The preservation of authorial style is a central concern in literary translation, as style functions not merely as an aesthetic ornament but as a carrier of narrative voice, ideological stance, and communicative intent. While previous research has extensively examined lexical and syntactic dimensions of style, pragmatic features—such as implicature, speech acts, politeness strategies, and context-dependent meaning—remain comparatively underexplored. This article investigates how authorial style is constructed at the pragmatic level and how such stylistic features are negotiated, altered, or lost in literary translation. Employing a qualitative, interpretative methodology grounded in pragmatic stylistics and translation studies, the study analyzes selected literary excerpts and their translations. The findings demonstrate that pragmatic shifts frequently lead to stylistic distortion, even when semantic accuracy is preserved. The article argues that pragmatic equivalence is essential for stylistic fidelity and calls for a more integrated pragmatic–stylistic approach in literary translation research and practice.

authorial style, pragmatics, literary translation, implicature, speech acts, stylistic equivalence

Baker, M. (1992). In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. London: Routledge.

Baker, M. (2000). Towards a methodology for investigating the style of a literary translator. Target, 12(2), 241–266. https://doi.org/10.1075/target.12.2.04bak

Blum-Kulka, S. (1986). Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation. In J. House & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlingual and Intercultural Communication (pp. 17–35). Tübingen: Narr.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Catford, J. C. (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics (Vol. 3, pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.

Hatim, B., & Mason, I. (1997). The Translator as Communicator. London: Routledge.

House, J. (2015). Translation Quality Assessment: Past and Present. London: Routledge.

Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.

Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Malmkjær, K. (2003). What happened to God and the angels: An exercise in translational stylistics. Target, 15(1), 37–58. https://doi.org/10.1075/target.15.1.04mal

Munday, J. (2008). Style and Ideology in Translation: Latin American Writing in English. London: Routledge.

Munday, J. (2016). Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications (4th ed.). London: Routledge.

Newmark, P. (1988). A Textbook of Translation. New York: Prentice Hall.

Nida, E. A. (1964). Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden: Brill.

Nord, C. (1997). Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.

Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Simpson, P. (2004). Stylistics: A Resource Book for Students. London: Routledge.

Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman.

Toury, G. (1995). Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Venuti, L. (1995). The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation. London: Routledge.

Venuti, L. (2013). Translation Changes Everything: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.

Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding Pragmatics. London: Arnold.

Wales, K. (2014). A Dictionary of Stylistics (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.

Zhu, Y. (2019). Pragmatic shifts and literary style in translation. Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice, 27(4), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2019.1573486.

https://mentaljournal-jspu.uz/index.php/mesmj/article/view/1187