Keywords
o‘lchovga oid ifodalar
kognitiv lingvistika
freym semantikasi
ingliz–o‘zbek tarjimasi
kognitiv ekvivalentlik
metaforik ma’no
tarjima strategiyasi
How to Cite
Abstract
Tilning o‘lchovga oid qatlami, odatda, fizik kattaliklarni aniq belgilash va miqdoriy munosabatlarni ifodalash bilan bog‘lanadi. Biroq real nutqda o‘lchov birliklari va ularga yaqin ifodalar ko‘pincha o‘zining bevosita metrologik vazifasidan chekinib, mavhum holat, daraja va munosabatlarni anglatishga xizmat qiladi. Mazkur maqolada shu hodisa ingliz va o‘zbek tillari materiallari asosida Konseptual metafora nazariyasi hamda Freym semantikasi doirasida tahlil qilinib, uning tarjimadagi namoyon bo‘lishiga alohida e’tibor qaratiladi. Tadqiqot materiali sifatida ingliz tilidagi within an inch of failure, miles away from reality, a mountain of work hamda o‘zbek tilidagi bir qadam oldinda, bir umr kutdim, zarracha shubha yo‘q singari ifodalar tanlandi. Sifatga asoslangan qiyosiy-kognitiv tahlil yordamida ularning manba va maqsad sohalari, metaforik ko‘chish modeli, kontekstda faollashadigan bilim tuzilmalari va tarjimada yuzaga keladigan muvofiqlik masalalari o‘rganildi. Natijalar shuni ko‘rsatdiki, o‘lchovga oid leksika fazoviy yaqinlik, uzoqlik, davomiylik, miqdor, intensivlik, ustunlik va ishonch darajasini ifodalashda oddiy nominativ birlikdan ko‘ra kengroq kognitiv vazifa bajaradi. Bunda Konseptual metafora nazariyasi ma’no ko‘chishining umumiy yo‘nalishini izohlasa-da, muayyan ifodaning konkret vaziyatda qanday anglashilishini to‘liq ochib bera olmaydi. Mazkur bosqichda chegara, maqsad, kutilma, baho va vaziyat ishtirokchilariga doir bilimlarni bir butun tuzilma sifatida tiklovchi freym-semantik tahlil zarur bo‘ladi. Shu asosda maqolada ikki bosqichli talqin modeli taklif qilinadi: avval o‘lchov tajribasi bilan mavhum tushuncha o‘rtasidagi konseptual bog‘lanish aniqlanadi, keyin esa bu bog‘lanishning nutqdagi mazmuni tegishli freym orqali ochiladi. Tarjima nuqtayi nazaridan asosiy xulosa shuki, o‘lchov birligi metaforik ma’noda qo‘llanganda uning sonli qiymatini saqlash yoki boshqa birlikka mexanik konversiya qilish ko‘pincha yetarli emas. Bunday holatda tarjimon o‘lchov shaklidan ko‘ra, u orqali berilgan ma’no darajasi va kommunikativ ta’sirni qayta yaratishi kerak.References
1. Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–137). Hanshin Publishing.
2. Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (2017). Metaphor wars: Conceptual metaphors in human life. Cambridge University Press.
3. Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. University of Chicago Press.
4. Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge University Press.
5. Kövecses, Z. (2020). Extended conceptual metaphor theory. Cambridge University Press.
6. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
7. Pragglejaz Group. (2007). MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480709336752
8. Samaniego Fernández, E. (2011). Translation studies and the cognitive theory of metaphor. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 262–279. https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.9.1.12sam
9. Schäffner, C. (2004). Metaphor and translation: Some implications of a cognitive approach. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(7), 1253–1269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.012
10. Schäffner, C., & Shuttleworth, M. (2013). Metaphor in translation: Possibilities for process research. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies, 25(1), 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1075/target.25.1.08shu
11. Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, J. B., Kaal, A. A., Krennmayr, T., & Pasma, T. (2010). A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU. John Benjamins