ALISHER’S NAVOI CONTRIBUTION TO THE MORAL UPBRINGING OF YOUTH

Аннотация

Political texts are characterized by their formal style, ideological weight, and a dense network of specialized terms. Translating these texts requires more than lexical substitution; it demands a deep understanding of political systems, cultural frameworks, and discourse strategies. This article explores key terminological challenges encountered in the translation of political texts, particularly from Uzbek into English, and proposes strategies to maintain terminological accuracy and pragmatic relevance. 1. Introduction. The translation of political texts poses unique challenges due to the presence of specialized terminology rooted in a specific socio-political context. Terms such as Oliy Majlis (the national parliament in Uzbekistan) or Yangi O‘zbekiston (New Uzbekistan) reflect not only institutional realities but also ideological and cultural nuances. A literal or semantically narrow translation often leads to loss of meaning, distortion of political intent, or pragmatic ambiguity. Thus, achieving accurate terminological equivalence is crucial for preserving the integrity of political communication. 2. Nature of Terminological Problems in Political Translation 2.1. Cultural and Conceptual Gaps. Many political terms do not have direct equivalents in the target language due to differing political systems and cultural experiences. For example: “Mahalla” is a traditional Uzbek community structure with administrative functions. Translating it as neighborhood loses the institutional and cultural significance it carries. 2.2. Institutional Mismatch Terms tied to specific political bodies or governance models pose equivalence issues. For instance: Oliy Majlis should not be translated as Supreme Assembly (which has vague or different connotations in English), but rather as the Parliament of the Republic of Uzbekistan, with appropriate contextual explanation if necessary. 2.3. Newly Coined and Ideologically Loaded Terms. Modern political narratives often introduce new terms that lack established equivalents in English: - Yangi O‘zbekiston – While translatable as New Uzbekistan, the term carries ideological significance related to ongoing reforms, national branding, and political aspirations. 3. Common Translation Mistakes 3.1. Literal Translation. Over-literal translations tend to ignore the term’s pragmatic and discursive context: - Davlat mustaqilligi → incorrect: state freedom; correct: state independence - Tashqi siyosiy faoliyat → incorrect: outside politics; correct: foreign policy activity 3.2. Stylistic Inconsistency. Political texts are highly formal. Informal or colloquial translations diminish their rhetorical authority: - Tinchliksevar siyosat → rather than peace-loving policy, a more stylistically consistent rendering is peace-oriented policy. 4. Strategies for Addressing Terminological Challenges 134 - Use of glossing and explanatory translation: When no equivalent exists, a brief explanation helps convey the concept. Example: Mahalla → a self-governing local community institution in Uzbekistan. - Contextual equivalence approach: Identify the function and meaning of the term in the source context and seek a target equivalent that performs a similar function. - Reference to institutional terminologies: Use official terminology from international bodies (UN, OSCE, EU) when applicable to ensure consistency and recognition. - Terminological consistency: Maintain uniformity in term usage across the entire text to prevent confusion or ambiguity. Conclusion. Terminological precision is essential in political translation to ensure not only linguistic accuracy but also ideological and communicative effectiveness. A translator must be linguistically competent and politically literate, able to navigate institutional equivalence, cultural references, and rhetorical subtleties. The use of explanatory translation, terminological databases, and cross-referencing with official institutional sources are key strategies to overcome terminological challenges.