Introduction.

The study of linguistic interaction as one of the inalienable aspects of dialogue and mutual influence of cultures on the material of translated literary texts is currently relevant. Thus, the available research demonstrates the demand for translations of Russian authors into a foreign language, especially works of fiction (stories, novels, plays) [1], and the consequent need to represent «foreign» linguistic culture by means of «own» language determines a research interest in methods of transmission in the translated literary text of the nationally-colored units. Among the scientific works devoted to this problem, we note, in particular, the works of N.A. Fenenko on the representation of Russian vernacular in the texts of translations of Russian writers into French, S.Yu. Buryakova on delacunization in French translations of the prose of Russian classics, N.V. Merkulova on the problems of translating aesthetic onomastics in French literary texts, the works of V.A. Razumovskaya, N.M. Nesterova, L.A. Nefedova on the problems of translating literary texts. Paroemia can also be attributed to non-equivalent, nationally-colored, «untranslatable» units. The main research on the representation of «foreign» paroemias with «own» language and «own» paroemias by means of a «foreign» language was carried out on the materials of Russian, English, and German languages (see the works of R.R. Zakirov, M.A. Bashkirova, S.A. Ukrainsky, M.B.Shvitaridze, I.G. Nikitina).

___________________

© Lapaeva E.Y., 2020

Therefore, it seems relevant to study the ways of transferring Russian paroemias on the material of French translated literary texts.

Reflecting the national character, the material life of the people, their centuries-old experience and wisdom, being capable of «recreating the circle of the most important concepts for the national culture» [2, p. 270], paroemias are often used in literature to give stylistic imagery to the text and to convey national and cultural flavor. An important element of paroemias inherent in living speech is colloquial and vernacular units of different language levels, which function as stylistic means for the social and speech characteristics of the characters. So, even Ch. Bally wrote that «artistic speech almost always deviates to some extent from the norm of a «good style» since its roots go deep into the national language ...», it «is to some extent a processing, often unconscious, of spoken language» [3, p. 219].

The boundaries between colloquial speech and vernacular are very blurred, which causes a characteristic tendency, of both Russian and French, to change the linguistic status of lexical unit, making a transition from one category to another. For example, lexical unit давеча (not long ago) in the dictionary of S.I. Ozhegov and N.Yu. Shvedova (1992) is marked as obsolete and popular speech (устар. и прост.)., and in the dictionary of T.F. Efremova (2000) is marked as colloquial-reduced (разг.-сниж.), lexical unit débrayer in the meaning of «arrêter le travail» (to stop working) and piger in the meaning of «comprendre» (to understand), which are marked as popular (populaire) in the dictionary Petit Robert 1977 and colloquial (familier) in Nouveau Petit Robert 2001, are given unlabeled in the dictionary Petit Larousse 2001 [4, p. 128]. Based on the above, in this study we propose to use a generalizing term – colloquial and vernacular units, combining both lexemes, with labels colloquial, popular, vernacular and lexemes, accompanying combined functional and stylistic lexicographic labels, as well as cases of deviations from the norm of the Russian and French languages at other language levels.

The analysis of the selected paroemias was carried out from the standpoint of the theory of renomination, according to which renomination is a process of «naming a «foreign» denotation reflected in the significatum by means of «own» language, during which some transformation (change) of the significatum can occur» [5, p. 154]. This approach seems to be the most expedient and productive for this study, since the provisions of the theory of renomination make it possible to identify the methods of transmission and the degree of adaptation of the elements of the «foreign» linguoculture, «untranslatable», non-equivalent units of the language, which are paroemias and colloquial and vernacular units in texts of a high degree of national flavor.

In modern linguistics, the question of both the status of the paroemia itself and the science of paremiology is open. The question of distinguishing between paroemias, aphorisms, parables and phraseological units, with which the paroemias are correlated on a number of grounds, seems to be debatable. V.M. Mokienko, in particular, points out that paroemias are a source of phraseology [cit. by: 2, p. 241]. Some researchers, who share broad views on phraseology, rank paroemias as phraseological units (V.V. Vinogradov, A.V. Kunin, N.M. Shansky, B.A. Larin), others place them in a separate category (N.F. Alefirenko, S.M. Kravtsov, V.P. Zhukov, V.M. Mokienko, N.N. Amosova, G.L. Permyakov, Z.K. Tarlanov). In our study, we share the second point of view, referring phraseological units and paroemias to different categories, since each of them has its own unique set of functional features, as well as structural and semantic characteristics [2, p. 243].

No less controversial is the issue of distinguishing between proverbs and sayings. In our research, we will rely on the following definitions: a proverb is «a short, stable in speech use, as a rule, a rhythmically organized saying of an edifying nature, in which the centuries-old experience of the people is recorded; [...] expresses a judgment» [1**], independent of the external context and having subtext [2, p. 248]. The saying, in contrast to the proverb, has «only a literal plan» [1 **], that is, «does not have semantic independence from the external context» and serves to decorate and diversify speech [2, p. 249].

It should be noted that in French dictionaries, in particular in CNRTL, Larousse, Littré and Le Robert [2 **, 3 **, 4 **, 5 **] the word parémie does not appear, although we managed to find it in other sources¹ for example, in some articles and in the electronic dictionary Cordial, which gives the concept of parémie the following definition: a complete statement, as a proverb, an axiom, a dictum (maxim) («énoncé plein, comme un proverbe, un axiome, un adage») [6 **]. Instead of the term paroemia in French, it is customary to use the concept proverbe, which combines the signs of proverbs and sayings - this is a truth gained through experience, wisdom and practical popular advice for all social groups, expressed in a laconic, mainly figurative form («vérité d'expérience, ou conseil de sagesse pratique et populaire, commun à tout un groupe social, exprimé en une formule elliptique généralement imagée et figure») [5 **]. In French linguistics, there is also the term dicton, meaning folk wisdom, expressed in figurative form and which took the form of a saying in a particular region («sentence exprimant une vérité d'expérience sous une forme imagée, généralement d'origine populaire, et passée en proverbe dans une région donnée») [2 **]. Thus, due to the difference in terminology in Russian and French linguistics, in our study, when analyzing proverbs and sayings in relation to TT, we will use the term paroemia, which combines both categories.

Research methodology.

In this article, the object of research is the renominated forms of paroemias, as well as colloquial and vernacular units that are part of them, as translators of the «foreign» picture of the world in French translated literary texts. The subject of the research is the ways of renaming paroemias and colloquial and vernacular units in the translated text. The aim of the research is a comprehensive description and presentation of the methods of renaming paroemias and colloquial and vernacular units in the texts of French literary translations.

The material of the research was the French translations of works of fiction in the XIX-XX centuries: N.S. Leskov «Le Pèlerin enchanté»; M.M. Zoschenko «Contes de la vie de tous les jours : nouvelles satiriques soviétiques des années 1920»; A. Platonov «Tchevengour», V. Eroféev «Moscou-sur-Vodka» [2*,4*,6*,8*].

The main research method in this work is to compare the contexts of ST (hereinafter - the source text. - E.L.) and TT (hereinafter - translated text. - E.L.), containing paroemias obtained by the method of continuous sampling. In addition, we used the methods of lexicographic analysis of lexical units based on dictionary definitions and contextual analysis. We took the contextual use of paroemia as a unit of analysis: one sentence, a phrase, or a whole passage from a literary text.

Research results.

All the paroemias analyzed in ST and TT can be divided into two groups: individual author's or occasional and fixed by dictionaries or conventional. Below is an analysis of the methods of renaming each of these groups.

Renomination of author’s paroemias.

The transmission of author's paroemias was carried out in two ways: through «own» paroemias and through semantic copies. It should be noted that the author's paroemias were not renominated through free combinations of words, which undoubtedly preserved the artistic and stylistic originality of ST in the TT.

Let us consider examples of the renomination of occasional paroemias through «own» paroemias and fixed expressions in the TT.

According to J.-P. Vine and J. Darbelne «it is normally easy to find a matching equivalent proverb because the «sagesse des nations» has made the same observations everywhere» [6, p. 275]. Our analysis partially confirms the above, for example, out of the total number of analyzed units, in almost half of the cases (in seven cases out of nineteen), the translators used «own» French paroemias to convey Russian proverbs and sayings, both individual and customary. However, this approach of linguists meets criticism, so M. Ballard finds it naive, since «proverbs as a product of a certain culture reflect the worldview of different peoples in different ways», therefore, equivalents cannot always be found [7, p. 45]. In the case of author's paroemias, we have identified only two examples of renomination by «own» means:

ST: Поел – и рот завязал [1*].

ТT: Juste de quoi manger et puis ceinture jusqu’à la prochaine [2*].

Here the author's proverb in ST is renominated through «own» modified fixed expression marked fig. et populaire se mettre, se serrer la ceinture (to put on, tighten the belt, meaning not to eat your fill, to deprive yourself of basic benefits) in TT. Consider another context:

ST: – Пока человека не кончишь, он живет дурόм, – подал свой голос Пиюся [1*].

ТT: – L'homme n'en fait qu'à sa tête, si on ne la lui coupe pas, manifesta Pioussia [2*].

Here in ST the vernacular дурόм (in the meaning of foolishness) is renominated in the TT due to its «own» stable expression n'en faire qu'à sa tête (to think with your head) with the label familier, which has a predominantly negative connotation in French. So, the dictionary gives as its definition the verb désoibéir (disobey) and the expression être entêté (to be stubborn) [8 **]. The colloquially-reduced кончишь (meaning to kill) is conveyed through the expression couper le tête (cut off your head, to kill). We also note that the stable expression in ST подать голос is renominated in TT through the verb manifester, which reflects well the general style of A. Platonov's text, namely the use of red-tape, sublime words by uneducated peasant characters.

A much more common way of renaming occasionalisms is semantic tracing (six highlighted examples).

Below are examples of the renomination of occasional paroemias through semantic copy from ST:

ST: – Пастух сам знает, когда ему молоко пить, – сообщил за себя Кирей [1*].

ТT: – Le berger sait bien à quelle heure boire son lait, déclara de son chef Kiréi [2*].

In this case the author's proverb is transmitted to TT through a semantic copy with ST. In addition, the violation of lexical and grammatical compatibility сообщить за себя in ST is transmitted to TT by means of the stable expression de son chef (from oneself). Let's look at another example:

ST: – Писец плотнику хату не поставит, – высказался Жеев [1*].

ТT: – Un scribouillard ne fera jamais la maison d’un menuisier, décréta Jeiev [2*].

In this case, an occasional proverb in ST is also renominated by a semantic copy from the Russian language in TT. The transfer of the colloquial units that make up the paroemias: in ST, the lexeme хата is used with the label colloquial, while in TT the colloquial character is transferred to another lexeme scribouillard (scribbler, hack) with the labels familier, péjoratif.

In the following example, the renomination of the author's proverb through semantic copy is accompanied by the renomination of the same colloquial lexems in ST and TT:

ST: – Два зайца от своей смерти волка сгрызут...[1*].

ТT: – Par peur de mourir, deux liévres peuvent croquer un loup…[2*].

Lexical unit сгрызут is given in the dictionary with the label colloquial, in TT the verb croquer is given with the label familier.

Let us also note the sociolinguistic significance of the paroemias, which «manifests itself in a direct reference to certain referents» [7, p. 43], in our example to objects that reflect the everyday peasant life in Russia, for example:

ST: Нечего тебе клюкву хотеть, когда морщиться не умеешь...[1*].

ТT: Quand on ne sait pas faire la grimace, pas la peine de demander du verjus…[2*].

In this case, the author's proverb is conveyed in TT by semantic copy with the replacement of a reality that is not typical for the flora of France, клюква, with a gastronomic reality close to it verjus (sour juice from unripe grapes, sour wine). In addition, there is a strong expression in French aigre comme verjus (sour, like grape juice). Here, renomination at the expense of «own» reality removes misunderstandings from the foreign reader, while maintaining the stylistic and communicative function of the paroemia, thus resolving the so-called translation dilemma «either to show the specificity and fall into the «exotic», or to preserve the familiarity and lose the specificity» [8, p. 321]. Note that the colloquial style in this context is fully reflected in TT: colloquial lexical units renominated through an elliptical construction in TT pas la peine de demander, where the subject, the predicate and the first component of negation are omitted (il n'y a pas la peine is correct).

One of the features of paroemias, which is noted, in particular, by N.F. Alefirenko is the importance of rhyme and rhythmic-phonetic form. In the material under study, the rhyme in ST is not always reflected in TT, for example:

ST: ...на лишний рот лишний хлеб растет [1*].

ТT: ... à bouche de trop, pain de reste [2*].

In this example the author's proverb in ST is renominated by the semantic copy in TT, the colloquial lexical unit рот, which is a metonymy at the stylistic level, is renominated through the metonymy bouche (mouth) in TT. Thus, despite the lack of rhyme in TT, the overall artistic picture and the conversational nature of the context are preserved. Let's look at another example:

ST: А из тебя сыплется, да никто не подбирает [1*].

ТT: Toi, tu gaspilles, et il n’y a personne pour glaner derrière toi [2*].

In this case, in ST, you can see an allusion to the saying that песок сыплется, used reproachfully towards an elderly person. Here, however, the proverb denounces such a flaw as wastefulness, which is reflected in the TT. The verb gaspiller means to waste, recklessly spend money on useless things [5 **]. In addition, the TT uses a lexical unit glaner labeled au fig. (in a figurative sense). In the literal meaning, the verb means to collect the ears after the harvest, in the figurative - to collect from everywhere bit by bit what can bring benefit. Thus, the meaning of the occasional paroemia in TT is clear even without context due to the lexical units included in its composition. In the Russian example, the lack of context leads to an incorrect interpretation of the saying.

The use of semantic copy from the Russian language, that is, the transfer of an «foreign» paroemia into «own» culture during the renomination of individual author's paroemias, on the one hand, looks justified, since in this case occasionalisms seem to be «foreign» and unusual for the perception of both foreign and Russian readers. On the other hand, if the Russian reader, for the most part, understands that we are talking about the language game and word-creation of the hero, because of his previous cognitive experience, for the French reader the author's occasionalisms in the translated text give the impression of exoticism, an element of «foreign» linguistic culture. Nevertheless, the use of copies makes it possible to preserve the individual author's realikon of the writer in TT, conveying the meaningful and aesthetic function of a work of art.

Renomination of paroemias stated by dictionaries.

Let's move on to the analysis of the paroemias stated in the dictionaries. These units were renominated in three ways: through free combinations, through semantic copy with ST, and through «foreign» paroemias. Let us first consider renomination through free combinations, the cases of which are few (three examples in total):

ST: Ну что там дело!..дело не медведь, в лес не убежит... [3*].

ТT: Bah ! Il sera toujours temps d’en parler [4*].

In this example, the proverb in ST is transmitted through a free combination in TT il sera toujours temps d'en parler (there will always be time to talk about this). Among other colloquial means, we note the reduplication in ST, which is not reflected in TT, and the phraseosyntactic scheme ну что там дело, which is renominated by the onomatopoeia bah (so what), which conveys an expression of indifference. Let's look at another example:

ST: ...а ты прежде подойди-ка сюда ко мне: сядем рядом, да поговорим ладом, по-старому, по-бывалому [3*].

ТT: Viens donc t’asseoir auprès de moi et bavardons comme jadis, en vieux amis que nous sommes [4*].

When renominating in TT, the rhyme comme jadis, en vieux amis is preserved, although the saying itself is renominated through the free combination of the words t'asseoir auprès de moi et bavardons comme jadis (sit next to me and talk as we did before), in addition, in TT is used the adverbial stable colloquial expression en vieux amis (like old friends) is a renominant expression по-старому in ST. The TT does not reflect the redundancy of colloquial speech, so two expressions по-старому, по-бывалому are conveyed using one - comme jadis (as before). The colloquial lexical unit, which is part of the proverb, remains undenominated. Nevertheless, the translator transmits a colloquial particle - ка through the colloquial postposition of the donc particle. Let's give another example:

ST:…так дай бог твоими устами да нам мед пить [3*].

ТT:...nous n’avons plus qu’à souhaiter le succès de l’affaire [4*].

In this context, the proverb in ST is renominated by the free combination in TT (lit. we only wish success in this matter). In addition, the colloquial stable expression дай бог remains unrenominated, although there is a wide range of equivalents in French, for example, Dieu le veuille! Plaise à Dieu! À Dieu plaise! Including familier Dieu aidant! (fam.) [2 **]. It should be noted that the transfer of paroemias by stylistic neutralization may not always be successful, and, according to N.K. Garbovsky, even dangerous, since «it already affects the pragmatic level of the translation unit» [9, p. 411]. As a result, the degree of influence on the reader changes, the communicative effect decreases, which leads, in general, to the transformation of the aesthetic function of the statement. Taking into account the fact that one of the essential properties of a literary text is a communicative orientation and aesthetic value [10, p. 278], as well as the fact that «an artistic text is structured in accordance with the motives and purpose of aesthetic activity» [10, p. 290], when transferring paroemias it seems necessary to use other renominative methods: own paroemias or stable word combinations, if it is impossible to find a suitable equivalent, semantic copy remains the appropriate method. Next, we will consider the cases of renomination through semantic copies with ST, which are also few in number - we have identified only three examples:

ST: «Садись, товарищ, с нами – в ногах правды нет» [5*].

ТT: «Assieds-toi, camarade. La verité n’est pas dans les jambes» [6*].

Here we can see the renomination of the Russian proverb through full semantic copy from ST. Note that in French there are stable expressions with the lexeme jambes (legs) with semantics somewhat similar to the Russian paroemia: n'avoir plus de jambes, avoir les jambes coupées (literally to have no legs, to have severed legs in the meaning of being without strength). Here's another example:

ST: ...но, думаю, чем бы дитя ни тешилось, абы не плакало… [3*].

ТT: ...mais je me dis que «tout jeu est bon pourvu que l’enfant ne pleure»...[4*].

In this case, a copied Russian proverb in TT tout jeu est bon pourvu que l'enfant ne pleure (literally, any game is good, so long as the child does not cry) is additionally highlighted in quotation marks. However, the colloquial lexical units not reflected in the TT anyhow. Consider another context:

ST: — Что это, — говорит,— за шум, а драки нету?[7*].

ТT: –– Et quoi, dit-il, pourquoi ce tintouin, et pas de bagarre? [8*].

Here we see the renomination of the saying by means of semantic copy. As for the renomination of colloquial and vernacular units, there are more of these elements in TT than in ST, which makes it possible to compensate for their absence in other parts of the text: lexical unit tintouin (anxiety, troubles) marked familier, vieilli; lexical unit bagarre (confusion, brawl, fight) with the label familier, as well as the elliptical use of the interrogative pronoun quoi, which is a marker of colloquial speech, conveying the phraseosyntactic scheme of what it is in ST.

The last ones to consider are examples of renomination through «our» pairs or through «own» stable combinations. This method of renomination is prevalent in our material, which is explained by the very nature of the paroemia, which «is not an individual speech act, but a citation of a collective statement» [7, p. 43], is a part of the «collective memory of the linguistic community» [7, p. 39], summarizes the totality of «collective knowledge» [7, p. 41] Therefore, in order to preserve the functions of the paroemia, it seems justified to use expressions typical for the collective of the receiving culture in the process of renomination, for example:

ST: «Что ж, испыток не убыток, Митрий Иваныч [1*].

ТT: «Ma foi, un essai ne coûte rien, Mitri Ivanovitch [2*].

In this context, a Russian proverb is renominated in TT with the help of its «own» stable expression, which in French is part of some paroemias, for example, la politesse ne coûte rien et achète tout (literally, politeness costs nothing, but can buy a lot). In addition, in TT, colloquial elements are renominated: the phraseosyntactic scheme in ST and the stable expression ma foi (right, honestly) marked familier in TT.

In the following example, the pairs recorded by dictionaries are accompanied by the author's occasionalisms:

ST: Довольно в мутной воде рыбку ловить – пора ловить человеков!.. [5*].

ТT: Assez pêché en eau trouble! En chasse, maintenant [6*].

In TT, the Russian proverb ловить рыбу в мутной воде is renominated by «own» French, semantically identical pêcher en eau trouble (to fish in troubled water, meaning to benefit from the confusion [7 **]). Occasionalism in ST пора ловить человеков is transmitted through occasionalism in TT en chasse, maintenant (lit. now to hunt). The misuse of lexical unit человек in the plural is reflected elsewhere in the context of TT: an elliptical construction, represented by the omission of an auxiliary verb and the pronoun on (on a assez pêché). Let's give another example:

ST: …однако, видно, назвавшись груздем, полезешь и в кузов… [3*].

ТT: …mais qui se fait brebis, le loup le mange [4*].

In the given example, the Russian proverb is renominated in TT due to «own» French pair in TT qui se fait brebis, le loup le mange (who pretends to be a sheep, the wolf will eat those). This case of renomination is very successful, since the translator managed to preserve the artistic and stylistic coloring of the original, adapting the «foreign» linguocultural reality to «own». It should also be noted the variability inherent in paroemias, that is, a change in the words that make up their composition, or the omission / replacement of one of the parts, due to the fact that the paroemia, representing the phenomenon of a living folk language, is «thought out» and «is recreated» constantly [2, p. 294]. The deformation of proverbs is used for playful, parody purposes, submitting to the artistic and aesthetic task of the writer, which is reflected in the translation texts, for example:

ST: ...один ум хорошо, а второй лишний [1*].

ТT: ...deux têtes ne pensent pas toujours mieux qu'une [2*].

In ST we see a lexically changed proverb один ум хорошо, а два лучше, which in TT is renominated by «own» paroemia deux têtes valent mieux qu'une (two heads are worth more than one), subjected to lexical transformation: deux têtes ne pensent pas toujours mieux qu'une (two heads don't always think better than one).

In addition, the paroemia can be truncated. Taking into account the stable nature of the proverb and the reader's acquaintance with it, the latter thus becomes involved in deciphering and restoring the original version of the paroemia [7, p. 51], for example:

ST: Им все божья роса…[5*].

ТT: Tout leur est pain bénit…[6*].

In ST, the author uses part of the saying хоть плюй в глаза, и то Божья роса, which, in turn, has several lexical variants in Russian. In TT, the proverb is renominated with the c'est pain béni part of the paroemia (literally, it is the holy (consecrated) bread).

Conclusion.

The renomination of «foreign» paroemias by «own» is a successful way of transmitting these units of folk speech, removing the misunderstanding of the French reader, who, in the case of a direct translation, would encounter words that are exotic for him. This is especially significant for such texts rich in folklore formations as the works of M. Zoshchenko, A. Platonov and N.S. Leskov. In the material we have analyzed, «own» paroemias were used mainly in the transmission of paroemias stated by dictionaries, due to which a linguistic and cultural adaptation to the artistic and aesthetic reality of the translated text is achieved, which, however, does not lead to distortion or impoverishment of the style of texts with a high degree of national color. However, in some cases, described in particular by J.-P. Vine and J. Darbelne, it is appropriate to leave foreign cultural inclusions, resorting to literal translation, in order to achieve a special stylistic (comic or satirical) effect and add national flavor to the artistic text, for example, when transmitting a foreigner's speech [6, p. 276]. In our material, direct translation (copy) is characteristic of the transmission of occasional paroemias, due to which the development of a «foreign» linguoculture and the preservation of the artistic, aesthetic and stylistic intentions of the writer depicting a folk, talkative hero, often resorting to word creation, take place. Cases of renomination of paroemias through free combinations of words, leading to stylistic neutralization, are absent in the transmission of author's paroemias and are very few in the transmission of conventional paroemias, which undoubtedly has a positive effect on the preservation of the communicative and aesthetic function of the artistic text.

In addition, colloquial and vernacular units of various linguistic levels (lexical, morphological, syntactic, phraseological), typical for paroemias, were reflected in the translation texts, the renomination of which was carried out within the frame of one context, although not always in the same place, by means of the «own» language. The techniques we have analyzed for the transmission of colloquial and vernacular units confirm the already available research results of colloquial vocabulary [11, 12, 13], showing that its translation is based on the principle of compensation «having various both intra-level and inter-level forms of manifestation» [13].Thus, the analysis of the ways of transferring Russian paroemias in the French translated literary text has shown the broad renominative possibilities of the receiving, French, linguistic culture for the integration and adaptation of «foreign» linguistic and cultural reality. In addition, the results obtained can be used in further research, for example, to determine the degree of impressive equivalence of the translated text, that is, the equivalence of the impression produced on the reader by ST and TT [14, p. 193], psycholinguistic experiments to identify which have already been carried out using examples of semantic synesthesia in the works of I.A. Bunin and their translations into French [15]. In addition, the results obtained can be used for a comparative analysis of the Russian and French ethnic picture of the world, determined by the totality of ethnic constants, values and stereotypes represented in speech activity [16, p. 10] by means of paroemias.