Differentiation of word meanings in translation (on the example of Russian and Turkish languages)

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Differentiation of word meanings in translation (on the example of Russian and Turkish languages)

Gulsanam Abduvalieva

PhD in Philology, Senior Lecturer, Department of Simultaneous Translation, Kyrgyz-Turkish Manas University (Bishkek, Kyrgyz Republic)

DIFFERENTIATION OF WORD MEANINGS IN TRANSLATION (ON THE EXAMPLE OF RUSSIAN AND TURKISH LANGUAGES)

Gulsanam A. Abduvalieva, Kyrgyz-Turkish Manas University (Kyrgyz Republic)

The relevance of the study of lexical transformations in the process of translation is associated with the need to ensure communication between the author and recipients in terms of recreating the lexical, structural and stylistic richness of the original in the translated text. Since today far from all the methods and mechanisms for eliminating language inaccuracies have been studied, this direction occupies an important role in the translation science branch of knowledge. The purpose of the study is to examine the role and functions of differentiation of meanings in the process of literary translation from Russian into Turkish by analysing the lexico-semantic means used in the context of literary works. This paper uses the methods of contextual, lexico-semantic, comparative, linguoculturological and analytical-synthetic analysis are used in the paper. This study is aimed at studying lexical transformations in the translated text, mechanisms for transferring the semantic subtleties of the source with minimization of lexical losses and combining techniques to obtain a translated text that is as accessible to the readership as possible. The work is focused on contextual and lexico-semantic analysis, search, and comparison of lexical variants and structural patterns in the original and translation. Attention was drawn to the mechanisms of differentiation and generalization of meanings, as well as the semantic unfolding of events. When analysing lexico-semantic and syntactic constructions, as well as phraseological phrases, the topic of national linguistic features and cultural specifics, which play an important role in the translation of literary texts, was touched upon. In the future, this work can be used in the field of translation studies, cultural linguistics, automatic text processing, the creation of lexicographic thesauri, and the study of semantic patterns and equivalents. The study examined the nuances of word usage in translations from Russian to Turkish, underscoring the inevitability of lexical transformations. Strategies primarily involved expanding, narrowing, and clarifying the source text's semantics. Russian-Turkish translations also frequently employed semantic deployment and structural element transformations to elucidate intricate meanings. Stable, often phraseological turns were highlighted, emphasizing their non-equivalent nature. Such techniques reconstruct the original's cultural essence and authorial style. While there exist discrepancies between the Russian and Turkish contexts, lexical transformations often simplify complex structures for clarity in Turkish. Idiomatic expressions in Turkish involve detailing meanings or unfolding specific events descriptively. The study demonstrated the interplay between the original and its translation, revealing strategies and issues within linguistics and translation studies.

Key words: lexical transformation; semantics; gaps; artistic text; non-equivalent vocabulary.

Актуальність дослідження лексичних трансформацій в процесі перекладу пов'язана з необхідністю забезпечення комунікації між автором і реципієнтами в плані відтворення в перекладному тексті лексичного, структурного і стилістичного багатства оригіналу. Позаяк на сьогоднішній день вивчені далеко не всі методи і механізми усунення мовних неточностей, цей напрямок відіграє важливу роль в галузі знань перекладознавства. Мета статті - дослідити роль і функції диференціації значень в процесі художнього перекладу з російської на турецьку мову шляхом аналізу лексико-семантичних засобів, використовуваних в контексті літературних творів. Дослідження в першу чергу було зосереджено на контекстуальному аналізі уривків з художніх творів з метою виявити важливі лексичні зрушення. Акцент був зроблений на розумінні значення і функцій смислової диференціації в художньому перекладі. Крім того, були виявлені відмінні ознаки лексичних трансформацій при перекладі з російської на турецьку мову. Дослідження різних стратегій перекладу та вивчення результатів перекладу ще більше доповнили дослідження. У статті використовуються методи контекстуального, лексико-семантичного, порівняльного, лінгвокультурологічного та аналітико-синтетичного аналізу. Це дослідження спрямоване на вивчення лексичних трансформацій у перекладеному тексті, механізмів передачі смислових тонкощів джерела з мінімізацією лексичних втрат, а також комбінування прийомів для отримання перекладеного тексту, максимально доступного читацькій аудиторії. Робота орієнтована на контекстуальний і лексико-семантичний аналіз, пошук і порівняння лексичних варіантів і структурних закономірностей в оригіналі та перекладі. Увага була звернена на механізми диференціації та узагальнення значень, а також смислового розгортання подій. При аналізі лексико-семантичних і синтаксичних конструкцій, а також фразеологічних словосполучень зачіпалася тема національних мовних особливостей і культурної специфіки, які відіграють важливу роль при перекладі художніх текстів. Надалі дана робота може бути використана в області перекладознавства, лінгвокультурології, автоматичної обробки текстів, створення лексикографічних тезаурусів, вивчення семантичних закономірностей і еквівалентів. У дослідженні були розглянуті нюанси слововживання в перекладах з російської на турецьку мову, підкреслені неминучість лексичних трансформацій. Стратегії в першу чергу включали розширення, звуження та вдосконалення семантики оригінального тексту. Російсько-турецькі переклади також часто використовували семантичне розгортання та трансформацію структурних елементів для пояснення складних значень. Виділялися стійкі, часто фразеологічні звороти, що підкреслюють їх безеквівалентний характер. Такі прийоми відтворюють культурну сутність і авторський стиль оригіналу. Хоча існують розбіжності між російським і турецьким контекстами, лексичні трансформації часто спрощують складні структури для ясності турецької мови. Ідіоматичні вирази турецькою мовою включають деталізацію значень або описове розкриття конкретних подій. Дослідження продемонструвало взаємодію між оригіналом та його перекладом, розкриваючи стратегії та проблеми лінгвістики та перекладознавства.

Ключові слова: лексична трансформація, семантика, прогалини, художній текст, безеквівалентна лексика.

Introduction

differentiation word translation

When translating fiction, it is important not only to preserve the main meaning but also to convey the semantic subtleties of lexemes, fixed phrases and sentences, to recreate the author's intention based on stylistic, structural and other parameters. Thus, the relevance of this study is due to the need to find adequate mechanisms and techniques to fully convey the linguistic richness of the original. With the help of translated literature, different national audiences get acquainted with the work of the author, so cultural specificity plays an important role in the translation system. At the present stage of the development of linguistics, there are many options for transforming lexical, morphological, and syntactic structures, which allow conveying meanings using descriptive constructions, transformations of various types, expanding or narrowing the meanings in the source text. Since the use of differentiation in the process of translation is one of the most common methods for transforming textual information, the study of contextual word usage and translation options, the analysis of translation patterns can later become the basis for further translation from Russian into Turkish. This study is relevant, as it allows studying the lexical mechanisms used to understand phraseological units or non-equivalent vocabulary.

The study of literary translation in the example of contexts is necessary to identify the problems that exist within the framework of the translation process, and the formation of translation strategies and solutions to avoid semantic inaccuracies and ambiguity. The search for the most optimal options and templates for translation is relevant at the present stage of linguistics, since more and more artistic resources are used in literature, the text becomes more difficult to understand, which requires special attention when conveying meanings to the target language. Formation of ideas about the semantic, syntactic, and stylistic features of national languages is an important step towards ensuring effective interaction between the author and the readership. The translator in this case plays the role of a link between the creator of a literary text and the recipient, so the study of all stages of the translation process and its results will always be an urgent problem for study.

Today, there are significant difficulties in translating languages that are not similar in grammar, structure or vocabulary, as well as in translating texts from high-resource languages into low-resource ones. Despite the fact that both the Russian and Turkish languages have a sufficient linguistic base, the system of translation patterns has not yet been sufficiently developed, so it is necessary to form an idea of the translation of both equivalent and non-equivalent vocabulary. The article by linguist U. Turdaliyeva [2023] aims to study the lexical and grammatical transformations used in literary translation from English into Russian. In this paper, the expediency of applying various kinds of transformations is considered, and quantitative and statistical analyses of passages as the results of translation activities are carried out. Consideration of lexical units and interpretation of etymology is presented in the study by M. Koshueva et al. [2021]. The authors study the contribution of scientists to the Kyrgyz lexicography, dialectological works and encyclopaedic works. In parallel with the lexicographic work, attention is focused on the cultural, in particular folklore, heritage of the ethnic group. The work by O. Mamasheva et al. [2021] is focused on the study of equivalent vocabulary, including phraseological units, in Kyrgyz, Russian and English. The paper presents examples of the translation of regular expressions, comparing national and cultural experiences. The authors show in practice how the search for equivalents for the translation of phraseological units is carried out.

The model of paraphrase (paraphrasing, reformulation) is offered by Y. Polat [2021] as a translation tool. The paper shows the techniques and stages of paraphrasing, and studies the problems of transferring the semantic structure, taking into account grammatical features. Based on the results of the study, hypotheses are put forward related to the use of paraphrase. Scientists K. Khamidov et al. [2020] point out that the texts of fiction differ in the ways of conveying information and carry aesthetic value, being a source of data about a foreign culture. The authors study the theoretical aspects related to lexical selection in the translation of a literary text. From a cultural point of view, national literature is viewed as a system of sociocultural factors. A. Abdullaeva and S. Baranova [2020] note that when translating literary texts, a problem often arises due to the presence of non-equivalent units (lacunae), which are difficult to match in the target language. The authors point to two main ways of adapting such vocabulary: domestication (replacement of foreign lexemes with components of similar meaning in the target language) and foreignization (preservation of national components, for example, phonemes, and morphemes).

The purpose of this study was to examine lexical transformations in literary translation from Russian into Turkish, in particular, the differentiation of meanings, the formation of an idea of the difficulties in translating this language pair and the mechanisms for eliminating semantic inaccuracies in the process of working with literary works. The subject of the study was literary texts written in

Russian (source) language and their translations into Turkish (target) language. Based on the purpose of the study, the main tasks were the following: conducting a contextual analysis of excerpts from works of art in order to identify key lexical transformations; detailed consideration of the role and functions of differentiation of meanings in literary translation, determination of the features of lexical transformations in translation from Russian into Turkish, consideration of variants of translation patterns and analysis of the results of translation activities.

Literature Review

The quest to understand the intricacies of translation, especially between Russian and Turkish languages, has seen contributions from various scholars and researchers. It is vital to acknowledge the linguistic and cultural challenges in translating lexemes from a source language to a target language.

E.A. Khotaba and Kh. Tarawneh [2022] delve into the lexical discourse analysis in translation, emphasizing the importance of lexical knowledge. Their study involving master's students showed that inadequate lexical proficiency significantly impacts the quality of translations, particularly from Arabic to English. Meanwhile, M. §ahin and S. Gurses [2021] assess the evolving landscape of machine translation. Their findings suggest that digital technologies have yet to achieve satisfactory results in literary translations for the English-Turkish language pair.

H. Zhu et al. [2022] focus on the challenging task of translating lexemes that might not have direct coun-terparts in the target language. They highlighted that a one-size-fits-all approach does not work, and trends lean towards foreignization. On a similar note, A. Ghafoor et al. [2021] investigate translating high-resource datasets into low-resource languages, revealing a performance decline due to polarity bias. Sh. Castilho and N. Resende [2022] draw attention to post-editing, examining its dynamics in both machine and human translation. Their work underscores the challenges faced in artistic texts laden with authorial styles and figurative language. D. Dayter et al. [2023] then bridge this gap by exploring the pragmatics of translation, shedding light on the importance of pragmatics in improving the synergy between linguistic tools and translation data.

While the aforementioned works have offered significant insights, there is a noticeable paucity of research on translating Ch. Aitmatov's literary works. Such works often require nuanced handling due to the deep cultural, historical, and linguistic intricacies embedded in them.

Makhmudova's [2019] work on Ch. Aytmatov's story “The Mother Field” provides valuable insights into the various transformation types employed in its Turkish translation. Olcay [2005] provides a historical context, examining translations from Pre-Republican Russian Literature to Turkish, while Sokolov and Malysheva [2021] illuminate the presence and influence of Turkisms in early Russian translations. Oganova and Alekseeva [2021] delve into the challenges of translating parenthetic clauses from Russian into Turkish in socio-political texts, and Schweickard [2015] traces lexical borrowings from Turkish in Paul Rycaut's writings. Rahimova and Yusupova [2015], on the other hand, tackle the semantics and pragmatics of demonstrative pronouns in Russian and Turkic languages, emphasizing the complexities of translating such essential linguistic elements.

M. Sathisha [2020] underlines the significance of bridging cultural gaps in translation, especially regarding customs, traditions, and holidays. Choltekin et al. [2023] map out the available corpora for Turkish and recommend areas of improvement, while Giunchiglia et al. [2023] critique the existing multilingual databases, emphasizing their inadequacy and structural limitations, especially for low-resource languages.

However, despite the extensive literature on various facets of translation, there is a glaring deficiency in research specifically dedicated to translations of Aitmatov's works. It is noteworthy how this Kyrgyz writer's translations would offer invaluable insights into the nuances of cultural and linguistic translations between Russian and Turkish.

In the quest for a comprehensive understanding, it is essential to highlight the undiscussed or under-explored realms. The overarching aim to study differentiation in meanings during the process of literary translation between Russian and Turkish presents a myriad of nuances. While lexical transformations, both in terms of semantics and structure, are inevitable, a deeper analysis is required to fathom the depths of these transformations. The study shows the translator's strategies often entail expansion, narrowing, and elucidation of the source text's semantics. Furthermore, the Russian-Turkish translation landscape actively employs methods of semantic deployment and holistic transformation of structural elements, aiming to unveil intricate semantic nuances.

The transfer of idiomatic expressions, cultural references, and the broader national culture embedded within a literary text stands out as a pivotal challenge. Within the Russian-Turkish dynamic, idiomatic transmissions often hinge on detailed elaboration or the unfolding of events using descriptive constructs. Additionally, semantic inaccuracies, ambiguities, and the utilization of lexemes in translation that do not entirely align with the original's essence pose significant challenges.

The novelty of this study lies in its meticulous dissection of the differentiation of meanings, shedding light on stable turns, particularly those of the phraseological type, which traditionally fall under non-equivalent linguistic tools. By analyzing this, one gets a vivid glimpse of the national culture of the original work's creator. This work not only illuminates the current state of differentiation in translations but also sets the stage for future endeavours. Prospective areas of emphasis might encompass the evolution of translation databases to aid in the search for equivalent vocabulary, the crafting of contextual examples for translating varied syntactic constructs, and the enhancement and enrichment of dictionary entries to facilitate a more nuanced contextual use of lexemes.

Materials and Methods

The theoretical basis for this study was the works of Kyrgyz, Turkish, American, and British scientists, which considered linguistic problems related to the concept of “literary translation” and its features, errors, and gaps from the point of view of linguistics in the process of translation activity, mechanisms for transmitting lexical and stylistic the richness of the original when translated into the target language, the advantages, and disadvantages of machine translation in comparison with human. Attention was focused on the possible problems that arise in literary translation and ways to solve them. In addition to theoretical works, in this work, literary works of the Kyrgyz writer Ch. Aitmatov were used for analysis, they were written in Russian: “Прощай, Гульсары!" (“Farewell, Gulsary!”) [Айтматов, 2023] and “Плаха" (“The Place of the Skull") [Айтматов, 2022], as well as their Turkish translations by R. Ozdek [Aytmatov, 1997; Aytmatov, 2000]. These literary works and the results of translation activities were compared in terms of lexical similarity and accuracy of conveying semantic shades of meanings using contextual and lexico-semantic analysis of the linguistic resources involved.

Analytical and synthetic analysis was used in the analysis of the works of modern linguists and literary critics, the study of theoretical aspects related to the role, functions, and types of lexical transformations, and the features of the selection of lexical options to recreate the artistic space of a literary text. Works directly related to the efficiency and development of mechanisms for improving text parameters in the translation process were considered.

The contextual analysis of the text was based on the study of patterns of interaction between the source (Russian) and target (Turkish) languages in lexical, structural and stylistic terms. The evaluation of the results of the translation activity took place through the study of certain passages, which were considered from the point of view of lexical and stylistic accuracy and the adequacy of the translation. With the help of contextual analysis, an idea was formed about the effective methods and mechanisms used in the translation of literary texts. The lexico-semantic analysis included the study of semantic patterns for the transfer of semantic subtleties in the process of translation, consideration of the main lexical transformations with a focus on differentiation used to transfer non-equivalent vocabulary and set expressions of a phraseological type. Also, within the framework of this study, aspects of the semantic adequacy of translation, the search for equivalents and the use of descriptive structures to convey lexical meanings in the target language were touched upon.

Linguistic and cultural analysis was based on the study of culturally specific features of national languages at different language levels, with special attention to the transmission of non-equivalent and emotionally expressive vocabulary, in particular phraseological type. At the same time, not only individual lexemes were considered, but also whole phrases, turns of phrase and sentences, the chosen linguistic means were analysed to convey the structure, style, and mood of the work. Comparative analysis was used to compare different cultural layers and linguistic means of the Russian and Turkish languages, to assess the adequacy of the selected techniques for text transformation. The contextual comparison of text fragments compares the linguistic resources involved in the translation process, namely the language of the source and target texts. Also, the results of the research were compared with the achievements of other authors in this field of knowledge.

Results

Analysis of the use of differentiation of meanings in the translation of literary texts from Russian into Turkish Lexical transformation is a method used to translate vocabulary in the source language that has no equivalent in the target language, translation when deviating from dictionary matches, replacing individual lexical units, whole phrases and phrases, as well as syntactic structures (sentences) of the source language with lexical units, whole phrases and phrases, syntactic constructions of the target language that are incomplete (partial) or contextual equivalents. Among the main lexical transformations, the following are used: differentiation of meanings (replacement of a word of the source language with broad semantics by a lexeme of the target language with narrower semantics), the concretization of meanings (replacement of a word or phrases of the source language with a broader meaning by a word or phrase of the target language with a more specific meaning), generalization (replacement of a word or phrase with a narrower meaning in the original for a word or phrase with a broader meaning in the translated text).

In addition, semantic development is applied (the lexical units of the target language are the logical development of the meaning of the lexeme in the source language), antonymic translation (replacement of the concept of the source language with a concept that is opposite in meaning in the target language), holistic transformation (semantic development in the translation of the text with transformation forms of any segment of speech, including the whole sentence), compensation for losses in the translation process (replacement of a non-equivalent lexeme of the source language with another lexeme that conveys the same information) [Tyler et al., 2005]. In the broad sense of the word, differentiation of meanings means lexical transformation, as a result of which a word in the source language is replaced by a word in the target language, which is not its full equivalent, but was selected based on contextual word usage, language norms and traditions of the target language. In the narrow sense, the word differentiation refers to the replacement of a source language word with broad semantics by a target language lexeme with narrower semantics. The breadth of a relevant discur-sive context depends on language production and comprehension [Yoon and Brown-Schmidt, 2013].

For example, several lexemes are used in Turkish to designate parts of the body: “bacak” (leg from the lower abdomen to the ground) - “ayak” (foot). As medical terms, these lexemes have unambiguous equivalents in Russian, but the lexeme “ayak” is more widely used in everyday life. The lexeme “hand” is also denoted by two terms: “el” (the part of the arm from the ankle to the fingertips, usually used to hold objects and perform work), “kol” (the part of the arm that extends from the shoulder to the fingertips). The reason for using differentiation in a literary text may be the need to clarify the meaning of a word that is used in a broad context in the source language in order to explain to readers what is meant by the author's wording. A common cause of such a lexico-semantic transformation is the translator's misunderstanding of the meaning of a word or phrase, or the inability to find an exact equivalent. These problems may arise due to the cultural-specific features of national languages and contextual use, endowing well-known words with metaphorical and figurative meanings [Kolehmainen et al., 2016]. In the process of literary translation of Ch. Aitmatov [Айтматов, 2022; 2023] uses many lexical transformations from Russian to Turkish. After analysing 50 selected contexts, it was noted that the most frequent are generalization, semantic development, as well as holistic transformations and differentiation (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Frequency of using lexical transformations Source: compiled by the author.

It should be noted that the original text is a complex structure with many complex sentences, so the translator has to break large sentences into smaller fragments due to syntactic characteristics and sentence construction features in Turkish. The lexical and stylistic richness of the original, the use of numerous phraseological turns and idiomatic expressions, becomes a feature of the author's style. Due to the large number of lexical transformations and contextual word usage in the text of the original and translation, differentiation of meanings will mean not only individual words but also entire phrases (constructions) transformed in the direction from a broader to a narrower meaning.

Context: "К вечеру снег еще подсыпал, и на другое утро еще до восхода солнца в степи было уже светло и прозрачно, как днем. Покой и тишина разлились всюду, и острый голод по- зимнему дал о себе знать”1 [Айтматов, 2022], ("Ak?ama dogru kar yine yagdi ve ertesi sabah, gune? henuz dogmadigi halde, ortalik aydinlanmi? gibiydi ve hava gunduz gibi afikti. Ortaligi bir sessizlik ve bari? kaplami?ti. Ama, sogugun da etkisiyle afliktan karinlari kaziniyordu") [Aytmatov, 2000]. Differentiation of meanings can be used in figurative-metaphorical constructions with idiomatic elements: for example, "острый голод по-зимнему дал о себе знать" in the original text is replaced in translation with "afliktan karinlari kaziniyordu" ("их желудки скребли от голода") their stomachs were scraping with hunger). Thus, a construction with a broader context is replaced by a construction with a narrower, more specific and understandable meaning. The author uses the differentiation technique in this case to adapt a metaphorical phrase that would not be entirely clear to the Turkish reader if translated literally.

Context: "Авдию же дорога лежала в духовную сферу, этого хотел он сам, и этого очень хотел отец, особенно после истории с поступлением в пединститут дочери Варвары" [Айтматов, 2022], ("Abdias ise din adami olmak istemi?ti. Asil arzusu bu idi. Barbara'nin kar?ila?tigi durumu dikkate alan babasi da ayni ?eyi istemi?ti Adsias ifin") [Aytmatov, 2000]. In this context, when translating the first part of the sentence, differentiation of meanings is used, then - generalization (the concept opposite to differentiation). Phraseological turnover "дорога лежала в духовную сферу" does not have a suitable equivalent in Turkish, therefore, when translating, it is replaced by a more narrowly semantic expression "din adami olmak istemi?ti" ("хотел стать священником" ). It should be noted that the original text does not refer specifically to the profession of a priest, but in general about employment in the spiritual sphere, where there are many professions, thus, there is some deformation of the main meaning. The translator also replaces the broader phrase "этого хотел он сам" with "arzusu bu idi" ("это было его благородным желанием" ). In this case, the translator decided to present his own interpretation by adding an expressive-evaluative component when con-veying the meaning of a neutral phrase. The generalization of meanings is present in the translation of a part of the sentence related to the daughter Varvara: in the original, it is indicated that she entered the pedagogical institute, and in the translation, a descriptive construction is used: "ситуация с поступлением" .

Context: "Губы иноходца шевельнулись, однако не смогли захватить сена. Танабай заглянул ему в глаза и помрачнел. В глубоко запавших, полуприкрытых облезлыми складками век глазах лошади он ничего не увидел. Они померкли и были пусты, как окна заброшенного дома" [Айтматов, 2023], ("Taypalma yorganin dudaklari kimildadi ama ot agzina alamadi. Tanabay atin gozlerinin ifine bakinca uzuntuden yuzu sapsari oldu. Hayvanin, yari yumuk gozleri yuvalarina gomulmu?, feri sonmu? ve bombo?tu. Issiz kalmi? bir evin pencereleri gibi olan o gozlerde Tana- bay, hifbir canlilik, bir hayat izi goremedi") [Aytmatov, 1997]. In this context, instead of the lexeme "помрачнело" (gloomy), in the original, the turnover "uzuntuden yuzu sapsari oldu” (“побледнело от печали"1010101010) is used. Thus, the translator uses narrower wording, specifying that it was sadness that caused the change in complexion. It can be noted that in this case, it is not only about the narrowing of the original meaning, but also about the use of the semantic development of the original formulation (additional semantic load through the indication of cause-and-effect relationships). Artistic expressions with a number of adjectives "глубоко запавших, полуприкрытых облезлыми складками век глазах"11 the translator in the target language replaces it with the verbal construction "yuvalarina gomulmu?" ("ввалились в глазницы" ), which can be interpreted as differentiation of the meaning with some concretization and hyperbolisation of the main meaning. Due to the lack of practice of using several adjective phrases in Turkish in a row, a number of lexical elements were replaced by a phrase with a more capacious meaning, but at the same time narrowing the context of the use of the original phrase. Differentiation of meaning together with semantic development are used in the translation of the phrase "он ничего не увидел" , which is replaced by "hifbir canlilik, bir hayat izi goremedi" ("не увидел ни жизненной силы, ни следов жизни" ). In this context, the meaning of the pronoun "ничего" narrows down to specific sensations: the absence of "hifbir canlilik" ("жизненной силы" ), "bir hayat izi" ("следов жизни" ). There is a figurative-metaphorical transformation of the phrase, with the logical development of the original meaning in the target language. The reason for using such a lexical transformation may be to reduce the semantic load and minimize the lexical means in the previous formulation in order to align the text stylistically and syntactically.

Context:

- Ну, что стоишь, согрей мне поесть. Голодный я, как собака.

- Да вот смотрю и думаю, - ответила она, - что значит старость. Не скажи ты мне, что это тот самый Гульсары, и не признала бы.

- Что ж тут удивляться? Думаешь, мы с тобой лучше выглядим! Всему свое время [Айтматов, 2023].

("Niye dikilip duruyorsun, yemek isitsana, afliktan oluyorum ben! §a?tim kaldim dogrusu. Sen soylemesen onu asla taniyamazdim. Bunda §a?ilacak bir ?ey yok. Bizim durumumuz ondan farkli mi sanki? Zaman kimseyi kayirmaz, her canli ya?lanir, her sey eskir"] [Aytmatov, 1997]. In this context, lexical transformation is used, based on the differentiation of the meaning with its concretization, as well as on the semantic deployment of the thought embodied in the original text: phraseological unit "всему свое время" translated into Turkish as "zaman kimseyi kayirmaz, her canli ya?lanir, her sey eskir" ("время никого не жалует, все живое стареет, все стареет" ). The translator uses this technique to clarify the main meaning, since the phrase "всему свое время" has a wide context of use. So that the Turkish reader can understand what exactly is meant by it, a decoding of the figurative meaning is used: "her canli ya?lanir, her sey eskir" . A phrase based on the idiom "голодный я, как собака" is replaced in the Turkish translation with clearer wording with an inherent degree of exaggeration: "afliktan oluyorum ben" ("я умираю с голоду" ). Indirectly, such a lexical transformation can be correlated with the differentiation or concretization of meaning. As a rule, these techniques are often used when conveying the meaning of phraseological units that do not have an exact equivalent in Turkish, which may be incomprehensible to the readership. Therefore, idioms have to be replaced by units that are semantically close: these can be Turkish phrases or interpretation of meaning through descriptive constructions.

Context: “Знал бы, не выезжал лучше, - сокрушался Танабай. - А теперь ни туда, ни сюда, стою средь чистого поля. И коня понапрасну загублю” [Айтматов, 2023], ("Tanabay, Boyle olacagini bilsem hif bugun yola fikar miydim? diye hayiflandi. "§imdi ne ileri gidebilirim ne de geri. Yolun ortasinda kalakaldim. Ati iyice yorup bu hallere du?mesine sebep oldum"") [Aytmatov, 1997]. In this context, instead of the idiom "ни туда ни сюда" a more specific expression is used with the specification of spatial codes: "ne ileri gidebilirim ne de geri" ("ни вперед, ни назад" ), which is due to the concretization of the meaning in the translation for a clearer understanding of the sentence. Also, instead of the idiom "стой средь чистого поля" the construction "ortasinda kalakaldim" is introduced ("застрял посреди дороги" ), which concretizes the spatial meaning of the phraseological unit. It should be noted that to translate many words used in the original in a figurative sense into the target (Turkish) language, direct meanings or descriptive constructions are used that explain the meanings of the original lexemes: "diye hayiflandi" ("вздохнул" ), "и коня понапрасну загублю" = "ati iyice yorup bu hallere du?mesine sebep oldum" ("я утомил лошадь и заставил ее впасть в это состояние" ). Such lexical transformations are due to culturally specific features of national languages. To better understand the use of differentiation in the target language, it is necessary to get familiarized with the concept of generalization, which involves the translation of a narrower formulation using lexical means with broader semantic properties (general or generic meanings).

Context: "Это в открытой степи страшно, когда от преследующего вертолета некуда деться, когда он, настигая, неотступно гонится по пятам, оглушая свистом винтов и поражая автоматными очередями..." [Айтматов, 2022], ("Helicopter ancak, kafilacak ve saklanacak yeri olmayan duz ovada tehlikeli olabilirdi. Duz ovada onun pe§ini birakmaz, yeti?ir, vinlamasi ile onu sersemletir, iyice yakla?inca da mitralyoz ate?ine tutardi") [Aytmatov, 2000]. In this context, the phrase "открытая степь" is translated using the broader semantically phrase "duz ovada" ("плоская равнина" ), since the steppe denotes a narrower concept: "равнина, заросшая травянистой растительностью, в умеренных и субтропических зонах" . It should also be noted the inaccuracy in the translation, since the lexemes "открытый" (open) and "плоский" (flat) are not full synonyms. The first indicates a space that is not obscured by anything and accessible to the eye, the second indicates a flat surface without recesses and elevations. Generalization is widely used in Russian-Turkish translation, which is due to the large lexical and stylistic variety of constructions used, including phraseological turns: for instance, the phrase with the idiomatic element "неотступно гонится по пятам" in the original text was replaced by the verb forms "pe?ini birakmaz" ("не отпустит" ) and "yeti?ir" ("догонит" ). The phrase "оглушая свистом винтов и поражая автоматными очередями." also translated using differentiation of meanings, since "mitralyoz ate?ine" is used instead of the phrase "automatic bursts” (“пулеметный огонь” ). Based on contextual usage, the phrase “automatic bursts” refers to a series of shots from a weapon, one after another in turn, and “machine-gun fire” has a wider meaning. A lexical transformation called deletion is also used: instead of “свиста винтов” “vinlamasi” is used (“гул, свист, визг” ), that is, the word “винт” ) is omitted.

Context: “В вечерних лучах заката, горы становились похожи на старые легенды, которые рассказывали старцы” [Айтматов, 2022], (“Akjamin son ijiklarinda, daglar yajlilarin anlaffigi eski efsaneleri animsaffi”) [Aytmatov, 2000]. The phrase “горы становились похожи на старые легенды” has a metaphorical and poetic undertone in Russian. In the Turkish translation, the lexeme “animsaffi” is used to narrow down the meaning and provide clarity. Instead of a direct transformation, a figurative interpretation is applied, emphasizing the act of remembering. This approach retains the poetic charm of the original text.

Context: “Ручьи, пробуждаясь от зимнего сна, наполнили воздух трелию песен” [Айтматов, 2022], (“Ki§ uykusundan uyanan dereler, havayi jarkilarin tinisiyla doldurdu”) [Aytmatov, 2000]. The expression “пробуждаясь от зимнего сна” beautifully captures the idea of nature's rejuvenation. In Turkish, this essence is conveyed by “Ki§ uykusundan uyanan,” which literally translates to waking up from winter sleep. However, the metaphor “трелию песен” undergoes a nuanced shift. The Turkish “jarkilarin tinisiyla” translates to the “melody of songs”, emphasizing the auditory experience. By selecting “tinisi”, which denotes a subtle and pleasant sound, the translator mirrors the delicate ambience of awakening streams in springtime. The differentiation in this case encapsulates the spirit of the original phrase while molding it to Turkish linguistic aesthetics.

When translating constructions from Russian into Turkish, many lexical transformations are used, as a rule, they actively interact with each other: differentiation + semantic expansion of a phrase, generalization + holistic transformation, and others. Differentiation is used to convey the meaning of phraseological units by clarifying the original meaning, and figurative meaning with the help of a direct descriptive construction. The use of lexical transformations of various kinds is based on the need to ensure the understanding of the text when read by a native speaker of the target language with minimal semantic losses. Since the Russian and Turkish languages differ significantly from each other in terms of semantic, stylistic and syntactic features, translators often use a variety of mechanisms to adapt a literary text.

Discussion

The analysis provided in the current research contributes to the expanding field of translation studies, focusing on translation transformations in literary works. In the scope of this study, the uniqueness of the researcher's approach sheds light on several complexities inherent in the translation process. This stands in conversation with the understanding forwarded by Makhmudova [2019], emphasizing the inevitability of translation transformations to maintain the idiosyncrasies of the original while addressing foreign cultural references present in any text.

Drawing from Olcay's [2005] observation, the translations from Russian have undeniably played a pivotal role in broadening the horizons of Turkish readers and intellectuals. In the context of the current study, such translations aid in emphasizing the narrative's cross-cultural nuances, supporting the researcher's claim of the transformative nature of literary translations. While Olcay underscores the qualitative progression of translations during the Republican era, the present research goes beyond, illustrating the depth and intricacy involved in translation decisions.

In addressing the practical challenges of translation, Oganova and Alekseeva's [2021] work can be highlighted. Their findings about the difficulties encountered in translating parenthetic clauses from Russian to Turkish offer another layer of complexity in the translation process. This aligns with the experiences shared in the present study, suggesting that both semantic and syntactic aspects play crucial roles in translating between these two languages.

The interaction between human and machine translation has been an emerging field of exploration. §ahin and Gurses's [2021] insights highlight that machine translation has a long journey ahead before becoming a quintessential part of English-Turkish literary translation practices. This sentiment resonates with the researcher's analysis, which emphasizes the importance of human intervention and understanding in literary translations, given the nuances, emotions, and cultural elements embedded within.

Zhu, Ang, and Mansor's [2022] systematic review sheds light on the challenges posed by cultural references in genre-based translation. They point towards a trend from foreignization to domestication, underscoring the adaptability of translation strategies. While the current study does not strictly address genre-based translation, its emphasis on the transformative nature of translation aligns with the strategies suggested by these authors.

The importance of resource-rich datasets in translation, as discussed by Ghafoor et al. [2021], provides an interesting counterpoint. While their study focuses on sentiment classification, the availability of comprehensive datasets is equally vital for literary translation to ensure the fidelity and quality of translated content. Furthermore, the Google translation experiment by Dayter, Locher, and Messerli [2023] provides an innovative perspective on the role of machine translation in literary works. Their findings, juxtaposed against the insights from the present research, accentuate the gaps that still exist in machine translation when handling the intricate nuances of literary content.

In summary, the current study enriches the field of translation studies, emphasizing the transformative nature of literary translations. It broadens our understanding of the challenges and decisions involved in translating between languages, especially when balancing between preserving the original's essence and ensuring comprehension for the target audience. The practical significance of this research lies in its capacity to inform translators, educators, and students about the nuances and intricacies of the literary translation process. As the field of translation studies continues to evolve, this research stands as a testament to the vital role of human understanding and interpretation in capturing the spirit of literary works across languages.

Conclusions

The intricacies of translation lie in the complex interplay of linguistic, cultural, and semantic elements, and this becomes even more evident when exploring the distinct and rich linguistic duo of Russian and Turkish. Delving deep into these nuances, the study unravelled several layers of lexical transformations and their implications in the realm of translation.

Central to the research's findings was an understanding of the specific types of interactions between the source and target text. One predominant type of interaction highlighted was semantic deployment. Here, meanings from the source language are thoroughly unfolded, often necessitating significant structural transformations in the target language. Such processes are imperative for ensuring that cultural nuances and specificities, embedded deeply within the source text, are adeptly communicated. Another notable interaction involves a holistic transformation of structural elements, ensuring that the translation retains its essence while adhering to the linguistic norms of the target language.

With regard to the core objectives behind the differentiation of meanings, two primary goals emerged from the study. Firstly, differentiation serves as a pivotal tool to address the disparities between the non-equivalent linguistic constructs present in the Russian and Turkish languages. This becomes particularly evident in the realm of idiomatic expressions. The target language often leans towards more descriptive or detailed constructions to encapsulate the essence of such idioms from the source text. Secondly, differentiation aims to capture and convey the national and cultural peculiarities intrinsic to the literary work. Without such nuanced translation, there's a palpable risk of the translated content losing its contextual richness.

Exploring stable turns, especially those of a phraseological nature, the study illuminated how these non-equivalent linguistic means play a crucial role in offering insights into the national cultural nuances of an artistic text. However, this differentiation isn't devoid of challenges. The study underscored instances of significant semantic discrepancies when comparing contexts between the source and target languages. These challenges emphasized the pivotal role of translators in discerning and employing appropriate lexical strategies. In addition, structural and stylistic adjustments become inevitable. This is evident in the need to transform intricate and semantically dense constructs into simpler segments, ensuring comprehension and resonance with the target audience.

In summation, this research offers a comprehensive understanding of the myriad layers integral to Russian-Turkish translation. By exploring the semantic depths and challenges, it provides valuable insights into the strategies, challenges, and overarching principles governing this translation process. Looking forward, the insights gathered here could pave the way for more robust translation databases and tools, ushering in a more nuanced and informed era of linguistics and translation studies.

Bibliography

Айтматов, Ч. (2022). Плаха. Москва: Азбука-Классика.

Айтматов, Ч. (2023). Прощай, Гульсары! Москва: Азбука-Классика.

Abdullaeva, A., Baranova, S. (2020). “Cultural turn” as a current direction of the literary translation development. Collection of Scientific Papers “New Philology", 80(1), 9-13. DOI: https://doi. org/10.26661/2414-1135-2020-80-1-1

Aytmatov, C. (1997). Elveda Gulsari / R. Ozdek, Qev. Istanbul: Otuken Yayinlari.

Aytmatov, C. (2000). Difi Kurdun Ruyalari/ R. Ozdek, Qev. Istanbul: Otuken Yayinlari.

Castilho, Sh., Resende, N. (2022). Post-editese in literary translations. Information, 13 (2), 1-22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/info13020066

Choltekin, C., Dogruoz, A. S., Qetinoglu, O. (2023). Resources for Turkish natural language processing: A critical survey. Language Resources and Evaluation, 57, 449-488. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1007/s10579-022-09605-4

Dayter, D., Locher, M. A., Messerli, Th. C. (2023). Pragmatics in Translation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009261210

Ghafoor, A., Imran, A.S., Daudpota, S.M., Kastrati, Z., Abdullah, Batra, R., Wani, A.M. (2021). The impact of translating resource-rich datasets to low-resource languages through multi-lingual text processing. IEEE Access, 9, 124478-124490. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3110285

Giunchiglia, F., Bella, G., Nair, N.C., Chi, Y., Xu, H. (2023). Representing interlingual meaning in lexical databases. Artificial Intelligence Review, 56, 11053-11069. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10462-023-10427-1

Khamidov, K.K., Ismatullayeva, N., Rasulova, Z., Karimova, D. (2020). The issues of word choice in fiction translation. International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation, 24 (4), 6660-6668. DOI: htt- ps://doi.org/10.37200/IJPR/V24I4/PR2020478

Khotaba, E.A., Tarawneh, Kh. A. (2022). Lexical discourse analysis in translation. Journal of Education and Practice, 6 (3), 106-113.

Kolehmainen, L., Penttila, E., Poucke, P. (2016). Introduction: Literary texts and their translations as an object of research. International Journal of Literary Linguistics, 5 (3), 1-7. DOI: https://doi. org/10.15462/ijll.v5i3.72

Koshueva, M., Abduvalieva, E., Zholdoshova, A., Karaeva, N., Osmonova, A., Shaimkulova, R., Mamadieva, G., Abdullaeva, Z. (2021). Kyrgyz lexicography in the 20th-21st centuries. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 11, 719-726. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2021.115057

Makhmudova F.M. (2019). Types of translation transformations in the Turkish translation of Ch. Aytmatov's story “Mother Earth”. Retrieved from https://arch.kyrlibnet.kg/uploads/KNUMAHMU- DOVA%20F.%20M2014-3.pdf

Mamasheva, O., Madmarova, G., Abytova, G., Berdibekova, B., Bolotakunova, G., Ormokeeva, R., Shaimkulova, A., Temirkulova, Y., Abdullaeva, Z. (2021). Reflection of nations mentality in the Kyrgyz, Russian and English language phraseological units. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 11, 24-33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2021.111002