Conclusions

The work we have done was of great interest for us. We were rather subjective, but it definitely means that the material we were investigating gives no chance to be indifferent.

We did not discover something new in Linguistics and Translation Studies but we tried to make in-depth analysis of the material, to consider the problem from different points of view, to apply our knowledge of theory to practice. Stylistics is a prolific source for researches. Various Stylistic Devices are the result of the work of human imagination and it is endless. Every case of Stylistic Device is something new, fresh; it brings a new flavour to the text, a new colouring, and adds expressiveness. But even more interesting was making the contrastive analysis of the translations that gave us the possibility to reveal their stylistic peculiarities.

We have found out that the Style of the original text undergoes some transformations because it is impossible to mirror every stylistic device. However, in Chapter III we analyzed many cases of mere SD reflecting when the latter cannot be adjusted to stylistic means of the Russian language. It is undoubtedly considered a translator�s failure. (V. Veber) We sifted two translations through the typology of Stylistic Transformations which are characteristic of any translation. The results were the following. Typical Transformation of B. Zahoder�s translation is Stylistic Amplification (45%). It can be justified by the specific features of the Russian language to denote expressiveness.

Veber�s translation is full of literalism and the main characteristic feature of his translation is Stylistic Weakening (67%). Veber�s translation has proved that there cannot be direct correlation between all the stylistic elements of ST and TT.

Thus, we denied our working hypothesis that such correspondence is possible. We tried to understand some specific problems of Literary Translation. Without this understanding the analysis of Miln`s book translations would not be so productive: we tried to make a thorough analysis of three texts. Our future research may consider further analysis of the third �Winnie-the-Pooh� Russian translation done by V.Rudnev, which is completely different from the previous two, because it is based on post-modernistic interpretation of A.Miln`s Book.