Slyvka M. Functional and cognitive correspondences of the Ukrainian historico-cultural nominations in the English publications.

The dissertation discusses the major ways and communicative strategies of rendering the nationally colored terminological and other conceptually loaded elements of the historical scholarly discourse. The units whose referential meanings and/or semantic implications bear the imprint of the Ukrainian cultural, social or economic history and life-style reflect a variety of specific features of national world outlook and ethnic ways of the "linguistic mapping" of the reality. The distinctive features of the Ukrainian national culture are well perceived against the background of the internationally recognized terms that are extensively used by the translators and the authors of the English publications about Ukraine as a means of explaining the basic referential meanings of the transcribed or calqued original units. Communicative interpretation of the source language term and its contextual implications depends very much on the profound analysis of the national conceptual syste which is generally recognized as being intertextual and cross-genre by nature. An indispensable element of the historical scholarly discourse is the network of references to the sources and papers written by a variety of the other participants whose views are either shared or contested. Thus each text enters a kind of a hypertext which is a multilevel structure consisting of the interdependent lines of description. The research demonstrated that the cognitive potential of the historico-cultural nominations is a diverse and variable value. It can be adequately represented in translation only through the prism of a variety of systematic links which take into account not only individual text choices and preferences, but the historical and cultural discourse as a whole. A considerable part of the historico-cultural nominations are proper names. The complexity of their adequate representation in the TL text is rooted not only in the lack of the unified transliteration rules both in Ukraine and outside, but also in the discrepancies of the historical paradigms of which the respective names or their derivatives may be a part. The initial Cyrillic spelling or/and the phonological value of individual graphemes is in some cases a problem itself which produces different TL representations: Volodymyr :: Vladimir, Olha :: Olga, Ihor :: Igor etc. In most cases it is the linguistic awareness of the author (or translator), along with his/her conceptual historical outlook, which determine the choice between the possible options.