Methodology of cognitive-discursive modelling of literary translation (case study of Ukrainian retranslations of W. Shakespeare's tragedies of the 19th-21st centuries)

Cultural-aesthetic cognitive dissonance (hereafter CACD) is manifested in the contradiction between cultural entities: norms and ways of thinking; traditions; nationality; cultural heritage and history; styles offered to a person by different cultures to which he simultaneously belongs; sociocultural problems. In the translation of the CCC from the tragedy “Macbeth” (act I, scene 2), CACD caused a plurality in interpretations of cultural realia:

5. William Shakespeare (1605):... from the western isles of kerns and gallowglasses is supplied [Shakespeare, 1899, p. 434].

6. Panteleimon Kulish (1900): Засіг собі із островів західнїх підмоги в Кернів та у Гальонїглосян¹¹ [Шекспір, 1900, p. 4].

7. Boris Ten (1986): Набрав на заході по островах ірландської піхоти `They recruited Irish infantry in the west on the islands' [Шекспір, 1986c, p. 347].

8. Oleksandr Hriaznov (2008): Навербував собі на островах підрозділи ірландської піхоти `Recruited Irish infantry units on the islands' [Шекспір, 2024a].

Panteleimon Kulish in (13) transcoded culturally marked UO kerns and gallowglasses as Кернів та у Гальонїглосян 'Cairns and Galyoniglosyan', preserving the realia of the original work. In the translations performed by Boris Ten (14) and Oleksandr Hriaznov (15) - ірландська піхота 'Irish infantry' - the historical realia is lost, since the kerns are light-armed horsemen, and gallowglasses are heavily armed horsemen.

Interdependence of cognitive consonance and cognitive dissonance between the mental processes of the translator and the author of the source text is presented in different degrees of cognitive proximity between UO and UT: cognitive equivalence, cognitive analogy, and cognitive variance of retranslations.

Cognitive equivalence (hereafter CE) between UO and UT is a result of cognitive consonance. It is infrequent (8.18% of CCCs) due to differences between social-historical contexts and cultural and aesthetic environments of the time-remote original texts and retranslations, the language specificity, literary styles of the corresponding epochs and idiostyles of the authors of original works and translators as creative personalities. There are two types of cognitive equivalents: full cognitive equivalent (hereafter full GE) and partial cognitive equivalent (hereafter partial CE).

Full CE (2.35% of CCCs) is functionally and communicatively identical to the lexical unit in the source text in form (component composition and structural and syntactic organization) and content (equivalence of all information constituents of VCO and VCT). For example, the full CE is implemented in the translations performed by Panteleimon Kulish (17) and Vasyl Barka (18) of the CCC from the tragedy “King Lear” (act I, scene 1):

9. William Shakespeare (1605): Meantime we shall express our darker purpose [Shakespeare, 1916, p. 3].

10. Panteleimon Kulish (1880): Тим часом виявим наш тайний задум 'In the meantime, let's reveal our secret plan.' [Шекспір, 1902, p. 4].

11. Vasyl Barka (1969): Тим часом скритий намір наш 'In the meantime, we will unfold our hidden intention.' [Шекспір, 1969, p. 18].

The information equivalence of the UO darker purpose and the UT тайний задум 'secret plan' and the UT скритий намір 'hidden intention' is realized in the preservation of the conceptual content of the VCO DARKER PURPOSE in the VCT ТАЙНИЙ ЗАДУМ 'SECRET PLAN' and СКРИТИЙ намір 'hidden intention', which demonstrates the equivalence in factuality - concepts-slots secretiveness 'таємничість', intent 'намір', emotivity - concepts-slots dishonesty 'нечесність', trickery 'хитрість', lie 'обман', imagery - concept-slot secretiveness 'прихованість' and expressiveness - stylistic neutrality due to belonging of UO and UT to neutral vocabulary. In this case, there is a full cognitive equivalence between UO and UT, which is justified by the translators' desire to understand and express the ideas embodied by the author. The synonymy of the lexical means of translation is determined rather by the specificity of the translators' idiostyles, formed by the translators' creative personalities.

Partial CE (5.84% of CCCs), identically reproducing all information constituents of VCO, shows differences in terms of their component composition, structural and syntactic organization of UT compared to UO. For example, CCCs from “The Tragedy of Coriolanus” (Act V, Scene 6) and its translation by Dmytro Pavlychko:

12. William Shakespeare (1607): I'll deliver myself your loyal servant [Shakespeare, 1922, p. 223].

13. Dmytro Pavlychko (1986): Доведу, що я слуга ваш відданий і вірний 'I will prove that I am your loyal and faithful servant.' [Шекспір, 1986a, p. 641].

Cognitive analogy (hereafter CA) that is achieved in terms of cognitive consonance (44.05% of CCCs) is a typical phenomenon in Ukrainian retranslations of W. Shakespeare's tragedies. Correspondingly, two types of cognitive analogue are differentiated: stylistic cognitive analogue (hereafter stylistic CA) and functional cognitive analogue (hereafter functional CA).

Stylistic CA (21.5% of CCCs) is different from that of the UO in its stylistic tone as it belongs to a different stylistic register, due to the translators' aesthetic preferences whose work belongs to the corresponding literary style.

For example, in Yurii Andrukhovych's translation of the CCC from the tragedy “King Lear” (Act I, Scene 1):

14. William Shakespeare (1605): I have so often blushed to acknowledge him that now I am brazed to it [Shakespeare, 1916, p. 7].

15. Yurii Andrukhovych (2021): Мені так часто доводилося палати за нього зі встиду, що тепер ніде подітись. Але я незле загартувався 'I had to burn for him so often with shame that now I have nowhere to go. But I was well hardened.' [Шекспір, 2021, p. 10].

UO blushed and UT палати зі встиду 'burn with shame' are identical in emotivity and evaluation, as they identically denote negative emotions, actualizing such concepts-slots as SHAME 'встид', CONFUSION 'СПАНТЕЛИЧЕНІСТЬ', EMBARRASSMENT 'ЗБЕНТЕЖЕННЯ' in the conceptual content of VCO BLUSH 'краска сорому' and VCT ПАЛАННЯ ЗІ встиду 'burning with shame'. The imagery of VCO and VCT is also equivalent as they have the concept-slot HEAT 'жар'. At the same time, VCO and VCT are not equivalent in terms of expressiveness, as UO blush belongs to the neutral lexicon, while the component of the UT палати зі встиду 'burn with shame' - встид 'shame' is dialectal, which affects the stylistic nonequivalence of UO and UT.

Functional CA (22.56% of CCCs) with complete or incomplete parallelism of component composition and syntactic model of UO and UT equally reproduces the factuality and stylistic tone of UO, but is similar to it in its emotivity and/or in imagery. An example of a functional CA with a shift in imagery is Oleksandr Gryaznov's translation of the CCC from the tragedy “King Lear” (act I, scene 1), given above:

16. Oleksandr Hriaznov (2008): Я причетний до його народження, сер. І так часто червонів, зізнаючись у цьому, що давно вже перестав ніяковіти. 'I am involved in his birth, sir. And he redden so often, admitting this, that he stopped being embarrassed a long time ago.' [Шекспір, 2024a].

In the conceptual content of the VCT почервоніння 'reddening', the equivalence of factuality is the concept-slot reddening of the face 'почервоніння обличчя', emotivity - the concepts-slots SHAME 'встид', CONFUSION 'сПАНТЕЛИЧЕНісТЬ', EMBARRASSMENT 'ЗБЕНТЕЖЕННЯ', negative evaluation and neutral expressiveness - the belonging of words blush і червоніти 'redden' to neutral vocabulary. However, imagery equivalence was not achieved, since the concept-slot HEAT 'жар' actualized in the CCC with the word blush, which comes from a Proto-European root meaning 'flash, burn' [Harper, 2024] was not reproduced in translation.

Cognitive variance (hereafter CV), which is the most common for the retranslations of W. Shakespeare's works at different times (47.76% of the CCCs), is determined in the cases when the information constituent of the conceptual content of the VCO, which affects the meaning of the message (its factuality or evaluation), does not have an adequate counterpart in the conceptual content of the VCT. Cognitive variants determined by cognitive dissonance - epistemological, ideological or cultural and aesthetic, are differentiated into four types: referential cognitive variant (hereafter referential CV), valorative cognitive variant (hereafter valorative CV), notional cognitive variant (hereafter notional CV), and zero cognitive variant (hereafter zero CV).

Referential CV (9% of CCCs) is a result of epistemological cognitive dissonance, when the information constituent of the conceptual content of VCO is inappropriate in factuality in the translation, as, for example, in the translation of the CCC from the tragedy “Hamlet” (act III, scene 1):

17. William Shakespeare (1600): Thus conscience does make cowards of us all [Shakespeare, 2015, p. 75].

18. Yurii Andrukhovych (2008): Винен розум. Це він блідими робить 'The mind is to blame. It makes them pale.' [Шекспір, 2008, p. 103].

The concept-slot timidity 'боязкість' in the conceptual content of VCO coward changes to блідість 'pallor' in VCT блідість 'pallor', but the content of the compared concepts is equivalent in terms of emotivity - the concept-slot FEAR 'страх', lack of imagery, neutral expressiveness due to belonging of the UO coward and UT блідий 'pale' to neutral vocabulary, a negative evaluation expressed in the meaning of UO and UT. Since the loss of factuality is a significant loss in translation, the referential CV does not dominate in any analyzed retranslation.

The valorative CV (17.17% of the CCCs) is caused by ideological cognitive dissonance, when the information constituent of the conceptual content of the VCO involves forming a different evaluation. For example, in the translation of the CCC from the tragedy “Macbeth” (act I, scene 1):

19. William Shakespeare (1605): What not put upon his spongy officers, who shall bear the guilt of our great quell? [Shakespeare, 1899, p. 454].

20. Todos Osmachka (1930): Яку вину ми не складем на цю насмоктану сторожу, наче губка? 'What blame will we not place on this sponge-like watchman?' [Шекспір, 1930, p. 36].

Condemnation of a drunken state by Todos Osmachka is evidenced by the UT насмоктана сторожа, наче губка 'watchman was soaked, like a sponge' with negative evaluation, which is absent in UO spongy officers. If in the history of England, there was no legal ban on alcohol, then in the Russian Empire, to which Kyiv belonged at Todos Osmachka's time, such a ban was, in particular, the “dry law" of 1914. In addition, Todos Osmachka was born and grew up in a family of rural workers, received a pedagogical education, which also contributed to his condemnation of excessive alcohol consumption.

Notional CV (15.79% of CCCs) in the retranslations of mostly neo-baroque representatives is caused by cultural and aesthetic cognitive dissonance due to translators' stylistic searches, as well as ideological dissonance due to the translators' individual worldviews, formed in a particular cultural and aesthetic environment. Notional CV is implemented in translation, in which only factual information is reproduced. For example, the above-mentioned CCC translated by

21. Oleksandr Hriaznov (2008): Тоді із королем роби, що хочеш! Ми зможемо на п'яних слуг звалить усю відповідальність за убивство. `Then do what you want with the king! We will be able to lay all the responsibility for the murder on the drunken servants.' [Шекспір, 2024c].

UT убивство 'murder' is identical to the UO great quell only in terms of factuality (MURDER 'вбивство'). However, in translation, such information constituents as imagery (SLAUGHTER 'різанина') and stylistic colouring (UO quell - outdated, UT убивство 'murder' - stylistically neutral) are lost.

Zero CV (5.8% of the CCCs) is realized when the conceptual content of the VCO does not find its reproduction in the translation at all. The reasons for the appearance of zero CV can be different, among them: shortening of the original text by translators who adjusted the text to facilitate perception from the stage; simplification of hard-to-understand fragments of the original; compression of the translated text in order to achieve equilinearity, etc. For example, in the translation of the CCC from the tragedy “Romeo and Juliet" performed by Yurii Adruhovych, a fragment that is important from the point of view of the communicative task - I must love a loathed enemy - is not reproduced:

22. William Shakespeare (1594): Prodigious birth of love it is to me, that I must love a loathed enemy [Shakespeare, 2004, p. 61].

23. Yurii Adruhovych (2016): Дивная любов! мені ти дивно сталась `Strange love! You are strange to me.' [Шекспір, 2016, p. 9].

The cognitive module is an important component of the proposed CDM, as it focuses on the intermediate stage of the translation process - the stage at which the translator chooses a particular translation strategy or local tactic.

The retranslation module in the structure of the cognitive-discursive model of the diachronic plurality in translation of the time-remote original text reveals the regularities of translators' choice of a general strategy (modernization or archaization, domestication or foreignization) and local tactic (reproductive or adaptive) of transformation translation in terms of cognitive consonance or cognitive dissonance of the author's and translator's cognitions (Fig. 3).

The choice of the strategy of modernization or archaization while transferring the temporal distance is determined by the factors of time and space. The strategy of modernization focuses on the modern reader of the translation and involves the adaptation of the original mental images to the cultural norms of the target audience. In contrast, the strategy of archaization focuses on the author of the original work and aims at preserving the historically and culturally motivated mental images of the original text in translation. The strategy of archaization is most often caused by cognitive consonance between the authors of the original work and the retranslation, and the strategy of modernization is caused by cognitive dissonance.

For example, in the translation of the ССС from the tragedy “King Lear" (act II, scene 2), translators use different strategies:

Fig. 3 Model of retranslation module in the structure of cognitive-discursive model of the diachronic plurality in translation of the time-remote original text

24. William Shakespeare (1605): A knave, a rascal, an eater of broken meats; [...] three-suited, [...] knave [Shakespeare, 1916, p. 46].

25. Panteleimon Kulish (1880): Те плут, леґа, блюдолиз, [...] трохжупанний, [...] ск-син Conventional abbreviations:

CE - cognitive equivalence; CA - cognitive analogy; CV - cognitive variance; R1, R2,..., Rn - multiple variants of retranslations of the time-remote original text. `That's plut, lega, dish-licker, [...] trochjupanny, [...] skson.' [Шекспір, 1902, p. 46].

26. Panas Myrnyi (1897): За того, що ти й є: за блюдолиза, за [...] раднішого начепити на себе зразу хоч три лагузькі каптани; [...] скурвого сина `For what you are: for a dish-licker, for [...] you are more than happy to put on at least three laguga captans at once; [...] dirty son.' [Шекспір, 2024b].

27. Maksym Rylskyi (1941): Ти - поганець, мерзотник, блюдолиз, ти - підлий, [...] голодранець `You are a heathen, an abomination, a dish-eater, you are mean.' [Шекспір, 1986b, p. 269].

28. Vasyl Barka (1969): Плутяга ти і суціган, мисколизний недоїдковець, [...] трирамтяник, [...] мошенник `You are a sycophant, a mischievous malnourished person, [...] a three-armed man, [...] a swindler.' [Шекспір, 1969, p. 59].

Reproducing the archaic UO, an eater of broken meats, all translators use a strategy of modernization, the result of which is a stylistic cognitive analogy between the archaic UO an eater of broken meats and the more modern UT блюдолиз 'dish-licker' and vernacular occasionalism UT мисколизний недоїдковець 'mischievous malnourished person' (Vasyl Barka). Nevertheless, when reproducing the historical realia expressed by OO three-suited “wearing three suits (meaning the custom, once common among German peasants, to wear one's entire wardrobe at a festival, one suit on top of another)” [Mish, 2024] in conditions of cognitive consonance, the strategy of archaization is implemented by Panteleimon Kulish (UT трохжупанний), Panas Myrnyi (UT лагузький каптан), Vasyl Barka (author's occasionalism UT трирамтяник from archaism рамтя). In the conditions of cognitive dissonance, Maksym Rylskyi in (34) does not translate this invective (zero CV), which is probably connected with his desire to avoid depicting specific segments of the population as much as possible, in this case - the poor, due to his worldview and rural origin.

Domestication and foreignization appear as strategies for overcoming intercultural differences in retranslations of the time-remote original work, the use of which can be determined by both cognitive consonance and cognitive dissonance between the author and the translator, as, for example, in the translation of the CCC from the tragedy “Hamlet” (Act III, scene 2):

29. William Shakespeare (1600): I'll take the ghost's word for a thousand pound [Shakespeare, 2015, p. 90].

30. Mykhailo Starytskyi (1882): Я тепер червінцями ладен платити за кожне слово привиду `Now I'm willing to pay the ghost for every word in red coins.' [Шекспір, 1882, p. 102].

31. Panteleimon Kulish (1899): б заплатив за слово духа тисячу фунтів `I would pay a thousand pounds for a spirit's word.' [Шекспір, 1899, p. 87].

32. Yurii Klen (1930): Я ладен тисячу дати за кожне слово духа `I am willing to give a thousand for every word of the spirit.' [Шекспір, 1960, p. 70].

33. Leonid Hrebinka (1939): За кожне слово привида дав би по тисячі червінців `For every word the ghost would give a thousand chevrons.' [Шекспір, 1986, p. 65].

34. Viktor Ver (1941): Я б поручився за кожне слово привида тисячею фунтів `I would vouch for every ghost's word with a thousand pounds.' [Шекспір, 1941, p. 136].

35. Mykhailo Rudnytskyi (1943): Тепер я поручився б за слова Привида не знати якою ціноюі `Now I would vouch for the Ghost's words at a price I don't know!' [Шекспір, 2008a, p. 97].

36. Hryhorii Kochur (1964): Я готовий закластися на тисячу фунтів, що привид говорив правду `I'll bet you a thousand pounds that the ghost was telling the truth.' [Шекспір, 2003, p. 86].

37. Oleksandr Hriaznov (2001): Тисячу золотих за кожне слово привидаї `A thousand gold for every ghost word!' [Шекспір, 2024].

38. Yurii Andrukhovych (2008): Я дав би по тисячу фунтів за кожне слово привидаї `I'd give a thousand pounds for every ghost word!' [Шекспір, 2008, p. 125].

Almost half of the translators (Panteleimon Kulish, Viktor Ver, Hryhorii Kochur, Yurii Andrukhovych), in cognitive harmony with the author of the original work, follow the strategy of foreignization, reproducing the culturally marked UQ pound “the basic monetary unit of the United Kingdom” [Mish, 2024[ by using UT фунт as a measure of money specific to the national culture of the original language. Other translators use the strategy of domestication, but implement it in different ways. In Mykhailo Starytskyi's (37) and Leonid Hrebinka's (40) retranslations, the stylistic colouring of the culturally marked UQ pound is preserved in the UT червінець (such a name for foreign coins was only in the countries that were under the yoke of the Russian Empire). Oleksandr Hriaznov (44) uses UT тисяча золотих, but the cultural marking of foreign language realia is lost, since the word золоті as a monetary unit is present in many cultures. In the translation of Yurii Klen (39), the strategy of domestication involves the complete removal of the UQ pound component. In this case, UQ thousand pound i rendered by UT тисяча, but the general context suggests that the it refers to money, although the translation does not say exactly what money. The transfer of UQ thousand pound by Mykhailo Rudnytskyi (42) to UT не знати якою ціною results in the loss of VCT багато грошей 'much money', since the price in this case is understood rather as the value of something not in monetary equivalent.

Reproductive and adaptive local tactics involve the reproduction in translation of factuality, imagery, expressiveness, emotiveness, and evaluation in the conceptual content of VCO through several translation transformations. Reproductive tactic is implemented through transcoding and translation transformations: lexical-grammatical (morphological replacement, transposition, total rearrangement, and antonymic translation) and lexical-semantic (differentiation, modulation, generalization, and concretization). Adaptive tactic involves the use of lexical-grammatical transformations of explication, elimination and amplification. To achieve different degrees of cognitive proximity between VCO and VCT (cognitive equivalence, cognitive similarity, and cognitive variance), reproductive and adaptive local tactics are used.

Full cognitive equivalence is achieved exclusively by reproductive tactic through transcoding (2.35% of CCCs), while partial cognitive equivalence (5.84% of CCCs) is the result of lexicalgrammatical translation transformations such as morphological substitution and transposition, which are determined by the very nature of UO and UT.

The functional cognitive analogy (22.56% of CCCs) of UO and UT implies the involvement of reproductive tactic through modulation, which causes shifts in imagery and generalization, which generates shifts in emotivity.

Stylistic cognitive analogy (21.5% of CCCs) is achieved due to lexical-semantic transformations of modulation and differentiation, which lead to a change in the expressiveness of the conceptual content of VCT, since the choice between stylistically neutral and stylistically coloured variants of UT depends on the stylistic preferences of the translators. For example, in the fragment of CCC from the tragedy “Macbeth” (act I, scene 4) O worthiest cousin! [Shakespeare, 1899, p. 19], the stylistic tonality of the original, created at the expense of the archaic meaning of UO worthy 'excellence, nobility', is lost in all retranslations due to the implementation of the strategy of modernization and the use of stylistic analogues belonging to the neutral style:

39. Panteleimon Kulish (1605): Достойніший кузин 'Most worthy cousin! [Шекспір, 1900, p. 32].

40. Todos Osmachka (1930): Відважний брате! 'Brave brother!' [Шекспір, 1930, p. 22].

41. Boris Ten (1986): О мій кузене славний! 'O my glorious cousin [Шекспір, 1986c, p. 356].

42. Oleksandr Hriaznov (2008): Гідний мій кузене! 'My worthy cousin!' [Шекспір, 2024c].

To reproduce other information components of VCO DIGNITY 'достоїнство', translators use reproductive tactic by transcoding the modern meaning of the word worthiest as достойніший 'most worthy' (by Panteleimon Kulish (46), a representative of romanticism); as славний 'glorious, having great fame; famous' by using translation transformations of transposition and differentiation (by Boris Ten (48), a representative of neoclassicism); as відважний 'brave' (by Todos Osmachka (47), a representative of neo-baroque) and гідний 'worthy' (by Oleksandr Hriaznov (49), a representative of postmodernism) as a result of modulation.

Referential cognitive variance (9% of CCCs) is the result of reproductive tactic through lexical-semantic transformations of modulation and differentiation.

Valorative cognitive variance (17.17% of CCCs) is due to both reproductive and adaptive tactics with the help of such lexical-semantic transformations as modulation and differentiation (change in the evaluation of UO or its intensity); concretization (intensification of the evaluative value of the UO), and lexical-grammatical transformations of morphological substitution and transposition (both intensification and de-intensification of the evaluation of the UO). Tactic of adaptive translation through the lexical-grammatical transformation of amplification is applied.

Notional cognitive variance (15.79% of CCCs) is also achieved by both reproductive (through modulation, generalization, and antonymic substitution) and adaptive (through elimination) translation tactics.

Zero cognitive variance (5.8% of CCCs) is the result of adaptive tactic due to the lexicalgrammatical transformation of elimination (complete loss of UO in translation).

Thus, in the course of the investigation, the problem of diachronic plurality in the translation of a time-remote original work is solved by constructing a cognitive-discursive model of the reproduction of W. Shakespeare's tragedies in Ukrainian retranslations of the 19^th-21^st centuries.

Turning to the theoretical and methodological foundations of discourse analysis and cognitive translation studies made it possible to reveal the linguistic and cognitive nature of culturally marked and connotatively coloured lexical and phraseological units, which are specific to the idiostyle of W. Shakespeare and create the greatest difficulties for Ukrainian translators of the 19^th-21^st centuries.

Establishing the cognitive-discursive significance of the analyzed UO and UT contributed to the development of a step-by-step algorithm for the study of the diachronic plurality in the translation of a time-remote original work.

The cognitive-discursive model of the diachronic plurality in the translation of a time-remote original work is a hypothetical conditional scheme that represents the process of transformation of one time-remote literary text, expressed by means of the English language, into chron? logically distant retranslations expressed by means of the Ukrainian language. The model consists of three modules (discursive, cognitive, and retranslation) and proves to be an effective theoretical and methodological tool in the study of diachronic plurality in translation, which is understood as the presence of several retranslations of one foreign-language literary work in a certain national literature, which in the original, as a rule, has only one text version.

The first, discursive, module is built as a set of three components: extralingual, lingual, and interpretation.

The extralingual component presents the macrostructure of the discourse of the time-remote original work and chronologically distant Ukrainian retranslations of the 19^th-21^st centuries, namely: the features of the social-historical context of the original works and retranslations, the specifics of the cultural and aesthetic environments, etc. and the worldviews of the author and translators as determinants of their creative individualities, as well as the peculiarities of the literary styles of the era of the original works and retranslations.

The linguistic component represents the microstructure of the discourse of the time-remote original work and chronologically distant Ukrainian retranslations of the 19^th-21^st centuries, namely: the originality of the language of the time-remote original work and the language of Ukrainian retranslations as sign systems in the historical perspective, as well as the specificity of the idiostyles of the author and translators as creative individuals.

The interpretation component synthesizes extralingual and lingual components, systematizing the factors that affect the interpretation of the original text in terms of the information entropy of the time-remote original work and the translator's choice of the adequate translation strategies and tactics for reproducing the literary work by means of the target language.

The second, cognitive, module is constructed in terms of frame semantics in order to establish the degree of cognitive proximity of UO and UT in conditions of cognitive consonance or cognitive dissonance between the author and the translator. As a result of cognitive consonance (as a harmonious identity of the mental processes of the author and translator in the process of creating original and translated texts) or cognitive dissonance (epistemological, ideological, and cultural-aesthetic) different degrees of cognitive proximity are revealed between UO and UT, which determine cognitive equivalence, cognitive analogy, and cognitive variance of retranslations.

The third, retranslation, module affirms the regularities of translators' choices of strategies and tactics of transformational translation. It demonstrates that they are caused by cognitive consonance or cognitive dissonance between the author and translators.

Cognitive equivalence of UO and UT is achieved as a result of cognitive consonance and implemented by reproductive tactic, while the full cognitive equivalent is the result of transcoding only, and the partial cognitive equivalent appears through lexical-grammatical translation transformations of morphological substitution and transposition.

Cognitive analogy of UO and UT is achieved as a result of cognitive consonance and implemented by reproductive tactic involving transformational translation. A functional cognitive analogue is the result of lexical-semantic translation transformations of modulation and generalization, causing emotional and/or imagery inconsistency; stylistic cognitive analogues achieved by modulations and differentiations change the expressiveness of the conceptual content of the VCT.

Cognitive variance of UO and UT is achieved as a result of cognitive dissonance and provided by both reproductive and adaptive tactics. The referential cognitive variant is realized by reproductive tactic through lexical-semantic transformations of modulation and differentiation. The valorative cognitive variant is achieved both by reproductive tactic (through modulation, differentiation, concretization; morphological replacement, and transposition), and by adaptive tactic (through amplification). The notional cognitive variant is provided by both reproductive tactic (through modulation, generalization, and antonymic substitution) and adaptive tactic (through elimination). The zero cognitive variant is the result of adaptive tactic through the lexical-grammatical transformation of elimination, which causes the complete loss of the original unit in translation.

A promising investigation is the further study of phenomena related to the problems of understanding the message as its adequate interpretation, and determining the criteria for the cognitive proximity of the original and translated literary texts of different genres.



Bibliography

1. Андрієнко, Т.П. (2015). Когнітивне моделювання перекладу художнього тексту (на прикладі новели О. Генрі “The Last Leaf” / «Останній листок»). Наукові записки Національного університету «Острозька академія». Серія: Філологічна, 54, 247-249.

2. Засєкін, С.В. (2020). Психолінгвальні закономірності відтворення художнього тексту в перекладі (на матеріалі англійської та української мов). (Дис. докт. філол. наук). Харківський національний університет імені В.Н. Каразіна, Харків.

3. Ребрій, О.В. (2016). Вступ до перекладознавства. Харків: ХНУ імені В.Н. Каразіна.

4. Селіванова, О.О. (2012). Проблема моделювання перекладацького процесу. Світ свідомості в мові. Черкаси: Видавництво Ю. Чабаненка.

5. Ситар, Р.А. (2014). Множинність перекладів як варіантність відтворення жанрово-стилістичних особливостей часово віддаленого першотвору. Науковий вісник Чернівецького університету. Серія: Германська філологія. 692/693, 237-240.

6. Шекспір, В. (1882). Гамлет. Пер. М. Старицького. Київ: Київ-Друк.

7. Шекспір, В. (2008). Гамлет. Пер. Ю. Андруховича. Київ: А-БА-БА-ГА-ЛА-МА-ГА.

8. Шекспір, В. (2008a). Гамлет. Пер. М. Рудницького. Львів: Видавничий центр ЛНУ ім. Івана Франка.

9. Шекспір, В. (2024). Гамлет. Пер. О. Грязнова. Відновлено з https://www.ukrlib.com.ua/ world/printit.php?tid=9048

10. Шекспір, У. (1899). Гамлєт, принц данський. Пер. П. Куліша. Львів: Українсько-руська видавнича спілка.

11. Шекспір, В. (1960). Гамлет, принц Данський. Пер. Ю. Клена. Ю. Клен, & Є. Маланюк (Ред.), Твори (Т. 4, с. 14-237). Торонто: Фундація імені Юрія Клена.

12. Шекспір, В. (1986). Гамлет, принц датський. Пер. Л. Гребінки. В.В. Коптілов (Ред.), Твори (Т. 5, с. 5-118). Київ: Дніпро.

13. Шекспір, В. (2003). Гамлет, принц данський. Пер. Г. Кочура. Київ: Альтерпрес.

14. Шекспір, В. (1986а). Коріолан. Пер. Д. Павличка. В.В. Коптілов (Ред.), Твори (Т. 5, с. 527641). Київ: Дніпро.

15. Шекспір, В. (1902). Король Лір. Пер. П. Куліша. Львів: Українсько-руська видавнича спілка.

16. Шекспір, В. (1969). Король Лір. Пер. В. Барки. Штутгарт - Нью Йорк - Оттава: Видання «На горі».

17. Шекспір, В. (1986b). Король Лір. Пер. М. Рильського. В.В. Коптілов (Ред.), Твори (Т. 5, с. 235-343). Київ: Дніпро.

18. Шекспір, В. (2021). Король Лір. Пер. Ю. Андруховича. Київ: А-Ба-Ба-Га-Ла-Ма-Га.

19. Шекспір, В. (2024a). Король Лір. Пер. О. Грязнова. Відновлено з https://www.ukrlib. com.ua/world/printit.php?tid=9052

20. Шекспір, В. (2024b). Король Лір. Пер. П. Мирного. Відновлено з http://ocls.kyivlibs.org. ua/mirnii/tvori/Korol Lir/Korol Lir01.htm

21. Шекспір, В. (1900). Макбет. Пер. П. Куліша. Львів: Наукове товариство імени Шевченка.

22. Шекспір, В. (1930). Макбет. Пер. Т. Осьмачки. Харків: Державне видавництво України.

23. Шекспір, В. (1986c). Макбет. Пер. Б. Тена. В.В. Коптілов (Ред.), Твори (Т. 5, с. 344-415). Київ: Дніпро.

24. Шекспір, В. (2024c). Макбет. Пер. О. Грязнова. Відновлено з https://ukrlib.com.ua/ world/printit.php?tid=9050

25. Шекспір, В. (1882a). Отелло. Пер. П. Куліша. К. Бернадський (Ред.), Шекспирові твори (Т. 1, с. 11-178). Львів: Друкарня Товариства имени Шевченка.

26. Шекспір, В. (1901). Ромео та Джульєта. Пер. П. Куліша. Львів: Виданє Українськоруської видавничої спілки.

27. Шекспір, В. (1937). Ромео і Джульєтта. Пер. А. Гозенпуда. Київ: Мистецтво.

28. Шекспір, В. (1985). Ромео і Джульєтта. Пер. І. Стешенко. Київ: Дніпро.

29. Шекспір, В. (1998). Ромео і Джульєтта. Пер. П. Куліша в переробці М. Вороного. Київ: Альтерпрес.

30. Шекспір, У. (2016). Ромео іДжульєтта. Пер. Ю. Андруховича. Київ: А-Ба-Ба-Га-Ла-Ма-Га.

31. Шекспір, В. (2024d). Ромео і Джульетта. Пер. В. Мисика. Відновлено з https://www. ukrlib.com.ua/world/printit.php?tid=1

32. Шекспір, В. (1941). Трагедія про Гамлета, принца данського. Пер. В. Вера. Київ: Мистецтво.

33. Bell, R. (1994). Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice. London: Longman Group UK.

34. Berman, A. (2000). Translation and the Trial of the Foreign. L. Venuti (Ed.), The Translation Studies Reader ^р. 284-297). London: Routledge.

35. Boiko, Y. (2022). Cognitive Consonance and Cognitive Dissonance as Determinants of Plurality in Translation of Shakespeare's Plays. Studies about Languages / Kalbq studijos, 41, 111128. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.sal.1.41.31200

36. Boiko, Y. (2022a). Interpretation Module in the Framework of the Cognitive-Discursive Model of Diachronic Plurality in Translation of Shakespeare's Plays. Topics in Linguistics, 23, 1-14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/topling-2022-0001

37. Boiko, Y. (2023). Translators' Interpretations of Shakespeare's Plays in the Light of Information Entropy. Alfred Nobel University Journal of Philology, 1 (25), 274-290. DOI: https://doi. org/10.32342/2523-4463-2023-1-25-20

38. Brownlie, S. (2006). Narrative Theory and Retranslation Theory. Across Languages and Cultures, 7 (2), 140-170. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.7.2006.2.1

39. Butterfield, J. (Ed.). (2024). Collins Dictionary. Retrieved from https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/

40. Catford, J.C. (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation. An Essay in Applied Linguistics. London: Oxford University Press.

41. Chomsky, N. (1956). Three Models for the Description of Language. IRE (Institute of Radio Engineers) Transactions on Information Theory, 3, 113-124. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ TIT.1956.1056813

42. Dicerto, S. (2018). Multimodal Pragmatics and Translation: A New Model for Source Text Analysis. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

43. Dorofeieva, M., Andrushchenko, T. (2019). Information Entropy in Translation: Psycholinguistic Aspects. Psycholinguistics. Series: Philology, 26 (2), 91-113. DOI: https://doi. org/10.31470/2309-1797-2019-26-2-91-113

44. Farahzad, F. (2024). Plurality in Translation. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED429449.pdf

45. Gopo, L. (2015). Cognitive Model of Translation. V. Mugari, L. Mukaro, E. Chabata (Eds.), Current Trends in Zimbabwean Linguistics (pp. 205-214). Harare: University of Zimbabwe Publications Office.

46. Gutt, E.-A. (1991). Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

47. Gur^aglar, S.T. (2008). Retranslation. M. Baker, G. Saldanha (Eds.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (pp. 232-236). London - New York: Routledge.

48. Harper, D. (Ed.). (2024). Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved from https://www. etymonline.com/

49. Hermans, T. (2006). Translating Others. London: Routledge.

50. Hocket, C.F. (1954). Two Models of Grammatical Description. Word, 10 (2-3), 210-234. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1954.11659524

51. Kaiser, R. (2002). The Dynamics of Retranslation: Two Stories. Translation Review, 63, 84-85.

52. Kiraly, D. (1995). Pathways to Translation: Pedagogy and Process. Kent: Kent State University Press.

53. Koskinen, K., Paloposki, O. (2003). Retranslations in the Age of Digital Reproduction. Cadernos de Tradugao, 1, 11, 19-38.

54. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. (2010). Re-Conceptualization and the Emergence of Discourse Meaning as a Theory of Translation. B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, M. Thelen (Eds.), Meaning in Translation. (p. 105-147). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

55. Mish, F.C. (Ed.). (2024). Merriam-Webster's Dictionary. Retrieved from https://www.mernam-webster.com/dictionary/

56. Nida, E. (1975). Language Structure and Translation. Essays by Eugene A. Nida. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

57. O'Brien, S. (2013). The Borrowers: Researching the Cognitive Aspects of Translation. Target, 25, 1, 5-17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/target.25.1.02obr

58. Ortega y Gasset, J. (2004). The Misery and the Splendor of Translation. L. Venuti (Ed.), The Translation Studies Reader (p. 49-63). London and New York: Routledge.

59. Pym, A. (2007). Natural and Directional Equivalence in Theories of Translation. Target, 19, 2, 271-294. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/target.19.2.07pym

60. Rebrii, O.V. (2018). Translation as a Means of Constructing Cultures: Philosophical Foregrounding. Cognition, Communication, Discourse, 16, 64-71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26565/22182926-2018-16-05

61. Shakespeare, W. (1916). King Lear. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

62. Shakespeare, W. (1899). Macbeth. R.G. White (Ed.), The Complete Works of William Shakespeare (Vol. 10, pp. 423-533). New York: The University Society.

63. Shakespeare, W. (2000). Othello. New York: Hungry Minds.

64. Shakespeare, W. (2004) Romeo and Juliet. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

65. Shakespeare, W. (1922). The Tragedy of Coriolanus. London: Methuen and Co. Ltd.

66. Shakespeare, W. (2015). The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. Adelaide: University of Adelaide.

67. Vanroy, B., De Clercq, O., Macken, L. (2019). Correlating Process and Product Data to Get an Insight into Translation Difficulty. Studies in Translation Theory and Practice, 27, 924-941. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2019.1594319

68. Venuti, L. (2003). Retranslations: The Creation of Value. Bucknell Review, 47 (1), 25-39.

References

1. Andriienko, T.P. (2015). Kohnityvne modelyuvannya perekladu khudozhnoho tekstu (na prykladi novely O. Henri “The Last Leaf"/ “Ostanniy lystok") [Cognitive modelling of the translation of an artistic text (on the example of O. Henry's novel “The Last Leaf")]. Naukovi zapysky Natsionalnoho universytetu «Ostrozka akademiya». Seriya: Filolohichna [Scientific Notes of the National University "Ostroh Academy”. Philology], vol. 54, pp. 247-249.

2. Bell, R. (1994). Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice. London, Longman Group UK, 299 p.

3. Berman, A. (2000). Translation and the Trial of the Foreign. In L. Venuti (ed.). The Translation Studies Reader. London, Routledge, pp. 284-297.

4. Boiko, Y. (2022). Cognitive Consonance and Cognitive Dissonance as Determinants of Plurality in Translation of Shakespeare's Plays. Studies about Languages / Kalbg studijos, vol. 41, pp. 111-128. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/i01.saL1.41.31200

5. Boiko, Y. (2022a). Interpretation Module in the Framework of the Cognitive-Discursive Model of Diachronic Plurality in Translation of Shakespeare's Plays. Topics in Linguistics, vol. 23, pp. 1-14. DOI: DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/topling-2022-0001

6. Boiko, Y. (2023). Translators' Interpretations of Shakespeare's Plays in the Light of Information Entropy. Alfred Nobel University Journal of Philology, vol. 1, issue 25, pp. 274-290. DOI: https://doi. org/10.32342/2523-4463-2023-1-25-20

7. Brownlie, S. (2006). Narrative Theory and Retranslation Theory. Across Languages and Cultures, vol.

8. 7, issue 2, pp. 140-170. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.7.2006.2.1

9. Butterfield, J. (ed.). (2024). Collins Dictionary. Available at: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/ (Accessed 01 May 2024).

10. Catford, J.C. (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation. An Essay in Applied Linguistics. London, Oxford University Press, 110 p.

11. Chomsky, N. (1956). Three Models for the Description of Language. IRE (Institute of Radio Engineers) Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 3, pp. 113-124. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.1956.1056813

12. Dicerto, S. (2018). Multimodal Pragmatics and Translation: A New Model for Source Text Analysis. London, Palgrave Macmillan, 192 p.

13. Dorofeieva, M., Andrushchenko, T. (2019). Information Entropy in Translation: Psycholinguistic Aspects. Psycholinguistics, Series: Philology, vol. 26, issue 2, pp. 91-113. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31470/23091797-2019-26-2-91-113

14. Farahzad, F. (2024). Plurality in Translation. Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED429449. pdf (Accessed 01 May 2024)

15. Gopo, L. (2015). Cognitive Model of Translation. In: V. Mugari, L. Mukaro, E. Chabata (eds.). Current Trends in Zimbabwean Linguistics. Harare, University of Zimbabwe Publications Office, pp. 205-214.

16. Gutt, E.-A. (1991). Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context. Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 222 p.

17. Gunjaglar, S.T. (2008). Retranslation. In M. Baker, G. Saldanha (eds.). Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London & New York, Routledge, pp. 232-236.

18. Harper, D. (ed.). (2024). Online Etymology Dictionary. Available at: https://www.etymonline.com/ (Accessed 01 May 2024).

19. Hermans, T. (2006). Translating Others. London, Routledge, 256 p.

20. Hocket, C.F. (1954). Two Models of Grammatical Description. Word, vol. 10, issue 2-3, pp. 210-234. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1954.11659524

21. Kaiser, R. (2002). The Dynamics of Retranslation: Two Stories. Translation Review, vol. 63, pp. 84-85.

22. Kiraly, D. (1995). Pathways to Translation: Pedagogy and Process. Kent, Kent State University Press, 175 p.

23. Koskinen, K., Paloposki, O. (2003). Retranslations in the Age of Digital Reproduction. Cadernos de Tradugao, vol. 1, issue 11, pp. 19-38.

24. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. (2010). Re-Conceptualization and the Emergence of Discourse Meaning as a Theory of Translation. In: B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, M. Thelen (eds.). Meaning in Translation. Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang, pp. 105-147.

25. Mish, F.C. (ed.). (2024). Merriam-Webster's Dictionary. Available at: https://www.merriam-webster. com/dictionary/ (Accessed 01 May 2024)

26. Nida, E. (1975). Language Structure and Translation. Essays by Eugene A. Nida. Stanford, California, Stanford University Press, 226 p.

27. O'Brien, S. (2013). The Borrowers: Researching the Cognitive Aspects of Translation. Target, vol. 25, issue 1, pp. 5-17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/target.25.1.02obr

28. Ortega y Gasset, J. (2004). The Misery and the Splendor of Translation. In: L. Venuti (ed.). The Translation Studies Reader. London & New York, Routledge, pp. 49-63.

29. Pym, A. (2007). Natural and Directional Equivalence in Theories of Translation. Target, vol. 19, issue 2, pp. 271-294. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/target.19.2.07pym

30. Rebrii, O.V. (2018). Translation as a Means of Constructing Cultures: Philosophical Foregrounding. Cognition, Communication, Discourse, vol. 16, pp. 64-71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26565/2218-2926-201816-05

31. Rebriy, O.V. (2016). Vstup do perekladoznavstva [Introduction to Translation Studies]. Kharkiv, KHNU imeni V. N. Karazina Publ., 116 p.

32. Selivanova, O.O. (2012). Problema modelyuvannyaperekladats'koho protsesu. Svit svidomosti vmovi [The Problem of Modelling the Translation Process. The World of Consciousness in Language]. Cherkasy, Yu. Chabanenko Publ., 488 p.

33. Shakespeare, W. (1882). Hamlet [Hamlet]. Transl. by M. Starytskyi. Kyiv, Kyiv-Druk Publ., 264 p.

34. Shakespeare, W. (2008). Hamlet [Hamlet]. Transl. by Yu. Andrukhovych. Kyiv, A BA-BA-HA-LA-MAHA Publ., 242 p.

35. Shakespeare, W. (2008a). Hamlet [Hamlet]. Transl. by M. Rudnytskyi. Lviv, Vydavnychyy tsentr LNU im. Ivana Franka Publ., 192 p.

36. Shakespeare, W. (2024). Hamlet [Hamlet]. Transl. by O. Hriaznov. Available at: https://www.ukrlib. com.ua/world/printit.php?tid=9048 (Accessed 01 May 2024).

37. Shakespeare, W. (1899). Hamliet, prynts dansky [Hamlet, Prince of Denmark]. Transl. by P. Kulish. Lviv, Ukrainsko-ruska vydavnycha spilka Publ., 197 p.

38. Shakespeare, W. (1960). Hamlet, prynts Danskyy [Hamlet, Prince of Denmark]. Transl. by Yu. Klen. In Yu. Klen & Ye. Malahiuk (ed.). Tvory [Works]. Toronto, Fundatsiya imeni Yuriya Klena Publ., vol. 4, pp. 14237.

39. Shakespeare, W. (1986). Hamlet, prynts datsky [Hamlet, Prince of Denmark]. Transl. by L. Hrebinka. V.V. Koptilov (ed.). Tvory v 6 tomah [Works in 6 vols.]. Kyiv, Dnipro Publ., vol. 5, pp. 5-118.

40. Shakespeare, W. (2003). Hamlet, prynts danskyy [Hamlet, Prince of Denmark]. Transl. by H. Kochur. Kyiv, Alterpres Publ., 162 p.

41. Shakespeare, W. (1916). King Lear. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 162 p.

42. Shakespeare, W. (1986a). Koriolan [Coriolanus]. Transl. by D. Pavlychko. V.V. Koptilov (ed.). Tvory v 6 tomah [Works in 6 vols.]. Kyiv, Dnipro Publ., vol. 5, pp. 527-641.

43. Shakespeare, W. (1902). Korol Lir [King Lear]. Transl. by P. Kulish. Lviv, Ukrayinsko-ruska vydavnycha spilka Publ., 187 p.

44. Shakespeare, W. (1969). Korol Lir [King Lear]. Transl. by V. Barka. Shtutthart, New York & Ottava, Vydannya “Na hori” Publ., 156 p.

45. Shakespeare, W. (1986b). Korol Lir [King Lear]. Transl. by M. Rylskyi. V.V. Koptilov (ed.). Tvory v 6 tomah [Works in 6 vols.]. Kyiv, Dnipro Publ., vol. 5, pp. 235-343.

46. Shakespeare, W. (2021). Korol Lir [King Lear]. Transl. by Yu. Andrukhovych. Kyiv, A-Ba-Ba-Ha-La-MaHa Publ., 239 p.

47. Shakespeare, W. (2024a). Korol Lir [King Lear]. Transl. by O. Hriaznov. Available at: https://www. ukrlib.com.ua/world/printit.php?tid=9048 (Accessed 01 May 2024).

48. Shakespeare, W. (2024b). Korol Lir [King Lear]. Transl. by P. Myrnyi. Available at: http://ocls.kyivlibs. org.ua/mirnii/tvori/Korol Lir/Korol Lir01.htm (Accessed 01 May 2024).

49. Shakespeare, W. (1899). Macbeth. In R.G. White (ed.). The Complete Works of William Shakespeare in 12 vol. New York, The University Society, vol. 10, pp. 423-533.

50. Shakespeare, W. (1986c). Makbet [Macbeth]. Transl. by B. Ten. V.V. Koptilov (ed.). Tvory v 6 tomah [Works in 6 vols.]. Kyiv, Dnipro Publ., vol. 5, pp. 344-415.

51. Shakespeare, W. (1900). Makbet [Macbeth]. Transl. by P. Kulish. Lviv, Naukove tovarystvo imeny Shevchenka Publ., 118 p.

52. Shakespeare, W. (1930). Makbet [Macbeth]. Transl. by T. Osmachka. Kharkiv, Derzhavne vydavnytstvo Ukrayiny Publ., 150 p.

53. Shakespeare, W. (2024c). Makbet [Macbeth]. Transl. by O. Hryaznov. Available at: https://ukrlib. com.ua/world/printit.php?tid=9050 (Accessed 01 May 2024).

54. Shakespeare, W. (2000). Othello. New York, Hungry Minds, 243 p.

55. Shakespeare, W. (1882a). Otello [Othello]. Transl. by P. Kulish. In K. Bernadsky (ed.). Shekspyrovi tvory [Shakespeares works]. Lviv, Drukarnya Tovarystva ymeny Shevchenka Publ., vol. 1, pp. 11-178.

56. Shakespeare, W. (2004) Romeo and Juliet. New Haven & London, Yale University Press, 249 p.

57. Shakespeare, W. (1901). Romeo ta Dzhulietta [Romeo and Juliet]. Transl. by P. Kulish. Lviv, Ukrainskoruska vydavnycha spilka Publ., 156 p.

58. Shakespeare, W. (1937). Romeo i Dzhulietta [Romeo and Juliet]. Transl. by A. Hozenpud. Kyiv, Mystetstvo publ., 202 p.

59. Shakespeare, W. (1985). Romeo i Dzhulietta [Romeo and Juliet]. Transl. by I. Steshenko. Kyiv, Dnipro Publ., 485 p.

60. Shakespeare, W. (1998). Romeo i Dzhulietta [Romeo and Juliet]. Transl. by P. Kulish, interpret by M. Voronyi. Kyiv, Alterpress Publ., 234 p.

61. Shakespeare, W. (2016). Romeo i Dzhulietta [Romeo and Juliet]. Transl. by Yu. Andrukhovych. Kyiv, Aba-ba-ha-la-ma-ha Publ., 208 p.

62. Shakespeare, W. (2024). Romeo i Dzhulietta [Romeo and Juliet]. Transl. by V. Mysyk. Available at: https://www.ukrlib.com.ua/world/printit.php?tid=1 (Accessed 01 May 2024)

63. Shakespeare, W. (1922). The Tragedy of Coriolanus. London, Methuen and Co. Ltd, 296 p.

64. Shakespeare, W. (2015). The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. Adelaide, University of Adelaide, 165 p.

65. Shakespeare, W. (1941). Trahediia pro Hamleta, pryntsa danskoho [The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark]. Transl. by V. Ver. Kyiv, Mystetstvo Publ., 271 p.

66. Sytar, R.A. (2014). Mnozhynnist perekladiv yak variantnist vidtvorennya zhanrovo-stylistychnykh osoblyvostey chasovo viddalenoho pershotvoru [The multiplicity of translations as a variant of the reproduction of genre and stylistic features of a temporally distant original work]. Naukovyy visnyk Chernivets'koho universytetu. Seriya: Hermans'ka filolohiya [Scientific Bulletin of Chernivtsi University. Germanic Philology], vol. 692-693, pp. 237-240.

...