1.INTRODUCTION

Treasure Island is a famous adventure novel about the nobility, kindness, and friendship that helps the heroes of the story happily complete a dangerous sea voyage and search for hidden treasures on a desert island that made Scottish writer Stevenson famous worldwide (Stevenson: 1999). Following its publication, the novel gained wide popularity in Europe and attracted the attention of Russian publishers. Treasure Island was translated and published in the Russian language in 1886 and 1904. The most popular version of Treasure Island for more than eighty years was translated by Chukovsky (1935). As such Chukovsky’s translation may be considered an effective and exemplary translation. The present study considers the question of the subjunctive mood in various syntactic constructions as the most important question in determining the effectiveness of translation and takes Chukovsky’s translation as its case study.

This study analyzes and emphasizes the importance of translating the subjunctive mood in sentences. The subjunctive mood is a complex phenomenon in terms of functional understanding in both Russian and English. The term subjunctive mood has been known in linguistics for a long time and was thought to be specific to the Proto-Indo-European languages. Currently, the subjunctive is considered by most linguists in European languages as a series of special forms of the verbal mood which express a subjective attitude, a presumed or desired action (Emets: 2012, p.131).

Subjunctive moods in English and Russian only partially coincide with their functions. A separate issue ofthe subjunctive mood in English, which is not addressed in the study, is the articulation of indirect or reported speech. The Russian subjunctive is an irrealis mood (Dobrushina: 2010). In Russian, verbs in the subjunctive do not have morphological indicators of tense and person. Instead, it is characterized by lexical means (e.g., the day before yesterday, at the moment), or a specific situation, and is formed by the combination of the past tense and an unchanged particle бы. The subjunctive mood in English encompasses all tenses, and accordingly, each will use different grammatical forms. Moreover, the particle бы and its short form б are used to speak about something in the hypothetical sense, so sometimes it can have the meaning of "would" and "would have" but generally it has the same meaning of English constructs which use verbs in their corresponding past tense to describe something as hypothetical, or in a more polite way (Pervushin: 1961, pp.8-13).

The present study is concerned with studying the translation peculiarities of complex and simplesubjunctive mood sentences in English and Russian literary texts and considers two forms of the subjunctive mood of verbs in English. These are the synthetic form, Subjunctive I, in which a sentence expresses a hypothetical situation using both present and past subjunctive verb forms, and the analytical form, Subjunctive II, which is used for counterfactual statements regarding past events or situations, such as wishes, and which uses several past-tense forms as well as methods for translating them into Russian (Sepehri & Sheikhalizadeh: 2019 ,pp.1-5).

The purpose of the study is to examine the methods that can effectively translate the subjunctive moodand to identify the most frequent groups by conducting a frequency analysis of all forms in both the original English language literary text and its Russian translation. The Russian translation of the novel is presented as an exemplary case study of issues that arise when translating the subjunctive mood from English to Russian.

This study aims to address and identify the specific difficulties associated with the translation ofsubjunctive mood sentences from English to Russian. The following objectives of the study of the original English text of Treasure Island by Robert Louis Stevenson and its Russian translation by Chukovsky have been identified:

1. 1. Consider the features of the subjunctive mood expression in English in the novel by Stevenson;
2. 2. Explain which Chukovsky used syntactic constructions of the Russian language in translating simple and complex sentences and the subjunctive mood in English;
3. 3. Conduct a frequency analysis of the subjunctive mood forms in both English and Russian texts;
4. 4. Identify the following forms when translating from English into Russian: morphological past tense forms of the verb - сказал бы (would say), infinitives - избавить бы (would save), predicatives- лучше было бы (would be better) and non-morphological forms (participles - показавшийся бы, не выполнив бы (would seem, without doing);
5. 5. Show ways to translate conditional conjunctions, which are linguistic means of expressing complex sentences with conditional clauses.

Existing research on this subject differs in terms of the specific concerns and the general theoretical concepts applied regarding linguists’ approaches to the study of subjunctive constructions in Russian and English. The importance of translating syntactic constructions with the subjunctive mood in conveying as much of the semantic content as possible is confirmed by the linguistic studies cited in our study. For example, many researchers have been interested in the translation of the subjunctive mood in terms of the variety of grammatical tenses possible (Alimov: 2015, p.240; Alekseeva: 2004, p.352; Breus: 2001, pp.1-104) and examined problems related to syntax (simple and conjunctionless complex sentences and conjunction complex sentences, subjunctive mood and indicative mood).

Dobrushina (2010) was interested in the subjunctives in Russian relative clauses. She considers the useof the subjunctive mood in a relative subordinate in the case of counterfactual contexts is predicted from the subordinate itself and / or what is subordinate to it, while the hypothetical use of the subjunctive mood can be predicted only from the characteristics of the main sentence. Many linguists consider similar problems, but discussions are usually limited to the illustrations of some common semantic phenomena (Renaat & Reed: 2001; Chang et al.: 2012, pp.259-278; Fine & Jaeger: 2013, pp.578-591; Mahowald et al.: 2016, pp.5-27; Trippas et al.: 2017, pp.539-552; Dubois et al.: 2017, pp.139-174; Klimenko et al.: 2017; Tournebize & Gaucherel: 2017, pp.1–9; Woleński: 2016, pp.87-101; Miłkowski: 2016, pp.13-33; Daly: 2015). Givón (1994) and Elliott (2000) focus their research on studies of realis, irrealis, and the subjunctive. Givón (1994) believes that in order to understand the cross-language distribution of the subjunctive mood, one needs to understand the cross-grammar distribution of the irrealis modality, as well as having a general theory of modality, within which irrealis takes its rightful and natural place.

Elliott (2000) meanwhile, examines the morphosyntactic characteristics and semantic properties of the realis/irrealis distinction across several unrelated languages and argues for a grammatical category of reality status, which has two components - realis and irrealis, and which are intriguingly interrelated with other grammatical categories. Palmer (2001) and Farkas (1985) have investigated problems related to mood and modality. Palmer regards modality as a single grammatical category found in most languages of the world and provides examples from many different languages globally. He discusses in detail familiar functions in several predominantly European languages and also considers fewer familiar functions, including “evidential” systems and the realis / irrealis contrast, which can be found in unrelated languages. Farkas (1985) proposes that the indicative is selected when the proposition is true in the real world as far as the subject is concerned; otherwise, the subjunctive is chosen.

There are also discussions of trends in Russian translations of English literature: Friedberg (2008) delvedinto the problem of literary translation in Russia. In his rich historical study, Friedberg (2008) recounts the impact of translation on the Russian literary process and discusses the usual battles fought between partisans of literalism and free translation. Inggs (2015) investigated the perceived image of English-language children's literature in Soviet Russia. She illustrates how the political and sociological climate of translation in the Soviet Union influenced translation practices and how the field of translated children's literature, created a particular image of English-language children's literature in (Soviet) Russia.

In the present study, a conjunctive verb is considered as a syntactic category that encompasses a numberof forms to express subjunctive mood in both Russian and English. The morphological paradigm of the subjunctive mood in the Russian language is insignificant (Shvedova: 1980), and the non-morphologicalmeans of expressing the meaning are widely represented in the syntax. The Russian language, like other Slavic languages, compensates for the almost absent morphological paradigm of the subjunctive mood by diverse means of syntax, so this category should be considered entirely syntactic (Vinogradov: 1986).

In this study, we use the term “deviation” to designate cases of variation of language when comparing theoriginal text with its Russian translation. However, even though it may have a negative connotation, it does not mean that a difference in the translated text is considered as a grammatical or syntactic violation of its adequacy to express the meaning of the original. On the contrary, such “deviation” demonstrates ways of expressing the same cogitative construction through structural differences across languages. (Krivonosov: 2012, p.582; Emets et al.: 2018a, pp.3-16).

Recent works devoted to the syntactic analysis of the translation of the subjunctive mood in a text (in complex sentences) belong to Russian linguists Emets (2012, 2017) and colleagues (Emets et al.: 2018a, pp.3-16; Emets et al.: 2018b). In these studies, the features of the representation of the subjunctive mood in a natural language (German and Russian) and logical and linguistic strategies for translating complex sentences in literary texts of natural languages were considered and reviewed. The task was to show how the German-speaking authors construct logical inferences in the form of the German language and how these conclusions manifest themselves in the official translation into Russian. These syntactic constructions with the subjunctive mood acquire in the natural language various forms of language expression, which allow translators to express a particular thought concerning their abilities in terms of language proficiency (Evseeva& Kozlova: 2016, pp.552-559).

2.METHODS

The original literary work Treasure Island (1883) by Robert Louis Stevenson, the 19th-century Scottish poet, and writer of adventure novels and short stories, was used as the empirical material in this study. Treasure Island was translated into Russian by Chukovsky (1904 - 1965), the famous 20th-century Soviet Russian writer and translator of prose and poetry, who attached great importance to his translation activities. He was the son of celebrated Russian children’s writer and translator, Chukovsky. Chukovsky translated into Russian the works of very famous writers. He made the most famous translation of the novel Treasure Island by Stevenson in 1935 though there are many Russian translations of Treasure Island. Arguably, more accurate translation is available, made at the same time as Chukovsky, did not receive such wide popularity, the translation mostly corresponding to the norms of the modern Russian language.

At the turn of the 1920s and 1930s, Chukovsky's style was determined, which was to the traditions ofclassical literature: a thorough narrative chronicle with a straightforward plot, a distinct composition, a scrupulous description of everyday life, and a stern, restrained tone. Chukovsky’s translations are remarkable owing to his reliance on improvisation and on the expressiveness of the vernacular, his independent thinking, not subject to any opportunistic fads, and deeply non-trivial view of things. The translation art was one of his most beloved, and he considered it to be similar to creating magic. If the translation conveyed only the meaning of the words, it would not be either magic or art, in his opinion, the translation conveys what lies behind the words - all images, all feelings, and longing, and laughter, and tears. He also believed that translation is a school of style par excellence; after all, no one has to read the text as carefully as the translators (Chukovsky: 1969, p.387).

Our choice of text was motivated by the paradigmatic nature of the novel, the variety of syntactic forms ofsubjunctive mood sentences expressed within, as well as interest in Stevenson’s works (his ability to give an opportunity to hear, if the impression of reality should be sound, to see if the image should become a picture) and interest in Chukovsky’s translations.

Based on the theoretical provisions of grammar (Bonk & Saltykova: 2018, p.320; Kachalova: 2018, p.609;Makarova & Parkhamovich: 2018, p.448; Zverkhovskaya & Kosichenko: 2017, p.304; Hall: 2012, p.416; Biberet al.: 2006, p.496; Hashemi & Murphy: 2012; Vince: 2008; Yule: 2008), a study of the subjunctive mood used in English was conducted based on the following two groups: Subjunctive I (identical to the Future in the Past form), which is used in grammatically simple sentences and in the independent clauses of complex sentences, and Subjunctive II (coincides with Past Perfect form), which is used only in subordinate clauses. As practice shows, the translation of English subjunctive mood sentences that follow the conventional rules of English grammar—provided that specific grammatical rules for the translation of this phenomenon are observed— does not cause any difficulty. Nevertheless, it may be a difficult challenge because not all sentences are formed according to these rules.

The study uses continuous sampling whereby every occurrence of use of the subjunctive mood in theEnglish text was recorded, in the analysis of empirical material and frequency method a descriptive method comprising linguistic analysis of English and Russian sentences was utilized. Continuous sampling provided the collection of the following linguistic material: 86 subjunctive mood sentences in 278 pages of the English text, and corresponding translation sentences in Russian. The frequency method determined the numerical characteristics of the subjunctive mood sentences (simple, conjunctive verb present, conjunctive verb absent). The descriptive method evaluated the structure, syntactic characteristics, and the description of the grammatical originality of the material, some discussion of examining cases of deviations (Kopackova & Libalova: 2019).

3.RESULTS

In the following subsections, the features of the subjunctive mood expression in English in the novels by Stevenson are considered, and the grammatical occurrences of Subjunctive I and Subjunctive II are presented with summary statistics for each subtype. Not only do these occur alone in sentences, but sometimes Stevenson combined them in a single sentence. It is explained which syntactic constructions of the Russian language were used by Chukovsky in translating simple and complex sentences and the subjunctive mood in English. Morphological forms are identified, and ways to translate conditional conjunctions are shown. Deviations in the Russian translations are also discussed.

Frequency Analysis of the Subjunctive I Group and Discussion:

Frequency analysis of Subjunctive I (39 % of examples) showed that the Future-in-the-Past form in a simple sentence is less common, amounting to 7 % of instances, and it is translated into Russian by simple or complex subjunctive mood sentences. The more commonly used form, (Past Simple) + (Future in the Past), reached 32 % and is translated into Russian by both conjunctive-verb and non-conjunctive complex sentences. The data indicate that Stevenson expressed simultaneity of action more often in a subordinate clause. However, this does not form a pattern, its nature being purely subjective, and due to the author's intention. Chukovsky believed that translation should not convey only the literal meaning of words and needed to apply certain methods to make such expressions more digestible for a Russian audience (he used complex sentences instead of simple, conjunctionless complex sentences instead of conjunctions and vice versa, indicative of mood instead of subjunctive).

Let us consider examples of the Subjunctive I form:

1. 1. English simple sentence in the form: sentence (Future in the Past):“It would be pleasanter to come to blows” (Stevenson: 1963, p.278).Translation: Приятнее было бы напасть на них тотчас же. There is no deviation: translated by a simple sentence in the subjunctive mood. The sentence translated into Russian overlaps syntactically with the English sentence.
2. 2. English simple sentence in the form: sentence (Future in the Past):“‘He’d look remarkably well from a yard-arm, sir’, returned the captain”.Translation: «Он был бы еще замечательнее, если бы болтался на рее», - возразил капитан. There is a deviation: translated by a complex sentence in the subjunctive mood. The sentence translated into Russian does not overlap syntactically with the English sentence.
3. 3. English conjunction complex sentence in the form: subordinate clause (Past Simple) – independentclause (Future in the Past):“‘If that doctor was aboard’, he said, ‘I’d be right enough in a couple of turns’”.Translation: Будь здесь доктор, я бы живо поправился. There is a deviation: translated by a conjunctionless complex sentence in the subjunctive mood. The sentence translated into Russian does not overlap syntactically with the English sentence.
4. 4. English conjunction complex sentence in the form: subordinate clause (Past Simple) – independent clause (Future in the Past):

   “If I gave the word to go about, they would rise at once”.

Translation: Если я заикнусь о возвращении, они взбунтуются сию же минуту. There is а deviation: translated by a conjunction complex sentence in the indicative mood. The sentence translated into Russian overlaps syntactically with the English sentence (Kalogeropoulos et al.: 2020).

In the examples above, as in the vast majority of instances, the Subjunctive I is an indication of a hypothetical situation. However, the conjunctive verb may be redundant in the presence of a complex sentence, since the syntactic structure and the corresponding lexical elements assume the function of transmitting the meaning. The independent clause contains a verb or a noun of verbal and cogitative activity semantics, and the subordinate clause is sometimes introduced by means of a preposition, as in examples 3) and 4) above, or a connective word if.

Verbs in the Subjunctive I Group (39 % of examples) were translated into Russian by Chukovsky usingtypical analytical forms with the help of a particle бы (In English, there is no equivalent of this article), including those as part of the conjunction: если (if) or without conjunction. In English, there is no equivalent of this article. The following morphological forms are evident when translating from English into Russian: past tense forms of the verb - поправился бы (I’d be right enough), predicatives – приятнее было бы (It would be pleasanter). Non-morphological forms (participles with бы) were not found

Frequency Analysis of the Subjunctive II Group and Discussion:

Frequency analysis of the subjunctive mood in Subjunctive II (51% of examples) showed that the most common forms are (Past Perfect) + (Future Perfect) or (Future Perfect) + (Past Perfect) (38 % of examples). I wish structures in the Past Perfect (8% of examples), are translated into simple and complex sentences, not only in the indicative mood of the past tense but also in the subjunctive mood. I wish structures in Past Simple tense were not found (0 % of examples). The rare use of (Past Perfect) + (could + Perfect Passive Infinitive) (3 % of examples) and (must + Perfect Passive Infinitive) + (Past Perfect) (2 % of examples) was also identified.

The results show Stevenson’s reliance on predominantly present, future, and past tenses to describecounterfactual or unreal actions, circumstances, denials, emotional states, and unrealized possibilities as objectively existing realities (absolute time).

Examples of the subjunctive mood in Subjunctive II are shown below:

1. 1. English conjunction complex sentence in the form: subordinate clause (Past Perfect) + independent clause (could + Perfect Passive Infinitive):

   “... if I had seen as many kings or archbishops, I could not have been more delighted”.

   Translation: Если бы вместо них мне показали королей или архиепископов, я обрадовался бы гораздо меньше. There is no deviation: translated with a complex sentence and conjunctive verb; the subjunctive mood was kept both in the independent and subordinate clauses. The sentence translated into Russian overlaps syntactically with the English sentence.

2. 2. English conjunctionless complex sentence in the form: subordinate clause (Past Perfect) + independentclause (Future Perfect):

   “Had there been a breath of wind, we should have fallen on the six mutineers who have left aboard with us, slipped our cable, and away to sea”.

   Translation: Если бы дул хоть самый лёгкий ветер, мы напали бы врасплох на шестерых мятежников, оставшихся на корабле, снялись бы с якоря и ушли в море. There is a deviation: translated with a conjunction complex sentence, the subjunctive mood was kept both in the independent and subordinate clauses. The sentence translated into Russian does not overlap syntactically with the English sentence.

3. 3. English simple sentence in the form: sentence (Past Perfect): “…if I had not forgotten my score!”. Translation: ...про деньги – то я и забыл. There is a deviation: translated by a simple sentence in the indicative mood. The sentence translated into Russian does not overlap syntactically with the English sentence.
4. 4. English conjunctive complex sentence in the form: independent clause (must + Perfect Passive Infinitive) + subordinate clause (Past Perfect):

   “Every man on board seemed well content, and they must have been hard to please if they had beenotherwise”.

   Translation: Команда казалась довольной, да и неудивительно. There is a deviation: translated by a compound sentence in an indicative mood. The sentence translated into Russian does not overlap syntactically with the English sentence.

5. 5. I wish... structure in the form of: I wish – sentence (Past Perfect):

   “I wish I had put his eyes out”.

   Translation: Жаль, что я не выколол ему глаза. There is a deviation: translated by a complex sentence in the indicative mood. The sentence translated into Russian does not overlap syntactically with the English sentence.

6. 6. I wish... structure in the form of: I wish – sentence (Past Perfect):

   “‘I wish I had had a lick at them with the gun first’, he replied”.

Translation: Хотелось бы мне перед смертью послать им еще одну пулю. There is a deviation: translated by a simple sentence in the subjunctive mood. The sentence translated into Russian does not overlap syntactically with the English sentence.

Verbs in the Subjunctive II Group (51 % of examples) were translated into Russian by Chukovsky using typical analytical forms with the help of a particle бы (In English, there is no equivalent of this article), including those as part of the conjunction: если, чтобы, хоть, стоило (if), or without conjunction. There were identified the following morphological forms when translating from English into Russian: past tense forms of the verb – хотелось бы (I wish I had had), infinitives - послать бы (I had had a lick), predicatives – серьезнее было бы (more serious would be). Non-morphological forms (participles with бы (In English, there is no equivalent of this article) were not found.

Frequency Analysis of the Subjunctive I and Subjunctive II Groups (Mixed Type) and Discussion:

Sentences that combine Subjunctive I and Subjunctive II types are rare, but present in Treasure Island, accounting for 10 % of all examples.

1. 1. English conjunction complex sentence in the form: subordinate clause (Subjunctive II Past Perfect) –independent clause (Subjunctive I Future in the Past):

   “If you had been mixed up with the like of that, you would never have another foot in my house…”. Translation: Если ты станешь путаться с негодяями, ноги твоей не будет в моём заведении…. There is a deviation: translated by a complex indicative mood sentence in the present tense. The sentence translated into Russian overlaps syntactically with the English sentence.

2. 2. English conjunction complex sentence in the form: subordinate clause (Subjunctive I Past Simple) + independent clause (Future Simple with a modal meaning):

   “If he were Admiral Hawke, he shall pay his score”.

Translation: «Будь он хоть адмирал Хок, я и то заставил бы его заплатить!» – кричал Сильве. There is a deviation: translated by conjunctionless complex sentence in the subjunctive mood. The sentence translated into Russian does not overlap syntactically with the English sentence.

Verbs in the Subjunctive the Subjunctive II Group (Mixed Type) (10 % of examples) and I were translatedinto Russian by Chukovsky using typical analytical forms with the help of a particle бы (In English, there is no equivalent of this article), including those as part of the conjunction: если, раз, пусть, чтобы (if) or without conjunction. The following morphological forms were identified when translating from English into Russian: past tense forms of the verb – заставил бы (he shall pay), infinitives - быть бы (If he were)). Non- morphological forms (participles with бы) were not found. The results of the frequency study are presented in Figure 1.

This diagram shows the number of forms of Subjunctive I and Subjunctive II as well as the forms of the mixed type of Subjunctive I and Subjunctive II in the English original, totaling 39% and 51% and 10%, respectively.

Verbs in Subjunctive I and Subjunctive II sentences (86 examples) were translated into Russian byChukovsky using typical analytical forms with the help of particle бы (In English, there is no equivalent of this article), including those as part of the conjunctions: чтоб(ы), если, когда, хоть, стоило, раз. пусть (if):

1. 1. P a s t t e n s e f o r m s o f a v e r b (если бы они дали знать Сильверу) (38 examples)- morphological form:

   “Had they gone and told Silver, all might have turned out differently”.

   Если бы они дали знать Сильверу, всё, вероятно, пошло бы по-другому.

2. 2. I n f i n i t i v e s : (остановиться бы) (15 examples) - morphological form:

   “I’d stop and pick off another man”.Хорошо бы остановиться и подстрелить еще одного из них.

3. 3. P r e d i c a t i v e s (приятней было бы) (1 example) - morphological form:

   “It would be pleasanter to come to blows”.

   Приятнее было бы напасть на них тотчас же.

4. 4. V e r b s i n t h e i n d i c a t i v e m o o d (они взбунтуются) (32 examples) - morphological form:Importar lista“If I gave the word to go about, they would rise at once”.Если я заикнусь о возвращении, они взбунтуются сию же минуту.

No morphological forms (participles and adverbial participles with the particle бы) were found in the translation that are considered erroneous by Russian grammars.

4.CONCLUSION

The data presented in this article is illustrative of an initial examination of the topic of English subjunctives in Russian translation. The importance of translating syntactic constructions with the subjunctive mood and conveying as much of the semantic content as possible is confirmed by the linguistic studies cited in this paper. Case studies of note include research by the following authors: Alekseeva (2004), Alimov (2015), Breus (2001), Dobrushina (2010), Elliott (2000), Emets et al. (2017, 2018а, 2018b), Farkas (1985), Friedberg (2008),Givón (1994), Inggs (2015), Palmer (2001) and others.

This study examines literary translation, which reflects not only linguistic patterns but also factors that depend on the individual skills of the translator and the creative tasks that a person faces. Often, the structure of the Russian sentence in translation is completely different from the structure of the original English, including– different syntactic constructions, the inconsistency of tense forms, and presence of unusual grammatical forms with modal verbs in English. This case is of a purely subjective nature, indicative of the literary style of the author Stevenson and the translator Chukovsky with his belief that translation should not convey only the meaning of words, his reliance on improvisation and on the expressiveness of the vernacular, and his independent, deeply non-trivial views (Chukovsky: 1969, p.387). Deviations in the Russian translations used by Chukovsky (simple and conjunctionless complex sentences and conjunction complex sentences and indicative mood) demonstrate a variety of ways of expressing the same cogitative construction through structural differences across languages.

In the course of the study, we considered the peculiarities of the subjunctive mood as expressed in Englishby the synthetic (Subjunctive I) and analytical (Subjunctive II) forms, using the text of the novel, Treasure Island, by Stevenson, and its translation into Russian by Chukovsky. These simple and complex sentences are translated into Russian through a variety of syntactic constructions in the subjunctive and indicative moods. Less used are simple sentences in both the original text and the Russian translation. Most often, the subjunctive mood is used in complex sentences with and without conjunction. The variety of syntactic forms that are used to express the subjunctive mood testifies not only to the wealth of the English language, but also to its alternative structures in Russian for expressing similar subjunctive content: Если бы вместо них мне показали королей или архиепископов, я обрадовался бы гораздо меньше. Будь здесь доктор, я бы живо поправился. Хорошо бы остановиться и подстрелить еще одного из них. Приятнее было бы напасть на них тотчас же. Если я заикнусь о возвращении, они взбунтуются сию же минут. Команда казалась довольной, да и неудивительно.

The frequency analysis of forms (see Figure I above) found a prevalence of Subjunctive II forms in Treasure Island. Verbs in Subjunctive I and Subjunctive II sentences (86 examples) were translated into Russian by Chukovsky using morphological forms: past tense forms of the verb (38 examples), infinitives (15 examples), predicatives (1 example), and verbs in the indicative mood (32 examples). No morphological forms (participles and adverbial participles with a particle бы) were deemed erroneous by standards of Russian grammars. The English conditional proposition is translated by various means into Russian, depending on the types of sentences: если, когда, пусть, раз, хоть, что, чего, стоило, стоит, как (if). The prepositions если (if) and когда (if) are most frequent in the translation (Nalbandi & Zonoozi: 2019).

Having considered syntactic constructions with the subjunctive mood as exemplified by Treasure Islandby Stevenson, in its natural language of English and in natural language Russian, we propose that the analysis and translation of the subjunctive mood constitute an ongoing research subject. Numerous examples (simpleand conjunctionless complex sentences and conjunction complex sentences and subjunctive mood) serve as evidence. The syntactic constructions in natural language acquire various forms of verbal expression require a translator Chukovsky makes interpretations subject to his abilities, from the point of view of his views, opportunities (what lies behind the words) in the source language (simple and conjunctionless complex sentences and conjunction complex sentences, subjunctive mood and indicative mood). We studied analyzes and emphasizes the importance of translating the subjunctive mood in sentences, conducted a frequency analysis of the subjunctive mood in Treasure Island, showed ways to translate conditional conjunctions, which are linguistic means of expressing complex sentences with conditional clauses and identified the most common forms of the subjunctive mood. In most cases, the sentence translated into Russian does not overlap syntactically with the English sentence. The results of the analysis are useful for teaching translations of English texts in Russian, and in the discourse analysis of both Stevenson, the famous 19th-century Scottish writer, and Chukovsky, the famous 20th-century Soviet Russian writer and translator of prose and poetry. The data presented in the article may be viewed as a contribution to the development of this topic, which requires further research through the analysis of original works of art by other English- language authors.

BIODATA

TATYANA VLADIMIROVNA EMETS: She is an Associate Professor, Department of Romano-Germanic Philology and Translation, Nosov Magnitogorsk State Technical University, Magnitogorsk, Russian Federation. She defended her thesis with a degree in general linguistics, sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics. Her scientific interests are related to logical and linguistic studies in the language, methods of teaching practical translation. She is engaged in the study of active methods of teaching the German language, as well as issues of general linguistics.

YULIYA VIKTOROVNA BARYSHKINA: She is an Associate Professor, English Language Department, Nosov Magnitogorsk State Technical University, Magnitogorsk, Russian Federation. She defended her thesis on the theory and methodology of vocational education. Her research interests are related to linguistics, foreign language teaching methods, the history and culture of Great Britain, etc. She is engaged in the study of active methods of teaching English, issues of early learning a foreign language.

ALEXEY YURIEVICH TRUTNEV: He is an Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Cultural, and Social and Humanitarian Studies, Magnitogorsk State Conservatory, named after M. I. Glinka, Magnitogorsk, Russian Federation. He completed a thesis on pedagogical sciences. His research interests are related to linguistics, teaching foreign languages with computer technology research, research in the field of translation, etc. He is engaged in the study of various teaching methods for listening, speaking, reading, and writing.

TATYANA VALENTINOVNA DROZDOVA: She is an Associate Professor, Department of Romano-Germanic Philology and Translation, Nosov Magnitogorsk State Technical University, Magnitogorsk, Russian Federation. She defended a thesis on pedagogy. Her scientific interests are related to the methodology of teaching foreign languages in the field of vocational education. She is engaged in the study of problems of the theoretical and practical grammar of the German language. '

VLADIMIR VLADIMIROVICH MIKHAYLOV: He is an Associate Professor, Department of Foreign Languages, Technical Directions, Institute of Humanitarian Education, Nosov Magnitogorsk State Technical University, Magnitogorsk, Russian Federation. He defended his thesis in the specialty 13.00.01 - General pedagogy, the history of pedagogy, and education (pedagogical sciences). His research interests are related to linguistics, teaching foreign languages in the professional field, and research in the field of translation. He is engaged in the study of various teaching methods for listening, speaking, reading, and writing.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ALEKSEEVA, IS (2004). Introduction to translation studies, Moscow: Academy Publishing Center, p.352.

ALIMOV, VV (2015). Theory of translation: A handbook for linguists-translators, (2nd ed.). Moscow: LENAND,p.240.

BIBER, D, JOHANSSON, S, LEECH, G, CONRAD, S, & FINEGAN, E (2006). Longman Student Grammar ofSpoken and Written English. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education Ltd, p.496.

BONK, NA, & SALTYKOVA, EM (2018). Classical grammar for English language textbooks: Rules, exercises, keys. Moscow.: Eksmo, p.320.

BREUS, EV (2001). The Theory and Practice of Translation from English into Russian: Tutorials-Moscow: URAO, pp.1-104.

CHANG, F, JANCIAUSKAS, M, & FITZ, H (2012). “Language adaptation and learning: Getting explicit about implicit learning”, in: Language and Linguistics Compass, 6(5), pp.259-278.

CHUKOVSKY, K (1935). Translated version of Treasure Islands by R.A. Stevenson. [In Russian]

CHUKOVSKY, N (1969). Tenth muse, Translation skills, 6, p.387.

DALY, C (2015). The Palgrave Handbook of Philosophical Methods (Vol. 31), Manchester: Palgrave MacMillan.

DOBRUSHINA, N (2010). Subjunctive in Russian relative clauses. Oslo studies in language, 2(1).

DUBOIS, D, PRADE, H, & SCHOCKAERT, S (2017). “Generalized possibilistic logic: foundations and applications to qualitative reasoning about uncertainty”, in: Artificial Intelligence, 252, pp.139-174.

ELLIOTT, JR (2000). Realis and irrealis: Forms and concepts of the grammaticalisation of reality.

EMETS, T, EMETS, A, & POTRIKEEVA, E (2018b). Features of representing the subjunctive mood in natural languages (on the example of the translation of short stories by S. Zweig). In SHS Web of Conferences (Vol. 55, p. 04008). EDP Sciences.

EMETS, TV (2012). Introduction to linguistics, Magnitogorsk: Magnitogorsk State University Press, p.131.

EMETS, TV (2017). “Linguistic and syntactic strategies for translation of Subjunctive Mood in German literarytext”, in: Humanitarian and Pedagogical Research, 1, pp.129-135

EMETS, TV, BARYSHNIKOVA, IV, TRUTNEV, AY, Suvorova, EV, & Akhmetzyanova, TL (2018a). “Logical and linguistic strategies for translating complex sentences in literary texts of natural languages”, in: XLinguae, 11(2), pp.3-16.

EVSEEVA, KV, & KOZLOVA, YA (2016). “Modality in English and Russian languages and methods of its transmission in bilingual translation”, in: International Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies (IJHCS) ISSN 2356-5926, 1(1), pp.552-559.

FARKAS, D (1985). Intentional descriptions and the Romance Subjunctive Mood, New York: Garland Publishing.

FINE, AB, & FLORIAN JAEGER, T (2013). “Evidence for implicit learning in syntactic comprehension”, in:Cognitive Science, 37(3), pp.578-591

FRIEDBERG, M (2008). Literary translation in Russia: A cultural history, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press, p.234.

GIVÓN, T (1994). “Irrealis and the subjunctive. Studies in Language”, in: International Journal sponsored by the Foundation “Foundations of Language, 18(2), pp.265-337.

HALL, D (2012). My Grammar lab: Advanced level: With Key, Harlow: Pearson, p.416.

HASHEMI, L & MURPHY, R (2012). English Grammar in Use: With Answers. Supplementary Exercises. Cambridge University Press.

INGGS, J (2015). “Translation and transformation: English-language children's literature in (Soviet) Russian guise”, in: International Research in Children's Literature, 8(1), pp.1-16.

KACHALOVA, KN (2018). Practical English Grammar. St. Petersburg: KARO, p.609.

KALOGEROPOULOS, P, RUSSO, JA, SULLIVAN, P, KLOOGER, M, & GUNNINGHAM, S (2020). “Re-enfranchising Mathematically-alienated Students: Teacher and Tutor Perceptions of the Getting Ready in Numeracy (G.R.I.N.) Program”, in: International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 15(1), em0545

KLIMENKO, A, GORELOVA, G, KOROBKIN, V, & BIBILO, P (2017). “The Cognitive Approach to the Coverage-Directed Test Generation”, in: In Proceedings of the Computational Methods in Systems and Software (pp. 372-380). Springer, Cham.

KOPACKOVA, H, & LIBALOVA, P (2019). “Quality of Citizen Reporting Tools at Municipal Level”, in: Journal of Information Systems Engineering & Management, 4(3), em0092.

KRIVONOSOV, AT (2012). Philosophy of language. Moscow-New York, p.582.

MAHOWALD, K, JAMES, A, FUTRELL, R, & GIBSON, E (2016). “A meta-analysis of syntactic priming in language production”, in: Journal of Memory and Language, 91, pp.5-27.

MAKAROVA, EV, & PARKHAMOVICH, TV. (2018). English language/Upgrade your English grammar. Minsk: Harvest, p.448.

MIŁKOWSKI, M (2016). “Unification strategies in cognitive science”, in: Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 48(1), pp.13-33.

NALBANDI, H, & ZONOOZI, SJ (2019). “Determine the Impact of Market-orientated Skill Training on Satisfaction and Effectiveness of Trainees in Technical and Vocational Training: A Case Study in Western Azarbaijan Province, Iran”, in: Dutch Journal of Finance and Management, 3(1), em0054.

PALMER, FR (2001). Mood and modality. Cambridge University Press.

PERVUSHIN, N (1961). PROBLEMS OF ENGLISH-RUSSIAN TRANSLATION. В помощь преподавателюрусского языка в Америке/A Guide to Teachers of the Russian Language in America, 15(57), pp.8-13.

RENAAT, D, & REED, S (2001). Conditionals: A Comprehensive Empirical Analysis.

SEPEHRI, Z, & SHEIKHALIZADEH, M (2019). “Descriptions and overall safety status of sport fields in schools of Ardabil city, Iran”, in: UCT Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Research, 7(02), pp.1-5.

SHVEDOVA, NY (1980). Russkaja grammatika [Russian grammar]. Moscow: AN SSSR Publ.

STEVENSON, RL (1963). Treasure Island, Moscow: Foreign languages publishing house, p.278.

STEVENSON, RL (1999). Treasure island. Penguin.

TOURNEBIZE, R & GAUCHEREL, C (2017). “Language: A fresh concept to integrate syntactic and semantic information in life sciences”, in: Biosystems, 160, pp.1–9

TRIPPAS, D, THOMPSON, VA, & HANDLEY, SJ (2017). “When fast logic meets slow belief: Evidence for a parallel-processing model of belief bias”, in: Memory & cognition, 45(4), pp.539-552.

VINCE, M (2008). Macmillan English Grammar in Context Advanced (with Key and CD) London: Macmillan.

VINOGRADOV, VV (1986). Russian language (grammatical doctrine of the word) [Russkij jazyk(Grammaticheskoe uchenie o slove)].

WOLEŃSKI, J (2016). “Logic in the Light of Cognitive Science”, in: Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 48(1), pp.87-101.

YULE, G (2015). Oxford Practice Grammar Advanced. Oxford university press.

ZVERKHOVSKAYA, EV, & KOSICHENKO, EF (2017). English language: Grammar, theory, practice. St. Petersburg: BHV-Petersburg, p.304.