A CLASSIFICATION OF TABOO: FOCUSING ON SOCIOCULTURAL AND RELIGIOUS CATEGORIES

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MODERN DEVELOPMENT OF PEDAGOGY AND LINGUISTICS Volume 02, Issue 11, 2025 75 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MODERN DEVELOPMENT OF PEDAGOGY AND LINGUISTICS universalconference.us A CLASSIFICATION OF TABOO: FOCUSING ON SOCIOCULTURAL AND RELIGIOUS CATEGORIES PhD researcher of TSUULL Tukhtamuradova Madina Abstract This article analyzes the complexities of translating religious and sociocultural taboos from English literature into Uzbek. It highlights the conflict between explicit Western narratives and the conservative, Islamic-influenced norms of Uzbek culture, where literal translation often causes cultural offense. Drawing on functionalist translation theories (Vermeer, Nord, Pym), the study proposes strategies to reconcile these divides. The research aims to define translation norms that preserve the original text's communicative intent while ensuring the target text remains culturally acceptable to Uzbek readers. Keywords: Literary translation, English-Uzbek, taboo language, religious norms, sociocultural values, functionalism, cultural adaptation. Literary translation acts as a vital bridge between cultures, yet it often reveals deep divides in ethics and ideology. This challenge is particularly acute when translating English literature containing taboo language—words or ideas considered offensive or sacrilegious—into Uzbek. The Uzbek cultural landscape, defined by strong religious traditions and conservative norms, forces translators to walk a fine line. They must find a way to reconcile the explicit or secular nature of Western texts with the moral expectations of their readership without losing the original's impact. For this very purpose, scientists and translators who work in this field for many years have tried to reach an exact solution that would give translators dealing with problematic cultural and social aspects a direction. For the language pair of English-Uzbek, which is situated in different language systems, there are more problems than the language pairs that are considered in the same line. This research divides the type of linguistic taboos that would mostly appear in this pair of languages: 1. Religious taboos: This category includes the main differences between the religious beliefs of the two nations. The notion of blasphemy, sacred figures, or wrong usage of religious terms differ between them. Taking into consideration the dominance of the Islamic faith in Uzbekistan, these kinds of terms carry exceptionally high sensitivity. The research aims to find a golden balance where the translator can ensure the equivalency of the Source Text and also provide Target Text INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MODERN DEVELOPMENT OF PEDAGOGY AND LINGUISTICS Volume 02, Issue 11, 2025 76 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MODERN DEVELOPMENT OF PEDAGOGY AND LINGUISTICS universalconference.us readers with comfortable reading where they understand the meaning and don’t get the feeling of shock and disgust, which are the usual results of taboo. 2. Sociocultural taboos: This linguistic domain involves common profanity, abusive speech, and strong curses. Its major focus is on topics considered sensitive, particularly sexuality and physical functions (like elimination). Crucially, for Uzbek speakers, these verbal taboos are frequently intertwined with and supported by the community's overarching religious morality. Taboo category English Source Example (ST) Uzbek Cultural Context Uzbek Translation Risk/Impact Religious Profanity Exclamations like "Oh God!" or "For Christ's sake!" High respect for the Divine; prohibition of blasphemy (kufr). Severe offense (Blasphemy); potential legal/social backlash. Socio-Linguistic (Politeness) Informal or overly familiar direct address (using you casually). Emphasis on adab and social hierarchy (use of siz vs. sen). Violates politeness norms (xushmuomalalik); perceived as disrespectful. Sociocultural (Profanity/Abuse) "Damn," "Hell," "Screwed" Violation of public decorum with moderate risk. Euphemism, Generalization, or Substitution with a milder Uzbek expression. Table 1. The above mentioned table demonstrates one of the widely spread, yet delicate types of taboos translators face during the process of English literature into Uzbek. Translating them word by word would lead to the readers’ disturbance and decrease the quality of the translation, even though it has no functional mistakes. The norms that ensure a distinct way of translation for the English-Uzbek language pair are based on the famous scientists theories, such as Vermeer, Pym, Nord, Reiss and others. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MODERN DEVELOPMENT OF PEDAGOGY AND LINGUISTICS Volume 02, Issue 11, 2025 77 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MODERN DEVELOPMENT OF PEDAGOGY AND LINGUISTICS universalconference.us List of Used Literature: Allan, K., & Burridge, K. (2006). Forbidden Words: Taboo and the Censoring of Language. Cambridge University Press. Ashurova, D. U., & Galiyeva, M. R. (2018). Stylistics of Literary Text. Turon-Iqbol. Hughes, G. (2006). An Encyclopedia of Swearing: The Social History of Oaths, Profanity, Foul Language, and Ethnic Slurs in the English-speaking World. M.E. Sharpe. Ismatullayeva, N. (2024). Overcoming Cultural Constraints: Translating Taboos in "It Ends with Us" from English into Uzbek. Journal of Modern Educational Achievements, 9(9), 12–18. Nord, C. (1997). Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained. St. Jerome Publishing. Pym, A. (2014). Exploring Translation Theories (2nd ed.). Routledge. Reiss, K. (2000). Translation Criticism – The Potentials and Limitations (E. F. Rhodes, Trans.). St. Jerome Publishing. (Original work published 1971). Reiss, K., & Vermeer, H. J. (1984). Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie [Groundwork for a General Theory of Translation]. Niemeyer. Salomov, G. (1983). Tarjima nazariyasi asoslari [Fundamentals of Translation Theory]. O‘qituvchi. Vermeer, H. J. (1989). Skopos and Commission in Translational Action. In A. Chesterman (Ed.), Readings in Translation Theory (pp. 173–187). Oy Finn Lectura Ab.