ЛЕКСИКО-СТИЛІСТИЧНІ ОЗНАКИ КОНФЕСІЙНОЇ СФЕРИ В АНГЛІЙСЬКІЙ ТА УКРАЇНСЬКІЙ МОВАХ: ЗІСТАВНИЙ АСПЕКТ (ЧАСТИНА 2)

Abstract

The paper deals with the contrastive analysis of the Ukrainian (Ivan Ohiyenko) and English (King James Bible) translations of the Old Testament (Genesis, Chapter 1) with the purpose to establish their comparative lexical and stylistic features. The assessment of the stylistic devices in the Ukrainian (UTT) and English (ETT) target texts proves a high degree of their similarity. There is a considerable parallelism in the use of repetition, paraphrase, aphorisms, generic nouns, stylistically coloured lexemes, rhetorical address and homogenous elements’ structure. The polysyndeton is a distinctive feature of both texts as well as gradation and a systematic use of archaic or unusual words. The dissimilarities of the two texts include alliterative repetition in verse 10, a double-focus repetition and a weakened polysyndeton in verse 29 in ETT, repetition in ETT (verses 14-15) which appeared to be impossible in UTT due to the specifi c structure used there and the strengthened verb repetition in the refrain of each period in UTT. Other distinctions include a systematic use of the state verb (be) in ETT, whereas the UTT utilizes a range of dynamic verbs indicating the transition from one state to another; the use of two monotypic metaphors in ETT, as compared to neutral lexemes in UTT; or, conversely, the ETT counterpart of an elevated style word is stylistically neutral in UTT. Another divergence is the use of parceling in ETT, which shifts the stylistic emphasis to the parceled fragment, while in the UTT the preference is given to the double synonymic structure; the use of archaism, metaphor and synecdoche in ETT whereas they are absent in UTT. Other unilaterally used stylistic devices include personifi cation in ETT versus alliteration and assonance in UTT; the use of an infi nitive stricture in ETT and a verbal noun in UTT to render purpose; greater variability of attributes (prepositional, postpositional, subordinate clauses), as well as lexical stylistic means in UTT; greater phonetic and lexical diversity of generalizing attributes in UTT. Overall, a somewhat greater variety of lexical stylistic means in UTT may be assumed, although it can hardly be regarded as the latter’s advantage because the standards of stylistic acceptability substantially vary in diff erent languages and cultures. The scope of further research is outlined. Key words: English and Ukrainian languages, Bible (Genesis), comparative stylistics, comparative lexicology, confessional style, teaching translation and interpreting, comparative lexical and stylistic analysis, lexical and stylistic features.