The problems of translation modal verbs from English into Uzbek Contents: Introduction

The structure of the paper. This work consists of an introduction, two chapters, conclusion and the list of used literature. The theme of the work is “The problem of frequent verbs and their translation into English”.
Introduction highlights actuality, aim, tasks, theoretical and practical values of the paper and etc.
The first chapter of the work is named as “General information on frequent verbs and meaning” and focuses on broad themes including the main information of frequent verbs, linguistic literature on meaning, lexical meaning of verbs and their semantic structure.
The second chapter is devoted to the problems of frequent verbs in translation. This part plays close attention to the application of translation principles in the process of translation and use of componential and translation analyses of frequent verbs.
Conclusion deals with the results achieved during investigating this work. I try to conclude the role and importance of frequent verbs in translation. Total amount of the course work: 60 pages.
Chapter I. General information on frequent verbs and meaning
1.1. Review of the linguistic literature on meaning

Meaning is one of the most controversial terms in the theory of language. At first sight the understanding of this term seems to present no difficult at all-it is freely used in teaching, interpreting and translation. The scientific definition of meaning however just as the definition of some other basic linguistic terms, such as word, sentences, etc, has been issue of interminable discussions. Since there is no universally accepted definition of meaning we shall confine ourselves to a brief survey of the problem as it is viewed in modern linguistics both in our country and elsewhere.

There is possibly no branch linguistics in which there is such a preponderance of idealistic views as in semantics. The basic principle of some psychological schools studying the problem of thinking and meaning was, for instance, the immutability of the meaning of a word.
From the point of view of the idealistic school of psychology, the connection between a word and its meaning is a simple associate connection based on the coincidence in our mind of the impression of a word and the impression of the referent denoted by this word. The word recalls its meaning in the same way as the “coat” of a person. Associations connecting a word with its meaning may be strengthened or weakened, may be transferred to other referents on the basis of similarity or contiguity.
The linguistic science at present is not able to put forward a definition of meaning which is conclusive. However, there are certain facts of which we can be reasonably sure, and one of them is that the very function of the word as a unit of communication is made possible by its possessing a meaning. Therefore, among the word’s various characteristics, meaning is certainly the most important.
Generally speaking, meaning can be more or less described as a component of the word though which a concept is communicated, in this way endowing the word with the ability of denoting real objects, qualities, actions and abstract notions. The complex and somewhat mysterious relationships between referent (object, etc, denoted by the word), concept and word traditionally represented by the triangle.
By the “symbol” here is meant the word; thought of reference is no immediate relation between word and referent; it is established only through the concept. On the other hand, there is a hypothesis that concepts can only find their realization through words. It seems that thought is dormant till the word wakens it up. It is only when we hear a spoken word or read a printed word that the corresponding concept springs to (into) mind. The mechanism by which concept (i.e. mental phenomena) are converted into words (i.e. linguistic phenomena) and the reverse process by which a heard or a printed word is converted into a kind of mental picture are not yet understood or described. Probably that is the reason why the process of communication through words, if one gives it some thought, seems nothing short of a miracle.³
There are broadly speaking two schools of thought in present day linguistics representing the main lines of contemporary thinking on the problem: the referential approach, which seeks to formulate the essence of meaning by establishing the interdependence between words and the things or concepts they denote, and the functional approach, which studies the functions of a word in speech and is less concerned with what meaning is than with how it works. The model of the linguistic sign developed by Ogden and Richards (1923) is represented below: Thought or Reference
SYMBOL (“word”) stands for (“thing”) REFERENT
The “semiotic triangle”, the “triangle of signification” or the “referential triangle”, as it is called in the literature, suggests that there is no direct relationship between the word or the symbol and the extra-linguistic thing or the referent it denotes (this is indicated by the dotted line connecting them). The two are linked indirectly, by means of the abstract thought or reference in our brains (“reference” is used by Ogden and Richards in a different way than in most of the more recent linguistic theories, where it denotes either the relationship between a full linguistic sign and an extra linguistic referent or the action of a speaker/writer referring to an extra-linguistic object by means of a linguistic sign). According to Ogden and Richards, there is then no direct relationship between the word or the symbol “dog” and a particular class of living beings or a specific element of this class. They stress the point that the meaning of the linguistic symbol (sign), as a concept or thought, has to be clearly distinguished from the extra-linguistic object denoted by it. Words, as linguistic signs, are therefore indirectly related to extra-linguistic referents.
Functional approach to meaning. In most present day methods of lexicological analysis of words are studied in context, a word defined by its functioning within a phrase or a sentence. This functional approach is attempted in contextual analysis, semantic syntax and some other branches of linguistics. The meaning of linguistic unit is studied only through its relation to other linguistic units. So meaning is viewed as the function of a word in speech.
All major works on semantic theory have so far been based on referential concepts of meaning. The essential feature of this approach is that it distinguishes between the three components closely connected with meaning: the sound form of the linguistic sign; the concept of underlying this sound of form, and the actual referent. For more convincing evidence of the conventional and arbitrary nature of the connection between sound form and meaning all we have to do is to point to the homonyms. The word “seal [si:l], e.g. means” a piece of wax, lead, etc. Stamped with a design; its homonym seal [si:l] possessing the same sound form denotes a sea animal. Besides, if meaning were inherently connected with the sound form of linguistic unit, it would follow that a change of meaning. We know, however, that even considerable changes in the sound-form of a word in the course of its historical development do not necessarily affect its meaning. The sound form of the Old English word lufian [luvian] has undergone great changes, and has been transformed into love [l ^ v], yet the meaning “hold dear, bear love”, etc has remained essentially unchanged.
The criticism of the referential theories of meaning may be briefly summarized as follows:
-Meaning, as understood in the referential approach, comprises the interrelation of linguistic signs with categories and phenomena outside the scope of language. As neither referents (i. e. actual things phenomena, etc.) nor concepts belong to language, the analysis of meaning is confined either to the study of the interrelation of the linguistic sign and referent or that of the linguistic sign and concept, all of which, properly speaking, is not the object of linguistic study.
The functional approach treats the meaning as the relation of one word to another. By this approach the meaning can be studied only through context, through its relation to other word. We can observe this in the following examples: to take a tram (a taxi), to take off, to take care of, to take ill, to take degree, to take cold, to take it easy, to take on, to take five minutes, to take place, to take tea, to take a bath, to take notice, to take part in, to take a book, etc.
Word meaning is studied by the branch of lexicology called semasiology. Among the word’s various characteristics meaning is the most important. There are different theories of the nature of meaning. Usually meaning is defined as the realization of a notion (or concept, in other terms) by means of a definite language system. It is usually said that a word denotes objects, qualities, actions, phenomena, or expresses corresponding notions. The complex relationships between referent (object, denoted by the word), notion (concept, thought) and word (symbol, sound-form) are traditionally represented by the following triangle: notion, word, referent.
Word meaning is made up of various components which are usually described as types of meaning. The two main types of meaning are grammatical and lexical meanings.
Grammatical meaning unites words into parts of speech. Such words as goes, stops, works have different lexical meanings, but are united by a common grammatical meaning: they are characterized by a common system of forms in which their grammatical categories are expressed.
Lexical meaning is individual for every word: grammatically identical words have individual lexical meanings (f/e: went, kissed, and looked), which are common for all forms of one and the same word. Go, went, going – all these forms denote the process of movement. Lexical meaning includes two components: denotation and connotation.
Denotational component is present in every word and makes communication possible. It expresses the notional content of the word, shows what the word refers to.
Connotational component expresses additional meanings of the word which may be of different types: stylistic, evaluative and emotional, etc. Evaluative connotation expresses positive or negative attitude to the object or phenomenon denoted by the word. It may be rational and emotional. In the latter case we speak of emotive-evaluative connotation. The words brain (“a clever man”), for example, is evaluated as positive, while the word brock (“a scoundrel”), to cheat – have negative connotations. Cf. also: notorious – celebrated.
Emotional or emotive connotation of the word is its capacity to evoke and express emotion (duckling, darling (diminutive emotive value)).
Stylistic connotation shows the stylistic status of a word: neutral, bookish, colloquial, slang, etc. It should be noted that connotation is not an obligatory component of word meaning. Many words, for instance, give, take, walk, book, table, etc., used in their direct meaning, denote but not connote anything.
A connection between the direct meaning of the word and its figurative meanings is called semantic motivation. It is based on the co-existence of different meanings of the word. Knowing the meaning of the word chain (“a series of usually metal links or rings”), one may guess the meaning of such units as chain store, chain hotel, chain smoker, etc. In such cases we deal with a metaphorical extension of the central meaning of the word. The majority of English words have more than one meaning, so they are poly semantic. Words that are used most often have the greatest number of meanings: do, go, see, etc. Various meanings of the word represent lexico-semantical variants and constitute its semantic structure. One of the meanings in the semantic structure of the word is primary, the others are secondary. For example, the word table has the primary meaning “a piece of furniture” and a number of secondary meanings: “a supply of food”, “an act of assembling to eat”, “a group of people assembled a t a table”, etc. Meanings can also be direct and figurative, concrete and abstract, central and peripheral, general and special. There are two main types of the organization of the semantic structure of a poly semantic word: the radial and the chain one.
Various meanings of a word are united by the existence of a common semantic component, even though they are different in their denotation and sometimes also connotation meanings. In the course of historical development word meanings undergo various changes. Lexicology investigates causes of semantic changes, the nature of semantic change and the results of semantic change. The causes of semantic change are traditionally divided into historical, or extra linguistic, and linguistic. Extra linguistic causes are connected with changes in the life of the nation, its industry, culture, science which bring about changes in word meaning. The word mill can be taken as an example: when the first factories appeared there was no other word to denote them, so the word mill developed a new meaning – “to’qimachilik fabrikasi”, “po’lat zavodi”, etc. Linguistic causes of semantic change are factors acting within the language system. One of these factors is the differentiation of synonyms which is connected with borrowing. For example, the Old English word deer meant “any animal”; when beast was borrowed from French, it ousted word deer in thus meaning and deer began to denote a concrete species. Then the Latin animal ousted [au] beast in the meaning “any animal” and the word beast now has the meaning “mammal” . Other linguistic causes are ellipsis [li] (in a phrase made up of two words one of these is omitted and its meaning is transferred to its partner: daily newspaper daily and analogy (when one of the synonyms develops a new meaning, other synonyms acquire a new meaning too: e.g. when catch developed the meaning “understand”, its synonyms grasp, get developed this meaning too)⁴.
All cases of change of meaning are based on some association. The process of change of meaning is termed transference. There are two types of transference: 1) transference based on similarity and 2) transference based on contiguity (real connection between the two objects). The first type of transference is called linguistic metaphor: neck (of a human being) → neck (of a bottle). The second type is known as linguistic metonymy: hands (“limbs of a human body”) → hands (“a worker”). Semantic change may result in the change of the range of meaning. In the process of vocabulary development some words develop narrower or broader meanings than those they used to have. The first process is called narrowing (specialization) of meaning. Thus, Old English fugol (“any bird”) came to denote a domestic bird (fowl [au] ), the word girl meant “a child of either sex”, but gradually developed the meaning “a female child”. The second process is termed widening (generalization) of meaning. The word ready (Old English ræde) originally meant “prepared for a ride”, picture meant “something painted”, the word uncle meant “mother’s brother”, etc. Semantic change also results in the change of the connotation structure of the word. The thing denoted by a word may acquire certain positive or negative characteristics, which are reflected first in the denotation then in the connotation component of word meaning. The process when the object to which the word refers acquires negative characteristics, and the meaning develops a negative evaluative connotation, is termed degradation of meaning. The old English word cnafa (Modern English knave) meant “a boy”, then a “boy servant” and finally– “a swindler, a scoundrel”. The Modern English word boor originally meant “peasant”. So, the words acquired a negative connotation. The development of a positive evaluative connotation is called elevation(amelioration) of meaning.