 A PSYCHOLINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF THE FIRST UKRAINIAN SYLLABI ON GENERAL AND SPECIAL METHODOLOGY OF TRANSLATION BY MYKHAILO

2020 Abstract. The article studies and discusses the programs of interrelated lecture courses on General and Special Methodology of Translation, developed for the Ukrainian Institute of Linguistic Education by its professors Mykhailo Kalynovych and Mykola Zerov in September 1932. This material is analyzed from the perspective of psycholinguistic text theory, according to which the text is the basic unit of discourse that, in turn, is a component of communicative action, along with the situation. The study focuses on the micro- and macrotext structure of the above programs and highlights the peculiarities of their communicative intentions in the political and social reality of early Stalinism. It features the unique, innovative elements in them, but also those that were typical of the early Soviet theory of translation. For the first time not only in Ukrainian but also in the All-Union thought on translation, Kalynovych and Zerov presented in their integrated courses the ramified structure of Translation Studies as a multifaceted discipline. They introduced into the discipline novel methodology and new research directions, particularly by creating such areas as the history of translation studies and translation management. The material of Zerov's syllabus on Special Methodology of Translation is first published and discussed in this article. The typewritten text of the syllabus remained unknown until the author of the article found and identified it in the Archives of the Literary Museum of Hryhoriy Kochur, who had been a student of Zerov at the Kyiv Institute of Public Education and further remained his faithful follower. During the Khrushchev thaw, Kochur made many efforts to rehabilitate the name of Zerov – a distinguished literary scholar, lecturer, and poet-translator. The syllabus on General Methodology of Translation outlined by professor Kalynovych was found earlier in the same Archives and published in 2015. However, this article pioneers its presentation and analysis in mutual complementarity with the syllabus by translation studies as a


Introduction
The early 1930s saw the flourishing of Ukrainian translation thought. In the academic year 1932-33, the Ukrainian Institute of Linguistic Education (Ukrainskyi Instytut Lingvistychnoi Osvity, UILO) introduced into its curriculum two consecutive and integrated disciplines, General Methodology of Translation and Special Methodology of Translation, which were developed by the Institute professors Mykhailo Kalуnovych (1888Kalуnovych ( -1949 and Mykola Zerov (1890-1937 respectively 1 . 8 Contemporary researcher Mysechko (2007) argues that even though the initial level of knowledge of students entering the Institute was rated as very low, the teaching there in general was conducted at a high level.
As was observed by Mysechko (2007), from the early 1933 the UILO began to be sharply criticized by the governing bodies of public education for its -unfounded and excessive orientation ‗to the West,'‖ apolitical study of professional languages or, vice versa, reference to a -harmful ideology‖ in the teaching process and usage of -counter-revolutionary examples,‖ etc. (TSDAVO; cited in Mysechko, 2007, p. 37). Due to ideological pressure on the Institute, the course General Methodology of Translation, taught by Kalynovych during the fall semester in 1932, and the course Special Methodology of Translation, which was designed by Zerov as a continuation of the Kalynovych course 2 , 9 remained unnoticed and unappreciated not only by their contemporaries but also by the new generations of translation teachers, theorists, and practitioners.
Meanwhile, these sequential programs of training translators represent a unique holistic approach to studying the field and scope of translation, teaching translation to Ukrainian students, and advancing linguistic, literary, cultural, and historical knowledge as integral constituents of Translation Studies. Together with the new branches of research, Kalynovych and Zerov introduced new terminology into the translation discourse and systematized the relationship of certain terms and concepts in this area. Concurrently, the thematic content and the lists of required and recommended reading for each topic in Kalynovych and Zerov not only reflect the authors' individual view of Translation Studies as a discipline in the early 1930s, but also point to the condition and status of the early Soviet theory of translation.
All that said, the Kalynovych and Zerov syllabi are a valuable source of information about the state of Ukrainian translation thought, its professional language, relation to and interaction with the Russian translation thought, as well as about ideological constraints at the time of forced politicization of all public domains. A psycholinguistic analysis of these important documents of the early Stalinist period as an integral text within the framework of translation studies discourse and at the intersection with socio-political, national, cultural, and historical discourses will help to shed more light on the Ukrainian translation scholar's agency within and beyond the ideological frame of that time, the sociopolitical and cultural aspects of educating a national and Soviet translator at once, forming his/her working terminology, proficiency, psychological attitudes and esthetic tastes. The psycholinguistic study of these materials will also contribute to a better understanding of the mechanisms of the Communist Party's exercise of power over national and cultural processes in the Soviet republics. Therefore, this study may be of interest not only to linguists, translators, and literary critics, but also to political scientists, sociologists, and culturologists.

Methods
The research methodology in this article relies on the premises of psycholinguistic analysis of the text, which is viewed as result of linguistic and mental activity and, simultaneously, as a unit of communication. After all, the primary goal for the developers of professional disciplines was the communicative goal, i.e., information transfer and an impact on the student-recipient. According to psycholinguist Krasnykh (2005, p. 258-261), the text is the basic unit of discourse, while the discourse itself together with the situation are components of the 2 English translations from Ukrainian of all terms and quotations in this article were made by me. -L.K. The typewritten versions of both syllabi are stored in the Archives of Hryhoriy Kochur Literary Museum in the city of Irpin (Kyiv Oblast). The Kalynovych syllabus on general methodology of translation has been found and made public by Dzhuhastrianska & Strikha (2015).
The syllabus by Zerov on special methodology of translation, which is the continuation of the Kalynovych syllabus, was found by the author of this article. I express my sincere gratitude to the Literary Museum of Hryhoriy Kochur for the kind opportunity to work with the text of the program by Zerov. communicative act, which, in turn, is the main unit of communication. In my study of the syllabi of Kalynovych and Zerov, I will apply the model of psycholinguistic analysis of the text by Krasnykh (2005). The following text parameters will be analyzed: extralinguistic reality, or the consituation in which the communicative act takes place; specific subject, or the author, communicator, who generates a specific speech-thinking product; stimulus to speech activity and the intention to generate speech; verbal form of the product of speech-thinking activity, i.e., the text itself in the direct presentation; text structuremicrotexts and macrotexts; logicalsemantic structure of the text (logical-semantic blocks, which are, according to Krasnykh, certain fragments of communication); specific speech action as a minifragment of communication; connections between speech actions of communicators.
In a broader methodological dimension, the article draws on 1) communicative-pragmatic analysis, or intent-analysis of discourse, aimed at identifying the intentions of the lecturer as communicant in the process of interaction with the student audience; 2) semiotic analysis of the text as specific speech-thinking product and the consituation, in which the communicative act of teaching takes place; specifically, the study is based upon the works on textual theory of the Bakhtin circle, in particular on the monographic research by  3 ; 10 3) advances in cultural historiography of the 20th-century translation thought, set out in the works of contemporary Ukrainian and Russian historians of translation, particularly the history of methodology of Russian translation illuminated by Azov (2013).

The Study
This part of the article will be devoted to the study of methodological and terminological novelty of the course programs, worked out by Kalynovych  Topic 7. Translation during the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. These syllabi are complete macrotexts with a similar microtext structure. Both begin with an explanatory note, which clarifies the purpose of the course, explains its structure, and emphasizes the need for students to take notes of teacher's lectures and use the notes as the main textbook required for study due to the lack of sources, particularly those written in accordance with the -Marxist-Leninist methodology.‖ Each lecture topic is a standardized microtext, which consists of an indication of the number of hours devoted to the topic, a rather detailed lecture plan on the topic and a list of required readings as well as optional, or recommended, sources, though not for all topics. The programs include two conferencesin the middle and at the end of the course. Zerov's program also presupposes extracurricular preparation and presentation by students of two independent reports on lecture topics.
The discussed syllabi show the tradition and context of Ukrainian school of translation. They mutually complement each other, and together they give a holistic view of the ramified structure of Ukrainian translation studies in the early 1930s. According to Zerov, -the special translation methodology course is a direct continuation of the general translation methodology course. Its target tendency is predetermined by the tendency of the course on general methodology‖ (1932, p. 1 of typescript).
Cognitive mapping of the syllabi, based on logical analysis of text content and building associative fields, allowed the author of this article to draw a chart of Translation Studies as a discipline in the terms and the form in which it was presented by Kalynovych and Zerov. A comparative textological analysis enabled consolidation of their syllabi into a single schematic map of the discipline, generated by reason of correlation between their intertextual coherence and mutual integrity (see Figure 1).
Intertwining in one text of the discourse of Ukrainization and development of Ukrainian national culture with the discourse of proletarianization of national art and way of thinking was a sign of the early Stalinist period. The researched programs were not an exception to the process of forced Sovietization of educational discourse. Professional language terminology is interspersed in them with ideological patterns, which came from the consituation of ideological bias in the educational program at the UILO, as elsewhere in Soviet educational institutions. Political idiom of Marxist-Leninist ideology is particularly abundant in the text of Kalynovych because of its general methodological orientation.
As a verbal form of the product of speech-thinking activity, the discourse in Kalynovych aims to create a new, proletarian theory of translation. In this effort, the author pinpoints the multiple tasks of translation such as spreading the ideas of socialist construction and soviet technology, literature, and the arts all over the world; development of the proletarian artistic style; elevation of those nations and ethnic groups that lagged behind economically and culturally (because of the -class policy of the bourgeoisie‖) to higher levels of development; revival of the pace of Ukrainization and construction of Ukrainian culture -"national by form and socialist by substance‖; integration of linguistic ideological superstructure of the world proletariat; construction of world proletarian culture and new life.
A builder of the proletarian theory of translation, whose ultimate purpose was to integrate proletarian ideology worldwide through translation, must have had a strong confidence in translatability. In this regard, an approving attitude towards the translation (of proletarian art) into Esperanto was the marker of this theory. At the same time, the significance of Indigenization (Ukrainization) constituted an integral part of the theory of proletarian translation in the early 1903s. Linguistic Ukrainization, as well as the Communist Party's policy of Indigenization on the territories with predominant non-Russian-speaking population at large, was basically aimed at Socialist reformation of national cultures.
The policy of Ukrainization served, above all, to establish Stalin's dictatorship in the Ukrainian SSR, despite the appearance of restoring justice towards the Ukrainian-speaking population. In the late 1920s-early30s, Ukrainian intelligentsia was forced to seek a compromise between the hope for revival of Ukrainian language and culture after the centuries of colonial stagnation in Russian Empire and the interests of the Bolsheviks' government in Soviet Ukraine. Kalynovych, as many cohorts of Ukrainian intellectuals of his time, attempted to build Ukrainian science amid the rising campaign of Stalin's terror. A part of the compromise was in accepting Russian view of the history of Ukraine as well as Russia's cultural dominance. Such an attitude can be tracked in the theme -Stages of translation history,‖ in which the preindustrial Ukraine is vaguely represented as a territory of -the East Slavs‖ (Kalynovych, 1932, p. 3 of typescript). A generalizing attitude to the early history of Ukraine, inherited from the time of colonial dependence on Russian Empire, was reinforced under the Communist regime. Mandatory sociological bias sounds particularly harsh in the theme -Stages of the history of translation studies,‖ which represents a discussion of the classical and romantic theories through a sociological prism.
However, the professional terminology used by Kalynovych and Zerov in the most part remains important and relevant to contemporary discourses on translation. Certain terms and concepts should be mentioned in the first place. This is primarily the term perekladoznavstvo (verbatim -translation studies‖) applied by Kalynovych as the name for the academic discipline which concerns itself with the study of translation at large. The term Translation Studies proved to be the most widely used designation of the discipline today. 411 Figure 1.

A Summary Chart of the Discipline of Translation Studies (Based on the Syllabi of General and Special Methodology of Translation, Designed by Professors Mykhailo Kalynovych and Mykola Zerov)
The structure of the discipline Translation Studies coincides in its basic components in Kalynovych with the structure of this discipline in Holmes, who -is credited with the first attempt to chart the territory of translation studies as an academic pursuit‖ , p. 277). Holmes' map of the domain of Translation Studies (TS) is now commonly recognized as a framework for organizing research and teaching activities within this discipline , p. 278). In addition to his scheme, Holmes mentions two important areas of inquiry: the study of Translation Studies itself (such as the history of translation theory or the history of translator training, etc.) and the study of the methods and models of specific types of research in the discipline , p. 279).
Forty years before the appearance of Holmes' chart in 1972, Kalynovych worked out a view of the territory of Translation Studies, which substantially corresponds to the map of the discipline promoted by Holmes. Just like Holmes does, Kalynovych divides the discipline, which he concomitantly refers to as the Science of Translation, into two major branches: Theoretical Translation Studies (in Holmes: Pure TS) and Practical Translation Studies (in Holmes: Applied TS). The branch of Theoretical TS is further subdivided in Kalynovych into three sections: Methodology of Translation, History of Translation (General and National Histories), and History of Translation Studies. Highlighting the history of translation studies as a separate branch and the subject matter of translation studies testifies to the maturity of Ukrainian translation thought in the early 1930s. The branch of Practical TS is further subdivided in Kalynovych into two sections: General Methods of Translation and Partial Methods of Translation (for a specific language pair, etc.).
It is important to note that the division of the field of Translation Studies into the major areas in Kalynovych is more detailed than that of Holmes. Kalynovych partitions the territory of Translation Studies into the Object of Study, the Branches of the Discipline, and Related Disciplines. By including the domains of related disciplines in the field of Translation Studies Kalynovych anticipated contemporary approaches to TS as an interdisciplinary science by nature, which embraces a spectrum of methods and models from other disciplines. An integrated approach to Translation Studies, envisaged by Kalynovych, enables adding a supplemental branch to TS, which is the branch of Translation Management that consists of such subbranches as Translator /Editor /Reviewer training, Publishing /Planning of translation repertoire, and Joint translation activities /Team method.
The map of the discipline advanced by Kalynovych has the triple objective of 1) clarifying the nature (or -essence‖) of translation, its purpose, and the unit (-object‖); 2) identifying the functions of translation, among which Kalynovych and Zerov together listed the following ones: social (-class‖), communicative, and esthetic; 3) developing principles for proper evaluation of the strategy and result of translation (in particular, using such characterizing terms as accurate /equivalent /adequate /equimetric /objective translation; translation from translation, etc.).
Zerov filled the section of general methods of translation, which belongs to the branch of Practical TS in Kalynovych, with descriptions of specific types of translation resulting from the various translation techniques known at the time.
Within the section, he singled out a foreignizing translation (or -close‖ with a foreign color), an -analogue,‖ a -compromise,‖ as well as the strategies of stylization, free translation, and -montage.‖ Based on the text type, literary style, and genre restrictions, Zerov also split the section of partial methods of translation up into such sectors as the prose non-artistic (non-fiction) translation; journalistic translation and the translation of essays and (literary) criticism; the prose artistic (fiction) translation; the translation of poetry (verses); the translation of scientifictechnical nomenclature and terminology. The sector of prose non-fiction translation, in turn, is subdivided in accordance with further genre and stylistic distinction into the following components: scientific genre; administrative genre; business language /correspondence and its patterns.
The integrity of Translation Studies as a university discipline outlined by Kalynovych and Zerov hinges on the relationship between theory, practice, and management of translation, with each branch providing logic and reasons for the other two. The joint endeavor to create a complete delineation of the discipline and to teach it at the UILO was an important achievement of the early Soviet theory of translation and a significant contribution to the 20 th -century European translation thought, still underestimated. A holistic view of TS introduced into teaching, as well as a range of professional concepts and specially coined terms, is an outstanding achievement of Ukrainian translation thought, still relevant and attractive in many respects against the background of modern ideas about translation.
The chart of TS drawn by the author of this article aims to show multiple connections between the content and composition of the discussed syllabi. In view of their mutual complementarity and intertextuality, the written plan of each lecture should be considered as a minifragment of intended classroom communication, which was to unfold in a series of full-time lectures.
Oral communication as a type of speech-thinking activity dominated in classroom, and the syllabi constituted only a significant part of specific speech actions of the professors-communicators of knowledge. In this regard, lecture notes should be viewed as the product and interpretation of speech-thinking activity of the lecturer. It is worth mentioning that the main form of required literature in Kalynovych and Zerov were lecture notes made by their students during the lectures. And for a large part of lectures in their syllabi making notes was the only written source for students to learn the classroom material.
Although spoken mediation of knowledge should not be underestimated, the student notes have not survived, and the only remaining evidence of this verbal form of knowledge acquisition is the course program, apart from separate scattered lecture notes that Zerov made personally during the preparation for lectures. 512 Translation terminology in Zerov is organically national and largely based on the Ukrainian-language models of term formation. Concurrently, it remains relevant to contemporary discourses on translation. For instance, Zerov opposes the translator's orientation towards target language and its originality (his term: svoiemovnist") to the focus on source language peculiarities (his term: chuzhomovnist"). This conceptual opposition of the native language-centered strategy to the foreign language-centered approach correlates with domesticating vs. foreignizing strategies in Western translatology.
The prioritization of foreignizing strategy in the 1920s had been justified by evaluating the accurate translation above the approximate one and by acknowledging the fact of only limited translatability of certain semantic, poetic, and cultural features of literary works. But in the early 1930s, the Soviet theory of translation started rationalizing both domestication and foreignization by purely political motives. The Bolsheviks sensed danger in the strategy of domestication and began to associate it with a -bourgeois-nationalist‖ love of the vernacular, while foreignization applied to scientific and technical terminology and nomenclature, on the contrary, was correlated with proletarian internationalism. Zerov's syllabus displays such an opposition of the -bourgeois-nationalist‖ orientation towards vernacular originality (svoiemovnist') to the -proletarian translator's orientation at internationality‖ in rendering foreign terminology (1932, p. 3 of typescript), although under the slogan of linguistic internationalism the Party's policy of Russification of the peoples of Soviet republics was hidden.
Despite the mandatory application of Marxist-Leninist idiom to linguistic phenomena, for example, searching for the -class-based emotional coloring‖ in synonyms, Zerov made a huge contribution to the development of Ukrainian (and Soviet) Translation Studies by introducing into this new discipline numerous terms and concepts from related fields, especially from the theory and history of literature, linguistics, and art history. These are concepts like -social dialect,‖ -social and cultural relief of the word,‖ its -associative saturation,‖ stylistic techniques of variation, explication, gradation, etc.

Results and Discussion
In view of the above study, consolidated efforts of Kalynovych and Zerov to develop the structure of Translation Studies as an integrated discipline culminates in detailed mapping and significant expansion of its territory. Special emphasis must be placed on the branch of Translation Management pioneered by Kalynovych. Along with the task of translator training, the author raises the issues of organizing the work and cooperation in the field of translation, together with the issues of editing and reviewing the translated texts. This branch also deals with the problem of joint translation activities: the team method (-the brigade form of translation‖)pairing a translator who knows the language of the translation better, with a translator more familiar with the language of the original, a translator with the author.
The team method as a creative cooperation of a tandem of translators, their interpretive dialogue and the result of joint intellectual efforts is a common phenomenon in world translation practice. Among the most famous examples is the experience of the Toledo School of Translators. 613 Among the Ukrainian translation tandems of the late1920s-early1930s, the names of Veronica Hladka and Kateryna Koriakina are worthy of mentioning. As a poetess, Hladka had an impeccable sense of the Ukrainian language, and Koriakina, being a Russian, was brilliant in the Scandinavian languages. Their fruitful cooperation has brought the Ukrainian reader an opportunity to enjoy high-quality translations, primarily from Scandinavian languages as well as from English. In the first quarter of the 20 th century, several families of Ukrainian writers worked as translation teams. Among them were Modest and Zinaida Levytsky, Dmytro and Maria Lysychenko, and others (Kolomiyets, 2015, p. 186-192;202-203;266-269).
Thus, viewed from translation history, the brigade method of translation as a collective activity was not actually a communist invention, although it received a fashionable name for the time, which was associated with workers' brigades. For Kalynovych, this term refers to the cooperation of independent intellectuals who work between cultures for the sake of their more fruitful dialogue, and the ruling circles of the Soviet system and its party-state apparatus saw in this method primarily the possibility of mechanically increasing translations as a collectively produced product that would testify to the active cultural interaction between the Soviet republics.
Another important area in the translation management industry is publishing and planning of translated publications. These issues are discussed in both Kalynovych and Zerov. An intense dialogue about the ways of translating foreign classics started in the Russian communist state at the turn of the 1920s, after the appearance of the publishing house -World Literature‖ in Petrograd in September 1918. 714 The publishing house was founded under the auspices of People's Commissariat for Education. It was supposed to translate and publish all foreign classics of the 18 th -20 th centuries. Accordingly, at least some guidelines had to be outlined on how these works should be translated. Contemporary historians of translation tie the beginning of Soviet translation thought to the appearance of this publishing house and more precisely to the commentaries of best Russian poets 6 A group of scholars who worked together in the Spanish city of Toledo in the 12 th -13 th centuries AD over the translations of philosophical and scientific works from classical Arabic into Latin and starting in the 13 th century into Castilian. The Toledo translators worked in tandem in the following way: one person translated from an Arabic source for another person, who recorded the final translation in the target language, clarifying in the dialogue with his partner the interpretation of difficult places and opaque meanings. 7 At that time, during the Hetmanate (May 1918-December 1918, there was a total of 169 publishing houses in Ukraine (Murakhovskyi, 2014, p. 2). Aleksandr Blok, Nikolay Gumilev, Mikhail Lozinsky, philologists Fyodor Batyushkov, Alexander Smirnov, critic Korney Chukovsky, and other participators in its work (Azov, 2013).
In Soviet Ukraine, the idea of outlining a strategic general plan for the translators of world literature was partly realized in the 1920s by private and cooperative publishers, such as the Chas literary circle in Kyiv, the Rukh publishing house, the Knyhospilka cooperative union, although by the year 1931 all private and co-operative publishers became either banned or converted into state enterprises, and book printing passed into the hands of the state. The most grandiose plan of publishing all foreign classics in Ukrainian was put forward in March 1930 by the Cabinet of Comparative Studies of Literature at the Institute of Taras Shevchenko, which had been founded in 1926 in Kharkiv at the All-Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, a republican branch of the Academy of Sciences of the Soviet Union. The Cabinet focused its research activities on Russian-Ukrainian literary relations, translations of the classics of world literature in connection with the question of their impact on the Ukrainian literature, and the study of fiction of the modern West. The Chairman of the Cabinet Oleksandr Biletskyi and its members Aleksandr Leites and Mykola Zerov compiled a list of works of foreign literature-from ancient times to the twentieth century inclusivethat were to be translated preferably in the first place (Zerov, 1930, p. 1 of typescript). Their intentions were more ambitious than those of the Petrograd publishing house -World literature‖ editors. Such grandiose plans required a holistic map of the territory of Translation Studies, which would help to analyze, typologize, and produce translations.
In a lecture course, lecturing as spoken mediation of knowledge comes before the written text, although the written form of knowledge transfer is essential for students to fully master the content of the discipline. Therefore, it is important to look closely at the lists of required and recommended readings in Kalynovych and Zerov with the objective to briefly review the included sources and analyze their basic premises, as well as the reasons for the selection of these works. Certain of the included titles are surely of a broader interest not only to historians of translation in the early Stalinist period, but also to sociologists and psychologists, the researchers of dominant powers and ideas of that period.
Table 1 (see Appendix) exhibits the incorporated list of all printed literature for both syllabi. Distribution of required and recommended readings from the above list between the syllabi on general and special methodology of translation is shown in Figure 2, indicating pages from the relevant sources.

Figure 2. Distribution of Required and Recommended Readings for Course Programs on General and Special Methodology of Translation
The Russian-language sources seem to prevail in the lists of non-required (additional) reading in both programs. Ukrainian translation thought was in the orbit of Russian thought, although in the 1920s Ukrainian literary translation and, respectively, theory of translation developed more intensively than Russian. This trend is noticeable due to the large number of critical publications about translated works and reviews of them in Ukraine (see . In the face of possible political accusations Kalynovych justifies his selection of reading by claiming that he recommends only the best and most accessible literature, while stressing the point that his selection is based exclusively on the objective reason of accessibility of the printed material related to the topics of his course. Professor's self-justification does not look like an unnecessary precaution, considering his recommendation of the collection of essays -Principles of Literary Translation‖ (Batyushkov, Gumilev, & Chukovsky, 1920). One of its co-authors, the poet and translator Nikolay Gumilev, who had been shot by the Bolsheviks in 1921, was not supposed to be mentioned among reliable sources. Another coauthor, the leading literary historian and critic Fyodor Batyushkov, who died in 1920, shortly after being fired from his post of the head of the Saint Petersburg State Theatres committee, was not considered a sufficiently reliable source either.
The collection addressed the problems of limited translatability in both poetry and fiction. Batyushkov (1920, p. 10) raised a question of ineffability of certain elements of a foreign language in translation. Based on this assumption, he stated that no translation could replace the original. Along similar lines, the other two contributors, Gumilev and Chukovsky, advocated accuracy in representing the source-text linguistic form.
The early Soviet translation thought arose out of a lively discussion about selective accuracy and the limits of translatability in literary translation, as well as the need to reproduce the author's style. However, the process of ideological struggle has significantly influenced the formation of Translation Studies in the Soviet Union and the 1920s' literary debates between the supporters of foreignizing (literalist) translation and the champions of domesticating (adaptive) approach. By the early 1930s, Soviet theory of translation has become practice-oriented, aiming at learning a craft of translation and equipping the translator with clear principles. It gravitated towards predominantly non-individualistic pole intended for the general reader and learner. Searching for the best translation method and teaching translation as a teamwork was a priority.
Although in the 1930s the struggle against formalism and formalists prevailed, in the twilight of the 1920s the form of poetry and fiction was still central to many literary and translation studies. The research work of Russian linguist Peshkovsky was among the most authoritative and scrupulous examples of the study of artistic form in fiction.
Ukrainian literary scholar Derzhavyn took the most radical position in upholding the linguistic accuracy of translation. He instructed literary translators to follow the style of the original with the greatest possible accuracy. The foundation for the linguistic branch of Soviet thought on translation was laid by his theory of homological, or stylizing, translation (Derzhavyn, 1927), which would be evicted from the discourses on literary translation and forgotten by the mid1930s.
Zerov as literary critic was particularly concerned with the burning questions of trends and development prospects for Ukrainian literature and translation as an integral part of it (Zerov, 1928).
Towards the late 1920s, voices justifying deviations from the source text by orientation at the -contemporary and Soviet‖ reader became clearly heard. Literary critic and translator Ivan Kulyk put forward -a different psychology‖ and sociocultural background as an argument for replacement: -The verses of American poets, translated accurately, would have had one sense in New York and another in Kharkiv‖ (Kulyk, 1928, p. 486).
The monograph Theory and Practice of Translation by Ukrainian scholar and translator into Russian Finkel (1929), the first academic book on translation not only in the Ukrainian SSR but also in the entire Soviet Union, is referred to as the basic manual in Zerov and Kalynovych. The book made Finkel one of the leading Soviet translation scholars, although it was a result of various translation controversies that took place in the 1920s. Similarly, the book by Chukovsky and Fedorov The Art of Translation, which appeared in print a year after the monograph of Finkel, is consistently alluded to by both scholars.
Ukrainian and Russian linguist Ivan Shalya raises an array of topical issues for the Soviet theory of translation emerging in the late 1920s, such as the task and method of translation, the role of literary, cultural, social, and other contexts of translation. For Shalya the historical-cultural worth of translation prevails over its sociological characteristics and accommodation to political agenda. It can be argued, thus, that the linguistic direction in the early Soviet theory of translation was not established exclusively by Fedorov in his chapter -Techniques and tasks of literary translation‖ of the book -The Art of Translation‖ (1930), but also by the earlier work of Shalya -On the question of the language means of translators of the 18th century‖ (1929). This article demonstrates that at the turn of the 1920s to the 1930s a particular attention in the linguistic branch of Soviet theory of translation was drawn to translations which are accurate in wording and style but at the same time comprehensible and able to develop the target language and literary system.
Treating foreignizing translation as an act of violence, the Irkutsk University lecturer Alekseev builds up a sociological approach to translational activity. He views translation as an engine of development of the receiving literature and linked the quality of translation primarily with its ability to appeal to a certain social group. Being innovative in its orientation at the target reader's psychology of perception, Alekseev's extended lecture -A Problem of Artistic Translation‖ (1931) eventually corroborated a turning point in the history of Soviet translation of the early 1930s towards a gradual reorientation from the dominant of accurate, sourceoriented translation to the dominant of creative adaptation to the Soviet reader.

Conclusion
Although the course programs General Methodology of Translation and Special Methodology of Translation were not disseminated outside the Ukrainian Institute of Linguistic Education or introduced in other educational institutions, nor did they have further development due to the country's entry into the active phase of Stalin's purges, the directions of translation studies outlined in them were largely rediscovered by Western translators and proposed as a subject of study and teaching in the last quarter of the 20 thfirst quarter of the 21 st century.
A range of terms and developments had been brought in by Kalynovych and Zerov long before the similar trends appeared to be widely discussed in the Western schools of translation. Conceptually, terminological formulations of Kalynovych and Zerov would be particularly reverberating in the later theoretical frameworks such as: 1) descriptive translation studies and especially James Holmes' inquiry into the name and nature of translation studies as a discipline and his pivotal chart of its territory as the groundwork for a retrospective and comparative content analysis of terminological units, definitions, and statements ; 2) the polysystem theory as formulated by Itamar ; 3) the theory of foreignizationfrom Walter Benjamin and Martin Heidegger to Antoine Berman and Laurence Venuti  ;; 4) the theory of domestication, particularly as it is viewed by Anthony , aimed at the preservation and development of minor ethnic groups, their tongues, and cultures.
Simultaneously, psycholinguistic analysis of the academic discourse in both programs as communicative actions, which are the conceptual core of two consistent and closely related lecture courses, reveals a chain of interlocked psychological premises inherent for the Soviet translation thought of the early Stalinist period. These assumptions, which are especially noticeable in the selection of texts proposed for study, can be reduced to the following preconceptions: 1) persisting political and cultural dominance of Russian patterns modelled on imperial relationship of the center with its colonies, and simultaneously, 2) the idea of building a new and culturally homogeneous society based on the dictatorship of the proletariat, and respectively, 3) the need to create a new type of reader, grafted with a class-biased psychology of artistic perception.
Nevertheless, the individual voice of the author-communicator as generator of innovative, unique, and integral speech-thinking product is clearly traceable in each of the two syllabi discussed in this article. Indicative of these texts is the fact that they fit into the paradigm of the discourse of Ukrainian national and cultural revival, and thus, develop Ukrainian translatology as a nationally oriented, albeit socialized and ideologically motivated, discipline. The main motivation for Kalynovych and Zerov in their lecturing activities consisted in the following: 1) intention to generate academic communication on the topical issues of translation, 2) orientation towards formation and development of the Ukrainian school of translation, together with 3) the prospect of rapid emergence of the works of world literature in high-quality Ukrainian translations.