Oʻzbekcha
O‘ZBEK EKOLOGIK TERMINLARINING INGLIZ TILIDAGI ILMIY VA OMMABOP DISKURSDA QO‘LLANILISHI HAMDA TARJIMA XUSUSIYATLARI
Дата публикации
14.10.2026
Журнал
Filologiyaning dolzarb masalalari
Выпуск
“Filologiyaning dolzarb masalalari” mavzusidagi respublika ilmiy-amaliy anjumani
Аннотация
Maqolada o‘zbek ekologik birliklarining inglizcha ilmiy va ommabop matnlardagi ifodasi qiyoslanadi. Sifat tahlili 6 mintaqaviy birlik va o‘zbekcha variantlari mavjud 5 global terminni qamrab oladi. Ilmiy matnlarda ta’rif, lotincha nom va tasnifiy belgilar, ommabop matnlarda esa ko‘rinish, vazifa va joylashuvga asoslangan izohlar ustunligi kuzatildi. Global terminlarni inglizchaga qayta o‘girishda noto‘g‘ri kalka xavfi aniqlandi. Atamani saqlab, izohni auditoriyaga moslashtirish tavsiya etiladi. Natijalar kichik maqsadli tanlanma doirasida talqin qilinadi.
Ключевые слова
ekologik termin
ilmiy diskurs
ommabop diskurs
tarjima
terminologik variantlilik
teskari tarjima.
English
The article compares Uzbek ecological units in English scientific and popular texts. The qualitative analysis covers six regional units and five global terms with variant Uzbek forms. Scientific texts favour definitions, Latin names and classificatory features, while popular texts favour explanations based on appearance, function and location. Translating global terms back into English can produce misleading calques. The study recommends retaining the term while adapting its explanation to the audience. The findings are limited to a small purposive sample.
ecological terminology
scientific discourse
popular discourse
translation
terminological variation
back-translation.
1. Calsamiglia, H., & van Dijk, T. A. (2004). Popularization discourse and knowledge about the genome. Discourse & Society, 15(4), 369–389. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926504043705
2. Lu, H., Hao, X., & Zhang, Y. (2024). Popularization and scientization in terminology translation: A case study of interlingual terminological shifts in the Chinese-English translation of San Ti (Three Body). Terminology, 30(2), 250–284. https://doi.org/10.1075/term.23015.lu
3. Rakhimova, N. K., Shomurodov, K. F., Sharipova, V. K., Saitjanova, U. S., & Sadinov, J. S. (2023). Using biodiversity indices to assess the current state of tugai vegetation of the Amu Darya River, Uzbekistan. Biodiversitas, 24(1), 467–472. https://doi.org/10.13057/biodiv/d240153
4. Salmukhanbetova, Zh. K., Imanalinova, A. A., Dimeyeva, L. A., & Zverev, N. E. (2021). State of saxaul plantations in Kazakhstan’s section of the Aral Sea region. Central Asian Journal of Water Research, 7(1), 128–157. https://doi.org/10.29258/CAJWR/2020-R1.v7-1/128-157.eng
5. Hyolmo, S. L. (2024, May 29). Uzbekistan plants a forest where a sea once lay. Mongabay. https://news.mongabay.com/2024/05/uzbekistan-plants-a-forest-where-a-sea-once-lay/
6. Ravshanov, A. S., & Akhmedov, H. A. (2020). History of irrigation sciences in Uzbekistan. International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation, 24(3), 3524–3529. https://doi.org/10.37200/IJPR/V24I3/PR2020368
7. Rahimova, M. (2025). Problems of translating ecological neologisms in media texts. The Lingua Spectrum, 10(1), 279–284. https://lingvospektr.uz/index.php/lngsp/article/view/1122
8. Arifjanova, N. (2025). Characteristics of ecological term formation in the English and Uzbek languages. The Lingua Spectrum, 6(1), 157–165. https://lingvospektr.uz/index.php/lngsp/article/view/932
