The main purpose of our article is to analyze source and target text and how the translators keep the style of author. In the system of basic methods, we have chosen comparative approach by the using of stylistic transformations.

The works of Newmark, Boase-Beier, Viney and Darbelent, K.Musaev, G.Salomov, Solonovich, Kazakova, Vinogradov.V and many other researchers.

The analysing text is the story “A Peace of Steak” written by Jack London, First book publication in When God Laughs and Other Stories, Macmillan, 1911. This story was translated into Uzbek directly named “Bir parcha go‘sht” [2019] by Sh.Oblokulova and indirectly by M. Hamidov [2020]. 

One of the objectives of this paper is to dedicate relationship between the target language and the source language texts to reveal how translators use semantic-stylistic transformation to adopt literary text into another language to and how these two different languages translators have adopted the story.

Numerous definitions of literary translation have been proposed by language experts, all of which communicate a shared concept. The aesthetic merit of a literary work is contingent upon its ability to establish a meaningful connection with the reader. The process of effectively conveying the same information to target readers presents considerable challenges. Extensive research has been conducted to investigate the complexities of literary translation, yielding a significant body of work in this area. It is noteworthy that the history of literary translation and related works has unfolded in distinct temporal contexts within each country.

According to Nida, “translating consists in reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source-language, first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style. But this relatively simple statement requires careful evaluation of several seemingly contradictory elements” [Nida & Taber, 1974, p.1]. Many theoretical works are based on literary translations done by Jean-Paul Vinay and Darbelnet (1958), John Catford (1965) Eugene Nida, Peter Newmark (1988), Gutt E. A (2000), M.Baker and others.

Russian scholars: Resker (1950), Leviskaya (1963), Bakhudarov (1975), Shvetser (1988), Vinogradov (2001), and Kazakova (2001) contributed to the development of literary translation through their research. 

In the 20th century, several Uzbek translation studies achieved success. In addition, translation theory has arisen as a discipline that determines and evaluates the degree of quality of translated works. Like other fields of artistic creativity, this created a wide avenue for translation. In Uzbekistan, scientists such as G.Salomov (1966), K.Musaev (1967, 2005), Y.Pulatov (1967), M.Kholbekov, R.Fayzullaeva (1972), Y.Normurodov, H.Karomatov (1990), O.Muminov (2008), I.Gafurov (2008), N.Kambarov (2012), and S.Sirojiddinov (2011) have discussed specific problems of literary translation, pragmatic translation problems, stylistic features, preservation of national color in translation, translation of phraseological units researched the issues.

The characteristics observed in artistic literature differ significantly from those encountered in the translation of scientific and official business materials. The latter commonly employ precise terminology and exact language, devoid of implicit connotations and imagery. In contrast, artistic literature is distinguished by its abundance of imagery, wherein each writer presents a distinctive metaphorical perspective shaped by cultural, cognitive, spiritual, and other influences. Furthermore, the utilization of wordplay, clichés, and figurative language by writers renders the conveyance of their original intent challenging.

Style in literary translation

Every writer possesses a unique style, and accurately conveying this style in the translated language is a crucial aspect of literary translation. Leech and Short [1981: 10-11] describe style as “the linguistic habits of a particular writer [...], genre, period, school”. Other stylistic scholars refer to the style as “the dress of thought” [Hough 1969:3].

A style is a unique form that expresses the author’s, genre’s, literary, or creative expression. Style refers to the shape of a sentence rather than its meaning. The term “Style” has a specific meaning in the context of language, indicating its usage by a certain person and purpose. As a result, style analysis covers equally linguistic and aesthetic criteria. Some translators perceive it is possible to recreate the original work’s style, and they have convincing evidence to support their claim. Literary works are more than just explanations of thoughts or occurrences; they frequently provide compelling images for readers. The visuals reveal the characters’ thoughts and actions to the reader. A translation needs to recreate the same visuals in another language so that the reader of the translation experiences identical feelings as the reader of the original.

Boase-Beier (2006: 1) comments: “From the earliest writings about translation, such as those of Cicero or Horace, the style has often been mentioned but […] its role has rarely been systematically explored. Yet style is central to the way we construct and interpret texts”. Peletier du Mans, writing in 1555, said that the translator should be aware that the author’s “spirit and intention are often bound up with his style and choice of words” [Lefevere 1992:53]

Scholar V.V. Vinogradov [1980; 167] defines a writer’s style as follows: “This is a system of individual aesthetic use of means of artistic verbal expression characteristic in a given period of fiction development, as well as a system of aesthetic and creative selection, comprehension, and arrangement of various speech elements”. A writer’s particular style may also be defined as a method of arranging linguistic content that generates a new, distinct version of the world, reflecting the author’s artistic vision.  The notion of style is inextricably bound to the language of a literary work because these two concepts are equally important when evaluating the qualities of words, phrases, and stylistic devices to show their aesthetic value.

G.Salomov [1983: 26] posits that an author’s style comprises a consistent set of elements present in their works over a specific period or evident across their entire body of work. Additionally, N. Shukurov [1978; 7] defines style as “the creator’s perception of reality, the reflection of events with unique images and means of expression’’. The writer’s style is distinguished not only by these components but also by the thematic content, expression of ideas, portrayal of character, and the overall coherence of these elements.

K.I. Baymukhametova [2018 : 51] asserts that the quality of literary translation is decisively influenced by the translator’s intentions. She distinctly outlines three primary aims: firstly, to introduce a writer’s work to target readers unable to read it due to linguistic barriers; secondly, to acquaint readers with the author’s distinct writing style and educate them about the author’s culture and nation; and lastly, to familiarize students with the book’s content.

 The relationship between stylistics and translation is evident due to their shared focus on the linguistic elements of a text, their manifestation in the writer’s work, and their influence on the reader. While literary translation is believed to possess a profound stylistic connection to the original text, non-literary translation primarily transmits the content. According to Newmark [2008; 105], mechanical copying of stylistic means from the original into translation and excessive adherence to the original does not lead to achieving the required communicative effect; moreover, it can introduce an imbalance in the style of the text.

Literary texts captivate readers with their unique aesthetic appeal, which is often achieved through the use of stylistic elements. However, when these stylistic features are translated, various issues may arise. Therefore, it is crucial to explore the intersection of translation and stylistics within the field of linguistics. Over the years, there has been a growing body of literature including monographs, textbooks, research papers, and theses dedicated to the study of stylistics and translation. This area of study continues to expand with each passing year.

The translation process is inextricably linked to the ongoing comparison of the substantive-methodological and emotional-affective components of the methods of expression in two languages. To define general translation criteria based on evidence in creative translation, a linguistic and methodological analysis of the source and translation languages is necessary. Some researchers confuse translation theory with comparative stylistics. According to E. G. Etkind “Translation is always a comparative stylistics of two languages, the task of literary translation is to recreate the stylistic appearance of the original in its language; a theory that ignores the linguistic aspect of the original will disarm the translator” [Etkind 1936: 375]. Comparative-methodical research allows for accurate assessment of linguistic inconsistencies across two languages from a content-methodological approach.

According to the requirements and principles of comparative methodology, when endeavoring to produce an expression that aligns with the original, it is common to omit certain details and, at times, seek suitable linguistic means in the translated language, all while considering the content and methodological aspects. This approach takes into consideration the comprehensive concept of the work, the author's distinctive creative style, the literary and artistic vision of the era, and the linguistic genre characteristics. Current research investigations that focus on how the style of the text has been professionally translated can broadly be classified into three types:

a)  studies of the translation of particular stylistic features, such as ambiguity [Boase-Beier 2004] or transitivity [Marco 2004];

b)  studies that compare examples of texts or passages with their originals to discover what stylistic changes result from translation [e.g. Malmkjaer 2004; Boase-Beier 2011a];

c)  studies that undertake stylistic analyses of different translations of the same text to explain their different effects [e.g. Millán-Varela 2004; Jones 2011: 110-172].

Most research on the translation of style is of the second type, comparing parts in the original and translated text. One of the comparing ways might be a typology of stylistic transformations, which compares the modifications of stylistic devices such as metaphor, metonymy, simile, and others, between source and target text [Schweitzer 1988, Latyshev 2003, and Solonovich 2016]. Fitterman A.M., Levitskaya T.R. (1963), and Kazakova (2001) classified translation changes into three categories, one of which is stylistic transformations.

Above, we discussed how styles are classified based on how they are translated. According to the second type, we will compare it to Uzbek translations of Jack London’s work named “A Peace of steak”, using the comparative stylistics approach. We use Solonovich’s approach in comparison, which divides stylistic transformations into three categories: substitution (remetaphorization, definition, contextual substitution, concretization), omission (demetaphorization, generalization, omission of expressive-emotion), and addition (metaphorization, adding expressive-emotional and stylistic devices.

Example 1

Yes, Youth was the Nemesis.

                                                                       [Jack London, 1911, p.320]

Ha, Yoshlar yengilmas Nemizada kabidir. 

                                                                       [Sh.Oblokulova, 2019, p.150]

Ha, Yoshlik qasosdir!

                                                                        [M.Hamidov, 2020, p.13]

This exemplary sample effectively demonstrates how the strategy of substitution is utilized. In the original text, Jack London depicts the concept of youth as Nemesis, employing the stylistic device of metaphor to draw a vivid comparison. Prior to conducting an analysis of translated renditions, it is essential to establish a precise definition of the term « the Nemesis». Nemesis was the Greek goddess of vengeance, a deity who doled out rewards for noble acts and punishment for evil ones. The Greeks believed that Nemesis didn’t always punish an offender immediately but might wait generations to avenge a crime. In English, nemesis originally referred to someone who brought a just retribution, but nowadays people are more likely to see simple animosity rather than justice in the actions of a nemesis [Merriam-Webster dictionary].

In the narrative, an aging boxer grapples with the waning of his youthful vigor. Having triumphed in numerous bouts and garnered widespread admiration in his prime, he now finds his physical capabilities diminishing as his hands weaken and his muscles stiffen. The younger generation steadily displaces him from the spotlight, reminiscent of how he once did to the older boxers. The author draws a parallel between youth and Nemesis due to the formidable strength characteristic of youth, a force the protagonist had always envisioned as enduring. However, he never anticipated that the very fate he dealt to older boxers in his youth would one day be exacted upon him by the younger contenders.

Upon directly examining the initial translated version from English, it is discernible that the primary translator, Sh. Oblakulova (2019), endeavored to transcribe it with utmost fidelity to the original content. However, she describes Nemesis using a simile rather than a metaphor and the term ‘yengilmas’, which means invincible in English. Converting a simile to a metaphor is not typically recommended, but converting a metaphor to a simile is [Newmark, 1981, 1988] because the former may result in unintelligibility or alter the truth value of a statement. However, as an Uzbek reader of this translated narrative; I couldn’t grasp the whole paragraph until I looked up the true meaning of Nemesis. So the translator has to define this word by considering the target reader. 

From the second translation done by M.Hamidov (2020) from the Russian version of the story, one may discern that the word Nemesis was omitted and the word “qasos” (literary : vengeance) was opted for instead using the strategy metaphorization. This translator also achieved equivalence semantically by using the word  “vengeance” one of the features of Nemesis. However, the target reader has to know why the writer compares the Youth as Nemesis. According to  Newmark’s (1988) communicative translation, it does not satisfy in both translations, because the effect produced on the TT audience is different from the effect produced on the ST audience. Similarly, The former translator’s use of “yengilmas Nemizada kabidir” (literary: like invincible Nemesis) and the second translator’s use of “qasos” (lierary: vengeance) does not fully satisfy Nida’s (1964) Dynamic Equivalence, as the relationship between the TT audience and the message differs from that between the ST audience and message. Because, not all target audiences have a concept about Greek goddess of vengeance, Nemesis.

Both translators endeavored to convey the original message to the reader through the use of simile and metaphor. However, it would be beneficial to define to clarify the word choice, as this would aid the reader in understanding why the writer selected this particular word to symbolize youth.

Example 2

He overwhelmed King with avalanches of punches and Kind did nothing.

[Jack London, 1911]

U Tomni zarbalar ko‘chkisi bilan ko‘mib tashladi, King esa hech narsa qilolmadi.

[Sh.Oblakulova, 2019, p.155]

Kingga u shiddatli mushtlarni yog‘dirsa ham King javob qaytarmadi.

[M.Hamidov, 2020, p.18]

In the second case, we observe an additional translation technique. First and foremost, we delve into the definition of the term ‘avalanches’ as mentioned in the original text. In the sense of snow-slide, an avalanche is a fall of large masses of snow and ice down a mountain. In the sense of a large amount, an avalanche is a sudden or overwhelming quantity of anything that comes with the preposition ‘of’ [Collins COBUILD Advanced Learner’s Dictionary]. The writer used the secondary meaning of ‘avalanches’ to signify a large amount of punches.

In the initial translated version, Sh. Oblokulova (2019) employed the strategy of remetaphorization by utilizing the phrase “zarbalar ko‘chkisi” to convey the concept of “avalanche” in the sense of snow-slide. However, it is evident that from a semantic standpoint, this conveys a different message to the target readers, as the author’s original intention differs.

In the second translation, M. Hamidov (2020) effectively conveys the same message as the source text, which is well-received by both ST and TT readers. He employed the expression ‘shiddatli mushtlar’  which holds a semantic equivalence to ‘avalanches of punches’.

Stylistic analysis is culturally and semantically essential for highlighting differences and similarities in languages. Translating stylistic devices demands keen attention and a comprehensive understanding of words and their meaning in the source text. When employing a comparative stylistic method to analyze the source text alongside its translated version through the application of transformations, we can arrive at the following conclusion:

a) stylistic correspondence of image and form. However, The translator should be careful to accurately convey the author’s intended message ;

b) correspondence of form but the change of image of the device ;

c) when translating, it is permissible to create new stylistic devices through the substitution method, as long as the original meaning of the sentence is preserved.