1 republic of uzbekistan ministry of higher and secondary specialised education

The comparative typology and theory of translation. 
The 
comparative typology and the theory of translation are interconnected 
and they give necessary facts to each other in order to operate. Such a 
tie is a natural phenomenon as both of them deal with comparison. The 
most important thing for translation is the transformation of concrete 
content and here grammatical meaning can be changed. Theoretical 
generalization of isomorphous and allomorphous units of compared 
languages can be realized in typology by means of using the results of 
translation. Concrete peculiarities relating the comparative typology to 
the theory of translation are following: 1) common character of the plan 
of content; 2) identity of the process of comparison; 3) interlevel 
correspondence; 4) indifference to the genetic relationship.
 
Principle differential signs of comparative typology and the theory 
of translation are following: In spite of common operation and the 
presence of common features, there are some distinctions between the 
comparative typology and the theory of translation. Being independent 
both comparative typology and the theory of translation possess a row 
of distinctive peculiarities. The theory of translation possesses: 1) the 
freedom of choice and 2) distinctions in the plan of content. 
The freedom of choice is the choice of necessary variant without 
preserving one level correlation. This feature is less characteristic for 
the typology. The comparative typology deals with the determination 
of interlevel correspondence. 

---

115 
The freedom of choice can be used in the comparative typology 
too, but it is limited within the definite levels. So proceeding from the 
typological correspondence this category can be given in Turkic 
languages by 1) adding word-changing and word-forming morphemes 
to the stem of the verb, b) by means of nominated and non-nominated 
verbal combinations. Differing from the typologist the translator goes 
out of these regularities, as the most important thing for him is to 
convey the definite meaning in the other language; literal translation of 
the text can be made a) by preserving regularities of the system 
correspondence, b) by not preserving regularities of the system 
correspondence. In the first case the translator uses the synonymity, 
variantness, stylistic colourance of some words, forms, affixes and etc., 
in the second case he uses such means, which don't possess 
correspondence of typological regularities. Here the translator is 
compelled to make free translation. 
Under the plan of content we consider two kinds of meanings: I) 
abstract grammatical, 2) concrete lexical meanings. The first is called 
typological and the second is the basis for translation; these two kinds 
of meanings are interdependent. They can't exist without each other. 
Linguist Retsker (Я. И. Рецкер) is right to say: «Голая, лишенная 
лексического наполнения, грамматическая структура также мало 
показательна для переводчика, как железный каркас для будущих 
обитателей дома». (Теория перевода и переводческая практика. М. 
1974 , стр. 7-8). 
The concrete lexical meaning is expressed by means of words, 
phraseological units and grammatical meaning is expressed by 
connecting affixal morphemes to the root morphemes or stems, by 
phonetic modification of the root sound structure, by the complete 
change of the root, by order of words in the sentence, by the 
combination of function words with notional ones (analytical forms), 
by suppletion and modulation. The sum of the lexical-semantic 
categories is not restricted, and the sum of the grammatical categories 
is limited. Sometimes the change of grammatical structure of the 
sentence doesn't cause a change in content. The tourists will arrive 
tomorrow morning – Turistlar ertaga ertalab kelishayapti. As we see 
two kinds of grammatical structures of the sentence don't cause any 
change in the content of translation. Though the linguistic typology is 
closely connected with translation, the latter can't be the constituent 

---

116