All the marvel and wonder of language is revealed through the study of real texts. In the course of linguistic research, supported by additional information from peripheral fields of knowledge, real philology achieves its main goal, viz. the excellent understanding of texts. Neither abstract reasoning nor profound philosophizing on the nature of texts or language at large brings any such pleasure of understanding as the study of real words and collocations used by the author.

Oddly enough many modern scholars forget about this simple and obvious truth. Sadly we observe how our subject is often treated with poker-faced pedantry, turning it into a mighty hoax, killing its real essence and beauty.

This new publication of the English Department Ц Master Class Ц excludes any theorizing and abstract disquisitions on the nature and value of philology Ц but offers philology itself: our teachers and researchers allow the students of the English language to peep inside their workshops, where true understanding of texts is achieved.

Each Master Class conducted by a scholar takes one or two real examples and subjects them to a profound and exhaustive philological analysis. Students of English can use each УMaster ClassФ as an example of the analysis they would be expected to present during their exams.

Teachers spend a lot of time lecturing and correcting the studentsТ mistakes at the seminars, explaining how the analysis along this or that direction or aspect of philology should be made. However, when the time of exams comes Ц it appears that quite a lot of students are unable to put different parts of information, received in the course of the semester, together. What they require is synthesis revealed by the teacher himself Ц the holistic view of the material presented, as it were, from the horseТs mouth.

So, welcome, learn and enjoy!

Table of Contents

Texts of Fiction: Syntax and Expressiveness6†† by Olga V. Aleksandrova† 6

A Rose by any Other Name:† Understanding and Evaluation12
by Olga V. Aleksandrova and Emilia Koptyug. 12

My СTimesТ† by19 Irina Giubennet 19

From the Word Grammar to a Grammar of Discourse††††††††††††
by30 Tatyana A. Komova. 30

—тилизаци¤ под готический роман† в оригинале и в переводе† (на материале отрывков из романа У”дольфские тайныФ и У–оман в лесуФ јнны –эдклиф и УЌортенгерское аббатствоФ ƒжейн ќстен)36
онурбаев ћ.Ё., —еменюк ≈.¬. 36

The Russian Peasant Speech Characteristics in the Translation of Anton ChekhovТs Story† УOn the Sacred NightФ (linguopoetic estimation72)
†by Marklen E. Konurbayev. 72

Philological Reading as a Pragmalinguistic Proposition: the Extension of the Method by82 Irina M. Maguidova. 82

Cross-Cultural Folklore and How to Cope with it
by94 Margarita M. Philippova. 94

Texts of Fiction: Syntax and Expressiveness

Olga V. Aleksandrova

Until recently syntax was treated mainly structurally in linguistics, as a number of constructions, which are grammatically restricted within the system of a language. In the Western linguistics, which goes back to the Greek tradition, grammatical studies started with the form of the word Ц morphology, forms of the sentences Ц syntax, and only after that semantics was taken into consideration.

J.R.Firth, the founder of the London linguistic school, introduced new understanding of syntax as the unity of colligation and collocation, the unity of morpho-syntactic and semantic construction of speech. This idea was supported and further developed by the outstanding Russian linguists Ц A. Smirnitskij and Olga Akhmanova. These linguists could foresee the development of linguistics, not only in the end of the 20^th Century, but in the beginning of the 21^st.

Now the general tendency to functional studies requires not only knowledge of the structural composition of the language, but also its semantic organization, which depends upon many factors Ц intra- and extra-linguistic ones.

One more problem is worth to be mentioned in this connection Ц the problem of functional styles and their peculiar features, which has been discussed in numerous works. The leading function in the text of fiction is the function of impact, and here syntax plays a very important role: syntactic analysis of a text from fiction only proves this fact.

Let us take as an example a piece from the book by H. Rider Haggard. Sir Henry Rider Haggard was a well-known writer of his time, he lived and created his works at the end of the 19^th the beginning of the 20^th centuries. Being very famous in his times, he is practically forgotten nowadays, though his writings are full of beautiful allusions and pictures of the country-life.

The extract from the book She (first published in 1887) runs as follows:

On the day following this remarkable scene Ц a scene calcul≠ated to make a deep impression upon anybody who beheld it, more because of what it suggested and seemed to foreshadow than of what it revealed Ц it was announced to us that a feast would be held that evening in our honor. I did my best to get out of it, saying that we were modest people, and cared little for feasts, but my remarks being received with the silence of displeasure, I thought it wisest to hold my tongue.

Accordingly, just before sundown, I was informed that everything was ready, and, accompanied by Job, went into the cave, where I met Leo, who was, as usual, followed by Ustane. These two had been out walking somewhere, and knew nothing of the projected festivity till that moment. When Ustane heard of it I saw an expression of horror spring up upon her hand≠some features. Turning she caught a man who was passing up the cave by the arm, and asked him something in an imperious tone. His answer seemed to reassure her a little, for she looked relieved, though far from satisfied. Next she appeared to attempt some remonstrance with the man, who was a person in authority, but he spoke angrily to her, and shook her off, and then, changing his mindї led her by the arm, and sat her down between himself and another man in the circle round the fire, and I perceived that for some reason of her own she thought it best to submit.

The first sentence in the extract is the complex one, though at first sight this sentence might seem rather complicated: the construction: ФOn the day following this remarkable sceneФ, is, in fact, the adverbial modifier which starts the sentence.

†After that, according to the rules of modern English Grammar, follows the parenthetical insertion, which is in dashes. It is known that the marks of the parentheses in English are doubled commas, doubled brackets and dashes. Also, it has been emphasized that dashes play a special role in the system of punctuation in the English language: they give special prominence to the insertion, which may be important for the general information or functionally important for the appreciation of the text. This parenthesis is of a peculiar character Ц it is not reproducible, it presents a certain kind of information, which is important for the narration. The construction of the insertion is very interesting from the syntactic point of view: it consists of the participial construction and subordinate clauses Ц attributive, reason, relative and infinitive constructions. The insertion fulfils the specifying function here. After the second dash the sentence proceeds with the main clause and the nominative subordinate clause.

The next sentence may be understood only within the context, this is a compound sentence with subordination and participle constructions. And, again, in the end of it Ц the superlative degree with the infinitive construction which makes the tension of the text more important for the reader. This kind of constructions has a special function in the English language. It is very often difficult to translate them into the Russian language adequately, sometimes more complicated forms are needed to present them in our mother tongue. Sentences like that help to present the information in the compressive form, but, at the same time, the use of those compressive means make them rather expressive.

The next paragraph in the text starts with the word accordingly. This is a parenthesis, but, at the same time, it connects one part of the narration with the previous one. Here this unit fulfils the function of cohesion Ц one of the main textual functions.

Just before sundown Ц the adverbial modifier of time, it also stands before the main clause and fulfils the function of impact, Уaccompanied by JobФ, Уfollowed by UstaneФ, the adverbial constructions as well, they help to minimize the context|; who was , as usual, followed by Ustane Ц the attributive clause with the clichéd insertion.

Handsome features, this is the characteristics of a woman. A word-combination, the unit of Minor Syntax Ц the connotative word-combination, stylistically bound, conceptually determined.

Turning Ц is the participle, which occupies the initial position in the sentence and gives a special understanding of the characterТs behavior at that moment.

Imperious tone is an attributive word-combination, although it does not possess any additional connotation, still it is rather expressive and attracts the attention of the reader.

The sentence His answer seemed to reassure her a little, for she looked relieved, though far from satisfied, is the complex one, the clause of reason and concessive construction here make the subject matter deeper, they give more information to the reader.

The last sentence in the extract is the most dramatic one. Its structure is very complicated. The structure of this sentence presents a lot of questions. At first sight this is a compound sentence which also possesses some subordinate clauses, but all the clauses within the sentence are connected with the words she and man, these clauses even seem to lose their subordinate character, being parts of the general action which is revealed in the sentence as a whole. Homogeneous predicates in the second main clause: spoke angrily, shook her off, led her by the arm, sat her down show the tension of the situation described in this sentence. Participle construction changing his mind also helps to see what was happening at that moment. The last part of the sentence: and I perceived that for some reason of her own she thought it best to submit, is the culmination of the paragraph, itТs rheme, which is the most important expressive and communicative part of the utterance.

So far we have concentrated on the functions of different constructions, sentence structures and other syntactic units of the text. But we should not forget that every sentence has its parts, and there exist syntactic relationships between them Ц syntactic bonds and diarhemes, which reflect them in speech. Let us take for the analysis the last sentence from the extract under consideration. Here all types of syntactic bonds are represented, for example: direct object completive bond between to attempt and some remonstrance, indirect completive bond between some remonstrance, and with the man, adverbial modifier completive bond which is the loosest of the three between man and in the circle; the copulative bond is between homogeneous predicates in the second main clause; here we may find the attributive bond between man and who was a person of authority; the most important for the sentence predicative bond is used, for example between he and homogeneous predicates, or I and perceived.

Syntactic bonds are represented by diarhemes in the oral speech and by punctuation in the written speech: the loosest bonds are usually marked by punctuation and pauses (copulative, often predicative and adverbial modifier completive bonds), the closest bonds are not marked by prosody or punctuation, except for some specific, usually expressive, purposes (attributive, direct and indirect object completive bond). Here, of course, one should not forget about the special character of English punctuation, which is syntactic-stylistic, the use of punctuation there is the art, it is not governed by the strict rules.

The text under consideration is neatly phrased, punctuation marks reveal the important logical and semantic-stylistic relationships between its elements. From the point of view of parcellation we deal with long sentences in this extract, their structures are rather complicated, but all the sentences within each paragraph are thematically connected.

†Rhythmical structure of the paragraphs here may be defined as loose in the first one and periodic in the second (if we use the system of rhythmical patters introduced by S. Potter, which consists of three main rhythmical types of sentences and paragraphs Ц loose, balanced and periodic). We are dealing in this case with the written text, where rhythmical pattern depends largely upon punctuation, in the oral speech rhythm is determined mainly by prosody.

Skilful use of syntactic patterns may help the author to achieve the desirable effect in his writings, to produce considerable aesthetic influence upon the audience. Understanding of functional aspects of syntactic units helps us to feel the general mood of the characters and the author whose creations they are Ц all this makes possible to form the general attitude of the reader to the text of verbal art.

Syntax, in its contemporary understanding, gives life to a language, which cannot exist and develop without it. In very many respects it realizes the pragmatic (communicative) and expressive functions in the text. Understanding of these functions is of primary importance for contemporary linguistic research.

A Rose By Any Other Name:
(understanding and evaluation)

Olga V. Aleksandrova and Emilia Koptyug

In the course of their studies students of English are often asked to work with newspaper or magazine articles dealing with subjects which come from the area of studies with which those students are concerned (linguistics for linguistics students, naturally). The articles chosen usually undergo preliminary scrutiny based on the following criteria: the author must be an educated speaker of English, he or she must be well versed in the subject being discussed (though not necessarily a professional in the field), and the language of the article must be such as to make it worth studying as a source of current good English. Often such texts also provide an example of the different approaches to the problem discussed, that is an opportunity for students to contrast the approach taken by the popular writer to that of a scholar, and draw their own conclusions. Here is an example of such a text, and of a possible analysis that might be performed, taking into account the relevant criteria: meaning, terminology, lexis.

A ROSE BY ANY OTHER NAME

Losing something in translation?

One of the things that makes us the human beings we are is a powerfully-developed pattern-matching facility. Momentarily spot a profile in half light and the person is instantly recognised; listen to someone at a crowded party and we can usually "join up the dots" between half-heard snatches of speech and turn it into a meaningful statement. But sometimes this superb ability tries hard to make sense of something that is too alien for it and nonsense results.

Take the residents of Richmond in West London about the year 1860 who spotted a plant with tiny white marigold-like flowers in their gardens. They had never seen it before, so naturally they took it up the road to the experts at Kew Gardens, who recognised it immediately as an escaped specimen of a recent introduction to the Gardens, brought back from Peru by one of their collectors. "Oh yes," they said, not having an English name for it, "That's Galinsoga parviflora". That patterning ability went into immediate operation, the unfamiliar Latinate first word sounding a bit like something that made sense: Gallant Soldiers. And so it has been called in Britain ever since.

A better-known example of this process of what might be called the "dumbing down" of names is the Jerusalem artichoke, Helianthus tuberosus. You will not be surprised to hear that it does not come from Jerusalem. It is actually a sort of sunflower from North America (sunflower-artichoke is another English name for it) and the Italians, who imported it first, called it girasole: "heliotrope", or turning always to the sun. (In a slightly different form the same word turns up in English as a name for an opal that glows reddish in the light, the "fire-opal".) Anyway, the pattern-matchers got hold of this plant name and turned it to "Jerusalem" in a twinkling. Artichoke shows an even greater set of shifts, across three languages. The name was originally Arabic, al-kharshuf, which travelled via Moorish Spain into Italy as arcicioffo. People had all sorts of goes at turning this into English when the plant was brought here ("in the time of Henry VIII" according to Hakluyt): archecock, hortichock, artichoux, hortichoke (something that overran the garden) and even heartychoke. The name didn't finally settle down to the modern spelling until the eighteenth century. By this time it had also been added on the end of Jerusalem for no botanical or other obvious reason, perhaps because that name didn't sound complete by itself, or perhaps because the longer name was grander.

Then there's pennyroyal, a name for the mint Menthe pulegium, once prized as a medicinal herb. This name is just the "turn it into something we understand" pattern-matching technique applied to the Old French name puliol real, which was originally the Latin puleium "flea-plant" Ц Pliny said that fleas were killed by the scent of the burning leaves. Another strange change occurred with the avocado, but this time the pattern-matching took place first in Spanish through the Aztec word ahuacatl being creatively misheard as avocado, 'lawyer'. This was curiously converted still further in English into alligator (which itself was a corruption of the Spanish el lagardo 'the lizard'), or alligator-pear from its shape, a name it had in England for some decades at the beginning of the eighteenth century before the Spanish name triumphed.

But for the most extraordinary example of shifting names we must go to the aubergine, known also as the brinjal in India. The story starts with Sanskrit vatin-gana "the plant that cures the wind", which became the Arabic al-badinjan. This moved into Europe, again through Moorish Spain: one offshoot Ц keeping the Arabic article prefixed Ц became alberengena in Spanish and on to aubergine in French; another transformation became the botanical Latin melongena through losing the article and changing the 'b' to an 'm'; this then turned into the Italian melanzana and then to mela insana (the "mad apple"). Another branch, again without the 'al', became bringella in Portugal, whose traders took the plant, and their version of the name, full circle back to India, where it became brinjal in Anglo-Indian. In another branch of its history, the Portuguese word turned up in the West Indies, where it was again, but differently, corrupted to brown-jolly. All names for the same plant.

Michael Quinion is a researcher for the Oxford English Dictionary. He also runs an acclaimed (The Times Educational Supplement, The Guardian (Editor Supplement), The Independent on Sunday, USA Today etc.) site on the Internet called УWorld Wide WordsФ (http://www.worldwidewords.org) where this article was originally published. He provides many similar essays into the world of etymology, style, grammar, sociolinguistics and so on, by focusing on a particular word or subject or area in one of the branches of linguistics, and giving an exhaustive account of the topic in an entertaining though professional manner. His lively language is an additional reason to devote some time to analysing his article.

We may begin by placing the title in its context: it is a quotation so popular it should be extremely easy to identify even for an intermediate learner of English: William ShakespeareТs Romeo and Juliet, Уthe balcony sceneФ (Act II, Scene 2, lines 43-44). It also allows the writer to establish the УbotanicalФ motif of the article: the following word histories are all connected with the plant world. It is Gallant Soldiers, Jerusalem artichoke, pennyroyal, avocado, aubergine (brown-jolly). Interestingly enough, the plant motif is to be found in the final paragraph in the expressions used by the writer:

One offshoot becameЕ

Another branch becameЕ

In another branch of its historyЕ

All of these are completely legitimate phrases, listed in dictionaries and used in scholarly discourse, nevertheless the suggestion of botanical metaphor is there.

From this we may move on to outlining the actual subject and discussion area. The second part of the title, УLosing something in translation?Ф would lead the reader to expect the article to be about translation. It is in fact about analogy, paronymy (folk etymology) and real etymology, but this only becomes clear when we begin reading the text. This is naturally somewhat of a counter-example to a student: the title and the argument should be logically connected, and there should be no confusing the terms one is using.

Understanding the text naturally pre-supposes the use of the explanatory dictionary. That, however, may not be sufficient in itself. The author begins by a sweeping generalization on the subject of the human cognitive processes: Уa powerfully-developed pattern-matching facility.Ф According to the dictionary (HornbyТs, in this case), pattern can have the following meanings:

pattern: 1) excellent example: She is a pattern of all virtues; 2) something used as a model, e.g. shape of dress cut out in paper and used in dressmaking, etc; model for a cast from which a mould is made (in a foundry etc); 3) sample, esp. a small piece of cloth; patterns from a tailor; etc.

This suggests that Уpattern-matchingФ would mean either matching (finding a correspondence for) a part of something (3) with the whole, or using something as a model (2) and matching it with the original, or perhaps with another model of the same. It is the authorТs own term for this facility (quality which makes learning or doing things easy) of the human mind, therefore the reader needs the authorТs own explanation of what is meant here.

This explanation is in fact forthcoming in the following sentences. The term Уpattern-matching facilityФ produces a literary impression: none of the words used here are stylistically marked in the dictionaries, nevertheless the whole is sufficiently complex for understanding so as not to be placed in the register of common everyday speech. The contrary is true of the authorТs examples for his concept:

Momentarily spot a profile in half light

a crowded party

we can usually "join up the dots"

snatches of speech

All of these are perfectly normal expressions, used in everyday speech and easily understandable. УJoin up the dotsФ is another metaphorical borrowing, this time from the field of childrenТs games: it is a game where the player is supposed to join a number of dots to each other in the correct order to get an outline of some object (anything from a geometric shape to Mickey Mouse). The meaning of the metaphor is sufficiently clear that we may be assured that it is the first suggested meaning of Уpattern-matchingФ that is meant (see above).

Finally the author leads us to the main body of his article:

But sometimes this superb ability tries hard to make sense of something that is too alien for it and nonsense results.

The results are in fact not at all nonsensical, if viewed as examples of paronymy. It is in fact the attempt to make names make sense in oneТs own frame of reference, whether that be a language or simply some aspect of it. The author suggests calling this process Уthe dumbing down of names.Ф This sounds quite natural and easy to understand (no need to look up Уto dumb something downФ in the dictionary, even), but it seems that the process is actually the opposite: the meaningful transposition of a name for an object from one language into another. Gallinsoga Parviflora turns into Gallant Soldiers; Helianthus tuberosus (girasole) becomes Jerusalem Artichoke, and so on. It makes complete sense, in fact.

The etymology provided is clear and concise, exemplary in fact: in each case the writer starts at the beginning of the story and works his way to the end, explaining side deviations and tying up loose ends. All this is done in an easy-to-read manner with many useful and natural expressions to help improve the speech of the student who might be using this text either as reference or for analysis:

You will not be surprised to hear that

It is actually a sort of

the Italians, who imported it first

the same word turns up in English

the pattern-matchers got hold of

turned it to "Jerusalem" in a twinkling

People had all sorts of goes at turning this into English

for no botanical or other obvious reason

This name is just the "turn it into something we understand" pattern-matching technique applied to

And so on. The language of the article is in fact far more colloquial than we would expect from a scholarly analysis of word etymology, and there is a much more personal manner of addressing the reader than in a scholarly article; all this serves to make it a useful teaching source.

All the examples adduced in the article are those of names for СimportedТ plants, i.e. for new realia of foreign origin, and their usually very English names in their new language (avocado and aubergine are the exceptions that prove the ruleЧboth are already transposed from their originals into Spanish and French, respectively, and then are borrowed as single easy-to-pronounce words). The author himself uses a similar way of dealing with his matter: he Уdumbs downФ the explanation of linguistic processes for general understanding, using non-frightening common expressions and mild metaphor to show the reader his subject matter. His is not the perfect example of how to deal with this problem, but it is interesting and fruitful enough for discussion and analysis for learners of English.

†

My СTimesТ

Irina Giubennet

IF anybody asked me why I have chosen СThe TimesТ as СmyТ newspaper I would probably quote in reply from an essay by Aldous Huxley СI am a HighbrowТ: СTo a great extent, of course, it is just a matter of taste. I am a highbrow for the same reason that I am an eater of strawberries. I enjoy the eating of strawberries and I enjoy the processes and experiences which are commonly qualified by the name of Уhighbrow.ФТ

The use of СmyТ in the title is a manifestation of the category of inalienable possession like in Сmy head or handТ, Сmy bathТ or Сmy morning cup of teaТ with the only difference that in my case I do not so much possess it as it has come to be an integral part of me or rather that routine that is my daily life.

When I am saying that I am an inveterate СTimesТ reader I do not mean that I always read it from the front page to the last. Travelling, Gardening, Sports leave me cold, Law and Business are a closed book to me in any language. So after perusing the main story, browsing through comments and skipping through Letters to the Editor (each of these sections, including Obituaries, deserves special attention which some day it shall receive) I turn to the section that never fails to delight and fascinate me, viz. Arts and Books.

СThe TimesТ has a long and variegated history with, as Godfrey Smith puts it in СThe English CompanionТ, Сshafts of light and triumph between the years of gloom and follyТ but it has always been and remains to be an Institution due (among other things) to its inimitable standard of writing. Its reporters and columnists, like Bernard Levin, Philip Howard, Matthew Parris, to mention but a few, have raised this standard to almost unsurpassable heights.

But it is in Arts and Books that the brilliance and variety of style undoubtedly reaches its peak. Publications within this section are too numerous and varied to be subjected to any classification, but at least two types stand out and should be studied separately with a view to using them for the benefit of language learners. They are interviews and book reviews.

Among the latter reviews of literary biographies Ц one of the most popular genres to-day Ц are in a class by themselves. Some turn out to be real masterpieces of perfection by virtue of combining the most revealing traits of the three personalities involved: the subject, the author and the reviewer. Small wonder, if the subject is Edgar A. Poe, the author Kenneth Silverman and the reviewer Anita Brookner, or if the subject is Jonathan Swift, the author Ц Victoria Glendinning and the reviewer Ц John Carey, or if the subject is Agatha Christie, the author Ц Gillian Gill and the reviewer Ц Anthony Burgess.

It is the Anthony Burgess Review that is to come under scrutiny this time for the purpose of singling out and describing those features of its style in general and its vocabulary in particular that make it eminently suitable learning material for the students of English at a fairly advanced stage of their linguistic proficiency.

I have chosen this particular review from my archives because in my opinion it is one of most striking exemplars of the subgenre (if it can be called that) in question. This is really a remarkable piece where erudition, petty spite and sheer malevolence are blended with wonderful éclat.

The first question one is tempted to ask is what could the author of A Clockwork Orange have against Agatha Christie to spark off this acrimonious, almost vicious critique written not very long before his death in 1993? He does not seem to be satisfied with a few vibes and gibes but argues his case with such vehemence that one cannot help suspecting some professional jealousy of Dame AgathaТs phenomenal success. It is one thing to give credit to the authors of the past (no mater what their claims to fame might be), but it is quite another to be scrupulously objective to oneТs contemporaries. The monetary considerations might have also had their role to play. It is not accidental that the opening paragraph is devoted exclusively to the matter of royalties and the review itself has a very meaningful title: СMaking a Killing Out of MurderТ where the underlying idea Ц destruction of a human life Ц is being overlaid with a facetious Сmaking a killingТ (making a lot of money in a short time).

Agatha Christie: Making a Killing out of Murder

"WHO the hell cares who killed Roger Ackroyd?" said Edmund Wilson. My sentiments, too, more or less. There is something ignoble about making a murder the starting-point for a mere cerebral exercise. The destruction of a human life is a terrible thing, and to dis≠infect it into an entertaining abstraction may be considered profoundly im≠moral. But the late Dame Agatha Christie, a most moral woman of depressingly orthodox Christian principles, made millions out of murder. She is estimated to have sold two billion copies in 104 languages. The annual earnings of Agatha Christie Ltd in 1989 were £2.5m. The Mousetrap, which opened in November 1952 and has been seen by 7.5 million undemanding the≠atregoers, has made £14m, and will make more.

In November 1962 a party to cele≠brate that play's tenth anniversary was given at the Savoy. Dame Agatha ar≠rived early and alone and was refused admission by the doorman. "Amaz≠ingly," writes Ms Gill, "instead of pro≠testing and brushing the man aside, Christie turned meekly away, sad, con≠fused, chagrined, and yet in some strange way, acquiescent in her own hu≠miliation." (She is called Christie throughout this brief biography, and I, who am admittedly old-fashioned, have to object. The only Christie I know of was a genuine murderer, not a vicarious one, and ladies are entitled to a full ap≠pellation.) Agatha Christie disclosed in this curious acquiescence the quality that makes her an inept subject for a bi≠ography. She was shy, inarticulate, re≠clusive. True, she wrote her own mem≠oirs, published posthumously, but she conceals more than she reveals.

The life of a writer is mostly writing, and Dame Agatha wrote much. Apparently she had to, espe≠cially at the peak of her fame, because of the vil≠lainous extortions of the Inland Revenue, but she wanted to anyway. It is admirable that her brain should have teemed with ideas for yet more mur≠ders, but it is appalling that she should have found so little joy in the manipulation of lan≠guage. She was not liter≠ary, and if she received her accolade for services to literature, this was a typical piece of Estab≠lishment Pickwickianism. In a sense, she put peo≠ple off the reading of the higher art of detection Ц from The Moonstone to Gaudy Night †Ц† by setting a lower standard and making it somehow ca≠nonical. If she was the queen of the whodunnit, she used her royal rank to condone flimsy characterisation, plenti≠ful cliché, implausibility, and verbal vacuity, all these faults re≠deemed by an undoubted ingenuity. It was solely the ingenuity that her read≠ers† Ц† and, increasingly, her viewers† Ц† cherished. She gleefully confessed her≠self to be a low brow, though this was disingenuous. She was a fine pianist and a devotee of modern art. Through her second husband she became at≠tached to archaeology. It seems to have been only literature that she found un-enticing.

The only melodramatic event in her life has been made the subject of a film with Dustin Hoffman and Vanessa Redgrave (fittingly tall, slim and blonde, like the young woman she por≠trayed). Agatha Christie's husband, Colonel Archibald Christie, disclosed that he no longer loved her and wished to marry someone else. The fact that Agatha's mother had just died added to an intolerable psychological burden. She escaped briefly from the world and herself. She emerged from trauma with a no longer pertinent surname glued to her. To the world she has been neither Agatha Miller nor Agatha Mallowan, though she has used the pseudonym Mary Westmacott. Of that played-out fugue she al≠ways refused to speak. The pesterings of jour≠nalists confirmed her in her reclusiveness.

With so little life to re≠count, Ms Gill has to concentrate on the books. She devotes many pages to the first, The Mysterious Affair at Styles, by some thought to be the best. Certainly, once the style and struc≠ture had been estab≠lished, she never dared to deviate. Her readers always knew what to expect. The materials of that book came out of the First World War, in which Agatha Christie served as a nurse. She be≠came acquainted with toxicology and knew of the lethality of strych≠nine sediment at the bot≠tom of a harmless tonic, Hercule Poirot is a Belgian because wartime England teemed with Belgian refugees. This dapper, brilliant ex-police officer, pri≠vately detecting for immense fees, never grew much as a character: his pri≠vate life, like that of his creatrix, re≠mained a secret, save for later bizarre and irrelevant revelations of a very mi≠nor nature. He is, one must admit, dis≠tinctive; but he lacks the complexity of Sherlock Holmes (an amazing creation: a celibate bohemian clearly Jesuit-trained) or the aristocratic wayward≠ness of Lord Peter Wimsey: he is well-dressed ordinariness to which a peculiar talent is strapped. He is rather like Dame Agatha.

Ms Gill, who clearly knows her detective fiction, fits her subject very deftly into the history of the genre. She calls, towards the end, on Raymond Chandler's remarkable essay "The Simple Art of Murder" to question the rationale of the body-in-the-library-of-the-country-house-in-Berkshire type of de≠tective fiction, of which Dame Agatha is the major exemplar. It points to Dashiell Hammett as the writer who "gave murder back to the kind of peo≠ple who commit it for reasons, not just to provide a corpse; and with the means at hand, not with hand-wrought dueling pistols, curare, and tropical fish." In other words, murder belongs to mean streets.

P.D. James, who writes genuine novels that contain mysteries, argues that "the between the surface law and order of a traditional English village violent passions below the surface is a potentially much more powerful and provocative motive for crime than a back-street tenement". Ms Gill adds that Miss Marple, Agatha Christie's other major sleuth, knows about the evil that lurks beneath respectability, a property fictionally more potent than the crime of the criminal classes. One would rather say that Agatha Christie has to find evil in upper-class English milieux because those are all she knows. It is, anyway, strange to find that theological entity mentioned in the context of what pleases Cabinet Ministers on holiday. There is no evil in Agatha Christie's books, and not much good either. All we have is an abstract puzzle minimally clothed in the garments of respectable upper middle class morality. It is enough for millions of readers. For the rest, there is too much genuine literature to be explored. Life is very short.

***

What kind of approach could one recommend to such a text?

In view of the nature of the subject a certain amount of research, albeit on a very small scale, into the history of the genre is called for. The authorsТ names mentioned in the text as well as allusions to their works are significant because they can truly be said to represent the best in the crime fiction tradition. Though The Moonstone, often referred to as the first detective novel written in English, is more like and adventure rather than crime story. Dorothy Sayers (1893-1857), whose Gaudy Night (1935) as well as her aristocratic sleuth Lord Peter Wimsey are mentioned in the text, for all her undoubted merits is not by any means everybodyТs cup of tea (best works: The Unpleasantness at the Bellona Club, 1928; Clouds of Witness, 1927; Strong Poison, 1930; BusmanТs Honeymoon, 1937). As Julian Symons put it, Сfor her whole-hearted admirers, a diminished but still considerable band, she is the finest detective story writer of the twentieth century, to those less enthusiastic her work is long-winded and ludicrously snobbishТ. I would not agree with Julian Symons that towards the end of Lord Peter Wimsey series her novels Сshow an increasing pretentiousness, a dismal sentimentality, and a slackening of close plotting that had been her chief virtueТ but I am inclined to fall in with the view of another critic Q.D.Leavis that she not infrequently performed the function of Сgiving the impression of intellectual activity to readers who would very much dislike that kind of exercise if it was actually presented to them.Т Be that as it may, there is no denying the fact that in popular appeal, even at the zenith of her career, Dorothy Sayers fell short of Agatha ChristieТs level.

The literary fame of Raymond Chandler (1888-1959) and Dashiell Hammett (1894-1961), although each of these enjoyed international renown in his time, the former with his private detective Philip Marlow (best know works: The Big Sleep, 1939; Farewell, My Lovely, 1940), the latter mostly remembered for the austerity of his style (best known works: The Thin Man, 1934; The Maltese Falcon, 1930) had long been eclipsed by that of later generations of authors.

As for P.D. James (1920-) in her turn proclaimed СThe Queen of CrimeТ, her novels are certainly СgenuineТ but СgenuinenessТ is achieved through the wealth of detail of a particularly morbid nature and her stark manner of writing matching the stark reality she portrays (best known works: Cover Her Face, 19602; Unnatural Causes, 1967; Innocent Blood, 1980; A Taste for Death, 1986; Devices and Desires, 1989; A Certain Justice, 1997).

Characteristically, Anthony Burgess begins his review by quoting Edmund Wilson (1895-1972), an arch and severe critic of the genre, who, in the words of another critic, denied Сthe convention of the detective story any interest of attention at all.Т

In the course of their work on the text the students might be asked to comment more extensively on these authors or any other authors of their own choice as well as on some statements made by Anthony Burgess concerning the literary genre in question. Thus, for example, he observes that Hercule Poirot Сnever grows much as a characterТ. But is a literary character in crime fiction (or, for that matter, in any other kind of fiction) supposed to grow? Is the reader supposed to empathise with the characters or take much interest in them anyway? Here I would again be inclined to agree with Julian Symons who says about The Mysterious Affair at Styles that СAgatha ChristieТs book is original in the sense that it is a puzzle story which is solely that, which permits no emotional engagement with the characters.Т The reader not emotionally engaged with the characters is hardly likely to follow their growth even if there is any.

Another statement that could be disputed is that Agatha Christie Сfound little joy in the manipulation of language.Т Anybody familiar with her works in the original will agree that it is just her Сmanipulation of languageТ that makes them fascinating reading and is an inexhaustible source of excellent English for the foreign learner to pick up an emulate.

The vocabulary of the text provides a large amount of examples that could be picked out and used by the learner with remarkable ease: the authorТs choice of words is so accurate and precise, his word-combinations so neatly turned out. At times one cannot help thinking that most of the vocabulary of the text could be an excellent source of illustrative material for a dictionary of current English.

The vocabulary falls distinctly into two parts: the words and phrases used to describe people, their nature and emotions and those used about literature. In the former we include: shy, inarticulate, reclusive, to add to the psychological burden, to escape from the world and oneself, to emerge from trauma, a played-out fugue, aristocratic waywardness, etc. The latter contains words and phrases like flimsy characterisation, verbal vacuity, undoubted ingenuity, she conceals more than she reveals, etc. But there are also plenty of other very interesting clichés and metaphors: brain teeming with ideas and England teeming with refugees, evil lurking beneath respectability, an abstract puzzle clothed in the garments of respectable middle-class morality, etc. Probably the most striking feature of the authorТs style is his ability to condense a wealth of meaning into the tightest neatest shape, which manifests itself on different levels, from his exceptionally brief summaries of some literary characters to skilful placement of adverbs to the use of unstable compounds: Sherlock Holmes (an amazing creation: a celibate bohemian clearly Jesuit-trained); he (Hercule Poirot) is well-dressed ordinariness to which a peculiar talent is strapped; it was solely that her readers Ц and, increasingly, her viewers Ц cherished; the only melodramatic event in her life has been made the subject of a film with Dustin Hoffman and Vanessa Redgrave (fittingly tall, slim and blond, like the young woman she portrayed); the body-in-the-library-of-the-country-house-in-Berkshire type of detective fiction.

The only instance that might cause a slight difficulty is the word combination Establishment Pickwickianism in Сif she received her accolade for services to literature, this was a typical piece of Establishment Pickwickianism.Т This is an allusion to the episode in the opening chapter of Pickwick Papers where a heated argument at a meeting of the Association one of the members, a Mr Blotton, called Mr Pickwick Сa humbugТ. In the ensuing discussion in answer to the ChairmanТs question Сwhether the honourable gentleman had used the expression that had just escaped from him in a common senseТ Mr Blotton Сhad no hesitation in saying that he had used the word in its Pickwickian senseТ. It naturally follows that the word deprived of its Сcommon senseТ turns into nonsense and that is what, according to Anthony Burgess, the powers that be committed by conferring a title of honour upon Agatha Christie.

In this connection it should also be noted that Anthony BurgessТs objection to Dame Agatha being referred to by her biographer as СChristieТ is perfectly sound. But, it is not only because Сladies are entitled to full appellationТ but because in accordance with the long-established tradition some authors are always referred to in a specified way, by their full name or initials and this is reflected in biographical dictionaries, e.g. Lawrence, D(avid) H(erbert) or Wells, H(erbert) G(eorge), or Doyle, Sir Arthur Conan, etc.

It is interesting that this review could hardly be called a review in the proper sense of the word. Anthony Burgess has very little to say about the biography itself apart from a couple of remarks of a very superficial character like: СWith so little life to recount, Ms Gill has to concentrate on the booksТ and СMs Gill, who clearly knows her detective fiction, fits her subject deftly into the history of the genre.Т He uses this Сbrief biographyТ as a pretext to denigrate its subject, which he does with impressive skill although some of his arguments are rather thin and his tendency to look down upon the average reader is at times too strongly felt. Unlike Agatha Christie, who Сgleefully confessed herself to be a lowbrowТ, he never confesses himself to be a highbrow which he reveals himself at every step without, probably, realising it. Thus another point arises: does an author of a review while expounding on his literary tastes inevitably reveal something of his personality and if he does, in what way this personality manifests itself?

Another point for discussion could be the difference of opinion between Raymond Chandler and P.D. James on the subject of two types of murder (and consequently two types of crime in fiction): that belonging to Сthe mean streetsТ and that provoked by the Сtension between the surface law and order of a traditional English village and certain violent passions below the surface.Т

The discussion could be rounded off by bringing in another statement: Сthere is no evil in Agatha ChristieТs books and not much good either.Т In my view it simply does not hold water. Agatha Christie was a firm believer in Good and Evil. For her they were not abstract Сtheological entitiesТ but their very real manifestations in their eternal struggle and what matters most is that she always was on the side of Good, in full agreement with her own words in her Autobiography: СWhen I began writing detective stories I was not in any mood to criticise them or to think seriously about crime. The detective story was the story of the chase; it was also very much the story with a moral; in fact it was the Old Everyman Morality Tale, the hunting down of Evil and the triumph of Good.Т And this remained her guiding principle throughout her long life in literature.

From The Word Grammar to a Grammar of Discourse

Tatyana Komova

IN a foreign language learner-oriented grammar analysis it is very important to begin with a word-grammar. This approach was demonstrated in a number of the English DepartmentТs publications [1]. And this approach presupposes a number of guiding principles to be followed:

Ј the recognition of the postulate about the unity of grammatical form and grammatical content in a wordЦform;

Ј the recognition of the fact that a grammatical form is a bundle of categorial properties of the class the unit in question belongs to;

Ј the recognition of the possibility for the grammatical meaning to undergo some noticeable transpositions leading to the strengthening or to the weakening of one of the semantic components or even to its phraseologisation;

Ј the recognition of the fact that lexical and grammatical moments in a word are in a state of dialectic attraction or repulsion as well as lexis and grammar per se which results in the cases of grammaticalisation and lexicalisation, respectively etc.

These principles can well be put into reality of grammatical description as for example in what follows: СMr Smith was going home.Т Ц where we see the forms of the following words : Mr, Smith, was going, home.

Mr corresponds to Mister as its short form; Smith is a proper name; was going is a finite form of the verb УgoФ; home is unchangeable form of УhomeФ.

Thus, Mr and Mister are nouns and as nouns must share the same properties of a noun. Both must take Цs marker and become Mrs and Misters to denote plurality, both must take the apostrophe Сs to show possessivity: MrТs and MisterТs ( possibly MrsТ and MistersТ to show possessivity and plurality combined). However this ideal paradigm is violated by reality of usage. In LDSE (p.914) [2] one can read that СmisterТ is American spoken form used to address a man whose name you donТt know: УHey, mister, you dropped your paper.Ф At first sight for the foreign learner of English Mr/mister relationship can look very much like lab/laboratory one until s/he comes to realise that Mrs and labs cannot be interpreted by analogy alone. While labs is a regular plural form Mrs is semantically gender-specific and singular. So Mr and Mrs are both singular whereas lab and labs are number-specific: Mr is not formally marked for number neither for gender . Mr is said to be used as a title before a manТ family name when you are speaking to him or writing to him and want to be polite, and when you address a man in an official position (LDSE, p. 933)

Mrs is said to be used as a title before a married womanТs family name (thus implying that a woman is manТs or misterТs) and the relationship of possessivity although blurred by dropping the sign С can be traced back. Mrs is used when you are speaking or writing to a woman and want to be polite to her (LDSE, p. 934). No official situation is mentioned in reference to this title. Mr reveals some additional, situationally specific uses Ц as applied to President: Mr President sounds as official as Madam, and before capitalised adjectives like in: Mr Right Ц it is used to be said about a man who would be the perfect husband for a particular woman; when used with other adjectives like in: Mr Big Ц it is said to be used by a criminal community to address its leader and as a form of address it glides into informal style; Mr Clean is supposed to be always honest and obeying laws, while Mr Sarcasm is said to sound humorous as well as: No more Mr nice Guy! (op.cit., p.933).

So, we could describe the form Mr in reference to its combinability with nouns of social rank and adjectives of qualities and some stylistic peculiarities were shown to exist. In oral communication all written Mr and Mr + s become mister or mister+s. At the same time Mr and Mrs become full forms of Mister and Mistress (old use comparable to master), or rather Mister and [misiz]. For Mrs + N or Mrs + Adj there is also a tendency to be interpreted humorously when said about a married woman who has that quality: Mrs Superefficiency (op.cit.,p.934).

To sum up:

In Mr there is a reference to the singular form because there is no special grammatical formant and there is a gender reference also lacking formal expression, while in Mrs the formant -s is used to refer to gender and logically the form is understood as singular. Besides the same formant is marked for marital status (absent in the form Mr). Mr is thus unmarked for gender, number and marital status. The form Mrs is marked for gender and marital status being unmarked for number.

Smith Ц is a common family name etymologically describing one who works in iron [3 p.445], of Old English origin and found in other Germanic languages. As a common noun can have the singular and plural forms of number, common and possessive forms of case. As a family name it can refer to one single family member grammatically when marked by a-article: a Smith, if it becomes necessary to mention all the members of the family the-article is used together with the regular -s formant: the Smiths.

Is going Ц is a grammatical form of the verb to go, this finite form renders more than one categorial meanings. It helps us to recognise the time of the action (as present), the number in the subject (as singular), its person (as 3psn), the character of the action (shown as a process in which the subject is the agent). There are many other grammatical ideas that are recognised by the speaker and the listener, or the writer and the reader although unmarked in this particular form. When we give a full description of this form we are to say that it is not marked for emphasis, question, negation, taxis and voice as grammatical morphological categories (which acquire in language a particular grammatical Ц morphological expression. The material of description makes it absolutely clear that the English verb is much richer in its grammatical morphological properties than the English noun. While in the former there can be marked 11 grammatically important ideas, in the latter we saw much less in number.

Home Ц in the structure Сgo homeТ realizes a different meaning than that when home is used independently. СGoТ in the same structure realizes the meaning of moving away from the speaker, i.e. moving in a particular direction. If the place of your destination is Paris or another city СgoТ takes СtoТ as a preposition, if you go somewhere to see your parents or to stay with them the verb takes СtoТ as a preposition of purpose, and if you go home it does not take any special grammatical word. It is so because СhomeТ becomes slightly grammaticalised and behaves like an adverbial modifier СawayТ(it cannot be used in the plural form: go+homes). This is what can be said about each word in the sentence taken out of a broader context. Now let us look at the extract from the novel J.B. Priestley УAngel PavementФ:

СYes, Mr. Smith was going home. It never occurred to him to go and hear what was left of the concert. He had done with Brahms & Co. for a long time, perhaps for ever. As he waited for his tram, he remembered that tune again Ц Ta tum ta ta tum Ц and now it seemed like something that was going on a long, long way off, like a birthday party in Australia. He said good-bye to that tune. As the tram went lumbering and groaning up the City Road, he said good-bye to many things.

He was feeling rather queer. He had missed his usual evening meal and was empty. He had for years moved gingerly, apprehensively, through a world in which the worst might happen at any moment. The worst had happened. The more he thought about that, the angrier he grew.

You go on for years and years building up a position for yourself until at last you have a place of your own, a little world of your own, and everything is snug and sensibleЕ.Then a chap turns up from nowhereЕ and blows you clean out of it all Е . What was the good of trams going up and down the City Road and conductors taking fare and nobody smoking insideЕ? Е if this is what could happen any minute? My God! Ц What was the good of it all?Т

Now we can approach the verb Сto goТ in a number of other ways. First, the paragraph opens with Сyes, Mr. S. was going homeТ Ц where СyesТ presupposes the knowledge by the reader of what had happened. This word introduces a new portion of information about the character and the continuous form signals rheme in theme Ц rheme segmentation of content of the sentence. Besides it functions as a background for other events to be described. It fulfils a function of slowing down the narration and preparing us for the decision to be made, for the general conclusion to be drawn. СGoТ is used many times in different forms, in different combinations, like Сwas going homeТ, Сto go and hearТ, Сwas going onТ, Сgoing aroundТ in reference to the man; Сas the tram went lumberingТ, Сgoing up and downТ Ц references to the tram he was waiting for or going in; there is a synonymous support in using Сhe had moved gingerlyТ to emphasize changes in his mood and in the stream of his thoughts. The present plane is full of motion and as a result we see many continuous forms supported by participles and gerunds in Цing. The man is in despair and he turns back in his thoughts to what had happened before: we see the interplay of past indefinite and past perfect forms. The movement and thinking accompany each other: two paragraphs open with the similar grammatical structure thus equating the process of going and that of thinking: he was going home Ц he was feeling rather queer. In our thoughts we can swiftly pass from the present to the future or to the past. This is exactly the case with Mr. S. He starts thinking about his whole life as a failure and muses over: СYou go on for years building up a positionЕ and everything is snug and sensible.Т This idea is supported throughout the last paragraph with its philosophical climax:Т What was the good of it all?Т Thus we can conclude our short description by saying that in a particular context/situation the meaning of a grammatical form can be complicated by a general intention of a speaker/writer to produce a certain effect, and impact, by a type of narration/speech: be it direct speech or inner monologue, not interrupted by the narratorТs remarks or interrupted many times for changing the focus and building up the perspective ,for us to appreciate and enjoy.

References:

1. ќ.—. јхманова, ќ.¬. јлександрова ( ред.) ѕрактический курс английского ¤зыка. Ц ћосква: »зд-во ћ√”, 1989.

2. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English/ 3^rd edition. Ц Longman Group, 1995

3. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, ed. by T.F. Hoad. Ц OUP, 1993.

†

—тилизаци¤ под √отический –оман
в ќригинале и в ѕереводе
на материале отрывков из романа У”дольфские тайныФ и
У–оман в лесуФ јнны –эдклиф и УЌортенгерское аббатствоФ ƒжейн ќстен

онурбаев ћ.Ё., —еменюк ≈.¬.

††ќригинал

Ћитературоведческий энциклопедический словарь определ¤ет готический роман (Gothic novel/romance) как Уроман Уужасов и тайнФ в западноевропейской и американской литературах второй половины XVIII Ц первой половины XIX вв., отличительной чертой которого ¤вилась тематика и философи¤ Умирового злаФ. ¬озник как реакци¤ на рационализм просветительского романа. √отическому роману свойственно изображение сверхъестественного, загадочного, мрачного. —южеты, как правило, свод¤тс¤ к таинственным преступлени¤м, герои отмечены печатью рока и демонизмаФ[i]. —оздатели готического романа Ц английские писатели ’орас (√ораций) ”олпол, јнна –эдклиф[ii], ћ.√. Ћьюис (Ућонах ЋьюисФ, как его называли современники), „арльз ћэтьюрин.

ѕридуманный ими жанр вскоре стал очень попул¤рен и моден, превратившись в своего рода литературный ширпотреб; но на этом фоне творчество родоначальников жанра, например, јнны –эдклиф, выдел¤лось в лучшую сторону. ќна умела очаровывать читател¤, захватыва¤ его и создава¤ тот эффект, который позже, уже в XX веке, назовут УsuspenseФ. ¬альтер —котт был большим поклонником ее таланта, счита¤, что она умеет облечь в слова самые невыразимые чувства и страхи[iii]; ƒжейн ќстен считала, что в книгах –эдклиф едва ли можно найти правдоподобные характеры, но тем не менее она с большим уважением относилась к таланту –эдклиф и ее мастерству (см. далее).

Ќужно сразу отметить одну из самых главных особенностей готического романа. ≈го Уужасы и тайныФ не должны были пугать читател¤ до беспам¤тства: наоборот, они должны были доставл¤ть ему особое удовольствие, пробужда¤ в нем то, что в одном из романов јнна –эдклиф назвала Уpleasing dreadФ (см. далее, отрывок из У–омана в лесуФ). Ёто пон¤тие очень важно дл¤ всего жанра готического романа, и без учета этой его особенности едва ли можно объ¤снить его огромную попул¤рность. ¬ообще, готический роман выбирал своим предметом ужасное и возвышенное[iv], и сам ужас (horror) был оттого прит¤гателен и захватывал читател¤. —амо слово УhorrorФ имеет оттого в текстах этих романов совершенно особенное значение, сходное с упом¤нутым Уpleasing dreadФ. Ёто ключевое слово всего жанра.

„тобы составить представление об индивидуальном стиле јнны –эдклиф, мы исследуем два отрывка из двух ее произведений: У–оман в лесуФ и У“айны ”дольфского замкаФ. ќба фрагмента представл¤ют собой описание типичной дл¤ готического романа ужасов ситуации Ц столкновени¤ с загадочным, неизвестным и оттого пугающим.

ѕервый фрагмент Ц отрывок из второй главы У–омана в лесуФ. Ќочь; герои (изгнанный из ѕарижа двор¤нин Ћа ћотт, его жена, слуга ѕитер и јделина Ц девушка, которую Ћа ћотт спас от разбойников) только что приехали в незнакомое им место и при свете факелов исследуют залы и коридоры полуразрушенного древнего монастыр¤:

As they proceeded, Peter, who followed them, struck a light, and they entered the ruins by the flame of sticks that he had collected. The partial gleams thrown across the fabric seemed to make its desolation more solemn, with the obscurity of the greater part of the pile heightened its sublimity and led fancy on to scenes of horror. Adeline, who had hitherto remained in silence, now uttered an exclamation of mingled admiration and fear. A kind of pleasing dread thrilled her bosom and filled all her soul. Tears started into her eyes Ц she wished, yet feared to go on. She hung upon the arm of La Motte, and looked at him with a sort of hesitating interrogation.

He opened the door of the great hall, and they entered: its extent was lost in gloom. Ц УLet us stay hereФ, said Madame La Motte, УI will go no fartherФ. La Motte pointed to the broken roof, and was proceeding, when he was interrupted by an uncommon noise which passed along the hall. They were all silent Ц it was the silence of terror. Madame La Motte spoke first. УLet us quit this spotФ, said she, Уany evil is preferable to the feeling which now oppresses me. Let us retire instantlyФ. The stillness had for some time remained undisturbed, and La Motte, ashamed of the fear he had involuntarily betrayed, now thought it necessary to affect the boldness he did not feel. He therefore opposed ridicule to the terror of Madame, and insisted upon proceeding. Thus compelled to acquiesce, she traversed the hall with trembling steps. They came to a narrow passage, and PeterТs sticks being nearly exhausted, they awaited here while he went in search of more.

†The almost expiring light flashed faintly upon the walls of the passage, showing the recess more horrible. Across the hall, the greater part of which was concealed in shadow, the feeble ray spread a tremulous gleam, exhibiting the chasm in the roof, while many nameless objects wee seen imperfectly through the dusk. Adeline with a smile inquired of La Motte if he believed in spirits. The question was ill-timed, for the present scene impressed its terrors upon La Motte, and in spite of endeavour he felt a superstitious dread stealing upon him...[v]

ѕеред нами типичный пример готического романа. ¬о-первых, конечно, типична сама ситуаци¤ Ц исследование при неверном свете загадочного, полуразрушенного и зловещего здани¤. јвтор нагнетает напр¤жение, заставл¤¤ читател¤, затаив дыхание, ждать, что же ждет героев за следующей дверью. ћы видим, что повествование ведетс¤ как бы с точки зрени¤ персонажей, и автора занимают не только сама обстановка, но, в первую очередь, реакци¤ на нее героев Ц мы узнаем о чувствах, которые развалины старинного аббатства пробуждают у них.

роме того, мы можем наблюдать реализацию готического УстандартаФ и на уровне лексики. —очетание слов, выражающих ужас и красоту или грандиозность (to make its desolation more solemn, mingled admiration and fear), отражает ту прит¤гательность и возвышенность страшного, о которой уже говорилось выше. ¬ какой-то мере, чувства героев сходны с тем, что должен чувствовать в эту минуту и читатель: а kind of pleasing dread, she wished, yet feared to go on. ѕо¤вл¤етс¤ здесь и ключевое слово horror (или horrible) со своим особенным УготическимФ значением, о котором уже говорилось и которое становитс¤ очевидным из содержани¤ последующих предложений: У...scenes of horror. Adeline, who had hitherto remained in silence, now uttered an exclamation of mingled admiration and fear. A kind of pleasing dread thrilled her bosom and filled all her soulФ.

¬ создании готической обстановки важную роль играют и такие элементы, как непон¤тные, необычные, пугающие звуки: an uncommon noise which passed along the hall. ћы встречаем также множество синонимических выражений, описывающих темноту, сумерки, недостаток света: partial gleams, obscurity, gloom, expiring light flashed faintly, shadow, the feeble ray spread a tremulous gleam, dusk.

ак можно заметить, в целом отрывок написан в приподн¤том стиле, в нем много стилистически маркированных слов, например: hitherto, retire instantly, compelled to acquiesce, traversed и т.д. Ќужно, однако, заметить, что этот стиль присущ всему произведению, а не только тем его отрывкам, в которых речь идет о величественных или ужасных вещах (например, в этой же главе чуть далее Ћа ћотт разговаривает со слугой, ѕитером, в таких выражени¤х: Do be less tedious... if it is in thy nature; I commend your zeal in my cause; ...this, indeed, redeems your blunders и т.д. ¬ таком же стиле выдержан и авторский текст, например: Peter was now frightened into method, and endeavoured to proceed; La Motte made inquiries concerning the town, and found it was capable of supplying him with provision, and what little furniture was necessary to render the abbey habitable)[vi]. “аким образом, хот¤ объективно эти слова и конструкции и принадлежат к высокому стилю, в контексте этого произведени¤ они образуют нейтральный слой лексики. Ёто св¤зано с тем, что, как уже было упом¤нуто ранее, готический роман описывал Уужасное и возвышенноеФ, что, конечно же, накладывало отпечаток на весь стиль таких произведений.

Ќа уровне стилистически маркированной лексики в отрывке можно выделить несколько интересных аспектов. ¬ыше мы уже говорили об общей стилевой окраске основного массива слов. ѕредставл¤етс¤ также небесполезным рассмотреть встречающиес¤ в тексте атрибутивные словосочетани¤.

ак нам кажетс¤, их можно поделить на три группы. ќснованием будет служить точка зрени¤, с которой они характеризуют предмет[vii]:

a) группа определений чисто описательного, УвнешнегоФ характера, нейтральных по отношению к эмоциональному настрою отрывка и с точки зрени¤ эмоционально-экспрессивных характеристик составных элементов: greater part, great hall, broken roof, narrow passage, present scene;

b) определени¤ УизнутриФ, описывающее душевное состо¤ние персонажей, их воспри¤тие ситуации Ц т.е., имеющие чисто эмоциональную окраску: pleasing dread, hesitating interrogation, и, скорее всего, nameless objects;

c) определени¤ УвнешнегоФ характера, описывающие также и внутреннее состо¤ние героев или их воспри¤тие происход¤щего, т.е. сочетающие в себе объективное описание и субъективное воспри¤тие и выполн¤ющие как эмоциональную, так и экспрессивную функцию: partial gleams, uncommon noise, trembling steps, expiring light, feeble ray, tremulous gleam, superstitious dread.

Ћегко пон¤ть, что, если от определений первой группы зависит объективное описание обстановки, то именно определени¤ второй и третьей группы отвечают за создание общего эмоционального настро¤ отрывка, поскольку описывают (полностью или частично) воспри¤тие персонажей и передают их чувства читателю. √раница между словами второй и третьей группы довольно размыта. ≈сть, конечно, бесспорные случаи: pleasing dread не может быть ни в коей мере внешним определением, а определение trembling steps, описыва¤ объективные характеристики походки мадам Ћа ћотт, сообщает нам также нечто и о ее внутреннем состо¤нии. —ловосочетание же uncommon noise, как мне кажетс¤, будет представл¤ть собой некий пограничный случай, поскольку дол¤ объективности в этом описании может быть предметом дл¤ дискуссии.

≈ще один аспект текста, заслуживающий внимани¤ Ц это то, как в нем создаетс¤ эффект ожидани¤, напр¤жение, динамика. ¬ отрывке, как уже было сказано ранее, встречаетс¤ много слов, которые обозначают темноту, слабый неверный свет, что, с одной стороны, дает объективную картинку происход¤щего, а с другой, описывает и состо¤ние персонажей, ведь темнота здесь Ц это и неизвестность, неопределенность, опасность. ак и герои, мы ожидаем, что из этой темноты вот-вот по¤витс¤ что-нибудь угрожающее, и это держит нас в напр¤жении. Ќеполные описани¤ дают читателю простор дл¤ фантазии, помогают ему достроить картину и увидеть перед своим внутренним взором то, чего не стал сообщать автор.

—озданию этого эффекта способствует и другой прием, который мы можем наблюдать в этом отрывке. ћожно заметить, что отрывок начинаетс¤ с описани¤ обстановки (The partial gleams thrown across the fabric seemed to make its desolation more solemn, with the obscurity of the greater part of the pile heightened its sublimity and led fancy on to scenes of horror; The almost expiring light flashed faintly upon the walls of the passage, showing the recess more horrible. Across the hall, the greater part of which was concealed in shadow, the feeble ray spread a tremulous gleam, exhibiting the chasm in the roof, while many nameless objects wee seen imperfectly through the dusk), а вторую его часть составл¤ет реакци¤ на эту обстановку персонажей (Adeline, who had hitherto remained in silence, now uttered an exclamation of mingled admiration and fear. A kind of pleasing dread thrilled her bosom and filled all her soul. Tears started into her eyes Ц she wished, yet feared to go on. She hung upon the arm of La Motte, and looked at him with a sort of hesitating interrogation; Adeline with a smile inquired of La Motte if he believed in spirits. The question was ill-timed, for the present scene impressed its terrors upon La Motte, and in spite of endeavour he felt a superstitious dread stealing upon him). “аким образом, читатель сначала сам составл¤ет представление о происход¤щем, а уже потом начинает сопереживать геро¤м и проникатьс¤ их чувствами.

”¤снив общий характер текста, обратимс¤ к его отдельным Ђдекоративнымї компонентам, которые придают описанным выше пон¤тийным и лексическим характеристиками дополнительную выразительность. ќсобую значимость с этой точки зрени¤ имеет звукова¤ сторона отрывка. ≈сли мы попробуем прочитать его вслух, то поймем, что делать это очень легко: отрывок ритмичен, в нем преобладают сонорные звуки (The partial gleams thrown across the fabric seemed to make its desolation more solemn, with the obscurity of the greater part of the pile heightened its sublimity and led fancy on to scenes of horror), отчего текст звучит гладко и легко читаетс¤ вслух. ¬еро¤тно, это не случайно, поскольку чтение вслух было весьма распространено во времена јнны –эдклиф, и может быть, именно такой способ воспри¤ти¤ своего романа она прежде всего и имела в виду. тому же, такое ритмичное, плавное течение повествовани¤ как бы захватывает читател¤, погружает его в атмосферу книги.

* * *

√ероин¤ второго романа, У”дольфские тайныФ, отрывок из двадцать четвертой главы которого мы будем рассматривать Ц Ёмили¤. Ёто молода¤ девушка, гост¤ща¤ в замке ”дольфо, хоз¤ин которого Ц жестокий ћонтони Ц женат на ее тетке. ќн резок и груб со всеми, кто осмеливаетс¤ ему перечить, и даже свою собственную жену отправл¤ет в страшную ¬осточную башню, когда она отказываетс¤ подчинитьс¤ ему. Ёмили¤ отправл¤етс¤ туда, чтобы найти свою тетку и помочь ей, но внезапно девушке приходит в голову, что та могла быть убита.

The image of her aunt murdered Ц murdered, perhaps, by the hand of Montoni, rose to her mind; she trembled, gasped for breath Ц repented that she had dared to venture hither, and checked her steps. But after she had paused a few minutes, the consciousness of her duty returned as she went on. Still all was silent. At length a track of blood upon a stair caught her eye; and instantly she perceived that the wall and several other steps were stained. She paused, again struggled to support herself, and the lamp almost fell from her trembling hand. Still no sound was heard, no living being seemed to inhabit the turret: a thousand times she wished herself again in her chamber; dreaded to inquire further Ц dreaded to encounter some horrible spectacle Ц and yet could not resolve, now that she was so near the termination of her efforts, to desist form them. Having again collected courage to proceed, after ascending about half way up the turret she came to another door; but here again she stopped in hesitation, listened for the sounds within and then summoning all her resolution, unclosed it, and entered a chamber, which, as her lamp shot its feeble rays through the darkness, seemed to exhibit only dew-stained and deserted walls. As she stood examining it, in fearful expectation of discovering the remains of her unfortunate aunt, she perceived something lying in an obscure corner of the room, and struck with a horrible conviction, she became for a moment motionless and nearly insensible. Then with a kind of desperate resolution she hurried towards the object that excited her terror, when, perceiving the clothes of some person on the floor, she caught hold of them, and found in her grasp the old uniform of a soldier, beneath which appeared a heap of pikes and other arms. Scarcely daring to trust her sight, she continued for some moments to gaze on the object of her late alarm; and then left the chamber, so much comforted and occupied by the conviction that her aunt was not there, that she was going to descend the turret without inquiring further; when, on turning to do so, she observed upon some steps on the second flight an appearance of blood; and remembered that there was yet another chamber to be explored, she again followed the windings of the ascent. Still, as she ascended, the track of blood glared upon the stairs.

It led her to the door of a landing-place that terminated them, but she was unable to follow it further. Now that she was so near the sought-for certainty, she dreaded to know it even more than before, and had not fortitude sufficient to speak, or to attempt opening the door.

Having listened in vain for some sound that might confirm or destroy her fears, she at length laid her hand on the lock, and finding it fastened, called on Madame Montoni; but only a chilling silence ensued.

СShe is dead!Т she cried, Ц Сmurdered! her blood is on the stairs!Т

Emily grew very faint; could support herself no longer; and had scarcely presence of mind to set down the lamp, and place herself on a step. <...>

The gray of morning had long dawned through her casements before Emily closed her eyes in sleep; when wearied nature at length yielded her a respite from suffering.[viii]

јнализиру¤ этот отрывок с тех же позиций, что и первый, мы увидим, что и в нем мы имеем дело с типичной Уготической ситуациейФ: девушка на пороге ужасного открыти¤, в незнакомой обстановке, во власти опасного, непредсказуемого человека Ц ћонтони. —нова мы встречаем слова, передающие ужас, испуг: trembling hand, dreaded, horrible, terror и т.д. —нова описаны необычные звуки Ц точнее, зловещее молчание: no sound was heard, chilling silence и т.д.; снова героиню окружает темнота: her lamp shot its feeble rays through the darkness, obscure corner. —нова мы воспринимаем происход¤щее глазами героини.

ак и первый отрывок, этот фрагмент ритмичен, он легко читаетс¤ вслух, в нем много сонорных согласных (The image of her aunt murdered Ц murdered, perhaps, by the hand of Montoni, rose to her mind; she trembled, gasped for breath Ц repented that she had ventured hither...).

≈сть сходство и в стиле. ак и в случае с первым отрывком, приходитс¤ говорить об относительной стилистической нейтральности элементов, принадлежащих к высокому стилю (таких как, например, repented, hither, inhabit, termination, had not fortitude sufficient to speak), так как и здесь они составл¤ют нейтральный слой лексики, употребл¤емый на всем прот¤жении романа.

ак и в первом случае, мы можем поделить встречающиес¤ в тексте определени¤, по тому же основанию, на три группы. первой (УвнешнихФ, нейтральных описаний) мы отнесем такие словосочетани¤, как living being, another door, old uniform. ¬о вторую группу (эмоциональные определени¤ УизнутриФ, выражающие воспри¤тие персонажа) попадут такие словосочетани¤, как horrible spectacle, fearful expectation, unfortunate aunt, horrible conviction, desperate resolution, chilling silence. третьей группе (смешанной, или эмоционально-экспрессивной, где УвнешнееФ определение описывает предмет еще и в его воспри¤тии персонажем или служит средством создани¤ особого настро¤) можно отнести нижеследующие словосочетани¤: feeble rays, deserted walls, obscure corner и т.д. ¬полне пон¤тно, что словосочетани¤ выполн¤ют те же функции, которые мы выделили и при анализе первого отрывка (УвнешниеФ определени¤ описывают объективную картину происход¤щего, а определени¤ УизнутриФ и УсмешанныеФ подают нам ее такой, какой она видитс¤ персонажам, через их субъективную интерпретацию). ак и ранее, можно выделить среди этих словосочетаний бесспорные и пограничные случаи.

* * *

“аким образом, мы можем заключить, что оба отрывка написаны в едином стиле, с использованием сходных приемов. Ёкспрессивно значимыми элементами романа јнны –эдклиф ¤вл¤ютс¤ как его содержание (загадки, тайны; описание заброшенных, слабо освещенных помещений, пугающих звуков и т.д.), так и особенности плана выражени¤, среди которых главную роль играют фонетические и лексико-синтаксические средства. ¬ фонетическом плане роман отличаетс¤ плавностью повествовани¤ и оттого легко читаетс¤ и воспринимаетс¤ на слух. — точки зрени¤ лексико-синтаксических средств выдел¤ютс¤ стилистически возвышенна¤ лексика, эмоционально и экспрессивно маркированные ¤зыковые единицы, а также синтаксические приемы повышени¤ стил¤. »менно эти элементы несут основную нагрузку при создании экспрессивно-эмоционального фона, атмосферы этого жанра. онечно, повествование не целиком состоит из подобных сцен, но именно они представл¤ют нам стиль готических романов в его самом характерном виде.

«на¤ теперь характерные особенности этого жанра, мы можем перейти к анализу примеров стилизации под него и рассмотреть, каков же набор элементов оригинального текста, на которых строитс¤ стилизаци¤, использует ли автор-стилизатор дл¤ создани¤ текста, похожего на готический роман, те же самые приемы или иные, пользуетс¤ ли он какими-то дополнительными приемами и т.д.

†

—тилизаци¤

¬ качестве примера стилизованного текста мы возьмем отрывок из романа ƒжейн ќстен УЌортенгерское аббатствоФ. нига считаетс¤ первым большим произведением ќстен; роман был закончен в 1803 году. ќпубликовать его, однако, удалось лишь посмертно, в 1818 году.

Ёто произведение ¤вл¤етс¤ пародией на готический Уроман ужасов и тайнФ, но тем не менее, как уже было сказано, ƒжейн ќстен с уважением относилась к творчеству јнны –эдклиф. ƒаже в уста главного геро¤ Ц рассудительного мистера “илни, который подсмеиваетс¤ над героиней, этрин, из-за ее прив¤занности к готическим романам Ц она вкладывает похвалу ее книгам: УI have read all Mrs. RadcliffeТs works, and most of them with great pleasure. The Mysteries of Udolpho, when I had once begun it, I could not lay down again; I remember finishing it in two days, my hair standing on end the whole timeФ[ix]. ќднако, отдава¤ должное таланту јнны –эдклиф, ƒжейн ќстен пишет далее: УCharming as were all Mrs. RadcliffeТs works, and charming even as were the works of all her imitators, it was not in the perhaps that human nature, at least in the midland counties of England, were to be looked forФ[x].

–оман не основан целиком на пародировании стил¤ готических романов. Ќа самом деле, это вполне остеновское повествование о молодой провинциальной девушке, ее выходе в Убольшой светФ, обретении новых друзей и счастливой любви. ќднако с самого начала ƒжейн ќстен дает пон¤ть, что этот роман нужно воспринимать на фоне столь распространенных в то врем¤ Уроманов ужасовФ и в противопоставлении им. —амо название книги готовит искушенного читател¤ к готическим приключени¤м Ц ведь аббатство, нар¤ду со старинным замком, Ц это самое распространенное место действи¤ Уромана ужасовФ, но здесь, как мы увидим, это ожидание оправдываетс¤ не вполне. ѕисательница посто¤нно сравнивает действи¤ своих персонажей с тем, что делали бы в такой же обстановке герои готического романа. ѕро свою героиню, этрин ћорленд, она в первой же фразе говорит: УNo one who had ever seen Catherine Morland in her infancy would have supposed her born to be an heroineФ, а потом продолжает, последовательно противопоставл¤¤ этрин героин¤м романов, которые обычно либо сироты, либо страдают от жестокости родителей:

Her father was a clergyman, without being neglected or poor... and he was not in the least addicted to locking up his daughters. Her mother was a woman of useful plain sense... She had three sons before Catherine was born; and, instead of dying in bringing the latter into the world, as anybody might expect, she still lived on Ц lived to have six children more Ц to see them growing up around her, and to enjoy excellent health herself[xi].

этрин часто попадает в такие же ситуации, что и героини ее любимых романов, и ƒжейн ќстен описывает это с ироничной насмешкой, причем скорее над читателем, чем над своей героиней. ѕолага¤, что читатель уже достаточно поднаторел в различного рода готических и приключенческих клише, она нарочно обманывает его ожидани¤, сначала описыва¤ то, чего он, конечно же, ожидает, а потом за¤вл¤¤, что на самом деле все было наоборот. ќдин из примеров Ц сцена отъезда этрин ћорленд из родного дома в первой главе. ƒевушка в сопровождении знакомых собираетс¤ на воды в Ѕат, и ƒжейн ќстен пишет:

When the hour of departure drew near, the maternal anxiety of Mrs. Morland will be naturally supposed to be most severe. A thousand alarming presentiments of evil to her beloved Catherine from this terrific separation must oppress her heart with sadness, and drown her in tears for the last day or two of their being together; and advice of the most important and applicable nature must of course flow from her wise lips in their parting conference in her closet. Cautions against the violence of such noblemen and baronets as delight in forcing young ladies away to some remote farm-house, must, at such a moment, relieve the fullness of her heart. Who would not think so? But...<...> Her cautions were confined to the following points: СI beg, Catherine, you will always wrap yourself up very warm about the throat when you come home from the Rooms at night...Т[xii]

»ронический эффект создаетс¤, во-первых, лексически: напыщенный литературный стиль (a thousand alarming presentiments of evil, terrific separation, parting conference) не соответствует той довольно обыденной ситуации, которую он описывает, и всему образу жизни и поведени¤ простой провинциальной семьи ћорленд. ¬о-вторых, присутствует эффект обманутого ожидани¤: мудрый материнский совет, к которому подводит весь отрывок, оказываетс¤ всего лишь банальным напоминанием о теплой одежде. Ќо даже и до того, как обнаруживаетс¤ это несоответствие, ирони¤ очевидна в том, как ƒжейн ќстен как бы принимает готические клише как нормальный, ожидаемый стиль поведени¤ Ц по крайней мере, героев в романе: Caution... must, at such a moment, relieve the fullness of her heart. Who would not think so? (или ранее: instead of dying in bringing the latter into the world, as anybody might expect, she still lived on), тем самым ¤рко вы¤вл¤¤ его нежизнеподобие.

ќднако не всегда ирони¤ настолько очевидна. ≈сть, по крайней мере, один фрагмент, где мы имеем дело с насто¤щей стилизацией и в тексте почти нет юмора, так что читатель может даже начать сомневатьс¤: уж не оказалась ли книга, в конце концов, насто¤щим готическим романом? Ётот отрывок описывает уже знакомую нам типичную ситуацию из Уромана ужасовФ: гост¤ в Ќортенгерском аббатстве, этрин обнаруживает старинный шкаф, а в нем Ц загадочную рукопись. », хот¤ всего несколько страниц назад √енри “илни рассказывал этрин шуточную страшную историю именно про то, как она найдет такую рукопись у себ¤ в комнате, стилизаци¤ сделана настолько тонко и правдоподобно, что иронична¤ улыбка, по¤вл¤юща¤с¤ у читател¤ в начале этого отрывка, постепенно сходит на нет, уступа¤ место удивлению и даже страху[xiii]:

The fire, therefore, died away; and Catherine, having spent the best part of an hour in her arrangements, was beginning to think of stepping into bed, when, on giving a parting glance round the room, she was struck by the appearance of a high, old-fashioned black cabinet, which though in a situation conspicuous enough, had never caught her notice before. <...> She took her candle and looked closely at the cabinet. <...> The key was in the door, and she had a strange fancy to look into it; not, however, with the smallest expectation of finding anything, but it was so very odd, after what Henry had said. In short, she could not sleep till she had examined it. So, placing the candle with great caution on a chair, she seized the key with a very tremulous hand, and tried to turn it; but it resisted her utmost strength. Alarmed but not discouraged, she tried it another way; a bolt flew, and she believed herself successful; but how strangely mysterious! The door was still immovable. She paused a moment in breathless wonder. The wind roared down the chimney, the rain beat in torrents against the windows, and everything seemed to speak of the awfulness of her situation. <...>

CatherineТs heart beat quick, but her courage did not fail her. With a cheek flushed by hope, and an eye straining with curiosity, her fingers grasped the handle of a drawer and drew it forth. It was entirely empty. <...> Well read in the art of concealing a treasure, the possibility of false linings to the drawers did not escape her, and she felt round each with anxious acuteness in vain. The place in the middle alone remained now unexplored... <...> It was some time, however, before she could unfasten the door, the same difficulty occurring in the management of this inner lock as of the outer; but at length it did open; and not in vain, as hitherto, was her search; her quick eyes directly fell on a roll of paper pushed back into the further part of the cavity, apparently for concealment, and her feelings at that moment were indescribable. Her heart fluttered, her knees trembled, and her cheeks grew pale. She seized, with an unsteady hand, the precious manuscript, for half a glance sufficed to ascertain written characters... <...>

The dimness of the light her candle emitted made her turn to it with alarm; but there was no danger of its sudden extinction, it had yet some hours to burn; and that she might not have any greater difficulty in distinguishing the writing that what its ancient date might occasion, she hastily snuffed it. Alas! it was snuffed and extinguished in one. <...> Catherine, for a few moments, was motionless with horror. <...> Darkness impenetrable and immovable filled the room. A violent gust of wind, rising with sudden fury, added fresh horror to the moment. Catherine trembled from head to foot. In the pause which succeeded, a sound like receding footsteps and the closing of a distant door struck her affrighted ear. Human nature could support no more. A cold sweat stood on her forehead, the manuscript fell from her hand, and groping her way to the bed, she jumped hastily in and sought some suspensions of agony by creeping far underneath the clothes. To close her eyes in sleep that night she felt must be entirely out of question. With a curiosity so justly awakened, and feelings in every way so agitated, repose must be absolutely impossible. The storm, too, abroad so dreadful! She had not been used to feel alarm from wind, but now every blast seemed fraught with awful intelligence. The manuscript so wonderfully found, so wonderfully accomplishing the morningТs prediction, how was it to be accounted for? What could it contain? to whom could it relate? by what means could it have been so long concealed? and how singularly strange that it should fall to her lot to discover it! Till she had made herself mistress of its contents, however, she could not have neither repose nor comfort; and with the sunТs first rays she was determined to peruse it. <...> She shuddered, tossed about in her bed, and envied every quiet sleeper. The storm still raged, and various were the noises, more terrific even than the wind, which struck at intervals on her startled ear. The very curtains of her bed seemed at one moment in motion, and at another the lock of her door was agitated, as if by the attempt of somebody to enter. Hollow murmurs seemed to creep along the gallery, and more than once her blood was chilled by the sound of distant moans. Hour after hour passed away, and the wearied Catherine had heard three proclaimed by all the clocks in the house, before the tempest subsided, or she unknowingly fell fast asleep.[xiv]

ак мы видим, этот отрывок по стилю очень походит на те отрывки из книг јнны –эдклиф, которые мы исследовали ранее. —амое главное Ц совпадает сама ситуаци¤ (героин¤ перед необъ¤снимой загадкой). ћы находим здесь и описание непогоды, сопровождающей все происход¤щее (The wind roared down the chimney, the rain beat in torrents against the windows), и несколько раз повторенное слово horror Ц ключевое, как уже говорилось, слово дл¤ всего этого жанра, а также другие слова и словосочетани¤, описывающие удивление и страх Ц a very tremulous hand, how strangely mysterious, breathless wonder. ак и в готическом романе, главный интерес представл¤ет не столько сама ситуаци¤, сколько переживани¤ геро¤ в этой обстановке, все подаетс¤ с его (ее) точки зрени¤. ак и в насто¤щем Уромане ужасовФ, ƒжейн ќстен постепенно нагнетает эмоции: постепенно исследу¤ все ¤щики, этрин подбираетс¤ к главной тайне шкафчика, и напр¤жение растет по мере ее приближени¤ к истине, достига¤ своего апоге¤ в момент, когда она остаетс¤ в темноте. ќсобенный интерес представл¤ет фраза Human nature could support no more. Ќам кажетс¤, что это нельз¤ считать примером иронического использовани¤ романтического клише, как мы видели в примерах, исследованных ранее. Ќа наш взгл¤д, здесь ƒжейн ќстен серьезна, описыва¤ состо¤ние своей героини.

ќднако, легка¤ ирони¤ по отношению к героине, конечно же, присутствует в этом отрывке. ¬ основном это происходит тогда, когда этрин как бы выбиваетс¤ из роли героини готического романа и ведет себ¤ как пристало девушке начала XIX века, опытной читательнице такой литературы. ¬ таких местах очевиден контраст между общим стилем отрывка и стилем, в котором этрин размышл¤ет: УThe key was in the door, and she had a strange fancy to look into it; not, however, with the smallest expectation of finding anything, but it was so very odd, after what Henry had said. In short, she could not sleep till she had examined it. So, placing the candle with great caution on a chair, she seized the key with a very tremulous hand...Ф ѕодобное мы видим и далее по тексту, когда этрин думает о загадочном манускрипте: УTo close her eyes in sleep that night she felt must be entirely out of question. With a curiosity so justly awakened, and feelings in every way so agitated, repose must be absolutely impossibleФ. ¬едь здесь этрин ведет себ¤ уже не как героин¤, а как читатель готических романов, хорошо знающий их клише, и заснуть дл¤ нее невозможно не только потому, что она взволнована, но и потому, что в романах это не полагаетс¤ делать в такой ситуации (неслучайно здесь использован глагол must, у которого есть оттенок внешнего принуждени¤) Ц см. хот¤ бы цитировавшийс¤ выше отрывок из У”дольфских тайнФ. ƒалее, однако, ирони¤ снова исчезает, и глава заканчиваетс¤ серьезно (и оп¤ть, последние несколько предложений разительно напоминают заключительный абзац 24 главы романа јнны –эдклиф).

—ледующа¤ же глава, как и положено, приносит разгадку тайны, и здесь становитс¤ очевидно, что это и самом деле пароди¤: загадочный манускрипт оказываетс¤ всего-навсего описью бель¤, а замок с секретом был открыт с самого начала, а этрин сама заперла его. “акое несоответствие и создает ¤ркий иронический эффект. ƒалее же, когда и другие Уужасные тайныФ аббатства Ќортенгер оказываютс¤ обыкновенными и легко объ¤снимыми происшестви¤ми, этрин полностью разочаровываетс¤ в приключенческом романе и более не ищет в нем правдоподобного описани¤ человеческой природы: УThe visions of romance were over. Catherine was completely awakenedФ[xv].

“аким образом, с помощью пародии ƒжейн ќстен развенчивает романтический идеал и, признава¤ его занимательность, отказывает ему в правдоподобии. ќна показывает, что ужасные тайны и демонические страсти не встречаютс¤ нигде, кроме как на страницах приключенческих романов; ими можно наслаждатьс¤ в часы досуга, но пытатьс¤ искать их в реальной жизни не стоит Ц вот один из уроков, который преподает нам этот роман.

»так, мы вы¤снили, что основными стилевыми характеристиками романа УЌортенгерское аббатствоФ ¤вл¤ютс¤:

Јирони¤, котора¤ отличает стиль ƒжейн ќстен вообще;

ЈУнаправленна¤Ф ирони¤ по отношению а) к готическому идеалу и б) к героине романа, этрин, и ее романтическим грезам. ќба этих подвида иронии про¤вл¤ютс¤ в контрастах на пон¤тийном уровне (когда древний манускрипт на поверку оказываетс¤ описью бель¤) и на уровне лексики (противопостав≠ление возвышенной лексики и обыденного содержани¤, как в эпизоде отъезда этрин в Ѕат, или противопоставление возвышенной и нейтральной лексики, как в эпизоде со шкафом, где она выступает то в роли героини, то в роли читательницы приключенческих романов).

Јстилизованные отрывки характеризуютс¤ также использованием в них возвышенной, книжной лексики.

“еперь мы перейдем к анализу переводов произведений јнны –эдклиф и ƒжейн ќстен на русский ¤зык и посмотрим, сохранены ли в них выделенные нам особенности этих текстов.

ѕеревод оригинала

ќбратимс¤ теперь к переводам романов јнны –эдклиф на русский ¤зык. сожалению, вы¤снилось, что роман У”дольфские тайныФ, по-видимому, не переводилс¤ на русский ¤зык, поэтому нам придетс¤ ограничитьс¤ только одним произведением: У–оман в лесуФ јнны –эдклиф был переведен на русский ¤зык ≈. ». ћалыхиной и выпущен в серии У√отический романФ издательством УЋадомирФ в 1999 году[xvi].

Ётот перевод вполне можно признать удачным. ѕереводчику удалось передать торжественный, местами даже несколько архаичный стиль оригинала при помощи маркиро≠ванной лексики, синтаксических приемов и т.д., например:

перевод	ср. оригинал
ѕомещение, в коем он оказалс¤, некогда служило, по-видимому, монастырской часовней, где звучали молитвы и раздавались пока¤нные рыдани¤ Ц звуки, которые ныне могла воскресить лишь фантази¤: судьба ка¤вшихс¤ с тех пор давно уж решилась. <...> ¬ид этого огромного сооружени¤, повергнутого в руины, обратил его помыслы ко временам давно минувшим. <...> »з часовни он прошел в неф большой церкви, одно окно которой, сохранившеес¤ лучше других, открывало взгл¤ду лесные дали и пышные краски закатного неба, неуловимо мен¤вшего тона, пока по всей горней выси не разлилс¤ торжественный серый цвет...[xvii]	He entered what appeared to have been the chapel of the abbey, where the hymn of devotion had once been raised and the tear of penitence had once been shed: sounds which could now only be recalled by imagination Ц tears of penitence which had been long fixed in fate. <...> He surveyed the vastness of the place, and as he contemplated its ruins, fancy bore him back to past ages. <...> From this chapel he passed into a nave of the great church. Of which one window, more perfect than the rest, opened upon a long vista of the forest, through which was seen he rich colouring of evening, melting by imperceptible gradations into the solemn grey of upper air...[xviii]

¬ этом отрывке мы находим и возвышенную лексику (Ув коемФ, УнынеФ, Уповергнутый в руиныФ), и инверсию (Уко временам давно минувшимФ). ќсобенно удачно, как нам кажетс¤, переведено выражение upper air Ц Угорн¤¤ высьФ. ќтрывок легко читаетс¤ вслух; его синтаксическа¤ организаци¤ не создает затруднений и при чтении про себ¤. “аким же образом переведена и вс¤ книга, отчего ее при¤тно и интересно читать.

–ассмотрим теперь, как переведен отрывок из второй главы У–омана в лесуФ, который мы подробно анализировали в первой части этого раздела:

ѕитер, замыкавший шествие, высек огонь, и они подошли к полуразрушенному зданию при свете горевших сучьев, подобранных им по дороге. ¬ неверных бликах света сооружение представилось путникам еще более мрачным в своем запустении, а так как больша¤ часть здани¤ тер¤лась в непрогл¤дной тьме, это лишь подчеркивало грандиозные его размеры и вызывало в воображении сцены ужасов. јделина, до сих пор хранивша¤ молчание, издала негромкий возглас, в котором смешались восхищение и страх. ≈е грудь трепетала от сладкого ужаса, переполн¤вшего душу. ¬ ее глазах сто¤ли слезы Ц ей хотелось, но было и страшно идти дальше. ќна уцепилась за руку Ћа ћотта и взгл¤нула на него с тревожным вопросом.

ќн отворил окованные двери, что вели в большую залу, и они вошли; размеры залы тер¤лись во мраке.

- ќстанемс¤ здесь, Ц сказала мадам Ћа ћотт, Ц ¤ дальше не пойду.

Ћа ћотт указал на зи¤ющую крышу и двинулс¤ было дальше, но вдруг его остановил странный шум, пронесшийс¤ по зале. ¬се замерли в молчании, пронзенные ужасом. ѕервой заговорила мадам Ћа ћотт.

- ”йдем отсюда, Ц сказала она, Ц любое бедствие лучше того чувства, какое сейчас душит мен¤. ”далимс¤ немедленно!

Ќекоторое врем¤ тишину ничто более не нарушало, и Ћа ћотт, устыдившись невольно про¤вленного им страха, счел необходимым выказать мужество, какого вовсе не ощущал в себе. ј посему он высме¤л страхи мадам Ћа ћотт и насто¤л на том, чтобы продолжить путь. ¬ынужденна¤ следовать за ним, мадам Ћа ћотт пересекла залу, едва держась на ногах. ќни оказались у входа в узкий коридор и, так как у ѕитера кончились сучь¤, решили здесь подождать, пока он пополнит запас.

ƒогоравший факел тускло освещал стены коридора, обнаружива¤ ужасающую картину разрушени¤. —лабый свет его разбрасывал трепещущие блики по зале, больша¤ часть которой утопала во мраке, ¤вл¤¤ взору темную дыру крыши; сквозь мглу повсюду проступали не¤сные очертани¤ каких-то непон¤тных предметов. јделина с улыбкой спросила Ћа ћотта, верит ли он в привидени¤. ¬опрос был задан в неудачный момент, так как все, что видел пред собою Ћа ћотт, внушало ему страх, и он, как ни старалс¤ перебороть себ¤, чувствовал, что его охватывает мистический ужас...[xix]

ѕо пон¤тным причинам, мы не будем останавливатьс¤ на пон¤тийной стороне отрывка: содержание перевода, естественно, идентично оригинальному (если, конечно, это хороший перевод), и поэтому не имеет смысла снова обсуждать чисто содержательные аспекты текста и то, как в них про¤вл¤ютс¤ особенности готического романа. Ќе будем мы затрагивать и организацию переводного текста с точки зрени¤ композиции, потому что и она совпадает с композицией оригинала Ц ведь мы имеем дело с переводом, а не с пересказом. ‘актически, нас интересуют только ¤зыковые, в первую очередь Ц стилевые особенности переводного текста.

ак мы видим, с точки зрени¤ ¤зыка анализируемый отрывок переведен совершенно адекватно. ѕереводчик верно передал самые важные, лингвопоэтически значимые элементы текста: как мы помним, сочетание слов, выражающих ужас и восхищение дл¤ готического романа ¤вл¤етс¤ ключевым, и ≈. ћалыхина сумела передать это и по-русски: Увозглас, в котором смешались восхищение и страхФ, Усладкий ужасФ. „асто встречаютс¤ слова УстрахФ и УужасФ, которые, как мы уже говорили, также очень важны дл¤ реализации Уготического идеалаФ.

ћы встречаем много стилистически маркированных слов Ц архаичных или относ¤щихс¤ к высокому стилю, Ц передающих возвышенный стиль оригинала, например: УпутникиФ, Уудалимс¤Ф, Узи¤юща¤ крышаФ, УпосемуФ, Уобнаружива¤ ужасающую картину запустени¤Ф, Уутопала во мракеФ и т.д. јдекватной передаче стил¤ способствуют и выбранные переводчиком синтаксические обороты: инверси¤ (Уграндиозные его размерыФ, Услабый его светФ), выбор союзов (Удвери, что вели в залуФ, Учувство, какое сейчас душит мен¤Ф). ак и в оригинале, объективно возвышенна¤ лексика составл¤ет здесь нейтральный слой, поскольку присуща всему произведению в целом и не выполн¤ет каких-то особых экспрессивно-эмоциональных функций.

„то касаетс¤ перевода выделенных нами в оригинале трех групп атрибутивных словосочетаний, то и здесь их характеристики сохран¤ютс¤ в переводе, например:

a) †словосочетани¤, нейтральные с точки зрени¤ эмоционально-экспрессивных характеристик, объективное описание: narrow passage Ц Уузкий коридорФ;

b) †эмоционально окрашенные словосочетани¤, Увзгл¤д изнутриФ: pleasing dread, hesitating interrogation Ц Усладкий ужасФ, Утревожный вопросФ;

c) †эмоционально-экспрессивные словосочетани¤, сочетание Увзгл¤да изнутриФ и объективного описани¤: partial gleams, uncommon noise, superstitious dread Ц Уневерные бликиФ, Устранный шумФ, Умистический ужасФ.

—тоит, однако, отметить, что есть случаи, когда словосочетание в переводе относитс¤ к иной группе, нежели оригинальное. ѕримером может служить словосочетание Узи¤юща¤ крышаФ (в оригинале Ц broken roof). Ћегко заметить, что слово Узи¤юща¤Ф не ¤вл¤етс¤ нейтральным, как исходное broken: У“олковый словарь русского ¤зыкаФ ќжегова дает при глаголе Узи¤тьФ помету УкнижноеФ[xx]. “аким образом, переводчик привнес в это словосочетание стилистическую маркированность, которой не было в оригинале.

≈сть и такие случаи, когда слово или словосочетание, не ¤вл¤вшеес¤ нейтральным в оригинале, становитс¤ таким в переводе, например: Ућадам Ћа ћотт пересекла залу, едва держась на ногахФ (в оригинале: She traversed the hall with trembling steps). —лово traverse в словаре издательства УЋонгманФ даетс¤ с пометой УformalФ[xxi], в то врем¤ как глагол УпересечьФ стилистически нейтрален.

»скажени¤ такого рода Ц на УгоризонтальномФ уровне Ц неизбежны при переводе, и дл¤ сохранени¤ единства текста и адекватности перевода переводчик имеет право компенсировать потерю стилистического или другого приема, введ¤ схожий прием там, где его нет в оригинале. “ам и в нашем случае: потер¤в книжное, возвышенное слово (traversed) в одном месте, перевод≠чик вводит подобное ему (Узи¤юща¤Ф) в другое. “аким образом сохран¤етс¤ баланс маркированных и нейтральных элементов текста, и искажение не затрагивает УвертикальныйФ уровень, не приводит к нарушению содержательного и стилистического единства текста. тому же описанные случаи не очень многочисленны: в нашем отрывке эти два примера исчерпывают список искажений такого рода.

¬ сочетании все эти элементы и приемы дают читателю вполне соответствующее истине представление об оригинальном тексте как с точки зрени¤ содержани¤, так и относительно его общей стилевой окраски и лингвопоэтической составл¤ющей.

“аким образом, мы можем сделать вывод, что дл¤ адекватной передачи стил¤ оригинала переводчик использовал те же самые ¤зыковые приемы, что и автор:

Јвозвышенна¤ или архаична¤ лексика, стилистически маркированные синтаксические обороты;

Јэкспрессивно и эмоционально маркированные атрибутивные словосочетани¤ и пр.

Јв некоторых случа¤х переводчица изменила исходный текст, но восстановила баланс, прибегнув к приему компенсации.

¬се это и позволило ≈. ». ћалыхиной добитьс¤ в своем переводе пон¤тийной и стилистической близости к оригиналу и представить его нам неискаженным.

ѕеревод стилизованного текста

ќбратимс¤ теперь к переводу романа, сделанному ».—.ћаршаком и опубликованному в трехтомном —обрании сочинений ƒжейн ќстен, которое вышло в 1988 г. в издательстве У’удожественна¤ литератураФ[xxii]. сожалению, этот перевод едва ли можно назвать удачным. ћы, однако, не будем останавливатьс¤ на его достоинствах и недостатках вообще. ≈динственное, о чем хотелось бы сказать в св¤зи с этим переводом, это то, что легкий и очень пон¤тный стиль ƒжейн ќстен часто не находит адекватного отражени¤ в тексте, созданном ». ћаршаком, с его довольно сложным синтаксисом и нагромождением подчинительных конструкций, часто дословно перенесенным из оригинала, отчего текст становитс¤ непростым дл¤ воспри¤ти¤ как при чтении про себ¤, так и на слух; часто неправильно переведены отдельные слова. ћы не будем углубл¤тьс¤ в этот вопрос, а просто посмотрим на несколько предложений из перевода, чтобы составить себе общее представление о нем:

перевод	ср. оригинал
≈й всегда нравились мальчишеские игры Ц крикет она предпочитала не только куклам, но даже таким возвышенным развлечени¤м поры детства, как воспитание мышки, кормление канарейки или поливка цветочной клумбы[xxiii].	She was fond of all boysТ plays, and greatly preferred cricket, not merely to dolls, but to the more heroic enjoyments of infancy, nursing a dormouse, feeding a canary-bird, or watering a rose-bush[xxiv].

ак мы видим, этот маленький отрывок, хоть в пон¤тийном плане и не искажает оригинала, но написан не очень хорошим русским ¤зыком. “акое впечатление складываетс¤ и из-за цепочки родительных падежей (Уразвлечени¤м поры детстваФ), и из-за использовани¤ существительных там, где естественней прозвучали бы по-русски глаголы (Увоспитание мышки, кормление канарейки или поливка цветочной клумбыФ). Ќесколько слов переведены неправильно: dormouse Ц это не мышка, а сон¤ (вспомним Ујлису в —тране чудесФ), а rose-bush Ц это не клумба, а розовый куст. ≈ще одно неадекватно переведенное слово Ц heroic. ¬ принципе, УвозвышенныйФ Ц вполне приемлемый вариант перевода, но переводчик не учел, что это слово имеет лингвопоэтическую нагрузку, отсыла¤ читател¤ ко всей идее книги Ц противопоставлению романтического идеала и реальности. «десь heroic Ц не просто УвозвышенныйФ, а Уприличествующий героине приключенческого романаФ (ср. уже упоминавшеес¤ первое предложение романа ƒжейн ќстен: УNo one who had ever seen Catherine Morland in her infancy would have supposed her born to be an heroineФ).

—очетание всех этих недочетов в совокупности и делает перевод неадекватным. Ёто станет еще более очевидно, когда мы рассмотрим по очереди перевод тех отрывков, на которые мы обращали внимание при анализе оригинала.

»так, первый отрывок Ц из первой главы романа:

ќтец ее был св¤щенником, не бедным и забитым, а, напротив, весьма преуспевающим... и ему не было нужды держать дочек в черном теле. ћать ее отличалась рассудительностью и добрым нравом... ≈ще до этрин она успела родить трех сыновей, а произвед¤ на свет дочку, отнюдь не умерла, но продолжала жить на земле, прижила еще шестерых детей и растила весь выводок в полном благополучии[xxv].

— самого начала романа неадекватный перевод искажает впечатление, которое должно складыватьс¤ у читател¤. ¬ этом отрывке содержатс¤ две очень важные фразы, отсылающие читател¤ к пародируемому жанру готического романа и указывающие на то, что это именно пароди¤, и обе они в переводе искажены. ѕерва¤ Ц he was not in the least addicted to locking up his daughters, потому что именно УготическиеФ отцы известны своей жестокостью, склонностью к тому, чтобы держать дочерей взаперти. ¬ переводе же мы читаем всего-навсего про обеспеченного человека, которому Уне было нужды держать дочек в черном телеФ. ак мы видим, переводчик просто неправильно передал смысл этой фразы по-русски, сн¤в ее пародийный зар¤д, так что никакой ассоциации с готическим романом в сознании читател¤ не возникает.

¬торую фразу, очень важную дл¤ создани¤ нужного настроени¤, находим в описании миссис ћорленд (в переводе Ц ћорланд): instead of dying in bringing the latter into the world, as anybody might expect, she still lived on. ¬ переводе: Уа произвед¤ на свет дочку, отнюдь не умерла, но продолжала жить на землеФ. «десь переводчик просто опустил важнейшую часть предложени¤. ак мы говорили, ƒжейн ќстен добиваетс¤ сильного иронического эффекта именно притвор¤¤сь, будто готический стандарт и есть естественный путь мышлени¤ и поведени¤, и таким образом показыва¤ его несосто¤тельность. ¬ этом смысле фраза as anybody might expect очень важна не только со стилистической, но и с лингвопоэтической точки зрени¤, т.к. она напр¤мую св¤зана со всем содержанием книги, со всем ее пародийным смыслом. ѕереводчик же, видимо, не пон¤в этого, просто опустил эту часть предложени¤, обеднив текст и частично лишив его иронического звучани¤: ирони¤ УвообщеФ, котора¤ ¤вл¤етс¤ отличительно чертой стил¤ ƒжейн ќстен, сохранилась (ее можно почувствовать, например, в выборе слов), а ирони¤ Унаправленна¤Ф, насмешка именно над романтическим клише, исчезла.

ѕерейдем теперь ко второму отрывку из первой главы, в котором описываютс¤ чувства миссис ћорленд при разлуке с дочерью:

ѕо мере приближени¤ минуты отъезда материнска¤ озабоченность миссис ћорланд, естественно, должна была крайне усилитьс¤. “ыс¤чи опасностей, подстерегавших ее любимую этрин во врем¤ жестокой разлуки, не могли не тревожить ее сердце дурными предчувстви¤ми и в последние два-три дн¤ пребывани¤ дочери под отеческим кровом не исторгать у нее то и дело потоки слез. –азумеетс¤, во врем¤ прощальной беседы в материнской спальне с ее мудрых уст должен был слететь самый важный практический совет Ц из ее сердца не могло не вырватьс¤ предостережение, касающеес¤ бесчувственных лордов и баронетов, которые тешат себе душу, соблазн¤¤ молодых леди и увоз¤ их в свои отдаленные поместь¤. ƒа и кто бы об этом не подумал? ќднако... <...> ≈е заботы ограничились только следующими пунктами:

- ѕожалуйста, этрин, получше закутывай шею, выход¤ с бала...[xxvi]

†

ак мы помним, здесь в оригинале дл¤ создани¤ иронического эффекта используетс¤ контраст Ц во-первых, возвышенной лексики на прот¤жении абзаца и вполне банального его завершени¤, и, во-вторых, как и в предыдущем отрывке Ц несоответствие совершенно ординарной ситуации готическому идеалу. „то касаетс¤ лексики, то переводчик также использует слова, относ¤щиес¤ к возвышенному стилю (напр.: Упод отеческим кровомФ, УисторгатьФ), но их удельный вес несколько меньше, чем в оригинале. ѕоэтому ¤зыковой контраст между стилем всего абзаца и его, на этом фоне, сниженным завершением, кажетс¤ несколько менее ¤вным.

„то же касаетс¤ контраста пон¤тийного Ц противопоставлени¤ романтического идеала и реальности Ц то, как мы помним, ƒжейн ќстен и здесь пользуетс¤ дл¤ создани¤ этого эффекта таким же приемом, что и в предыдущем отрывке. «десь это выражено в предложении УWho would not think so?Ф. » снова перевод≠чик допускает неточность, свод¤щую на нет весь смысл этой фразы, передав ее по-русски как Уƒа и кто бы об этом не подумал?Ф –азница очевидна: в оригинале этот вопрос значит: У акой же здравомысл¤щий человек не предположил бы, что она поступит именно так?Ф, т.е. речь идет о читателе (или писателе) готических романов (который здесь выступает в роли любого Уздравомысл¤щего человекаФ), а в переводе: Уƒа и кака¤ друга¤ мать поступила бы по-другому?Ф, т.е. полностью тер¤етс¤ ирони¤, тот контраст, в котором и состоит главна¤ лингвопоэтическа¤ нагрузка этой фразы.

ѕерейдем теперь к анализу отрывка из 21 главы, где стилизаци¤ под готический роман наиболее очевидна, а ирони¤, как мы уже говорили, присутствует лишь в небольшой степени (если мы читаем его соответствующим образом Ц см. раздел 2).

амин догорел, и этрин, потратив добрых полчаса на приготовлени¤, хотела было уже улечьс¤ в постель, когда, осмотрев напоследок комнату, остановила взгл¤д на высоком старомодном черном шкафу, который, хоть и сто¤л достаточно на виду, почему-то раньше не был ею замечен. ≈й тотчас же вспомнилс¤ рассказ √енри Ц описание шкафа из черного дерева, сначала ¤кобы ускользнувшего от ее внимани¤. » хот¤ оно на самом деле мало что значило, необычайное совпадение показалось ей все же странным. ќна вз¤ла свечу и внимательно осмотрела шкаф. <...> ¬ замок был вставлен ключ, и она почувствовала странное желание загл¤нуть внутрь Ц разумеетс¤, вовсе не ожида¤ найти там что-то особенное, но ощуща¤ любопытство под вли¤нием утреннего рассказа √енри. ороче говор¤, не загл¤нув в шкаф, она не могла бы уснуть. ѕоэтому, поставив осторожно свечу на стул, она схватилась за ключ и дрожащей рукой попробовала его повернуть. «амок не отпиралс¤, несмотр¤ ни на какие усили¤. “ревожась, но не сдава¤сь, она попробовала повернуть ключ в другую сторону. «амок щелкнул, и она уже вообразила, что добилась своего. Ќо что за чертовщина? ƒверца по-прежнему не поддавалась. этрин на минуту замерла от удивлени¤. ¬етер завывал в дымовой трубе, струи дожд¤ хлестали по окнам, Ц решительно во всем ощущалось нечто зловещее. ќднако укладыватьс¤ в постель, ничего не добившись, было бессмысленно, Ц она не могла бы уснуть, помн¤ о наход¤щемс¤ р¤дом таинственном запертом шкафе. ѕоэтому она снова вз¤лась за ключ и, враща¤ его в обе стороны с отча¤нием последней попытки, вдруг почувствовала, что дверца качнулась. ќбрадованна¤ одержанной победой, она распахнула обе створки. ¬тора¤ створка удерживалась лишь задвижкой, менее сложной, чем замок, на первый взгл¤д тоже мало чем примечательный. ¬нутри этрин увидела два р¤да маленьких ¤щичков между более крупными ¤щиками сверху и снизу и маленькую дверцу посередине, также со вставленным в замочек ключом, прикрывавшую, очевидно, главное вместилище.

—ердце этрин учащенно билось, но она не тер¤ла мужества. — выражением надежды на лице и гор¤щим от любопытства взором она ухватилась за ручку ¤щика и пот¤нула его к себе. ќн оказалс¤ пустым. <...> ’орошо знакома¤ по прочитанным книгам с тем, как пр¤чут сокровища, она не забыла о возможности существовани¤ у ¤щиков фальшивого дна, судорожно, но тщетно ощупав каждый из них изнутри. ќставалось не обследованным только среднее отделение. <...> ѕрошло, однако, некоторое врем¤, прежде чем ей удалось открыть дверцу, Ц внутренний замок оказалс¤ столь же капризным, как и наружный. ¬ конце концов и он отомкнулс¤. » здесь ее поиски оказались не такими тщетными, какими были до сих пор. ∆адный взор этрин тотчас же заметил задвинутый в глубину, очевидно дл¤ лучшей сохранности, бумажный сверток Ц и ее чувства в этот момент едва ли поддаютс¤ описанию. Ћицо ее побледнело, сердце трепетало, колени дрожали. Ќеверной рукой она схватила драгоценную рукопись, Ц одного взгл¤да было достаточно, чтоб различить на бумаге письмена... <...>

ћерцание свечи заставило ее со страхом огл¤нутьс¤. —веча не могла скоро погаснуть Ц ее должно было хватить на несколько часов. » чтобы избегнуть вс¤ких помех, кроме затруднений при чтении старинного текста, этрин поспешно сн¤ла с нее нагар. ”вы, при этом она ее погасила. <...> Ќа несколько мгновений охваченна¤ ужасом этрин окаменела. <...> Ќепроницаема¤, бескрайн¤¤ тьма залила комнату. ∆естокий порыв ветра, взревевший с внезапной свирепостью, усугубил ужас этой минуты. этрин дрожала с головы до ног. ¬ наступившей затем тишине ее встревоженный слух как бы различил удал¤ющиес¤ шаги и отдаленный стук закрывшейс¤ двери. Ёто было выше человеческих сил. Ћоб ее покрылс¤ испариной, сверток выпал из рук. ќщупью отыскав постель, она сразу же зарылась в нее с головой, стара¤сь хоть немного успокоить свое волненье. ќ том, что ей удастс¤ сомкнуть глаза, нельз¤ было и подумать, Ц в таком возбуждении, охваченна¤ таким естественным любопытством, она, разумеетс¤, была не способна заснуть. ќна не могла припомнить подобной бури. ќбычно этрин мало обращала внимани¤ на погоду, но сейчас каждый порыв ветра словно был полн каких-то зловещих предзнаменований. –укопись, найденна¤ при таких необычайных обсто¤тельствах, такое странное совпадение с утренним разговором, Ц какое этому могло быть дано объ¤снение? „то она содержала, к кому была обращена? аким образом она так долго оставалась незамеченной? » как раз на долю этрин выпало ее найти! ≈й не удастс¤ ни успокоитьс¤, ни отдохнуть, прежде чем она не узнает ее содержани¤. » она приметс¤ за чтение с первыми же лучами солнца. <...>

≈е тр¤сло, и она то и дело поворачивалась в постели, завиду¤ сп¤щим. Ѕур¤ неистовствовала по-прежнему, и до ее встревоженного слуха доходили самые необыкновенные звуки. ≈ще более пугающие, чем завывание ветра. ¬ какую-то минуту ей показалось, что зашевелилс¤ даже полог ее кровати, в другую Ц что кто-то, пыта¤сь войти к ней в комнату, возитс¤ с дверным замком. »з галереи доносилось глухое бормотанье, и не раз ее кровь леденела в жилах при звуках отдаленных стонов. ѕроходил час за часом, и измученна¤ этрин услышала, как все часы в доме пробили три, прежде чем бур¤ стихла или сама она незаметно дл¤ себ¤ погрузилась в глубокий сон.[xxvii]

≈сли мы рассмотрим, как переданы в переводе все те особенности оригинального текста, которые мы вы¤вили в процессе анализа, то сможем сделать несколько наблюдений.

†¬о-первых, словосочетани¤, выражающие удивление и страх, переведены не совсем верно. Ќапример, a very tremulous hand становитс¤ просто Удрожащей рукойФ, а She paused a moment in breathless wonder Ц Уна минуту замерла от удивлени¤Ф. ¬ обоих случа¤х опущен усилительный элемент, отчего впечатление, естественно, ослабевает. ≈сть и совершенно вопиющий случай стилевого разнобо¤, когда восклицание How strangely mysterious! переведено как УЌо что за чертовщина?Ф ак нам кажетс¤, и без пространных объ¤снений ¤сно, что слово УчертовщинаФ в данном случае совершенно не подходит ни к стилю книги, ни к ситуации, ни к характеру героини.

≈сть ошибки и в, так сказать, перспективе воспри¤ти¤. ‘раза Уwith a cheek flushed by hope and an eye straining with curiosityФ переведена как Ус выражением надежды на лице и гор¤щим от любопытства взоромФ, хот¤ совершенно пон¤тно, что, поскольку в комнате, кроме этрин, никого нет, то это описание дано изнутри, это то, как она себ¤ чувствует, а не то, как она выгл¤дит (не говор¤ уже о том, что фраза вообще переведена достаточно вольно).

Ќедостаточно ¤вно, как мне кажетс¤, передана ирони¤ ƒжейн ќстен по отношению к этрин. “от контраст на стилевом уровне, который возникает, когда этрин переходит от роли романтической героини к роли читательницы готического романа, в переводе отражен слабее, чем в оригинале, например: У... разумеетс¤, вовсе не ожида¤ найти там что-то особенное, но ощуща¤ любопытство под вли¤нием утреннего рассказа √енри. ороче говор¤, не загл¤нув в шкаф, она не могла бы уснутьФ. ¬торое предложение реализует стилевой контраст, а первое, как нам кажетс¤, Ц нет (не говор¤ уже о сомнительном в стилистическом отношении обороте Уощуща¤ любопытство под вли¤нием... рассказаФ). Ќа наш взгл¤д, здесь следовало бы несколько снизить стиль Ц так, как это и есть в оригинале.

ѕодвод¤ итог проведенному анализу, можно сказать, что переводчик, к сожалению, не совсем справилс¤ со своей задачей. “о ли по небрежности, то ли по незнанию, он не перенес в русский текст некоторые очень важные элементы, на которых и держитс¤ весь пародийный эффект, исказив, таким образом, произведение. ћожно выделить следующие особенности перевода ». —. ћаршака:

Јблагодар¤ использованию соответствующей лексики, ему удалось сохранить общий иронический настрой оригинального текста;

Јоднако Унаправленна¤Ф ирони¤ по отношению к готическому роману в р¤де случаев ослаблена, а в некоторых фрагментах просто исчезла из-за того, что лингвопоэтически важные элементы (отдельные слова или контрасты, см. выше) переведены неправильно или не переведены вообще;

Јимеютс¤ также немотивированные искажени¤ на чисто лексическом уровне (напр., rosebush Ц Уцветочна¤ клумбаФ).

ѕри этом такие упущени¤ не могут быть объ¤снены невозможностью адекватного перевода этих элементов, и потому перевод ». —. ћаршака приходитс¤ признать неудачным и несоответствующим оригиналу.

ѕримечани¤:

1. Ћитературоведческий энциклопедический словарь (ѕод общ. ред. ¬. ћ. ожевникова, ѕ. ј. Ќиколаева. –ед. кол.: Ћ. √. јндреев, Ќ. ». Ѕалашов, ј. √. Ѕочаров и др.) Ц ћ.: —ов. энциклопеди¤, 1987. Ц —тр. 79

2. —тоит сразу отметить, что существует несколько вариантов транслитерации этого имени: –эдклиф, –эдклифф, –адклиф. ћы следуем УкомпромиссномуФ первому варианту.

3. ср. јтарова . јнна –эдклифф и ее врем¤. Ц ¬ кн.: –эдклифф ј. –оман в лесу. –оман. Ц ѕер. с англ. ≈. ћалыхиной. Ц ћ.: Ћадомир, 1999, стр. 8

4. ср. “ам же, стр. 9

5. “ам же, стр. 45

6. “ам же, стр. 52-53

7. Ќужно отметить, что предложенна¤ в этой работе классификаци¤ не ¤вл¤етс¤ общеприн¤той. ¬опрос классификации атрибутивных словосочетаний разрабатывалс¤ на кафедре английского ¤зыкознани¤ достаточно долгое врем¤ (в этой св¤зи можно вспомнить исследовани¤ ј. —. ћико¤н, —. √ “ер-ћинасовой и пр.), и в результате было выделено п¤ть категорий, с точки зрени¤ которых можно классифицировать словосочетани¤, таких как коннотативность, клишированность, идиоматичность и т.д. ј. ј. Ћипгарт в своей работе Ућетоды лингвопоэтического исследовани¤Ф (ћ: ћосковский лицей, 1997) приходит к выводу, что эта классификаци¤ не вполне подходит дл¤ целей лингвопоэтического анализа, и предлагает свою, основанную на вы¤влении лингвопоэтической функции словосочетани¤ (стр. 53 и далее). Ќам же показалось целесообразным предложить дл¤ нашего исследовани¤ собственную классификацию, котора¤ основана на выделении экспрессивно-эмоциональных характеристик словосочетаний. —в¤зано это с тем, что стилизаци¤, которой посв¤щено насто¤щее исследование, реализуетс¤ в основном именно на уровне экспрессивных, декоративных элементов текста, а потому именно эти характеристики целесообразно положить в основу классификации.

8. Ann Radcliffe. The Mysteries of Udolpho. A Romance. Ц Lnd., NY, n.d. Ц p. 154

9. Jane Austen. Northanger Abbey. Ц Penguin Popular Classics, 1994. Ц стр. 95

10. “ам же, стр. 184

11. “ам же, стр. 1

12. “ам же, стр. 6

13. ћ.¬. ¬ербицка¤, однако, относит этот отрывок к категории т.н. УобратныхФ текстов, т.е воспри¤тие его в качестве пародийного или непародийного текста Узависит исключительно от его тембрального звучани¤Ф (см. ¬ербицка¤ ћ.¬. ‘илологические основы литературной пародии и пародировани¤. ƒиссертаци¤ на соискание ученой степени кандидата филологических наук. Ц ћ.: ћ√”, 1980, стр. 88)

14. “ам же, стр. 153-156

15. “ам же, стр. 183

16. –эдклифф, ј. –оман в лесу. –оман: ѕер. с англ. ≈. ћалыхиной. Ц ћ.: Ћадомир, 1999 (—ери¤ У√отический романФ)

17. “ам же, стр. 26-27

18. –эдклиф ј. –оман в лесу. ќстин ƒж. Ќортенгерское аббатство. Ц —тр. 42-43

19. –эдклифф, ј. –оман в лесу. —тр. 28-29

20. ќжегов, — ». » Ўведова, Ќ. ё. “олковый словарь русского ¤зыка/–оссийска¤ јЌ, »н-т рус. ¤з; –оссийский фонд культуры. Ц ћ.: јзъ Ltd., 1992. —тр. 235

21. Longman Dictionary of Language and Culture. © Longman Group, UK, 1992, стр. 1411

22. ќстен, ƒж. —обрание сочинений. ¬ 3-х т. “.2. Ц ћ.: ’удож. лит., 1988

23. “ам же, стр. 8

24. Austen, J. ”каз. соч., стр. 1-2

25. ќстен, ƒж. ”каз. соч., стр. 8

26. “ам же, стр. 12

27. “ам же, стр. 151-153

The Russian Peasant Speech Characteristics in the Translation of Anton ChekhovТs Story
УOn the Sacred NightФ
(linguopoetic estimation)

Marklen E. Konurbayev

The number of local speech characteristics in fiction fulfilling expressive function can be exceedingly great. Taken together they create a unique emotional atmosphere without which a piece of writing would contain nothing but a record of certain facts of doubtful conceptual or aesthetic significance. Inability to find similarly expressive units in the target language in the course of translation may end up with a complete failure to render Уthe emotional spiritФ of the original narration which in many cases appears to be the only УdeviceФ turning a trivial enough uneventful story with practically no philosophic generalisations into a masterpiece of literary writing.

Not infrequently such domineering expressivity is achieved through the reproduction of dialectal peculiarities and speech habits of uneducated peasants, soldiers, sailors or some other social groups of a speech community. The whole pleasure and enjoyments from the reading of such texts lies in the comprehension of the implied integrated auditory image incorporating local speech characteristics of different personages of a literary text. The choice of a locally specific vocabulary and syntactic arrangement of lexical units in the sentence is invariably associated with a particular mode of enunciation and articulatory peculiarities and it is usually a great difficulty for a translator to find such lexical correlates in the target language that would create a similar auditory effect.

Let me consider an example Ц two English translations of Anton ChekhovТs short story У—в¤тою ночьюФ (On the Sacred Night).

On the Easter Eve some man intends to cross the river by a ferry. While the ferry is taking him to the other side of the river where a festive celebration of ChristТs resurrection in the church has already begun, he is talking to the monk who laments the death of his friend Ц a talented writer of akaphists. But shortly before this man embarks on a ferry he exchanges a couple of words with a peasant who stands next to him on the river bank:

†

Ц ак, однако, долго нет парома! Ц сказал ¤.

Ц ј пора ему быть, Ц ответил мне силуэт.

Ц “ы тоже дожида≠ешьс¤ парома?

Ц Ќет, ¤ так ... зев≠нул мужик, Ц люмина≠ции дожидаюсь. ѕо≠е≠хал бы, да, приз≠нать≠с¤, п¤тачка на па≠ром нет.

Ц я тебе дам п¤та≠чок.

Ц Ќет, благодарим покорно ... ”жо на этот п¤тачок ты за мен¤ там в монастыре свечку поставь ... Ётак любопытней будет, а ¤ и тут постою. —кажи на милость, нет паро≠ма! —ловно в воду ка≠нул!

СHow long the ferry-boat is in coming!Т I said.

СIt is time it was here,Т the silhouette answered.

СYou are waiting for the ferry-boat, too?Т

СNo I am not,Т yawned the peasant--СI am waiting for the illumination. I should have gone, but to tell you the truth, I havenТt the five kopecks for the ferry,Т

СIТll give you the five kopecks.Т

СNo; I humbly thank you. . . . With that five kopecks put up a candle for me over there in the monastery. . . . That will be more interesting, and I will stand here. What can it mean, no ferry-boat, as though it had sunk in the water!Т

(Translated by Cons≠tance Garnett, 1919)

СHow slow the ferry is in coming!Т I said.

СIt is time it was here,Т answered the dark figure.

СAre you waiting for it, too?Т

СNo; I am just waiting.Т yawned the peasant. СI want to see the Сlumination. I would go across, only I havenТt five copecks for the ferry.Т

СIТll give you five copecks.Т

СNo, thank you kindly; you can keep them and burn a candle for me when you reach the monastery. It will be better so, and I will stand here. And that ferry-boat hasnТt come yet! Has it sunk?Т

(Wordsworth Classics)

†

This dialogue is only lightly marked by the local speech characteristics. Occasional expressive elements in the original Russian text featuring the peasant and his interlocutor are translated mostly by means of compensation. The peasant is trying to be polite to the stranger but his speech is slow and lazy and some of his remarks are logically incomplete and incomprehensible. For the Russian reader such features of speech are purely expressive Ц they do not carry any other information except the mood and the disposition of a speaker and are in fact very familiar to all of us:

†

Ц “ы тоже дожидаешьс¤ парома?

Ц Ќет, ¤ так ... зевнул мужик, ...

...

Ц я тебе дам п¤тачок.

Ц Ќет, благодарим покорно ... ”жо на этот п¤тачок ты за мен¤ там в монастыре свечку поставь ... Ётак любопытней будет, а ¤ и тут постою. —кажи на милость, нет парома! —ловно в воду канул!

†

The reply УЌет ¤ так ...Ф is a sort of a conversational sleech which would usually leave the interlocutor baffled and confused. The translation of Constance Garnett Ц No, I am not Ц does not express this implication at all. Her variant sounds as a very categorical statement, which could hardly be followed by a yawn as we observe in this context. Wordsworth ClassicsТ translation seems to be more successful in this respect Ц СNo; I am just waiting.Т yawned the peasant creates nearly the same effect as the Russian utterance does.

Constance GarnettТs variant for the phrase благодарим покорно Ц I humbly thank you Ц is contextually inconsistent. The Oxford English Dictionary on CD-Rom gives three examples with this adverbial phrase and all of them imply the expression of gratitude to a socially superior person:

†

1705 De Foe in Lett. Lit. Men (Camden) 322, I humbly thank your Lordship for the freedom of access you were pleasТd to give my messenger.

1611 Middleton & Dekker Roaring Girl ii. i, I humbly thank your good mistresship.

1585 Hatton in Ld. Campbell Chancellors (1857) II. xlv. 273, I most humbly thank your sacred Majesty for your two late recomfortations.

†

In the 19^th century the phrase благодарю покорно was just a polite way of expressing gratitude which did not necessarily suggest a social difference of the speakers. In this sense the Wordsworth ClassicsТ translation Ц thank you kindly Ц is certainly better.

Another expressive element in this extract is the Russian archaic dialectism ужо, which according to the Dictionary of Vladimir DalТ means later Ц Упогод¤, позже, после, как будет пора или досуг, не теперьФ. Contance Garnet, it seems, omits this element altogether. The only attempt that she makes at somewhat colloquializing the speech of the peasant to make up for the absence of the relevant English archaic element that would be more or less easily comprehended by the modern readers is the use of the wrong agreement between the numeral, the noun and the pronoun: . . . . With that five kopecks put up a candle for me over there in the monastery. . . . Although this expressive shade does not correspond to the original, roughly speaking it could be used here purely УsemioticallyФ to indicate the style difference between the too speakers. Wordsworth Classics translation suggests a different solution: it transfers the essence of this part of conversation in pure English without marking the difference in style: you can keep them and burn a candle for me when you reach the monastery.

I assume the correct translation of this Russian expressive element into English lies somewhere between the two suggested variants, for neither of them is truly faithful to the original Ц one of them translates the meaning without expressing inherent stylistic qualities of the lexical element in question, while the other one completely ignores the meaning of it, obviously taking the semantic side of the word ужо as being absolutely linguopoetically irrelevant in this context, and only suggests some other expressive devices for the conversation.

The same concerns the peasantТs remark Ётак любопытней будет, а ¤ и тут постою where the word любопытно does not realize its semantics to the full and is used purely expressively, realising several emotional shades at once. What the peasant could actually mean is not at all clear from the context. His usage of the word любопытно could imply simultaneously more unusual, more interesting, more adequate, better, etc. However none of these meanings is expressed clearly and distinctly in this context and the translators were in fact free to choose the variant they preferred Ц and so they did. The only tiny requirement that should have been observed by the translators of this story is that the English word standing for the Russian любопытнее should be Уsemantically deficientФ and somewhat unusual in this context and bear purely attitudinal connotations Ц and none of the translator in fact achieves this goal:

†

That will be more interesting, and I will stand here. (Constance Garnett)

It will be better so, and I will stand here. (Wordsworth Classics)

†

However a somewhat clumsier variant of Constance Garnett seems to be more suitable for the expression of a stylistic difference between the speakers. The same concerns the last exclamation of impatience —кажи на милость!

On the whole the Wordsworth Classics translation of this episode sounds more refined than the translation of Constance Garnett, but surely less expressive. However the smooth flow of the conversation in Wordsworth Classics in correct and plain English throughout the whole dialogue allows the reader to forget himself in the context much better than in the translation of Constance Garnett. The latter actually makes us feel that this is not a piece of authentic English writing but a translation.

Besides, in my opinion, Wordsworth Classics made a much better preference in this short story ignoring the expressivity of smaller episodes and concentrating on the key situation Ц the dialogue between the stranger and the monk where the latter was describing humility and supreme spiritual purity of his friend, monk Nicolas who had just died and who had been exceptionally good at writing akaphists.

The emotional and expressive essence of the description is in the combination of words depicting the character of monk Nicolas and occasional quotations of his and other akaphists. And again the Russian text abounds in all sorts of old-fashioned ways of expression interspersed with clerical vocabulary and ministerial syntax. The Russian tradition of ecclesiastic writing and homiletics Ц particularly at the end of the 19^th century, when most of Anton ChekhovТs short stories were written Ц was invariably associated with the use of Church-Slavonic Ц the South Slavic language into which Kyrillos and Methodos translated the Gospels in the ninth century A.D [4]. Even at the time of Chekhov the language was extinct as vernacular Old Bulgarian but extant as the official language of the Orthodox Church and the use of it in the monkТs speech evoked a wonderful atmosphere of church service with its specific sumptuousness and resplendence. The monkТs speech flows slowly and melodiously and the reader is mesmerised by the simplicity and lucidity of ideas and solemnity of tone which the orthodox preachers would often use to win the hearts of their parishioners.

This unique expressive feature of the text in question could hardly be adequately revealed in the English language without alluding to the language of the English Bibles of the 16^th-17^th century (Miles Coverdale, William Tyndale and the King James Version). This sort of stylisation was rather successfully used in the translation of Anton ChekhovТs short story. Generally speaking the translators make the right decision: being unable to render individual peculiarities of the monkТs speech they naturally concentrate on creating the expressivity of a different sort: monk Ieronim speaks of the verbal beauty of his friendТs akaphists and the translators, following his description, try to reproduce this specific beauty of expression in the English language as well. At least for the English reader this solution seems to be perfectly justified and certainly much better, than the necessity to force oneТs way through the imperfections of the English style in the vain attempt to reveal in general the archaic syntax and vocabulary of the source text. Besides it seems to be perfectly in tune with Anton ChekhovТs own credo of a writer which he very clearly explained in his letter to editor A.N. Pleshcheev on October 4, 1888: УI am afraid of those who will look for tendenciousness between the lines and who are determined to see me either as a liberal or a conservative. I am neither a liberal nor a conservative, neither a gradualist nor a monk nor an indifferentist. I would like to be nothing more than a free artist, and I regret that God did not give me the gift to be one. I hate falseness and coercion in all their forms . . . . Pharisaism, stupidity and arbitrariness reign not merely in merchantsТ houses and police stations: I see them in science, in literature, among the young. That is why I have no particular passion for either policemen or butchers or scientists or writers or the young. I consider brand-names and labels a prejudice. My holy of holies is the human body, health, intelligence, talent, inspiration, love, and absolute freedom, freedom from force and falseness in whatever form they express themselves. ThatТs the platform IТd subscribe to if I were a great artistФ.

Here comes an extract from the short story У—в¤тою ночьюФ followed by the translation of Wordsworth Classics which reads smoothly and easily in spite of occasional imperfections and omissions:

УЌиколай умер! Ќикто дру≠гой, а Ќиколай! ƒаже пове≠рить трудно, что его уж нет на свете! —тою ¤ тут на пароме и все мне кажетс¤, что сейчас он с берега голос свой подаст. „тобы мне на пароме страшно не казалось, он всегда приходил на берег и окликал мен¤. Ќарочито дл¤ этого ночью с постели вставал. ƒобра¤ душа! Ѕоже, кака¤ доб≠ра¤ и милостива¤! ” иного человека и матери такой нет, ка≠ким у мен¤ был этот Ќико≠лай! —паси, господи, его душу!

»ероним вз¤лс¤ за канат, но тот час же повернулс¤ ко мне.

Ц ¬аше благородие, а ум ка≠кой свет≠лый! Ц сказал он пе≠ву≠чим го≠лосом. Ц акой ¤зык бла≠го≠звучный и сладкий! »менно, как вот сейчас будут петь в за≠утрени: Уќ, любез≠наго! о, слад≠чай≠шего твоего гласа!Ф роме всех про≠чих челове≠че≠ских ка≠≠честв, в нем был еще и дар необычайный!

Ц акой дар? Ц спросил ¤.

ћонах огл¤дел мен¤ и, точно убе≠дившись, что мне можно вве≠р¤ть тайны, весело засме≠¤лс¤.

Ц ” него был дар акафисты писать...Ц сказал он. Ц „удо, гос≠подин, да и только! ¬ы изу≠митесь, ежели ¤ вам объ¤с≠ню! ќтец архи≠мандрит у нас из московских, отец наместник в азанской ака≠демии кон≠чил, есть у нас и иеро≠мо≠нахи разум≠ные, и старцы, но ведь, скажи по≠жа≠луйста, ни одного тако≠го нет, что≠бы писать умел, а Ќико≠лай, про≠с≠≠той монах, иеро≠дь¤кон, нигде не обучалс¤ и даже види≠мости на≠руж≠≠ной не имел, а писал! „удо! »стинно чудо!

»ероним всплеснул руками и, совсем забыв про канат, про≠дол≠жал с увлечением:

... it was Nicolas who died Ц no one else but Nicolas! It is hard to believe that he is no longer on earth. As I stand here now on the ferry, it seems to me as if every moment I should hear his voice from the shore. He always came down to the river and called to me so that I should not feel lonely on the ferry. He used to leave his bed at night on purpose to do it. He was so good. Oh, dear, how good and kind he was! Even a mother is not to other men what Nicolas was to me. Have mercy on his soul, O Lord!Ф

Jerome gave the cable a pull, but immediately turned to me again:

СYour honour, how bright his mind was!Т he said softly. СHow sweet and musical his voice was! Just such a voice as they would sing of now at mass: УOh, most kind, most comforting is Thy voice.Ф And, above all, other human qualities, he had one extraordinary gift.Т

СWhat gift?Т I asked.

The monk glanced at me and, as if assured that he could entrust me with a secret, said, laughing gaily:

СHe had the gift of writing akaphists!Т he said. СIt was a miracle, sir, nothing less. You will be astonished when I tell you about it. Our father archimandrite comes from Moscow, our father vicar has studied in Kazan, we have wise monks and elders, and yet Ц what do you think? Ц no one of them can write. And Nicolas, a plain monk, a deacon, who never learnt anything and had nothing to show Ц he could write! It was a miracle, truly a miracle!Т

Jerome clasped his hands and, entirely forgetting the cable, continued with passion:

Ц ќтец наместник затруд≠н¤≠етс¤ проповеди составл¤ть; ког≠да историю монастыр¤ писал, то всю братию загон¤л и раз дес¤ть в город ездил, а Ќиколай акафисты писал! јкафисты! Ёто не то что проповедь или истори¤!

Ц ј разве акафисты трудно писать? Ц спросил ¤.

Ц Ѕольша¤ трудность... Ц покрутил головой »ероним. Ц “ут и мудростью и св¤тостью ничего не поделаешь, ежели бог дара не дал. ћонахи, которые не понимающие, рассуждают, что дл¤ этого нужно только знать житие св¤того, кото≠рому пишешь, да с прочими акафи≠с≠тами соображатьс¤. Ќо это, гос≠подин, неправильно. ќно, конечно, кто пишет акафист, тот должен знать житие до чрезвычайности, до пос≠ледней самомалейшей точки. Ќу и соображатьс¤ с прочими ака≠фистами нужно, как где начать и о чем писать. примеру ска≠зать вам, первый кон≠дак везде начинаетс¤ с УвозбранныйФ или Уизбран≠ныйФ... ѕервый икос зав≠сегда надо начинать с ан≠гела. ¬ акафисте к »исусу —ладчайшему, ежели интересу≠етесь, он начинаетс¤ так: Ујнге≠лов творче и господи силФ, в акафисте к пресв¤той бого≠родице: Ујнгел предста≠тель с не≠бе≠се послан быстьФ, к Ќико≠лаю „удотворцу: Ујнгела об≠ра≠зом, земнаго суща естествомФ и прочее. ¬езде с ангела на≠чинаетс¤. онечно, без того нель≠з¤, чтобы не соображатьс¤, но главное ведь не в житии, не в соответствии с прочим, а в кра≠соте и сладости. Ќужно, чтоб все было стройно, кратко и обсто≠¤тельно. Ќадо.

СOur father vicar has the greatest trouble over his sermons. When he was writing the history of the monastery, he tired out the whole brotherhood and made ten trips to town; but Nicolas could write akaphists, not just sermons and histories!Т

СAnd are akaphists so hard to write?Т

СVery hardТ nodded Jerome. СWisdom and saintliness will not help him to whom God has not given the gift. The monks who donТt understand argue that you need only know the life of the saint of whom you are writing and follow the other akaphists, but that is not so, sir. Of course, to write an akaphist one must know the life of the saint down to the least detail, and of course, too, one must conform to the other akaphists so far as knowing where to begin and what to write about. To give you an example, the first hymn must always begin with УIt is forbiddenФ or УIt is electedФ, and the first ikos must always begin with УAngelФ. If you are interested in hearing it, in the akaphist to the Lord Jesus the first ikos begins like this: УAngels of the Creator, might of the LordФ; in the akaphist to the Holy Virgin it begins, УAn angel was sent, a messenger from heavenФ; in the akaphist to Nicolas the Wonderworker it begins. УAn angel in form, a being of earthФ Ц they all begin with УAngelФ. Of course, an akaphist must conform to other akaphists, but the important thing is not the life of the saint nor its conformity, but its beauty, its sweetness. Everything about it must be graceful and brief and exact.

„тоб в каж≠дой строчечке была м¤гкость, ласковость и неж≠ность, чтоб ни одного слова не было гру≠бого, жесткого или несо≠от≠вет≠ству≠ю≠щего. “ак надо писать, чтоб мол¤≠щийс¤ сердцем радо≠валс¤ и плакал, а умом содрогалс¤ и в трепет при≠ходил. ¬ бого≠ро≠дичном ака≠фисте есть слова: У–а≠дуйс¤, высото, не≠удо≠бо≠вос≠хо≠дима¤ чело≠веческими по≠мы≠слы; ра≠дуйс¤, глубино, неудобо≠зри≠ма¤ и ангель≠скими очима!Ф ¬ дру≠гом месте того же акафиста ска≠зано: У–а≠дуйс¤, древо свет≠ло≠плодовитое, от не≠го же питаютс¤ вернии; радуйс¤, дре≠≠во благосенно≠лиственное, им же покрыва≠ютс¤ мнози!Ф

»ероним, словно испу≠гавшись че≠го-то или засты≠дившись, закрыл ла≠до≠н¤ми ли≠цо и по≠качал головой.

Ц ƒрево светлоплодовитое... древо благосеннолиственное... Ц пробормотал он. Ц Ќайдет же такие слова! ƒаст же господь такую способность! ƒл¤ крат≠кости много слов и мыслей при≠гонит в одно слово и как это у него выходит плавно и обсто≠¤тельно! У—вето≠подательна све≠тильника сущим...Ф Ц сказано в акафисте к »исусу —лад≠чайшему. —вето≠по≠дательна! —ло≠ва такого нет ни в разговоре, ни в книгах, а ведь придумал же его, нашел в уме своем! роме плавности и велеречи¤ , сударь, нужно еще, чтоб кажда¤ строчечка изу≠крашена была вс¤чески, чтоб тут и цветы были, и молни¤, и ветер , и солнце, и все предметы мира видимого. » вс¤кое воскли≠цание нужно так ста≠вить, чтоб оно было гладенько и дл¤ уха вольготней.

Every line must be tender and gentle and soft; not a word must be harsh or unsuitable or rough. It must be written so that he who prays with his heart may weep with joy, that his soul may shudder and be afraid. In an akaphist to the Virgin he wrote: УRejoice, exalted of men! Rejoice, beloved of the angels.Ф In another part of the same akaphist he wrote: УRejoice, holy-fruited tree that nourishest our faith; rejoice, tree of merciful leaves that coverest our sins!Ф

Jerome bowed his head and covered his face with his hands, as if he had taken fright or were ashamed of something.

СHoly-fruited tree Ц tree of merciful leaves!Т he muttered. СWere there ever such words? How was it possible that the Lord should have given him such a gift? For brevity he used to combine many words and thoughts into one word, and how smoothly and truly his writing flowed! УLambent Star of the worldФ, he says in an akaphist to Jesus the all-merciful. УLambent Star of the world!Ф. Those words have never been spoken or written before; he thought of them himself; he found them in his own mind! But each line must not only be fluent and eloquent, it must be adorned with many things Ц with flowers and light and wind and sun and all other objects of the visible world. And every invocation must be written to fall softly and gratefully on the ear.

У–адуйс¤, крине райскаго проз¤бени¤!Ф Ц сказано в акафисте Ќиколаю чудотворцу. Ќе сказано просто Укрине райскийФ, а Укрине рай≠скаго проз¤бени¤Ф! “ак глаже и дл¤ уха сладко. “ак именно и Ќиколай писал! “очь-в-точь так! » выразить вам не могу как он писал!

УRejoice in the land of the Kingdom of ParadiseФ, he wrote in an akaphist to Nicolas the Wonder-worker, not simply УRejoice in ParadiseФ. It is smoother so and sweeter to the ear. And that is how Nicolas wrote; just like that. But I canТt tell you how well he wrote.Т

†

Philological Reading as a Pragmalinguistic Proposition: the Extension of the Method

Irina Maguidova

The pragmastylistic study of the artistic text aims at highlighting some of its most characteristic peculiarities that distinguish the literary manner of this of that particular author¹. The final goal of the pragmastylistician consists in finding ways and means of modelling the highlighted phenomenon by creating a kind of linguistic material that would be deliberately oriented towards this phenomenon to make the reader specially concentrate on it.

There can be little doubt that this is of paramount importance if what we are after is to show the learner of English (a budding anglicist, in our case) what it is in the artistic text he may rely upon in trying to assess it as a philologist should Ц i.e. to read it 'philologically' by penetrating into the author's design. By making the specifically characteristic peculiarities of the text come to the fore in the carefully organized modelling material, the pragmastylistician is, as it were, 'paving the way' to understanding the aesthetic purport of the text, and, thus, provides the 'indispensable foundation' of philological reading. Obviously, there is a world of difference between the aesthetic-artistic aspect of language and any of its other aspects, such as, for example, phonetics-phonology or grammar. It turns out to be 'forbidden ground' to anyone who would like to treat pragmalinguistically the linguistic phenomena of artistic nature in the same way as he would, let us say, treat the functioning of the strong plosives, or the use of gerunds in the intellectual discourse². The functional style of impact calls for somewhat different ways and approaches on the part of the pragmalinguistician. What really worked well in modelling phenomena of phonetics and grammar most clearly would not do if we are setting out to demonstrate the artistic peculiarities of the work of verbal art.

A case in point is the author's punctuation marks. It has repeatedly been explained that English punctuation is different from Russian in the sense that the writer is more or less free to use the 'stops' in accordance with his intention³. English punctuation marks, therefore, function as one of the most powerful stylistic means to convey the artistic purport to the reader. Moreover, it would not be too far-fetched to suggest that it is through punctuation marks that the reader begins to communicate with the author of the text. That is why punctuation marks in a work of verbal art are of special interest for the pragmastylistician Ц and it is, for him, a fairly urgent task to show how they behave in an artistic text, how much the artistic picture really depends on their choice and arrangement, what an important first step in understanding the author's intention they actually make.

Clearly, in looking for ways and means of demonstrating the role of punctuation marks in an artistic text, the pragmastylistician can hardly use the already well-established method of 'oversaturation' Ц i.e. of creating a new text which will be literally 'crammed' with the elements that have to be demonstrated and pragmalinguistically highlighted (as was the case with phonetics and grammar where this way of pragmalinguistic modelling has yielded quite tangible results)⁴. Another method had to be introduced Ц that of confronting different edited variants of the same text⁵. This approach has turned out to be extremely useful in so far as the confrontational study of different punctuation СpatternsТ (that can be discovered in different editions of one and the same work of verbal art) shows how the СsoundТ picture can be extracted from what is written or printed and how it can be affected by the use of СstopsТ. Even a seemingly minor change in the placement of punctuation marks is bound to bring about a change in the rhythmical-prosodic organization of the text Ц and, consequently, in its general artistic purport. Thus, by extracting the sound from the written text through a careful study of variant placements of stops, the reader may come to recognize punctuation marks as the absolutely indispensable first step in reading and understanding English artistic prose, as well as to begin to see more clearly what the text is really about.

To support this idea, here is an example to show what the confrontational analysis of different edited variants of one and the same text can do in modelling its punctuation marks. This is a passage from УPride and PrejudiceТ by Jane Austen (in the two edited variants: one of 1940, and the other of 1992) Ц a scene that immediately precedes the Сassembly ballТ episode. The Bennet sisters are all excited about the coming ball: they expect Mr. Bingley to attend it and to be introduced to them. It turns out, however, that Mr. Bingley is going to bring a large party from London to the assembly: twelve ladies and seven gentlemen Ц this, at least, according to the СreportТ:

†††† The girls grieved over such a number of ladies, but were comforted the day before the ball by hearing, that instead of twelve _ he had brought only six with him from London Ц his five sisters and a cousin. And when the party entered the assembly room _ it consisted only of five all together Ц Mr. Bingley, his two sisters, the husband of the eldest, and another young man. (1940)

†††† The girls grieved over such a number of ladies; but were comforted the day before the ball by hearing, that instead of twelve, he had brought only six with him from London, his five sisters and a cousin. And when the party entered the assembly room, it consisted only of five all together: Mr. Bingley, his two sisters, the husband of the eldest, and another young man. (1992)

The confrontation of the two edited variants shows that they differ considerably in their СstopsТ: in nearly 50% of the cases what we are faced with is controversy, not coincidence (five СvariantТ uses against six СidenticalТ ones). Let us consider the punctuation variants one by one as they occur in the passage, with special reference to the effect this or that placement of a СstopТ produces upon the rhythmical Ц prosodic arrangement of the text.

In order to make the confrontation more convincing, we shall arrange the two texts СverticallyТ, by presenting each of the punctuated syntagms separately, in isolation as it were, one below the other:

The girls grieved over such a number of ladies,

but were comforted the day before the ball by hearing,

that instead of twelve he had brought only six with him from London Ц

his five sisters and a cousin.

And when the party entered the assembly room it consisted only of five all together Ц

Mr. Bingley,

his two sisters,

the husband of the eldest,

and another young man.

(1940)

The girls grieved over such a number of ladies;

but were comforted the day before the ball by hearing,

that instead of twelve,

he had brought only six with him from London,

his five sisters and a cousin.

And when the party entered the assembly room,

it consisted only of five all together:

Mr. Bingley,

his two sisters,

the husband of the eldest,

and another young man.

(1992)

The first case of disagreement between the two variants occurs in the opening sentence: the 1940 edition places a comma after СladiesТ, while the 1992 edition prefers the semicolon. How does this Сcomma-semicolonТ variation actually affect the rhythm and the prosody of the text?

The comma after СladiesТ does not encourage a longish pause: as a result the part the sentence that follows (Сbut were encouraged the day before the ball by hearingЕТ) tends to join the opening complex rhythm-unit (Сthe girls grieved over such a number of ladiesТ) rather than detach itself from it. Prosodically, this is expressed by the part of the utterance after the comma being somewhat lower than the opening one.

This prosodic arrangement is markedly different from the one that is prompted by the semi-colon of the other edition. The longish pause that is signalled by the semi-colon after СladiesТ suggests a greater degree of division (СseparatenessТ) than what we had in the case of the comma: the two sentences related through the semi-colon are more Сself-containedТ, as it were, more independent. The reader tends to take them in separately, one by one, by assessing each of them as different (though related) elements of a given syntactic structure. The semi-colon, therefore, emphasizes the СdifferenceТ, the СseparatenessТ, the СindependenceТ of the two parts of the utterance. Moreover, it brings out the contrast on the content plane between the two much more clearly: the СgriefТ versus the СcomfortТ.

Prosodically here, too, the picture is going to be different from the one we had in the case of the comma: the underlying contrast would demand another kind of prosodic arrangement. The second part of the utterance (after the semi-colon) is going to be СraisedТ not СloweredТ as previously: a higher pitch, a slight increase in loudness, slightly slowed down tempo would be the most likely prosodic modifications to express СoppositionТ rather than mere СcontinuationТ, as was the case with the comma.

Another point of disagreement between the two variants is the comma after СtwelveТ (in the same sentence) in the 1992 edition, and the absence of any punctuation mark in the same place in the 1920 edition. Here, confrontationally, it is the comma that orients the reader towards СseparationТ rather than unity. The stop after СtwelveТ dictates a pause and a new contour to follow it Ц which serve to emphasize the contrast: what the Bennet girls expected to be a large party with a number of ladies in it, turned out (according to the rumors) to be twice as small. This deliberate focus on the contrast (that serve to create an impression of excitement, agitation and expectation) is not to be found in the 1940 edition, where the two parts of the utterance are brought together to form an un interrupted sequence of СeventsТ. As a result, the contrast between СtwelveТ ladies and only СsixТ does not come to the fore Ц it is not supported prosodically. The absence of the stop here signals one whole uninterrupted prosodic contour, with СtwelveТ and СsixТ figuring in it only as the constituent СstepsТ of the scale. A possible accentuation of СsixТ (for purposes of logical emphasis) at the end of the contour still fails to bring out the contrast as effectively as in the case of the comma where the two contrasted elements were prosodically separated into different contours.

Interestingly, too, there is yet another point of disagreement in the same sentence: its final part (Сhis five sisters and a cousinТ) is marked off by a comma in the 1942 edition and by a dash in that of 1940. Obviously the dash is much more СweightyТ as compared with the comma, and it makes the final words stand out much more clearly: prosodically, it signals an increase in loudness and the slowing down of tempo, as well as greater coherence and tension in articulation. On the other hand the dash here might be viewed as a kind of compensation for the lack of punctuation in the preceding part of the sentence. The general СsoundТ picture that can be extracted from the printed text here is this: the opening sentence is, as it were, leading up to a kind of СclimaxТ Ц the news that all the six ladies Mr. Bringley is bringing down from London to the assembly ball are actually his own sisters and a cousin. This piece of news seems Ц within this prosodic pattern Ц even more important than their number which is comfortingly twice as small as was rumoured first.

The comma of the 1992 edition, on the contrary, serves to build up a completely different prosodic pattern. The end of the sentence here (Сhis five sisters and a cousin) is lowered, not brought out. It merely supports the preceding part of the utterance (Сhe had brought only ix with him from LondonТ) as a kind of additional explanation. What really matters here is the number of the coming ladies, not their relation to Mr. Bringley Ц this is what is prompted by the СsoundТ which is extracted from the punctuation marks.

The second sentence of the passage contains two cases where the two editions disagree in terms of punctuation. The 1940 edition prefers to let the opening part of the sentence stretch uninterruptedly Ц as far as the dash before СMr. BingleyТ. The 1992 edition breaks it into two smaller units by introducing a comma after Сthe assembly roomТ. It we confront the two variants we shall have to conclude that the 1940 one is, as it were, in a hurry to tell the reader, as quickly as possible, who the London party actually were. The 1992 text sounds much more СdignifiedТ, so to speak: the comma after Сthe assembly roomТ presents the scene in two СeventsТ: the arrival of the London party, and the joyful recognition of the fact that there are in fact only five guests altogether Ц not twelve of even six as was expected the reader is, thus, able to picture to himself not only the London guestsТ first appearance in the ballroom, but also to see how relieved the Bennet girls are to find the party so small. It is as if the author first Сflashes outТ the London guests, and then Ц the happy faces of the Bennet family.

The final part of the sentence (СMr. Bignley, his two sisters, the husband of the eldest, and another young manТ) is too, punctuated differently: where the 1940 edition again prefers the dash, the 1992 text places the colon. Although the dash, as has been explained, is more СspectacularТ (it actually produces an effect which is very similar to a jesture Ц as if the author, pointing to the guests from London), it does seem to СshiftТ the focus to the individual members of the London party. As to their small number (Сfive all togetherТ) it is actually lost in the long uninterrupted contour of the unpunctuated first part of the utterance.

Thus, we may conclude that the confrontational study of different edited variants of one and the same text may be very revealing, where punctuation marks and the prosody are concerned. It shows how different sometimes the resultant СsoundТ pictures may be that the reader forms in his inner speech while reading what seems to be the same Ц and yet, what turns out to be so different. There can be little doubt that confrontation of this kind does help to understand the text better to have a clearer idea of artistic purport.

Nevertheless, that is not at all the whole story as far as pragmastylistic modelling is concerned. As experience has shown, the punctuation-based confrontational study of different edited variants of the artistic text is not always effective in bringing out some of its, all-important peculiarities that are essential in creating an aesthetic-artistic СimpressionТ the text was meant to produce. Moreover, in quite a few cases the texts of different editions may be identical in terms of punctuation. That is why there is every reason to believe that the confrontation СschemeТ has to be extended to include one more member Ц the text of translation.

At first sight it might seem a daring enterprise to try and include the text of translation (Russian in our case) in the confrontational set that is meant to bring out punctuation marks in an English artistic text and their all-important role in philological reading. Paradoxically enough, however, it is this inclusion that turns out, in a large number of cases, to be highly effective in clarifying some of the more difficult points and making the rhythm and the prosody of the original more clearly СmotivatedТ in terms of the artistic purport of the utterance.

At the same time it should be specially emphasized that the text of translation is incorporated in the confrontation under discussion not because we are keenly interested in translation as such Ц that is, not because our main purpose is to criticize it for its possible deficiencies and deviations from the original. We look upon the text of translation as yet another СchanceТ to study the text of the original from a new angle, to discover in it, first of all, some of the peculiarities of its rhythmical-prosodic organization that could not be fully appreciated if we confined our confrontational study only to the different edited variants of the text (especially if they coincided punctuationally).

Here is an example to support this idea. The following text (another passage from the same novel by Jane Austen) does not show any punctuational differences in the 1940 and 1992 editions of СPride and PrejudiceТ. Let us see how the confrontation with its Russian translation may help prosodically to bring out the authorТs original intention. In order to make some of the more important differences between the two texts come to the fore, we shall again arrange the two confronted texts СverticallyТ according to the basic divisions provided by punctuation marks:

But his friend Mr. Darcy soon drew the attention of the room by his fine tall person,

†handsome features;

and the report which was in general circulation within five minutes after his entrance,

of his having ten thousand a year.

«ато друг мистера Ѕингли,

мистер ƒарси,

сразу привлек к себе внимание всего зала своей статной фигурой,

правильными чертами лица и аристократической внешностью.

„ерез п¤ть минут после их прихода всем стало известно,

что он владелец имени¤,

принос¤щего дес¤ть тыс¤ч фунтов годового дохода.

The first thing to be commented upon here is the appearance of a full stop in the translation where the original has a semi-colon (after СfeaturesТ). As a result, the highly extended sentence of the English text is replaced by two sentences in the Russian text. This СdisagreementТ between the original and the translation makes us go back to the English text once more and look into it more closely from the point of view of the general orientation of its syntactic arrangement.

Obviously the English text is oriented towards СglobalizationТ, not СsegmentationТ, as the Russian one. Its authorТs intention was to present different aspects of Mr. DarcyТs СpersonТ and behavior as parts of one global picture which included not only his handsome features but also his financial СbackgroundТ. Moreover, the presence of a semi-colon here prompts a particular kind of prosody Ц a lower pitch (in contrast with the part of the sentence before the semi-colon), a marked change in loudness which is clearly diminished, and even a change in voice-quality Ц after the semi-colon the voice does not sound resonant. All these modifications of prosodic parameters and voice-quality serve a particular purpose Ц to express the authorТs irony. The writer wants the reader to СhearТ (with the help of the punctuation mark under discussion) her own humorous attitude to the scene she describes. More than that, by bringing together the description of Mr. DarcyТs Сfine tall person, handsome featuresТ and the highly impressive report of his being really СrichТ (not just comfortably Сwell-to-doТ), the author makes us actually hear the excited voices of the numerous mothers of grown-up daughters whom they would like to see happily married to Mr. Darcy. Obviously, the report of Mr. DarcyТs wealth would be spread in an undertone (in a low non-resonant voice, nearly a whisper) which is full of suppressed excitement and expectation.

In the Russian translation, however, the use of the full-stop signals a completely different prosodic orientation. The final sentence (Ђ„ерез п¤ть минут после прихода, всем стало известно, что он владелец имени¤, принос¤щего дес¤ть тыс¤ч фунтов годового дохода) requires an increase in pitch and loudness, and a greater degree of resonance. In other words, its separation from the preceding sentence prompts the reader to treat it as a more significant, more СweightyТ part of the passage and to arrange it prosodically in a completely different manner than the one that was СencodedТ in the English text. As a result, the atmosphere of suppressed excitement and lively curiosity that we find in the original is replaced by the open expression of obvious admiration and delight.

By this brief comment of only one short passage that we have introduced here, we meant to show the importance of extending the method of pragmastylistic confrontation by including in it the text of translation, so that the СsoundТ picture of the artistic text could come to the fore with utmost clarity. Obviously, pragmalinguistic modelling generally, and the confrontational method of modelling punctuation marks as the indispensable first step in reading artistic prose (not to mention the extension of the method through the text of translation) is much too vast a subject for a single paper; it has to be continued in the following issues of the magazine.

Notes:

1. For details see: ». ћ. ћагидова. “еори¤ и практика прагмалингвистического регистра английской речи. Ц ƒиссЕ доктора филологических наук. Ц ћ., 1989; I.M. Maguidova. Speech Modelling as the Subject of Functional Stylistics // Folia Anglistica Ц є1; ћ., 1997.

2. I. M. Maguidova Ц Op. cit. For details on the subtle relationship between timbre and linguopoetics in philological reading see: ћ.¬. ƒавыдов, ≈. ¬. яковлева. ќсновы филологического чтени¤. Ц ћ., 1997; M.V. Davydov, E.V. Yakovleva. Types of Voices as Part of Speech Portrayals. Ц M., 2001; —.¬. ƒечева. огнитивна¤ силлабика Ц ћ., 1998; see also Marklen E. Konurbaev, Andrey A. Lipgart. A Linguopoetic and a Timbrological Analysis of a Poem by Christina Rossetti. Ц Master Class, є1. 2001.

3. ќ.¬. ƒолгова (јлександрова) —емиотика неплавной речи. Ц ћ., 1978; ≈е же. —интаксис как наука о построении речи. Ц ћ., 1979; Ћ.Ћ. Ѕаранова.ќнтологи¤ английской письменной речи. Ц ћ., 1998; ѕрактический курс английского ¤зыка (под ред. ќ.—. јхмановой, ќ.¬. јлександровой). Ц ћ., 1991.

4. For details see I.M. Maguidova. Op. cit.

5. I.M. Maguidova, E.V. Mikhailovskaya. The ABC of reading. Ц M., 1999; ≈.¬. ћихайловска¤. ѕрагмалингвистические проблемы английской пунктуации Ц ƒиссЕ канд. филологических наук. Ц ћ., 2001.

Cross-Cultural Folklore and How to Cope with It

Margarita M. Philippova

When learning a foreign language students need to comprehend and acquire not only linguistic, but also cultural features. This can be illustrated by an extract from a popular book written by a well-known British family therapist Robin Skynner in collaboration with a famous British comic actor John Cleese, СLife and How to Survive itТ, in which differences between British and American attitudes are discussed in the following dialogue¹:

John: Well, first a disclaimer. The people I like best in the world are Americans whoТve spent time in Europe. And Europeans whoТve spent time in America. I believe we need to incorporate each otherТs qualities. So what IТll say refers to pure, unadulterated America.

Robin: So when you first went there, what struck you?

John: The energy and the rudeness. But then, I was in New York. Even so, I soon began to see how cultural was my judgement of СrudenessТ. A lot of it, I realised, was simply directness of a kind I just wasnТt used to. If an American wants the salt, they say: СPass the salt, please.Т Now, believe it or not, to an Englishman, this can actually sound rude! A bit blunt, and rather graceless. WeТre more used to: IТm so sorry to trouble you, but I wonder if I might be so bold as to ask you if you could see your way clear, if itТs not too inconvenient, to consider the possibility of, as it were, not to put too fine a point on it, passing the salt, or not, as the case may be.Т IТm sure itТs because we English have such an exaggerated fear of provoking anger, that we try to ward off any possibility of it by behaving in an absurdly vague and apologetic way.

This extract gives us a glimpse of the paradoxical nature which the problem of interpreting cultures in dialogue has. This problem can be formulated as a kind of sociocultural paradox: to understand a partner from another culture means to be transferred to other sociocultural dimensions, into another sociocultural network or hierarchy. This paradox in its turn refers us to even more fundamental issues: in what ways is a human being capable of understanding the other, while preserving his or her own sociocultural identity? And how can a culture make its own explicit data or knowledge capable of being interpreted by other cultures?

It should be mentioned that in the process of assimilating another culture a human being meets with what is often seen by him or her as paradoxes. This can be said, in particular, about acquiring language forms proper. It is probably not accidental that there are linguists who are fond of referring to homonymy and synonymy as lexical paradoxes, and Prof. M.V.Davydov has given certain voice qualities, or timbres the name of СparadoxicalТ². Quite a few of the features some languages and cultures have are perceived as paradoxical by people belonging to other cultures. In his book СLinguisticsТ the well-known authority on English, professor D.Crystal describes a situation when an Englishman beginning to study Russian said, СHow do you mean thereТs no definite article in Russian? There should be!Т³ It can be predicted with some degree of certainty that people will stop seeing cultural and language contrasts as paradoxical only after they have completely adjusted to the cultural and language environment which is new to them (which, by the way, can be called a task practically impossible of achievement if we take into account the enormous amount of linguistic and cultural information every human being comes across daily and the pace at which it all changes).

When we are faced with the multitude and diversity of cultural forms, it becomes clear that cultural forms are essentially symbolic, which implies that they are a priori not rational. What follows from this is that in the global cultural interaction it is irrational discourse that may turn out to be fruitful. A new synthetic logic seems to be required in this kind of interaction Ц the logic of consciously acquired interdependent sociocultural partnership in the global world. It is becoming increasingly clear that we need to study the world of culture as a symbolic sphere and the method of irrational comprehension should be recognised as adequate for cultural perceptions. For a human being, existing in a symbolic universe of culture, it might be futile to try and discover strict rules and objective regularities; on the contrary, he or she is submerged into the chaos of language forms at many different levels, of aesthetic images, mythical symbols and rituals similar to religious ones.

It is easy to prove that formation of notions in a language (and their extension into the culture) is not subject to any rational laws or regularities. An example may be adduced of the way in which different languages categorise nouns into genders. This is a process which no linguist, however well-educated or sophisticated he or she might be, would be able to explain rationally. Thus, cultural concepts and notions can be defined as value categories which are constituted by aesthetic fantasies and emotional judgements, moral prohibitions and inhibitions, i.e. as something which contains a lot of irrational content. Consequently, the process of understanding values of another culture must in a certain sense recreate and reconstruct this irrational method according to which value concepts of a culture become formed.

†

Irony and sarcasm in cross-cultural communication

If we look at irony and sarcasm as linguistic and cultural phenomena, weТll find that they are often seen as something paradoxical by speakers of a foreign language. Several aspects can be singled out in their functioning: semantic, prosodic (both intonation and timbre) and stylistic ones.

An English lecturer once said in his lecture that he had conducted a small opinion poll among those English acquaintances of his who had lived or were living abroad about the things they missed most of all when living abroad. The 5^th or 6^th place in their list (which consisted of home atmosphere, some dishes, the English weather, etc.) came to be occupied by sarcasm, which would appear to point to the importance assigned to this cultural, linguistic and stylistic phenomenon. Another indicator of the popularity of sarcasm is the fact that the word СsarcasticТ was shortened in British English to the slang adjective СsarkyТ Ц a process which usually occurs only with much used words, such as СdemoТ Ц demonstration, СprofТ Ц professor, СdocТ Ц doctor, etc. †††

Some examples from cross-cultural communication should be adduced at this point. Although they might appear trivial and banal, they shouldnТt be ignored, because the spirit of the language, or tendencies in a culture which find their expression in the speakersТ linguistic attitudes can be observed by paying attention to small things as well as to major ones. When trying to get to the truths pertaining to another culture, the researcher shouldnТt become disappointed when dealing with the most common everyday facts and circumstances, actions, thoughts and ideas Ц important principles of cultural and language functioning may be explicit in them as well. All of this is also true of understanding another mentality, for everyday utterances and everyday situations can help us to comprehend quite a lot in the ways people think about the world around them, which might reduce the risk of misunderstanding the representatives of the culture studied.

Misunderstanding, incomprehension, insufficient or partial understanding, distorted interpretation are quite common when representatives of different cultures communicate, especially if one of them is speaking his or her native language, while this language is foreign for the other participant. It can be explained by the many-layered structure of a communicative act. Language experience, speech habits, conventional behavioural stereotypes, stereotypical attitudes to certain speech patterns, linguistic views and (incidentally) prejudices which are traditionally passed on from one generation to another, systems of values about language and speech, attitudes to this or that nationality and, accordingly, its language will rarely coincide and will obviously be different in different cultures. Language ethics (if it can be called so) and language etiquette are inevitably different for each culture. As often as not we can come across a situation where a foreign speaker sees his or her own speech and behaviour in a favourable light diametrically opposite to how native speakers with whom he or she is communicating see it. Quite often this is where irony and sarcasm come in, in a way bridging the gap between non-native speakers and native speakers who can say things with the tongue in cheek, say something while meaning the opposite, etc., i.e. give vent to their frustrations and annoyance without infringing on standards of civilised behaviour as they understand it.

Ideally, contacts between representatives of different languages and cultures can only be full-fledged and meaningful if participants in a communicative act are capable of grasping not only the surface meaning of what is being said, i.e. understand it on the semantic level, but also perceive the implied content, or understand it on the metasemiotic level. In some interactions the impression is that speakers are talking about completely different things or that one participant is taking advantage of the otherТs ignorance of subtler things by making fun of him or pulling his leg in such a sophisticated manner that the other is incapable of understanding it and reacting.

With foreign learners who have no sufficient command of English the joking does not necessarily have to be that subtle and harmless, but it can rather be like the СbestТ examples of colonial humour. For instance, I once attended a dinner at a language school in Shropshire where a Japanese student was present. While entertaining her guests, the hostess told them a story about another Japanese student who had studied at this school earlier. What she said was: СWe once had a Japanoid...Т and then at once corrected herself: С...a Japanese boy staying with us...Т Because the hostess immediately corrected her СmistakeТ, it looked as if formally there was nothing for the present Japanese student to be offended with Ц what she had said sounded like a typical slip of the tongue conditioned by prematurely pronouncing the diphthong [OI], which is there in the word СboyТ. However, everybody familiar with the suffix -oid is well aware that words with this suffix can have all kinds of negative meanings: humanoid, Stalinoid, schitzoid, paranoid, Mongoloid, etc. Words containing this suffix can also be neutral: asteroid, rhomboid, thyroid, but it is clear that it is not the case with the word СJapanoidТ. A culturally significant feature of this situation was that the speakerТs face remained calm, polite and nice, so that the listeners couldnТt be sure whether it was a genuine slip of the tongue or an intentional snub.

It can be seen that this joke is created by quite a simple morphological device Ц the exchange of one suffix for another. The same device can be used to form other jocose names of the same kind Ц e.g., we can say СAnglo-SaxoidТ after saying СJapanoidТ. However, it is clear that words of this kind have derogatory connotations, and jokes with such words are often perceived as offensive and humiliating. At the same time, psychologists would say that it is the attitude of the hearer that is important here Ц if the hearer chooses not to be offended and to laugh together with the speaker, it can deflate a potentially explosive situation and the hearer might stop feeling vulnerable to jokes of this kind. Since a foreign language teacherТs task is to help the learners to acquire not only linguistic, but also cultural competence as well, what is needed here is presumably analysis of origins and dynamics of phenomena of this kind which would allow learners to cope successfully with such situations.

In connection with the above-mentioned word СJapanoidТ it is rather interesting to observe all kinds of metamorphoses which happen to certain language elements in the process of word-formation. The suffix -ese, for instance, is absolutely neutral when functioning as a component of such names for languages and nationalities as Portuguese, Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese. However, there is nothing neutral in this suffix when it is used as part of such derivatives as art criticese, literary criticese, journalese, officialese, etc., which are all strongly pejorative. One does wonder whether it isnТt the suffix which introduces the derogatory component of meaning.

Psychologists often quote Sigmund Freud who said something like: СThe first person who, instead of hurtling a stone at his opponent, threw an insult at him, was the originator of civilisationТ. There is no doubt that verbal and psychological violence and cruelty are physically less painful than physical violence; but physical wounds heal much faster, so it may turn out that the effects and consequences of verbal and psychological violence are much longer-lasting. An example may corroborate this point. I was once told about a man named FitzGerald, who was Irish and whose profession was radiology. During World War II, he lived in England and because he was a radiologist, he was free from military service, but his English neighbours grudged him the fact that he didnТt have to serve in the army and they started calling him FritzGerald. The nickname rankled so much that his relatives still found it painful to talk about it 50 years later. As is easy to notice, this particular joke is created by phonetic means, i.e. it is based on a partial phonetic resemblance of a very common prefix to Irish names and the German name Fritz. Professor I.M.Maguidova, on hearing this example, drew the audienceТs attention to the fact that this kind of word-play is possible in English first and foremost because of such an important characteristic of the English syllable as its relative independence, thanks to which it can be singled out, modified and played upon.

Coming back to how people react to the species of humour exemplified here, we can see that it is very hard to find oneself at the receiving end of this kind of verbal and psychological СviolenceТ. Such a person would need something like psychological immunity, i.e. they would need to be psychologically prepared for the values and things he or she holds dear to his/her heart being reviled, made fun of, derided and ridiculed. We all know that everybody has their AchillesТ heels, nobody is totally invulnerable. Things like the ones mentioned above are not often discussed in textbooks and manuals of English, that is why they may come as a surprise and shock when students come across them. That is the reason why it is the English teacherТs duty to give the learners information which would help them to soften cultural shocks of this kind.

In the English school in Shropshire mentioned above I heard another ethnic joke. When it became known that another student was going to arrive, this time from Bulgaria, the owner of the school said, СOh, Bulgarians... we call them Buggerarians... from bugger off...Т This joke is also based on partial phonetic resemblance. Besides, it acquires even greater pique thanks to the fact that the original verb which is used to derive the offending nickname is a taboo word in English. Of course, the word СbuggerТ is not often used in its original or direct nominative meaning, but if we look it up in the Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus, for instance, weТll see that it is marked there as Сcoarse slang, usually considered a taboo wordТ⁴. Thus, it is quite reasonable that the derivative Сbugger offТ is also marked as derogatory. Even though some sources state that it is such a mild invective that it is acceptable in high society, the derivative adduced here still sounds like a very strong insult, especially to another Slav. For a Russian the difficulty in such a situation is that first of all he or she instinctively reacts to the speakerТs facial expression, and if it is friendly, nice and polite, the Russian would be confused and perplexed with a contradictory impression, because Russians would expect derogatory and derisive utterances to be matched by corresponding facial expressions (scornful, contemptuous, arrogant, condescending, disdainful, supercilious, haughty, etc.). Here a researcher might think that we are observing certain cultural differences between Russian and British attitudes (think about Сpoker faceТ and Сdeadpan expressionТ, e.g.), but evidence may be found that a British speaker will have similar impressions about Russians. Thus, for instance, here is what David Crystal said in one of his lectures (it should be mentioned that the lecture was given for native speakers, not Russians, since then references to Russian intonation and modes of behaviour might have been impossible):

†С...there are some emotions which are language-specific. I mean... sarcasm is a very good example. Sarcasm is a very language-specific feature, and it is difficult to know, often, when a foreigner is being sarcastic. LetТs take an example here. Russians always get into a fix over this with English, don't they?, because ... well, let me explain the situation in case you are not aware of it. What is the main intonational feature of English sarcasm? Well, it is the use of the level tone. A tone which you might not get much practice in as far as teaching is concerned, 'cause it is often not mentioned in most of the pedagogic textbooks. O'Connor and Arnold don't mention it, for instance. But the level tone is the common one, when it's used at the end of a clause. So you say things like 'What did you think of the picture you went to see last night?' and they say (speaking monotonously, at a low pitch-level, with sentence-final level tones) "It was marvellous' ... 'Great'... 'Wonderful' ... 'Super'... 'Can't wait to go back'. And the more you keep it level and flat, the more ironic, sarcastic you are implying. Now, that's in English and to be more precise, it's in RP. It is not the case for all English accents, by the way, but that is another story.

Russians, however, of course, use level tone as a marker of statement intonation. So it's a perfectly normal feature of standard Moscow Russian to say, as it were, ta-da-ta-da-da where ..., itТs a ... I mean I'm not going to risk my Russian here, you see (the listeners laugh), so... pardon the nonsense. But, you see, Russians come up to you after your ... after, and you say, 'What did you think of the play?' and they say, (imitates the Russian accent) 'Wonderful. Very good. I liked it.' (the audience laughs) And, of course, you look at their face, and you know from their face, well, not with Russians perhaps (the audience laughs), but you... often when a foreigner does this... you know from their face that they really did like it, so of course you discount the intonation. But the point is that in many circumstances the tone that is conveyed is one of irony, or boredom, or sarcasm, and patently it is not intended and certainly is explicably not when you look at the Russian intonation system.Т

Thus, as can be seen from the relevant sentence in the lecture, the British may have the same kind of impression about the inscrutability of Russian speakers, so it may prove to be a common enough error Ц the impression that native speakers often have of a foreignerТs unemotionality or inscrutability when he or she reacts neutrally to utterances which usually provoke native speakersТ emotional reactions.

Observations made by D.Crystal about the typical prosodic arrangement for ironic and sarcastic utterances are corroborated by another researcher, O.S.Mindrul, who calls this phenomenon Сminus timbre IIТ.⁵ What is implied by this term is that ironic and sarcastic utterances often have incongruously neutral prosodic realisations, which might be another reason for the difficulties experienced by Russian speakers who often fail to comprehend utterances of this kind in a way they are meant to be comprehended. Another difficulty is that a Russian learner of English is expected to cope with manifestations of both British and American cultures with their vastly differing attitudes to humour and, in particular, to irony and sarcasm. These differences can be illustrated by an extract from the book already quoted Ц СLife and How to Survive itТ⁶:

Robin: ЕThey donТt like complexity or contradiction.

John: So any kind of indirectness in communication makes such people uncomfortable. And ambiguity and paradox are not just disliked and mistrusted, they are felt to be quite unnecessary; an attitude that can lead to simplistic thinking, as well as simplistic emotion.

Robin: So lack of directness is tabooЕ

John: Whereas, of course, itТs all that the English are capable of. We revel in distancing devices Ц using funny voices, saying everything as though itТs in quotes, allusiveness, not completing sentences and above all . . . irony. Simple direct speech is regarded as alarming and bad form Ц a kind of philistinism.

Robin: By contrast, irony makes the Americans pretty uncomfortable, doesnТt it?

John: They are all at sea with it, Robin. To put it bluntly, it causes panic. Not among the more city-slicker types IТm acquainted with, of course: they find their fellow AmericansТ irony gap a bit distressing. In Roxanne, Darryl Hannah says something sarcastic to Steve Martin, and when he doesnТt get it, she explains she was using irony. СOh, irony!Т says SteveТs character СNo, we havenТt had any of that round here since . . . oh, 1956 IТd say.Т

When trying to analyse and explain the ethnic jokes we have been looking at so as to find ways of coping with them, itТs difficult to avoid thinking that they may be a kind of СresidueТ from the times of the British Empire when the British considered themselves to be superior and all the other nations inferior. Thus, a Russian guide taking a group of British tourists around Moscow told a story about how they went around looking enthusiastically at everything and exclaiming СOh, Russki, Russki!Т to the Russians they chanced to meet. To which the Russians who didnТt know English, of course, answered in Russian, Сƒа-да, русскийТ, which was a naive thing to do, but they were not in a position to know it, because their guide and interpreter didnТt know that in English the word СRusskiТ is an insult, that it is marked in the dictionaries as a derogatory and offensive slang word.

However, it is instructive to look at this story in order to examine the role of context in utterances of this kind and the way context reveals, activates and actualises this or that meaning while veiling some others or excluding them altogether. In spite of the fact that the word СRusskiТ is an insult in the consciousness of English speakers and would obviously be an insult in an English-speaking environment, in the Russian linguistic environment where native Russian speakers have no knowledge of English, the word would sound like any ordinary Russian one, without any special stylistic connotations, but pronounced with a foreign (in this case English) accent. So if a person pronouncing this word has a purpose of insulting someone, he or she should bear in mind this fact, because this speaker would just be deceiving him- or herself into thinking they are being smartly insulting, while in actual fact remaining in their own mental space and not really communicating their meaning to the people they are talking to.

In this situation another paradox of cross-cultural communication can be observed: the same sound sequence (e.g. the English СboyТ and the Russian СбойТ, the English Сdo itТ and the Russian СдуетТ), the same intonation, the same posture or gesture, the same facial expression may have different meanings and implications in different cultures, so that our notions of how our behaviour is seen by the others around us may be a long way away from the actual state of affairs. Interestingly enough, a lot of cross-cultural humour exploits this particular paradox, e.g., phrases like Сна фиг of the kindТ (nothing of the kind), Сс Ќовым God damnedТ (с Ќовым годом!) and others.

The above story with the word СRusskyТ is also very revealing in highlighting difficulties of mental and cognitive nature encountered by a person studying another nationТs language and culture. As has often been stressed in numerous publications on popular psychology, a personТs name is for him or her the most important word in the language. The same can be said about a peopleТs name as a very important word for those belonging to a particular nationality. (This is probably the reason why people wishing to insult someone would intuitively choose this name as the most vulnerable spot.) The process of identification with a sociocultural community Ц at the level of a social group, a country, or a culture Ц takes place to this or that extent in the consciousness of every person. If, when studying a foreign language, our task is to structure our thinking along the same lines as those used by native speakers, then the learner will find him- or herself in an impasse when trying to shift to the sociocultural dimensions different from his original ones. There will be a split between how the word is perceived in his native language (as a name proud to be of) and the way it is seen in the other language (in the case of the word СRusskiТ, e.g., as a derogatory and insulting nickname, in which imperial pretensions and chauvinistic prejudices of the people who use this word find their manifestation).

David Crystal makes a highly justified observation in his book СLinguisticsТ when he says that the Iron Curtain is also a semantic curtain, and many political and philosophical terms (such as СfreedomТ, СprogressiveТ, СcommunistТ, СdemocraticТ, etc.) have different meanings and different connotations depending upon which side of the curtain they are used on⁷. It can be added that when ideological barriers are down and the cold war seems to be over, it is this invisible semantic curtain that is the main obstacle to full-fledged communication and fruitful understanding between representatives of different nations. It would seem in this connection that itТs very useful for a learner to be aware of stereotypical attitudes (e.g., attitudes to representatives of the nationality they belong to, i.e. to Russians in our case) so as to be able to recognise them and accept them as part of the linguistic reality when they come across them.

When trying to digest the greater part of the ethnic humour of the kind mentioned above, itТs hard not to recollect a caricature in another popular book on psychology СFamilies and How to Survive ThemТ written by the two authors already mentioned Ц Robin Skynner and John Cleese⁸. In this caricature we see a man beaten over the head with something heavy who is reacting very thoughtfully to it by saying something like, ЂWhat could this mean? Let me think... May it possibly be hostility?ї In most of the quoted ironic utterances we are probably dealing with just such a kind of Сpossibly hostility...Т

In actual fact, in situations with this kind of Сpossible hostilityТ, common sense and experience of negative interactions will tell us that no amount of knowledge of language, culture, nationally specific features and other things of this kind will help us to avoid this hostility; it may be the other way round: the better a personТs knowledge of the language, the better he (she) can understand the jibes, barbs, taunts, stings etc., in which such hostility is manifested, and the easier it is to hurt him (or her). Another paradox of cross-cultural communication can be observed here: in order to understand another culture, a person should be open towards it, but when we are open, we are vulnerable. And the skills that may be useful in such a situation are rather the psychological skills which will enable a person to cope with hostility and aggression, but not purely linguistic skills.

An idea relevant to this subject has been expressed by Marvin Minsky in one of the notes to his article СJokes and the logic of the cognitive unconsciousТ in which he explains the role of frameworks, i.e. structures of data or knowledge which constitute information packages (kept in memory or created in it out of stored components when the need arises) which ensure adequate cognitive processing of standard situations: СI think that ethnic humour which undoubtedly constitutes a great sociobiological error is also connected with the mechanism of frameworks. Why are the jokes deriding representatives of other nationalities so popular? A widespread explanation of this phenomenon is that jokes of this kind are nothing other than manifestation of aggression. All this is no doubt true, however, a more meaningful explanation can be given. IТve shown in another work that a listener finds it difficult to understand a story about some person if he (she) hasnТt got a necessary framework for that person, i.e. a certain stereotype. At the same time, if the listener does not have to choose the framework, the whole communicative situation becomes substantially simpler for him (her). Thus, blind fanaticism may arise spontaneously Ц as a side-effect of this particular circumstance. For instance, when jokes about human stupidity are told, from the point of view of the human psyche itТs convenient to reduce the content to some stereotype Ц preferably someone elseТs, some foreign stereotype Ц so as to avoid conflict with the world around. And, of course, like a snowball, this stereotype starts growing new layers of various fictions. The evidence of the СhumorousТ origin of such stereotypes gradually disappears. ItТs very difficult to struggle against prejudices unless the significance and meaning of stereotypes in everyday life is understood.Т⁹

It should also be mentioned that specialists in ethnic and cross-cultural psychology have long ago recognized the universal character of the phenomenon of out-group hostility (hostility directed against the external group) in any inter-group interaction. It is well known that the main purpose of such hostility is the maintenance of in-group (i.e. the group to which the individual considers him- or herself as belonging) solidarity and cohesion. It is also of interest that the source of inter-group hostility or cooperation was found not in the individual motivational factors, but in the characteristics of inter-group interaction itself.

Besides, according to the opinion of cognitive psychologists, out-group or inter-group discrimination can be observed without any objective conflict of interests. As these psychologists state, social categorization (referring people to this or that social group) and social comparisons which are indissolubly connected with it (in order to achieve the positive distinction of the in-group) are in themselves sufficient for the out-group discrimination to arise.

Ethnologists also tend to emphasize the biased view people have of their own and othersТ ethnic community and the important role of stereotypes in relationships between different ethnic communities:

С ...in the context of the problem of an ethnic communityТs psychological structure the question of what kind of image we have of our own and other peopleТs ethnic community is of some interest. People tend to exaggerate the merits of their own ethnic community and to diminish the merits of others. For instance, what is called being economical in representatives of oneТs own ethnic group would be called stinginess in others; what is called tenacity and persistence in people belonging to the same community as the speaker would be called stubbornness in the others, etc. This is manifestation of a stereotype Ц a simplified, schematized, emotionally coloured and extremely stable image of a certain ethnic group or community which is extended to all its representatives. Stereotypes exist because they are realization of the principle of economy of thought, according to which people find it psychologically easier to characterize large human communities in an undifferentiated, rough and biased manner. These stereotypes are assimilated by people in their childhood, and children start using them long before they acquire any clear notions of those ethnic groups they refer to. Changes in stereotypes happen very infrequently, slowly and with great difficulty. They seldom manifest themselves in peopleТs behaviour when there is no obvious hostility between groups, but play a dominant role in individualsТ actual behaviour, reaching open hostility when relations become strained.

Stereotypes are a necessary evil originally inherent to manТs life. They inevitably distort the reality they are trying to reflect. But in whatever little degree they correspond to reality, they are a fact of psychological reality, determining ethnic relations irrespective of whether they correspond to reality or not.Т¹⁰

Thus, we can see that coping with irony and sarcasm may turn out to be an even harder task than understanding them. Analysis of those authors who are fond of these devices may be recommended as a method of familiarizing ourselves with them and making ourselves better equipped so as to better cope with them in real-life cross-cultural situations. It is clear that learners of English need to be aware of the importance of these devices in the English culture because native speakers of English set such great store by them. This can be seen, for instance, in an article in The Economist of December 18, 1999 called СA Quiet Joke at your ExpenseТ. This article, expounding the idea that the main principle of Great BritainТs post-colonial foreign policy is irony, contains the following paragraph:

СIt is important to distinguish irony from sarcasm (which is notoriously the lowest form of the wit). Both irony and sarcasm involve saying the opposite of what you mean. But when someone is being sarcastic, there is no doubt that the listener is intended to understand this. СI suppose you think thatТs terribly clever,Т says the sarcastic teacher to a stupid child. Irony, however, is different. Many people, when hearing an ironic remark, may not realize that it is meant in jest. So irony is much more subversive than sarcasm, and also much more fun Ц those who realize that an ironic remark has been made are instantly complicit, and they can enjoy the fact that there are others who have missed the joke.Т

After having considered examples of ethnic humour itТs sometimes difficult to avoid the conclusion that a foreignerТs inability to comprehend it fully can sometimes be a blessing in disguise. However that may be, it is obvious that irony and sarcasm are extremely complex and significant features of the English culture which need serious study. It is also clear that a mere linguistic interpretation is obviously insufficient in the case of these devices and a more full-fledged and profound analysis will need to rely on the factual data and conceptual apparatus of other humanities, such as psychology, ethnology, philosophy, political science and others.

If we now concentrate on the psychological skills and habits needed to cope with the humour (at times quite cruel, ruthless and even violent) described above, the best attitude to it would seem to be ironical, that is the kind of attitude when a communicant takes a detached position, that is distances him- or herself from the situation and looks at everything with detached humour. In order to cope psychologically, a speaker needs to be as resilient, adaptable, flexible and versatile as possible. On the one hand, irony directed at oneself might turn out to be useful, on the other Ц such society skills as the famous British reserve (Сstiff upper lipТ), hauteur and indifference. Other situations may call forth civility, or friendliness, or condescension, or humility. One can react to such jokes with respect, thoughtfully and sympathetically, or pityingly, etc. In other words, what is needed is to treat the partner in communication with tolerance and understanding. In any case, displaying anger, irritation, indignation, annoyance, resentment, exasperation, displeasure and other emotions of this kind seems to be the least constructive of the possible reactions.

In this connection an episode from an American film СFrom Here to EternityТ can be recalled. The film shows the life of American soldiers stationed on Hawaii in 1941. Among the soldiers thereТs a very nice character, an Italian called Angelo Maggio, played by Frank Sinatra. Angelo Maggio cannot stand being called СwopТ (derog. and offensive orig.US Ц an Italian or other southern European). Each time this word is said to him СjocoselyТ by another soldier, he starts a fight. Because of these fights he is eventually court-martialled and has to go to a military prison, where his offender serves. His offender gets an excellent chance to torture and torment him. Being unable to stand it any longer, Maggio tries to escape, the guards shoot at him, he is mortally wounded and dies. This story can be interpreted as a kind of parable showing that anger, indignation and resentment are not constructive ways to deal with offensive ethnic jokes.

If we now go back to the fondness the English have towards irony and sarcasm, it might be useful to recollect that irony and sarcasm can be used to mask such feelings as vulnerability, sensitivity, helplessness, powerlessness, low self-esteem and others. We shouldnТt forget, either, that irony and sarcasm are favourite communicative devices for the whole community, and therefore shouldnТt be taken too personally. Henri Bergson called laughter a social sanction, meaning that it is a reaction of a social group. Laughter increases cohesion and solidarity within the group, but such cohesion is achieved at the expense of humiliating those belonging to the out-group. Of course, ethnic and nationalist humour is often a channel for giving vent to hostility felt by one social or national group towards another, a means of improving self-esteem at the expense of others. It is clear, however, that the same jokes can be told with totally different intentions, just as there can be different ways of listening to them and understanding them. It should be recognized that some jokes with offensive content and implications are quite funny. Our attitude to them should depend on whether they were told for their aggressive content, or because of their comic character. In any case, it would be unfair to condemn all of them because some narrow-minded, malicious, evil-minded, malevolent or aggressive people use them for negative purposes. True humour, everybody will agree, produces great intimacy, because it emphasizes the similarities between people, not the differences.

Notes:

1. Robin Skynner, John Cleese. Life and How to Survive it. Ц Mandarin Paperbacks, London, 1994. page 181.

2. ћ.¬.ƒавыдов. «вуковые парадоксы английского ¤зыка и их функциональна¤ специфика. Ц ћосква: »зд-во ћ√”, 1984.

3. Crystal, David. Linguistics. Ц Penguin Books. Harmondsworth, 1977. page 21.

4. The Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus. Edited by Sara Tulloch. Ц OUP, 1996.

5. ќ.—.ћиндрул. ‘онетика английского ¤зыка. ћетодические указани¤. Ц ћосква: »зд-во ћ√”, 1986.

6. Robin Skynner, John Cleese. Life and How to Survive it. Ц Mandarin Paperbacks. London, 1994. page 188.

7. Crystal, David. Ibidem, pp. 15 Ц 16.

8. R. Skynner, J. Cleese. Families and How to Survive them. Ц Mandarin Paperbacks. London, 1989. page 20.

9. ћинский. ќстроумие и логика когнитивного бессознательного. ѕерев. с англ. ћ. ј. ƒмитровской.// Ќовое в зарубежной лингвистике. ¬ып. XXIII. огнитивные аспекты ¤зыка. Cоставление, редакци¤ и вступительна¤ стать¤ ¬. ¬. ѕетрова и ¬. ». √ерасимова, ћ., Ђѕ–ќ√–≈——ї, 1988.

10. ј.ѕ.—адохин. Ётнологи¤. Ц ћ., 2000, page 149.

&&&

Miscellaneous

Useful Links

Master Class

A Rose By Any Other Name: (understanding and evaluation)

The Russian Peasant Speech Characteristics in the Translation of Anton ChekhovТs Story УOn the Sacred NightФ (linguopoetic estimation)

A Rose By Any Other Name:
(understanding and evaluation)

The Russian Peasant Speech Characteristics in the Translation of Anton ChekhovТs Story
УOn the Sacred NightФ
(linguopoetic estimation)