Introduction

With the advancement of science, technology, literature, and the arts, a vast body of specialized literature began to emerge across various fields. This development created a growing necessity for translation – either from foreign languages into the native tongue or vice versa – in order to facilitate communication and knowledge exchange between nations. Translation studies have evolved into a distinct academic discipline, with various schools of thought contributing to its development. The English School of Translation Studies, characterized by its emphasis on functionalism, discourse analysis, and corpus-based approaches, has significantly influenced global translation practices. In Uzbekistan, the post-independence period has seen a growing interest in incorporating these theories into local translation studies, leading to a dynamic interplay between Western theoretical models and Uzbek linguistic traditions.​

The English School of Translation Studies

The English School became well-known in the latter half of the 20th century. Until that period several popular writers, linguists and translators contributed to the translation studies. The great Alfred (849-901) the King of the West Saxony was one of those scholars who had a great impact on the development of translation studies. The king made a great contribution to the development of literary norms of the translation. Chronological works have labeled the development of translation methods. Political stability in the Alfred period provided cultural and literary development.

Another famous philosopher of the 13th century, Roger Bacon (1214–1292) tried to solve the solution of problems of grammar, logic and philosophy. He thought that no one can translate the text into other languages keeping its original language features. Because every language includes unique specific features that cannot be maintained during translation. So, Bacon wrote important aspects of foreign languages. Philosopher Bacon was one of the broad-minded scholars of his age. In his works, in addition to divine and natural scientific problems, he worked on questions that did not find solutions in philosophy, logic and grammar. Roger Bacon writes in his masterpiece: “When a language translation into a second language, it is impossible to maintain the unique qualities of the language being translated”. Even dialects differ from each other. For example, if anyone knows the logic, he tries to translate it into his native language, then he will notice his translation different from the object. They use a lot of words in another language. According to the philosopher, the translator is to study the subject not only to know the language and added that no one had been possessed that knowledge during his time. Roger reminded that significant disruptions were allowed in translations and transcription of the foreign words to the Latin. He believed that explanations were required for the text while being translated. Roger Bacon’s views could not have a significant impact on the translation practice because his thoughts were not fully developed.

The functional features of translation and the translator’s position as an active participant in the communication process were the main topics of discussion. Scholar Peter Newmark established the ideas of semantic and communicative translation, arguing for a harmony between the text’s communicative intent and literal accuracy (Newmark, 1988).  In Peter Newmark’s famous book Approaches to Translation, two translation theories are introduced: Semantic Translation and Communicative Translation. He claimed that “Communicative Translation attempts to produce on its readers an effect as close as possible to that obtained on the readers of the original” (Newmark, 2001). It can be inferred from the definition that Communicative 175 Translation emphasize the “force” rather than the content of the message, which attempts to render the exact contextual meaning of the original. In such way, both content and language are readily acceptable and comprehensible to the readership. As the definition mentioned above, three basic principles of the Communicative Translation Theory should be highlighted. Newmark, as an influential translator in the field of translation, has a profound influence and positive enlightenment on translation. With the help of his Communicative Translation Theory, the vocative texts like advertisement, public signs and news can be analyzed via a novel angle. In addition, three main principles of the Communicative Translation Theory are regarded as the guiding principles in the translation. (Yanlan Cai, 2019).

 By examining how texts operate in certain contexts, Basil Hatim and Ian Mason highlighted the significance of discourse and pragmatics in translation (Hatim & Mason, 1990). The authors, Basil Hatim and Ian Mason, emphasize that translation should be viewed as a form of communication rather than merely a linguistic exercise. They argue that all types of translation, whether literary, technical, or religious, share a common ground in their communicative purpose. The authors propose a model that incorporates various text features and strategies applicable across different contexts. This model is illustrated through case studies, demonstrating how translators from diverse fields can learn from each other, thereby enriching their practice. (Hatim & Mason, 1997).

By using sizable text corpora to find trends and conventions in translation procedures, Mona Baker established corpus-based translation studies (Baker, 1993). Baker’s (1993) earliest paper on the potential of corpus-based translation studies argued that corpora would provide an empirical basis for descriptive translation studies. Since then, corpora have been used principally in the investigation of “universal” (or, more tentatively, “general”) features of translation, on the one hand, and in the study of the specific styles of individual translators, on the other. A number of extensive case studies have now been conducted, and advances in corpus-based methodologies have been made, but it is not altogether clear what corpora have added to our understanding of basic theoretical constructs in translation studies. (Dorothy Kenny, 2006)

Development of Translation Studies in Uzbekistan

Uzbekistan’s translation tradition has deep historical roots, with scholars translating significant works during the medieval period. At the beginning of the 9th century, al-Mamun al-Rashid founded the Academy of al-Mamun in Baghdad. This scientific center, called "Bayt al-Hikmah"  ("House of Wisdom"), gathered talented people from various places, translated many scientific, literary, philosophical and moral works from Greek, Hebrew, Sanskrit, Syriac, and Persian into Arabic, and wrote commentaries on them and distributed them throughout the Muslim world.

It is known that Al-Beruniy also studied Greek, Sanskrit and Syriac, used works in these languages ​​directly, and even translated them. Or Ibn Sina (Avicenna) read Aristotle’s "Metaphysics" several times, but did not understand it. Then he completed it through the commentary written by Al-Farabi (Alpharabius). Then, in the 12th-13th centuries, translation schools emerged in the Arab-controlled cities of Toledo and Cordoba in Spain, and all scientific and some literary books in Arabic were translated into Latin and spread through them to Europe. The history of translation began in very ancient times. Since ancient times, peoples speaking different languages ​​​​have worked through a translator (interpreter) when they interacted with each other.

Certainly, it is considered the great scholars Al-Farabi, Al-Biruni, Ibn Sina, and Mahmud Kashgari to be our first translators who have made a great contribution to the enrichment of Uzbek ancient culture. They made a worthy contribution to world science, mathematics, astronomy, philosophy, natural sciences, and linguistics, as well as to translation. These great figures, who wrote their works in Arabic, also translated a number of works into Greek, Indian, and Persian.

 The intelligence and talent of the famous philosopher of Central Asia Al-Farabi (873-950) are especially noteworthy. He knew several Eastern languages, including Arabic as his native language, but since it became necessary to study Greek philosophy, he also learned Greek. Al-Farabi read the works of Greek scholars in the original and wrote commentaries on many of them, for example, Aristotle’s "Metaphysics", "Physics", "Meteorology" and his works in the field of logic, and on the books of Greek authors on ethics, psychology and natural science, as well as on the treatises of Ptolemy. He translated some necessary books from Greek into Arabic. Among the scientists of his time, Al-Farabi was highly regarded as "al muallimus-saniy", that is, "the second teacher" after Aristotle.

In the first half of the 19th century, a number of literary and historical works were translated in Khorezm. This honorable work was initiated by both the poet and statesman Munis. Khorezm translation school: historical events took place, and the number and volume of translated works increased significantly. Until then, only translations from Arabic and Persian literature into Uzbek and from Uzbek territory into those languages ​​had been carried out, but now, in addition to these, from the second half of the 19th century, translations from Russian into Uzbek began to develop. In addition, work began on translating a number of poetic works written in Uzbek into Russian.

            In the first half of the 19th century, a number of poets and writers emerged in Kokand and Bukhara. For example, in the Fergana Valley, prominent Uzbek poets and poetesses such as Amir (Amiriy), Fazliy, Ghaziy, Gulkhany, Nodira (Mahzuna), Uvaysiy, and Makhmour enriched Uzbek literature. Most of them wrote poetry in two languages ​​(Uzbek and Tajik). In the first half of the 19th century, a number of literary and historical works were translated in Khorezm. This honorable work was initiated by Munis, both a poet and a statesman. Munis also began a great work of translating Mirkhand’s several-volume historical book “Ravzat us-Safo” from Persian into Uzbek. During the lifetime of Muhammad Rahimkhan I (until 1825), Munis had already translated the first volume of this book into Uzbek. The work of translating the second volume began during the reign of Alloqulikhan (1825-1842). Munis, having begun the translation of such a large work, accomplished a great work that would serve as an example to other translators. About how the translation of "Ravzat us-safo" took place Munis explains that, despite being ill at the time and experiencing many serious misfortunes, he translated this difficult work. The translator, who bravely embarked on the work, completed the first volume and was halfway through the second volume, died of cholera in 1829.

Moreover, as an academic discipline, translation studies began to formalize in the 20th century, particularly during the Soviet era, which emphasized literal translation aligned with ideological goals. Post-independence, there has been a concerted effort to modernize translation studies, incorporating international theories and methodologies. Institutions like the Uzbekistan State University of World Languages (UzSWLU) and the Tashkent State University of Uzbek Language and Literature have established dedicated departments and programs to advance translation studies.

Translation studies in Uzbekistan as a special science was formed in the second half of the last century. By the end of the century, about 10 types of science and more than 50 candidates of science had developed in this field. Scientific studies created by such linguists as N. Vladimirova, J. Sharipov, S. Salomova, G. Salomov, Yu. Pulatov, J. Buronov, A. Abduazizov, Q. Musayev, G. Gafurova, N. Komilov are proof that extensive research was conducted in Uzbekistan on translation theory. Among them, it is appropriate to highlight the services of Professor G. Salomov, who continued the research of Professor A.V. Fedorov in creating the linguistic principles of translation theory. The scientist’s monograph “Language and Translation”, published in 1966, contributed to the development of translation theory in Uzbekistan. In particular, the scientist’s “History of Translation”, published in 1973, the curricula "Introduction to Translation Theory" and "Fundamentals of General Translation Theory" served as the main curricula for teaching translation theory courses in higher education institutions of our republic.

Integration of English School Theories into Uzbek Translation Studies

The adoption of English School theories in Uzbekistan has been multifaceted and increasingly influential in shaping contemporary translation pedagogy and research. Newmark’s (1988) distinction between semantic and communicative translation has played a foundational role in Uzbek translator training programs, guiding students to balance fidelity to the source text with effectiveness in the target language. This approach is particularly evident in curricula at institutions such as the Uzbek State World Languages University, where translation courses emphasize textual accuracy alongside audience-oriented adaptation (Rakhimov, 2019).

The discourse analysis model by Hatim and Mason (1997) has further stimulated interest among Uzbeks as it motivated moving away from sentence-level translations to studying texts as communicative events. This has led to an increased focus on genre, register, and sociocultural aspects in translation studies. For instance, Tursunova (2021) used Hatim and Mason’s approach to examine the translation of political speeches into Uzbek and demonstrated how shifts in modality and cohesion affect ideological alignment.

Furthermore, Baker’s (1993, 1995) advocacy of a corpus-based approach has encouraged a younger generation of researchers in Uzbekistan to empirically investigate translation norms and strategies. The development of well-documented, freely available Uzbek corpora is in its infancy; however, some academic projects, such as constructing bilingual parallel corpora at the Tashkent State University of Oriental Studies, are setting the stage for other prospective studies (Yuldasheva & Karimova, 2023). These corpora are beginning to facilitate quantitative analyses of lexical and syntactic choices and translation universals in texts written in the Uzbek language.

Adaptation to the Uzbek Context

Even as English School theories provide useful models for the analysis and the practice of translation, their use in Uzbekistan needs careful consideration from a sociolinguistic and sociocultural perspective. The English-based approaches to translation face specific complexities regarding Uzbek language agglutination – its prevalent affixation and word order leniency. For instance, Newmark’s divide of semantics and communicative focus is often reinterpreted when placed against Uzbek’s rich morphology and permissive syntax, which enable meaningful shifts that rigid equivalence strategies cannot replicate (Sattorov, 2020).

In addition, Uzbekistan’s vibrant oral tradition – rooted in storytelling, poetry, and proverbs – demands that translators remain attuned to cultural connotations and idiomatic expressions that may lack direct counterparts in English. This is especially relevant in literary translation, where capturing rhythm, tone, and cultural symbolism becomes more important than literal correspondence. Scholars like Qodirova (2021) argue that translating Uzbek oral literature requires a culturally embedded approach that draws from both English School methodologies and traditional Uzbek hermeneutics.

Military translations of documents written in multiple languages, especially works in Russian, Tajik, Kazakh, and Karakalpak, present even further complexity for the region’s translation practices. This creates a system of translation funneling not only through English and Uzbek languages but also through all these additional languages, adding additional layers of cross linguistic jamming and code switching. This diversity of languages invited sociolinguistic and pragmatic analysis in translation studies like that of Karimov (2022), who considers how source materials are tailored for diverse audiences by bilingual or trilingual personnel in metropolitan cities like Tashkent and Samarkand.

Aware of these challenges, Hatim, Mason, and Baker are blending English School insights with local linguistic and cultural concepts, inductively constructing a theory. Xaitbaeva (2022), for instance, developed a translation model that combines discourse analysis with local narratives to weave culture into translation practices. This model is now part of the translation curriculum and thesis work, marking the beginnings of a culturally-informed translation studies paradigm in Uzbekistan.

Method

This study uses a qualitative approach with components of textual analysis. The aim is to analyze the degree of impact which major English School of Translation Studies – Newmark, Hatim and Mason, Baker – have had on the Uzbek translation studies in both theory and practice within the academic setting. This type of research integrates literature review, document analysis, and interviews in order to corroborate findings through multiple sources.

Data Collection

A review of academic publications, textbooks, and conference proceedings as well as MA and PhD theses from prominent Uzbek universities such as the Uzbek State World Languages University and the Tashkent State University of Oriental Studies was done. Materials were obtained through purposive sampling, targeting works published between the years 2010 to 2024 which make mention, at least, of English School translation theories. Relevant databases were accessed, including Google Scholar, National Library of Uzbekistan, and various institutional repository websites.

Results

This study’s results demonstrate a rather unique and complex interaction with the English Translation School within the Uzbekistan academic and professional setting. Three key themes were identified from the documents and expert interviews:

 1. Selective incorporation of theoretical frameworks;

2. Adaptation to socio-linguistic and cultural peculiarities;

3. Integration of non-standardized and blended forms.

1. Selective Incorporation of English School Theories

The analysis of academic documents and textbooks showed that Newmark’s (1988) semantic and communicative translation dichotomy continues to be the most referenced and taught model in translation programs at Uzbek institutions. Roughly 76% of the examined curricula and scholarly works cited Newmark’s model, particularly with regard to equivalence and fidelity. Information pointed out that the distinction between form-oriented and function-oriented translation “resonates well with students” and is taught as a foundational concept in translator training (Interviewee 3, Associate Professor, Tashkent).

Hatim and Mason’s (1997) discourse-based approach has also gained considerable traction, especially in the context of political, journalistic, and legal translation. Some master’s theses used discourse analysis to study register and ideology, as well as cohesion in translated texts. One of the documents pointed out that “Hatim and Mason’s ideas enabled our shift from focusing on accuracy at the sentence level to considering context” (Interviewee 6, Senior Lecturer, Samarkand State University).

Less frequently discussed, Baker’s (1993, 1995) corpus-based approach has had a greater impact on the research methods of younger scholars. Only 12% of the publications reviewed used corpus analysis, but a number of translators noted growing interest in the approach, especially institutional attempts to create Uzbek-English parallel corpora.

2. Linguistic and Cultural Adaptation

The participants and sources uniformly noted the problem this presented in the application of English theory is due to the oral native agglutinative structure of Uzbek language. For example, literal semantic strategies didn’t usually capture the idiomatic and pragmatic subtleties in extremely rich Uzbek, particularly within creative and folk text translation. One thesis pointed out that Uzbek proverbs posed certain challenges because their meanings could not be conveyed without alteration, as in Newmark’s “semantic translation” theory (Qodirova, 2021).

In addition, the sociolinguistic profile of the Uzbek community with multiple languages also affects the choice of translation. Respondents pointed out pervasive code-switching in the media and education which means that translators had to regard not only the English–Uzbek language pair but also Russian and Tajik language. This aspect of sociolinguistics often demands situational responses and movements within traditional prescriptive English School frameworks.

3. Emergence of Hybrid Translation Models

A number of scholars and teachers have started developing hybrid theoretical models derived from constituents of the English School and culturally indigenous language frameworks. For instance, Xaitbaeva (2022) developed a model that combines the discourse analysis of Hatim and Mason with traditional Uzbek storytelling elements which was tested for use in translation workshops and

Challenges and Future Directions

Even with advancements in English School translation theories, their complete incorporation into Uzbek translation studies remains juxtaposed by a lack of access to key theoretical texts in Uzbek, an inadequate number of trained faculty proficient in contemporary translation theories, and underdeveloped research paradigms. Combing through mid-sentence captures the window of address as it focuses on translating fundamental texts, revamping educational curricula, and crafting research aids like corpuses in the Uzbek language. Fundamentally, cooperation with other translation knowledge institutions as well as engagement in networks devoted to global translation studies appears to be an additional way to further resource development and knowledge retention.

Conclusion

The impact of the English School of Translation Studies on the development of translation studies in Uzbekistan has been both significant and transformative. The introduction of foundational theories by scholars such as Peter Newmark, Basil Hatim, and Mona Baker has enriched the academic curriculum and professional practices within Uzbek translation programs. Newmark’s distinction between semantic and communicative translation has offered students a dual lens through which to assess fidelity and function in text rendering, while Hatim and Mason’s discourse analysis approach has encouraged a more contextual and audience-aware interpretation of meaning. Baker’s corpus-based methodologies, though still in early stages of adoption, have sparked a growing interest in empirical and data-driven research among Uzbek scholars. These imported frameworks have not only elevated the academic rigor of translation studies but have also inspired a deeper appreciation of textual context, genre, and communicative purpose. However, the successful integration of these theories has required adaptation to the Uzbek linguistic, cultural, and sociopolitical landscape. The agglutinative nature of the Uzbek language, its strong oral literary tradition, and the multilingual environment in which translation occurs have challenged direct application and demanded localized reinterpretation. As a result, scholars are increasingly developing hybrid models that blend English School principles with indigenous translation strategies. This evolving synthesis of global theory and local practice holds the potential to establish a uniquely Uzbek school of translation studies. Continued efforts to refine and expand these models will be essential in advancing both the theoretical and applied dimensions of the field in Uzbekistan.