FUNCTIONAL ERRATOLOGY AND PRAGMATIC EQUIVALENCE IN TRANSLATING ENGLISH LITERARY WORKS INTO UZBEK
Keywords:
Functional erratology, pragmatic equivalence, translation errors, literary translation, communicative intent, functional deviation, cross-cultural pragmatics, english-uzbek translation.Abstract
The research titled Functional Erratology and Pragmatic Equivalence in Translating English Literary Works into Uzbek investigates how translation errors and functional deviations affect the preservation of pragmatic meaning and communicative intent in literary translation. Functional erratology focuses on the role of translation errors not merely as linguistic inaccuracies but as meaningful indicators of the translator’s functional and pragmatic decision-making process. This study examines how different types of functional errors—such as shifts in register, tone, or speech acts- impact the equivalence between the source and target texts. By analyzing selected English-Uzbek literary translations, the research highlights how pragmatic mismatches may alter narrative coherence, character voice, or cultural symbolism. The study also explores the boundary between acceptable functional adaptation and pragmatic distortion, emphasizing the translator’s role as a mediator between linguistic systems and cultural frameworks. Ultimately, this research contributes to a deeper understanding of erratology as a diagnostic and evaluative tool that reveals how pragmatic equivalence can be maintained, negotiated, or lost in the process of literary translation.
References
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Harvard University Press.
Bassnett, S. (2014). Translation studies (4th ed.). Routledge.
Boase-Beier, J. (2006). Stylistic approaches to translation. Routledge.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
Gouadec, D. (1981). Paramètres de l'évaluation des traductions. Babel, 27(2), 99-103. https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.27.2.04gou
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41-58). Academic Press.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Longman.
House, J. (2015). Translation quality assessment: Past and present. Routledge.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Longman.
Leech, G., & Short, M. (2007). Style in fiction: A linguistic introduction to English fictional prose (2nd ed.). Pearson Education.
Nord, C. (1997). Translating as a purposeful activity: Functionalist approaches explained. St. Jerome Publishing.
Pym, A. (1992). Translation error analysis and the interface with language teaching. In C. Dollerup & A. Loddegaard (Eds.), Teaching translation and interpreting: Training, talent and experience (pp. 279-288). John Benjamins.
