Introduction and literature review. The language of diplomatic discourse is distinguished by its precision and transparency, and at the same time, the usage and translation of terms that ensure these characteristics play an important role. By analyzing bilateral agreements and treaties, as well as the news reporting on them, we can understand the crucial role that translation plays in this context. “ The purpose of diplomatic wording is to avoid direct ,brutal primary and unproductive confrontation “(D’Acquisto,2017,p.42)so stem from this opinion it is clear that the appropriate selection of choice as well is in the great importance .”It is impossible to make serious generalizations without a careful study of the development of certain aspects of each specific layer of the lexicon, otherwise such generalizations will naturally collapse at the first collison with reality” (P.F.Sorokoletov). Diplomatic discourse is characterized by a highly formalized structure and a conservative linguistic style. The comparative study by (Alauddinova Rukhsora Ramazan Kizi 2024) highlights how diplomatic terminology functions as a controlled lexical system, where every term is embedded in a tradition of usage and interlingual equivalence. Native, borrowed, and new coinaged terms coexist, but their employment is regulated to preserve clarity and avoid ambiguity, for instance limited use of synonyms, strict rules on abbreviations. When it comes semantic and structural aspects of diplomatic lexis the terminology within diplomatic texts includes fixed expressions, formal titles, and protocol-driven terms that align with institutional or state-based designations (e.g., “Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Ambassador” - “favqulodda muxtor elchi”). Translating diplomatic language is more than linguistic conversion – it involves understanding pragmatic implications. Specific choices in translation may reinforce or dilute the original tone, intent, and politeness strategies essential in maintaining international diplomacy. The nuances in terms such as “protest note” versus “diplomatic note” or “demarche” reflect levels of diplomatic escalation and must be translated with cultural and political sensitivity. (Khan and Asad ,2020) provide a comparative analysis of English and Uzbek diplomatic terms, offering insights into the linguistic structures and semantic fields involved. Their findings suggest that while some terms have direct equivalents, others require creative solutions to convey the intended meaning accurately. Similarly, (Jabborov 2021) analyzes the translation strategies employed in Uzbek diplomatic texts, highlighting the necessity of adapting terms to fit the socio-political context of Uzbekistan.

The language of diplomacy, inherently complex and context-sensitive, plays a crucial role in shaping international relations. With the increasing frequency of multilateral negotiations, diplomatic correspondences, and public statements in global forums, translation becomes central to ensuring mutual understanding. In bilingual or multilingual diplomatic contexts, such as between English and Uzbek, the translation of diplomatic terms presents a significant linguistic and cultural challenge. This study aims to analyze the translation of diplomacy-specific terms between English and Uzbek, evaluating translation techniques and exploring how cultural, syntactic, and pragmatic factors influence the final outcomes. Comparative translation analysis of diplomacy terms in English and Uzbek contexts is a complex field due to the differing historical, cultural, and political landscapes that have shaped the languages. Diplomacy, as a practice, is deeply embedded in cultural norms, and its linguistic manifestations reflect these nuances. For instance, terms like “good offices” or “détente “in English may not have direct equivalents in Uzbek, requiring translators to employ strategies such as adaptation, calque, or descriptive translation to convey the intended meaning. Furthermore, the level of formality and indirectness often associated with diplomatic language in English might contrast with more direct communication styles in certain Uzbek contexts, leading to potential misinterpretations if not carefully addressed.

The translator must also be aware of the potential for political sensitivities and ideological differences that could influence the choice of words and phrasing. “Understanding the difference in the structure of semantic fi elds in the source and target languages allows a translator to assess the value of a given item in a lexical set. If you know what other items are available in a lexical set and how they contrast with the item chosen by a writer or speaker, you can appreciate the significance of the writer’s or speaker’s choice. You can understand not only what something is but also what it is not” (Mona Baker ,”In Other Words” a coursebook on translation, Routledge). Moreover, as Mona Baker (2018) articulates, understanding the semantic fields in both source and target languages allows translators to appreciate not only what a term is, but also what it excludes. This depth of understanding is indispensable when conveying nuanced diplomatic messages that could otherwise lead to miscommunication or even conflict. Thus, the translation of diplomatic terms is a highly specialized practice – where accuracy, cultural adaptation, and political awareness converge to facilitate international diplomacy. This research article aims to analyze the translation of diplomacy specific terms between English and Uzbek, evaluating translation techniques and exploring how cultural, synatactic, pragmatic factors influence the final outcomes.

Methods. This study utilizes comparative and descriptive analytical approaches to examine the translation of selected diplomatic terms from a range of primary and secondary sources, including official documents, bilateral protocols and translated versions of speeches by diplomats. The analysis is grounded in translation theory based on methods such as Vinay and Darbelnet’s (1958) translation procedures, Newmark’s (1988) translation methods and Nida’s dynamic equivalence theory. At first we will select several terms in diplomatic discourse in source language and target languages then to analyze how this terms used in contexts in two domains following then with comparison and classifying  them according to their translation techniques and ways . Moreover in the article considered  how this translated terms contributes to the overall meaning of the word and how they can be implemented and adapted in the culture of spoken language within illustrating examples.

Discussion and results. If language were simply a nomenclature for a set of universal concepts, it would be easy to translate from one language to another. One would simply replace the French name fora concept with the English name. If language were like this the task of learning a new language would also be much easier than it is. But anyone who has attempted either of these tasks has acquired, alas, a vast amount of direct proof that languages are not nomenclatures, that the concepts . . . of one language may differ radically from those of another. Each language articulates or organizes the world differently. Languages do not simply name existing categories, they articulate their own. (Culler 1976 :21–22) Stem from this opinion English and Uzbek diplomacy discourse and used terms as well differ in contexts as to achieve the adequacy level in translation interpreters should always consider the cultural identity of nation and languages as well.

 Providing with optimal version of the term can be difficult in some cases because of the ambiguity of the language and terms also plays crucial role in this. To mention about the translation techniques, ways we can see in the article calque, transposition and modulation, cultural adaptation, transliteration and other techniques as well. Selected materials are bilateral protocols , official treaties and several brief news items which are taken from different reliable sources. Starting from word for word (Calque) and transformational word for word method while translating” a word taken from one language and translated in a literal or word for word way to be used in another” (Cambridge dictionary) used in the below given words “ consulate” –“konsullik” (Newmark,1988), “to develop bilateral relations”- “ikki tomonlama munosabatlarni rivojlantirish” (Protocol on Cooperation between the government of the United Arab Emirates and the  government of The Republic of Uzbekistan, (https://www.lex.uz/en/docs/6799651 ) “bilateral talks”- “ikki tomonlama muzokaralar” (BBC Uzbek,2022) We can see in the target and source languages using direct borrowing or  calque translating is appropriate while addressing those terms .

Adaptation or functional equivalence -when literal translation is inadequate, translators adopt equivalent terms that reflect function over form.  Peter Newmark ,one of the most prominent professors of translation studies, stated that translation is about “rendering the meaning of a text into another language in the way that the author intended the text”. Adaptation is a translation method that focuses on altering the source text so that it corresponds to the culture, style, grammar, semantics and syntax of the target language. Professional interpreter or adequate translation is a bridge between two cultures target and source languages so utilizing cultural adaptation is the key to ensuring that the translated text functions its intended  purpose and is clearly understood by the target audience . “We are committed to further strengthening comprehensive ties between Uzbekistan and Russia for the benefit of our peoples,”  let us analyze here the difference between English and Uzbek translation of sentence which is used in the diplomatic context  – “Biz O‘zbekiston va Rossiya o‘rtasidagi har tomonlama aloqalarni yana-da mustahkamlashga intilayapmiz  –  bu ish faqat xalqlarimiz farovonligi uchun xizmat qiladi” (https://www.gazeta.uz/ru/ ) so the phrase “for the benefit of our peoples” translated into  Uzbek language in the form of “ xalqlarimiz farovonligi uchun xizmat qiladi “ the word “ benefit “ is quite typical and commonly utilized term in English diplomacy when it comes to Uzbek diplomacy context it would be more appropriate to use the term “farovonlik” because of the cultural adaptation . Another example for functional equivalence method the term “Thanksgiving remarks” (Open letter from Ambassador Kate Marie Byrnes on the occasion of Thanksgiving ) in English diplomacy language translated into Uzbek like” bayram munosabati bilan bildirilgan minnatdorchilik” as in Uzbek culture does not exists the  holiday “Thanksgiving” it is culturally substituted in this form of translation or "Intelligence community" → "Maxfiy xizmatlar tizimi" culturally adapted to fit local administrative structures. These reflect Newmark’s notion of functional translation to align bureaucratic or institutional equivalence. Another example from (Protocol on cooperation between the government of the United Arab Emirates and the Republic of Uzbekistan ) the phrase “have agreed as follows” translated “quyidagilar yuzasidan kelishuvga erishdilar” so here the addition of the word “yuzasidan” can imply Uzbek culture context clarity . In contexts like Uzbek-English diplomacy, where cultural and linguistic structures diverge significantly, such strategies are not merely technical choices but critical interventions. A term like “détente,” for example, might require descriptive translation to retain its connotation in Uzbek, while phrases like “Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Ambassador” demand cultural adaptation to align with local political and administrative frameworks.

If we talk about another important way of translating diplomacy terms it will be the transliteration method (Mammadzada,S,2021) ,this method defines the act or process of writing words using a different alphabet, Transliteration helps people speak a language by showing the pronunciation in the language they understand(Cambridge dictionary) Transliteration is preferred for proper nouns (names of officials, ministries, institutions), when a concept or entity is unique to a specific country, and translating would dilute its identity, to ensure phonetic recognition in oral or visual diplomatic settings (press briefings, plaques, summits).for example the terms “demarche” in Uzbek language “ demarsh”, “ directorate” transliterated in the form of “direktorat” , “delegate” –“delegat” or “ratification” like into Uzbek “ratifikatsiya” as they are universally recognized terms so utilizing it in these forms can help to avoid ambiguity in diplomatic discourse.

Case Examples from Diplomatic Correspondence and News Media From real diplomatic corpora: "Resolution 1325" → "1325-sonli rezolyutsiya" (retained structure + source language tag) (UN Resolutions Archive)  , "Bilateral talks" → "Ikki tomonlama muzokaralar" (BBC Uzbek, 2022) , "Non-aligned movement" → "Betaraflar harakati" (well-established equivalent) (International Affairs Journal, 2023) , "Security Council veto" → "Xavfsizlik Kengashi veto huquqi" (compound structure maintained) (UN Daily Journal) These examples illustrate how translation strategies adapt based on document type and audience.

Transposition and Modulation Techniques as well are common in diplomactic discourse translation . “Modulation is a variation of the form of the message which results from the change in the point of view.  It indicates a change in the angle from which something is seen.” (Vinay& Darbelnet , 1958). These techniques adjust grammatical structure or shift the perspective. We can see certain examples: "Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)" → "Anglashuv memorandumi" (modulation and transposition) (Vinay & Darbelnet, 1958) ,"Humanitarian intervention" → "Insonparvar aralashuv" (modulation) (Gromyko, 1986) "Peacekeeping mission" → "Tinchlikni saqlash missiyasi" (transposition from verb-noun to noun-noun) "Legally binding agreement" → "Yuridik kuchga ega bo‘lgan kelishuv" structural shift and modulation techniques used here (UN Documents, 2022) These techniques allow for syntactic flexibility and greater semantic clarity in Uzbek. As before cited grammatical organization ,word order ,changing word class even minor changes also can contribute to achieve adequacy level in translated context. More nuanced strategies like modulation and transposition helped reshape phrases while maintaining their diplomatic intent. The term “peacekeeping mission” was translated as “tinchlikni saqlash missiyasi,” altering the grammatical structure while retaining meaning. This reflects Vinay and Darbelnet’s (1958) model, where changes in perspective or syntax ensure idiomatic clarity. The study’s comparative analysis shows that translation methods significantly influence the meaning, tone, and interpretative accuracy of diplomatic texts. These findings indicate that diplomatic translation is not a neutral activity but a highly strategic process that can either bridge or widen interpretative gaps. Improper translation risks semantic dilution or even diplomatic faux pas, underlining the translator’s critical role in foreign affairs (Baker, 2018).

Conclusion. This study demonstrates that English–Uzbek translation of diplomatic terminology involves a range of methods tailored to maintain clarity, formality, and international coherence. While literal and borrowing techniques dominate standardized terms, modulation, functional equivalence, and cultural adaptation become essential for phraseological units and culturally embedded terms. The complexity of this task is compounded by the sociopolitical sensitivity of diplomatic language, where misinterpretation may lead to reputational or political costs. To address this, translators must be equipped with not only linguistic knowledge but also cultural literacy and political awareness. In conclusion, this research has illuminated the intricate processes involved in the translation of diplomatic terms between English and Uzbek. By analyzing specific case studies and employing relevant theoretical frameworks, we have demonstrated the significance of cultural context and the challenges faced by translators in this field. The practical implications of our findings underscore the need for heightened cultural sensitivity and awareness among translators and diplomats alike. As we move forward, it is essential to further explore the evolving nature of diplomatic language in the context of globalization and technological advancements. Future research should continue to address the gaps identified in this study, paving the way for more nuanced and effective diplomatic communication." By implementing these suggestions, in further  research articles will be more robust, relevant, and impactful, ultimately contributing to the field of translation studies and enhancing understanding of diplomatic communication. Future research should further explore the impact of automated translation tools on diplomatic communication and expand the corpus to include other Turkic and Slavic languages for a broader comparative analysis.