Pecularities of translation into Ukrainian of English phraseological units in the texts of literary discourse

• The first one is that of traditional stylistics (atomistic or organic): studying linguistic phenomena is supposed to help the analyst to interpret texts. The linguistic analysis is only a tool.
• The second modality is that of the approaches that use concepts and methods frorm pragmatic, text linguistics or discourse analysis. We can distinguish two purposes:

 a) elaborating ingterpretations of a work or a group of works; b) working out a model of the linguistic properties of a corpus, which can be defined according to various criteria. For example, describing a genre or the properties of texts belonging to the same aesthetic position (naturalism, surrealism...) or written by the same author.

• In the third modality, the analysts claim to study works, but they attempt to question the frontier between text and context by taking into consideration not only works but also larger units such as literary field, discourse communities and so on.
• The fourth modality is the most radical: the works are no longer the focus of the analysis. The object is literary discourse, considered as a network of manifold genres (and not only the genres of the works). That means that anthologies of literature, literary chronicles in newspapers, commentary practices at the university or at school, interviews that the writers give on TV, and so on, are part of literary discourse. From this viewpoint, literary discourse analysis must not be viewed as a new trend of literary criticism, but as a new way of constructing the object “Literature”.

There does not exist a stable “treasure”, constituted of great works that each period would interpret with the help of new tools: in this fourth modality, the purpose of discourse analysis is not to interpret a thesaurus, it is, among other things, to understand the construction, the management and the role of this treasure in discourse practices. In my view, the modality does not pertain to discourse analysis; modality pertains to literary discourse analysis in a « weak » sense; only modalities and pertain to discourse analysis in a “strong” sense.Two notions: self constituting discourse and scenography

The status of « self-constituting discourses » (Maingueneau 1999) is very particular: discourses like others, they are also discourses which claim to be above any other type of discourse. As discourses bordering on unspeakable meanings, they must negotiate the paradoxes that such a status implies. To hold up other discourses without being held up by them, they must set themselves up as intimately bound with a legitimising Source and show that they are in accordance with it, owing to the operations by which they structure their texts and legitimate their own context.

Each type of society has its own self-constituting discourses and its specific ways of connecting them: speaking « anachronistically », one could say that mythical discourse in traditional societies is at the same time “literary”, “philosophical”, “scientific” and “religious”. When we work on texts belonging to self-constituting discourses, we deal with highly structured discourses that speak of man, society, rationality, good and evil, etc., that have a large scope, global aims. But those discourses are produced locally, by few people set in a small sector of society. Literary discourse, like the other self-constituting discourses, is diffused in the mass media and schools, but it is shaped in very limited circles belonging to a specific field. So, a position is not only a more or less systematic set of contents, it associates a certain textual configuration and a certain way of life for a group of people, discursive communities, which may be organized in many ways.

Here the term « scenography » is not used in its usual way:

• It adds to the theatrical dimension of « scene » the dimension of « graphy », of legitimating inscription, for scenography gives authority to discourse, which has persuasive effects on addressees.
• Scenography is not a frame, a scenery, as if discourse occurred inside a place that is already fixed, independently of discourse. On the contrary, discourse puts progressively into place its own communicational device. So, -graphy must be understood simultaneously as frame and process.

In literature like in other self-constituting discourses scenographies must not be considered as mere rhetorical strategies, as is the case in an advertising campaign. When a poet, through his or her enunciation, shows himself