporary translation studies. Using a mixed analytical framework that draws on existing theoretical literature and corpus-based examples across multiple language pairs, this study demonstrates that neither approach is universally superior; rather, the selection of translation strategy depends heavily on textual genre, communicative purpose, and source–target language structural divergence. The findings contribute to a nuanced understanding of translation methodology and offer practical guidance for translators, language educators, and researchers working in multilingual contexts.References
1. Baker, M. (1992). In other words: A coursebook on translation. Routledge.
2. Jorj Oruell. “1984”. Karim Bahriyev tarjimasi. Toshkent: Nihol, 2020. - 59 b.
3. Malmkjaer, K. (1998). Translation and language teaching: Language teaching and translation. St. Jerome Publishing.
4. Newmark, P. (1981). Approaches to translation. Pergamon Press.
5. Newmark, P. (1988). A textbook of translation. Prentice Hall.
6. Nida, E. A., & Taber, C. R. (1969). The theory and practice of translation. Brill.
7. Orwell, G. (1949). 1984. Secker & Warburg.- p. 58.
8. Venuti, L. (1995). The translator's invisibility: A history of translation. Routledge.
9. Venuti, L. (2008). The translator's invisibility: A history of translation (2nd ed.). Routledge. Vinay, J.-P., & Darbelnet, J. (1958/1995). Comparative stylistics of French and English: A methodology for translation (J. C. Sager & M.-J. Hamel, Trans.). John Benjamins. (Original work published 1958)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2026 Dinora Ilhom qizi Sodiqova (Author)