МЕТОДЫ И ОСОБЕННОСТИ ПЕРЕВОДА НЕЭКВИВАЛЕНТНЫХ ГРАММАТИЧЕСКИХ ЕДИНИЦ В АНГЛИЙСКОМ И ТАДЖИКСКОМ ЯЗЫКАХ (НА ПРИМЕРЕ МОДАЛЬНЫХ ГЛАГОЛОВ)

The issue of equivalence and non-equivalence of grammatical units in comparative linguistics and translation theory is considered one of the most significant problems. Since each language possesses its own specific grammatical system, in the translation process we frequently encounter units that lack a precise structural or formal counterpart in the other language. In such cases, the translator is compelled to overcome translation challenges by employing descriptive means, substitution, or structural transformation.

One of the clearest examples of grammatical non-equivalence is English modal verbs in relation to the Tajik language. This special class of verbs, limited in number, performs a crucial semantic and functional role in English. They serve to express the speaker's attitude towards an action, the degree of certainty, necessity, possibility, and so forth. In Tajik, despite the existence of various means for expressing modality (verbal moods, modal words, adverbs, etc.), there is no system of auxiliary modal verbs grammatically similar to the English modal verbs

The aim of this article is to determine the methods and features of translating English modal verbs into Tajik, to analyze the degree of equivalence of existing modal units, and to propose effective translation strategies.

In translation theory, the concept of equivalence is one of the central concepts

This study employs a comprehensive methodological framework that integrates comparative, descriptive, and functional approaches to investigate the translation of modal verbs between English and Tajik. The research is grounded in the theoretical principles of contrastive linguistics and translation studies, with a particular focus on the concepts of grammatical equivalence, non-equivalence, and functional substitution as elaborated by scholars such as Y. Naida

The empirical basis of this research is drawn from a dual corpus of linguistic data. The primary data consist of illustrative examples extracted from a literary-historical text in Tajik and its authorized English translation (cited as

The analytical procedure was carried out in several sequential stages. First, English modal verbs (can, could, may, might, must, should) were identified in the source text segments alongside their corresponding Tajik renderings in the target text. Second, the identified Tajik equivalents were classified into distinct structural types:

(a) independent lexical verbs with modal semantics (e.g., тавонистан, бояд);

(b) modal words and particles (e.g., шояд, мумкин);

(c) lexical-grammatical constructions (e.g., имкон ёфтан, мумкин аст + infinitive);

(d) verbal moods (e.g., imperative, conditional).

Third, for each pair of corresponding units, the degree of equivalence was assessed by comparing their grammatical properties (person, number, tense, morphological composition) and semantic-functional scope. Fourth, the specific translation strategies employed – lexical substitution, structural transformation (transposition), descriptive rendering, and emphatic addition – were identified and categorized based on the nature of the transformation observed.

A qualitative analytical method is predominantly applied throughout this study. Given the grammatical and functional nature of modality and the limited, closed-class status of English modal auxiliaries, the emphasis is placed on contextual, semantic, and functional equivalence rather than on quantitative frequency counts. The analysis adopts a case-study approach, examining each example in depth to illustrate the interplay between isomorphism (formal and functional similarity) and allomorphism (structural and functional divergence) between the two linguistic systems. This method allows for a nuanced exploration of how translation choices are influenced by syntactic constraints, pragmatic context, and stylistic considerations.

The theoretical underpinnings integrate Western and Tajik/Russian linguistic traditions to ensure a balanced comparative perspective. The classifications of modal meanings (epistemic, deontic, dynamic) proposed by Palmer

Modality, viewed as a conceptual category, encodes the speaker-determined relationship between an utterance’s propositional content and objective reality. Both languages employ a range of modal exponents – moods, modal verbs, modal words, adverbs, intonation, and others – yet these devices differ in their nature and functions.

English modal verbs (can, could, may, might, must, shall, should, will, would) comprise a distinct class of auxiliaries with specific grammatical properties. They generally lack person and number marking (except have to and need to), have restricted tense forms, and combine directly with the bare infinitive to form a compound modal predicate. Crucially, they are devoid of independent lexical meaning and serve to introduce modal shading into the semantics of the main verb.

In Tajik, modality is manifested through several mechanisms. The principal one is verbal mood, which is more differentiated than in English and includes the indicative, conditional, imperative, and conjectural moods

The present study analyses four central English modal verbs (can, must, should, may/might) and assesses their degree of equivalence with Tajik from the standpoint of various translation strategies.

The modal verb can and its formal Tajik counterpart тавонистан. In English, can primarily denotes physical or mental ability, permission, and possibility. Research indicates that although тавонистан is accepted in Tajik as the formal equivalent of can, substantial grammatical divergences obtain. Tajik тавонистан is a full lexical verb marked for person, number, and tense, whereas English can has only two forms (can for present and could for past).

In the authoritative grammar by R. Quirk, S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, and J. Svartvik, A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, can and could are examined within the treatment of modal meanings. The authors distinguish three principal meanings: possibility, ability, and permission

The Russian scholar E. I. Belyaeva, investigating the category of modality and its expression, analyses modal verbs semantically. In particular, with can, the meaning of physical ability is realised in combination with verbs denoting concrete action, movement, and influence upon an object. It is this position that the Tajik researcher D. Istamkulov invokes in his analysis of can – тавонистан

Within Russian grammatical theory, N. Yu. Shvedova treats modality as a means of expressing the speaker’s attitude toward the content of a statement, emphasising that the speaker may adopt varied attitudes toward the veracity of the reported event

From this perspective, English can, depending on context, may express ability, possibility, and permission; in Tajik it can be rendered not only by тавонистан but also by other modal means, including мумкин аст (“it is possible”), имкон дорад (“there is a possibility”), and иҷозат аст (“it is permitted”).

Example: Қиммати молҳои арабҳо ба даст даровардаро ба ҳамин фаҳмидан мумкин аст, ки чунончи дар боло қайд карда шуд, мўзаи ба ғанимат афтодаи бухорхудотзанро дусад ҳазор (танга) нарх карданд.

Translation: The value of the goods that Arabs acquired can be understood from the example (mentioned earlier), that the trophy boots of Bukhor Khudat sold for two thousand dirham (tanga)

In this example, the Tajik modal construction "фаҳмидан мумкин аст" is rendered in English by means of "can be understood": "Қиммати молҳои арабҳо ба даст даровардаро ба ҳамин фаҳмидан мумкин аст..." – "The value of the goods that Arabs acquired can be understood..."

Another example: Дар он вақтҳо дар Кўфа Абўсаламабинни Сулайман ном як каси соҳибнуфуз буд, ки вай дар хусуси ин ки агар имкон ёбанд, Алавиёнро ба рўи кор оранд, бо Абўмуслим ҳамфикр буд (албатта, Абўсалама аз мақсади охирини Абўмуслим хабар надошт).

Translation: In Kufa, at that time an influential called Abu Salama ibn Suleiman, who shared Abu Muslim’s goal to bring Alids to the throne, if he could find an opportunity (of course Abu Salama did not know about Abu Muslim’s ultimate objective)

In the sentence "...ки вай дар хусуси ин ки агар имкон ёбанд, Алавиёнро ба рӯи кор оранд, бо Абӯмуслим ҳамфикр буд" the modal meaning of possibility is expressed by the construction "имкон ёфтан" (to find an opportunity). In the English translation, this construction is rendered as "if he could find an opportunity"

Another example: Албатта Абўмуслим дар ин маврид рўирост тарафдории Абўсаламаро карда ва ўро ҳимоя намуда наметавонист.

Translation: Of course, in this case Abu Muslim could not openly take Abu Salama’s side and could not protect him

In the sentence “Албатта Абӯмуслим дар ин маврид рӯирост тарафдории Абӯсаламаро карда ва ӯро ҳимоя намуда наметавонист”, the modal meaning of impossibility is actualised through the verbal form наметавонист (“could not”). In the English translation, this modal value is rendered by the analytical construction could not + infinitive: “Of course, in this case Abu Muslim could not openly take Abu Salama’s side and could not protect him”

The English modal verb should serve to express advice, recommendation, and mild obligation. In Tajik, it may be translated by several means: бояд (in the sense of advice), беҳтар аст (“it is better”), сазовор аст (“it is worthy”), мебояд (“it is necessary”), or the imperative mood.

The modal verb should occupy a significant position in the research of several English grammarians. M. Swan analyses should as a means of expressing obligation, recommendation, and probability, noting that in the expression of obligation it is relatively weaker than must

In Tajik linguistics, the means of expressing necessity and obligation have been studied primarily within the framework of analysing the verbal and modal structures of the Tajik language. The Grammar of the Modern Tajik Literary Language discusses the grammatical structure of the verb and the means of expressing grammatical meanings

Example: Зиндонии ӯ низ набояд баъд аз соли 149, вақте ки сохтмон ба анҷом расида буд, бошад.

Translation: His imprisonment should not be also after 149, when the construction was completed

In the sentence “Зиндонии ӯ низ набояд баъд аз соли 149, вақте ки сохтмон ба анҷом расида буд, бошад”, the modal unit “набояд” (should not) conveys the meaning of rejecting a supposition or inference derived from available evidence. In the English translation, this modal meaning is rendered by the construction “should not be”: “His imprisonment should not be also after 149, when the construction was completed”

From a semantic perspective, “should not” in this context does not primarily express deontic prohibition or obligation. Rather, it functions as an epistemic marker indicating a logical inference and the rejection of a particular probability. On the basis of the temporal evidence provided in the sentence, the author infers that the person's imprisonment most probably did not take place after the year 149. Consequently, the English modal construction preserves the inferential and probabilistic character of the original Tajik utterance.

The English modal verbs “may” and “might” are generally associated with the semantic domain of possibility, while “may” may also perform a deontic function and express permission. In contexts involving epistemic possibility, “might” normally indicates a lower degree of probability or a more tentative assumption than “may.” In Tajik, the principal lexical means used to express possibility, supposition, and probability is the modal word «шояд» (perhaps, possibly). Linguistic evidence demonstrates that «шояд» is functionally multifunctional and is capable of expressing a broad spectrum of modal meanings depending on its syntactic environment, verbal form, and contextual interpretation.

R. Quirk, S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, and J. Svartvik, in A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, distinguish the semantic properties of “may” and “might.” According to their analysis, “may” indicates a possibility that is perceived as relatively close to reality, whereas “might” does not function merely as the past-tense counterpart of “may.” It can also signal a reduced degree of probability, uncertainty, tentativeness, or hypothetical possibility, thereby indicating a lower degree of the speaker's confidence in the realization of the event

F. R. Palmer, in Modality and the English Language, likewise differentiates the functional and semantic domains of the two modal forms. At the epistemic level, “may” expresses the proposition that something is possible, whereas at the deontic level it denotes permission. “Might,” by contrast, is predominantly associated with epistemic modality and serves to express a tentative or less certain possibility. Its use consequently places greater emphasis on the limited degree of the speaker's commitment to the truth or realization of the proposition

J. Coates, in The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries, also examines the semantic relationship between “may” and “might.” Her analysis demonstrates that “might” frequently functions as a hedging device in both spoken and edited discourse, reducing the categorical force of a probabilistic statement. The principal distinction between the two modal forms is therefore manifested in the degree of certainty or commitment attributed to the proposition by the speaker

Within Tajik linguistics, the modal word «шояд» is regarded as one of the principal lexical-syntactic means of expressing possibility, supposition, and hypothesis. Its structural and functional characteristics have been examined in a number of linguistic studies. Sh. Z. Niyozi, in the dissertation Noun and Some Modal Words in the Modern Tajik Literary Language, emphasizes the semantic autonomy of «шояд» and identifies it as one of the principal linguistic devices for expressing the speaker's attitude toward reality. According to the scholar, its semantic interpretation is not restricted to a single modal value: depending on intonation, contextual conditions, and the grammatical form of the accompanying verb, «шояд» can denote a relatively strong probability, a weak supposition, a hypothesis, doubt, or hesitation. Its historical derivation from the verb “шоистан” (to be worthy) also indicates a semantic development from the notions of permission and possibility toward the specialized expression of probability and supposition

L. V. Uspenskaya, in her monograph The Category of Modality in the Tajik Language, analyzes the interaction between «шояд» and different verbal forms. She considers this modal word to be a functional counterpart of many modal verbs and modal expressions found in European languages, including “may” and “might.” Its functional versatility becomes particularly apparent in its interaction with different tense and mood forms. In combination with present-future forms, including the aorist, «шояд» can express a real or relatively immediate possibility, whereas its combination with past-tense forms or conditional-conjectural constructions conveys hypothetical, uncertain, or weak possibility, corresponding in certain contexts to the English construction “might have been”

The Grammar of the Modern Tajik Literary Language also emphasizes the syntactic significance of “шояд.” It is characterized as a central lexical-syntactic device through which the speaker's attitude toward the factual status of the information is expressed. Within the sentence, the modal word establishes different degrees of possibility and hypothesis and thereby contributes to the organization of the modal meaning of the entire utterance

A. Abdurahmonov, in his study The Category of Modality in the Modern Tajik Literary Language, further points out that «шояд» has numerous syntactic and functional counterparts. Through its interaction with different verbal forms and changes in the structure of the predicate, it is capable of expressing a broad continuum of modal meanings, ranging from a relatively weak possibility to a probability approaching certainty or factual reality

The comparison of English “may/might” and Tajik «шояд» therefore demonstrates both functional correspondence and structural divergence between the two languages. In English, epistemic possibility is primarily grammaticalized through modal auxiliaries whose semantic interpretation is closely connected with the degree of the speaker's commitment to the proposition. Tajik, by contrast, frequently employs a lexical-syntactic modal word whose interpretation is determined to a considerable extent by the verbal form with which it combines and by the broader syntactic and contextual environment. Consequently, the translation of «шояд» into English cannot always be reduced to a mechanical correspondence with “may” or “might.” The translator must take into account the specific degree of probability, hypothesis, uncertainty, or tentativeness conveyed in the original Tajik construction. This demonstrates that the translation of modal units between Tajik and English involves not only formal grammatical substitution but also the preservation of semantic and pragmatic distinctions within the category of modality.

Example: Шумо метавонед онҳоро сад ё бештар ҳисоб кунед.

Translation: You may count them one hundred or more

In the sentence under analysis, the Tajik modal form метавонед (‘you can/may’) conveys the meanings of possibility or permission to perform an action. In the English translation, this modal unit is rendered by the modal verb may: “You may count them one hundred or more.” In Tajik, метавонед constitutes a finite personal form of the verb тавонистан and, together with the lexical verb ҳисоб кардан (‘to count’), forms a modal construction. In English, the same modal value is realised analytically through may plus the bare infinitive count. Accordingly, the transformation of метавонед ҳисоб кунед into may count exemplifies a grammatical transformation whereby a Tajik verbal modal structure is adapted to an English modal structure. In this instance, the choice of may is motivated by the semantic context and expresses possibility or permission to perform the action. Thus, the translator alters the grammatical form of the modal exponent while preserving the original modal meaning.

Another example: Албатта, ин рози худро пинҳон доштани Абўслим ба дарҷаи маълум буд ва аз касоне буд, ки ба кори ў эҳтимоли халал расондан доранд ва ё ин ки рози ўро фош мекунанд.

Translation: Of course, to what degree Abu Muslim kept his secrets became known, but he was among the people whose cause might be disturbed if his secrets were revealed

In the sentence under consideration, the meaning of possibility is realised through the Tajik construction эҳтимоли халал расондан доранд (‘are likely to cause disruption’). In the English translation, this modal value is conveyed by the modal verb might within the passive construction might be disturbed. In Tajik, эҳтимол (‘possibility/likelihood’) functions as a lexical exponent of the probability of an event, whereas in English the same meaning is encoded grammatically by the modal verb might. The transformation of эҳтимол into might therefore constitutes a lexical–grammatical transformation, since a Tajik lexical unit is rendered by an English grammatical unit – the modal verb. Concurrently, the construction халал расондан доранд (‘have the potential to cause disruption’) is transformed into the passive structure be disturbed. In this sentence, might expresses the epistemic modality of possibility, presenting the disruption of his affairs as a hypothetical possibility only. Thus, by modifying the grammatical means and verbal structure, the translator preserves the modal meaning of the source construction in the target language.

Based on the above analysis, we can identify the main methods for translating English modal verbs into Tajik:

1. Use of lexical equivalents: this method involves selecting an appropriate Tajik word or phrase for each modal verb. For example, the modal verbs can – тавонистан, must – бояд. However, it should be borne in mind that these equivalents are often incomplete and may not cover all the meanings of the modal verb.

2. Structural transformation (transposition): this method involves changing the grammatical structure of the sentence. For example, an English sentence with a modal verb may be transformed into a Tajik sentence with an imperative mood: You should go – Бирав! (Go!). This method is often used to translate meanings of advice and obligation.

3. Use of descriptive means: in cases where a precise equivalent does not exist, the translator can express the modal meaning through descriptive phrases. For example, "might" in the sense of very low probability can be translated as "эҳтимоли хеле кам дорад" (has very little probability).

4. Addition of emphatic words: to strengthen the meaning of modal verbs, emphatic words are often added in Tajik: ҳатман (certainly), албатта (of course), воқеан (indeed), and others.

The translation of English modal verbs into Tajik is one of the significant challenges of comparative grammar and translation theory. This challenge originates from the fact that the Tajik language lacks a system of auxiliary modal verbs similar to those in English. Instead, the Tajik language employs modal words (бояд, шояд), independent verbs (тавонистан, хостан), verbal moods, and syntactic means to express modality.

The comparative analysis has demonstrated that English modal verbs and their Tajik equivalents exhibit both isomorphism (similarity) and allomorphism (difference). Isomorphism resides in the fact that both languages possess dedicated means for expressing core modal meanings – possibility, necessity, probability, and permission. Allomorphism manifests itself in the grammatical forms, structural composition, and functional distribution of these means. The principal translation procedures for modal verbs include the use of lexical equivalents, structural transformation, the use of descriptive/periphrastic means, and the addition of emphatic elements. The selection of a particular strategy is conditioned by context, communicative purpose, and stylistic parameters.

Consequently, the investigation of the methods and specificities of translating non-equivalent grammatical units, particularly modal verbs, is of considerable significance not only for translation theory but also for comparative linguistics and language teaching methodology.