On measures for further development of Higher Education System

Nima deyishka ham hayron tabib: − Man... man...o’zingiz o’ylab ko’ring-chi... Man darrav doru yuboray, darrav ichiring, tuzukmi? − dedi.
− Bildim, bildim! − dedi bechora Otabek. − Zaynab, Zaynab... Jalab!
Yuboring, yuboring, darrav yuboring!
Quyidagi holatda esa haqorat va qarg’ishni ifodalovchi so’z va ibora asosida salbiy qahramonning tuban ma’naviy qiyofasi va salbiy munosabati yaxlit ifodalangan:
Ammo menga qolsa, u xumpar (Otabekni aytadir) Marg’ilonda xotini borlig’ini ham unutib yuborg’an, deb o’ylayman.
Abdulla Qodiriy o’z asarlarida haqorat va qarg’ishni ifodalovchi so’z va iboralar kam ekanligi aniqlandi va shu jihatdan uning mavzuiy guruhlari doirasi ham asosan so’kish, haqorat, qarg’ish, kinoya, masxara tushunchalarini ifodalovchi birliklar bilan chegaralandi:
1) so’kish va haqoratni ifodalovchi so’z va iboralar: «aqli qisqa», aqli tushdan keyin kirgan, it emgan, it, itbachcha, itlanish, it-mushuk; damn, bloody, hell, goddam.
2) qarg’ish anglatuvchi so’z va iboralar: aptidan buzilsin, joyi jahannamdan belgilanadir, ikki yuzi qaro bo’lsun, harom qotsin, go’rso’xta; damn’t, devil, son of a hitch, hang it, to hell, zounds.
3) masxara, kinoya anglatuvchi so’z va iboralar: qo’tir itning keyingi oyog’i, bo’g’oz, curse you, (an expression used in violent language, expresses anger), old bean (a dated slang and used as a familiar form of address), smelter (a nose), son of a Mich (a bad man), a missus a right old bag (an old woman), a nigger (a black). [5, 58]
Abdulla Qodiriy asarlaridagi haqorat va qarg’ishni ifodalovchi so’z va iboralar o’zaro leksik-semantik munosabat ham hosil qiladi. Ular sirasida kontekstual ma’nodoshlik, zid ma’nolilik holatlari kuzatiladi:
1) ma’nodosh haqorat va qarg’ishni ifodalovchi so’z va iboralar: «adolatpanoh», «soyaboni marhamat», «huzuri muborak» «janobi oliy»;
2) zid ma’noli haqorat va qarg’ishni ifodalovchi so’z va iboralar: erkak, urg’ochi, bo’g’oz, qisir.
Haqorat va qarg’ishni ifodalovchi so’z va iboralar ma’noviy ko’lami jihatidan ham farqlanadi. Shunga ko’ra, haqorat va qarg’ishni ifodalovchi so’z va iboralar monosemantik va polisemantik turlarga bo’linadi:
1) monosemantik haqorat va qarg’ishni ifodalovchi so’z va iboralar: po’kak bosh, sakibedum, to’ng’izxona, qo’tir itning keyingi oyog’i, itdek qirgan, bola tashlar edi;
2) polisemantik haqorat va qarg’ishni ifodalovchi so’z va iboralar: xumsa 1 (lapashang), xumsa 2 (hezalak).
Polisemantik disfemizmlar tizimi o’z ichida yana turlarga bo’linadi:
1) metaforik haqorat va qarg’ishni ifodalovchi so’z va iboralar: nortuyadek, tosh-metin;
2) metonimik haqorat va qarg’ishni ifodalovchi so’z va iboralar: cho’chqa (shaxs);
3) sinekdoxik haqorat va qarg’ishni ifodalovchi so’z va iboralar: ko’zi chiqsun, soqoling ko’ksingga to’kilsin (o’lsin);
4) vazifadoshlik asosidagi haqorat va qarg’ishni ifodalovchi so’z va iboralar: shung’iya.
Depending on the type of vulgarisms in question we can identify a mandatory marker of affect that is inappropriate in formal situations. Unlike
slang, jargon, and argot, vulgarisms have large-scale regional and temporal uses -
they are not specific to a particular layer of language users, and their lifetime is at
least a few decades. Semantically, they are linked to certain specific cultural
values, and because of this semantic linkage they are considered a part of the taboo
language. []
Especially linguistic belief, verbal indecency and indignation (as one of the functional attributes of vulgarism) is inevitably associated with vulgarisms. A majority of definitions of the verbal indecency and indignation bear these two common features:
1. deliberateness
2. relation to the conceptual notion of “face”
This concept also prompts the interpreters’ (often subconscious) efforts to deliver the communication so as not to hurt the feelings of one of the parties involved.
Indecency or direct vulgarity in social interactions results from the expectations of the individual (subjective or normative) that apply to a set of circumstances.
In intercultural communication, the intercultural factor also comes into play
– different cultural communities perceive boundaries of indecency and vulgarity in
different light.
1 The “face” concept has been developed by Canadian-American sociologist Erving Goffman.
Expository dictionaries are perceived by the British and American public as
normative publications for correct communication, whether in the official, or
private and colloquial spheres. More recent versions of these dictionaries include
between standard lexical means the previously mentioned inappropriate stylistic
means that we could also describe as vulgarisms. For example, the Oxford English
Dictionary currently includes also terms like cunty and cuntish.
According to several linguists, the term "taboo" comes from the Polynesian
language Tongan. The users of this language, according to Gu refrain from touching the sacred objects not only physically, but also verbally. Taboo refers
to this phenomenon of inviolability. [16, 89]
In Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics, taboo word is a term that is avoided for religious, political or sexual reasons and is usually replaced by a euphemism, e.g. rest room or bath room for toilet.
When dividing the taboo lexicon of English, we have acceded to the
taxonomy as described by Ljung and we will differentiate the categorization with regard to the theme.
Although the earlier studies classifies vulgarisms into swearwords, cursing, profanity, blasphemy, obscenity, vulgarity and euphemistic swearing, in view of the vaguely defined and often overlapping boundaries of these categories, Ljung (idem) has defined his own thematic typology. By the theme we mean the area of language taboo from which the user draws his vulgarisms: religion, scatology, sexual organs and activities, mother, disease and death, ethnic, racially and religiously motivated insults.
From a structural and typological point of view, we share the divisions proposed by Slančová and Maričová. They recommend the taboo lexicon to be differentiated horizontally: "
• The gross / vulgar words and names - the reference and customary
vulgarisms in which the taboo component arises as a consequence of their content, and in particular the crossing of cultural conventions
• Obscene words and names - systemic vulgarisms, where the form of the word defines the taboo element not taking into account the context of
expression or its semantic properties
.• Blasphemous names - from the area of Christian and religious taboo.
Vulgarisms can therefore be perceived as a verbal-cognitive response to a certain emotional impulse. The use of vulgarisms in this case acts as a verbal indicator of the inner experience and feelings of the speaker. According to Jesenská "Language is used in a particular situation and is therefore conditioned by
a specific context, which indicates the need to adapt the choice of linguistic.
The pragmatic aspect is relevant in the discussion of the “(in) correctness" of the various elements on all linguistic levels“.
In accordance with Dolník's definition of lexical pragmatics as a concept including the extra-notional component of meaning, vulgarisms and curses are multifunctional pragmatic units that, in addition to expressive function, can acquire in the process of communication many other functions within discourse.
They contribute to closely identify the individual participants in the
communication situation, the way the communication is conducted, and the
structure of verbal exchange. From a sociolinguistic point of view, they determine
the speaker's affiliation to a particular group and help to set standards for the use
of language styles and their variants in certain communication situations.
In addition to being lexical words with expressive signs (in contrast to
notional terms) and abusive denominations, vulgarisms in English also hold the
function of interjections or intensifying modifiers. At the same time, they represent
a palpable marker of the speaker’s distinctive style.
Apart from these general functions we can also use the classification
according to Pinker into the following categories: dysphemic, abusive, idiomatic, empathic, and cathartic. [16, 91]
In his study aimed at investigating the correlation between vocabulary and
the use of vulgarism, Jay has found: “Fluency is fluency, people who swear aren’t necessarily otherwise inarticulate, and, arguably, a good taboo lexicon may be considered a complement to the lexicon as whole.” However, it should be noted that this is not the case when the speaker uses repeatedly and frequently only a narrow circle of vulgarisms (in this case, it is a filling word and indicates the opposite phenomenon). On the other hand, if the scope of the taboo lexicon of
the speaker is varied, he is aware of subtle deviations in meanings and the stylistic
undertones of words - standard words as well as vulgarisms.
Vulgarisms have a therapeutic function when they serve to relieve the accumulated tension and frustration in the moments of surprise or other affective moment. They are also the expression of aggression and verbal violence, and in the group-identifying function they manifest group identity and solidarity. The use of the taboo lexicon may be an expression of verbal exhibitionism, but also a means of sexual excitement. If the vulgarisms in the communication do not have an identifiable function, they only serve to fill the semantic void of discourse.
Vulgarisms affect the whole process of interpreting bearing the added value in terms of the construction of the target text. From the point of view of the interpreter and the requirements on his short- and long-term memory, we can not omit the positive influence of vulgarisms in this regard. Vulgarisms, especially with their emotional and expressive charge in focus, have a provenly different way of influencing our verbal memory. In 1997, Lieury conducted a research on the influence of vulgarisms on verbal memory. Words with the attribute of emotionality have been shown to be much easier and longer-lasting to remember than words notional. The taboo lexicon could therefore have the potential as a form of mnemonic device, especially in consecutive interpreting. Even if a vulgarism is not necessarily replaced with its equivalent, its verbal surroundings will definitely be remembered more strongly. From the point of view of long-term memory, the effect of vulgar words was up to four times higher in the aforementioned research.
If we strictly follow our intentions to take an unbiased attitude towards
vulgar and indecent expressions, we may somewhat perceive them as a particular
layer of language instruments with frequent occurrence, especially in colloquial
and secondary publicist and popular styles, in analogy with the key function of
technical terms in the professional and technical interpreting specialization.
Makarová states: "In order to interpret well, we should use the exact terminology to reproduce the meaning of the original and in order to sound natural, we should follow trends." In this respect, an interpreter who is specialized in interpreting speeches and events within the specific area should take care of the
breadth of their knowledge of vulgarism as well as keeping his knowledge up to
date. From the socio-linguistic point of view we can perceive slang and vulgarisms
as important cultural components of any language. When dealing with those
cultural components - interpreting them - it is necessary to identify the degree of
vulgarity not only of the original term in the source language but also of its equivalent substitution in the target language, having the recipients present in
real time and the space in which the interpretation takes place in mind.
Although interpreting is perceived as a separate translatological discipline, equivalence is an important factor in interpreting quality . We mean particularly the dynamic equivalence as defined by Nida, the focus is on the effect of communication on the target recipient while the form may not be the same as with the source text. Djovčoš also states that "equivalence is the functional reproduction of contextually relevant information as a basic imagination element inserted in the text by the author, taking into account the situational and meaningfulness of its formal implementation contained in the original text, while preserving its invariance ". [28, 63]
In contrast to the linguistic understanding of equivalence, which in the case of vulgarisms is limited to the segmental structure of the communication, when dealing with texts containing taboo words we prefer to employ the contextual-thematic conception.
From one of the four basic types of equivalence according to Kade, in the
case of vulgarisms we can apply two of them, namely equivalence "total (absolutely identical terms, such as is case with terminology), facultative (one expression in source language stands against several expressions in target language)".
The most common interpreting strategies when encountering vulgarisms in the original speech are the omission (often supplemented by the indication that the speaker used the wrong word), euphemistic refinement of the expression and neutralisation. Of course, there are interpreters who adhere to the rules of translating the spoken text all in, including sub-standard words and taboo language, in the sense of Kulihová’s statement: "However, it is unwise and inappropriate for an interpreter to correct a speaker and to point out the mistakes he made in his speech, intervening in his speech, softening or enhancing his speech as to actually express his individual attitude to the subject."
We can observe an ever increasing number of vulgarisms and explicit language even in the area of intercultural communication. Interpreters can therefore expect that they will encounter these expressive linguistic means still more often in their line of work. We should therefore pay sufficient attention to this area of language development in order to preserve the authenticity of the speaker's speech as well as to get closer to his intention.
In order to improve the interpreting strategies used to deal with the vulgarism occurrence, it will undoubtedly be necessary in the future to carry out a detailed and extensive survey of realistic attitudes towards the substandard language in the speech and semi-formal style of intercultural communication. The respondents should comprise not only of the general public but also of practicing interpreters and students of interpreting.
At the same time, we are confident that interpreting strategies actually used in practice are certainly not limited to those mentioned in the literature and the textbooks of interpreting. [24, 66]
Vulgarisms are an inseparable part of our language, and from the socio- or psycho-linguistic point of view they hold a special place in the vocabulary of any language user. Interpreters tend to aim for the refinement, omission or notional substitution of the vulgarism out of habit. This effort should be suppressed especially in the situations, where "a lower degree of official context lends more supports to the colloquial and substandard features of the speech".
Haqorat va qarg’ishni ifodalashda shakliy strukturasiga ko’ra adib nutqida qo’llangan so’z (ibora), so’z birikmasi, gap shaklida farqlanadi:
1) so’z(ibora): benavo, maymunlik, mochaxar, muttaham, oshharomi, pes, singlitaloq, tirrancha, to’ng’izxona, xannos, xumpar, shaytonxona, qaqshag’ir, turmushning chirik joyi, chandir kabi sakkiz tarafdan tishlanib, onasini uchqo’rg’ondan ko’rgan;
2) birikma: xaloyig’i beparhez, qitiq pari o’lmagan, qon ichida, jigar so’xtalari, mag’rur go’dak, maorifga cho’l xalq;
3) gap: uyi kuysin, shayton ali qoplag’an, qitiq pari o’lmagan, harom qotsin, it tekkan, aqli qisqa.
Adib ijodida barqaror birikmalar aynan olingan yoki o’zgartirilgan shaklda qo’llanilib, haqorat va qarg’ishni ifodalovchi so’z va iboralar ma’no ifodalaydi.
Shunga ko’ra: 1) ibora: aqli tushdan keyin kirgan, onasini uchqo’rg’ondan ko’rgan;
2) maqol: «qarg’a qarg’aning ko’zini cho’qir ekanmi?» farqlanadi.
We have to take into account, when interpreting from English in particular, that a lot of potential recipients know the basics of this language. It is only understandable that they would be able to identify many of the pronounced expressive elements in the original conversation. If these are being a marker of the distinctive style of the speaker or even the attribute of their affiliation with a
certain social stratum, it is worth considering the recommendation to implement the transfer of the initial sociolect with the equivalent sociolect in the target culture together with the corresponding vulgarisms. [3, 115]
In the study of language and literary style, a vulgarism is an expression or usage considered non-standard or characteristic of uneducated speech or writing.
In colloquial or lexical English, "vulgarism" or "vulgarity" may be synonymous with profanity or obscenity, but a linguistic or literary vulgarism encompasses a broader category of perceived fault not confined to scatological or sexual offensiveness. These faults may include errors of pronunciation, misspellings, word malformations, and malapropisms.
"Vulgarity" is generally used in the more restricted sense. In regular and mostly informal conversations, the presence of vulgarity, if any, are mostly for intensifying, exclaiming or scolding. In modern times, vulgarism continues to be frequently used by people. The frequent and prevalent usage of vulgarity as a whole has led to a paradox, in which people use vulgarity so often that it becomes less and less offensive to people, according to the New York Times.
The English word "vulgarism" derives ultimately from Latin vulgus, "the common people", often as a pejorative meaning "the [unwashed] masses, undifferentiated herd, a mob". In classical studies, Vulgar Latin as the Latin of everyday life is conventionally contrasted to Classical Latin, the literary language exemplified by the "Golden Age" canon. This distinction was always an untenable mode of literary criticism, unduly problematizing, for instance, the so-called "Silver Age" novelist Petronius, whose complex and sophisticated prose style in the Satyricon is full of conversational vulgarisms. [22, 79]
The term vulgarism, as used to single out a definite group of words of non-standard English, is rather misleading. The ambiguity of the term apparently proceeds from the etymology of the word. Vulgar, as explained by the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, means
a) words or names employed in ordinary speech;
b) common, familiar;
c) commonly current or prevalent, generally or widely disseminated.
So vulgarisms are:
1) expletives and swear words which are of an abusive character, like 'damn', 'bloody', 'to hell', 'goddam' and, as some dictionaries state, used now as general exclamations;
2) obscene words.
These are known as four-letter words the use of which is banned in any form of intercourse as being indecent. Vulgarisms are often used in conversation out of habit, without any thought of what they mean, or in imitation of those who use them in order not to seem old-fashioned or prudish. Unfortunately in modern fiction these words have gained legitimacy.
The most vulgar of them are now to be found even in good novels. This lifting of the taboo has given rise to the almost unrestrained employment of words which soil the literary language. However, they will never acquire the status of standard English vocabulary and will always remain on the outskirts.
The function of expletives is almost the same as that of interjections, that is to express strong emotions, mainly annoyance, anger, vexation and the like. They are not to be found in any functional style of language except emotive prose, and here only in the direct speech of the characters. The language of the underworld is rich in coarse words and expressions. But not every expression which may be considered coarse should be regarded as a vulgarism. [6, 81]
Coarseness of expression may result from improper grammar, non-standard pronunciation, from the misuse of certain literary words and expressions, from a deliberate distortion of words. These are improprieties of speech but not vulgarisms. Needless to say the label coarse is very frequently used merely to designate an expression which lacks refinement. But vulgarisms, besides being coarse properly, are also rude and emotionally strongly charged and, like any manifestation of excess of feelings, are not very discernible as to their logical meaning.