RE-EXPRESSION OF THE ARTICLE CATEGORY IN TRANSLATION INTO AN ARTICLE-LESS LANGUAGE

Authors

  • Yulduzxon Okhunjonova Avazjon qizi Tashkent State Transport University, Tashkent, Uzbekistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.62536/sjehss.2026.v4.i11.pp1-8

Keywords:

Definiteness; articles; article-less languages; differential object marking; English–Uzbek translation; grammatical transformation

Abstract

English marks almost every noun phrase as definite or indefinite by means of a/an, the or zero. Uzbek has no articles and expresses similar distinctions optionally and in part through the numeral bir 'one', demonstratives, possessive suffixes, the accusative suffix -ni, the genitive -ning, word order and context. This article examines how the information carried by English articles can be rendered in Uzbek translation and where it is lost or altered. English sentences representing the main article uses were compared with their Uzbek translation variants in terms of grammaticality, naturalness and referential meaning. The uses analysed were first mention, anaphoric, associative, situational, unique, generic, predicative and specific indefinite. Most article uses have no overt Uzbek counterpart, and generic, unique and predicative uses in particular are rendered by bare nouns. Overt means appear under specific conditions. Bir introduces important new referents, demonstratives and pronouns maintain anaphoric reference with general nouns such as kishi 'person', and possessive suffixes render associative uses. The accusative and genitive suffixes distinguish definite objects and possessors from non-specific ones, and word order in existential sentences separates new from known subjects. The accusative suffix is the main source of unintended change, since an English indefinite object marked with -ni receives a specific or definite reading in Uzbek. Rendering the English article therefore requires a choice among several grammatical means, most of which serve other functions in Uzbek.

References

1.Aissen, J. (2003). Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 21(3), 435–483.

2.Baker, M. (2018). In other words: A coursebook on translation (3rd ed.). Routledge.

3.Barkhudarov, L. S. (1975). Yazyk i perevod: Voprosy obshchei i chastnoi teorii perevoda [Language and translation: Issues of general and specific translation theory]. Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya.

4.Blum-Kulka, S. (1986). Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation. In J. House & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlingual and intercultural communication (pp. 17–35). Gunter Narr.

5.Catford, J. C. (1965). A linguistic theory of translation. Oxford University Press.

6.Chesterman, A. (1991). On definiteness: A study with special reference to English and Finnish. Cambridge University Press.

7.Dryer, M. S. (2013a). Definite articles. In M. S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. https://wals.info/chapter/37

8.Dryer, M. S. (2013b). Indefinite articles. In M. S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. https://wals.info/chapter/38

9.Enç, M. (1991). The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry, 22(1), 1–25.

10.Hawkins, J. A. (1978). Definiteness and indefiniteness: A study in reference and grammaticality prediction. Croom Helm.

Downloads

Published

2026-11-05

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

RE-EXPRESSION OF THE ARTICLE CATEGORY IN TRANSLATION INTO AN ARTICLE-LESS LANGUAGE. (2026). Sciental Journal of Education Humanities and Social Sciences, 4(11), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.62536/sjehss.2026.v4.i11.pp1-8