Stockholms Universitet - Slavisk - publikationer (SV)

  1. The chapter deals with the history of a woman soldier, a participant of the Polish national insurrection of 1863, Anna Henryka Pustowójtówna (1838–1881). Among the pictographic and historiographical representations of women involved in the combat, the image of Pustowójtówna in a man’s uniform stands out as most iconic, although her legacy today is undecided. The chapter discusses the transgressive agency of the figure of a cross-dressing soldier as well as the emancipatory idea of a citizen-soldier versus the normalizing power of literary convention. It also reflects on the specific position of women heroes in Polish collective in an attempt to understand why Pustowójtówna has been absent from women’s history and feminist discourse of today.

  2. Semantic differences between Polish and Russian lexical units originating from the same source (lekcja vs lektsiya on cultural specificity)

    The paper deals with the Polish word lekcja and the Russian word lektsiya (a lecture) that are similar in sounding. We start with the review of dictionary descriptions of the word lekcja in Polish lexicographical sources, indicating the changes in the lexical meaning of the word concerned over time. In a similar way, we analyze the lexicographical description of the Russian word lektsiya. The focus is on the specific features of the meaning-changing process of both words. The study proposes an analysis of relevant examples from mono-, bi- and polylingual dictionaries. Since the typical opposition between the words urok (a lesson) and lektsiya was not evident enough in past centuries, we also describe the basic features of semantic development of the word urok. The paper provides the results of the corpus data study by analyzing and describing the usage contexts of lekcja in the National Corpus of Polish and lektsiya in the Russian National Corpus. Also, the methods of translation of the words under consideration from Polish into Russian and from Russian into Polish respectively are investigated. The paper aims to reveal why these two words that are so similar in sounding have little in common in their semantics in Polish and Russian. This difference is due to the specification of lexical meanings of the words under study in each of the languages compared: having undergone a complex semantic evolution, the Polish word lekcja acquired the key semantics of “a lesson at school,” with the Russian word lektsiya meaning mainly “an oral presentation of a subject by a professor at a university.”

  3. This paper aims to provide a pilot contrastive study of the Swedish conjunction innan and its Russian translational correspondences based on a small Swedish-Russian parallel corpus. The study has found that in more than half of all cases this Swedish conjunction does not correspond to its Russian conjunctional analogues. The frequency of the use of the conjunction innan and its involvement in syntactic structures with a high degree of reproduction provide a basis for hypothesizing that cognition of such propositions would cause less difficulty to Swedish speakers than cognition of the propositions with the conjunction pered tem kak in any position, in the case of Russian speakers.

  4. This article presents the career of the Russian poet-translator Mark Tarlovskii (1902–1952) through the prism of the trickster archetype as applied to Soviet culture by Mark Lipovetsky (2011). Drawing on both published and archival material, the article traces Tarlovskii’s navigations through “cynical culture” in the Soviet 1930s and 1940s. While these were arguably survival strategies on the part of the translator, they had as yet unrecognized implications for the field of literary translation and Soviet “nationalities culture” at the time. Furthermore, these navigations help to unearth a “southern subjectivity” whose significance for Russian culture of the epoch is still understudied.

  5. This article presents an archival finding — the first parts of Byron’s Don Juan translated by Georgii Shengeli in 1953 in iambic pentameter instead of the hexameter he used for his 1947 edition of the work. The fragment is discussed against the background of the critical campaign that was launched against Shengeli in the early 1950s. It is compared with the published version as well as with Tatiana Gnedich’s 1959 translation with particular attention to disputed features.