The ministy of higher and secondary special education of the republic of uzbekistan state university of world languages the department of english language theory and practice

Download 191 Kb.
Hajmi191 Kb.
1   2   3   4   5

To answer these questions, it would be useful to look at the above given examples. All the given words both in English and Uzbek languages have their equivalents in both languages. That means their meaning is the same. For instance, “automobile” in English transport dictionary and its equivalent in Uzbek is “avtomabil”.

However, the construction of terms in both languages is different. English transport terms tend to be compound words, while Uzbek transport terms are mostly word combinations. For example, “electrotrain” in English transport language and “elektro poezd” in Uzbek military language.

Furthermore, it is evident that Uzbek transport terms are monosemantic, while English transport terms are either polysemantic or sometimes use different terms to define the same operating concepts. As an example, we can take some public transport terms. Words like: route alignment- path over which the bus travels; Garage/parking and maintenance -1) parking; 2) daily, routine servicing; 3) vehicle repair; 4) driver assignment; Interval- frequency belong to such kind of word groups.

To move to the terms related to transport language, means of transportation and the words used in sphere of transportation can be compared in both languages. In British transport system it can be seen all types of transport:

  • Ground-underground (railway, special, personal, etc.);

  • Air (military, passenger, cargo);

  • Marine (military, passenger, cargo).

But in Uzbek transport system can not be seen some types of transport at all. This can prove that in comparison of transport means, a big difference can be met.

Coming to the next essential part of the investigation, it is important to state that English transport discourse widely uses from abbreviations: clippings, acronyms and blends. As an example, “cab” is an example of clipping, which “cabriolet” is full shape of this word.

Cab =cabriolet means a light two-wheeled chaise drawn by one horse. Later the word was applied to a motorized vehicle.

“Bus” is a clipping of omnibus. Classical Latin omnibus means “for all”. As a term for a public transportation vehicle, omnibus was borrowed from French. The wealthier classes had enjoyed the services of carriages for a hire as early as the 17th century. The omnibus offered inexpensive public transportation to the masses.

“Plane” is a clipping of aeroplane/airplane, ‘taxi’ is a clipping of Taximeter, We can continue these examples. To come to another widely used structure, acronyms, it is obvious that English language is full of them when we compare it with Uzbek language. For example, FAK is an acronym of freight of all kinds( in transportation terminology), NMFC is an acronym of National motor freight classification, GVW is an example of acronym which stands for gross vehicle weight, and etc.

To sum up, one can come to the conclusion that English and Uzbek transport discourse have several similarities and also a number of differences. Both languages try to express conversation more precise and brief. This stimulates English transport discourse more than Uzbek tranport discourse, so common use of abbreviations: clippings, acronyms and blends are used in English language of transportation sphere. However, Uzbek transportation discourse is considered more formal that English military discourse. The use of slangs, abbreviations, clippings did not appear during the investigation of Uzbek military discourse.

3.2. The usage of terms related to transport in English and Uzbek literature

While comparing languages according to their different aspects, it is essential to learn how to use them in discourse. The continuously developing world and man are in close interaction and mutual influence. Man actively transforms the surrounding reality. A mediator between a person and a knowable world is a language that “creates opportunities for streamlining and systematization in the memory of a multitude of knowledge for building a linguistic picture of the world that is characteristic of each given ethnocultural collective”.

To be proficient in a foreign language does not only mean to know the words of this language and grammar rules governing the formation of sentences. There is something more, which is called ‘the spirit’ of language and to grasp it is much more difficult for non-native speakers than to learn words and grammar structures. The theory explaining the peculiarities of languages from this perspective was developed by the American scientists F. Boas (1995), E. Sapir (1963), and B. L. Whorf and J. B. Carroll (1969) in the first half of the 20th century (cited here from later editions) and was called ‘linguistic relativity’. Linguistic relativity deals with interrelation between culture, thought and reality and states that every language differently segments the reality and classifies real objects. According to the New Oxford Dictionary of English (Pearsall and Hanks 1998), relativity is the absence of standards of absolute and universal application. With reference to languages, it may be concluded that one ‘absolutely correct’ way of expressing the reality by language does not exist, and different linguistic patterns may be successfully used to denote the same ‘pieces of reality’ by various languages. Th s possibility is based on the fact that all objects have a great number of features (attributes), and different languages may choose different features of a particular object in giving the name to it. This makes any language a specific system different from others, though both nationally-specific and international patterns may be found in it. It also follows that word-for-word translation can hardly help to convey the meaning expressed by a foreign word, collocation (word combination) or sentence. Though the ways of expression may vary from language to language, every language successfully performs its communicative function. The choice of a particular feature of an object as a basis for giving a name to it depends on the culture, traditions and views of native speakers. The awareness of these differences is essential in identifying and explaining the difficulties in learning a foreign language and the sources of errors made by non-native speakers in speaking and writing. The latter automatically transfer the patterns specific to their native language to a foreign language. This, in turn, results in grave mistakes and misunderstanding. Non-native speakers composing sentences should always ask themselves a question ‘How do they put it in English?’ and avoid word-for-word translation. Viewing objects and situations from various perspectives may help to see possible ways of naming them and to guess the meanings of words and expressions based on approaches to nomination typical of the speakers of a particular foreign language. However, the development of linguistic guess takes a long time and requires much eff ort. Now, the availability of the Internet is of great help in checking if the sentences composed by non-native speakers are correct. To illustrate the above statements, a comparative analysis of English and Uzbek words and expressions based on different approaches to naming things is made. The words and expressions analyzed include special transport terms as well as generally used international words and phrases of scientific, technical texts and literature of both languages. Let us consider some English and Uzbek transport terms based on different principles of nomination (because different features of the objects are used in their names)in literature:

“arava” – one of the old means of transportation which can also be called “ot-arava”. In English ‘horse drawn carriage”.

In Uzbek literature this transport term can be used not only as its own meaning but also in other meanings. For example:

Lekin ko’pchilik velosipedni hamon “shayton aravadeydi. Bu so’zlardan har birining shaytonga nimadur dahli bor. Qachondir rasmga kirgan velosipedni mingan kishi ko’chada lip etib ko’z oldidan o’tib ketganda “shayton aravadegan gap hayolga kelgan bo’lishi kerak.” [Omon Muxtor.2013.p3..]

In this piece of Uzbek literature the word ‘arava” is used not its own meaning, but as a means of transport.

Darvoqe, “arava” istilohi endi xiyla eskirgandek, bugun zamonaviy nomlari paydo bo’lgan: kino, televideniya,internet deganday. Yozilayotgan uncha-muncha narsalarni baholash masalasiga kelsak, bunda ham boyagi manzarani ko’rasiz,…. Nosoz arava qachon yuradi?” [ Erkin A’zam.]

While reading works of Uzbek literature, we can observe different kinds of structure of meaning, through a totally different word it can be described different things, people, actin etc.

However, in English literature it is uncommon to find such kind of usage of terms related to transport.

After an hour their signal came, and they jogged up the ladder, and stood milling outside the hatchway for almost a minute before they were told to move to their boat. The decks were very slippery in the dawn, and they stumbled and cursed as they plodded along the deck. When they reached the davits which held their landing boat, they drew up in a rough file and began waiting again. Red shivered in the cold morning air. It was not yet six A.M., and the day had already the depressing quality which early mornings always had in the Army. It meant they were moving, it meant something new, something unpleasant.

All over the ship the debarkation activities were in different stages. A few landing craft were down in the water already, filled with troops and circling around the ship like puppies on a leash. The men in them waved at the ship, the flesh color of their faces unreal against the gray paint of the landing craft, the dawn blue of the sea. The calm water looked like oil. Nearer the platoon, some men were boarding a landing craft, and another one, just loaded, was beginning its descent into the water, the davit pulleys creaking from time to time. But over most of the ship men were still waiting like themselves.” [Norman Mailer. The Naked and The Dead. 1948.p.14]

In this piece of literature (about World War II) it can be seen the usage of several common terms related to transportation, like words, ladder, deck, ship, (landing) craft, pulleys.

Deck means a floor of a ship, especially the upper, open level extending for the full length of the vessel.

"he stood on the deck of his flagship" [Oxford English dictionary.1988.p.95]

Ship means a large boat for transporting people or goods by sea.

"the ship left England with a crew of 36"

Pulley means a piece of equipment consisting of a wheel over which a rope or chain is pulled to lift heavy things. [ Longman English dictionary.2014.p.356]

It can be read many transport words in different kinds of literature. But their usage differentiate from nation to nation, from country to country, according to their customs, traditions, way of thinking, lifestyle, and etc. All of them effects on their literature, how to use words, terms and word phrases.

One can conclude that although a major goal of terminological systems is the standardization of terminology to improve communication, the notions used in the literature to describe terminological systems themselves are not uniform, which makes it hard to communicate their underlying ideas. A good understanding of terminological systems is essential before one can assess whether an existing terminological system is appropriate for use in certain circumstances, or when one has to develop a new system. Therefore, a referential framework for understanding terminological systems is needed. Such a framework includes at least two components. First a terminology and typology of terminological systems and second a uniform (formal) representation of the structure of the terminological system.


The sociolinguistic approach to the study of the English and Uzbek terminology of transport as a system allowed us to trace the process of formation and development of the system of relations of terms in the language as a result of the reflection of the scientific and technological revolution (STD), which began in the second half of 50gg. XX century and ongoing now. Since the consistency of terminology is an integral part of the consistency of scientific knowledge in general, the paper was guided by the need to systematically structure the material under study, and then study the structural elements in their correlation with the given terminological designations.

The results obtained can be summarized as follows:

Logical and conceptual correlation of transport terms, their interaction and interdependence allow us to consider English and Uzbek transport terminology as a holistic terminological system, within which the terminological fields are distinguished: these are different types of cargo, types of vehicles carrying specific cargo, a system of ports, terminals, terms related to clearance used in this area of ​​documentation, etc. Terminological fields are mobile, open; constantly expanding their boundaries. Thus, English transport terminology is intensively expanded and updated. The specificity of the term, focused on the expression of a scientific concept, is also reflected in groups of terms that are ideographic in nature.

In English terminology, there are certain ways to form transport terms: lexico-semantic, morphological, syntactic.

As the analysis showed, a significant number of words translate into transport terminology from the commonly used English language, which is carried out by metaphorical transfer (semantic way of word formation).

When considering the morphological method of formation of transport terms, we can confirm that affixal word formation is distinguished by a strict semantic specialization of word-forming morphemes. Thus, the consistency of terms is provided by the specialization of word-formation means.

Composition and terminological phrases - very productive ways of terminology, enriching the English transport vocabulary. With their help, the existing terms are refined and modified to more accurately and fully express the emerging concepts. In the development of the English transport terminological system, along with the tendency towards accuracy, which leads to the formation of multicomponent terms, the opposite tendency towards brevity of designation also acts, with the result that the abbreviations are widely developed in the term under study.

A number of borrowings from Arabic, Greek, Latin, Spanish, Dutch, French, German, Russian and other languages, penetrating into English transport terminology at specific historical periods in the development of human society, testify to the close cooperation of specialists from all over the world in the field of international transport. They are important in the formation and formation of modern English and international transport terminology.

Very productive ways of replenishing transport terminology as a result of borrowing from English to Uzbek are tracing and transliteration. It should be noted that the terms formed as a result of calking are not used in this area to create new formations, while transliteration provides an extensive basis for the formation of new terms.

A distinctive feature of terminology in the field of modern science and technology is its international character, due to international interrelations in their development.

The process of forming and fixing terms is very complex and requires a lot of attention of linguists from different countries of the world. There is a constant analysis of the terminological formations that are already available and only entering the transport vocabulary, there is a selection of successful word-formation elements for creating new terms that become common to all languages, certain terminological equivalents are established from Russian, English, German, French, Spanish, etc. Since at present transport services of all sectors of the national economy and population include not only sea, but also other types of transport, the vocabulary of international transport communication is replenished with terms that in the past have been considered strictly industry-specific.

The education process of a modern international transport language is far from complete. Moreover, it is entering a new phase. Information exchange via the Internet is complemented by e-commerce and e-commerce processes. From the “electronic trading platforms” of the “Internet” in a single language, information is currently being read on the transportation needs of specific consignments, on concluded freight transactions and prices. Bases of international pricing are being created, for example, on prices for road haulage, on quotes for shipping rates in mixed messages. The tracking (tracing) of the movement of an individual vessel, car, container is carried out.

In the orbit of information exchange using terminological abbreviations and numeric codes include warehousing, parcel companies, insurance companies, customs and environmental services.

It is necessary to continue studying the process of creating a universal international language in global commercial transport practice and the sphere of human communication, in systems for transmitting and exchanging documentary information, and analyzing the concepts of international terms that practice shows are subject to change. The results of the work also show that it is necessary to move from training in industry transport terminology in transport universities to training in a single, universal, professional vocabulary, as the subject of training for a broad specialist - a mixed message operator.

However, further studies should be organized about Uzbek transport terminology comparing to different languages terminology. Because of having little information on transport terminology it may be difficult for learners to learn languages comparatively.


  1. Comparative Typology of English, Uzbek, Russian languages. M.I.Rasulova, Z.I.Shukurova. Tashkent .2017.

  2. Erkin A’zam. Nosoz arava qachon yuradi?.(2012.p.2)

  3. Karimov,Islam Abduganiyevich P. Decree “On Measures for Further Improvement of Foreign Languages”. ( December 10, 2012)

  4. Mirziyoyev, Shavkat Miromonovich P. Decree “On Measures for the Further development of the Higher Education System”. ( April 20, 2017)

  5. Omon Muxtor.Shayton arava. 2013.p.1

  6. Akhmanova Olga and Agapova Galina(eds.) Terminology: Theory and Method.-M: Moscow Univ.Press, 1974.

  7. Akhmanova O.S. Linguistic Terminology.- M.: Moscow Univ. Press, 1977.

  8. Ayto J. The Longman Register о New Words. London : Longman, 1989.

  9. Barnhart C.L., Steinmetz S., Barnhart R.K. A Dictionary of New English (1963-1973). London: Longman. 1973.

  10. Barnhart C.L., Steimetz S., Barnhart R.K. The Second Barnhart Dictionary of New English. N.Y., 1980.

  11. Bloomfield L. Language.-London, 1955.

  12. Bondarenko I. V. English marine terminology as a subject philological research.- М, 1992.               

  13. Buranav J. Comparative typology of English and Turkic languages

  14. Cambridge English Dictionary.2014

  15. Carter R., McCarthy M. Vocabulary and Language Teaching.— London, 1958.

  16. Chuntomova J. A. English transport terminology.-2004.               

  17. Code of Abbreviations. FIATA РОВ CH-8050 Zurich, Switzerland printed by Hochuly Dreeck AG 8ZA2 Zollikon (Switzerland) 2/94/3000 «РАМЭ», Москва,1996.

  18. Close R.A. A Reference Grammar for Students of English.-M. :Pros veshenie, 1979.

  19. David Cotton. Marine transport terminology. London 1976

  20. David Lowe. Dictionary of transport and logistics. 2002.

  21. Dictionary of Shipping Terms by Peter R. Brodie, f.i.c.s., third edition, London Hong Kong LLP Limited, 1997.

  22. Documents and Forms. Zurich.: FIATA, 1997.

  23. English -Russian Sea vocabulary Organizer: Shtekel. L.I.M.:RosKonsult, 2000.

  24. Gerhard Bein Vezeichnis Maritimer Englisher Abkurzungen und Kurzbeschreibungen / Glossary of Maritime English Terms and Abbreviations Rostock DDR VEB Deutschfracht/ Seerederei, 1984.

  25. Glossarium of Transport and Forwarding Terms. FIATA, Zurich, 2001.

  26. Guishiani Natalya. Modelling a Foreign Language for Special Purposes. The Bulletin IATEFL. London, 1979. October, No 60.

  27. Hill A. Introduction to Linguistic Structures. New York, 1958.

  28. Kendall Lane C. The Business of Shipping. Cambridge (USA): Cornel Maritime Press, Inc., 1976.

  29. Leech, G., Svartik J. Comprehensive Grammar of English.- M., 1983.

  30. Lotte D. S. Question of loan and streamlining’s speaking another language terms and elements of terms. — М, 1982.               

  31. Lotte D.S. How to work over terminology: Bases and methods.-M,1980.  

  32. Мagtimova М. А. Features of English transport terminology

  33. Mattews P.H.Morphology.An Introduction to the Theory of Word Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.Press, 1979.

  34. Marchand H. The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word Formation - Alabama: University of Alabama Press, 1969. 379p.

  35. McCarthy N. Vocabulary; — Oxford: Oxford. Univ.Press, 1990.

  36. Merriam Webster English Dictionary

  37. Norman Mailer. The Naked and the Dead.1948

  38. Sandal B. Middle English Sea Terms. Уо 1.1,2,3.-Stock- holm, 1982.

  39. The Oxford English Dictionary. 12 volumes/ Ed. by James A.H. Murray, Henry Bradley, W.A. Cragic, C.T. Onions. -Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978. Telberg Val. Russian-English Dictionary of Nautical Terms. -N. Y., 1964.

  40. Tver B.U. Ocean and. Marine Dictionary.-Cambridge:Cornell Maritime Press, 1979.

  41. The Marine Encyclopedic Dictionary, by Eric Sullivan F.I.C.S. London, Gulf Publishing, 1980.

  42. Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. Sprinrfield, 1989.

  43. Telberg Val. Russian-English Dictionary of Nautical Terms. -N. Y., 1964.

  44. Tver B.U. Ocean and. Marine Dictionary.-Cambridge:Cornell Maritime Press, 1979.

  45. The Marine Encyclopedic Dictionary, by Eric Sullivan F.I.C.S. London, Gulf Publishing, 1980.

  46. Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. Sprinrfield, 1989.










Download 191 Kb.

Do'stlaringiz bilan baham:
1   2   3   4   5

Ma'lumotlar bazasi mualliflik huquqi bilan himoyalangan © 2020
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling