Pecularities of translation into ukrainian of english phraseological units in the texts of literary discourse

Размещено на Аllbest.ru

CONTENTS

phraseology spoken language

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER

1.1 Research of phraseology as a language phenomenon

1.2 Theoretical background of phraseological units' translation

CHAPTER 2. LITERARY DISCOURSE PHRASEOLOGY: DISCOURSE FEATURES, TRANSLATION OPTIONS

2.1 Specifics of literary discourse text analysis

2.2 Options in the translation of literary discourse phraseology

2.2.1 Lexical transformations in the translation of literary discourse

2.2.2 Grammatical transformations in the translation of literary discourse phraseology

2.2.3 Lexical and grammatical transformations in the translation of literary discourse phraseology

CONCLUSION

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ANNEX A

ANNEX В

РЕЗЮМЕ

INTRODUCTION

Phraseological units are figurative set expressions often described as «idioms». English is a language particularly rich in idioms. It has about 25, 000 idioms. Without them the English language would lose much of its variety and humor both in speech and writing. Idioms increase our vocabulary, enrich the language and make it more interesting and vibrant. The grammar and vocabulary of the idioms are fixed, and if we change them, we lose the meaning of an idiom. Learning the specific idioms related to a certain culture helps us learn more about the history, customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of it.

Such units have an important role to play in human communication. They produce a considerable expressive effect for, besides conveying information, they appeal to the reader's emotions, his aesthetic perception, his literary and cultural associations. Whenever the author of the source text uses an idiom, it is the translator's duty to try and reproduce it with the utmost fidelity.

Phraseology is known to be one of the difficult, debatable and interesting parts of linguistics. It appeared in the middle of the 19th century as a science, and was firstly dealt widely with by the scholars of the post-Soviet country. The early researchers of phraseology were Russian scholars and linguists such as Abakumov, Reformatski, Arnold, Bulakhovski, Ojegov, Amosova, Vinogradov, Smirnitsky etc. Though being mostly investigated by Russian specialist, phraseology has been the target of the research of the following Azerbaijan linguists - Seyidov, Shiraliyev, Bayramov, Rustamov, Huseynzade, Veliyeva, and some foreign scholar as A. V. Koonin, Rosemarie Glaser and other linguists. The subject matter of phraseology was very interesting to most linguists, however, it was impossible to originate a single theory on phraseology.

In the study of the etymology of English and Ukrainian phraseological units were used such dictionaries as The Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition, The Historial Dictionary of American Slang, First Edition, The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, 5th Edition, Partridge's A Dictionary of Slang, 8th 'dition, Cotgrave's A Dictionarie of the French and English Tongues and Hotten's Slang Dictionary.

The subject of the research is usage of phraseological units in literary discourse and ways (options) of their translations.

The investigation object of the research is analysis of phraseological units, define their types and peculiarities of their translation in literary texts.

The main goal of this research paper is to investigate the main characteristics and peculiarities of translation of phraseological units in the literary discourse and the difficulties which might occur when translating them, to describe their types and classification.

In accordance with the objectives the following methods have been used in the research:

direct observation method, which allows analyzing material and summarizing the results of the previous studies;

2) descriptive method allowing to describe the lexical and grammatical transformations in the translation of media discourse of construction vocabulary.

The theoretical and practical value of the research is related to:

the possibility increasing and enriching of vocabulary,

discover the meaning of new idioms and their usage

expanding the theoretical and methodological basis of studies in phraseology in modern linguistics

using this material developed for help other students in their self-studying.

Also this paper could be used as additional resources for lectures and seminars in their self-studying. The present term-paper consists of Introduction, two сhapters - theoretical and practical, Conclusion, Annex and Bibliography. The introduction is the brief plot of the term paper theme which gives information about the structure of the term paper. In сhapters 1 and 2 all the duties and problems of the work are investigated and analyzed in details. Chapter one examines the general characteristics of phraseological units, their classification and ways of formation. The second chapter focuses on the structural and semantic peculiarities of phraseological units. Conclusion deals with the theoretical and practical result of the work.

The whole list of the materials and sources used in the course of my investigation is given in Bibliography (Bibliography presents the materials and sources used in the course of the research). The theoretical background of the present research is introduced by a number of sources including “Lexicology: Theory and Method” by Akhmanova, “English Phraseology” by Koonin, “The English Word” and “Lexicology of Modern English” by Arnold, “A course in Modern English Lexicology” by Ginzburg, etc. All these books give background knowledge on phraseological units, the characteristic features of idioms, their semantic and structural peculiarities.

CHAPTER 1. PHRASEOLOGY AS A LANGUAGE PHENOMENON AND TRANSLATION CHALLENGE

1.1 Research of phraseology as a language phenomenon

Phraseology, which studies phraseological units of the language, as the branch of Linguistics appeared in the 1940s. The object of Phraseology is phraseological units, their nature, and the way they function in speech. However, there is a problem of terminology in linguistics connected with phraseology, since there are the following terms which are used in this branch of linguistics:

- set expression or word-equivalent;

- idiom;

- set phrase;

- fixed word-groups;

- phraseological combinations;

- phraseological fusions;

- phraseological unit.

The “Dictionary on linguistic terms” gives the following definition of praseological units: “phraseological units (idiom, idiomatic) - lexically indivisible, stable in composition and structure, holistically meaningful phrase reproduced as set speech units. The concept of phraseologic unit (unite phrasйologique), first used by Charles Bally, in Prйcis de stylistique, was taken by V. V. Vinogradov and other Soviet linguists, who translated it as «фразеологічна одиниця», which led to the term phraseologhism, with the same meaning, and then subsequently borrowed by different languages belonging to the European culture.

The earliest English adaptations of phraseology are by Weinreich (1969) within the approach of transformational grammar, Arnold (1973), and Lipka (1992, 1974). In Great Britain as well as other Western European countries, phraseology has steadily been developed over the last twenty years. The activities of the European Society of Phraseology (EUROPHRAS) and the European Association for Lexicography (EURALEX) with their regular conventions and publications attest to the prolific European interest in phraseology.

From the beginning of the 20th century, various linguists have studied and investigated phraseological units and their properties. The first researchers indicated only the motivation and the structural properties. Much later Ch. Fernando (1996) provided the most frequently mentioned properties of

Phraseological units which scholars use in their works. These properties are:

1) сompositeness (phraseological units are commonly accepted as phrases and not as single words) ;

2) institutionalism (phraseological units are conventionalized expressions) ;

3) semantic opacity (the meaning of the phraseological units is not understood literally).

Other scholars, such as G. Nunberg, I. Sag and T. Wasow (1994) offer a different list of properties, typical to phraseological units:

1) inflexibility (syntax changes are restricted) ;

2) figuration (figurative meaning) ;

3) proverbiality (description of social activity compared to concrete activity);

4) informality (typically occur in informal speech) ;

5) affect (usually have affective stance towards what they describe).

According to Rosemarie Glдser, a phraseological unit is a lexicalized, reproducible bilexemic or polylexemic word group in common use, which has relative syntactic and semantic stability, may be idiomatized, may carry connotations, and may have an emphatic or intensifying function in a text.

According to Prof. Kunin A. V., phraseological units are stable word-groups with partially or fully transferred meanings («to kick the bucket», “Greek gift”, “drink till all's blue”, “drunk as a fiddler (drunk as a lord, as a boiled owl) ”, “as mad as a hatter (as a march hare) ”).

Phraseological unit is a word group with a fixed lexical composition and grammatical structure; its meaning, which is familiar to native speakers of the given language, is generally figurative and cannot be derived from the meanings of the phraseological unit's component parts. The meanings of phraseological units are the result of the given language's historical development. [7]

All the phraseological units have their own features:

the structure ruggedness and separateness - all the phraseological units have divided structure and have several components which don't realize their lexical meanings being inside of the unit because they cannot be translated or used separately.

stability of a grammatical structure - each phraseological unit is a part of some grammatical category and it is concrete part of speech and that is why it has a set of grammatical forms and it has he same syntax function as its part of speech.

structural stability - it is typically for phraseological units to have constancy of its components and stability of lexical structure

semantic equivalence for the word - in the view of semantic and the structure a phraseological unit is more difficult language unit than a word. But it is typical for the most phraseological units to have a functional closeness to the word equivalence to the word.

repeatability - semantic integrity, components' and structure's permanence are define an impotent feature of the structure. There are a lot of prepared phraseological units in the phraseological system of the language, they aren't creating one more time, and they are just taken out off a memory.

Idioms can be positive, negative or neutral. It is clear that “to kill two birds with one stone” is good, “to find a mare's nest” is a ludicrous mistake while “Rome was not built in a day” is a neutral statement of fact. They can also differ in their stylistic usage: they may be bookish - to show one's true colours, - or colloquial - to be pain in the neck. Besides, an idiom can be nationally coloured, that is, they include some words which mark it as the product of a certain nation. For instance, “to set the Thames on fire” and “to carry coals to Newcastle” are unmistakably British, whereas “it's not my cup of tea” is American.

Phraseological units can be classified according to the ways they are formed, according to the degree of the motivation of their meaning, according to their structure and according to their part-of-speech meaning. The most popular is the synchronic (semantic) classification of phraseological units proposed by V. V. Vinogradov. He developed some points first advanced by the Swiss linguist Charles Bally and gave a strong impetus to a purely lexicological treatment of the material. According to Vinogradov's classification all phraseological units are divided into phraseological fusions (фразеологічні зрощення), phraseological unities (фразеологічні єдності) and phraseological combinations (фразеологічні сполуки).

Phraseological fusion is a semantically indivisible phraseological unit which meaning is never influenced by the meanings of its components [2; 244].

It means that phraseological fusions represent the highest stage of blending together. The meaning of components is completely absorbed by the meaning of the whole, by its expressiveness and emotional properties. Examples: to kick the bucket (розм.) - загнутися, померти; to rain cats and dogs - лити як з відра (про дощ) ; to be all thumbs (“one's fingers are all thumbs”) - бути невмілим, незграбним, once in a blue moon - раз на віку; to cry for the moon - шукати кістки в молоці (вимагати неможливогоі; under the rose - під полою, нишком. Sometimes phraseological fusions are called idioms under which linguists understand a complete loss of the inner form. To explain the meaning of idioms is a complicated etymological problem (tit for tat means “to revenge”, but no one can explain the meaning of the words tit and tat).

Phraseological unity is a semantically indivisible phraseological unit the whole meaning of which is motivated by the meanings of its components [2; 245].

In general, phraseological unities are the phrases where the meaning of the whole unity is not the sum of the meanings of its components but is based upon them and may be understood from the components. The meaning of the significant word is not too remote from its ordinary meanings. This meaning is formed as a result of generalized figurative meaning of a free word-combination. It is the result of figurative metaphoric reconsideration of a word-combination.

Examples: to come to one's sense -to change one's mind; to come home - to hit the mark; to fall into a rage - to get angry; to spill the beans - видати секрет.

Typical features of the phraseological unities:

a bright figurativeness and possibility of a coincidence with other word-combinations (to throw dust into smb. 's eyes - заговорювати зуби, to be narrow in the shoulders - розуміти жартів, to burn one's fingers - обпектися на чомусь, помилитися, to burn bridges - спалювати мости)

stability of the semantic structure of other components (to put a spoke in smb. 's wheel - ставити палиці в колеса)

impossibility of substitution one component into another one (to hold one's cards close to one's chest - не відкривати карт, тобто тримати щось в секреті, не розголошувати)

an emotional - expressive coloration plays a decisive role (to paint the devil blacker than he is - згущувати фарби)

capability to enter into relations with the synonymous single words or other phraseological units: to gild refined gold - to paint the lily - вдосконалювати те, що не потребує досконалості)

Phraseological unities are characterized by the semantic duality. One can't define for sure the semantic meaning of separately taken phraseological unities isolated from the context, because these word-combinations may be used as free in the direct meaning and as phraseological in the figurative meaning.

Phraseological combination (collocation) is a construction or an expression in which every word has absolutely clear independent meaning while one of the components has a bound meaning [2; 246]. It means that phraseological combinations contain one component used in its direct meaning while the other is used figuratively. Examples: to make an attempt - to try; to make haste - to hurry; to offer an apology - to beg pardon, to fall in love ? to love somebody, to play with fire ? to do dangerous things, а pitched battle - запекла сутичка, Adam's apple - Адамове яблуко.

Typical features of the phraseological combinations:

there is such possibility to change one of its component (a bosom friend ? нерозлучний друг, a bosom buddy ? нерозлучний приятель) ;

there is a possibility to substitute the component for its synonym (a pitched battle ? запекла сутичка, a fierce battle ? люта сутичка) ;

there is a possibility of including of the adjectives between nouns (he frowned his thick eyebrows ? він насупив густі брови) [12].

Some linguists who stick to the general understanding of phraseology and refer to it communicational units (sentences) and winged words, define the fourth type of phraseological units.

Phraseological expression is a stable by form and usage semantically divisible construction, which components are words with free meanings [2; 246]: East or West, home is best; marriages are made in heaven; still waters run deep; birds of a feather flock together; something is rotten in the state of Denmark (W. Shakespeare) ; fools rush in where angels fear to tread (A. Pope) ; live and learn - століття живи, століття вчися; better untaught than ill taught - краще бути неграмотним, ніж неправильно навченим; many men, many minds - скільки голів, стільки і думок (сколько людей, столько и мнений) ; easier said than done - легше сказати, ніж зробити; nothing is impossible to а willing heart - хто хоче, той досягне. Phraseological expressions are proverbs, sayings and aphorisms of famous politicians, writers, scientists and artists. They are concise sentences, expressing some truth as ascertained by experience of wisdom and familiar to all. They are often metaphoric in character and include elements of implicit information well understood without being formally present in the discourse.

V. V. Vinogradov's classification is considered as the best and the fullest one, but also there are a lot of other scientists' classifications.

The similar, but a little wider classification was later introduced by A. Makkai. He divides the into two big groups and grounds his division on the basis of semantical motivation as V. V. Vinogradov does. Makkai distinguishes phraseological units (his original term is “idiom”) as those of decoding and those of encoding. Phraseological units of decoding are such phrases that “display constructional homonymity with their literal counterparts” (Makkai; 1972: 26). The example of such phraseological units can be to spill the beans (= to reveal the secrets). This phrase can be easily understood both: literally and figuratively. Phraseological units of encoding, on the contrary, do not show the homonymity with their literal counterparts. They represent the irregularities (or as Makkai calls them idiosyncrasies) of the language, such as, for instance, nothing loath.

Professor Smirnitsky classified phraseological units as highly idiomatic set expressions functioning as word equivalents, and characterized by their semantic and grammatical unity. He suggested three classes of stereotyped phrases:

traditional phrases (nice distinction, rough sketch) ;

phraseological combinations (to fall in love, to get up) ;

idioms (to wash one's dirty linen in public).

The second group (phraseological combinations) fall into two subgroups:

one-top phraseological units, which were compared with derived words;

verb-adverb phraseological units of the type to give up, e. g. to bring up, to try out, to look up, to drop in, etc;

phraseological units of the type to be tired, e. g. to be surprised, to be up to, etc;

Prepositional substantative units, e. g. by heart, by means of.

two-top phraseological units, which were compared with compound words:

attributive-nominal, e. g. brains trust, white elephant, blind alley, a month of Sundays; a millstone round one's neck.. Units of this type function as noun equivalents;

Units of this type are noun equivalents and can be partly or perfectly idiomatic (if the expression is idiomatic, then we must consider its components in the aggregate, not separately). In partly idiomatic units (phrasisms) sometimes the first component is idiomatic: high road; in other cases the second component is idiomatic: first night. In many cases both components are idiomatic: red tape, blind alley, bed of nail, shot in the arm and many others.

verb-nominal phrases, e. g. to know the ropes, to take place, to read between the lines; to sweep under the carpet;

The grammar centre of such units is the verb, the semantic centre in many cases is the nominal component: to fall in love. In some units the verb is both the grammar and the semantic centre: not to know the ropes. These units can be perfectly idiomatic as well: to burn one's boats, to vote with one's feet, to take to the cleaners', etc.

phraseological repetitions, e. g. ups and downs, rough and ready, flat as a pancake. They function as adverbs or adjectives equivalents;

Such units can be built on antonyms: ups and downs, back and forth; often they are formed by means of alliteration: cakes and ale, as busy as a bee. Components in repetitions are joined by means of conjunctions. These units are equivalents of adverbs or adjectives and have no grammar centre. They can also be partly or perfectly idiomatic: cool as a cucumber (partly), bread and butter (perfectly). Phraseological units the same as compound words can have more than two tops (stems in compound words) : to be a shadow of one's own self, at one's own sweet will.

adverbial multi-top units, e. g. every other day, against the grain ? не по душі, to have all one's eggs in one basket ? вийти переможцем.

Phraseological units are neutral, non?metaphorical when compared to idioms: fall asleep, get up, to take to drinking. Idioms are metaphoric, stylistically coloured: to take the bull by the horns, to beat about the bush, to bark up the wrong, tree to cherish/warm a viper in one's bosom.

Prof. Koonin's classification is based on the function of the phraseological unit in communication. Phraseological units are classified into: nominative, nominative-communicative, interjectional, communicative.

1. Nominative phraseological units are units denoting objects, phenomena, actions, states, qualities. They can be:

a) substantive - a snake in the grass (підколодна змія), a bitter pill to swallow;

b) adjectival - long in the tooth (старий) ;

c) adverbial - out of a blue sky, as quick as a flash (швидкий як блискавка);

d) prepositional - with an eye to (з наміром), at the head of.

2. Nominative-communicative units contain a verb: to dance on a volcano, to set the Thames on fire (зробити щось незвичайне), to know which side one's bread is buttered (знати, звідки віє вітер, бути собі на умі), to make (someone) turn (over) in his grave, to put the hat on smb's misery (на додачу до всіх його бід).

3. Interjectional phraseological units express the speaker's emotions and attitude to things: A pretty kettle of fish! (от тобі й на! оце так справа!), Good God! God damn it! Like hell!

4. Communicative phraseological units are represented by provebs (An hour in the morning is worth two in the evening; Never say “never”) and sayings. Sayings, unlike provebs, are not evaluative and didactic: That's another pair of shoes! It's a small world.

1.2 Theoretical background of phraseological units' translation in literary discourse

The idea that phraseology has the right to exist as a separate linguistic discipline was first put forward by Kunin. He also introduced the term phraseological stylistics to denote the study of stylistic properties of phraseological units (1969: 71-75). Kunin viewed phraseological stylistics as part of both general stylistics and phraseology. He developed his ideas of stylistic use of PUs in his subsequent works (Kunin 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1983). In Russia, stylistic studies of phraseology have flourished after Kunin (1964) (see, for example, Boldireva 1967; Sviridova 1968; Shadrin 1969; Naciscione 1976; Danchenko 1977; Zhantlesova 1978; Melerovich 1982; Moshiashvili 1982; Dubinsky 1985). This trend also continues today (see, for example, Ryzhkina 2003).

In Western Europe, scholarly interest in phraseology and in stylistic use of phraseological units in particular developed much later (Cowie [1998] 2001). Following Kunin, Glдser (1986) voices a plea for phraseo-stylistics as a subject of stylistic description in its own right to study the communicative effects of phraseological units and their occasional, individual modifications. Further studies are also devoted to the stylistic potential of phraseological units in text (Cowie [1998] 200; Glдser [1998] 2001). Research on stylistic changes of phraseological units in text has recently been on the increase; for instance, Sabban offers a thorough analysis of occasional variations of French and German phraseology in use, (1998), and explores the text-building potential of phraseological units in discourse (2007). Various types and genres of texts have attracted much attention, including media texts and advertisements (for example, Sabban 1998; Glдser [1998] 2001; Burger 1999, 2008). Traditionally, many lexicographers and textbook authors have tended fully or partly to ignore or overlook non-standard forms of phraseological units. A closer look at dictionaries of idioms, as they are commonly called, reveals a widely differing treatment of phraseological units. One is no reflection of the stylistic use of phraseological units of any type, that is, complete absence of any stylistic changes in the recorded examples. The illustrations supplied after the phraseological units are perfectly standard with a one-to-one correspondence to the headphrase of the entry (except for minor grammatical changes necessary to introduce the into context and which are not stylistically relevant), for example, McMordie ([1905]1971), Wykeham (1936), Hackenberg (1964), Longman Dictionary of English Idioms (1979), Chambers English Idioms ([1982] 1995), The Penguin Dictionary of English Idioms ([1986] 1994), Chambers Dictionary of Idioms and Catch Phrases (1995). The dictionary includes PUs, set phrases, and quotations, which are qualified as over-used and tired expressions. Moreover, as the author states in her theoretical introduction, she has tried “to find good, clear usages”, which means - no stylistic use. Indeed, most citations given in the entries illustrate “straightforward uses” (Cresswell, 2000).

Style is fundamental for analysis of phraseological units in discourse. Indeed, style is part of the meaning of phraseological units (see Ch. 2. 2) ; it is one of the elements of the semantic structure of phraseological meaning (Melerovich 1982; Dobrovol'skij 1996, 1998, 2003). Literary style is the language of literary works. It is important to chose the right linguistic means, the genre the theme, the period in which the story is set, the characters, the author's viewpoint and linguistic capacity etc. The stylistic potential of phraseological units is richer and more versatile in literary and everyday genre. “The language of literary works is distinguished by the use of selected words, which are “vibrant” and “sound beautifully”, words and phraseological phrases which express the writer's attitude and feelings”. To artistically reflect life and the world that sorrounds us, a literary author has recourse to the whole wealth of the national standard language with its expressive means on different stylistic level. In fiction we distinguish two main divisions: that of the prose and poetry. Poetry lexicon includes the word of the folk poetry of the recent and the previous generation. According to the theme that the writer decides to write about we find words which belong to different fields of life. So in a lengthy narrative, poetry, or in a poem for a technical achievement about someone or an historical event etc. we will find phrases or phraseological units.

In prose it is difficult to find a literary work without the use of the phraseolgical units which are considered a wealth for this genre. In prose fiction we see that every field of life is depicted and there we find a wide lexicon. Due to its spread and due to the lack of the organization according to a single norm, there are some authors that they do not consider the fiction language as a simple functional style, but as a set of different discourse style. However the author's works should follow the rules of the standard and the characteristics of the characters `discourse should adopt to the stylistics needs. In general the lexicon of the fiction works is distinguished for its double function: the word can have its literal meaning and figurative meaning. On the whole, the use of stylistic devices depends on the individual author's intention and personal taste and thus cannot be added to the linguistic features of a particular genre or subgenre.

Literary discourse contains the words of common words employed in all language styles, as well as in spoken and written speech. These words are characterized with rich meanings and semantic shades, as a result of which their stylistic functions in literary discourse are very miscellaneous. In addition, if we take into account that writers tend to enrich and develop semantics of words, search for new ways and means of their literary use, the very principles of studying content and the role of common words in a writer's language, must appreciably differ from their study and classification principles in standard language. History shows that the creative practice of writers normally was successful in case when author developed meaning of words according to the rules of internal language development. Development of meanings of words can be vividly traced in the phraseological innovations of writers, in which words put into new and unusual contacts assume quite different meanings. According to V. Vinogradov, “It is necessary to dwell on the very nature of enriching and complicating meanings of the words belonging to the lexicon of language, as the semantic development of the lexicon words is related to enriching standard language phraseology. Formation and extension of figurative meanings in the words belonging to the lexicon result in creating phraseological units included into the lexicon of language”[6].

While studying literary use of various sayings of writers we have opportunity to observe how they are developed into aphorisms used in figurative- allegorical meaning. Let us refer to the examples as below:

The expression “a blot on one's escutcheon” is created by G. Draiden (1631-1700) in the translations from Vergilium: The banishment of Ovid was a blot in his escutcheon. Later R. Browning used it in his tragedy's name. Probably after that it was spread in the English literature. “Surely crudity is only to be expected from a mere blot on the family escutcheon” (R. Aldington. Rejected Guest).

W. Shakespeare created the expression the course of true love never did run smooth in his “Dream at Summer Night” and used it in direct meaning:

Lysander: Ah me! For aught that ever I could read.

Could ever hear by tale or history.

The course of true love never did run smooth…

According to I. R. Galperin, this is a generic term for three substyles: the language of poetry; emotive prose (the language of fiction) ; the language of the drama. Each of these substyles has certain common features, and each of them enjoys some individuality. The belles-lettres style is individual in essence. This is one of its most distinctive properties.

Emotive prose shares the same common features, but these features are correlated differently than in poetry. The imagery is not so rich as in poetry; the percentage of words with contextual meaning is not so high. Emotive prose features the combination of the literary variant of the language, both in words and in syntax, with the colloquial variant. But the colloquial language in the belles-lettres style is not a simple reproduction of the natural speech, it has undergone changes introduced by the writer and has been made «literature-like». In emotive prose there are always two forms of communication present - monologue (the writer's speech) and dialogue (the speech of the characters). Emotive prose allows the use of elements from other styles as well. But all these styles undergo a kind of transformation under the influence of emotive prose. Passages written in other styles may be viewed only as interpolations and not as constituents of the style.

According to I. R. Galperin, “the stylistic device of decomposition of fused set phrases consists in reviving independent meanings which make up the component parts of the fusion; i. e. it makes each word of the combination acquire its literal meaning which in many cases leads to the realization of an absurdity. ” [26]

While characterizing phraseological connections of the words it's very interesting to establish how words assume new meanings. In order to show those highly rich semantic and stylistic capacities of words belonging to the lexicon of language we can point out, for example, phraseological connections and meanings of the word “knot”. This word is fixed within 7 English phraseological units and in each of them it assumes a certain semantic and stylistic meaning mostly due to being used in a literary environment. Compare:

1) Гордіїв вузол: A great city struggled for a score of years to untangle that which was all but beyond the power of solution- a true Gordian knot (Th. Dresier. The Titan)

2) Розрубати вузол: I don't want to speak ill of your father…but…he'll be back on your mother's hands before a year's over. You can imagine what that will mean to her and to all of you after this. The only thing is to cut knot for good (J. Galsworthy. In Chancery).

3) Недбало зав'язаний вузол: “It's all right for you” Frankie muttered, tying granny knots over and over each other (Ch. Dickens. The Heart of London) ? «Тобі це не зашкодить», ? пробурмотів Френкі, недбало зав'язуючи вузлики оин над іншим.

4) Зв'язати себе узами шлюбу: Ld. Sparkish: Is your friend Ned Kattle married? Yes, my Lord: he has tied a knot with his tongue, that he can never untie with his teeth. ? Лорд Спаркіш: «Ваш друг Нед Кеттл одружений?» Невераут: «Так, звичайно, мілорд. Він встиг пов'язати себе узами шлюбу» (O. Wilde. Lady Windermere's Fan).

5) Зав'язнути в труднощах: Violet. It's a fearfully difficult language. Sometimes my head seems to get tied up in knots ? Вайолет: «Страшенно складна мова. Мені іноді здається, що в мене голова від неї розривається. « (W. S. Maugham. Caesar's Wife)

6) Заплутати когось: Watch him tie that witness in knots ? Він зараз цього свідка за 2 секунди заплутає. (J. O'Hara. Ten North Frederick)

7) Одружитися: We'll tie the old knot whenever you say the word, Dawnie ? Ми одружимося одразу, як тільки того схочеш, Донні. (J. Jones. Some Came Running)

CHAPTER 2. LITERARY DISCOURSE PHRASEOLOGY: DISCOURSE FEATURES, TRANSLATION OPTIONS

2.1 Specifics of literary discourse text analysis

By its nature, discourse analysis exceeds the boundaries of the usual distinction between text and context. Discourse analysts are threatened by two dangers, one that could be named “textualism” and the other, “sociologism”. The former consists of reducing to the text the scope of the analysis; the latter consists of studying the setting of the speech independently of discourse activity. So, it is no wonder that in literary discourse analysis the notion of genre plays a key role.

If we give up focusing only on texts considered in themselves, many phenomena that were previously outside the legitimate scope of literary studies become relevant: for example the way the writers produce their works (what I call “genetic rites”) or literary life: the places in which artists meet, the groups they constitute, the way they play their role in the media, etc. The way texts circulate, the way they are consumed, the way writers live, the way school deals with literature, etc. cannot be dissociated from what is unduly considered as being “inside” text. For discourse analysts, there is no inside and outside text. What is “inside” must construct its own “interiority” through inter discourse. the approaches that belong to discourse analysis are not the only way for linguistics to deal with literature. Discourse analysis can be used to comment on texts, like traditional stylistics did, but also to understand the functioning of literary discourse, as part of the discursive practices of a given society. So, it is convenient to distinguish four modalities for linguistics to intervene in the field of literary studies.

- The first one is that of traditional stylistics (atomistic or organic) : studying linguistic phenomena is supposed to help the analyst to interpret texts. The linguistic analysis is only a tool.

- The second modality is that of the approaches that use concepts and methods frorm pragmatic, text linguistics or discourse analysis. We can distinguish two purposes:

a) elaborating ingterpretations of a work or a group of works; b) working out a model of the linguistic properties of a corpus, which can be defined according to various criteria. For example, describing a genre or the properties of texts belonging to the same aesthetic position (naturalism, surrealism...) or written by the same author.

- In the third modality, the analysts claim to study works, but they attempt to question the frontier between text and context by taking into consideration not only works but also larger units such as literary field, discourse communities and so on.

- The fourth modality is the most radical: the works are no longer the focus of the analysis. The object is literary discourse, considered as a network of manifold genres (and not only the genres of the works). That means that anthologies of literature, literary chronicles in newspapers, commentary practices at the university or at school, interviews that the writers give on TV, and so on, are part of literary discourse. From this viewpoint, literary discourse analysis must not be viewed as a new trend of literary criticism, but as a new way of constructing the object “Literature”.

There does not exist a stable “treasure”, constituted of great works that each period would interpret with the help of new tools: in this fourth modality, the purpose of discourse analysis is not to interpret a thesaurus, it is, among other things, to understand the construction, the management and the role of this treasure in discourse practices. In my view, the modality does not pertain to discourse analysis; modality pertains to literary discourse analysis in a « weak « sense; only modalities and pertain to discourse analysis in a “strong” sense. Two notions: self constituting discourse and scenography

The status of « self-constituting discourses « (Maingueneau 1999) is very particular: discourses like others, they are also discourses which claim to be above any other type of discourse. As discourses bordering on unspeakable meanings, they must negotiate the paradoxes that such a status implies. To hold up other discourses without being held up by them, they must set themselves up as intimately bound with a legitimising Source and show that they are in accordance with it, owing to the operations by which they structure their texts and legitimate their own context.

Each type of society has its own self-constituting discourses and its specific ways of connecting them: speaking « anachronistically «, one could say that mythical discourse in traditional societies is at the same time “literary”, “philosophical”, “scientific” and “religious”. When we work on texts belonging to self-constituting discourses, we deal with highly structured discourses that speak of man, society, rationality, good and evil, etc., that have a large scope, global aims. But those discourses are produced locally, by few people set in a small sector of society. Literary discourse, like the other self-constituting discourses, is diffused in the mass media and schools, but it is shaped in very limited circles belonging to a specific field. So, a position is not only a more or less systematic set of contents, it associates a certain textual configuration and a certain way of life for a group of people, discursive communities, which may be organized in many ways.

Here the term « scenography « is not used in its usual way:

- It adds to the theatrical dimension of « scene « the dimension of « graphy «, of legitimating inscription, for scenography gives authority to discourse, which has persuasive effects on addressees.

- Scenography is not a frame, a scenery, as if discourse occurred inside a place that is already fixed, independently of discourse. On the contrary, discourse puts progressively into place its own communicational device. So, -graphy must be understood simultaneously as frame and process.

In literature like in other self-constituting discourses scenographies must not be considered as mere rhetorical strategies, as is the case in an advertising campaign. When a poet, through his or her enunciation, shows himself or herself as a prophetical figure, somebody who speaks directly, roughly, who denounces sinners and demands intense repentance, this defines implicitly what legitimate literary discourse has to be and, correlatively, the nature of illegitimate poetry: he is reaffirming his or her enunciative identity inside the field. The importance of scenography in literature is particularly obvious if we consider that for many literary works the very notion of genre poses a problem. The genres here are not pre-established frames, but partly a consequence of a decision of the author, who selfcategorizes his or her own verbal production as `essay', `fantasy', `thoughts', `story', etc. If a novelist or a poet calls his or her text a `meditation', a `trip' or a `report', that label claims to define the way in which the text is to be interpreted.

2.2 Options in the translation of literary discourse phraseology

The ways of rendering of phraseological units

Translation of phraseologisms is a very complicated problem. Right translation is stipulated with finding the most concordant and equivalent words that is usually deprived of coloring in the translation as a usual lexical unit. The figurative meaning is the basic element of the idiom's semantics. It is this nature that makes them distinguishable from structurally identical free combinations of words: to take the bull by the horns - брати бика за роги (переходити безпосередньо до справи, предмету розмови), to be busy as a bee - бути зайнятим як бджола (бути надзвичайно заклопотаним), to rain cats and dogs - лити як з відра (про дощ), to be born under a lucky star - народитися під щасливою зіркою.

Some proper names can also be endowed with figurative meaning and possess the necessary expressiveness which are the distinguishing features of idioms: Croesus, Tommy (Tommy Atkins), Yankee, Mrs. Grundy, Jack Ketch, etc. These proper names have acquired their constant meaning and can not be confused with usual (common) proper names of people. As a result their transferred meaning is conveyed in a descriptive way. So Mrs. Grundy means світ, люди, існуюча мораль; Jack Ketch - кат; Tommy Atkins - англійський солдат; Yankee (in Europe) - янкі/американець, etc.

Similarly treated must also be many other English and Ukrainian picturesque idioms, proverbs and sayings. The latter, depending on the semantic structure of the source language idiom, may be sometimes achieved in the target language with the help of a single word: an odd/queer fish - дивак; Canterbury tale - небувальщина, вигадка; ніде курці клюнути - crammed; зубами тертяка вибивати - to be chilled.

Most often, however, the meaning of this kind of idioms is conveyed with the help of free word-combinations: to dine with Duke Humphrey - залишитись без обіду (нічого не ївши) ; to cut off with a shilling - позбавити когось спадщини; ноги на плечі - to go quickly (or very quickly) on one's feet; кивати/накивати п'ятами - to run away quickly/hurriedly. Faithful translating of a large number of idiomatic/phraseological expressions, on the other hand, can be achieved only by a thorough selection of variants having in the target language a similar to the original lexical meaning, and also their picturesqueness and expressiveness. This similarity can be based on common in the source language and in the target language componental images as well as on the structural form of them: a grass widow (widower) - солом'яна вдова (вдівець) ; not to see a step beyond one's nose - далі свого носа нічого не бачити; measure twice and cut once - сім раз одміряй, а раз відріж.

The following ways of faithful rendering the idiomatic/phraseological expressions are identified:

By Choosing Absolute/Complete Equivalents

This is the method of translating by which every componental part of

the source language idiom is retained in the target language unchanged. Translating

with the help of equivalents is resorted to when dealing with idioms which

originate from the same source in both the languages in question:

Augean stables - авгієві стайні (занедбане, занехаяне місце) ; a labour of Sisyphus - сізіфова праця (важка і марна праця) ; to cross (pass) the Rubicon - перейти Рубікон (прийняти важливе рішення) ; the golden age - золотий вік (золоті часи) ; to cast the first stone at one - першим кинути у когось каменем; the golden calf - золотий телець/ідол; a lost sheep - заблудла вівця.

Some mots belonging to prominent English and American authors have also turned into regular idiomatic expressions. Due to their constant use in belles-lettres they have become known in many languages. Especially considerable is the amount of Shakespearean mots: better a witty fool than a foolish wit - краще дотепний дурень, ніж дурний дотеп; cowards die many times before their deaths - боягузи вмирають багато разів.

Translation of Idioms by Choosing Near Equivalents

The meaning of a considerable number of phrase idioms and sentence idioms originating in both languages from a common source may sometimes have, unlike absolute equivalents, one or even most of their components different, than in the target language: baker's/printer's dozen - чортова дюжина; love is the mother of love - любов породжує любов.

Translation by Choosing Genuine Idiomatic Analogies

An overwhelming majority of English idiomatic expressions have similar in sense units in Ukrainian. These idiomatic expressions, naturally, are in most cases easily given corresponding analogies in the target language.

Any common or similar traits of idiomatic expressions are the main proof of their being genuine analogies. The latter in each of the two languages comprise also proverbs and sayings as well as the so-called standardized and stable collocations: he that mischief hatches mischief catches - хто іншим лиха бажає, сам лихо має/хто іншим яму копає, сам у неї потрапляє; to have the ready tongue - за словом у кишеню не лізти.

Many of such and the like idiomatic expressions may often have twoand more analogous by sense variants in the target language. The choice of an analogy rests then with the translator and is predetermined by the style of the text: nor for love or money - ні за що в світі/ні за які скарби в світі; don't teach your grandmother to suck eggs - не вчи вченого; не вчи рибу плавати; яйця курку не вчать, etc. ; a crooked stick throws a crooked shadow - який Сава, така й слава/який батько, такий син, яка хата, такий тин.

Translating Idioms by Choosing Approximate Analogies

Some source language idiomatic and stable expressions may have a peculiar nature of their componental parts or a peculiar combination of them and thus form nationally peculiar expressiveness and picturesqueness of componental images. The latter constitute some hidden meaning, which is mostly not quite explicit and comprehensible, not transient enough for the foreigner to catch it.

As a result, there exist no genuine phraseological analogies for the units in the target language. Since it is so, their lexical meaning can be expressed by means of only approximate analogies or through explication, i. e., in a descriptive way: kind words butter no parsnips - годувати байками солов'я; to make a cat's paw of something - чужими руками жар вигрібати; the sow loves bran better than roses - кому що, а курці просо; more power to your elbow - ні пуху, ні луски! ; it is six and half a dozen - не вмер Данило, так болячка задавила, etc.

Descriptive Translating of Idiomatic and Set Expressions

The meaning of a considerable number of idiomatic as well as stable/ set expressions can be rendered through explication only, i. e., in a descriptive way. Depending on the complexity of meaning contained in the sourcelanguage idiom, it can be expressed in the target language in some ways:

by a single word: out of a clear blue of the sky - раптом, зненацька; poor fish - йолоп, бевзь, нікчема; to sell smoke - піддурювати, підманювати; to set a limit to smth. - обмежувати, стримувати; to go aloft - померти;

with the help of free combinations of words (the most frequent) : to run amock - нападати зненацька на першу-ліпшу людину; to sell someone short - недооцінювати когось; to sham Abraham - удавати з себе хворого (прикидатися хворим) ; short odds - майже рівні шанси; to sit above the salt - сидіти на почесному місці; a stitch in time - своєчасний захід/вчинок, своєчасна дія;

when the lexical meaning of an original idiomatic expression is condensed or when it is based on a nationally specific notion/structural form alien to the target language, the idiomatic expression may be conveyed by a sentence or a longer explanation: white elephant - подарунок, якого важко позбутися (те, що приносить більше турбот, ніж користі) ; yes man - людина, що з усіма згоджується, тільки підтакує (підтакувач), etc.

The ways and methods of translating the nationally colored words are as follows:

Transcription - a sort of phonetic imitation of the original word by means of target language sounds and a number of phonemes do not coincide and are assimilated.

Practical transcription (adaptive transcoding) ? is an interlinguistic operation as it deals with two languages: the sounds of the source language word are rendered by the letters of the target language: Anchorage - Анкоридж, Oakland - Окленд; bourgeois - буржуа; apathy - апатія; domain-домен; aggression - агресія.