This article presents a comparative analysis of English occasionalisms in J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone and their translations into Kazakh and Russian. Occasionalisms — words coined by the author for a specific context — are a unique linguistic phenomenon that pose significant challenges for trans1lators due to their novelty and lack of fixed equivalents. Successful translation of these neologisms demands not only linguistic competence but also creative flexibility in applying various translation strategies appropri1ate to the context. The study focuses on translations published by “Rosman” (2007) in Russian and “Steppe & World” (2022) in Kazakh. It explores the most frequently used techniques for rendering occasionalisms and examines how these choices affect the overall interpretation of the text. The analysis reveals that translitera1tion and transcription are the most commonly employed strategies in both translations. These methods often preserve the phonetic or visual features of the original terms, maintaining the whimsical and imaginative tone of the source text. To support the analysis, the article includes tables and charts that clearly illustrate the fre1quency and application of various translation techniques. It highlights similarities and differences between the English source text and its Russian and Kazakh counterparts, shedding light on how cultural and linguistic factors influence the translation process. The findings contribute meaningfully to the field of translation stud1ies, particularly in the context of children's literature. They offer valuable insights into the challenges of trans1lating creative language across diverse linguistic landscapes. Moreover, the research provides a useful foun1dation for future comparative studies involving English, Russian, and Kazakh translations, as well as practical guidance for translators working with imaginative and child-oriented texts.
Kussaiynova et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: