1. Introduction

Translating the literary works demand special care in rendering proper names, especially toponyms, because they carry important cultural and geographical information. In many cases, foreign place names have no direct equivalents in the target language and fall into the category of non-equivalent lexis. Translation theory broadly holds that proper names (toponyms, anthroponyms, etc.) are not “translated” but are transferred into the target language through various translation strategies. In practice, translators most often use transliteration or transcription techniques to preserve the original form, since substituting or explaining the name can render the text more accessible but risks losing its authenticity.

Toponyms are the important part of the society’s linguistic heritage, that carry cultural, historical, and political significance that may be distorted during the translation process.

The authors of this paper have investigated the difficulties of toponymic translation, how extralinguistic factors such as socio-political contexts can influence linguistic choices. The present paper applied established theoretical frameworks

[1][7][13][16]

Geographical names including cities, landmarks, and regions present significant challenges for cross-cultural communication because of their layered connotations

[14][2][5]

- Direct rendering (transliteration / transcription) of toponyms using the target language’s script or sound systems.

- Semantic rendering (including translation or explanation) related to conveying the main meaning of toponyms, providing explanations or descriptions.

By examining the English source text alongside the 1959 Russian and Kyrgyz versions of

Contemporary researches confirm these observations. For example, D. A. Smirnova and A. Kh. Abdulmanova, analyze name-translation strategies in English fairy-tale literature rendered into Russian and demonstrate the predominance of transcription and transliteration for both anthroponyms and toponyms

[13, P. 253]

This article examines the translation strategies used to translate toponyms from English into Kyrgyz, based on Mayne Reid’s

[3]

The main objectives of the paper were to:

- Provide classification of the types of translation techniques applied to toponyms in the Kyrgyz text influenced by Russian.

- Choose and analyze representative examples of toponyms and their translations.

- Discuss the translators’ choice of particular translation strategies that make a great impact on the reader’s comprehension.

Our corpus consists of Reid’s original English novel [11] and its Kyrgyz translation [3]. Methodologically, we combine a comparative-contrastive analysis with descriptive commentary and quantitative counting of strategy frequencies. The theoretical framework draws on studies of non-equivalent lexis and proper-name translation [1], [7], [16] and on recent empirical research into translation practice [13].

2. Theoretical Framework

Translating toponyms falls under onomastics, the study of proper names, and presents unique challenges. A toponym usually has no independent semantic content outside its source language, though it may contain a transparent meaning (e.g.,

Classical translation theory identifies five principal methods for toponym transfer

[7, P. 134][16, P. 58]

Functional analogue: Substituting the foreign name with a familiar local equivalent, that is extremely rare for real places due to the risk of misrepresenting factual information.

Transcription and transliteration best preserve a work’s authenticity of place-names by adapting only script and pronunciation. Calques or descriptive renditions should be reserved for instances where a toponym’s semantic content is vital yet not self-evident to the target reader. Vlahov and Florin

[16, P. 61]

Beyond linguistic considerations, established translation norms in the target language usually influence the choice of the translation strategies. For example, Russian maintains standardized exonyms exist for most country es and major geographical features (e.g.,

[7, P. 145]

Guided by these principles, the following sections analyze how toponyms in

3. Methodology and methods

This study employs a mixed-methods approach that integrates qualitative and quantitative analyses to provide a holistic understanding of toponym translation in The Headless Horseman into Kyrgyz via Russian. In the application of the qualitative approach, all the toponyms translated into the Kyrgyz language were examined side by side with its English original and the Russian intermediary to uncover the translator’s choice considering cultural, linguistic, and contextual nuances. This close reading show how extralinguistic factors such as Soviet-era principles and linguistic conventions shaped those decisions of a translator. During the quantitative analysis, the entire corpus is systematically divided into five key strategies transliteration, transcription, calque, descriptive translation, and functional analogue and their frequencies in both the source text (ST) and the target text (TT) were provided. By combining interpretive insights with measurable data, the study both reveals overall patterns in the translator’s approach and explains individual translation decisions.

4. Analysis

Mayne Reid’s The Headless Horseman abounds with toponyms rooted in its Texan setting and adjoining Mexican borderlands. In the 1866 English original

[11][3]

Nearly every toponym in the Kyrgyz text mirrors its source form in Cyrillic, requiring only minimal phonetic adaptation. For example:

The Spanish estate name

Fort Inge likewise follows the foreignizing pattern. In the absence of a direct quotation from Bektursunov

[6]

Among the major part of toponyms, this uniform translation strategies as pure transcription/transliteration prevails. Here we couldn't notice any semantic calques, any substitutions, or omissions: every toponym in Reid’s text is faithfully preserved. This homogeneity demonstrates the translator’s commitment to maintain the novel’s geographical texture.

When mapping English phonemes into Kyrgyz Cyrillic, standard Russian-style conventions guide choices: x — “х” (e.g.,

Letters

As a result, the target text in Kyrgyz is peppered with foreign names that may seem unusual to monolingual readers. However, bilingual audiences (speak both in Kyrgyz and Russian) readily recognize standard forms like “Техас” and “Мексика.” In grammatical point of view, these names fully integrated into Kyrgyz through regular case and possessive suffixes

In sum, the dominant strategy is foreignization via transliteration. By eschewing adaptations, explanations, or local analogues, the translation achieves high formal accuracy in rendering place-name realia, even though semantic nuances (e.g., Nueces meaning “nut trees”) remain opaque to the Kyrgyz reader, a detail deemed non‐essential for narrative comprehension.

This study applies onomastic classification

[15][4][8][9][14]

- Natural Objects: Hydronyms (bodies of water), oronyms (mountains, hills), demonyms (forests), insulonyms (islands).

- Man‐Made Objects: Oikonyms (populated areas), horonyms (territorial units), urbanonyms (streets, squares, buildings).

So Hydronyms such as Gulf of Matagorda remain formally unchanged, with only Kyrgyz case marking (-дун жээгине) added for grammatical coherence.

Oronyms like Castle Ballagh receive a straight phonetic rendering, preserving their historical and cultural colours.

Symbolic terms (e.g., “reins” as control imagery) are adapted into relevant Kyrgyz idioms that show flexibility when the term carries thematic weight rather than locational reference.

By avoiding semantic substitutions or explanatory notes, the translator maintains high formal accuracy and the exotic flavor of the source text. At the same time, minimal descriptive additions meet Kyrgyz syntactic requirements without diluting the source’s geographic authenticity.

According to the contemporary translation theory [4], [5], [10] the approach for proper names are really supported and emphasize that literal renderings preserve foreign color while selective adaptation addresses reader comprehension. Research on toponyms in English and their translations into Kyrgyz influenced by Russian [6], [12] further confirm that the transcription technique can be coupled with cultural adaptation for the best balancing linguistic fidelity with intelligibility.

5. Findings and Results

The analysis reveals that S. Bektursunov consistently adopted a minimal-intervention approach to toponyms, fully in line with mid-20th-century Soviet translation norms that prioritized preserving the foreign “color” of proper names over cultural domestication. By opting almost exclusively for transliteration/transcription, the translator maintains the sense of “otherness” integral to Reid’s Texan and Mexican settings, what Venuti (1995) calls a foreignizing strategy, while leaving the local color of the American frontier intact.

It is important to note that the domestication strategies including the semantic substitution, explanatory glosses, or functional analogues do not exist. These examples match with Soviet-era practice influenced by Russian intermediary texts. So Bektursunov followed the established Russian forms (e.g., "

The advantages of the mentioned single-strategy approach include:

- Sustainability across major part of toponyms, helping bilingual readers who wish to cross-reference ST and TT.

- Formal accuracy, preserving original orthographies and phonetics.

- Matching with the literary genres: For instance, adventure fiction benefits from the exotic ambiance of untranslated place-names.

The drawback lies in potential comprehension gaps. Readers can be unfamiliar with the source text or languages receive no semantic cues (e.g., ‘Nueces’ meaning “nut trees”) and remains opaque. Consequently, according to the Soviet guidelines of that period discouraged overloading literary editions with footnotes or commentary, favoring aesthetic unity over factual explanation. In contrast, contemporary translators in the era of globalization might selectively introduce explanatory notes or maintain original forms, depending on target-audience needs.

Overall, Bektursunov’s practice clearly matches with classical translation theory related to the proper names that are rendered rather than translated

[1, P. 94][7, P. 112][7, P. 118]

Hydronyms (e.g., “Leona River” — "Леона суусу", “Rio de Nueces” — "Нуэсес дарыясы") predominantly appear in transliterated form with occasional generic Kyrgyz descriptors (суусу, дарыясы) added for clarity.

Man-made names (e.g., “Casa del Corvo,” “Fort Inge,” “San Antonio”) show selective adaptation: “Casa del Corvo” sometimes becomes "Корво үйү" (localizing ‘house’) whereas “Fort Inge” appears as "Инж форт" (transliteration + generic term in Kyrgyz word order).

Such nuanced application highlights that even within a broadly foreignizing stance, the translator may apply minimal cultural adaptation when it improves target-reader comprehension without sacrificing formal fidelity.

Cultural factors significantly determine whether a toponym is transliterated or adapted. For instance, references to Texan customs or historical contexts may be minimized if considered irrelevant to Kyrgyz audiences. Translators weigh extralinguistic elements such as local familiarity and socio-historical resonance when deciding to adapt, substitute, or retain the original name structure.

Natural objects (hydronyms, oronyms) and man-made objects (forts, towns) are present at nearly equal frequencies in the selected corpus.

A quantitative overview confirms the predominance of transliteration (49,5%) and literal translation (24,7%), with cultural substitutions, additions, and omissions making up the remainder. Despite its minority status, cultural substitution plays a vital role in conveying semantic nuance where pure transliteration might leave readers disoriented:

- 

- 

- C

- 

6. Conclusion

The translation of Mayne Reid’s The Headless Horseman into Kyrgyz shows a clear preference for foreignization, combining phonetic authenticity with enough cultural intelligibility to preserve the novel’s exotic ambiance. By transferring all types of toponyms directly into Kyrgyz with minimal phonetic adaptation, the translator upheld mid-20th-century norms that favor transcription over translation of onomastics. This strategy maintains both geographic authenticity and the adventure genre’s aesthetic appeal: readers experience distant Texas and Mexico almost as if in the original, without the text being “domesticated”.

Our cluster-based classification dividing toponyms into natural (hydronyms, oronyms, insulonyms) and man-made (oikonyms, horonyms, urbanonyms) categories reveals that while transliteration and literal transfer dominate across the board, selective cultural adaptations (e.g., adding generic Kyrgyz descriptors or occasional lexical additions) support reader comprehension when necessary. These choices clearly reflect not only theoretical guidelines for toponyms transfer

[1][7]

In conclusion, it is important to note that mid-20th-century Kyrgyz editions of foreign adventure fiction prioritized fidelity to the source text’s toponymic system, foregoing explanatory glosses in favor of preserving original forms. Our findings not only enrich comparative onomastic research across former Soviet languages but also offer practical guidance for today’s translators: the decision to retain or explain a place-name should be informed by the work’s genre, its intended purpose, and reader expectations. In contexts where preserving “local color” is paramount such as literary adventure, foreignization remains an effective strategy.

The additional file for this article can be found as follows: