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.

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.