Intertextual Equivalence in the Translation of Phraseological Units: Comparative Modeling in English and Uzbek
Najmiddinova Mekhrigul Najmiddin qizi
Teacher of Navoi State University
Email: mehrigul@nspi.uz
Tel: +998907313080
Orcid ID: 0009-0007-8449-3373
Abstract
Phraseological units such as idioms, proverbs, and fixed expressions represent culturally embedded linguistic phenomena whose meanings often extend beyond literal interpretation through intertextual references. This study investigates the problem of intertextual equivalence in the translation of phraseological units between English and Uzbek, two languages belonging to distinct linguistic and cultural traditions. Drawing on theories of intertextuality and translation equivalence, the research adopts a comparative modeling approach to examine how intertextual meanings encoded in phraseological units are preserved, transformed, or lost in translation. The empirical material consists of a qualitative corpus of English and Uzbek literary texts, media discourse, and public speeches alongside their translations.
Phraseological units were identified, contextually analyzed, and classified according to translation strategies, including literal equivalence, substitution, paraphrase, and explicitation. The findings demonstrate that intertextual equivalence is largely achieved when direct idiomatic counterparts exist in both languages, allowing for the preservation of metaphorical imagery and cultural references. However, culture-specific phraseological units frequently undergo semantic shifts, resulting in partial or complete loss of intertextual resonance.
Genre-based differences were also observed: literary translations tend to preserve intertextual imagery more consistently than media texts, where adaptation and creative transformation prevail. The study concludes that successful translation of phraseological units depends on the translator’s ability to balance semantic accuracy with cultural adaptation, positioning translation as an inherently intertextual and intercultural act. The results contribute to phraseology, translation studies, and contrastive linguistics by offering a systematic model for assessing intertextual equivalence in English–Uzbek translation practice.
Keywords: phraseological units, idioms, proverbs, fixed expressions, culture, cultural adaptation, equivalence, translation, metaphor, public speeches.
Introduction
Phraseological units (PUs) – idioms, proverbs, fixed expressions – enrich language with vivid imagery and culture-specific meaning. Unlike free word combinations, their meanings are not deducible from individual words. Translators often face challenges with PUs because these units are deeply rooted in the source culture’s context. As Jumayeva (2024) notes, idioms “contain layers of meaning that are not easily transferred between languages,” making it hard to retain their emotional and cultural resonance in translation. Intertextuality theory highlights that texts inherently reference other texts or cultural artifacts.
Many PUs carry such intertextual links (for example, allusions to historical events or literature). Thus, intertextual equivalence in translation means preserving these cross-textual references when rendering PUs in another language. Schӓffner (2012) describes translation as a form of intercultural intertextuality, where a translator must re-create references from one culture within another. In our case, English and Uzbek belong to different cultural spheres, so achieving intertextual equivalence is particularly demanding. We therefore examine how phraseological units in English are translated into Uzbek (and vice versa), focusing on whether and how their intertextual meanings survive the transfer.
Drawing on phraseology and translation studies, we adopt a comparative modeling approach: we analyze corpora of English and Uzbek texts (literary works, news media, speeches) to identify patterns in how PUs are rendered. We ask: when an English idiom or proverb appears, does the Uzbek version preserve its cultural reference and effect, or is the meaning lost or transformed? Theoretical frameworks include intertextuality theory (explaining how texts echo one another) and translation theory (e.g. dynamic/communicative equivalence). As Newmark (1988) emphasizes, idioms and metaphors must be understood in their cultural and situational contexts, and direct equivalents are often unavailable. We supplement these ideas with Ravshanova’s (2025) analysis of semantic transformations in PUs, which shows how shifts (metaphorical extension, narrowing, irony, etc.) create intertextual links. By comparing English–Uzbek PU pairs across genres, we model how intertextual content is preserved or adapted.
Methods
We conducted a qualitative comparative analysis of English and Uzbek phraseological units in context. Our research material comprised diverse genres: contemporary English literary texts (novels, short stories, poetry), media discourse (newspaper and online news articles), and public speeches; and their published Uzbek translations. Following Ravshanova (2025), we treated each text as a source of PUs and noted their usage and any intertextual references. In parallel, we collected the corresponding Uzbek renditions (or English renditions of Uzbek PUs) to form bilingual examples.
The analysis proceeded in several steps. First, identification: we manually extracted phraseological units from the source texts and recorded them with context. Then, semantic and contextual analysis: we examined each PU’s meaning and cultural background (drawing on lexicographic definitions). Next, intertextual analysis: we noted whether a PU alluded to external texts or cultural artifacts. Finally, comparative modeling: for each PU, we compared the English and Uzbek versions, classifying the translation strategy and assessing intertextual equivalence. We categorized cases where meaning was fully preserved versus partially or fully changed.
Examples were coded by strategy type (literal equivalent, substitution, paraphrase, etc.) following frameworks in translation studies. For instance, Ravshanova’s comparative method of matching English PUs with Uzbek translations guided our approach. In summary, we built a mini-corpus of PU pairs and analyzed patterns of semantic shift and strategy usage across genres.
Individualism and Collectivism:
Uzbek Culture: Uzbek society leans heavily towards collectivism. Decisions are often made considering the family’s or community`s welfare rather than individual preferences. Public image, or obro’, halollik (honesty) is crucial, affecting personal choices (Saidov, 2010).
English Culture: England exemplifies individualism, promoting personal freedom, self-expression, and privacy (Hofstede, 2001). Success is often measured through personal achievements rather than collective recognition.
Difference: This divergence creates contrasting approaches to career choices, marriage, and in Uzbekistan, decisions in these areas frequently familial input, whereas in England, individuals often act independently.
Results
The analysis revealed clear patterns in how phraseological units transfer between English and Uzbek. Some PUs have direct equivalents in both languages, thus preserving intertextual meaning. For example, “burn bridges” (meaning cut off relations) is rendered literally as ko‘prikni yoqmoq (“to set the bridge on fire”) in Uzbek; “time is money” becomes vaqt — pul (“time is money”), also preserving the original sense. These cases reflect universal concepts (social ties, time value) and allow idiomatic translation that maintains the same metaphorical imagery. In such cases, intertextual equivalence is high: the target PU invokes the same idea or reference as the source.
However, many idioms are culture-specific and lack one-to-one counterparts. For instance, the English “spill the beans” (reveal a secret) has no native Uzbek idiom. Translators typically paraphrase the meaning: for example, using Uzbek gapni ochmoq (“open the talk”). This conveys the idea of revealing information but drops the original bean metaphor. Similarly, the Uzbek idiom “qo‘lidan kelmay qolmoq” (literally “it doesn’t come from one’s hands,” meaning someone is incompetent) has no English equivalent; an English translator might explain it rather than use an idiom. In these cases, intertextual resonance is partially lost: the metaphorical image is replaced with a more literal expression.
Some translations rely on literal equivalents when available. For example, “break the ice” is rendered as muzni sindirmoq (“break the ice”). This preserves the idiomatic form, so the meaning and the implied reference to easing tension remain. When no idiomatic match exists, translators employ substitution or paraphrase. For example, English “kick the bucket” (die) is often translated into Uzbek as neutral o‘lamoq (“to die”) or by using a euphemism like “dunyo o‘zgargan” (“the world changed,” i.e., someone has passed away). Here the literal bucket image is dropped, and the focus is on conveying the core meaning.
The following table summarizes representative examples:
| English PU (meaning) | Uzbek Equivalent or Translation | Intertextual/Strategy Notes |
|---|---|---|
| “Burn bridges” (sever ties) | ko‘prikni yoqmoq (“burn the bridge”) | Direct equivalent; metaphor retained. |
| “Time is money” (value time) | vaqt — pul (“time is money”) | Direct equivalent. |
| “Spill the beans” (reveal secret) | gapni ochmoq (“open the talk”) | Paraphrase; original metaphor lost. |
| “Kick the bucket” (die) | o‘lamoq (“to die”) or dunyo o‘zgargan | Substitution/euphemism; idiom dropped. |
| “Break the ice” (start convo) | muzni sindirmoq (“break the ice”) | Literal equivalent. |
| Uz qo‘lida tutqich yo‘q (no control) | “lack control (over the situation)” | Paraphrase in English (no idiom). |
| “A burning noonday sun” (scorching) | bir kuni jazirama mahali (“a scorching day”) | Literary translation example preserving imagery. |
| References (e.g. Shahnamah, Rumi) | Often left untranslated or footnoted | Cultural references are preserved or explained. |
In literary texts, translators carefully preserved imagery. For instance, in the Uzbek translation of García Márquez’s One Hundred Years of Solitude, the phrase “a burning noonday sun” was rendered as bir kuni jazirama mahali (“a scorching day”), which maintains the intense visual effect. An idiomatic description of a character wandering through a house “without paying attention to anyone” was similarly rendered in a vivid, culturally resonant Uzbek phrase. In media discourse, however, PUs are often creatively adapted. Ravshanova (2025) observes that headlines and advertising frequently manipulate known idioms: e.g. “Break the ice” becomes “break the digital ice”, linking the original metaphor to modern technology. Likewise, “Every cloud has a silver lining” might be twisted to “Every cloud has a silicon lining” in a satirical tech context. These transformations still evoke the original expressions but with new, culturally specific twists.
Overall, our comparative model shows that intertextual meaning is sometimes preserved and sometimes transformed. In Ravshanova’s terms, translators “preserve semantic transformations” when possible, but often “adapt them to fit cultural norms” in the target language. For example, the English idiom “break the ice” can remain nearly identical, while “spill the beans” loses its imagery. In every case, we note whether the translation retains the source’s implied allusions (intertextual links) or replaces them with an explanation or local equivalent.
Discussion
These findings highlight the intertextual challenges of translating PUs between English and Uzbek. When an equivalent idiom exists in both cultures (as with “burn bridges”), the translator can maintain the intertextual reference intact. In contrast, culture-bound idioms (like “spill the beans”) require negotiation between fidelity and clarity. Jumayeva (2024) emphasizes creative techniques for this purpose: when literal or equivalent translations fail, translators use paraphrasing, substitution, borrowing, or figurative paraphrase to preserve meaning. Our data confirm these strategies. For instance, substituting o‘lamoq for “kick the bucket” sacrifices the original image but retains the outcome. This trade-off aligns with Newmark’s notion that idioms must be understood in context: the translator must choose an expression that fits the situational meaning and emotional tone, even if the form changes.
Another study by Najmiddinova and colleagues examined the role of pragmatics in intercultural communication with emphasis on politeness, noting distinctive features of Uzbek communicative etiquette.
Research on Uzbek hospitality concepts reveals the cultural centrality of mehmondo’stlik (hospitality) in Uzbek society [16]. Najmiddinova’s study of hospitality-related proverbs in English and Uzbek demonstrated significant cultural differences in conceptualizations of guest-host relationships, social obligations, and communal values [16]. Makhammadovna’s comparative analysis of hospitality reflected in English and Uzbek phraseological units similarly revealed culture-specific patterns.
The need to maintain intertextual equivalence often dictates strategy choice. The American Journal of Humanities (2024) recommends “retaining references to other texts or cultural artifacts” in translation, using expert knowledge if necessary. This matches our observation that references to literature or religion (e.g. names of epic poems, religious terms) are typically left in transliteration or carefully translated so as not to lose the allusion. In contrast, where no direct reference is needed, translators may creatively adapt the expression to local culture (as we saw in media headlines). Thus, preserving intertextuality is sometimes a matter of strategy: direct carryover, annotation, or creative substitution.
These results echo theoretical work on translation as an intertextual act. Schӓffner (2012) notes that texts depend on other texts (“interdiscursivity”) and that translators recontextualize source-culture references. Our study shows how this plays out with PUs: translation is not just word-for-word rendering but an intercultural dialogue. Moreover, Ravshanova’s analysis suggests common transformation patterns (metaphor extension, irony, etc.) in making intertextual links. We observed similar techniques in the Uzbek translations: for example, when an idiom’s meaning is narrowed or broadened to fit a new context, the intertextual connection is altered but still present in spirit.
Genre differences are notable. In literary translation, translators often have space to unpack idioms or choose elegant equivalents, preserving literary allusions. For example, cultural analogues or poetic phrasing can be used to mirror the source’s tone. In journalism and speeches, brevity and audience familiarity constrain choices. Ravshanova notes that media tends to modify PUs for effect (as seen in English media), and similarly an Uzbek newspaper might coin a catchphrase or use a neutral term. The balance between domestic readers’ understanding and fidelity to the source is delicate. Translators sometimes retain a foreign name or concept (with gloss) to keep the intertextual feel, or else rely on a culturally closer metaphor, at the cost of the original reference.
In sum, our modeling suggests that intertextual equivalence is partial: much depends on the idiom’s translatability and the translator’s strategy. When direct idiomatic parallels exist, equivalence is high. Otherwise, translators use paraphrase or culturally analogous idioms to approximate the same effect. These choices confirm Baker’s claim that idioms are among the hardest units to translate and often require creative mediation. By identifying patterns across many examples, we provide a systematic view of these choices in the English–Uzbek context.
Conclusion
This comparative study demonstrates that translating English and Uzbek phraseological units involves intricate intertextual work. Where possible, translators render idioms with local equivalents, maintaining the original imagery and cultural reference. When no direct match exists, they employ strategies like substitution, paraphrase, or explicitation. In all cases, preserving the intertextual import of an expression – its allusion to shared knowledge or text – is paramount. As Schäffner (2012) argues, translators act as cultural mediators, recreating links between texts.
Our findings imply that translator training should emphasize these strategies and the analysis of PUs’ cultural roots. Ultimately, effective translation of idiomatic language depends on balancing linguistic equivalence with cultural adaptation. Future work might extend this modeling to other language pairs or larger corpora, but already it underscores that intertextual equivalence is attainable through informed strategy: through literal rendering when possible, and through creative adaptation when necessary, translators can ensure that readers in Uzbek (or English) catch the echo of the source text’s cultural meanings.
References
- Baker, M. (2018). In other words: A coursebook on translation (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315619180
- Barthes, R. (1977). Image, music, text (S. Heath, Trans.). Fontana Press.
- Bassnett, S. (2014). Translation studies (4th ed.). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315760493 - Chesterman, A. (2016). Memes of translation: The spread of ideas in translation theory (2nd ed.). John Benjamins.
https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.123 - Coulson, S. (2001). Semantic leaps: Frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511551352 - Hatim, B., & Mason, I. (1997). The translator as communicator. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203992721 - Kristeva, J. (1986). The Kristeva reader (T. Moi, Ed.). Columbia University Press.
- Koller, W. (2011). Equivalence in translation theory. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The translation studies reader (pp. 197–210). Routledge.
- Larson, M. L. (1998). Meaning-based translation: A guide to cross-language equivalence (2nd ed.). University Press of America.
- Mieder, W. (2004). Proverbs: A handbook. Greenwood Press.
- Moon, R. (1998). Fixed expressions and idioms in English: A corpus-based approach. Oxford University Press.
- Newmark, P. (1988). A textbook of translation. Prentice Hall.
- Nida, E. A., & Taber, C. R. (1982). The theory and practice of translation. Brill.
https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004495746 - Najmiddinova M.N. “Linguocultural and linguopragmatic features of the concept of “hospitality” in English and Uzbek”//International conference Philology, Methodology, Translation Studies: Current Issues of Modern Science. -8-9.11.2024.-P.306-309.https://doi.org/10.2024/1xm0b673
- Najmiddinova M.N. “Linguoculturalogical features of proverbs on “hospitality” in English and Uzbek”, Tamaddun nuri // The light of civilization, ISSN 2181-8258, 10(61), 2024.-P.74-79. https://jurnal.tamaddunnuri.uz/index.php/tnj/article/view/972
- Najmiddinova, M.N. (2024). Ingliz va o’zbek tilida “mehmondo’stlik”ga oid maqollarning lingvokulturologik xususiyatlari. Tamaddun Nuri, 7(2), 67-78. https://doi.org/10.69691/gbcwd486
- Najmiddinova M.N. Similarities and differences between values of Uzbek and English cultures // Tanqidiy nazar, tahliliy tafakkur va innovatsion g‘oyalar.2025.-P.107-111. https://phoenixpublication.net/index.php/TANQ/article/view/3802
- Najmiddinova M.N., Rahmatova M.U. The role of Pragmatics in Intercultural Communication with an Emphasis on Politeness // Tamaddun Nuri/The light of civilization. -ISSN 2181-8258 IF-9.347 DOI 10.69691,4-son (67) 2025.-P.237-240. https://doi.org/10.2024/1xm0b673
- Najmiddinova M.N. Linguistic features of phraseological units with a common meaning “hospitality” // Qo‘qon DPI. Ilmiy xabarlar,3-son. ISBN: 978-9943-7182-7-2 “CLASSIC” nashriyoti.2025.-P.1886-1891. www.kspi.uz journal.kspi.uz
- Najmiddinova M.N. Linguopragmatic analysis of phraseological units and idioms relating to the concept of hospitality in English and Uzbek // FarDu, Ilmiy xabarlar jurnali, ISSN 2181-1571.Volume 31 Issue 4, 2025. -P.73-84. DOI: 10.56292/SJFSU/vol31_iss4/a94. https://journal.fdu.uz/
- Permyakov, G. L. (1988). From proverb to folk-tale: Notes on the general theory of cliché. Nauka.
- Schäffner, C. (2012). Intertextuality and translation. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 20(3), 345–364.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2012.702402 - Toury, G. (2012). Descriptive translation studies and beyond (2nd ed.). John Benjamins.
https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.100 - Vinay, J.-P., & Darbelnet, J. (1995). Comparative stylistics of French and English (J. C. Sager & M.-J. Hamel, Trans.). John Benjamins.
https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.11 - Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge University Press.https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519772
- Yusupov, O. (2019). Lingvokulturologiya va tarjima masalalari. Toshkent: Fan.
- Zohidov, B., & Rahmatullayeva, D. (2021). Phraseological units and their translation problems in Uzbek and English. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 17(2), 845–857.
