Topicality of the paper subject: due to the cultural turn of the 20^th century, the process of translation has been addressed in the new way. First of all, the scholars accent their point of view not so much on the translation of the text itself, but more on the translation of culture. Any research in the field of translation theory and practice is topical when concentrating on the study of culture, cultures interaction and international relations.

When studying text style within the translation process, one has to consider stylistic peculiarities of both source and target texts as well as the individual styles of the source text author and the translator, taking into account the creative nature of translation process. hese points have been already considered by some Ukrainian and foreign scholars: N. Bagrintseva, S. Florin, V. Vinogradov, S. Vlakhov, R. Zorivchak and others (the problems of translation), I. Arnold, I. Galperin, Y. Retsker, O. Morokhovsky and others (text style research). Yet, the stated points still need to be analysed with the view of their interaction and common influence on general transformations of the text that occur in the process of translation.

hus, the aim of this paper is to analyse the factors influencing text style transforming and to present them as a system from the point of view of translation theory. he tasks to be done are as follows: to analyse and compare various viewpoints on the considered problems and to supply the points with examples of Ukrainian-English translation of prose, where the Ukrainian quotations were selected from the pieces of prose written on the verge of the 19^th-20^th centuries, the English ones - from the translation texts written by Roma Franko.

Resting on the statement, that the process of translation is of creative nature, it is necessary to take into account the opinion of O. Rebriy, that such creativity is “manifested in solving the translation difficulties of linguistic origin” [14, 97].

he term of “translation difficulties” is explained in different ways. For instance, S. Vlakhov and S. Florin think, that realia create difficulties for the translator by means of their form, peculiarities, derivation potential, valence, etc. [7, 18]. Translation of phraseological units also creates the difficulties of their detection in the text, perception and understanding [7, 180]. hus, the translator is to solve some important problems, the translation quality depending on it. In my opinion, this is connected with the degree of the author's individual style reproduction and forms the translator's individual style.

Another scholar, R. Zorivchak, puts translation difficulties down to not only lack of a corresponding equivalent with the same denotative meaning in the target language, but also the translated element's connotation (its national and historical meaning) that has to be preserved as well [9, 39]. hus, it is not obligatory for a word to be polysemic to have a complex semantic structure which influences the translator's choice when selecting translation equivalent.

he well-known Soviet translator K. Chukovskiy emphasized existence of “stylistic difficulties”, that could be faced when the languages involved into translation process were characterized by the high degree of relatedness, such as Ukrainian, Russian or Byelorussian, etc. [19, 218]. hus, the broad sphere of the term's usage is obvious. But studying the reasons of such translation difficulties is also of great essence.

Up to L. Barkhudarov, the difference in semantic systems of different language is among the basic sources of translation difficulties [4, 12]. It can be interpreted, that the statement goes not only about the language vocabulary, but it also covers temporarily established semasiological connections between the words and bound phrases. he way of rendering of a lexeme, phraseme and syntaxeme as well as contradictions between the author's idea and the reader's perception are considered of great essence.

In this context, we may consider the problem of equivalence in translation. According to B. Kielar, this problem is certainly connected to relations between the source and translation texts, though all scholars interpret it in their own way [23, 59]. And it is such individual way of interpreting that has resulted in long-lasting discussion about the sense of translation equivalence.

For instance, under Y. Retsker's definition, the translation equivalent is constant correspondence, nondependent on the context or established as a result of long-lasting contact of the languages [15, 9-11]. As could be seen, the mentioned definition covers semantic aspect of lexical subsystem of a language; it is closely connected to Y. Retsker's theory of regular equivalents.

O. Shveytser singles out pragmatic equivalence, which considers communicative intention and communicative effect and is connected to all other types of equivalence [21, 86]. K. Kovaleva considers a pragmatic aspect very important for translation quality assessment [11, 14]. hese statements make us conclude, that pragmatic equivalence must play main role in translator's searching for the best equivalent possible. I consider it the main reason for essential (including semantic) transformations done in the process of translation.

his can be proved also by E. Tabakowska: the problem of equivalence, as she writes, lies in the empiric sphere; in practice, the equivalents may belong to the language units of different, incomparable levels, which are chosen by an experienced translator's intuition [17, 103-105]. As this interpretation is rather broad and does not emphasize a role of the context, it makes it possible to choose the equivalents of a larger or smaller size, which, I should say, hints on addition and extraction transformations.

Various viewpoints on translation equivalence were summed up by O. Selivanova, who considers equivalence to be sustained correlation of information put into the translation text on the one hand and identity of its pragmatic impact on the other [16, 548].

Despite the fact, that a lot of scholars interpreting the notion of translation equivalence exceed the language lexical subsystem, studying the lexical transformations loses no importance. On the other hand, such studying is not limited with language matter analysis only, as the language is closely connected to society and culture.

For instance, N. Bagrintseva emphasizes translation difficulties appearing not only when translating the so - called non-translatable lexical units, but also when dealing with language units causing translation difficulties due to distinctions in contacting cultures [3, 80]. H. Guo states, that semantic translation difficulties are caused mainly by additional connotation [22, 344], and pragmatic ones - by historic, geographical, customary and religious distinctions between two cultures [22, 345-346]. hese opinions are shared also by D. Wu. he scholar also thinks that the translator's “intercultural awareness" does not grow naturally and must be trained [27, 123-124]. I totally agree that a language's lexicon does not exist separately from culture, but I think, that as reproducing style requires a special profound research, this paper should concentrate mostly on lexical-semantic aspect of the considered problem.

A lot of attention is drawn by the notion of non-translatable lexicon having no equivalents in other languages.

S. Vlakhov and S. Florin include into it not only realia, but also, under some circumstances, terms, interjections, exotic words, acronyms, forms of address, deviation from literary norms, proper names and phraseological units [7, 43]. I consider the non-translatable units of lexicon the main source of translation difficulties resulting in peculiarities of the text style reproduction in general, the number of which, however, can be reduced.

One of such cases were commented upon by N. Bagrintseva. According to her, if two cultures are characterized by a long history of contacts, the numerous translations make a positive influence on the target culture and target text reader, thus, the knowledge about the foreign culture increases relieving the translator's tasks [3, 92]. It is logical, that if such contacts are not so long-lasting, the translator has to do some extra job now and then. An opposite situation is described by R. Machali: the translator sometimes is to do additional transformations if the recipient's background knowledge differs too much from that of the source text author [24, 86]. Sometimes it happens that the transformations go far beyond the text itself. One of such cases is mentioned by M. Murphy, when the translator rendering the Irish drama into English had to supply it with an additional historical context to explain negative treatment of the Irish characters to the Englishmen [25, 400-401]. I understand these three examples in such a way, that the scholars mean, first of all, the target text reader's background knowledge. hus, besides the good command of the source and target languages (which goes without saying), the translator must possess not only the background knowledge, but also the knowledge about the actual (or expected) background knowledge of the target text readers. he latter is also a sort of background knowledge about the target culture and constitutes the so-called metabackground knowledge. It results in need for the translator to be informed about the history of translation at least within the language pair, in which the translator works.

When trying and overcoming the translation difficulties of lexical nature, the translator often makes lexical transformations applying the method of the source text transformations, as described by R. Minyar-Byeloruchev. According to him, the translator selects the target language designation for a denotatum not immediately. At first, he/she considers the system of nominations of certain denotatum in the source language, which enables him/ her to proceed with the translation text on the formal level of linguistic signs [12, 168]. In such case, I suppose, that when the translator appeals to the system of nominations, it is inevitable for him/her to use his/her personal experience, no matter if the target language is foreign or a mother tongue for him/her.

Now I consider urgent to focus on the very notion of the translation transformations.

His phenomenon was described in L. Barkhudarov's works. So, the translation transformations are made by the translator in order to supply the translation text with all possible information and to keep the translation text within the target language norms. he scholar also gave 4 basic types of transformations: transposition, substitution, addition and omitting [4, 190]. In O. Selivanova's paper one can also read about one more sort of transformations, which involves reproducing the unit of translation by non-isomorphic means and is called compensation [16, 551].

translation text style

he following example illustrates a transformation in the process of translation: "Та й маєток твій пса варт, коли в тебе нема ґаздині" [29, 195] (literarily: “and your property is worth a dog, when you don't have a lady of the house”) - “And all your wealth isn't worth a damn, when you don't have a good housewife" [35, 264]. As can be seen, the source sentence contains the bound phrase containing a stylistically marked word пса (a dog), giving a negative connotation to the sentence. he translator chooses similar bound phrase containing another word a damn, though with the same negative connotation. hus, the translator tries and preserves the text style, implementing the substitution - a phrase is rendered by another phrase with different constituents but equal semantics and connotation.

In general, the lexical meaning of a word is thoroughly analysed in the works by V. Vinogradov. he linguist distinguished linguistic and speech information borne by the word, the two being separated only in the process of research. he lexical meaning, in its turn, comprises traditionally studied semantic and, more rarely, emotional - expressive information. Besides these, he also distinguished social-local, chronological, background and differentiative - as linguistic, and associative, derivative, allusive, functional and paralinguistic - as speech (or occasional) sorts of information [6, 48]. It enables one to say, that any word possesses several meanings, thus has a complex semantic structure. For instance, in the phrase "П'яний, Докійко." [28, 217] the word Докійко is a proper name and, besides its etymology, has the following meanings: a first name, a female name, an informal invariant for Євдокія, marked with the endearment suffix - к - to denote the speaker's endearing attitude, the inflection - o denoting the Vocative case form used for forms of address. hus, the word denotes a form of an endearing informal address to the woman being in close relationship to the speaker. In the translation text, the phrase is rendered as “Drunk, Dokiyka." [34, 53], where the reader, with the help of the context and some formal signs (a capital initial, preceded by the comma) may restore the following: a name, a female name, used in the sentence as a form of address (compensating also the Vocative case form irrelevant for the text in English), the name belongs to the speaker's wife resulting (probably) in close relationship and endearing treatment. he translation losses cover some additional connotation due to absence of some grammatical categories in English and reader's lack of some background knowledge, though much of that can be restored.

Another important fact is, that the information integrated into a word, is closely connected with the style of the text. In this context, I. Arnold proves existence of the “second sort information”, which appears in the result of interaction of logical, evaluative, emotional, expressive and aesthetic sorts of information, what impacts the word's stylistic function [2, 159]. I can emphasize, that V Vinogradov's and I. Arnold's classifications are different, but they do not contradict with each other; on the contrary, they complete each other. I should state, that if the complex information, integrated into a word, impacts its stylistic function, then it impacts the style of the whole text as well and constitutes the individual style of the text's author.

his complex information was also mentioned by R. Minyar-Byeloruchev, who reminded the translator about such “additional effect” with which the author supplies the source text message [12, 178]. hus, the translator's task is to correctly decode and retain this message, which is maintained by the complex of different semasiological connections and pragmatic effect on the reader, realized by means of the complex system of stylistic devises.

At this stage, the translator is to choose the translation strategy. As summarized by T. Andriienko, most of the translation linguists distinguish two basic strategies - domestication and foreignisation, which are studied mostly in cognitive, communicative and discoursive aspects [1, 85]. I think that there are no universal criteria of choice for such strategy, as it depends on different circumstances in each case. For instance, in the sentence". або як знов зірветеся до бійки з панськими гайдуками,<. > то прошу знов до мене!" [31, 249] the word гайдуками is a historicism [30], which is rendered this way:". or if you once again get into a fight with the lord's *hayduks<. >, please come to me again! ” [32, 109]. So, in this case, the translator has chosen the foreignisation strategy - the historical word is transliterated and marked with an asterisk (*) to address the reader to the glossary, where there is the explanation: “man-in-waiting, private soldier" [33, 376]. hus, the foreign word haiduks preserves historical and national colouring, while the glossary entry reduces the semantic losses in translation. he way of its perception compensates the historic colouring in perception of the source text reader - thus the translator tries to reduce the degree of text style transformation.

As can be seen from the above written paragraphs, the process of translation and its constituent - the process of transition of the source text style into the target text style - are closely connected to individual way of perception of the source text by the translator with the intention of the translation text creating.

When continuing the research on translation quality assessment on the basis of the degree of transforming the text style, it is important to mention here, that the way the translation is assessed by the reader differs much from that done by the linguist, which does a thorough comparison of the source and target texts. he translation text reader seldom compares the texts in two different languages.

As Y. Kniazheva affirms, the average translation text reader does not detect the degree of translation equivalence by comparing the translation text with the source one. he most attention in such case is paid to correspondence of the translation text to the literary norms [10, 192]. Almost the same idea can be found in E. Skibinska's work. She distinguishes two sorts of translation quality assessment: when the source and translation texts are compared, and when the translation text is compared with the literary norm of the target language; the latter is performed mainly by an average translation text reader [26, 21]. hus, transforming the text style may affect the way the translation text is perceived by the reader. he same can be said also about the source text author, as the text style is closely connected to the author's individual style.

In this context, M. Brandes considers, that the reader identifies the author not as personality, but as a subjective narrator and draws the parallel between the text style and the author's individual style [5, 77]. I think that it is possible to draw another parallel - between the author as a subjective narrator and as a personality. In this way the correlation between the text style, narrator's style and the author's style is obvious. hus, transforming the text style in translation may change the way of the text perception as well as of its author's style.

his idea can be proved by Y. Retsker's opinion, that reproducing the author's individual style by means of the target language stylistic devices is among the first tasks the translator has to do [15, 132]. Moreover, G. Shatkov admits translation to be good with no formal exactness, if the text style is not transformed [20, 46]. hus, to reach the high level of translation adequacy, the translator must try and reproduced most details of the text style (and, of course, the author's individual style), even if disregard of the lexical-semantic exactness is inevitable. But for detecting all details of the style necessary for retaining in translation, the translator must “perceive" the author's individual style in general.

But if to consider the author's individual style as the system of typically used stylistic devices, such stylistic code, according to I. Galperin, can be decoded with no ambiguity not always [8, 137], that is any translator perceives the source text and its style (for instance, stylistic marking of the text element) in his/her own way, individually.

O. Morokhovsky's idea about stylistic marking may help to explain this. So, the text element is considered stylistically marked, if it is used in the type of the text, which is not typical for the reader [13, 330]. hus, if the text element is used in a “non-typical” text type, it is perceived by the reader as marked, though it may be perceived as unmarked if this text type is typical for another reader. he same may be stated about the author and the translator, as there is no certainty, that the system of “typical” texts for both of them is always the same. his results in connection of degree of the author's and the translator's styles on the one hand and the degree of translation equivalence on the other.

At the same time I share O. Cherednychenko's opinion about correlation of the author's and the translator's styles: the translator's style is narrower than that of the author, because it depends on it and is under the influence of the source text contents and form [18, 179].

So, the number of stylistic modifications in the translation text should be limited for reaching a higher degree of translation adequacy, which results in retaining the source text style.

Hus, reducing the degree of transforming of the text style in the process of translation is among the translator's basic tasks. he adequate translation involves retaining most stylistic peculiarities of the text, among the intentions being reaching the text's pragmatic equivalence. he occurring transformations are to equalize the peculiarities of perceiving the source and the target texts. But, as the text style lies within the author's individual style, so the translation text style has to be within the translator's and the source text author's individual styles. In such case, the less differences in the author's and the translator's styles are detected, the higher the translation quality is. In further research, the elaborated methodology of detecting the degree of style transforming may contribute to translation quality assessment.

References

1. Андрієнко Т.П. Стратегії очуження й одомашнення в перекладі художнього дискурсу з англійської мови на українську [Текст]: [моногр.] [Електронний ресурс] / Т.П. Андрієнко; Київ. між - нар. ун-т. - К.: КиМУ, 2011. - 265 с. - Режим доступу: http://irbis-nbuv.gov.ua/cgi-bin/irbis_all/ cgiirbis_64. exe? Z21 ID=&I21 DBN=EC&P21 DBN=EC&S21 STN= 1 &S21 REF= 10&S21FMT=fullwebr&C2 1COM=S&S21CNR=20&S21P01=0&S21P02=0&S21P03=M=&S21COLORTERMS=0&S21STR

2. Арнольд И.В. Семантика. Стилистика. Интертекстуальность: сб. ст. / И.В. Арнольд; П.Е. Бухаркин (науч. ред. ); Санкт-Петербургский гос. ун-т. - СПб.: Изд-во Санкт-Петербургского университета, 1999. - 444 с.

3. Багринцева Н.В. Проблемы передачи содержания культурных концептов в процессе перевода / Н.В. Багринцева // Перевод и переводческая компетенция [Текст]: [коллектив. моногр.] / Регион. открытый соц. ин-т; [Багринцев А.Ф. и др.; редкол.: Провоторов В.И. (отв. ред. ) и др.]. - Курск: Изд-во РОСИ, 2003. - С.79-93.

4. Бархударов Л.С. Язык и перевод (Вопросы общей и частной теории перевода) / Л.С. Бархударов. - М.: Международные отношения, 1975. - 240 с.

5. Брандес М.П. Стиль и перевод / М.П. Брандес // Тетради переводчика. Ученые записки / под ред.Л.С. Бархударова. - № 5. - М.: Международные отношения, 1968. - С.75-92.

6. Виноградов В.С. Лексические вопросы перевода художественной прозы / В.С. Виноградов. - М.: Изд-во МГУ, 1978. - 174 с.

7. Влахов С. Непереводимое в переводе / С. Влахов, С. Флорин. - М.: Международные отношения, 1980. - 342 с.

8. Гальперин И. Р Избранные труды / И. Р Гальперин. - М.: Высшая школа, 2005. - 255 с.

9. Зорівчак РП. Реалія і переклад (на матеріалі англомовних перекладів української прози) / РП. Зорівчак. - Л.: Вид-во при Львів. ун-ті, 1989. - 216 с.

10. Княжева Е.А. Оценка качества перевода: проблемы теории и практики / Е.А. Княжева // Вестник ВГУ Серия: Лингвистика и межкультурная коммуникация. - 2010. - № 2. - С. 190-195.

11. Ковалева К.И. Оригинал и перевод: два лица одного текста / Всероссийский центр переводов научно-технической литературы и документации. - М., 2001. - 98 с.

12. Миньяр-Белоручев РК. Теория и методы перевода [Текст] / Р.К. Миньяр - Белоручев. - М.: Московский лицей, 1996. - 208 с.

13. Мороховский А.Н. Избранные труды: [моногр.] / А.Н. Мороховский; Киев. нац. лингвистический ун-т. - К.: Изд. центр КНЛУ, 2011. - 590 с.

14. Ребрій О.В. Сучасні концепції творчості у перекладі [Текст]: [моногр.] / О.В. Ребрій; Харк. нац. ун-т ім.В.Н. Каразіна. - Х.: ХНУ ім.В.Н. Каразіна, 2012. - 375 с.

15. Рецкер Я.И. Теория перевода и переводческая практика. Очерки лингвист. теории перевода / Я.И. Рецкер. - М.: Междунар. отношения, 1974. - 216 с.

16. Селіванова О.О. Лінгвістична енциклопедія / О.О. Селіванова. - Полтава: Довкілля-К, 2011. - 844 с.

17. Табаковска Е. Когнітивна лінгвістика і поетика перекладу [Текст]: [моногр.] / Е. Табаковска; [пер. Сергій Тюпа]. - Івано-Франківськ: Вид-во Прикарпат. нац. ун-ту ім.В. Стефаника, 2013. - 202 с.

18. Чередниченко О.І. Про мову і переклад [Текст]: мова в соціокульт. просторі, переклад як між - культ. комунікація [Електронний ресурс] / О.І. Чередниченко. - К.: Либідь, 2007. - 247 c. - Режим доступу: http://irbis-nbuv.gov.ua/cgi-bin/irbis_all/cgiirbis_64. exe? Z21ro=&I21DBN=EC&P21DBN=EC &S21STN=1&S21REF=10&S21FMT=fullwebr&C21COM=S&S21CNR=20&S21P01=0&S21P02=0&S21P 03=M=&S21COLORTERMS=0&S21STR

19. Чуковский К.И. Высокое искусство: [О худож. пер.] / К.И. Чуковский. - М.: Сов. писатель, 1988. - 348 с.

20. Шатков Г.В. Стилистический анализ текста при переводе / Г.В. Шатков // Тетради переводчика. Вып.16/под ред.Л.С. Бархударова. - М.: Международные отношения, 1979. - С.40-50.

21. Швейцер А.Д. Теория перевода: статус, проблемы, аспекты / отв. ред.В.Н. Ярцева; АН СССР, Ин-т языкознания. - М.: Наука, 1988. - 214 с.

22. Guo H. A Brief Analysis of Culture and Translation [Електронний ресурс] / H. Guo // heory and Practice in Language Studies. - 2012. - Vol 2, Iss 2. - P.343-347. - Режим доступу: http://ojs. academypublisher.com/index. php/tpls/artide/view/6696

23. Kielar B. Z. Tlumaczenie i koncepcje translatoryczne / B. Z. Kielar. - Wroclaw, Warszawa, Krakow, Gdansk, Lodz: Zaklad narodowy imienia Ossolinskich: Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 1988. - 135 s.

24. Machali R. Gricean Maxims as an Analytical Tool in Translation Studies: Questions of Adequacy [Електронний ресурс] / R. Machali // TEFLIN Journal. - 2012. - Vol 23, Iss 1. - P.77-90. - Режим доступу: http://j ournal. teflin.org/index. php/teflin/article/view/304/250

25. Murphy M. “Estranging Exteriority”: translation and adaptation in Irish drama [Електронний ресурс] / M. Murphy // Ilha do Desterro. - 2010. - Vol 0, Iss 58. - P.397-411. - Режим доступу: http://www.periodicos. ufsc. br/index. php/desterro/article/view/16435

26. Skibinska E. “Garsc uwag” o jakosci przekladu / E. Skibinska // Rocznik przekladoznawczy. - 2009. - Nr.5. - S.13-27.

27. Wu J. he Analysis of Cultural Gaps in Translation and Solutions [Електронний ресурс] / J. Wu // English Language Teaching. - 2008. - Vol 1, Iss 2. - Режим доступу: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/ index. php/elt/article/view/462

28. ILLUSTRATIVE MATERIAL SOURCES

29. Кобилянська О. Банк рустикальний / О. Кобилянська // Кобилянська О.Ю. В неділю рано зілля копала.: Повість, оповідання / упоряд., післямова Ю.Б. Кузнецова. - К.: Рад. шк., 1986. - С.214-217.

30. Мартович Л. Грішниця / Л. Мартович // Мартович Л. Вибрані твори / ред.О. Шпильова. - К.: Державне вид-во художньої літератури, 1952. - С. 193-197.

31. Словник української мови. Т.1-11 [Електронний ресурс]. - К.: Наукова думка, 1970-1980. - Режим доступу: http://sum. in.ua/

32. Франко І.Я. Перехресні стежки / І.Я. Франко // Франко І.Я. Зібрання творів: у 50 т. / редкол. С.П. Кирилюк (гол.) та ін. - К.: Наукова думка, 1976. - Т. 20: Повісті та оповідання (1896-1900) / упоряд. та комент.: М.Л. Гончарука; ред. С.Д. Зубков. - 1979. - С.173-459.

33. Franko I. Fateful Crossroads / Transl. by R. Franko // Turbulent Times: A Trilogy / R. Franko (transl.); S. Morris (ed.). - Toronto: Language Lanterns Publications, 2006 - Volume 3: Fateful crossroads: a novel. - 2006. - P.9-372.

34. Glossary / Compiled by R. Franko // Turbulent Times: A Trilogy / R. Franko (transl.); S. Morris (ed.). - Toronto: Language Lanterns Publications, 2006 - Volume 3: Fateful crossroads: a novel. - 2006. - P.375-379.

35. Kobylianska O. he Peasant Bank / Transl. by R. Franko // Women's voices in Ukrainian literature / R. Franko (transl.); S. Morris (ed.). - Toronto: Language Lanterns Publications, 1999. - Volume 3: But. he Lord is silent; selected prose fiction / by O. Kobylianska and Y. Yaroshynska. - 1999. - P.50-53.

36. Martovych L. he Sinner / transl. by R. Franko // Down Country Lanes: selected prose fiction / by T. Bordulyak. [et al.]; R. Franko (transl.); S. Morris (ed.). - Toronto: Language Lanterns Publications, 2008. - P.262-266.

Размещено на Allbest.ru