Discourse type: Source text (ST) (“Kindness” by Naomi Shihab Nye) and target text (TT)

(«Доброта» уперекладі Науменко Ольги) both belong to Poetic Discourse.

Genre: it’s a lyrical genre-form, a poem, that may be defined as panegyric, such as praises the
notion of ‘Kindness’ and explains it.

Image schematic similarities and differences in translation and source text:

 Similarities:
topological image schemas: ‘Up-Down’ and ‘Left-Right) text placement’.
Plurality schema: ‘shoes’ - ‘черевики’, ‘plans’ – ‘плани’.
Object schema: ‘the kindness’ – ‘доброта’, ‘the crowd’ – ‘юрба’, ‘shadow’ – ‘тінь’,
‘friend’ – ‘друг’.
Position schema: ‘by the side of the road’ – ‘обабіч дороги’.
 Differences:
Container-Contents schema: ‘only kindness that ties your shoes’ – ‘вона і черевики тебе
змушує зав’язувати’, ‘goes with you everywhere’ – ‘стає твоїм супутником’.
Position schema: ‘between the regionsof kindness’ – ‘без доброти’.

Metonymic similarities and differences:

ST: Whole – Whole – Part (Before you know what kindness really is / you must lose
things / feel the future dissolve in a moment).
TT: Part – Whole – Part (Перед тим, як дізнатися, чим насправді є доброта, / ти
повинен відпустити все, / уявити, що за мить майбутнє розчиниться).

Construal/mental operations similarities/ differences:

TT: Whole and Part are foregrounded (whole dominates).
ST Iterative foregrounding (part dominates).

Metaphoric similarities/differences:
‘How desolate the landscape can be’ – ‘яким порожнім може стати світ’.
‘The simple breath, that kept him alive’ – ‘і був живим лише тому, що дихав’ – також
приклад object-subject image schema.

Perspective:
the road in the desolate world – topological container, as well as in the target text.
Observer perspective, detached perspective.
Strong emotional appeal – також сильний.
Pessimistic point of view – оптимістичніша.

Subjectivity and objectivity:

ST – objectivity is more prominent;
TT – tends to subjectivity.
Possibilities of the target language:
cultural shift, altering of important elements, shortening of some word-groups to one-word
constructs.

Summary:
Both texts relate to the same poetic discourse and genre. The cognitive-communicative analysis
shows not only the similarities in poetry implementations, but also its vivid differences. With main
elements intact, some lesser elements were changed to have a wider appeal on the target text
readers. Some of the grammatical constructs had to be changed as well, due to the differences in
the grammars. There are many similarities in image schemas, metonymic, metaphoric and
perspective aspects with the Source text, though differences can be found as often. Main
differences concern subjectivity-objectivity complex.