Translation problems of the novel "The old man and the sea" by Ernest Hemingway

Transliteration - writing a word in a different alphabet, is often associated with transcription. However, strictly speaking, the notion of transliteration is based on representing written characters of one language by the characters of another language.

I. Gafurov, translating The Old Man and the Sea, used several methods of translation and where it was possible to repeat the technique of Hemingway he did it but when it was impossible he had to use his own to create his masterpiece, for example, the sentence below proves it.

Ibrakhim Gafurov translated “The Old Man and the Sea” into Uzbek from the Russian variant. By translating the novel he used transcription, transliteration and calque methods of translation and direct and oblique translation techniques some of them, we are going to analyze below:

1)He was an old man who fished alone in a skiff in the Gulf Stream and he had gone eighty-four days now without taking a fish.

Старик рыбачил один на своей лодке в Гольфстриме. Вот уже восемьдесят четыре дня он ходил в море и не поймал ни одной рыбы.

Чол ?айи?да ёл?из ўзи Гольфстримда бали? овларди. Денгизга чи?аётганига мана саксон тўрт кун ?ам тўлди, аммо ?али биронта бали? тутганича йў?.

In the translations of this example we see a lot of different tools:

The translator from the Russian applied grammatical transformation, where the sentence partitioning is, the replacement of the complex sentence with two independent sentences in the target text for structural, semantic or stylistic reasons. Hemingway used here the defining relative clause, but the Russian translator led to free translation and remade it into simple sentences, but the Uzbek translator transladed word-for-word and did it as in the Russian version.

The easiest technique of translation is transcription, or copying the sound form of the source language word by means of the target language letters: Gulf Stream - Гольфстрим, from English into Russian the translator used transcription, but from Russian into Uzbek was used transliteration: Гольфстрим - Гольфстрим.

The words an old man have the translation and here the modulation was used, which is a logical development of the notion expressed by the word: an old man - старик. The primary equivalent of the combination an old man is старик. The Russian translator used the metonymical closeness of the word meanings, based on contiguity of the two notions. But the Uzbek translator used here calque, denotative meaning of the word старик - чол.

The word свой is not used, in English and Uzbek versions. The Russian translator added this word would like to say something and this method of translation we call addition.

2) … he always went down to help him carry either the coiled lines or the gaff and harpoon and the sail that was furled around the mast.

... и он выходил на берег, чтобы помочь ему отнести домой снасти или багор, гарпун и обёрнутый вокруг мачты парус.

У чолнинг ускуналари, чангак, гарпун ва мачтага ўралган елканларини ташишга ёрдамлашгани ?ир?о??а келарди.

Analysis of the second example showed that the words the lines, gaff and harpoon were translated as ускуналари, чангак, гарпун. The word harpoon was simple transliterated as гарпун in both Russian and Uzbek, that's why this method is perfectly applied.

3) But after forty days without a fish the boy's parents had told him that the old man was now definitely and finally salao, which is the worst form of unlucky, and the boy had gone at their orders in another boat which caught three good fish the first week.

Но день за днем не приносил улова, и родители сказали мальчику, что старик теперь уже явно salao, то есть «самый что ни на есть невезучий», и велели ходить в море на другой лодке, которая действительно привезла три хорошие рыбы в первую же неделю.

?адеганда ?ўли ?уру? ?айтавергач, ота-онаси унга энди чолнинг ўта-кетган Sаlао, яъни «ўлгудай омади юришмаган одам» эканини айтиб, бундан буён бош?а ?айи?да денгизга чи?иш кераклигини ?уло?ига ?уйдилар.

Ibrahim Gafurov used here a descriptive translation but he could have used calque insted of a desctiptive translation because in Uzbek we have the word омадсиз which is equvalent to unlucky.

4) It made the boy sad to see(1) the old man come in each day with his skiff empty and he always went down to help him(2) carry either the coiled lines or the gaff and harpoon and the sail that was furled around the mast.

Мальчику тяжело было смотреть(1), как старик каждый день возвращается ни с чем, и он выходил на берег, чтобы помочь ему(2) отнести домой снасти или багор, гарпун и обернутый вокруг мачты парус.

Деярли ?ар куни чолнинг денгиздан ?уру? ?айтаётганлигини кўриб бола ич-ичидан эзилар эди(1). У чолнинг ускуналари, чангак, гарпун ва мачтага ўралган елканларини ташишга ёрдамлашгани ?ир?о??а келарди.

Here we see that both translators used a word-for-word translation, but there are some nuances which should be analyzed.

(1)The word sad as an adjective is a polysemantic word. As a direct sense the word sad has been translated into Russian печальный, грустный, унылый (New English Russion Dictionary), but here a phrasal verb “to make smb. sad” is used - делать кого-л, грустным/печальным/унылым. The Russian translator used here Grammar transformations where morphological and syntactical changes were done in translated units. He couldn't have left stylistic device used by the writer, and would have translated into Russian directly as Это oпечалило мальчика…. But he did not do that The impersonal sentence wouldn't sound properly. The Uzbek translator also used a grammatical transformation, word order change at translating and, in order to arise sensitivity, he used addition and repetition techniques. These couldn't help to keep a stylistic device of the writer, but helped to transfer a proper meaning of the sentence.

(2)The Russian translator translated word-for-word, but the Uzbek one used a complex transformation, omission. Insted of translating the complex sentence, he decided to remake it into two simple sentences. Therefore, to produce the same impact upon the receptor as does the original, the translator has to partition the Russian sentence and make it more adaptable to a Uzbek reader, but he could have kept the same structure and translate: ?ар куни ?арияни икки эшкакли ?айи?и бўш ?айтаётганлигини кўриб чолга ?ай?урар эди ва чолга ёрдам бериш учун ?ир?о??а ускуналари, чангак, гарпун ва мачтага ўралган елканларини ташишга ёрдамлашгани борар эди.

5) The sail was patched with Hour sacks and(1), furled, it looked like the flag of permanent(2) defeat.

Парус был весь в заплатах из мешковины и(1), свернутый, напоминал знамя наголову разбитого полка(2).

Да?ал матодан тў?илган елкан ямалавериб(1), ола-?уро? бўлиб кетган, ўро?ли? ?олда яксони чи??ан полкнинг(2) яловига ўхшарди.

(1)This sentence is full of figurative words, which make understand the content meaning difficult. Hemingway's figurativ words add a unique style to his work; using figurative words or expressions he achieves the effect of being heard or spoken or transcribed from reality rather than appearing as a construct of the imagination. Both translators fail to convey the connotation of this simile. Their literal renditions do not reveal the meaning. In fact, this description "intensifies the idea of Santiago's failure as a fisherman. The old man's physical features have been worn away like the land, and this emphasizes the idea of Santiago's age and of his character. Like the land, he is old but he survives, despite the erosion". It seems difficult to find a similar simile conveying the same connotation as that intended by Hemingway, but the problem can be solved, either by providing the reader with such information in footnotes in order to create the context of the situation and make the translation more communicative and natural, or by making the intended meaning plain, without using a simile. Though the connotation content couldn't be transfered by translators, we find the following example to be very interesting with grammar substitution, when a grammar category of the translated unit was changed. Thus, a passive construction was translated by an active voice verb form and the Uzbek translation was also made skillfully, reproducing the sentence structure in passive construction and using addition (ола-?уро? бўлиб кетган) to intensify a lanscape painting.

(2)The word permanent is translated into Russian постоянная огневая позиция, долговременное огневое сооружение, долговременная оборона, but the Russian translator chose the word полк which is not corresponding to the equivalence of translation. We think that the translator did his best to find a proper means of translation. But the Uzbek translator transliterated the word полк though in Uzbek dictionary we have words like ?ўшин, лашкар, which can be used in place of полк. This word came from Russian and by reading the Uzbek translation we feel the influence of the Russian culture.

6) Everything about him was old except his eyes and they were the same color as the sea and were cheerful and undefeated. (1)

Все у него было старое, кроме глаз, а глаза были цветом похожи на море, весёлые глаза человека, который не сдаётся. (1)

Чолда нимаики бор бўлса, бари ?ам эски, фа?ат денгиз тусини олган мовий, мардона одамларникига хос(1) ?увно? кўзлари бундан мустасно эди.

These translations are very close to the original, but anyway we couldn't say that they are for hundred per cent identical, because the copulative conjunction and was used by the writer, but both translators while translating didn't use it, they made a complex sentence.

(1)In this example we see that the Uzbek translator used antonymous translation, which is describing the situation by the target language from the opposite angle. The word undefeated has equivalent енгилмас, but the Uzbek translator chose antonymous translation to show that Santiago was one of the courageous men. And we think, Ibrahim Gafurov's choice was an error. And in a case like that it would be better to translate the following sentence this way: Унда нимаики бўлса хаммаси эски, ва фа?атгина унинг кўзлари худди денгиз рангида ?увна? ва енгилмас эди.

(7) When the wind was in the east a smell came across the harbour from the shark factory; but today there was only the faint edge of the odour because the wind had backed into the north and then dropped off and it was pleasant and sunny on the Terrace.

Когда ветер дул с востока, он приносил вонь с акульей фабрики; но сегодня запаха почти не было слышно, потому что ветер переменился на северный, а потом стих, и на Террасе было солнечно и приятно.

Шамол шар?дан эсди дегунча, ўзи билан акула корхонасининг ?ўланса ?идини олиб келарди; аммо бугун ?ид деярли сезилмас, чунки шамол шимолдан эса бошлаб, кўп ўтмай бутунлай тинган эди. Шунинг учун ?ам Террас сер?уёш ва сўлим эди.

The author has a great talent to describe the landscape, when somebody reads this part he\she feels at ease (him\herself inside happening). And analyzing the translations we should say that both translators were able to transfer Hemingway's style, even punctuation marks were carried over into translations.

(8) One of the most characteristic features of the writer is, as we said above, his figurative language which plays an important role in literary works and their perception among the readership. It draws the author's experience and clarifies his intent in a fairly pleasant and artistic way. Figurative language is so effective since it helps readers visualize what the author is telling in an imaginative fashion. In other words, whenever one meets a figurative tool while reading a literary piece, he is more likely to imagine the concept being described and then fully understands the author's intended meaning. But, it is very important that the translators would be able to understand the connotative meaning which would be hidden in the content and find simile, and an appropriate metaphor which could substitute the original or the ST. We know that a figurative language has several types (simile, metaphor, personification, apostrophe, metonymy (and synecdoche), symbol, allegory, paradox, overstatement, understatement, verbal irony, dramatic irony, irony of situation) and it simplifies the literary translator's job, and at last reduces the target reader's effort to understand the meaning. For example:

9) But none of these scars were fresh. They were as old as erosion in a fishless desert.

Однако свежих шрамов не было. Они были стары, как трещины в давно уже безводной пустыне.

Аммо бу излар ичида янгиси йў?, ?аммаси ?ам узо? сувсизликдан ?а?раб ётган биёбон дарзлари сингари кў?на эди.

The following sentence consists of simile and if the Russian translator translated it word-for-word, he would make a mistake because the reader couldn't understand the translation, the reference to erosion in a fishless desert is a metaphor that capitalized on both Santiago's age and his profession. Santiago is old, and the scars and wrinkles in his face and hands are the result of a long association with the sea. Erosion is usually a result of water, while desert sands can erode from wind, this more likely refers to the old oceans that used to cover many deserts, and the eroded bedrock underneath the sands. Those erosions have been there since there were fish in the desert: a very long time ago. Similarly, Santiago's erosions started when he was young, and are now as old as the life he has spent on the water.

And the Uzbek translator used the word кў?на, this word is a literal word, which is seldom used in the oral speech, and is translated as very old or ancient, which adds fine words to translation. But we couldn't say about the metaphor a fishless desert, which was translated into the Russian language as безводная пустыня and into Uzbek as ?а?раб ётган биёбон. As we mentioned above, the Uzbek version of the novel was translated through the Russian variant, and when we take into consideration the fact that the metaphor безводная пустыня, it should be translated as сувсиз са?ро, and the translator did a mistake of choosing the word биёбон instead of са?ро, a semantical mistake was made, the reason is that the word пустыня has many equivalents in the Uzbek language as чўл, дашт, са?ро, биёбон, but we know the metaphor readymade expressions which can't be substituted with the other words.

(10) He always thought of the sea as la mar which is what people call her in Spanish when they love her.

Мысленно он всегда звал море la mar, как зовут его по-испански люди, которые его любят.

У ?ар доим денгизни, унга му?аббат ?ўйган ?амма кишилар каби хаёлидан испанчасига la mar деб атарди.

The writer used here the Spanish word la mar which is translated into English the sea and what is interesting here, he compares the same words with each other, though the semantical denotation is the same, but they are given in different languages, may be that way he would like to show that the fisherman was a Spaniard. And how have the translators solved the semantical problem in translation? As we see they have left the word in Spanish and reproduced the same image in the target language. (This procedure is employed if the image has comparable frequency and similar associations in the appropriate register.)

(11) He came like a pig to the trough if a pig had a mouth so wide that you could put your head in it.

Она подошла, словно свинья к своему корыту, только у свиньи нет такой огромной пасти, чтобы разом откусить человеку голову.

Келганда ?ам, тосини ?ўмсаган тўн?издай бўлиб келди, зотан одам бошини бир йўла, па??ос ямлаб ютиш учун чўч?ада бундай ялмо?из о?из йў?, холос.

The word like is a word that expresses the comparative figure of speech simile expressions. he came like is translated into Она подошла kak, he here is instead of the shark - акула. It is not strange that the gender has been changed. In the English language, the word shark is masculine, and in Russian, it is female, and in the Uzbek language is neutral. The Uzbek translator decided not to use a personal pronoun he omitted it. To select a proper equivalent to the English pronoun, a translator should clearly understand the function of the pronoun in the sentence.

And the word a pig is changed with a wild-boar and instead of the word the trough he used тос, though we have an equivalent to this word камгак. We think, that the translator used a lexical substitution. From the two meanings above we know that each one has a meaning element of an independent and not related to each other. These translations use the literal translation method in accordance with the principle of literal translation that has the primary meaning of the same but slightly modified wording so that it can be accepted by the reader.

And here there is one bright example of addition which was added by the Uzbek translator to the following phrase: бундай ялмо?из о?из, in the text Baba-Yaga didn't exist, may be the translator wanted to exaggerate the meaning. It will be better to translate this sentence lika: У худди ўзини камгагига келган чўч?ага ўхшарди, унинг о?зи ўп?онга ўхшаган катталикда бўлиб, бошингизни бемалол си?арди.

(12) We find some metaphors in the novel and the translators were able to translate them. For example:

"You're my alarm clock," the boy said.

- Ты для меня все равно что будильник, - сказал мальчик.

- Сен мен учун на? ?ўн?иро? соатнинг ўзисан,- деди бола.

In the above expression, the phrase you are my alarm clock ... is used to express the old man. If both are compared, the element that has the same meaning would be a person who wakes smb. up (SL) / кто-то, кто вас разбудит/ сизни уй?атувчи кимса (TL), and distinguishing the meaning of the old man who is human (SL) / человек / одам (TL) and alarm clock is an object driven by mechanical power. It compares two concepts alarm clock that interact with the old man it means that there are deviations, we would like to conclude that the sentence above use metaphorical figure of speech. Categorized using the literal translation method because every element of the word translated with the meaning closest to the source language, but does not deviate from the actual context.

(13) […] and I'm the towing bitt.

[…] а я сам изображаю буксирный битенг.

[…] ўзим-ку буксир битенгига ўхшаб ?оляпман.

The same as in the previous analysis, the towing bitt represents the old man, so the distinguishing meaning of the two terms is: the old man as a human being, the towing bitt as a logs floating in the water and pulled. Comparison between the two concepts the old man and the towing bitt shows that there is a mismatch of meanings. But when we look back, we understand the meaning of the sentence above because it includes the word I'm, explaining that the culprit is played by the old man, who was on the boat and towed by a fish hooked by him and both translators couldn't transfer the meaning of the metaphor.

From the translation it is clear that this metaphor caused difficulties in translation. It will be better to translate the following sentence in this way: Мен эса ар?он бо?лайдиган тўнгакка ўхшийман, because the Uzbek reader couldn't understand буксир битенг, though in the Uzbek language these words exist but they are used very seldom.

14) “Now,? he said. „ You can let the cord go, hand, and I will handle him with the arm alone until you stop that nonsense.”

- Ну вот, - сказал он. - Теперь, рука, ты можешь отпустить лесу; я совладаю с ней одной правой рукой, покуда ты не перестанешь валять дурака.

- Хўш, энди, ?ўл,- деди у,- сен чилвирни ?ўйиб юборсанг ?ам бўлар. Майнавозчилигинг тугамагунча, ўнг ?ўлим билан эвини ?илиб тураман.

The above expression contains a figure of speech called personification because if we analyze the word nonsense, it has two meanings: 1) as a connotative meaning - a temporary partial paralysis of habitually or excessively used muscles. 2) as a denotative meaning - spoken or written words that have no meaning or make no sense. When considering any deviation above, there are two meanings of the word cramp which is the state of the left hand -it was stiff and cramping, but the translators use the term валять дурака and майнавозчилиг to represent the state of the left hand, even though the term валять дурака or майнавозчилиг is a one feeling only felt by human beings. If we categorize the translations, we should say that both translators used a communicative translation technique. The translations above show that the translator translated the language and choice of words that are simpler and more easily read and understood by the reader, and the message contained in the phrase could also be easily up to the reader.

15) In the novel 43 figures of speech have been found that are categorized as personification. Thus, we conclude that the most dominant used tool in the novel The Old Man and the Sea is personification. Personification in the novel is illustrated when the old man talks about a jellyfish, turtles, birds, and most importantly, the marlin and sharks, as if they were people; the old man gives them thought processes, even personalities. Here is one more example for personification.

"Eat it(1) a little more," he said. "Eat it(1) well."

Eat it(1) so that the point of the hook goes into your heart and kills you, he thought. Come up easy and let me put the harpoon into you. All right. Are you ready? Have you been long enough at table(3)?

- Поешь(1) ещё немножко, - сказал он. - Ешь(1), не стесняйся(2). "Ешь(1) так, чтобы острие крючка попало тебе в сердце и убило тебя насмерть, - подумал он. - Всплыви сама и дай мне всадить в тебя гарпун. Ну вот и ладно. Ты готова? Насытилась вволю(3)?"

- Яна пича есанг-чи(1),- деди у.- Еявер(1), уялма(2). «Шундай егинки(1), токи ?армо? илгаги на? юрагингга бориб етсину, тил торт?измай гумдон ?илсин сени(4),- деб ўйлади у.- Ўзинг ёнимга чи??ин, бу ё?ига гарпун санчишни менга ?ўйиб бер. Шундо? бўлсин. ?алай, тайёрмисан? Роса тўйиб олдингми(3)?»

The same as in the previous expression analysis, human qualities were given to the fish and the hook. They are representing a non-human thing as if they were human. Here, personification gives emotion and desire to them. We mentioned above that the favorite Hemingway's technique is repetition, which was used in this part of the novel. Repetition as well really could cause many problems in translation. As we have said, variose emotions are presented, like crave for hunting the fish, feeling of pity, feeling of pride, feeling of irritation. The duty of the translator is to reproduce all these emotions in translation.

(1) We see that both translators in their translation used Hemingway's tool - repetition. All their efforts to reproduce the repetition were achieved.

(2) Both translators used the oblique translation namely the method of addition. In the original text we couldn't find the equivalence to the notion of не стесняйся/ уялма, it is an evidence that the translators accepted fish and the old man as friends. To prove our logical thoughts, we add that only in the Russian and Uzbek culture friends could be treated so kindly.

(3) To be long enough at table it is a metaphor which has connotative meaning - to be quite full or to eat to satiety, both translators were able to give adequate translation.

(4) Ibrahim Gafurov used the metaphor “тил торт?измай гумдон ?илсин сени”, which defines an immediately causing death. It is a literal translation with using addition.

16) Next examples are presented to show an overstatement and understatement. Overstatement, or hyperbole, is simply an exaggeration, but exaggeration in the service of truth. Like all figures of speech, overstatement may be used with a variety of effects. It may be humorous, or grave, fanciful or restrained, convincing or unconvincing. And Understatement is paradoxical. One can emphasize a truth either by overstating it or by understating it. Understatement, or saying less than one means, may exist in what one says or merely in how one says it. We may use either to say what is literally true but with a good deal more or less force than is warranted. For example, we may say that the meaning is simply "more" (worse) than what is literally expressed. However, understatement often signifies an attitude rather than merely hinting at a camouflaged idea. As is the case of irony, the function of understatement often lies in the tension between the viewpoint literally expressed and what the receiver takes to be the sender's view. The key difference between understatement and irony is the form of the conflict. Irony uses contrast or opposition. Understatement uses reduction. Because the literal statement diminishes the importance or the magnitude of the subject matter, it can, at times, be taken as an example of a judgment and call for sympathy and compassion. In The Old Man and the Sea, we found more overstatements than understatements.

[…] and with his eyes closed there was no life in his face.

[…] с закрытыми глазами, оно казалось совсем неживым.

[…] ?озир кўзлари юмилиб уй?уга кетганда, худди жонсизга ўхшаб кўринарди.

The expression above uses a figure of speech overstatement of the sentence below: with his eyes closed - с закрытыми глазами, кўзлари юмилиб уй?уга кетганда, there was no life - совсем неживым / жонсизга ўхшаб. The both sentences have a true meaning of sleep (SL / сон / уй?у (TL), and the second sentence is like death man (SL) / совсем неживым / жонсизга ўхшаб (TL), so when they are well combined it would be he slept like the dead men (SL) / Он спал как мёртвый человек / У худди улган инсонга ўхшаб ухларди. (TL). It seemed right that the author focused on the true meaning. The author also gives the impression of exaggerating in the expression above. The method that is used in the above expression is literal.

17) A man is never lost at sea and it is a long island.

- И все.(1) Разве можно заблудиться в море? К тому же остров у нас длинный.

- Вассалом.(1) Денгизда ?ам адашиб бўлармишми? Оролимизку, кичкина эмас, чўзилгандан чўзилиб кетган.

The above expression is classified as a figure of speech understatement as the author intended it to be what we really want to disclose but not really state clearly and use reduction, and diminishes the important or the magnitude of the subject matter. In this phrase the author wants to reduce the importance of the sense of the old man actually is the old man felt lonely and too far sail up to the middle of the sea, the old man has fear, fear of not being able to return to the village where he lives, fear the old man communicates with the expression that reduces the true meaning of a man is never lost at sea. The actual phrase is going to be “I was too far away sailing, I would get lost somewhere along the way back home, I should point to the southwest, the island of my village was long, must be easily visible from a distance” (SL) / Мен жуда узо??а сузиб кетдим, уйга ?айтаётиб ?аердадир адашиб ?олишим мумкин, шуни айтиб ўтиш керакки мен жануб ва ?арбга йўналишим керак, менинг ?ишло?им жойлашган орол жуда узун, узо?дан уни пай?амаслик ?ийин бўлса кере (TL). The translation method applied in translating of this figure of speech above is a literal translation method because the translator has chosen the same meaning as the equivalent of the source text words, but the wording has been changed in order to appreciate the structure of the target language. And we should point to the structure of the sentence it is viewable that the Uzbek translation was done from the Russian, because both translators used here similar structure, they used the method of addition (1) and reproduced from the simple sentence into disjunctive question.

As we mentioned before while the translating process were used many complex transformations like: explicatory translation(addition), reduction (omission, implication), integral transformation, antonymic translation, complex compensation.

18) Most fishermen hated the taste.

Большинству рыбаков вкус этого жира казался отвратительным, […]

Аксар бали?чилар бу мойнинг тамини ўлгудай ?ўланса деб топишар, […]

The Russian translation version is good, but we couldn't say that about the Uzbek translation. The translator tried to do it with the help of integral transformation. The replacement of a set phrase was done with another clichйd structure that had the same speech function as he thought, but we can't say that it was successful. The word “?ўланса” can not be an adequate translation to the connotation meaning, because the word “?ўланса” is translated into English fetid and used with a human body, which an Uzbek reader cannot accept.

19) If you're not tired, fish," he said aloud, "you must be very strange.

- Если ты еще не устала, - сказал он вслух, - ты и в самом деле - необыкновенная рыба.

- Агар сен ?али ?ам чарчамаган бўлсанг,- деди у овоз чи?ариб,- гапнинг ў?ил боласи шуки, мислсиз бали? экансан.

The Russian version was done with a word-for -word tool and here we didn't notice any problem in translation. In the Uzbek version we found some coincidence with the ST. May be the Uzbek translator used a metaphor so that the receptor would have a better understanding of the phrase. The reason, why this transformation is required, is in the dissimilarity between the language structures, with the source language structure being incomplete for the target language. It would have been more successful if the translator didn't use addition, because it did not add sense to the translation, but rather it lost the style of the author.

20) "He'll take it," the old man said aloud. "God help him to take it." He did not take it though.

- Клюнет, - сказал старик вслух. - Клюнет, дай ей бог здоровья! Но она не клюнула.

- Чў?ийди - деди чол овоз чи?ариб.- Чў?ийди, худоё дард кўрмагур!

There are also some problems, namely misunderstanding of the phrase God help him to take it. And the Uzbek translator through the Russian translation made the same mistake. If we translate the Uzbek phrase худоё дард кўрмагур into the English language, it will sound as God bless him, which is not an adequate translation.

21) Hard and cold and lovely. Don't be shy, fish. Eat them.

Он ведь твёрдый, прохладный, прямо объедение. Не стесняйся, рыба. Ешь, прошу тебя.

Ахир у шундай ?ам сўл?иллаган, муздаккина, бир ширинки, ?ўяверасан. ?исиниб- ?имтиниб ўтирма, бали?. Егин, ол, есанг-чи, ўтинаман сендан.

The example above can be for mistranslating words, the Russian translator couldn't reproduce the word lovely which is translated into Russian as восхитительный, красивый, миловидный. May be, the word восхитительный would match with meal, because we say восхитительнaя еда, восхитительное блюдо. The connotative meaning of прямо объедение contains the meaning of lovely. But why he used oblique translation instead of direct translation? Because it is better!

To strengthen the content both translators added the word прошу/ ўтинаман, it means to beg. From the content it is clear that the old man begged the fish, but the writer didn't mention it, but from the content it was clear.

However careful the translator may be in seeking appropriate words to transfer the ST to the TT effectively, it is inevitable that his translation may deviate in some points from the original for one reason or another. Mistranslation therefore is the deviation of the translation from the original and shows a translator's failure of effort in the translation process. Mistranslation occurs for many reasons, sometimes because of a translator's misunderstanding of a word, phrase, or sentence in the original, sometimes because of cultural differences, and sometimes because of a technical use of words. In this chapter we will deal with those errors, which are related to lexical items in general. The main emphasis here will be on misunderstanding of the ST and wrong choice of single lexical items due to carelessness. Both translations have a number of mistranslations due to misunderstanding of the ST, inaccurate and/or irrelevant lexical choice, inconsistency, additions, and omissions.

22) How would you like to see me bring one in that dressed out over a thousand pounds?

- А ну как я завтра поймаю рыбу в тысячу фунтов?

?алай, эртага минг ?адо?ли бали? тутишимга кўзинг етадими?

Both translators didn't have a problem with a particular sentence, they could divide to get a meaning of.

The context is that the old man has been fishing without taking a fish for 85 days. “How would you like to see me bring one in…” means Wouldn't you like to see me catch one. The inference is I think you would like that very much. And “… dressed out over a thousand pounds?” - the expression “dressed out” basically means “weighed” here. More specifically, we think it refers to how much the fish weighed after it was prepared for eating. As we can see both translators successfully translated the sentence though they might have a problem with connotative meaning.

23) Be careful or you will fear even the Reds of Cincinnati and the White Sox of Chicago.

- Ты, чего доброго, скоро будешь бояться и "Краснокожих" из Цинциннати, и чикагских "Белых чулок".

Худо кўрсатмасин, сен ?али цинцинатилик «?изилтанлар»дан ?ам, Чикаго «О? пайпо?лари»дан ?ам ?ўр?иб ўтирарсан.

In this example the Russian translator understood the actual meaning of the phrase be careful, which denotes don't get carried away. In his attempt to make this text humorous, Hemingway changes the normal word order in the names of the teams, thus: 'the Reds of Cincinnati' for the Cincinnati Reds and 'the White Sox of Chicago' for the Chicago White Sox. It seems that the translator has not a problem with misunderstanding and leading them to produce inaccurate renditions.

And the Uzbek translator did a direct translation.

This chapter we devoted to Hemingway's writing style, which was simple and natural on the surface, but actually deliberate and artificial. Hemingway's style was related to his experience as a journalist. The influence of his style was great all over the world. The Old Man and the Sea is full of facts, most of which come from Hemingway's own experience. Ernest Hemingway's writing is among the most recognizable and influential prose works of the twentieth century.We studied Hemingway's technique which was uncomplicated, with plain grammar and easily accessible language. Though his writing was often thought of as “simple,” this generalization could not be further from the truth.

Also we analyze Hemingway's technique which he termed the “iceberg principle”.

During the process of analyzing Hemingway's novels, we found that he was considered a master of a dialogue. The conversations between his characters demonstrated not only communication issues but also some limits.

We focused on the issues such as the nature of the literary text and the double role of the translator as a reader and a writer. We are concerned here with the various qualities and responsibilities that should be part of the translator's repertoire in literary translation. If a translation is to be natural in the TL, it must be based on a correct interpretation. Therefore, certain linguistic skills as well as cultural knowledge are required on the part of the translator. This chapter also aimed to investigate to what extent the translators had preserved the content, meaning, style, and cultural concepts of the original. The method adopted in this study is the comparison of the stylistic features of the English version of the novel and the Russian and the Uzbek translations in order to find those aspects of style which had challenged the translators. The first step was the collection of a large number of examples of translation difficulties. These were then arranged into categories according to the types of stylistic devices, such as the rendering of the original stylistic devices, the use of the TL's stylistic devices, and the question of cultural concepts.

We also tried to investigate the problem of mistranslation. Details of examples of misunderstanding of the original, inaccurate lexical choices, complex transformation and figurative language are fully discussed. They are viewed as examples of the extent to which the translators attempt to reach an approximate rendering of the original.

Conclusion

To our best knowledge this is the first attempt to investigate translation problems of the world literature masterpiece, The Old Man and the Sea, written by Ernesst Hemimgway. The novel The Old Man and the Sea has been translated into Uzbek through Russian, by Ibrahim Gafurov, who skillfully translated the novel which was the gift for the Uzbek readers.

This thesis attempts to explore problems of fiction translation through Russian into Uzbek. It tries to investigate some aspects of culture and style in The Old Man and the Sea through Russian and Uzbek translations. The aim is to assess how much of the style and culture of the original has been preserved. It is also concerned with the problem of equivalence and translation units, since equivalence is considered the tool for detailed comparison.

In the first chapter we studied many investigations which had been done in the field of the transleologiya by translators and linguists. We came to the opinion that the translation process might be easy to individual or professional translator but having some problems which every translator might face. So, relying on our general knowledge and analyzing some problems that we faced during our practical work, it is worth to define some of the common problems faced by almost all translators:

1) Each person conducting the translation process should have an important skill for written communication that is the grammatical knowledge.

2) Translators often face the problems related to the correct and adequate usage of words, which means lexical difference between the cultural and national word units like idioms or set phrases.

3) Usually translators should have skills to translate all types of texts or speeches, because they should know a lot and they should have at least the general information of any field of social life or science to avoid difficulties while translating.

4) Sometimes, the source text may contain some abbreviations and acronyms which are unexplained, so this nuance can also cause some problems as it takes time to do research on them again.

5)Another major problem is the problem of untranslatability.

6) Sometimes cultural issues complicate the translation process.

These enumerated and quoted problems mostly precede each translator, so that is why he/she should be aware of them and always try to find a better solution for any kind of difficulty occurring while translating.

Besides the above mentioned circumstances the translator usually focuses on factors of professional methodology involved in the translation process, such as use of dictionaries, vocabularies and translation memories and programs.

We also studied the specifics of translation from English and Russian into Uzbek. And it became clear that translation schools from Russian into Uzbek had widely progressed at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 21th century, even all translations of English - American and other foreign countries were done through the Russian translations of this at period, because translation schools from Western languages haven't been developed yet.

After Independence of Uzbekistan the importance of the direct translation from the western languages evolve, because the interest in communication, especially in the field of economy increased.

In the second chapter we have analyzed the notion of literary translation, its peculiarities, problems that translating of the text causes, the importance of stylistics in translating the text, especially in understanding and translating of stylistic and phonetic devices. We analyzed peculiarities of translation of alliterations, repetitions, metaphors, synonyms and the problems of rhyming. We analyzed the importance of stylistic and phonetic devices in making the text emphatic, peculiar, emotive, interesting and easy to read. It was mentioned about difficulties of translating poetry, especially preserving its rhyming. And we presented the original text of W. Shakespeare's sonnet done, its word-for-word translation and translations of this sonnet written by different authors. It was decided that word-for-word translation is not suitable. The translator must be a poet to translate poetry in order to show the author's emotions and to make a translation interesting and easy to read and to remember.

In the third chapter, we researched the unique writing style of Hemingway's novels and poems, his “iceberg technique” and the translation difficulties.

We researched: “Death in the Afternoon”, “The Sun Also Rises”, “A Farewell to Arms”, “For Whom the Bell Tolls”, “The Old Man and The Sea” and his poems which were dedicated to the memory of the War.

While defining Hemingway's individual style we found it important to define mostly used linguistic and stylistic devices like: foreign words, symbolism, understatement, overstatment, similes, metaphors.

Besides religious metaphors, The Old Man and The Sea contains lots of metaphors and similes in the communication processes of characters and in facts described by the author. Analyzing some of them we tried to define at what level these stylistic devices were preserved in Russian and Uzbek translations of the book, whether they were translated adequately or had some contradicting nuances with the original. In the novel we found some cases where a narrative sentence was reconsidered into an exclamation.

Thus, it should be said that Hemingway uses lots of the like stylistic devices and as we have analyzed some of them. We can say that in translations the preserving of features of stylistic devices caused some difficulties for translators and we have seen that they are partially preserved in the Russian translation and in the Uzbek one. The translators managed to explain, at least, find equivalents of a number of stylistic devices.

As a result of our research work, Hamingway's writing technique, his style, stylistic divices were analyzed and compared with translated versions of the Russian and Uzbek languages. The degree of adequacy and the degree of contradictions of stylistic devices with the original have been established on the basis of comparative and linguistic analysis.

Literature

1. Алексеева И.С. Введение в переводоведение. М.: Academia, 2006. C. 4 -67.

2. Базылев В.Н., Сорокин Ю.А. Интерпретативное переводоведение/ В.Н. Базылев, Ю.А. Сорокин. - Ульяновск, 2000. C. 54 - 98.

3. Брандес М.П. Стиль и перевод. М., 1988. C. 15 - 88.

4. Вайсблат, И. Искусство перевода и его проблемы// Изба - читальня [Электронный ресурс]. - Режим доступа: http://rh.1963.ru/art.htm

5. Федоров А.В. Основы общей теории перевода (лингвистические проблемы). - СПб: ООО “Издательский дом “Филология три”, 2002. C. 76 - 167.

6. Костомаров В.Г. Русский язык на газетной полосе. - М.: Просвещение, 1971. C.4 -7.

7. Латышев Л.К. Технология перевода. М., 2001. C. 53 -70.

8. Рахимова Ш.П. Особенности переводов с английского языка на узбекский язык // Молодой ученый. -- 2011. -- №8. Т.2. -- С. 31-33.

9. Солодуб Ю.П., “Теория и практика художественного перевода”, 2005.

10. Швейцер А.Д. Эквивалентность и адекватность / А.Д. Швейцер // Коммуникативный инвариант перевода в текстах различных жанров: Сб. науч. тр. - М., 1989 C. 13.

11. Baker, Ernest Hemingway: A Life Story, Scribner, 1969. P.43 -89.

12. Baker, editor, Ernest Hemingway: Critiques of Four Major Novels,Scribner, 1962. P. 24.

13. Baker Carlos, Hemingway: The Writer as Artist, Princeton University Press, 1956. P. 88.

14. Bal Mieke, “Narratology Introduction to Theory of Narrative”, 2009. P.3.

15. Bardaji A.G. (2009) 'Procedures, techniques, strategies: translation process operators', Perspectives, 17: 3, 161 -- 173.

16. Barber James and Sattelmeyer Robert, "Baseball And Baseball Talk In" The Old Man and the Sea, Fitzgerald-Hemingway Annual, 1972, P-281.

17. Barthes Roland, S/Z (London: Cape, 1974). P. 2 -14.

18. Bassnett Susan, Translation Studies, Third edition

19. Bonynge F., Brodies Notes. Pan Books, 1977, P - 36.

20.Catford J.C “A linnguistic theory of translation” Oxford University Press,1965, P - 20.

21. Chabban. I.G. "An Analysis of the techniques of translation based on some literary material translated from English into Arabic", Ph.D. thesis, Faculty of Al Alsun, Ain Shams University. 1984 P. 11 - 33.

22. Corti Maria, An Introduction to Literary Semiotics (Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press, 1978), P. 145.

23. Edmunfd Wilson, The New York Times review of The Sun Also Rises, 31 October 1926. P. 21- 24.

24. El Zeini, N.,T, "Criteria for the Evaluation of Translation : A Pragma-stylistic approach". PhD. Thesis, Faculty of Arts, Cairo University,1994. P. 5.

25. El Shafey, F.,A., M, "Compounding in English and Arabic, Implications for Translation Methodology" M.A Thesis, Faculty of Arts, Cairo University.1985. P.1-7.

26. Ernest Miller Hemingway, A Farewell to Arms, Scribner, 1967. P-28.

27. Ernest Miller Hemingway, For Whom the Bell, 2016. P - 12.

28. Essays on Sun Also Rises. New York: Cambridge UP . 1990.P-7.

29. Eugene A., Nida, Toward a Science of Translating, EJ Brill, 1964. P.56.

30. Fawcett Peter, Translation and Language, St. Jerome, Manchester, 1997.

31. G a l p e r i n I. R., Stylistics. - Moscow: Higher School, 1977. - P.287.

32.Harold B.,"Introduction". in Bloom, Harold (ed). Modern Critical Interpretations: Ernest Hemingway's "The Sun Also Rises". New York: Chelsea House. 1997. P7-8.

33. Jakobson Roman, `On Linguistic Aspects of Translation', in R.A. Brower (ed.), On Translation (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1959), P. 232-239.

34. Kenneth B.H. and David K.K., editors, Individual and Community: Variations on a Theme in American Fiction, Duke University Press, 1975. P 17 - 18.

35. Larson M. L., Meaning-Based Translation: a Guide to uross- 1. Langgage Equivalence. University Press of America, Inc, 1984. P. 34.

36. Leech Geoffrey & Short Mick, “Style in Fiction: Linguistic Introduction to English Fictional Prose”, second edition published in Great Britain in 2007, P - 159, 169. P.77.

37. Levchenko L.E., Article, style as a Specific Problem of a Literary Translation, Ukraine, 2012. P. 9 - 124.

38. Lotman Jurн, Struktura Khudozhestvennogo Teksta (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1970) tr. La struttura del testo poetico (Milan: Musia, 1972).

39. Massoud, M.F. Translate to Communicate, A Guide for Translators. New York: Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data. 1988.

40. Newmark, P. Approaches to Translation. New York: Pergamon. 1981, 234p.

41. Newmark, P. A Textbook of Translation. London: Longman. 2005, 432p.

42. Nida, E.A. Language, Culture and Translating. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.p. 21-32.Publishing. 1993

43. Nida, E.A. Towards a Science of Translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill. 1964

44. Norman Shapiro (qtd. in Venuti, 1995: 1). Discuss translators' invisibility.

45. Oliver, Charles. Ernest Hemingway A to Z: The Essential Reference to the Life and Work. New York: Checkmark Publishing. 1999.

46. Richard A. and Jackson J. B., editors, Hemingway in Our Time, Oregon State University Press, 1974.

47. Samuelsson Geoffrey Brown “A Practical Guide for Translators”.

48. Scholes Robert, Structuralism in Literature (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974), p. 10.

49."The Nobel Prize in Literature 1954". The Nobel Foundation. Retrieved January 31, 2005.

50. Wagner-Martin, Linda "Introduction". in Wagner-Martin, Linda (ed). New J. Kaushal, "Ernest Hemingway: A Critical Study", m Bloom's Notes, Ernest Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea, Bloom, H., ed. _Chelsea House Publishers. Broomall. PA. 1974. P.115-116.

51. Waldhorn, Arthur, Ernest Hemingway,McGraw, 1973. P. 83.

52. Westbrook, Max, editor, The Modern American Novel: Essays in Criticism, Random House, 1966. P. 45.

53. William B., "Hemingway's Greatest Iceberg: The Composition of The Sun Also Rises". in Barbour, James and Quirk, Tom (eds). Writing the American Classics. Chapel Hill: North Carolina, 1990. P -125,136,150.

54. Wylder, Delbert E., Hemingway's Heroes, University of New Mexico Press, 1969. P.51 - 63.

55. Venuty Lawrence, The translator's invisibility,1995. P - 1.

56. Venuti Lawrence, The Translator's Invisibility, History of Translation, London and New York, 1995. P.24.

57. Vinay, J.P., &Darbelnet, J. (1995). Comparative stylistics of French and English. A methodology for translation (J. C. Sager & M. J. Hamel, Trans.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.P.67.

...