论译者风格批评
|
摘要
译者风格批评是一项尝试性的研究。译者风格批评的实践虽然自有翻译史以来就存在,但是,批评的内容不是轻描淡写,就是缺乏理据。古代的译者风格批评实践,主要是直观的感性评价,缺乏深入的分析;近现代的译者风格批评实践涉及译者风格的内容很少,即使有,往往也是以偏概全,主要是译作风格批评实践,大多呈现出“挑错儿”式的批评,而且常常由于言辞激烈而引发译者之间的论战,主要原因是译界对“批评”一词的反面理解。当代的译者风格批评实践,主要还是以译作风格批评为主,呈现出多元化、多层次的趋势,较之以往,批评者的理论理据意识更强、批评的手段更先进。译者风格的必然性研究上升到了理论的高度,译者主体性研究中对译者的主体地位给予了充分的尊重,然而,缺乏系统的真正意义上的译者风格批评。译者风格批评没有引起重视,没有形成统一的认识,批评也处于一种芜杂的状态。
译者风格批评属于翻译批评的范畴。翻译批评问题在国内最早是由鲁迅先生提出来的。他从正反两个方面提出了批评的内容,初衷是提高翻译质量。但是,鲁迅先生对其内容的阐释还远远不够。随后董秋斯先生进一步丰富了鲁迅先生的翻译批评内容,并进一步提出了翻译批评的标准和重点。随后,焦菊隐先生提出了建立翻译批评体系的设想,并且首次将翻译本体以外的内容,诸如译者因素、语言差异、译作影响以及批评态度等等也纳入到翻译批评中。然而,可惜的是,这项工作没有再接着做下去。但是,鲁迅先生、董秋斯先生和焦菊隐先生在翻译批评领域的开创性贡献大大推动了翻译批评实践的发展。翻译批评理论体系在国内的逐步形成始于上个世纪的90年代初,国内相继出版了一系列建立翻译批评理论体系的著作,特别是2007年伊始,温秀颖的《翻译批评——从理论到实践》一书的推出更将翻译批评理论推向了成熟与完善。翻译批评理论体系的建立所走过的路程诠释了事物发展的客观规律,这一轨迹是任何事物发展的必经之路。
翻译批评理论体系的建立,为译者风格批评理论体系的建构提供了理论基础和理论依据。回顾译者风格批评实践所走过的路程,以及近几年翻译主体性、主体间性以及与译者风格批评相关的学科理论的迅速发展、风格批评手段的先进化、科学化,使译者风格批评理论体系的建构也到了水到渠成的时机,译者风格批评实践需要上升到理论的高度、也需要理论的指导。因此,按照事物的发展规律,我们试搭建了一个译者风格批评的理论框架。
本论文就是基于这样一种思路与动机设计的。主要内容如下:首先,通过回顾译者风格批评实践的历史,论证译者风格和译者风格批评实践事实的存在;其次,通过文献梳理,探究与译者风格批评相关的各理论、实践要素,确定并搭建译者风格批评理论框架的各大论域;最后,以翻译批评理论框架为本框架的构建模型,尝试建立了这样一个译者风格批评理论框架。本论文多次提到,探讨译者风格、构建译者风格批评理论框架,其目的并不是要夸大译者风格的地位和作用,也不是为译者的盲目游离原作风格开脱,而是,在译者风格及译者风格批评这一既成事实的前提下,通过构建这样一个理论框架,一,客观地评价译者在翻译过程中的主导作用;二,给予译者应有的地位和尊重;三,对译者风格的价值给予客观的评价;四,引导译者风格批评实践走向理论化、科学化;五,提高翻译质量。同时,也以此引起译者的注意,尽量将各种因素的干扰降至最低,遵循翻译的本质。
本论文具体包括以下内容:
第一章为绪论,介绍了本论文的研究背景、译者风格的理论必然性和实践存在事实、研究动机与目的、方法与步骤、范围与材料。
第二章“译者风格批评的性质”,首先对译者风格批评体系的核心概念译者风格进行了界定,探讨了译者风格的特点、确定了本项研究的理论范畴和主要论域以及译者风格批评的功能,最后,指出了本项研究的理论意义和实践意义。
第三章“译者风格的制约因素”是本论文的最大论域,包括五小节,分别是:译学意识形态与译者风格、译者的翻译思想与译者风格、翻译目的与译者风格、语言的制约与译者风格、译者的审美取向与译者风格。这五大内容是探讨译者风格产生的主客观原因。
在“译学意识形态与译者风格”中,首先探讨了译学意识形态与意识形态的关系,以此明确译学意识形态的内涵以及与译者风格的关系,最后从理论和实践两个方面主要论证了译学意识形态中的主流文化认同和主流审美取向对译者风格的制约作用。
本章的第二部分探讨的是译者的翻译思想与译者风格的关系。人的行动受制于思想,翻译活动也不例外,本节从理论上探讨了翻译思想与翻译策略、翻译方法的关系,以及翻译策略、翻译方法对译者风格的直接制约作用,最后以著名翻译家严复、傅雷、朱生豪、鲁迅为例,从实践上进一步论证了译者的翻译思想与译者风格的关系。
翻译目的对译者风格也有非常大的制约作用。本节先是梳理了翻译目的论的代表性观点,又列举了翻译史上翻译目的左右翻译活动的实践事实,旨在从理论和实践上论证翻译目的对翻译活动的影响;然后,对翻译目的进行了分类,阐述译者参与了各种翻译目的,并在达成各种翻译目过程中所起的协调作用,最后从理论和实践两个方面探讨了翻译目的对译者风格的制约作用。
语言的异质性是公认的对语言转换最大的障碍。本章的第四小节中,分析了译者风格与语言的关系、语言间的本质差异、译者化解差异的能力以及译者表现语言的能力,论证了语言的异质性对译者风格的制约作用。
“译者的审美取向与译者风格”是本章探讨的最后一个制约译者风格的主要因素。人的审美属性使人的审美体验无处不在,然而,人的审美体验又各有差异。文学作品具有很高的审美价值,这种审美价值不仅表现在形式上也表现在内容上。不同的审美取向产生不同的审美结果,本节针对文学作品的两个关键属性——语言和文学的审美视角,从理论和实践上论证了译者的审美取向对其风格的影响。
本章除了专节论证以上各大制约因素外,还在小结部分探讨了其他相关因素,如译者的创作风格、译者的年龄、性别以及原作风格对译者风格产生的制约作用。同时指出,这是一个开放性的论域。
本论文的第四章探讨的是译者风格的认知,因为译者风格的认知是展开译者风格批评的基础。论文梳理了风格的传统和现代认知方法以及理论依据,从翻译实践中总结了有关翻译风格的传统和现代认知方法,并对其有效性进行了评价;另外,论文还列举了当代风格认知研究中有代表性的模式,目的都旨在为译者风格的认知提供借鉴,最后提出了译者风格认知的两种方法,单维认知法和多维认知法。这只是一个理论上的方法论,具体的操作步骤将是一个很大的论题,也极具挑战性,还有待进一步地探索与实现。
第五章探讨的是译者风格批评的标准与方法问题。首先提出了译者风格批评的原则,即全面、客观、公正的原则,按照以上原则,制定了以下标准:译者风格对原作主题的表现力、译者风格的艺术感染力、译者风格对译语语言的贡献、译者风格对译语文学的贡献、译者风格对译语文化的影响,其中前四个标准评价的是译者风格的审美价值,最后一个标准评价的是译者风格的社会价值。本章建议译者风格批评采用审美解读法。方法的原则是:一,译者风格的本质特征;二,译者风格的意义;三,批评者客观、公正的态度;四,方法的科学性。译者风格具有审美的特征,译者风格批评应从译者风格的审美特性切入,深入地解读其价值意义。
第六章是论文的结语部分。本部分对翻译史上各个时期的译者风格批评实践进行了简要的概述和评价,目的是提出构建译者风格批评理论框架的必要性,使译者风格批评理论化、科学化。同时,本章也列出了本研究的局限和发展空间。译者风格批评理论框架的构建,是一项尝试性的研究,列入框架内各项论域的合理性还有待译界同仁的认可,同时框架的进一步充实与完善还需进一步探讨,各论域中的具体内容的进一步论证还需理论发展的支持。
万事开头难。以这篇小小的论文投石问路、抛砖引玉,希望它能看到一个光明的前景。
It is a tentative study made of criticism of the translator’s style. Criticism of the translator’s style is nothing new, but something that has been practiced since the beginning of the translation history, yet the criticism is neither in-depth nor theoretically adequate. In the ancient times, criticism on the translator’s style was no more than an impression lacking in analytical depth and philosophical insight; while in the modern times, the criticism mainly centered on the style of the translated text, especially on the typical mistakes picked out and criticized. The criticism was so hot that sometimes a tongue war was waged among the translators, the reason of which, now as we understand, is the negative use of the term“criticism”. The practice of criticism at present times also centers on the style of the translated text, with only an occasional mention of the translator’s style, or it is a combined one both on the style of the translated text and the translator’s style. What is different from before is that the present criticism turns to a wide range of newly advanced disciplines in linguistics or translation studies or such fields as literary criticism, psychology and aesthetics, etc. for its theoretical ground. The critics are more theoretically aware, and besides, the means applied is more scientific and sound than before. However, the criticism of the translator’s style should have its own special way of being dealt with, so it badly requires that a framework be formulated to provide principles and criteria for an objective evaluation. And finally, a guiding framework for the criticism of the translator’s style is all the more necessarily proposed in this dissertation.
Criticism of the translator’s style is within the scope of translation criticism. Lu Xun was the first at home to propose translation criticism in the 1930s, when he simply suggested the criticism on the quality of translations from both positive and negative perspectives. Though he followed it up by giving further explanations in his later papers, yet his design left much room for improvement. Dong Qiusi later in 1950 not only added to the content but also suggested something new in terms of criticism criteria and criticism domains. Jiao Juyin, another Chinese noted translation theorist, later in the same year conceived an idea of formulating a framework for translation criticism, and for the first time, he included such factors as the translator, the heterogeneity of language, the influence of the translated work and the critic’s attitude in his framework. It is a pity that he did not follow it up. However, the three well-known translators and translation theorists’pioneering contributions to translation criticism prospered the practice of translation criticism ever since in China. The theoretical framework of translation criticism began to take shape in the early 1990s, when a series of works were published with appropriate categories and objective criteria formulated for translation criticism, especially the one Translation Criticism ---- from Theory to Practice by Wen Xiuying at the very beginning of the year 2007, which is the landmark in the translation criticism studies in China. It is noted that how the framework of translation criticism came into being found its expression in the natural law, which is applied to any advancement.
The establishment of the framework of translation criticism serves as the theoretical basis for that of the framework of criticism of the translator’s style. In the past few years, the worldwide practice of criticism on the translator’s style, the studies of translation subjectivity and intersubjectivity, the advancement of other related disciplines, as well as the advanced and scientific means for conducting the criticism on style, all jointly is essential for a general framework that will accommodate the range of standards relevant to specific individual translation criticism of the translator’s style. It’s high time, it seems, for such a framework, the formulating of which is urgent both theoretically and practically. And that is what it is here before you a tentative one.
This dissertation can be outlined briefly as follows: first, it is an overview of the actual practice of criticism on the translator’s style both at home and abroad drawing on the instances in the translation history, and it is then concluded that the criticism on the translator’s style has always been inadequate; second, modeled on the framework of translation criticism, the framework for the criticism of the translator’s style is proposed, which includes such categories as the nature of the translator’s style, the constraints on the translator’s style, the recognization of the translator’s style, the principles and criteria of the criticism of the translator’s style, and the methodology of the criticism of the translator’s style. Finally, it states that the research still leaves much room for improvement.
It is repeated several times in this dissertation that the formulation of this framework does not mean to advocate the prominence of the translator’s style, nor to exaggerate the translator’s status and function in translating, nor to provide excuses for translators to go far beyond the original work, but by such a framework based on the fact of the inevitability of the translator’s style and the practice of the criticism on the translator’s style, it means to investigate the various constraints on the translator’s style and the value it brings to the target culture so as to give a sound evaluation of the translator’s decisive function for translating, to give the translator his deserved respect, to guide the criticism on the translator’s style on the way of a theoretical and scientific approach, and finally, to enhance the quality of translation. Meanwhile, translators may also take it as a reminder while translating to be aware of bringing all the interfering factors under control and reduce the loss to a minimum.
Chapter One introduces the status quo, the inevitability of the translator’s style, and proposes the aim, method, scope and literature of this research.
The term“the translator’s style”was first put forward by Zhi Liang in“The World Literature”in 1991. Then in 1992, Huang Yuanshen, in one of his publications, suggested that the translator should have his own style. However, Professor Feng Qinghua is the first one to give a comparatively profound study on this issue. Besides, the issue of the translator’s style is also talked about in the publications on the translator and the translation subjectivity. What is also worth mentioning is Zhao Wei and Sun Yingchun, who give an investigation of the unavoidability of the translator’s style from the perspective of socio- linguistics in terms of idiolect.
The practice of criticism on the translator’s style can date back to as early as the Buddhist translation in China and the Bible translation in the West. In Zhi Qian’s The Preface to Chinese Version of Dharmapade he thought that Zhu Jiangyan’s translation was a combination of transliteration and sense-translation with plain expressions, while St. Jerome thought Symmachus gave the sense of the Scripture, not in literal language, as Aquila did. The traditional approach to criticism on the translator’s style is an impressionistic one lacking in analytical depth and philosophical insight. It is not until the advancement of the modern linguistic approach since the 1960s that a more systematic, and less subjective, analysis of the translator’s style is made possible. However, the criticism lays emphasis on the adaptability of the translator’s style to the original one neglecting the aesthetic value of the translator’s style itself and its positive influence on the target language, literature and culture.
Chapter Two“Nature of Criticism on the Translator’s Style”is the working framework including all the categories to be studied for this research, beginning with an investigation of the notion of the word“style”since the word“style”, whether in the west or in the east, has been used in a much confusing way. Then the notion of“the translator’s style”and that of“the style of the translated work”are further distinguished. It goes on to explore further the properties of the translator’s style, and the scope, the domains and the functions of criticism of the translator’s style and finally, it states the necessity of this research.
The translator’s style is the translator’s linguistic habits which somehow betray him in all that he translates, while the style of the translated work is the linguistic characteristics of a particular translated text. The traditional view on translation in terms of style is that the translator must reproduce in the target language the original style, however, various models of translation process, the studies of the translation subjectivity, hermeneutics, reception theory and linguistics all show that while translating by interpreting the original style the translator must have something of his own style melted with the original one in the final work. It has also been found that different styles are revealed from different versions by different translators from the single original work, which is the translator’s style; while different styles are also revealed from different versions by the single translator from different original works by different authors, which are the different author’s different styles, however, these different styles also have something in common, which is the translator’s style.
The translator’s style is a combination of the original style and the translator’s writing style, which is relatively consistent during a long period of time, with some changes at long intervals. The translator’s style is unique of himself.
Criticism of the translator’s style is within the scope of translation criticism, the functions of which are to help construct the evaluating framework coordinating theories and practice, to provide an objective evaluation of the translator’s style and to guide different sides concerned such as the theorists, the critics, the translators and the readers, ect. to be beneficial from it.
What the readers accept of the original work is actually the translated work by the translator, and what the readers are appealed to is actually the translator’s style instead of the original one. It is necessary to formulate such a framework not only to widen the scope of the translation studies but also to give an objective evaluation of the translator’s style.
In Chapter Three“The Constraints on the Translator’s Style”, five constraints are proposed and examined as the major constraints on the translator’s style. They are the translational ideology, the translator’s translation principle, the translation purpose, heterogeneity of language, and the translator’s aesthetic bent. Besides, such minor constraints as the translator’s writing style, the translator’s age and the translator’s gender are also proposed and examined briefly.
Translational ideology has something to do with ideology, which means the ideology within the translation circle. Three elements of translational ideology are discussed, which are the main constraints on the translator’s style, and they are the dominating cultural identity, aesthetic bent and literary trend.
The translator’s translation principle determines the translation strategies, and hence the translation techniques which directly determine the translator’s style. Chinese well-known translators Yan Fu, Fu Lei, Zhu Shenghao and Lu Xun are cited as examples to demonstrate this relationship.
The translation purpose has a big power on the translator’s style. Various representative views are examined and various purposes involved in translation are investigated to demonstrate the constraints of these on the translator’s style. Furthermore, the translation purposes are classified and the power of each on the translator’s style is further examined and testified. The investigation shows that the translator has to balance the purposes at each level and successfully handle them in his translation.
The heterogeneity of language is generally acknowledged as the biggest hamper in language transfer. How language acts on the translator’s style is investigated through exploring the heterogeneity between the source language and the target language at different levels. Besides, the translator’s language competence in both languages is also closely connected with the translator’s style.
The translator’s aesthetic bent as one of the constraints is also discussed in this chapter. It is found that the translator’s style has much to do with his aesthetic bent. Literary works can be called an art which is rich with the aesthetic value expressed both through the form and the content. The translator’s preferences in dealing with the form and the content lead to a special way of expressing.
In addition to the above discussions, a small section of space is also left to the discussion of the constraint of the translator’s writing style, the translator’s age, the translator’s gender and the writer’s style on the translator in translating. Anyway, the discussion of the constraints on the translator’s style is open-ended.
Chapter Four investigates the approaches of recognizing the translator’s style, which serves as the basis for criticism of the translator’s style. Traditional, modern and contemporary approaches and means applied in the recognization of style are investigated and evaluated. Representative models are cited. Finally, two methods for the recognization of the translator’s style are proposed, which are monolevel approach and multilevel approach. The reliability of these two methods is yet to be applied and testified.
In Chapter Five, the criteria and methodology are proposed and discussed. Criticism on the translator’s style should be comprehensive, objective and just in considering the various constraints on the translator’s style. The criticism should be value-oriented, and the criteria are as follows: the capability of the translator’s style expressing the original theme, the appealing power of the translator’s style to the readers, the contributions the translator’s style makes to the target language and literature and the influence the translator’s style brings to the target culture. Aesthetic decoding is suggested as the evaluating method. Style is something aesthetic in literary criticism and decoding is an effective way of judging the value of the literary work. Only by decoding the details can it be found that how the text is composed, only by decoding the details can the translator’s linguistic habits be exposed and constraints on the translator’s style be discovered, and only by decoding the details of the influence can the contributions of the translation to the target language, literature and culture be evaluated, and as a result, a sound evaluation of the translator’s style can be at last made.
Chapter Six rounds off the discussion by showing that it is a long history since criticism of the translator’s style has been practiced and that it is high time that a workable framework to guide the criticism be formulated. Meanwhile, it is pointed out that the framework is the first of this kind and a tentative one, so it needs improving with further investigation and observation. Moreover, the further advancement of the related disciplines will provide more proof for the theoretical basis of the reasoning, so this framework is open-ended. Finally, it is expected that more exercise be done to testify its feasibility.
译者风格批评属于翻译批评的范畴。翻译批评问题在国内最早是由鲁迅先生提出来的。他从正反两个方面提出了批评的内容,初衷是提高翻译质量。但是,鲁迅先生对其内容的阐释还远远不够。随后董秋斯先生进一步丰富了鲁迅先生的翻译批评内容,并进一步提出了翻译批评的标准和重点。随后,焦菊隐先生提出了建立翻译批评体系的设想,并且首次将翻译本体以外的内容,诸如译者因素、语言差异、译作影响以及批评态度等等也纳入到翻译批评中。然而,可惜的是,这项工作没有再接着做下去。但是,鲁迅先生、董秋斯先生和焦菊隐先生在翻译批评领域的开创性贡献大大推动了翻译批评实践的发展。翻译批评理论体系在国内的逐步形成始于上个世纪的90年代初,国内相继出版了一系列建立翻译批评理论体系的著作,特别是2007年伊始,温秀颖的《翻译批评——从理论到实践》一书的推出更将翻译批评理论推向了成熟与完善。翻译批评理论体系的建立所走过的路程诠释了事物发展的客观规律,这一轨迹是任何事物发展的必经之路。
翻译批评理论体系的建立,为译者风格批评理论体系的建构提供了理论基础和理论依据。回顾译者风格批评实践所走过的路程,以及近几年翻译主体性、主体间性以及与译者风格批评相关的学科理论的迅速发展、风格批评手段的先进化、科学化,使译者风格批评理论体系的建构也到了水到渠成的时机,译者风格批评实践需要上升到理论的高度、也需要理论的指导。因此,按照事物的发展规律,我们试搭建了一个译者风格批评的理论框架。
本论文就是基于这样一种思路与动机设计的。主要内容如下:首先,通过回顾译者风格批评实践的历史,论证译者风格和译者风格批评实践事实的存在;其次,通过文献梳理,探究与译者风格批评相关的各理论、实践要素,确定并搭建译者风格批评理论框架的各大论域;最后,以翻译批评理论框架为本框架的构建模型,尝试建立了这样一个译者风格批评理论框架。本论文多次提到,探讨译者风格、构建译者风格批评理论框架,其目的并不是要夸大译者风格的地位和作用,也不是为译者的盲目游离原作风格开脱,而是,在译者风格及译者风格批评这一既成事实的前提下,通过构建这样一个理论框架,一,客观地评价译者在翻译过程中的主导作用;二,给予译者应有的地位和尊重;三,对译者风格的价值给予客观的评价;四,引导译者风格批评实践走向理论化、科学化;五,提高翻译质量。同时,也以此引起译者的注意,尽量将各种因素的干扰降至最低,遵循翻译的本质。
本论文具体包括以下内容:
第一章为绪论,介绍了本论文的研究背景、译者风格的理论必然性和实践存在事实、研究动机与目的、方法与步骤、范围与材料。
第二章“译者风格批评的性质”,首先对译者风格批评体系的核心概念译者风格进行了界定,探讨了译者风格的特点、确定了本项研究的理论范畴和主要论域以及译者风格批评的功能,最后,指出了本项研究的理论意义和实践意义。
第三章“译者风格的制约因素”是本论文的最大论域,包括五小节,分别是:译学意识形态与译者风格、译者的翻译思想与译者风格、翻译目的与译者风格、语言的制约与译者风格、译者的审美取向与译者风格。这五大内容是探讨译者风格产生的主客观原因。
在“译学意识形态与译者风格”中,首先探讨了译学意识形态与意识形态的关系,以此明确译学意识形态的内涵以及与译者风格的关系,最后从理论和实践两个方面主要论证了译学意识形态中的主流文化认同和主流审美取向对译者风格的制约作用。
本章的第二部分探讨的是译者的翻译思想与译者风格的关系。人的行动受制于思想,翻译活动也不例外,本节从理论上探讨了翻译思想与翻译策略、翻译方法的关系,以及翻译策略、翻译方法对译者风格的直接制约作用,最后以著名翻译家严复、傅雷、朱生豪、鲁迅为例,从实践上进一步论证了译者的翻译思想与译者风格的关系。
翻译目的对译者风格也有非常大的制约作用。本节先是梳理了翻译目的论的代表性观点,又列举了翻译史上翻译目的左右翻译活动的实践事实,旨在从理论和实践上论证翻译目的对翻译活动的影响;然后,对翻译目的进行了分类,阐述译者参与了各种翻译目的,并在达成各种翻译目过程中所起的协调作用,最后从理论和实践两个方面探讨了翻译目的对译者风格的制约作用。
语言的异质性是公认的对语言转换最大的障碍。本章的第四小节中,分析了译者风格与语言的关系、语言间的本质差异、译者化解差异的能力以及译者表现语言的能力,论证了语言的异质性对译者风格的制约作用。
“译者的审美取向与译者风格”是本章探讨的最后一个制约译者风格的主要因素。人的审美属性使人的审美体验无处不在,然而,人的审美体验又各有差异。文学作品具有很高的审美价值,这种审美价值不仅表现在形式上也表现在内容上。不同的审美取向产生不同的审美结果,本节针对文学作品的两个关键属性——语言和文学的审美视角,从理论和实践上论证了译者的审美取向对其风格的影响。
本章除了专节论证以上各大制约因素外,还在小结部分探讨了其他相关因素,如译者的创作风格、译者的年龄、性别以及原作风格对译者风格产生的制约作用。同时指出,这是一个开放性的论域。
本论文的第四章探讨的是译者风格的认知,因为译者风格的认知是展开译者风格批评的基础。论文梳理了风格的传统和现代认知方法以及理论依据,从翻译实践中总结了有关翻译风格的传统和现代认知方法,并对其有效性进行了评价;另外,论文还列举了当代风格认知研究中有代表性的模式,目的都旨在为译者风格的认知提供借鉴,最后提出了译者风格认知的两种方法,单维认知法和多维认知法。这只是一个理论上的方法论,具体的操作步骤将是一个很大的论题,也极具挑战性,还有待进一步地探索与实现。
第五章探讨的是译者风格批评的标准与方法问题。首先提出了译者风格批评的原则,即全面、客观、公正的原则,按照以上原则,制定了以下标准:译者风格对原作主题的表现力、译者风格的艺术感染力、译者风格对译语语言的贡献、译者风格对译语文学的贡献、译者风格对译语文化的影响,其中前四个标准评价的是译者风格的审美价值,最后一个标准评价的是译者风格的社会价值。本章建议译者风格批评采用审美解读法。方法的原则是:一,译者风格的本质特征;二,译者风格的意义;三,批评者客观、公正的态度;四,方法的科学性。译者风格具有审美的特征,译者风格批评应从译者风格的审美特性切入,深入地解读其价值意义。
第六章是论文的结语部分。本部分对翻译史上各个时期的译者风格批评实践进行了简要的概述和评价,目的是提出构建译者风格批评理论框架的必要性,使译者风格批评理论化、科学化。同时,本章也列出了本研究的局限和发展空间。译者风格批评理论框架的构建,是一项尝试性的研究,列入框架内各项论域的合理性还有待译界同仁的认可,同时框架的进一步充实与完善还需进一步探讨,各论域中的具体内容的进一步论证还需理论发展的支持。
万事开头难。以这篇小小的论文投石问路、抛砖引玉,希望它能看到一个光明的前景。
It is a tentative study made of criticism of the translator’s style. Criticism of the translator’s style is nothing new, but something that has been practiced since the beginning of the translation history, yet the criticism is neither in-depth nor theoretically adequate. In the ancient times, criticism on the translator’s style was no more than an impression lacking in analytical depth and philosophical insight; while in the modern times, the criticism mainly centered on the style of the translated text, especially on the typical mistakes picked out and criticized. The criticism was so hot that sometimes a tongue war was waged among the translators, the reason of which, now as we understand, is the negative use of the term“criticism”. The practice of criticism at present times also centers on the style of the translated text, with only an occasional mention of the translator’s style, or it is a combined one both on the style of the translated text and the translator’s style. What is different from before is that the present criticism turns to a wide range of newly advanced disciplines in linguistics or translation studies or such fields as literary criticism, psychology and aesthetics, etc. for its theoretical ground. The critics are more theoretically aware, and besides, the means applied is more scientific and sound than before. However, the criticism of the translator’s style should have its own special way of being dealt with, so it badly requires that a framework be formulated to provide principles and criteria for an objective evaluation. And finally, a guiding framework for the criticism of the translator’s style is all the more necessarily proposed in this dissertation.
Criticism of the translator’s style is within the scope of translation criticism. Lu Xun was the first at home to propose translation criticism in the 1930s, when he simply suggested the criticism on the quality of translations from both positive and negative perspectives. Though he followed it up by giving further explanations in his later papers, yet his design left much room for improvement. Dong Qiusi later in 1950 not only added to the content but also suggested something new in terms of criticism criteria and criticism domains. Jiao Juyin, another Chinese noted translation theorist, later in the same year conceived an idea of formulating a framework for translation criticism, and for the first time, he included such factors as the translator, the heterogeneity of language, the influence of the translated work and the critic’s attitude in his framework. It is a pity that he did not follow it up. However, the three well-known translators and translation theorists’pioneering contributions to translation criticism prospered the practice of translation criticism ever since in China. The theoretical framework of translation criticism began to take shape in the early 1990s, when a series of works were published with appropriate categories and objective criteria formulated for translation criticism, especially the one Translation Criticism ---- from Theory to Practice by Wen Xiuying at the very beginning of the year 2007, which is the landmark in the translation criticism studies in China. It is noted that how the framework of translation criticism came into being found its expression in the natural law, which is applied to any advancement.
The establishment of the framework of translation criticism serves as the theoretical basis for that of the framework of criticism of the translator’s style. In the past few years, the worldwide practice of criticism on the translator’s style, the studies of translation subjectivity and intersubjectivity, the advancement of other related disciplines, as well as the advanced and scientific means for conducting the criticism on style, all jointly is essential for a general framework that will accommodate the range of standards relevant to specific individual translation criticism of the translator’s style. It’s high time, it seems, for such a framework, the formulating of which is urgent both theoretically and practically. And that is what it is here before you a tentative one.
This dissertation can be outlined briefly as follows: first, it is an overview of the actual practice of criticism on the translator’s style both at home and abroad drawing on the instances in the translation history, and it is then concluded that the criticism on the translator’s style has always been inadequate; second, modeled on the framework of translation criticism, the framework for the criticism of the translator’s style is proposed, which includes such categories as the nature of the translator’s style, the constraints on the translator’s style, the recognization of the translator’s style, the principles and criteria of the criticism of the translator’s style, and the methodology of the criticism of the translator’s style. Finally, it states that the research still leaves much room for improvement.
It is repeated several times in this dissertation that the formulation of this framework does not mean to advocate the prominence of the translator’s style, nor to exaggerate the translator’s status and function in translating, nor to provide excuses for translators to go far beyond the original work, but by such a framework based on the fact of the inevitability of the translator’s style and the practice of the criticism on the translator’s style, it means to investigate the various constraints on the translator’s style and the value it brings to the target culture so as to give a sound evaluation of the translator’s decisive function for translating, to give the translator his deserved respect, to guide the criticism on the translator’s style on the way of a theoretical and scientific approach, and finally, to enhance the quality of translation. Meanwhile, translators may also take it as a reminder while translating to be aware of bringing all the interfering factors under control and reduce the loss to a minimum.
Chapter One introduces the status quo, the inevitability of the translator’s style, and proposes the aim, method, scope and literature of this research.
The term“the translator’s style”was first put forward by Zhi Liang in“The World Literature”in 1991. Then in 1992, Huang Yuanshen, in one of his publications, suggested that the translator should have his own style. However, Professor Feng Qinghua is the first one to give a comparatively profound study on this issue. Besides, the issue of the translator’s style is also talked about in the publications on the translator and the translation subjectivity. What is also worth mentioning is Zhao Wei and Sun Yingchun, who give an investigation of the unavoidability of the translator’s style from the perspective of socio- linguistics in terms of idiolect.
The practice of criticism on the translator’s style can date back to as early as the Buddhist translation in China and the Bible translation in the West. In Zhi Qian’s The Preface to Chinese Version of Dharmapade he thought that Zhu Jiangyan’s translation was a combination of transliteration and sense-translation with plain expressions, while St. Jerome thought Symmachus gave the sense of the Scripture, not in literal language, as Aquila did. The traditional approach to criticism on the translator’s style is an impressionistic one lacking in analytical depth and philosophical insight. It is not until the advancement of the modern linguistic approach since the 1960s that a more systematic, and less subjective, analysis of the translator’s style is made possible. However, the criticism lays emphasis on the adaptability of the translator’s style to the original one neglecting the aesthetic value of the translator’s style itself and its positive influence on the target language, literature and culture.
Chapter Two“Nature of Criticism on the Translator’s Style”is the working framework including all the categories to be studied for this research, beginning with an investigation of the notion of the word“style”since the word“style”, whether in the west or in the east, has been used in a much confusing way. Then the notion of“the translator’s style”and that of“the style of the translated work”are further distinguished. It goes on to explore further the properties of the translator’s style, and the scope, the domains and the functions of criticism of the translator’s style and finally, it states the necessity of this research.
The translator’s style is the translator’s linguistic habits which somehow betray him in all that he translates, while the style of the translated work is the linguistic characteristics of a particular translated text. The traditional view on translation in terms of style is that the translator must reproduce in the target language the original style, however, various models of translation process, the studies of the translation subjectivity, hermeneutics, reception theory and linguistics all show that while translating by interpreting the original style the translator must have something of his own style melted with the original one in the final work. It has also been found that different styles are revealed from different versions by different translators from the single original work, which is the translator’s style; while different styles are also revealed from different versions by the single translator from different original works by different authors, which are the different author’s different styles, however, these different styles also have something in common, which is the translator’s style.
The translator’s style is a combination of the original style and the translator’s writing style, which is relatively consistent during a long period of time, with some changes at long intervals. The translator’s style is unique of himself.
Criticism of the translator’s style is within the scope of translation criticism, the functions of which are to help construct the evaluating framework coordinating theories and practice, to provide an objective evaluation of the translator’s style and to guide different sides concerned such as the theorists, the critics, the translators and the readers, ect. to be beneficial from it.
What the readers accept of the original work is actually the translated work by the translator, and what the readers are appealed to is actually the translator’s style instead of the original one. It is necessary to formulate such a framework not only to widen the scope of the translation studies but also to give an objective evaluation of the translator’s style.
In Chapter Three“The Constraints on the Translator’s Style”, five constraints are proposed and examined as the major constraints on the translator’s style. They are the translational ideology, the translator’s translation principle, the translation purpose, heterogeneity of language, and the translator’s aesthetic bent. Besides, such minor constraints as the translator’s writing style, the translator’s age and the translator’s gender are also proposed and examined briefly.
Translational ideology has something to do with ideology, which means the ideology within the translation circle. Three elements of translational ideology are discussed, which are the main constraints on the translator’s style, and they are the dominating cultural identity, aesthetic bent and literary trend.
The translator’s translation principle determines the translation strategies, and hence the translation techniques which directly determine the translator’s style. Chinese well-known translators Yan Fu, Fu Lei, Zhu Shenghao and Lu Xun are cited as examples to demonstrate this relationship.
The translation purpose has a big power on the translator’s style. Various representative views are examined and various purposes involved in translation are investigated to demonstrate the constraints of these on the translator’s style. Furthermore, the translation purposes are classified and the power of each on the translator’s style is further examined and testified. The investigation shows that the translator has to balance the purposes at each level and successfully handle them in his translation.
The heterogeneity of language is generally acknowledged as the biggest hamper in language transfer. How language acts on the translator’s style is investigated through exploring the heterogeneity between the source language and the target language at different levels. Besides, the translator’s language competence in both languages is also closely connected with the translator’s style.
The translator’s aesthetic bent as one of the constraints is also discussed in this chapter. It is found that the translator’s style has much to do with his aesthetic bent. Literary works can be called an art which is rich with the aesthetic value expressed both through the form and the content. The translator’s preferences in dealing with the form and the content lead to a special way of expressing.
In addition to the above discussions, a small section of space is also left to the discussion of the constraint of the translator’s writing style, the translator’s age, the translator’s gender and the writer’s style on the translator in translating. Anyway, the discussion of the constraints on the translator’s style is open-ended.
Chapter Four investigates the approaches of recognizing the translator’s style, which serves as the basis for criticism of the translator’s style. Traditional, modern and contemporary approaches and means applied in the recognization of style are investigated and evaluated. Representative models are cited. Finally, two methods for the recognization of the translator’s style are proposed, which are monolevel approach and multilevel approach. The reliability of these two methods is yet to be applied and testified.
In Chapter Five, the criteria and methodology are proposed and discussed. Criticism on the translator’s style should be comprehensive, objective and just in considering the various constraints on the translator’s style. The criticism should be value-oriented, and the criteria are as follows: the capability of the translator’s style expressing the original theme, the appealing power of the translator’s style to the readers, the contributions the translator’s style makes to the target language and literature and the influence the translator’s style brings to the target culture. Aesthetic decoding is suggested as the evaluating method. Style is something aesthetic in literary criticism and decoding is an effective way of judging the value of the literary work. Only by decoding the details can it be found that how the text is composed, only by decoding the details can the translator’s linguistic habits be exposed and constraints on the translator’s style be discovered, and only by decoding the details of the influence can the contributions of the translation to the target language, literature and culture be evaluated, and as a result, a sound evaluation of the translator’s style can be at last made.
Chapter Six rounds off the discussion by showing that it is a long history since criticism of the translator’s style has been practiced and that it is high time that a workable framework to guide the criticism be formulated. Meanwhile, it is pointed out that the framework is the first of this kind and a tentative one, so it needs improving with further investigation and observation. Moreover, the further advancement of the related disciplines will provide more proof for the theoretical basis of the reasoning, so this framework is open-ended. Finally, it is expected that more exercise be done to testify its feasibility.
引文
Baker, Mona. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2005.
Bassnett, Susan, Translation Studies (3rd edition)[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004.
Bassnett, Susan & Lefevere, Andre. Constructing Cultures: Essays on Literary Translation[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.
Bell, T. Roger. Translation and Translatin: Theory and Practice[M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.
Chan, Leo Tak-hung. Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory: Modes, issues and debates[M]. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2004.
Gutt, Ernst-August. Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2005.
Halliday, M.A.K. Explorations in the Functions of Language[M]. London: Edward Arnold Ltd,1981.
Hermans, Theo. Translation in Systems[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004.
Heylen, R. Translation, Poetics, & the Stage: Six French Hamlets. London and New York: Routledge, 1993.
Leech, Geoffrey N. & Short, Michael H. Style in Fiction: A Linguistic Introduction to English Fictional Prose[M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2003.
Lefevere, A. Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2005.
Mattiesson, F.O., Translation: An Elizabethan Art: A useful, but unsystematic, analysis of the work of four major Elizabethan translatiors, Hoby, North, Florio and Philemon Holland. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1931.
Newmark, Peter. A Textbook of Translation[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.
Nida,Eugene A. Toward a Science of Translating[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.
Nida,Eugene A. Language and Culture: Contexts in Translating[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.
Nord, Christiane. Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.
Reiss, Katharina. Translation Criticism: the Potentials & Limitations[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2005.
Venuti. Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation—Towards an Ethics of Differences [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004.
Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation[M].Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2005.
Williams, Jenny & Chesterman, Andrew. The Map: A Beginner’s Guide to Doing Research in Translation Studies[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2005.
Wilss, Wolfram. The Science of Translation: Problems and Methods[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2005.
巴金等著.王守兰编.当代文学翻译百家谈[M].北京大学出版社,1989.
巴尔胡达罗夫.语言与翻译[M].蔡毅等译.北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1985.
卞建华.文学翻译批评中运用文学接受理论的合理性与局限性[J].外语与外语教学,2005,(1):42-45.
蔡耀坤.美质中藏——读杨必译《名利场》[J].中国翻译,1994,(1):23-26.
曹明海.文学解读学导论[M].北京:人民文学出版社,1997.
曹明伦.文本目的—译者的翻译目的—兼评德国功能派的目的论和意大利谚语“翻译即叛逆”[J].天津外国语学院学报,2007,(4):1-5.
查明建,田雨.论译者主体性[J].中国翻译, 2003,(1):19-24.
查明建.论译者主体性——从译者文化地位的边缘化谈起[J].中国翻译,2003,(1):19-24.
陈大亮.谁是翻译主体[J].中国翻译,2004,(2):3-7.
陈福康.中国译学理论史稿(修订本)[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2006.
陈建生,吴曙坦.翻译认知:述义比例和辖域与翻译[J].外语与外语教学, 2004,(3):47-50.
陈梅.外部力量与译者主体性的建构——以《圣经》翻译为例[J].外语与外语教学, 2006,(6):50-52.
陈琳,张春柏.从玄奘和哲罗姆的比较看中西翻译思想之差异[J].外语研究,2006,(1):61-65.
陈琳,张春柏.译者主体地位:分析哲学的阐释[J].外语与外语教学,2006,(9):36-39.
陈平原.20世纪中国小说史(第一卷) (1897-1916)[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1989.
陈望道.修辞学发凡[M].上海:上海教育出版社,2002.
陈之展.近代翻译文学[A].罗新璋.翻译论集[C].北京:商务印书馆,1984:198-210.
程帆.我听朱光潜讲美学[M].北京:中国致公出版社,2004.
戴炜栋等.简明英语语言学教程[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999.
但汉源.直译意译的别论与共识[J].语言与翻译,1994,(1):95-102.
邓婕.译者主体性与翻译策略[J].广东外语外贸大学学报,2006(3):47-85.
丁金国.语体风格认知与解读[M].香港:文化教育出版社,2006.
董秋斯.翻译批评的标准和重点[A].翻译通讯编辑部.翻译研究论文集(1949-1983)[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984:25-29.
杜争鸣.钩沉百年文学翻译的启示[J].中国翻译,2000,(6):47-48.
杜书瀛等.文艺美学原理[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,1998.
飞白.论“风格译”——谈译者的透明度[J].中国翻译,1995,(3):13-16.
冯庆华.红译艺坛—《红楼梦》翻译艺术研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2006.
冯庆华.文体翻译论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2002.
冯庆华.论译者的风格[A].谢天振.翻译的理论建构与文化透视[C].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000:329-338.
傅敬民.论译者的个性问题[J].上海科技翻译,1997,(4):3-5.
傅雷.傅雷文集·书信卷(上、下) [M].合肥:安徽文艺出版社,1998.
傅雷.《高老头》重译本序[A].罗新璋.翻译论集[C].北京:商务印书馆,1984:558-559.
高慧群,乌传衮.翻译家严复传论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1992.
高宁.译学主体、译学对话和译者主体性地位[J].中国比较文学,2006,(1):115-128.
王元化译.文学风格论[C].上海:上海译文出版社,1982.
顾玉兰.谈style和stylistics概念的内涵及汉译问题[J].外语研究1993,(1):51-53,28.
辜正坤.英译汉练习参考译文:致切斯菲尔德伯爵书[J].中国翻译,2000,(3):71-73.
辜正坤.中西诗比较鉴赏与翻译理论[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2003.
郭建中.当代美国翻译理论[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社, 2000.
郭沫若.翻译的动机与效果[A].罗新璋.翻译论集[C].北京:商务印书馆,1984:329-330.
郭延礼.中国近代翻译文学概论[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,1998.
郭著章等.翻译名家研究[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,2005.
贺麟.严复的翻译[A].翻译研究论文集(1894-1948)[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984:113-125.
侯林平,姜泗平.我国近十年来译者主体性研究的回顾与反思[J].山东科技大学学报(社会科学版),2006,(9):100-104.
胡翠娥.文学翻译与文化参与[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2007.
胡德香.中西比较视野下的翻译批评[J].山东外语教学, 2004,(5):102-105.
胡经之.文艺美学[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1999.
胡真.安娜?利洛娃的翻译历史观[J].中国翻译,1990,(3):52-55.
黄琼英.鲁迅的前期翻译[J].曲靖师范学院学报, 2004,(5):26-30.
黄源深.时代呼唤具有独特风格的翻译家[J].中国翻译,1992(2):31-33.
黄振定.解构主义的翻译创造性与主体性[J].中国翻译,2005(1):19-22.
胡有清.文艺学论纲[M].南京:南京大学出版社,2005.
季广茂.意识形态视域中的现代话语转型与文学观念嬗变[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
蒋孔阳.美学与文艺评论集[M].上海:上海文艺出版社,1986.
蒋素华.关于翻译过程的研究[J].外语教学与研究,1998,(3):55-58.
蒋骁华.意识形态对翻译的影响:阐发与思考[J].中国翻译2003,(5):24-29.
姜治文、文军.翻译批评论[M].重庆:重庆大学出版社,1999.
焦菊隐.论翻译批评[A].翻译通讯编辑部.翻译研究论文集(1949-1983)[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984:35-43.
李国林.汉译外:传播中国文化的媒介——浅谈杨译《儒林外史》英文本对文化词语的翻译[J].中国翻译,1997,(2):35-37
李辉.杨宪益与戴乃迭:一同走过[M].郑州:大象出版社,2001.
李贻萌.霍克斯英译《楚辞》浅析[J].中国翻译,1992(1):40-42.
梁启超.《论译书》[A].翻译通讯编辑部.翻译研究论文集(1894-1948)[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984:8-20.
梁启超.翻译文学与佛典[A].翻译通讯编辑部.翻译研究论文集(1894-1948)[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984:52-67.
林于会,张承平.鲁迅翻译思想浅译[J].湖南第一师范学报, 2005,(4):63-65.
刘重德.文学翻译十讲[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1991.
刘重德.翻译漫谈[M].西安:陕西人民出版社,1984.
刘重德.西方译论研究[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2003.
刘隆惠.谈谈文艺作品风格的翻译问题[A].翻译通讯编辑部.翻译研究论文集(1949-1983)[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984:165-171.
刘宓庆.翻译美学导论[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2005.
刘宓庆.中西翻译思想比较研究[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2005.
刘宓庆.文体与翻译[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1998.
刘宓庆.新编当代翻译理论[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2005.
刘宓庆.翻译与语言哲学[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2004.
刘全福.鲁迅、梁实秋翻译论战追述[J].四川外语学院学报,2000,(3):87-91.
刘树森.纽马克的翻译批评理论简析[J].中国翻译,1992,(2):49-52.
刘新民.文入佳境语出诗情——评黄源深译《简爱》[J].中国翻译,1995,(4):46-50.
刘玉麟.论风格——从中西古典文论到结构文体学和统计文体学[J].外国语,1986,(5):71-75、(6):54-58.
刘壮冲.《湘西散记》英译文的一些失误[J].中国翻译1994,(2):36-39.
卢寿荣,张淼.鲁迅翻译理论的发展及评价[J].山东外语教学,2002,(5):23-26.
鲁迅.“<月界旅行>”夯言[C].鲁迅全集第10卷.北京:人民文学出版社,1981.
鲁迅.关于翻译:给瞿秋白的回信[A] .翻译通讯编辑部.翻译研究论文集(1894-1948)[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984:223-228.
鲁迅.为翻译辩护[A].罗新璋.翻译论集[C].北京:商务印书馆,1984:291-292.
卢玉玲.翻译的幽灵——评道格拉斯?罗宾逊的《谁在翻译——超越理性论译者主体性》[J].中国翻译,2004,(2):56-58.
罗国林.风格与译风[J].中国翻译,1996,(2):22-25.
罗书肆.鲁迅论翻译批评[A].翻译通讯编辑部.翻译研究论文集(1949-1983)[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984:73-79.
罗新璋.读傅雷译品随感[A].郭著章.翻译名家研究[C].武汉:湖北教育出版社,1999:321-327.
罗新璋.翻译论集[C].北京:商务印书馆,1984.
吕俊.翻译学应从解构主义那里学些什么[J].外国语,2002,(5):48-54.
吕俊.谈翻译批评标准的体系[J].外语与外语教学,2007,(3):62-65.
马红军.翻译批评散论[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2000.
马建忠.拟设翻译书院[A].中国翻译通讯编辑部.翻译研究论文集(1894-1948)[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984:1-5.
马新国.西方文论史[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2002.
马祖毅.中国翻译史(上卷)[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,1999. 矛盾.《矛盾译文选集》序[A].中国翻译通讯编辑部.翻译研究论文集(1949-1983)[C].
北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984:17-19. 矛盾.《简爱》的两个译本——对于翻译方法的研究[A] .罗新璋.翻译论集[C].北京:商务印书馆,1984:354-365.
梅邵武.纳博科夫和文学翻译[J].中国翻译,1993,(4):54-57.
敏泽,党圣元.文学价值论[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,1999.
穆雷,诗怡.翻译主体的“发现”与研究[J].中国翻译,2003,(1):12-18.
木曾.翻译释义[A].翻译通讯编辑部.翻译研究论文集(1894-1948)[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984:322-336.
欧阳琼.风格的翻译原则[J].湖北成人教育学院学报,2005,(1):71-72.
彭开明.融会贯通,出神入化——《被出卖的春天》译文赏析[J].中国翻译,1995,(3):31-34.
钱瑗.实用英语文体学[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2006.
钱钟书.林纾的翻译[A].翻译通讯编辑部.翻译研究论文集(1949-1983)[C].北京:外
语教学与研究出版社,1984:267-295.
邱运华.文学批评方法与案例[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
瞿秋白.关于翻译——给鲁迅的信[A].翻译通讯编辑部.翻译研究论文集(1894-1948) [C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984:215-222.
若冰,张萍.论鲁迅的文学翻译主张[J].外语教学,1995,(2):74-77.
申丹.西方现代文体学百年发展历程[J].外语教学与研究,2000,(1):22-28.
申丹.叙述学与小说文体研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1998.
沈雁冰.译文学书方法的讨论[A].翻译通讯编辑部.翻译研究论文集(1894-1948)[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984:93-98.
诗怡.作为一项文化系统工程的译学理论建构[J].中国比较文学,2000,(1):139-144.
孙艺风.翻译规范与主体意识[J].中国翻译,2003,(3):3-9.
孙迎春.张谷若翻译艺术研究[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2004.
孙致礼.1949-1966:我国英美文学翻译概论[M].南京:译林出版社1996.
谭载喜.西方翻译简史[M].北京:商务印书馆,2004.
屠国元,朱献珑.译者主体性:阐释学的阐释[J].中国翻译2003,(6):8-14.
屠国元,王飞虹.论译者的译材选择与翻译策略取向——利玛窦翻译活动个案研究[J]. 中国翻译,2005,(2):20-25.
王秉钦. 20世纪中国翻译思想史[M].天津:南开大学出版社,2004.
王东风.帝国的翻译暴力与翻译的文化抵抗:韦努蒂抵抗式翻译观解读[J].中国比较文学,2007,(5):69-85.
王东风.论翻译过程中的文化介入[J].中国翻译,1998,(5):6-9.
王东风.翻译文学的文化地位与译者的文化态度[J].中国翻译,2000,(4):2-8.
王东风.译家与作家的意识冲突:文学翻译中的一个值得深思的现象[J].中国翻译,2001,(4):43-48.
王国维.人间词话[M].上海:上海古籍出版社,2006.
王宏印.文学翻译批评论稿[M].上海外语教育出版社,2006.
王宏印.中国传统译论经典诠释:从道安到傅雷[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,2005.
王宏志.翻译与创作——中国近代翻译小说论[C].北京:北京大学出版社,2000.
王宏志.重释“信达雅”——二十世纪中国翻译研究[M] .上海:东方出版中心,1999.
汪瑾.直译与意译的历史渊源[J].中国民航学院学报,2000,(5):52-56.
王克非.翻译文化史论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1997.
王栻.严复与严译名著[A].商务印书馆编辑部.论严复与严译名著[C].北京:商务印书馆,1982:1-21.
王晓元.意识形态与文学翻译的互动关系[J].中国翻译,1999,(2):10-14.
王友贵.鲁迅的翻译模式与翻译政治[J].山东外语教学,2003,(2):74-77.
王友贵.翻译家鲁迅[M].天津:南开大学出版社,2005.
王之望.文学风格论[M].成都:四川文艺出版社,1986.
王佐良.论新开端[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1991.
王佐良.严复的用心[A].翻译通讯编辑部.翻译研究论文集(1949-1983)[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984:479-485.
王佐良.翻译:思考与试笔[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1989.
魏藏峰.晚清域外小说译介的政治取向及影响[J].山东外语教学,2004,(1):89-91,94.
文军.中国翻译批评百年回眸[M].北京:北京航空航天大学出版社,2006.
文军.科学翻译批评导论[M].北京:对外翻译出版公司,2006.
文军.中国翻译史研究百年回眸[M].北京:北京航空航天大学出版社,2006.
吴洁敏,朱宏达等.朱生豪转[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1990.
奚永吉.文学翻译比较美学[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,2001.
肖红,许钧.试论傅雷的翻译观[J].四川外语学院学报,2002,(3):92-97.
谢天振.译介学[M].上海:上海外教教育出版社,1999.
谢天振.译者的诞生与原作者的死亡[J].中国比较文学,2002,(4):24-42.
谢天振.翻译的理论建构与文化透视[C].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2003.
徐朝友.鲁迅早期翻译观溯源[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2003,(5):51-54
许建平.再现人物神韵的典范——王佐良译《雷雨》片段赏析[J].中国翻译,1997,(6):29-32.
许钧.“创作性叛逆”和翻译主体的确立[J].中国翻译,2003,(1):6-11.
许钧.切实加强译学研究和翻译学科建设[J].中国翻译,2001,(1):2-8.
许钧.作者、译者和读者的共鸣和视野融合[J].中国翻译,2002,(3):23-27.
许钧.翻译思考录[C].武汉:湖北教育出版社,1998.
许钧.文学翻译批评研究[M].南京:译林出版社,1992.
许钧.翻译论[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,2003.
许钧.风格与翻译——评《追忆似水年华》汉译风格的传达[J].中国翻译,1993,(3):3-9.
许钧.是否还有个度的问题[J].中国翻译,1995,(4):18-22.
许力生.文体风格的现代透视[M].杭州:浙江大学出版社,2006.
许渊冲.文学与翻译[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2003.
颜德如.严复翻译思想新探[J].福建论坛·人文社会科学版,2005,(6):76-80.
严复.天演论?译例言[A].翻译通讯编辑部.翻译研究论文集(1894-1948)[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984:6-7.
杨柳.论原作之隐形[J].中国翻译,2001,(2):47-51.
杨世骥.周桂笙的翻译[A].罗新璋.翻译论集[C].北京:商务印书馆,1984:251-257.
杨武能.尴尬与自如傲慢与自卑——文学翻译家心理人格漫说[J].中国翻译,1993,(2):3-7.
杨武能.再谈文学翻译主体[J].中国翻译,2003,(3):10-13.
杨晓荣.翻译批评导论[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2005.
杨晓荣.翻译标准制约因素分析[J].外国语,2004,(6):51-57.
杨正典.严复评传[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1997.
姚鹏图.论白话小说[A].陈平原,夏晓虹.20世纪中国小说理论资料第一卷[C].北京:北京大学出版社,1989:186-188.
叶君健.关于文学作品翻译的一点体会[A].翻译通讯编辑部.翻译研究论文集(1949-1983)[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984:551-565.
余虹.何为审美文化http://www.tecn.cn/data/detail.php?id=12797 .
喻云根,李学经.文艺美学对文学翻译的制约作用[J].外语研究,1990,(3):53-57.
袁荻涌.林纾的文学翻译思想[J].中国翻译,1994,(3):42-44.
袁锦翔.名家翻译研究与赏析[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,1990.
袁莉.也谈文学翻译之主体意识[J].中国翻译,1996,(3):4-8.
袁莉.翻译的文化视界——贝尔曼对德国近代译论的思考[J].外语研究,1996,(4):44-50,57.
曾利沙.论翻译的艺术创造性与客观制约性——主题关联性社会文化语境下的译者主体性个案研究[J].广东外语外贸大学学报,2006,(2):5-8,30.
曾虚白.翻译中的神韵与达——西滢先生《论翻译》的补充[A].翻译通讯编辑部.翻译研究论文集(1894-1948)[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984:150-156.
张南峰.中西译学批评[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2004.
张南峰.走出死胡同建立翻译学[J].中国翻译,1995,(4):15-17,22.
张培基.英汉翻译教程[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2001.
张性国.浅论文化对译者的制约作用[J].上海科技翻译,1997,(2):9-11.
张中楹.关于翻译中的风格问题[A].翻译通讯编辑部.翻译研究论文集(1949-1983)[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984:159-164.
赵巍、孙迎春.个人方言与文学翻译中的译者风格[J].外语教学,2004,(5):64-68.
仲伟合,钟钰.德国的功能派翻译理论[J].中国翻译,1999,(3):47-49.
周启付.鲁迅与翻译[J].外语学刊,1981,(4):68-72.
周仪、罗平.翻译与批评[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,1999.
周裕锴.中国古代阐释学研究[M].上海:上海人民出版社,2003.
周振甫.文学风格例话[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2005.
郑海凌.译者的形象[J].中国比较文学,2004,(1):113-119.
郑延国.下笔妍雅片言生辉”——管锥编译句赏析[J].中国翻译,1990(2):52-54.
郑振铎.林琴南先生[A].罗新璋.翻译论集[C].北京:商务印书馆,1984:184-192.
朱光潜.谈翻译[A].翻译通讯编辑部.翻译研究论文集(1894-1948)[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984:353-363.
朱宏达,吴洁敏.朱生豪莎士比亚戏剧的译介思想和成就[J].嘉兴学院学报, 2005, (9):17-22.
朱生豪.《莎士比亚戏剧全集》译者自序[A].罗新璋.翻译论集[C].北京:商务印书馆, 1984:456-457.
庄绎传.外国译者追求什么样的译文[J].中国翻译,1992,(4):51-55.
庄绎传.外国翻译家对原作风格的探讨[J].外语教学与研究,1993,(2):39-44.
邹广胜.谈杨宪益与戴乃迭古典文学英译的学术成就[J].外国文学,2007,(5): 119-124.
邹霆.永远的求索——杨宪益传[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社,2001.
商务印书馆编辑部.论严复与严译名著[C].北京:商务印书馆,1982.
王佐良文集[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1997.
中国翻译工作者协会《翻译通讯》编辑部.翻译研究论文集[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984.
Bassnett, Susan, Translation Studies (3rd edition)[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004.
Bassnett, Susan & Lefevere, Andre. Constructing Cultures: Essays on Literary Translation[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.
Bell, T. Roger. Translation and Translatin: Theory and Practice[M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.
Chan, Leo Tak-hung. Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory: Modes, issues and debates[M]. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2004.
Gutt, Ernst-August. Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2005.
Halliday, M.A.K. Explorations in the Functions of Language[M]. London: Edward Arnold Ltd,1981.
Hermans, Theo. Translation in Systems[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004.
Heylen, R. Translation, Poetics, & the Stage: Six French Hamlets. London and New York: Routledge, 1993.
Leech, Geoffrey N. & Short, Michael H. Style in Fiction: A Linguistic Introduction to English Fictional Prose[M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2003.
Lefevere, A. Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2005.
Mattiesson, F.O., Translation: An Elizabethan Art: A useful, but unsystematic, analysis of the work of four major Elizabethan translatiors, Hoby, North, Florio and Philemon Holland. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1931.
Newmark, Peter. A Textbook of Translation[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.
Nida,Eugene A. Toward a Science of Translating[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.
Nida,Eugene A. Language and Culture: Contexts in Translating[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.
Nord, Christiane. Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.
Reiss, Katharina. Translation Criticism: the Potentials & Limitations[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2005.
Venuti. Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation—Towards an Ethics of Differences [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004.
Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation[M].Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2005.
Williams, Jenny & Chesterman, Andrew. The Map: A Beginner’s Guide to Doing Research in Translation Studies[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2005.
Wilss, Wolfram. The Science of Translation: Problems and Methods[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2005.
巴金等著.王守兰编.当代文学翻译百家谈[M].北京大学出版社,1989.
巴尔胡达罗夫.语言与翻译[M].蔡毅等译.北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1985.
卞建华.文学翻译批评中运用文学接受理论的合理性与局限性[J].外语与外语教学,2005,(1):42-45.
蔡耀坤.美质中藏——读杨必译《名利场》[J].中国翻译,1994,(1):23-26.
曹明海.文学解读学导论[M].北京:人民文学出版社,1997.
曹明伦.文本目的—译者的翻译目的—兼评德国功能派的目的论和意大利谚语“翻译即叛逆”[J].天津外国语学院学报,2007,(4):1-5.
查明建,田雨.论译者主体性[J].中国翻译, 2003,(1):19-24.
查明建.论译者主体性——从译者文化地位的边缘化谈起[J].中国翻译,2003,(1):19-24.
陈大亮.谁是翻译主体[J].中国翻译,2004,(2):3-7.
陈福康.中国译学理论史稿(修订本)[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2006.
陈建生,吴曙坦.翻译认知:述义比例和辖域与翻译[J].外语与外语教学, 2004,(3):47-50.
陈梅.外部力量与译者主体性的建构——以《圣经》翻译为例[J].外语与外语教学, 2006,(6):50-52.
陈琳,张春柏.从玄奘和哲罗姆的比较看中西翻译思想之差异[J].外语研究,2006,(1):61-65.
陈琳,张春柏.译者主体地位:分析哲学的阐释[J].外语与外语教学,2006,(9):36-39.
陈平原.20世纪中国小说史(第一卷) (1897-1916)[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1989.
陈望道.修辞学发凡[M].上海:上海教育出版社,2002.
陈之展.近代翻译文学[A].罗新璋.翻译论集[C].北京:商务印书馆,1984:198-210.
程帆.我听朱光潜讲美学[M].北京:中国致公出版社,2004.
戴炜栋等.简明英语语言学教程[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999.
但汉源.直译意译的别论与共识[J].语言与翻译,1994,(1):95-102.
邓婕.译者主体性与翻译策略[J].广东外语外贸大学学报,2006(3):47-85.
丁金国.语体风格认知与解读[M].香港:文化教育出版社,2006.
董秋斯.翻译批评的标准和重点[A].翻译通讯编辑部.翻译研究论文集(1949-1983)[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984:25-29.
杜争鸣.钩沉百年文学翻译的启示[J].中国翻译,2000,(6):47-48.
杜书瀛等.文艺美学原理[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,1998.
飞白.论“风格译”——谈译者的透明度[J].中国翻译,1995,(3):13-16.
冯庆华.红译艺坛—《红楼梦》翻译艺术研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2006.
冯庆华.文体翻译论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2002.
冯庆华.论译者的风格[A].谢天振.翻译的理论建构与文化透视[C].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000:329-338.
傅敬民.论译者的个性问题[J].上海科技翻译,1997,(4):3-5.
傅雷.傅雷文集·书信卷(上、下) [M].合肥:安徽文艺出版社,1998.
傅雷.《高老头》重译本序[A].罗新璋.翻译论集[C].北京:商务印书馆,1984:558-559.
高慧群,乌传衮.翻译家严复传论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1992.
高宁.译学主体、译学对话和译者主体性地位[J].中国比较文学,2006,(1):115-128.
王元化译.文学风格论[C].上海:上海译文出版社,1982.
顾玉兰.谈style和stylistics概念的内涵及汉译问题[J].外语研究1993,(1):51-53,28.
辜正坤.英译汉练习参考译文:致切斯菲尔德伯爵书[J].中国翻译,2000,(3):71-73.
辜正坤.中西诗比较鉴赏与翻译理论[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2003.
郭建中.当代美国翻译理论[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社, 2000.
郭沫若.翻译的动机与效果[A].罗新璋.翻译论集[C].北京:商务印书馆,1984:329-330.
郭延礼.中国近代翻译文学概论[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,1998.
郭著章等.翻译名家研究[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,2005.
贺麟.严复的翻译[A].翻译研究论文集(1894-1948)[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984:113-125.
侯林平,姜泗平.我国近十年来译者主体性研究的回顾与反思[J].山东科技大学学报(社会科学版),2006,(9):100-104.
胡翠娥.文学翻译与文化参与[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2007.
胡德香.中西比较视野下的翻译批评[J].山东外语教学, 2004,(5):102-105.
胡经之.文艺美学[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1999.
胡真.安娜?利洛娃的翻译历史观[J].中国翻译,1990,(3):52-55.
黄琼英.鲁迅的前期翻译[J].曲靖师范学院学报, 2004,(5):26-30.
黄源深.时代呼唤具有独特风格的翻译家[J].中国翻译,1992(2):31-33.
黄振定.解构主义的翻译创造性与主体性[J].中国翻译,2005(1):19-22.
胡有清.文艺学论纲[M].南京:南京大学出版社,2005.
季广茂.意识形态视域中的现代话语转型与文学观念嬗变[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
蒋孔阳.美学与文艺评论集[M].上海:上海文艺出版社,1986.
蒋素华.关于翻译过程的研究[J].外语教学与研究,1998,(3):55-58.
蒋骁华.意识形态对翻译的影响:阐发与思考[J].中国翻译2003,(5):24-29.
姜治文、文军.翻译批评论[M].重庆:重庆大学出版社,1999.
焦菊隐.论翻译批评[A].翻译通讯编辑部.翻译研究论文集(1949-1983)[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984:35-43.
李国林.汉译外:传播中国文化的媒介——浅谈杨译《儒林外史》英文本对文化词语的翻译[J].中国翻译,1997,(2):35-37
李辉.杨宪益与戴乃迭:一同走过[M].郑州:大象出版社,2001.
李贻萌.霍克斯英译《楚辞》浅析[J].中国翻译,1992(1):40-42.
梁启超.《论译书》[A].翻译通讯编辑部.翻译研究论文集(1894-1948)[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984:8-20.
梁启超.翻译文学与佛典[A].翻译通讯编辑部.翻译研究论文集(1894-1948)[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984:52-67.
林于会,张承平.鲁迅翻译思想浅译[J].湖南第一师范学报, 2005,(4):63-65.
刘重德.文学翻译十讲[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1991.
刘重德.翻译漫谈[M].西安:陕西人民出版社,1984.
刘重德.西方译论研究[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2003.
刘隆惠.谈谈文艺作品风格的翻译问题[A].翻译通讯编辑部.翻译研究论文集(1949-1983)[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984:165-171.
刘宓庆.翻译美学导论[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2005.
刘宓庆.中西翻译思想比较研究[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2005.
刘宓庆.文体与翻译[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1998.
刘宓庆.新编当代翻译理论[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2005.
刘宓庆.翻译与语言哲学[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2004.
刘全福.鲁迅、梁实秋翻译论战追述[J].四川外语学院学报,2000,(3):87-91.
刘树森.纽马克的翻译批评理论简析[J].中国翻译,1992,(2):49-52.
刘新民.文入佳境语出诗情——评黄源深译《简爱》[J].中国翻译,1995,(4):46-50.
刘玉麟.论风格——从中西古典文论到结构文体学和统计文体学[J].外国语,1986,(5):71-75、(6):54-58.
刘壮冲.《湘西散记》英译文的一些失误[J].中国翻译1994,(2):36-39.
卢寿荣,张淼.鲁迅翻译理论的发展及评价[J].山东外语教学,2002,(5):23-26.
鲁迅.“<月界旅行>”夯言[C].鲁迅全集第10卷.北京:人民文学出版社,1981.
鲁迅.关于翻译:给瞿秋白的回信[A] .翻译通讯编辑部.翻译研究论文集(1894-1948)[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984:223-228.
鲁迅.为翻译辩护[A].罗新璋.翻译论集[C].北京:商务印书馆,1984:291-292.
卢玉玲.翻译的幽灵——评道格拉斯?罗宾逊的《谁在翻译——超越理性论译者主体性》[J].中国翻译,2004,(2):56-58.
罗国林.风格与译风[J].中国翻译,1996,(2):22-25.
罗书肆.鲁迅论翻译批评[A].翻译通讯编辑部.翻译研究论文集(1949-1983)[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984:73-79.
罗新璋.读傅雷译品随感[A].郭著章.翻译名家研究[C].武汉:湖北教育出版社,1999:321-327.
罗新璋.翻译论集[C].北京:商务印书馆,1984.
吕俊.翻译学应从解构主义那里学些什么[J].外国语,2002,(5):48-54.
吕俊.谈翻译批评标准的体系[J].外语与外语教学,2007,(3):62-65.
马红军.翻译批评散论[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2000.
马建忠.拟设翻译书院[A].中国翻译通讯编辑部.翻译研究论文集(1894-1948)[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984:1-5.
马新国.西方文论史[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2002.
马祖毅.中国翻译史(上卷)[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,1999. 矛盾.《矛盾译文选集》序[A].中国翻译通讯编辑部.翻译研究论文集(1949-1983)[C].
北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984:17-19. 矛盾.《简爱》的两个译本——对于翻译方法的研究[A] .罗新璋.翻译论集[C].北京:商务印书馆,1984:354-365.
梅邵武.纳博科夫和文学翻译[J].中国翻译,1993,(4):54-57.
敏泽,党圣元.文学价值论[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,1999.
穆雷,诗怡.翻译主体的“发现”与研究[J].中国翻译,2003,(1):12-18.
木曾.翻译释义[A].翻译通讯编辑部.翻译研究论文集(1894-1948)[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984:322-336.
欧阳琼.风格的翻译原则[J].湖北成人教育学院学报,2005,(1):71-72.
彭开明.融会贯通,出神入化——《被出卖的春天》译文赏析[J].中国翻译,1995,(3):31-34.
钱瑗.实用英语文体学[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2006.
钱钟书.林纾的翻译[A].翻译通讯编辑部.翻译研究论文集(1949-1983)[C].北京:外
语教学与研究出版社,1984:267-295.
邱运华.文学批评方法与案例[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
瞿秋白.关于翻译——给鲁迅的信[A].翻译通讯编辑部.翻译研究论文集(1894-1948) [C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984:215-222.
若冰,张萍.论鲁迅的文学翻译主张[J].外语教学,1995,(2):74-77.
申丹.西方现代文体学百年发展历程[J].外语教学与研究,2000,(1):22-28.
申丹.叙述学与小说文体研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1998.
沈雁冰.译文学书方法的讨论[A].翻译通讯编辑部.翻译研究论文集(1894-1948)[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984:93-98.
诗怡.作为一项文化系统工程的译学理论建构[J].中国比较文学,2000,(1):139-144.
孙艺风.翻译规范与主体意识[J].中国翻译,2003,(3):3-9.
孙迎春.张谷若翻译艺术研究[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2004.
孙致礼.1949-1966:我国英美文学翻译概论[M].南京:译林出版社1996.
谭载喜.西方翻译简史[M].北京:商务印书馆,2004.
屠国元,朱献珑.译者主体性:阐释学的阐释[J].中国翻译2003,(6):8-14.
屠国元,王飞虹.论译者的译材选择与翻译策略取向——利玛窦翻译活动个案研究[J]. 中国翻译,2005,(2):20-25.
王秉钦. 20世纪中国翻译思想史[M].天津:南开大学出版社,2004.
王东风.帝国的翻译暴力与翻译的文化抵抗:韦努蒂抵抗式翻译观解读[J].中国比较文学,2007,(5):69-85.
王东风.论翻译过程中的文化介入[J].中国翻译,1998,(5):6-9.
王东风.翻译文学的文化地位与译者的文化态度[J].中国翻译,2000,(4):2-8.
王东风.译家与作家的意识冲突:文学翻译中的一个值得深思的现象[J].中国翻译,2001,(4):43-48.
王国维.人间词话[M].上海:上海古籍出版社,2006.
王宏印.文学翻译批评论稿[M].上海外语教育出版社,2006.
王宏印.中国传统译论经典诠释:从道安到傅雷[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,2005.
王宏志.翻译与创作——中国近代翻译小说论[C].北京:北京大学出版社,2000.
王宏志.重释“信达雅”——二十世纪中国翻译研究[M] .上海:东方出版中心,1999.
汪瑾.直译与意译的历史渊源[J].中国民航学院学报,2000,(5):52-56.
王克非.翻译文化史论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1997.
王栻.严复与严译名著[A].商务印书馆编辑部.论严复与严译名著[C].北京:商务印书馆,1982:1-21.
王晓元.意识形态与文学翻译的互动关系[J].中国翻译,1999,(2):10-14.
王友贵.鲁迅的翻译模式与翻译政治[J].山东外语教学,2003,(2):74-77.
王友贵.翻译家鲁迅[M].天津:南开大学出版社,2005.
王之望.文学风格论[M].成都:四川文艺出版社,1986.
王佐良.论新开端[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1991.
王佐良.严复的用心[A].翻译通讯编辑部.翻译研究论文集(1949-1983)[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984:479-485.
王佐良.翻译:思考与试笔[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1989.
魏藏峰.晚清域外小说译介的政治取向及影响[J].山东外语教学,2004,(1):89-91,94.
文军.中国翻译批评百年回眸[M].北京:北京航空航天大学出版社,2006.
文军.科学翻译批评导论[M].北京:对外翻译出版公司,2006.
文军.中国翻译史研究百年回眸[M].北京:北京航空航天大学出版社,2006.
吴洁敏,朱宏达等.朱生豪转[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1990.
奚永吉.文学翻译比较美学[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,2001.
肖红,许钧.试论傅雷的翻译观[J].四川外语学院学报,2002,(3):92-97.
谢天振.译介学[M].上海:上海外教教育出版社,1999.
谢天振.译者的诞生与原作者的死亡[J].中国比较文学,2002,(4):24-42.
谢天振.翻译的理论建构与文化透视[C].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2003.
徐朝友.鲁迅早期翻译观溯源[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2003,(5):51-54
许建平.再现人物神韵的典范——王佐良译《雷雨》片段赏析[J].中国翻译,1997,(6):29-32.
许钧.“创作性叛逆”和翻译主体的确立[J].中国翻译,2003,(1):6-11.
许钧.切实加强译学研究和翻译学科建设[J].中国翻译,2001,(1):2-8.
许钧.作者、译者和读者的共鸣和视野融合[J].中国翻译,2002,(3):23-27.
许钧.翻译思考录[C].武汉:湖北教育出版社,1998.
许钧.文学翻译批评研究[M].南京:译林出版社,1992.
许钧.翻译论[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,2003.
许钧.风格与翻译——评《追忆似水年华》汉译风格的传达[J].中国翻译,1993,(3):3-9.
许钧.是否还有个度的问题[J].中国翻译,1995,(4):18-22.
许力生.文体风格的现代透视[M].杭州:浙江大学出版社,2006.
许渊冲.文学与翻译[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2003.
颜德如.严复翻译思想新探[J].福建论坛·人文社会科学版,2005,(6):76-80.
严复.天演论?译例言[A].翻译通讯编辑部.翻译研究论文集(1894-1948)[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984:6-7.
杨柳.论原作之隐形[J].中国翻译,2001,(2):47-51.
杨世骥.周桂笙的翻译[A].罗新璋.翻译论集[C].北京:商务印书馆,1984:251-257.
杨武能.尴尬与自如傲慢与自卑——文学翻译家心理人格漫说[J].中国翻译,1993,(2):3-7.
杨武能.再谈文学翻译主体[J].中国翻译,2003,(3):10-13.
杨晓荣.翻译批评导论[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2005.
杨晓荣.翻译标准制约因素分析[J].外国语,2004,(6):51-57.
杨正典.严复评传[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1997.
姚鹏图.论白话小说[A].陈平原,夏晓虹.20世纪中国小说理论资料第一卷[C].北京:北京大学出版社,1989:186-188.
叶君健.关于文学作品翻译的一点体会[A].翻译通讯编辑部.翻译研究论文集(1949-1983)[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984:551-565.
余虹.何为审美文化http://www.tecn.cn/data/detail.php?id=12797 .
喻云根,李学经.文艺美学对文学翻译的制约作用[J].外语研究,1990,(3):53-57.
袁荻涌.林纾的文学翻译思想[J].中国翻译,1994,(3):42-44.
袁锦翔.名家翻译研究与赏析[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,1990.
袁莉.也谈文学翻译之主体意识[J].中国翻译,1996,(3):4-8.
袁莉.翻译的文化视界——贝尔曼对德国近代译论的思考[J].外语研究,1996,(4):44-50,57.
曾利沙.论翻译的艺术创造性与客观制约性——主题关联性社会文化语境下的译者主体性个案研究[J].广东外语外贸大学学报,2006,(2):5-8,30.
曾虚白.翻译中的神韵与达——西滢先生《论翻译》的补充[A].翻译通讯编辑部.翻译研究论文集(1894-1948)[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984:150-156.
张南峰.中西译学批评[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2004.
张南峰.走出死胡同建立翻译学[J].中国翻译,1995,(4):15-17,22.
张培基.英汉翻译教程[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2001.
张性国.浅论文化对译者的制约作用[J].上海科技翻译,1997,(2):9-11.
张中楹.关于翻译中的风格问题[A].翻译通讯编辑部.翻译研究论文集(1949-1983)[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984:159-164.
赵巍、孙迎春.个人方言与文学翻译中的译者风格[J].外语教学,2004,(5):64-68.
仲伟合,钟钰.德国的功能派翻译理论[J].中国翻译,1999,(3):47-49.
周启付.鲁迅与翻译[J].外语学刊,1981,(4):68-72.
周仪、罗平.翻译与批评[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,1999.
周裕锴.中国古代阐释学研究[M].上海:上海人民出版社,2003.
周振甫.文学风格例话[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2005.
郑海凌.译者的形象[J].中国比较文学,2004,(1):113-119.
郑延国.下笔妍雅片言生辉”——管锥编译句赏析[J].中国翻译,1990(2):52-54.
郑振铎.林琴南先生[A].罗新璋.翻译论集[C].北京:商务印书馆,1984:184-192.
朱光潜.谈翻译[A].翻译通讯编辑部.翻译研究论文集(1894-1948)[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984:353-363.
朱宏达,吴洁敏.朱生豪莎士比亚戏剧的译介思想和成就[J].嘉兴学院学报, 2005, (9):17-22.
朱生豪.《莎士比亚戏剧全集》译者自序[A].罗新璋.翻译论集[C].北京:商务印书馆, 1984:456-457.
庄绎传.外国译者追求什么样的译文[J].中国翻译,1992,(4):51-55.
庄绎传.外国翻译家对原作风格的探讨[J].外语教学与研究,1993,(2):39-44.
邹广胜.谈杨宪益与戴乃迭古典文学英译的学术成就[J].外国文学,2007,(5): 119-124.
邹霆.永远的求索——杨宪益传[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社,2001.
商务印书馆编辑部.论严复与严译名著[C].北京:商务印书馆,1982.
王佐良文集[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1997.
中国翻译工作者协会《翻译通讯》编辑部.翻译研究论文集[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984.