PRESUPPOSITION PROJECTION AND FACTIVE VERBS IN ENGLISH-TO-UZBEK LITERARY TRANSLATION
Versions
- 11-06-2026 (2)
- 11-06-2026 (1)
This article examines the projection behaviour of presuppositions triggered by factive verbs in English literary prose and analyses the extent to which these presuppositions are preserved, weakened, or lost when the source text is rendered into Uzbek. Factive verbs - a class that includes know, regret, realise, discover, and forget - are distinguished from their non-factive counterparts by the property of presupposing the truth of their sentential complement. This presupposition is characterised by projection: it survives embedding under negation, questions, and conditional constructions. The study draws on a parallel corpus of English source texts and published Uzbek translations, including works by Fitzgerald, Woolf, Hardy, Hemingway, and Collins, and identifies five categories of translational outcome: full preservation, partial preservation, presupposition shift, presupposition loss, and compensatory reconstruction. The analysis demonstrates that the Uzbek verbal system - with its distinct aspectual, modal, and evidential categories - creates systematic conditions for presupposition weakening at the morphosyntactic level, particularly under negation and in free translation contexts. Pedagogical and terminographic implications for translation training are discussed.
1. Kiparsky P., Kiparsky C. Fact // Progress in Linguistics / ed. M. Bierwisch, K. Heidolph. – The Hague: Mouton, 1970. – P. 143–173.
2. Langendoen D.T., Savin H. The Projection Problem for Presuppositions // Studies in Linguistic Semantics / ed. C. Fillmore, D.T. Langendoen. – New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1971. – P. 54–60.
3. Johanson L. The Uzbek Verb: Structure, Semantics, and Pragmatics // Turkic Languages. – 2002. – Vol. 6 (1). – P. 29–57.
4. Frege G. Über Sinn und Bedeutung [On Sense and Reference] // Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik. – 1892. – Vol. 100. – P. 25–50.
5. Strawson P.F. On Referring // Mind. – 1950. – Vol. 59 (235). – P. 320–344.
6. Karttunen L. Presuppositions of Compound Sentences // Linguistic Inquiry. – 1973. – Vol. 4 (2). – P. 169–193.
7. Levinson S.C. Pragmatics. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. – 420 p.
8. Gutt E.-A. Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context. – Oxford: Blackwell, 1991. – 271 p.
9. House J. Translation Quality Assessment: Past and Present. – Tübingen: Narr, 1997. – 212 p.
10. Yo‘ldoshev M. Badiiy matnda uslub va tarjima muammolari [Style and translation problems in literary texts]. – Toshkent: Fan, 2012. – 176 b.
11. Raximov S. O‘zbek nutqida pragmatik implikatura [Pragmatic implicature in Uzbek discourse] // O‘zbek tili va adabiyoti. – 2018. – № 3. – B. 38–47.
12. Verschueren J. Understanding Pragmatics. – London: Arnold, 1999. – 295 p.
13. G. Pragmatics. – Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. – 138 p.
14. D., Wilson D. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. 2nd ed. – Oxford: Blackwell, 1995. – 326 p.
Copyright (c) 2026 «ACTA NUUz»
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
.jpg)
1.png)
