SEMANTIC AND PRAGMATIC FEATURES OF AUTHORIAL STYLE IN JOHN GREEN’S THE FAULT IN OUR STARS AND THEIR REPRESENTATION IN UZBEK TRANSLATION

Nosirova Dilnoza Rizoqulovna

Authors

Nosirova Dilnoza Rizoqulovna 2nd-year doctoral student, Asia International University Assistant Lecturer, Department of Foreign Languages and Social Sciences, Asia International University

Keywords:

semantics, pragmatics, authorial style, young adult literature, intertextuality, literary translation, pragmatic equivalence.

Abstract

This article examines semantic and pragmatic aspects of authorial style in The Fault in Our

Stars by John Green and discusses the difficulties of reproducing these features in Uzbek

translation. The study focuses on the interaction between adolescent conversational speech and

medical discourse in the novel, as well as on the stylistic role of irony, humor, implicature,

presupposition, and intertextuality. Special attention is given to semantic dominants such as

illness, fate, infinity, and loss. The article also analyzes how pragmatic meaning changes during

translation and what strategies may help preserve communicative effect in the target language.

The research shows that literal translation is often insufficient for maintaining emotional tone

and pragmatic force. Functional equivalence, compensation, and context-sensitive adaptation are

therefore considered more effective approaches in rendering the author’s style.

References

J. L. Austin Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 2. Mona Baker Baker, M. (1992). In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. London and

New York: Routledge. 3. Penelope Brown Brown, P., & Stephen Levinson Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some

Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 4. Catford, J. C. (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 5. Eckert, P. (2000). Linguistic Variation as Social Practice. Oxford: Blackwell. 6. John Green Green, J. (2012). The Fault in Our Stars. New York: Dutton Books. 7. H. Paul Grice Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics (Vol. 3, pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press. 8. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman. 9. Hatim, B., & Mason, I. (1990). Discourse and the Translator. London: Longman. 10. Juliane House House, J. (2015). Translation Quality Assessment: Past and Present. London

and New York: Routledge. 11. Koller, W. (2011). Einführung in die Übersetzungswissenschaft. Tübingen: Narr. 12. Newmark, P. (1988). A Textbook of Translation. London: Prentice Hall. 13. Eugene Nida Nida, E. A. (1964). Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill. 14. Reiss, K., & Vermeer, H. J. (1984). Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 15. John Searle Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 16. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell. 17. Toury, G. (1995). Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam and Philadelphia:

John Benjamins. 18. Venuti, L. (1995). The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation. London and New

York: Routledge. 19. Aripova, K. (2024). Tarjimaning pragmatik jihati. CyberLeninka. 20. Barmina, E. A. (2022). Adaptation of Young Adult Texts as a Means of Actualizing Their

Pragmatic Potential in Translation. Philological Studies Journal.