Ekvivalent va ekvivalent bo’lmagan kontekstual-semantik birliklar

Key words: equivalent units, nonequivalent units, contextual land semantic units, lexical-semantic variations, semantic volume
Every word in a language conveys a specific idea. A word’s semantics reflects the various subject signs it refers to as well as how its meanings relate to other objects it designates. The semantics of a word comprises word perception specific to the language under study, making it clearer to speakers of that language[1]. When examining an object’s actuality, we can see that its name discloses its purposes, which are reflected in the word’s semantics. Let’s use the word “glasses” (ko’zoynak) as an example. English provides the material from which the object is created, but Uzbek reveals the object’s purpose—second eyes, or ko’zlar—first. Even if there are many variations, it is important to note that both languages accurately depict the same sense of reality.
As a result, the challenge that stylistic devices bring to a translator is based on word play when the same words in the two languages have distinct signs. The variation in a word’s semantic volume is the second factor that makes translating political literature lexically challenging. Every language has a close relationship between a word’s existence and its lexical-semantic structure. It could have several lexical meanings (lexical-semantic variants), which could extend or narrow its meaning and make it more abstract or concrete. The variation in combinability is the third factor causing lexical challenges in translation[2]. Gleerup, Lund, J. Michael and Greenacre researched these matters.
Language-specific words have some defined relationships that are unique to that language. Word combinability is conceivable if words designate related objects, it should be noted. Because word combinability varies greatly between languages, some sorts of combinability are readily acceptable in one language but are wholly unsuitable in another. The approved use of words in a language is last but not least. Of course, it has to do with how a particular language evolved and how its lexical structure came to be. Every language developed its own cliches and some standard phrases that are used by speakers, but those word expressions are not phraseological units; instead, they have complete form, which, in contrast to phraseological units, is never compromised by the addition of introductory words or the replacement of some of its components[3].
In reality, even words that sound the same yet imply different things in different languages are seldom totally equivalent. The primary meaning of such words most frequently corresponds to their lexical-semantic variations initially, after which we have a variety of lexical-semantic variants for the course of development of these words was of different nature[4].
This is characterized by diverse word functions, usage, and combinability, and even the basic meaning of an English term may change from its Uzbek counterpart. A word’s semantic structure determines how it could be used in context, and translating context-specific meaning offers a challenge to translators. In many cases, the semantic context and the semantics of the words used in combination with a word determine its contextual meaning. The semantic structure of the term is what underlies sporadic meanings that appear out of the blue in context. When a term is used in context in poetry or prose, it frequently indicates that the author has delved deeply into the meaning of the word’s semantic structure.
Because all words have paradigmatic and semantic relationships, which can both indicate a word’s lexical possibilities. But disclosing these words’ potentials is strongly related to how each language’s lexical and semantic features are unique, and from this point on, we can see how challenging it is to translate words’ contextual meanings. Depending on the usage and semantic structure of the language, something that is feasible in one may be impractical in another.
Women and children will be the first hostages in an atomic war[5].
According to several dictionaries, the meaning of the word “hostage” is “garovga olingan”. However, in the specific situation, the hostage came to mean “qurbon”. Any hostage could be slain, thus since garovga olingan is not utilized in the supplied contextual meaning, we must translate this case using the word qurbon. Its contextual meaning is likely present in its paradigmatic meaning.
A very interesting contextual meaning of exploitation will be given in the following example:
Britain’s worldwide exploitation was shaken to the roots by Colonial Liberation Movements[6].
The word’s context-specific meaning was originally intended as a metonym – any colonial system depends on exploitation, which forms the foundation of colonial authority[7]. The comparable Uzbek ekspluatatsiya cannot be employed in this context; in addition, it is prohibited by the global, deeply-shaken framework of exploitation. The only translational option is through metonymic transposition and substitution: Due to its unexpectedness, contextual meaning of a word is always effective artistically and semantically. The most challenging part of translating emotional content is the need for lexical adjustments.
A language contains a vast variety of words that, in addition to their logical meanings, also have emotional implications or co-meanings. Emotional co-meaning and words with numerous meanings shouldn’t be combined. terms with emotional connotations are typically those with paradigmatic meanings, which are both objective and subjective. Examples include the terms “hate”, “love” and “friendship”. However, when emotional significance derives from contextual usage, it is not an exception. A word’s emotional meaning is typically dependent on the associations—positive or negative—that it elicits and the associations that preexist in it, regardless of the context of perception[8].
The words with differing volumes of meaning in Uzbek and English constitute an odd set of terms that require translation alteration. International terms as well as several terms related to human perception and thought are included in this group. However, it is important to note that the words in these categories have various semantic structures. English terms with multiple meanings include foreign words, words describing human perception, and words describing brain function. International terms are those that appear in one or more forms in a variety of languages. These words convey social-political and scientific ideas. With the exception of term words, the volume meaning of these words typically does not match. Despite the fact that it is well known that they frequently translate incorrectly and represent the fake buddies of translators. These errors require lexical adjustments because they result from usage differences in addition to differences in the semantic structure of the words:
We are told that television this autumn will give a massive coverage to the General Election[9].
The word massive along with the meaning massiv , has other meanings like massiv, ulkan, ulkan, keng and so on. For example: massive success – katta muvaffaqiyat , massive problems –muhim muammolar. Since international words possess wider meaning volume they are more used in English if comparing to Uzbek:
Never before in the history of the world have there been so many persons engaged in the translation of both secular and religious materials[10].
The utilization of the Uzbek terms religious materials in this context is entirely inappropriate. Even if their meanings are the same in both languages, usage here dominates. The need to concretize a word while translating also contributes to lexical changes. The availability of words having several meanings is a distinctive feature of the English language. They may be verbs, adjectives, or nouns, such as “to say”, “to go”, “to come” and “to get” as well as “thing”, “point” and “stiff”.
The context in which these words are translated determines their precise meaning. Typically, they are translated using a variety of Uzbek words with definite relevance. In real life, it relates to verbs, namely verbs of speech and verbs of motion. The structure and lexical meaning of the words that distribute a verb determine its lexical-semantic variety, including its concrete lexical meaning (importance).