PRAGMATIC AND STYLISTIC ASPECTS OF TRANSLATION ERRATOLOGY (ON THE EXAMPLE OF ENGLISH-UZBEK LITERARY TRANSLATIONS

INTERNATIONALSCIENCES, EDUCATION AND NEW LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES VOLUME 2 | ISSUE 6 | 2025 https://internationalsciences.org/ | Social Sciences and Humanities | October, 2025 183 DOI: https://10.5281/zenodo.17427569 PRAGMATIC AND STYLISTIC ASPECTS OF TRANSLATION ERRATOLOGY (ON THE EXAMPLE OF ENGLISH-UZBEK LITERARY TRANSLATIONS Ibrohimova Nasiba Mirzohid qizi E-mail: [email protected] Traineeteacher Uzbekistan State World Languages University ABSTRACT The study of translation erratology - the analysis of translation errors and deviations - provides valuable insight into the pragmatic and stylistic dimensions of cross-linguistic transfer. This research focuses on how pragmatic meaning, contextual appropriateness, and stylistic nuance are preserved or altered in English-Uzbek literary translations. By examining various instances of lexical, syntactic, and stylistic shifts, the study highlights how translators’ decisions can influence reader perception, emotional resonance, and cultural interpretation. Pragmatically, translation errors may arise from misjudging speech acts, politeness strategies, or contextual replicates, while stylistically, deviations can distort the author’s original tone, imagery, or rhythm. The analysis demonstrates that translation erratology serves not only to identify linguistic inaccuracies but also to uncover the underlying cultural and cognitive challenges inherent in literary translation. Moreover, it emphasizes the necessity for translators to balance fidelity and creativity while maintaining stylistic harmony between the source and target texts. The findings contribute to understanding translation as a multidimensional act of intercultural communication where errors, rather than mere failures, reveal the complex interaction between language, culture, and stylistic expression. Keywords: Translation erratology, pragmatic aspects, stylistic shifts, literary translation, cross-cultural communication, contextual meaning, translator’s creativity, english-uzbek translation. Translation erratology, emerging as a distinct subdiscipline within translation studies during the late twentieth century, focuses systematically on identifying, categorizing, and analyzing errors in translated texts. This field moves beyond prescriptive criticism to examine translation errors as windows into the translation INTERNATIONALSCIENCES, EDUCATION AND NEW LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES VOLUME 2 | ISSUE 6 | 2025 https://internationalsciences.org/ | Social Sciences and Humanities | October, 2025 184 process itself, revealing the cognitive challenges, linguistic obstacles, and cultural complications inherent in interlingual communication (Pym, 1992). While early translation criticism often relied on impressionistic judgments, contemporary erratology employs systematic frameworks for error identification and classification, contributing to both translation quality assessment and translator training. The EnglishUzbek language pair presents particularly rich terrain for erratological investigation due to the substantial typological, structural, and cultural distance between these languages. English, a Germanic language with analytic morphology and relatively fixed word order, contrasts sharply with Uzbek, a Turkic language featuring agglutinative morphology, flexible word order, and distinct pragmatic conventions. These linguistic differences combine with cultural distance to create numerous opportunities for translation errors, especially in literary contexts where meaning extends beyond propositional content to encompass aesthetic, emotional, and cultural dimensions. Literary translation demands more than semantic equivalence; it requires preserving authorial voice, maintaining stylistic features, recreating aesthetic effects, and ensuring cultural accessibility while respecting source text integrity (Bassnett, 2014). Translators must navigate between foreignization and domestication, between literal fidelity and creative adaptation, between preserving source culture markers and ensuring target audience comprehension. This balancing act generates distinctive error patterns that illuminate fundamental questions about translation as both craft and art. Pragmatic and stylistic aspects of literary translation prove particularly vulnerable to error. Pragmatic dimensions involve how language functions in context, including speech acts, implicature, politeness conventions, and reader-text relationships. Stylistic dimensions encompass the distinctive manner in which authors employ linguistic resources to create aesthetic effects, including metaphor, imagery, rhythm, tone, and register. Errors in these domains can fundamentally alter how readers experience and interpret texts, making their study essential for translation quality improvement. This article examines pragmatic and stylistic errors in English-Uzbek literary translations through systematic analysis of translated works, translator challenges, and error patterns specific to this language pair. The analysis draws upon theoretical frameworks from translation studies, pragmatics, and stylistics while providing concrete examples illustrating common error types and their consequences. Through this examination, the article aims to contribute to both theoretical understanding of translation erratology and practical improvement of English-Uzbek literary translation quality. The concept of translation error resists simple definition, as it necessarily involves normative judgments about translation quality and purpose. House (2015) defines translation errors as instances where translators fail to achieve functional equivalence between source and target texts, resulting in distortion of meaning, inappropriate pragmatic INTERNATIONALSCIENCES, EDUCATION AND NEW LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES VOLUME 2 | ISSUE 6 | 2025 https://internationalsciences.org/ | Social Sciences and Humanities | October, 2025 185 effects, or inadequate stylistic correspondence. However, this definition presupposes particular translation norms and purposes that may vary across contexts, genres, and theoretical orientations. Contemporary erratology recognizes that error identification requires reference to translation norms, which vary historically, culturally, and contextually. What constitutes an error in one translation context may represent acceptable adaptation in another. Nevertheless, certain error categories demonstrate relative stability across contexts, particularly errors involving semantic distortion, pragmatic inappropriateness, and stylistic deterioration that cannot be justified by legitimate translation strategies or target text purposes. Nord (1997) distinguishes between functional and instrumental translation, arguing that error assessment must consider translation purpose and intended function. In literary translation, the instrumental function typically aims to enable target readers to experience the source text as a literary work, preserving aesthetic qualities, cultural specificities, and authorial voice while ensuring accessibility. Errors can be defined as deviations from this purpose that cannot be justified by conscious translation decisions or target audience needs. Various scholars have proposed taxonomies for classifying translation errors. Gouadec (1981) categorized errors as linguistic, cultural, or functional. Sager (1989) distinguished between competence errors (resulting from inadequate linguistic or cultural knowledge) and performance errors (resulting from inattention or processing limitations). Pym (1992) proposed a simpler binary taxonomy distinguishing binary errors (where one solution is clearly correct) from non-binary errors (where multiple solutions may be acceptable). For literary translation analysis, House’s (2015) distinction between covert and overt errors proves particularly useful. Covert errors involve unintentional deviations that distort meaning or create unintended effects, while overt errors represent conscious but poorly justified translation decisions. Additionally, Nord’s (1997) pragmatic error categories, including functional inadequacy, cultural inappropriateness, and reader-inappropriate language, provide frameworks for analyzing pragmatic dimensions of literary translation errors. Stylistic error taxonomies often draw from stylistics and literary theory. These include errors in register selection, metaphor translation, imagery preservation, rhythm and sound pattern recreation, and tone maintenance (Boase-Beier, 2006). For English-Uzbek literary translation, these categories require adaptation to account for language-pair-specific challenges and cultural distance between source and target contexts. Pragmatics concerns how context contributes to meaning, encompassing speech acts, implicature, presupposition, deixis, and conversational principles (Leech, 1983). Translating pragmatic meaning presents distinctive challenges because pragmatic conventions vary substantially across languages and cultures. What counts as a request, how politeness is encoded, what can be left implicit, INTERNATIONALSCIENCES, EDUCATION AND NEW LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES VOLUME 2 | ISSUE 6 | 2025 https://internationalsciences.org/ | Social Sciences and Humanities | October, 2025 186 and how speaker attitudes are marked all differ between English and Uzbek. Speech act theory, developed by Austin (1962) and Searle (1969), distinguishes between locutionary acts (what is said), illocutionary acts (what is done in saying something), and perlocutionary acts (what effects are produced). Translation must preserve illocutionary force while potentially altering locutionary form to achieve appropriate perlocutionary effects in the target culture. Errors occur when translators preserve surface form while losing illocutionary force or when attempts to preserve illocutionary force result in pragmatically inappropriate target text forms. Grice’s (1975) cooperative principle and conversational maxims provide another framework for understanding pragmatic translation challenges. Implicature, meaning conveyed indirectly through violation of conversational maxims, often requires substantial adaptation in translation. What English speakers leave implicit, Uzbek speakers may state explicitly, and vice versa. Translators must recognize implicature in source texts and recreate it appropriately in target texts, a process vulnerable to various errors. Politeness theory, particularly Brown and Levinson’s (1987) framework distinguishing positive and negative politeness strategies, illuminates another pragmatic translation challenge. English and Uzbek employ different politeness systems, with varying strategies for face-threatening acts, social distance marking, and hierarchical relationship encoding. Errors occur when translators fail to recognize politeness marking in source texts or when they employ inappropriate politeness strategies in target texts. Stylistics examines how linguistic choices create particular aesthetic, emotional, and artistic effects. Literary style encompasses multiple dimensions, including lexical choice, syntactic structure, figurative language, sound patterns, rhythm, tone, and register (Leech & Short, 2007). Each dimension presents distinctive translation challenges, particularly across linguistically distant language pairs like English and Uzbek. Leech and Short’s (2007) checklist approach to stylistic analysis provides a systematic framework for identifying stylistic features requiring translation. This includes lexical categories (general versus specific vocabulary, formal versus colloquial registers, abstract versus concrete terms), grammatical categories (sentence types and structures, clause patterns, noun phrase complexity), figures of speech (metaphor, simile, personification, metonymy), and cohesion patterns. Translators must recognize these features in source texts and recreate comparable effects in target texts using available linguistic resources. Register, the variety of language appropriate to particular social situations, proves particularly challenging in literary translation. Halliday and Hasan (1976) analyze register along three dimensions: field (subject matter), tenor (relationship between participants), and mode (channel of communication). Literary texts often employ distinctive registers to characterize speakers, establish tone, or create particular effects. English-Uzbek translation must navigate different register INTERNATIONALSCIENCES, EDUCATION AND NEW LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES VOLUME 2 | ISSUE 6 | 2025 https://internationalsciences.org/ | Social Sciences and Humanities | October, 2025 187 systems, with potential mismatches in formality marking, social distance encoding, and situational appropriateness. Metaphor translation represents another major stylistic challenge. Conceptual metaphor theory (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980) demonstrates that metaphors reflect underlying conceptual systems that vary across cultures. Some metaphors translate directly because they reflect universal or shared conceptual mappings, while others require adaptation or explanation because they reflect culturespecific conceptual systems. Errors occur when translators miss metaphors, translate them literally when adaptation is needed, or replace them inappropriately. Speech acts in English literary texts frequently undergo distortion in Uzbek translation due to different conventions for performing various illocutionary acts. English indirect requests, for instance, often employ interrogative forms ("Could you pass the salt?") that might sound inappropriately tentative or confused if translated literally into Uzbek. Uzbek typically employs different indirectness strategies, including conditional constructions or verbal mood markers rather than interrogative forms. Example errors include translating English indirect requests using Uzbek interrogative forms that function as genuine information questions rather than requests, thereby losing the requestive illocutionary force. Conversely, translators sometimes render English direct commands into Uzbek using excessive politeness markers inappropriate for the source text’s register or the character’s social position, distorting interpersonal dynamics and characterization. Commissive speech acts (promises, offers, threats) also suffer from misrendering. English modal verbs ("I will," "I shall," "I must") carry different degrees of commitment and different pragmatic force depending on context. Uzbek marks commitment through different linguistic resources, including evidentiality markers, verbal mood, and specific commitment particles. Errors occur when translators select inappropriate modal markers or fail to recognize the degree of commitment encoded in English source texts. Expressive speech acts (thanking, apologizing, congratulating, complaining) involve particularly culture-specific conventions. Uzbek thanking and apologizing conventions differ from English patterns in frequency, elaboration, and appropriate contexts. Translators sometimes import English politeness patterns directly, creating characters who seem excessively or insufficiently polite by Uzbek cultural standards. For instance, translating every English "thank you" with "rahmat" may create unnaturally polite or formal-sounding dialogue inconsistent with the social context. Literary texts contain numerous cultural references and presuppositions requiring reader familiarity with source culture contexts. English literary texts reference customs, institutions, historical events, literary traditions, and shared cultural knowledge that Uzbek readers may lack. Translation errors occur when translators fail to recognize that references carry presuppositions requiring cultural knowledge or when they handle such references inappropriately. One common error pattern involves INTERNATIONALSCIENCES, EDUCATION AND NEW LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES VOLUME 2 | ISSUE 6 | 2025 https://internationalsciences.org/ | Social Sciences and Humanities | October, 2025 188 leaving cultural references unexplained when target readers lack necessary background knowledge. Translating references to English historical events, political institutions, or cultural practices without any contextual support leaves readers confused or creates misunderstandings. For example, references to "the Blitz" or "Victorian values" or "Thanksgiving" carry rich connotations for English readers but may mean little to Uzbek readers without explanation or adaptation. The opposite error involves overexplaining or inappropriately domesticating cultural references, thereby destroying the source text’s cultural specificity and foreign flavor. Literary translation generally aims to preserve cultural markers while ensuring accessibility, requiring careful balance between foreignization and domestication. Errors occur when translators lean too far toward either extreme, either mystifying readers with unexplained foreign references or creating an inappropriately domesticated text that loses source culture authenticity. Intertextual references present particular challenges. English literary texts frequently allude to the Bible, Shakespeare, canonical literature, and popular culture in ways that educated English readers recognize. Uzbek readers share different literary traditions and canonical texts, making these allusions potentially invisible or meaningless. Translators must decide whether to preserve allusions (risking incomprehension), replace them with functionally equivalent Uzbek cultural references (risking anachronism or cultural distortion), or explain them (risking disruption of literary flow). Register selection represents a major source of pragmatic errors in literary translation. English literary texts employ register variation to characterize speakers, mark social relationships, establish tone, and create particular effects. Uzbek expresses register through different linguistic resources, including address forms, honorific markers, lexical choice, and syntactic structures. Mistranslation of register creates characters who sound inappropriately formal or casual, distorts social relationships, and disrupts textual coherence. Address forms exemplify this challenge. English primarily uses names and titles to mark social relationships, while Uzbek employs a rich system of kinship terms, respectful forms, and age-based address terms. English "you" translates into multiple Uzbek forms depending on social relationship, relative age, formality level, and degree of intimacy. Errors occur when translators select inappropriate address forms, making relationships seem more distant or intimate than source texts indicate, or when they fail to maintain address form consistency, creating confusing character relationships. Honorific marking presents another challenge. Uzbek encodes respect and social hierarchy through verbal forms, particularly the second person plural as respectful form, and through various lexical choices. English marks respect more subtly through lexical choice and indirect structures rather than grammatical forms. Translators must infer appropriate respect levels from English context and render them explicitly in Uzbek. Errors include using insufficiently INTERNATIONALSCIENCES, EDUCATION AND NEW LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES VOLUME 2 | ISSUE 6 | 2025 https://internationalsciences.org/ | Social Sciences and Humanities | October, 2025 189 respectful forms for high-status characters, employing excessively respectful forms that seem obsequious or satirical, or inconsistently marking respect relationships. Dialectal and sociolectal variation also generates translation challenges. English literary texts may employ regional dialects, class-marked speech patterns, or professional jargons to characterize speakers. These varieties carry social meanings and create particular effects requiring recreation in translation. Uzbek possesses different dialect geography and social variation patterns, making direct correspondence impossible. Translators must find functionally equivalent ways to mark regional origin, social class, or professional identity, with errors including eliminating variation entirely (leveling) or employing Uzbek varieties that carry inappropriate social connotations. REFERENCES: 1. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Harvard University Press. 2. Bassnett, S. (2014). Translation studies (4th ed.). Routledge. 3. Boase-Beier, J. (2006). Stylistic approaches to translation. Routledge. 4. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press. 5. Gouadec, D. (1981). Paramètres de l’évaluation des traductions. Babel, 27(2), 99103. https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.27.2.04gou 6. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41-58). Academic Press. 7. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Longman. 8. House, J. (2015). Translation quality assessment: Past and present. Routledge.