The article deals with the concept of “bibleisms” and its functioning in postmodern literature. The author offers the definition of the notion “ways of translation” and describes the ways of reproduction of bibleisms. The author also provides examples illustrating: full reproduction of bibleisms and correspondence with the biblical variant in the recipient language (on the level of biblical texts); calques with partial deviation from the biblical variant and full preservation of the religious connotation; partial loss of biblical correspondence with full preservation of the religious connotation; preservation of the author’s religious irony and symbolism; reproduction of the lexical compound and syntactical structure of bibleisms along with the loss of biblical peculiarity (stylistic neutralization); ways of finding substitutes in the target language (use of proper names instead of common names); deviation from the biblical variant due to lexical-syntactical shortenings (used not as phraseological units but in their literal meaning); epidigmatic fully situational transformation; elimination of biblical symbolism; stylistic neutralization and neutralization of the religious connotation; and bibleisms with preservation of the lexical center of the original text, partial elimination of the bibleism, elimination of the bibleism while preserving the “irony” seme, and maintenance of the expressive, emotive-evaluative, and figurative tone of the text. The article offers the development of the main criteria for bibleism reproduction and the instrumental-functional characteristics of their translation, which are designed to define the translational level. The research involves filling a chart with bibleisms. To be analyzed, the examples must be placed into the chart proposed in the article. The compliant scale, which systematizes the instrumental-functional characteristics of bibleisms, is used to analyze the obtained results. The article concludes with final remarks.

The lexicographic (conceptual) equivalence does not always ensure the communica tive (semantic) equivalence, which is impossible without taking into account national and cultural specificity. The national conceptualization of the world is shown not only in the case of “national coloured” lexemes, but also in other situations, in particular, in the case of international words. In this connection it is interesting to consider some Polish-Russian lexical parallels showing semantic and cultural distinctions, in particular Polish "publiczny" and Russian "публичный". As lexicographic equivalents Polish "publiczny" may have four Russian adjectives: "государственный", "публичный", "общественный", "открытый". The choice of one of them in translation is determined both by tradition and reconsideration of principles of the social life in Russia.

The article deals with problems of interpretation according to I. Turgenev’s creative activity in two aspects. The first one connects with writer’s assumptions about equal literary translation and his opinion about “eternal” images and plots existing in national and world literatures. The second aspect raises the question of admissible boundaries of reader and investigator’s interpretations of Turgenev’s texts. These two aspects are closely connected, first of all in Turgenev’s consciousness. The writer considered the European literature as a chain of repetitions of “eternal” patterns and images. Also he was sure in essential sign of indeed grate national artist, who could be able to speak originally well-known things. And this originality depends upon the artist’s personality. Regarding literature as an eternal and common European process Turgenev saw in creative individuality a source of originality and unique.

Выделение языка делового общения в самостоятельный объект изучения стало возможным с развитием функциональной стилистики. При этом сам термин до сих пор является предметом лингвистических дискуссий, так как используется по отношению к очень разным типам текстов, которые оформляются в разных языках по-разному, с учетом национально-культурных особенностей и традиций. Однако в ситуации перевода и при сопоставительном анализе языков, в частности, русского и шведского языка, на первый план выходит то общее, что определяется функцией этих текстов и высокой степенью регламентации и клишированности их языкового оформления и дает нам право объединить их под общим названием «язык официально-делового общения».

With the change of the status of the Russian language (from the state language to the national minority language) after the restoration of Lithuania’s independence and narrowing of the area of the Russian language functioning the interfering influence of the Lithuanian language system on that of Russian in Lithuania is growing. In the given language situation publicistic Russian texts serving as samples of correct speech corresponding to the norms of codified Russian could promote an increase in culture of Russian speech and preservation of Russian in Lithuania. The article deals with the analysis of the most typical cases of the violation of Russian norms in translations of the Lithuanian publicistic texts. In the overwhelming majority of cases deviations from the norms of Russian and mistakes in the very language are determined by the influence of the source language and are the result of literal translation. The most widespread mistakes are related to breaking of the Russian word usage rules that leads to the violation of such communicative qualities of speech as accuracy and logicality. Morphological norms are most frequently broken in the use of grammatical forms of different parts of speech and in the use of the infinitive constructions characteristic of Lithuanian. Syntactic norms are violated in the use of word-for-word translation of syntactic constructions, in stringing of subordinate clauses, in overloading of compound sentences with subordinate ones.

The article presents a comparative analysis of Honoré de Balzac’s novel “Eugénie Grandet” and its translation into Russian by Fyodor Dostoevsky (1844). As it is shown the latter is a transposition of the French original into a discourse and intertextual arsenal of Russian literature of the 1840s. It is full of quotations and allusions to Alexander Pushkin’s works, and this is regarded in the article as a way of intertextual acculturation of the French original. In opposition to Leonid Grossman’s opinion, Dostoevsky’s translation belongs not so much to Nikolai Gogol’s as to Puskhin’ literary tradition.