文学翻译的文体学评估框架
|
摘要
翻译批评及翻译质量评估是翻译研究的核心内容之一，自有翻译实践以来就始终由翻译用户、翻译活动发起人、翻译研究者等翻译行为主体实践着。早期的翻译理论很大程度上均为针对翻译批评及其衍伸而来的翻译方法的讨论，到近代以来形成更加成熟的观点。
在翻译历史长河中，文学翻译一直占据主流。文学翻译作为翻译活动的主要构成元素之一，自然也需要一个解释力强的翻译评估体系。但可惜的是，译界迄今缺乏一个系统、操作性强、且抓住文学翻译根本属性的评估模式。
中国传统译论是主要基于文学翻译的，其重视风格或美学维度的翻译标准也多直切文学翻译的本质。这可从中国传统译论的发展路线不难看出。从严复的“信、达、雅”、林语堂的“美译”、傅雷的“神似论”、钱钟书的“化境说”、到许渊冲的“三美论”、再到刘重德的“信、达、切”，无不重视美学、风格的翻译。王宏印（2006）等人现代文学翻译批评较之前人系统，但也都专门将风格列为独立的评判标准。西方的早期论述如泰特勒（Tytler:1791）也提出了旨趣相当的三原则：相同的思想、相同的风格/笔调、相同的流畅性。
可见，中西传统译论向来重视美学维度。但受制于其“不重立论”、“不成系统”、“不求‘甚解’”的传统（杨晓荣，2001），不仅操作性较差，且对文学作品主题意义的探讨有所欠缺。其重整体作家风格的批评方式在面对现代文学精细复杂的文体之网时也显得有些力不从心。因此，未形成一个系统而行之有效的评估模式，只能作为宏观的参考原则。
当代学者借助西方语言学模式建立的翻译质量评估模式多以某一或多个语言学模式为评估依据，鲜以文学翻译为主要评估对象，更不能充分满足文学文本文体意义（美学意义和主题意义）的挖掘。
由主题意义和美学意义构成的文体意义乃文学作品的核心意义，也是文学翻译批评与质量评估的核心要素。如上所述，传统译论太粗犷，而现代译论多偏离文学翻译本质。因此，翻译界亟需一个既契合文学翻译本质属性、又成体系的文学翻译评估框架。
而现代文体学的兴起为系统地考量文学翻译的文体之维提供了条件。现代文体学借助传统和现代语言学视角可对文学文本的主题意义和美学意义进行较为充分、全面的挖掘，在提供文学文本意义解读的同时，给文学文本翻译的评估提供较为完善的指导。
本文的宗旨，即借助现代文体学为文学翻译量身定做一个系统的、操作性强的翻译评估框架。本文将整合传统修辞学、功能文体学、语用文体学、认知文体学、以及叙事文体学几大视角、充分考虑双语语言、文化差异，以及各文学文体的主题建构与审美特点、从语音-语形-词-句-篇层面构造一个系统的文学翻译文体评估框架。
本文写作框架如下：
第一章：绪论。本章简要地介绍本研究的目标、研究价值、研究内容、重点与难点、以及研究的创新之处。
第二章:西方文体学发展纵览。本章为文献综述，回顾了现代意义上的西方文体学逾一百年的发展历程，将西方文体学迄今的发展用四个转变加以概括：从印象到系统、从形式到功能、从作者到读者、从文本到多模态。
第三章：文学翻译评估理论回顾。本章为文献综述，回顾了文学翻译评估的相关概念、传统与当代路径，并回顾了翻译界从文体学视角对文学翻译进行的相关研究。
第四章：传统修辞学与文学翻译评估。本章探讨了传统修辞学的若干方面对文学翻译评估的启发。重点讨论了以下几个方面：语音修辞（音乐性、像似性）、语相修辞（像似性）、词语修辞、句法修辞、修辞格等。
第五章：现代文体学与文学翻译评估。本章选择了四个和文学翻译相关性最强、且互相补充的文体学流派：功能文体学、语用文体学、认知文体学、叙事文体学，讨论其对文学翻译评估的启发。
第六章：文学翻译的文体学评估框架。本章为本研究核心理论框架部分。本章列举了五个文体学视角和文学翻译评估相关的参数，并基于该参数、围绕主题意义和美学意义构建了一个分析框架。然后，根据叙事型文本和抒情型文本两大类文学体裁的主题意义和美学意义特征进行更为详细的评估说明。本章还讨论了评估原则和方法。
第七章：案例分析。本章根据第六章的框架和说明，分别进行了英语小说汉译、汉语小说英译、英语诗歌汉译和汉语诗歌英译四种类型的案例分析。
第八章：本章为结论。回顾了本研究的主要内容，对研究的不足进行了总结，并对未来的研究进行了展望。
Literary stylistics, principally concerned with literary theme and esthetics, promisesa sensible model for literary translation assessment. Traditional translation criticismprioritizes esthetics in its theory building but shows a general lack of system andpracticality due to the vagueness of its terminology. In addition, its propensity fordiscussing the overall writerly style has been outgrown by the increasing complexity ofmodern-day literary themes and skills. Modern translation criticism, borrowing heavilyfrom one or many modern linguistic schools, affords a more workable system. But itoften fails to give due attention to esthetics, a natural result of its ambition to subject allgenres of discourse to its scrutiny. Modern stylistics has matured to make up wheretraditional esthetics and pure linguistically driven assessment models fall short. Thispaper attempts to construct an assessment model for literary translation, based onperspectives provided by traditional rhetoric, functional stylistics, cognitive stylistics andnarrative stylistics, which, combined, supposedly cover most, if not all, aspects thatliterary texts may touch upon. The model shall provide a comprehensive framework forassessing stylistic equivalence between the original and target languages on the ladderfrom phonetics, morphology, word, phrase, sentence and text. The stylistic equivalencemodel shall be dynamic and allow for linguistic and cultural discrepancies and gives fullconsideration to the disparity in theme-building and aesthetic features between differentliterary genres.
The dissertation is structured as below.
Chapter One: Introduction. This chapter gives a brief account of the importantthings---purpose, significance and major issues of the research as well as the stumblingblocks to be tackled.
Chapter Two: A Brief Review of Stylistics. This chapter takes a snapshot of modernstylistics, often referred to as western stylistics, given its origin and the fact that most oftoday’s important stylistic theories and practices emerge from the west, as the disciplinebroke away from traditional rhetoric about a hundred years ago and has over the years gradually grown into the interdisciplinary academic edifice as it is, inspiring andproviding food of ideas for an increasing number of academic areas, translation studiesbeing a famous one.
Chapter Three: A Brief Review of Theories and Practices of Literary TranslationAssessment. This chapter looks at both the traditional and modern perspectives for thepurpose and takes an especially careful glance at the stylistic approach.
Chapter Four: Traditional Rhetoric and Literary Translation. This chapter discusseswith profuse details and examples what the traditional stylistic perspective, whichusually distinguishes itself from its modern counterpart by its impressionistic and thus“non-scientific” methodology, concerns itself with when it comes to the digging ofnuances of literary effects achieved by the play of linguistic forms. The revelations canhelp a translator better understand a given text as a reader, and go on to advise themabout their language choice as a writer.
Chapter Five: Modern Stylistics and Literary Translation. In the same breath of theprevious chapter, chapter five goes on to explore what modern stylistics, empowered bymodern linguistics and thus a presumably improvement over the old practice, can informthe readers and translators in understanding a literary text. With an enhanced repertoireof interpretive weapons, as is revealed in the chapter, a text can be looked at from freshangles and surrender new subtleties that the impressionistic readers may have beenoblivious to or struck by with only elusive impressions. The chapter particularlydiscusses four stylistic approaches---functional stylistics, pragmatic stylistics, cognitivestylistics and narratologic stylistics, which supposedly cover most, if not all, grounds aliterary text often operates on.
Chapter Six: Constructing a Stylistic Model for Literary Translation Assessment.Chapter six is the core of the model the research aspires to construct, which comes inthree parts. In part1, we extract from the previously discussed stylistic approaches avariety of stylistic parameters, which are positioned at various linguistic ranks andintegrated into a framework with a sense of wholeness. In part2we lay out the majorthings a reader shall look at in a literary text, and thus shall serve as signposts for the application of stylistic parameters. Part3stipulates the guidelines as well as proceduresby which a given work literary translation shall be assessed.
Chapter Seven: Case Studies. This chapter works to apply the above model to fourpieces of literary work, and both proves the effectiveness and exposes the drawbacks ofthe model.
Chapter Eight: Conclusion. The last chapter looks back at the major issuesaddressed in the research, sums up the shortcomings and mark out the areas where futureresearch endeavors shall be made in.
在翻译历史长河中，文学翻译一直占据主流。文学翻译作为翻译活动的主要构成元素之一，自然也需要一个解释力强的翻译评估体系。但可惜的是，译界迄今缺乏一个系统、操作性强、且抓住文学翻译根本属性的评估模式。
中国传统译论是主要基于文学翻译的，其重视风格或美学维度的翻译标准也多直切文学翻译的本质。这可从中国传统译论的发展路线不难看出。从严复的“信、达、雅”、林语堂的“美译”、傅雷的“神似论”、钱钟书的“化境说”、到许渊冲的“三美论”、再到刘重德的“信、达、切”，无不重视美学、风格的翻译。王宏印（2006）等人现代文学翻译批评较之前人系统，但也都专门将风格列为独立的评判标准。西方的早期论述如泰特勒（Tytler:1791）也提出了旨趣相当的三原则：相同的思想、相同的风格/笔调、相同的流畅性。
可见，中西传统译论向来重视美学维度。但受制于其“不重立论”、“不成系统”、“不求‘甚解’”的传统（杨晓荣，2001），不仅操作性较差，且对文学作品主题意义的探讨有所欠缺。其重整体作家风格的批评方式在面对现代文学精细复杂的文体之网时也显得有些力不从心。因此，未形成一个系统而行之有效的评估模式，只能作为宏观的参考原则。
当代学者借助西方语言学模式建立的翻译质量评估模式多以某一或多个语言学模式为评估依据，鲜以文学翻译为主要评估对象，更不能充分满足文学文本文体意义（美学意义和主题意义）的挖掘。
由主题意义和美学意义构成的文体意义乃文学作品的核心意义，也是文学翻译批评与质量评估的核心要素。如上所述，传统译论太粗犷，而现代译论多偏离文学翻译本质。因此，翻译界亟需一个既契合文学翻译本质属性、又成体系的文学翻译评估框架。
而现代文体学的兴起为系统地考量文学翻译的文体之维提供了条件。现代文体学借助传统和现代语言学视角可对文学文本的主题意义和美学意义进行较为充分、全面的挖掘，在提供文学文本意义解读的同时，给文学文本翻译的评估提供较为完善的指导。
本文的宗旨，即借助现代文体学为文学翻译量身定做一个系统的、操作性强的翻译评估框架。本文将整合传统修辞学、功能文体学、语用文体学、认知文体学、以及叙事文体学几大视角、充分考虑双语语言、文化差异，以及各文学文体的主题建构与审美特点、从语音-语形-词-句-篇层面构造一个系统的文学翻译文体评估框架。
本文写作框架如下：
第一章：绪论。本章简要地介绍本研究的目标、研究价值、研究内容、重点与难点、以及研究的创新之处。
第二章:西方文体学发展纵览。本章为文献综述，回顾了现代意义上的西方文体学逾一百年的发展历程，将西方文体学迄今的发展用四个转变加以概括：从印象到系统、从形式到功能、从作者到读者、从文本到多模态。
第三章：文学翻译评估理论回顾。本章为文献综述，回顾了文学翻译评估的相关概念、传统与当代路径，并回顾了翻译界从文体学视角对文学翻译进行的相关研究。
第四章：传统修辞学与文学翻译评估。本章探讨了传统修辞学的若干方面对文学翻译评估的启发。重点讨论了以下几个方面：语音修辞（音乐性、像似性）、语相修辞（像似性）、词语修辞、句法修辞、修辞格等。
第五章：现代文体学与文学翻译评估。本章选择了四个和文学翻译相关性最强、且互相补充的文体学流派：功能文体学、语用文体学、认知文体学、叙事文体学，讨论其对文学翻译评估的启发。
第六章：文学翻译的文体学评估框架。本章为本研究核心理论框架部分。本章列举了五个文体学视角和文学翻译评估相关的参数，并基于该参数、围绕主题意义和美学意义构建了一个分析框架。然后，根据叙事型文本和抒情型文本两大类文学体裁的主题意义和美学意义特征进行更为详细的评估说明。本章还讨论了评估原则和方法。
第七章：案例分析。本章根据第六章的框架和说明，分别进行了英语小说汉译、汉语小说英译、英语诗歌汉译和汉语诗歌英译四种类型的案例分析。
第八章：本章为结论。回顾了本研究的主要内容，对研究的不足进行了总结，并对未来的研究进行了展望。
Literary stylistics, principally concerned with literary theme and esthetics, promisesa sensible model for literary translation assessment. Traditional translation criticismprioritizes esthetics in its theory building but shows a general lack of system andpracticality due to the vagueness of its terminology. In addition, its propensity fordiscussing the overall writerly style has been outgrown by the increasing complexity ofmodern-day literary themes and skills. Modern translation criticism, borrowing heavilyfrom one or many modern linguistic schools, affords a more workable system. But itoften fails to give due attention to esthetics, a natural result of its ambition to subject allgenres of discourse to its scrutiny. Modern stylistics has matured to make up wheretraditional esthetics and pure linguistically driven assessment models fall short. Thispaper attempts to construct an assessment model for literary translation, based onperspectives provided by traditional rhetoric, functional stylistics, cognitive stylistics andnarrative stylistics, which, combined, supposedly cover most, if not all, aspects thatliterary texts may touch upon. The model shall provide a comprehensive framework forassessing stylistic equivalence between the original and target languages on the ladderfrom phonetics, morphology, word, phrase, sentence and text. The stylistic equivalencemodel shall be dynamic and allow for linguistic and cultural discrepancies and gives fullconsideration to the disparity in theme-building and aesthetic features between differentliterary genres.
The dissertation is structured as below.
Chapter One: Introduction. This chapter gives a brief account of the importantthings---purpose, significance and major issues of the research as well as the stumblingblocks to be tackled.
Chapter Two: A Brief Review of Stylistics. This chapter takes a snapshot of modernstylistics, often referred to as western stylistics, given its origin and the fact that most oftoday’s important stylistic theories and practices emerge from the west, as the disciplinebroke away from traditional rhetoric about a hundred years ago and has over the years gradually grown into the interdisciplinary academic edifice as it is, inspiring andproviding food of ideas for an increasing number of academic areas, translation studiesbeing a famous one.
Chapter Three: A Brief Review of Theories and Practices of Literary TranslationAssessment. This chapter looks at both the traditional and modern perspectives for thepurpose and takes an especially careful glance at the stylistic approach.
Chapter Four: Traditional Rhetoric and Literary Translation. This chapter discusseswith profuse details and examples what the traditional stylistic perspective, whichusually distinguishes itself from its modern counterpart by its impressionistic and thus“non-scientific” methodology, concerns itself with when it comes to the digging ofnuances of literary effects achieved by the play of linguistic forms. The revelations canhelp a translator better understand a given text as a reader, and go on to advise themabout their language choice as a writer.
Chapter Five: Modern Stylistics and Literary Translation. In the same breath of theprevious chapter, chapter five goes on to explore what modern stylistics, empowered bymodern linguistics and thus a presumably improvement over the old practice, can informthe readers and translators in understanding a literary text. With an enhanced repertoireof interpretive weapons, as is revealed in the chapter, a text can be looked at from freshangles and surrender new subtleties that the impressionistic readers may have beenoblivious to or struck by with only elusive impressions. The chapter particularlydiscusses four stylistic approaches---functional stylistics, pragmatic stylistics, cognitivestylistics and narratologic stylistics, which supposedly cover most, if not all, grounds aliterary text often operates on.
Chapter Six: Constructing a Stylistic Model for Literary Translation Assessment.Chapter six is the core of the model the research aspires to construct, which comes inthree parts. In part1, we extract from the previously discussed stylistic approaches avariety of stylistic parameters, which are positioned at various linguistic ranks andintegrated into a framework with a sense of wholeness. In part2we lay out the majorthings a reader shall look at in a literary text, and thus shall serve as signposts for the application of stylistic parameters. Part3stipulates the guidelines as well as proceduresby which a given work literary translation shall be assessed.
Chapter Seven: Case Studies. This chapter works to apply the above model to fourpieces of literary work, and both proves the effectiveness and exposes the drawbacks ofthe model.
Chapter Eight: Conclusion. The last chapter looks back at the major issuesaddressed in the research, sums up the shortcomings and mark out the areas where futureresearch endeavors shall be made in.
引文
Abdesslem, H. Politeness Strategies in the Discourse of Drama: A Case Study[J]. Journalof Literary Semantics,2001,(30):111-138.
Al-Qinai, J. Translation Quality Assessment: Strategies, Parameters and Procedures[J].Meta, XLV,2000:497-519.
Baker, M. Towards a Methodology for Investigating the Style of a Literary Translator[J].Target,12,2000,(2):241-266.
Baker, M. Translation and Conflict: A Narrative Account [M]. Routledge,2006.
Barthes, R. Style and Its Image[A]. in Chatman, S.(ed). Literary Style: A Symposium[C].OUP,1971.
Baynham, Mike&Fina, De Anna. Dislocations/relocations: Narratives of Displacement[M]. St. Jerome Publishing,2005.
Beaugrande, R.&Dressler, W. Introduction to Text Linguistics[M]. London&Newyork:Longman,1981.
Bensoussan,M.&Rosenhouse, J. Evaluating Students’ Translations by Discourse Analysis[J]. Babel,1990:65-84.
Boase-Beier, Jean. Translation and Style: A Brief Introduction[J]. Language andLiterature, Vol.13,2004,(1):9-14.
Boase-Beier, Jean. Stylistic Approaches to Translation[M]. SFLEP,2006.
Boase-Beier, Jean. Translation and Timelessness[J]. JLS,2009,(38):101-114.
Boase-Beier, Jean. Mind Style Translated[J]. Style, Vol.37,2003,(3):253-265.
Bosseaux, C. How Does It Feel: Point of View in Translation: The Case of Virginia Woolfinto French[M]. Rodopi,2007.
Bousfield, Derek.‘Never a Truer Word Said in Jest’: A pragmatic Analysis ofImpoliteness as Banter in Henry IV [A]. in M, Lambrou&P, Stockwell(eds).Contemporary Stylistics[C]. Continuum,2007, Part I:209-220.
Bradford, R. Stylistics[M]. London: Routledge,1997.
Brown, P. and Levinson, S.C. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage[M].Cambridge University Press,1987.
Burrows, John. Englishing of Juneval Computational Stylistics and Translated Texts[J].Style, Vol.36,2002,(4):677-699.
Burton, D. Through Glass Darkly: Through Dark Glasses[A]. In R. Carter(ed) Languageand Literature. An Introductory Reader in Stylistics[C]. London: George Allen andUnwi,1982:195-214.
Calvo, C. In Defense of Celia: Discourse Analysis and Women’s Discourse in As YouLike It[A].In K.Wales(ed), Feminist Linguistics in Literary Criticism[C].Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer,1994:91-116.
Carter, R.&Simpson, P.(eds) Language, Discourse and Literature. An IntroductoryReader in Discourse Stylistics[C]. London: Unwin Hyman,1989.
Chan, T.L. Readers, Reading and Reception of Translated Fiction in Chinese, NovelEncounters [M]. St Jerome Publishing,2010.
Cockerill, Hiroko. Style and Narrative in Translation: the Contribution of FutabateiShimei[M]. St. Jerome Publishing,2008.
Culpeper, J. Politeness in Drama[A], in J. Culpeper, P. Verdonk and M. Short(eds),Exploring the Language of Drama: From Text to Context[C]. London: Routledge,1998,83-95.
Duchan, J. F, Bruder, G. A.&Hewitt, L.E.(eds). Deixis in Narrrative. A CognitiveScience Perspective[C]. Hillsday, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc,1995.
Federico, F. Translation as Stylistic Evolution: Italo Calvino, Creative Translator ofRaymond, Queneau[M]. Rodopi,2009.
Fish, S.E. Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities[M].Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press,1980.
Fowler, R. Style and Structure in Literature: Essays in the New Stylistics [M]. Oxford:Basil Black well,1975.
Fowler, R. Linguistic Criticism[M]. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press,1986.
Froceville, C. Pictorial Metaphor in Advertising[M]. London&NewYork: Routledge,1996.
Gavins, J&Steen, G. C. Cognitive Poetics in Practice[M].London and New York:Routledge,2003.
Gerald, F.S. Don Quixote and the Shelton Translation: A Stylistic Analysis[M]. StudiaHumanitatis,1982.
Ghazala, Hasan. Stylistic-semantic and Grammatical Functions of Punctuation inEnglish-Arabic Translation[J]. Babel,2004,(3):230-245.
Halliday, M.A.K. Linguistic Function and Literary Style: An Inquiry into the Languageof William Golding’s The Inheritors[A]. In D.C.Freeman(ed). Essays in ModernStylistics[C]. London and New York: Methuen,1981:325-260.
Halliday, M. A. K. Linguistic Function and Literary Style: An Inquiry into The Languageof William Golding: The Inheritors[A], in Seymour Chatman(ed). Literary Style: ASymposium[C]. OUP,1971:330-368.
Halliday, M. A. The Users and Uses of Language [A].in Richard W. Bailey&Jay L.Robinson (eds) Varieties of Present-day English[C]. London: MaCmillan,1973.
Halliday, M. A. K. Explorations in the Functions of Language[M]. London: EdwardArnold,1973:103-143.
Hardy, E. Donald. Politeness in Flannery O'Connor's Fiction: Social Interaction,Language, and the Body [J]. Style, Vol.44, Winter2010,(4):524-546.
Hatim, Basil. The translation of style: Linguistic Markedness and textual evaluativeness[J]. Journal of Applied linguistics, vol1.3,2004:229-246.
Hiraga, Masako. Metaphor and Iconicity: A cognitive Approach to Analyzing Texts [M].Houndsmill, Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan,2005.
Horton, David. Linguistic Structure, Stylistic Value, and Translation Strategy:Introducing Thomas Mann’s Aschenbach in English [J]. Translation and Literature,2010,(19):42-71.
House, J. A Model for Translation Quality Assessment [M]. Tübingen: Narr,1977.
House, J. Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited [M]. Tübingen: Narr,1997.
Huang, Xiaocong. Stylistic Approaches to Literary Translation: With particular referenceto English Chinese and Chinese English Translation[M].The University ofBirmingham, PHD Dissertation,2011.
Huang, Yan. Anaphora: A Cross-linguistic Study [M]. Oxford: OUP,2000.
Huddleston, R&Pullum, G. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language[M].Cambridge University Press,2002.
Jeffries, L&Mcintyre, D. Stylistics[M].Cambridge University Press,2010.
Krahmer, E&Piwek, P. Varieties of Anaphora, Introduction[A]. In Krahmer, E&Piwek,P.(eds) Varieties of Anaphora, Reader ESSLLI2000[C], Birmingham,2000.
Kress, G.&Leeuwen, Van. Reading Images—the Grammar of Visual Design[M]. London:Routledge,1996.
Lakoff, G.&Johnson, M. Metaphors We Live By[M]. University of Chicago Press,1980.
Leech, G. N. Pragmatic Principles in Shaw’s You Never Can Tell[A], in M. Toolan(ed).Language, Text and Context: Essays in Stylistics[C]. London. Routledge,1992:259-279.
Leech, G. N. A Linguistic Guide to English Poetry [M]. Longman,1969.
Leech, G. N.&Short, M. Style of Fiction[M]. SFLEP,2001.
Levinson, S. C. Pragmatics[M].Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press,1983.
Levin,S.R. Internal and Extemal Deviation in Poetry [J]. Word,1965,(21):225-237.
Li, Bo. The ‘Stylistic’Turn?[J]. Translation Quarterly,2010,(56):99-107.
Malmker, Kirsten. Translational stylistics: Dulcken’s translations of Hans ChristianAndersen[J]. Language and Literature, Vol.13,2004,(1):13-24.
Malmkj r, Kirsten. Translational stylistics: Dulcken’s translations of Hans ChristianAndersen[J]. Language and Literature, Vol.13,2004,(1):13–24.
Maher, Brigid. Recreation and Style: Translating humorous literature in Italian andEnglish[M]. John Benjamins Publishing Company,2011.
Marco, Joseph. Translating Style and Styles of Translating: Henry James and EdgarAllan Poe in Catalan[J]. Language and Literature, Vol.13,2004,(1):73-90.
Millán-Varela, Carmen. Hearing Voices: James Joyce, Narrative Voice and MinorityTranslation[J]. Language and Literature, Vol.13,2004,(1):37–54.
Mills, S. Feminist Stylistics[A]. in Brown, K.(ed) Encyclopedia of Language andLinguistics[C]. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science,2006:221-223.
Newmark, Peter. A Textbook of Translation[M].Hemel Hempstead: Prentice HallInternational,1988.
Nida, E. A. Towards a Science of Translating [M]. Leiden: E.J. Brill,1964.
Nida, E.A. Language, Culture and Translating[M]. SFLEP,1993.
N rgaard, N. Key Terms in Stylistics[M].NY: Continuum International Pub. Group,2010.
Ohmman, R. Generative Grammars and the Concept of Literary Style[J]. Word,1964,(20):423-439.
Palmer, R. F. The English Verb [M]. New York: Longman,1989.
Park, T. Translating Style: The English Modernists and Their Italian Translations[M].Cassell,1997.
Park, T. Translating Style: A literary Approach to Translation, A translation Approach toLiterature(2nd edition)[M]. St Jerome Publishing,2007.
Paternoster, Annick. Inappropriate inspectors: Impoliteness and Over-politeness in IanRankin’s and Andrea Camilleri’s Crime Series[J]. Language and Literature,2012,(3):311-324.
Quirk, R.et al. A Comprehensive grammar of the English Language[M]. New York:Longman Group Ltd,1985.
Reiss, K. Translation Criticism: The Potentials&Limitations[M]. SFLEP,2004.
Sacks, H, Schegloff, A&Jefferson, G. A Simplest Systematics for the Organization ofTurn-taking for Conversation [J]. Language, Vol.50,1974:696-735.
Sarang, Vilas. The Stylistics of Literary Translation: A Study with Reference to Englishand Marathi[M]. Gurudev Tagore Chair of Comparative Literature, University ofBombay,1988.
Scott, F.S. A Linguistic Study of Its Classes and Structures [M]. London: HeinemannEducations,1968.
Sebeok, T.A.(ed). Style in Language[C].Mass: MIT Press,1960.
Shen, Dan. Literary Stylistics and Translation: With Particular Reference to EnglishTranslations of Chinese Fictional Prose[D]. University of Edinburgh,1987.
Shiyab, S&Lynch, S. M. Can Literary Style Be translated?[J]. Babel,2006,52,(3),262-275.
Short, M. Exploring the Language of Poems, Plays and Prose [M]. Longman,1996.
Simpson, P. Politeness Phenomena in Ionesco’s The Lesson[A], in R. Carter and P.Simpson (eds) Language, Discourse and Literature[C]. London: Routledge,1989:170–193.
Simpson, P. Stylistics: A Resource Book for Students[M]. Longdon: Routledge,2004.
Stalnaker, R. Pragmatic Presuppositions[A] in Robert Stalnaker, R.(ed), Context andContent[C]. Oxford University Press,1974.
Stockwell, P. Cognitive Poetics:An Introduction[M]. London: Routledge,2002.
Strawson, P. F. On Referring[J]. Mind, Vol.59,1950:320-344.
Tannen, D. Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse[M]. Norwood, NJ: Ablex,1984.
Thompson, G. Introducing Functional Grammar [M]. London: Arnold,1996.
Thorne, J.P. Stylistics and Generative Grammars[J]. Journal of Linguistics,1965,(1):49-59.
Toolan, M. The Stylistics of Fiction: A Literary-Linguistic Approach [M]. Routledge,1990.
Toolan, M(ed). Language, Text and Context: Essays in Stylistics[C]. London: Routledge,1992.
Turner, Allan. Translation and Criticism:The Stylistic Mirror[J]. Yearbook of EnglishStudies, Vol.36,2006,(1):168–176.
Tytler, A.F. Essay on the Principles of Translation (3rd Revised Edition)[M].JohnBenjamins Publishing, Co.,1978.
Waston, G&Zyngier, S(eds). Literature and Stylistics for Language Learners:Theory andPractice[C]. London: Palgrave,2007.
Weber, J. J. The Stylistics Reader: From Roman Jakobson to the Present [C]. London&New York: Arnold,1996.
Williams, M. Translation Quality Assessment: An Argumentation-Centred Approach [M].University of Ottawa Press,2004.
Wilss, W. The Science of Translation: Problems and Methods [M]. SFLEP,1981/2001.
Winters, Marion. Modal Particles Explained: How Modal Particles Creep intoTranslations and Reveal Translators’ Styles [J]. Target,21,2009,(1),74–97.
Wójcik-Leese, E. Salient Ordering of Free Verse and Its Translation [J]. Language andLiterature, Vol9,2000,(2):170-181.
Vinay P.J&Darbelnet, J. Comparative Stylistics of French and English: A Methodologyfor Translation[M]. John Benjamins Pub Co,1995.
Xu, Xiumei. Style Is the Relationship: A Relevance-theoretic Approach to theTranslator’s Style[J]. Babel,52,2006,(4),334–348.
陈刚,腾超.英语文学作品中人称指称的汉译---语篇衔接、效果及读者[J].外语研究,2003，(6):39-43.
蔡基刚.英汉词汇对比研究[M].复旦大学出版社,2008.
陈定安.英汉修辞与翻译[M].北京:中国青年出版社,2004.
陈福康.中国翻译理论史稿[M].上海外语教育出版社,2000.
陈宏薇.方法技巧批评:翻译教学与实践研究[M].上海外语教育出版社,2008.
陈汝东.当代汉语修辞学[M].北京大学出版社,2004.
陈望道.辞学发凡[M].上海教育出版社,1997.
陈新.英汉文体翻译教程[M].北京大学出版社,1999.
程爱民.论文体学对翻译研究的意义[J].外语研究,1994，(2):39-43.
程锡麟.英语短篇小说赏析[M].重庆大学出版社，2008.
笪玉霞.汉英飞白辞格的比较与翻译[J].济南大学学报,2003，(3):59-63.
戴凡.时间衔接在Three Days to See中的文体意义与翻译[J].中国翻译，2011，(6):60-63.
杜丽霞.美国短篇小说选读[M].西安交通大学出版社,2001.
杜争鸣.连贯与文体:关于英汉语篇翻译中的交际力度问题[J].外语研究，2002，(1):57-61.
方开瑞.论小说翻译中的人物视角问题[J].中国翻译,2003，(6):28-34.
方开瑞.叙述学和文体学在小说翻译研究中的应用[J].中国翻译,2007，(4):58-61.
冯庆华.文体翻译论[M].上海外语教育出版社,2002.
封宗信.文体学分析、解读与翻译批评[J].外语与翻译,2000，(4):46-51.
封宗信.文学文体学—文学翻译批评的试金石---评介《文学文体学与小说翻译》[J].中国翻译,1999，(5):40-42.
顾维勇.实用文体翻译[M].北京:国防工业出版社,2006.
辜正坤.中西诗歌比较鉴赏与翻译理论[M].北京：清华大学出版社,2003.
郭建民.英汉超音段音位的比较分析[J].云梦学刊,1993，(2):82-88.
郭著章.翻译名家研究[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社,1999.
韩光清，王法政.英语缩略语略议[J].北京大学学报(访问学者专刊),2000:243-247.
韩子满.试论方言对译的局限性--以张谷若先生译《德伯家的苔丝》为例[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2002，(4):87-90.
何三宁.“关联理论”视角下的翻译质量评估[J].南京师范大学学报,2010，(1):155-160.
侯国金.语用标记等效原则[D].上海外国语大学博士论文,2004.
侯国金.语用标记等效值[J].中国翻译,2005，(5):30-34.
侯国金.语用标记价值假说与语用标记等效翻译假说[J].外语学刊,2005，(2):15-23.
侯维瑞.文体研究和翻译[J].外国语,1988，(3):18-27.
侯维瑞.文学文体学[M].上海外语教育出版社,2008.
胡曙中.英汉修辞比较研究[M].上海外语教育出版社,1993.
胡显耀.基于语料库的汉语翻译小说词语特征研究[J].外语教学与研究,2007，(3):214-220.
胡显耀、曾佳.翻译小说“被”字句的频率、结构及语义韵研究[J].外国语,2010，(3):73-79.
胡壮麟.理论文体学[M].北京大学出版社,2000.
胡壮麟等.系统功能语言学概论[M].北京大学出版社,2005.
胡壮麟,刘世生.西方文体学辞典[A].北京:清华大学出版社,2004.
黄国文.杜牧《清明》英译文的逻辑功能分析[J].外语与翻译,2002，(1):1-6.
黄国文.翻译研究的语言学探索:古诗词英译本的语言学分析[M].上海外语教育出版社,2006.
贾晓庆.叙述文体学—理论建构与应用[D].河南大学博士论文,2006.
蒋和舟.英汉名词回指形式对比分析[J].四川外语学院学报,2007，(6):97-100.
蓝纯.现代汉语预设引发项初探[J].外语研究,1999，(3):11-19.
李贵如.现代修辞学[M].北京:经济科学出版社,1995.
黎运汉.汉语风格学[M].广州:广东教育出版社，2000.
李志岭.语相学与诗歌解读[M].福建外语,2002，(2):56-61.
连淑能.英汉对比研究[M].北京:高等教育出版社,1993.
连淑能.英汉对比研究(增订本)[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2010.
刘德军.汉语古诗隐喻的英译[J].外语与翻译,2002，(2):47-50.
刘宓庆.文体与翻译[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1998.
刘世生.文体学概论[M].北京大学出版社,2006.
刘肖岩.语用前提与戏剧对白翻译[J].外语研究,2001，(2):74-76.
陆楼法.翻译的第三个层次—文体表达[J].外国语，1991，(5):27-34.
卢卫中.象似性与“形神皆似”翻译[J].外国语,2003，(6):62-69.
鲁迅.南腔北调集[M].人民文学出版社,2006.
罗常培,王均.普通语音学纲要[M].北京:科学出版社,1957.
吕俊,侯向群.翻译批评学引论[M].上海外语教育出版社,2009.
吕敏宏.葛浩文小说翻译叙事研究[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2011.
吕世生.语用前提对称与文化信息等值——《红楼梦》英译本译例分析[J].外语学刊,2003，(1):104-107.
吕叔湘.现代汉语单双音节问题初探[J].中国语文,1963，(1):10-23.
毛延生.精神隐喻背后的“失认”与“失神”——论《生命法则》中的适应性悖论[J].中南大学学报，2010，(3):106-110.
彭晓明.诗歌意境、意象及其辨证关系[J].广西社会科学,2002.
钱冠连.美学语言学:语言美和言语美[M].深圳:海天出版社,1993.
秦秀白.文体学理论述评[J].外语教学与研究,1988，(3):28-34.
秦秀白.英语语体和文体要略[M].上海外语教育出版社,2001.
任晓霏.戏剧对白翻译中的话轮转换—戏剧翻译研究的一项戏剧文体学案例分[J].外语教学理论与实践，2010，(1):77-83.
司显柱.功能语言学与翻译研究:翻译质量评估模式建构[M].北京大学出版社,2007.
邵璐.西方翻译理论中的叙事文体学趋势[J].外语研究,2011，(4):86-92.
申丹.西方文体学新发展[M].上海外语教育出版社，2008.
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.论文学文体学在翻译学科建设中的重要性[J].中国翻译,2002，(1):11-15.
申丹.文学文体学与小说翻译[M].北京大学出版社,1995.
申丹.叙述学与小说文体学研究[M].北京大学出版社,1998.
申丹.叙述学与小说文体学研究（第二版）[M].北京大学出版社,2001.
沈家煊.我看汉语的词类[J].语言科学,2009，(1):1-12.
申迎丽,孙致礼.由《尤利西斯》中译本看小说翻译中叙事视角的传译[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2004，(5):51-57.
孙迎春.张若谷翻译艺术研究[M].北京对外翻译出版公司,2004.
孙致礼.翻译：理论与实践探索[M].南京:译林出版社,1999.
唐跃,谭学纯.小说语言美学[M].合肥:安徽教育出版社,1995.
王德春.语言学概论[M].上海外语教育出版社,1997.
王东风.变异还是差异—文学翻译中的文体转换失误分析[J].外国语,2004，(1):62-68.
王东风.小说翻译的语义连贯重构[J].中国翻译,2005，(3):37-43.
王东风.有标记连贯与小说翻译中的连贯重构—以意识流小说Ulysses的翻译为例[J].外语教学与研究,2006，(5):303-308.
王宏.“合意”还需“合宜”——从文体角度谈翻译[J].中国翻译,2003，(1):36-39.
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.英诗经典名译评析:从莎士比亚到金斯伯格[M].济南:山东大学出版社,2004.
王宏印.英语诗歌选译[M].北京:国防工业出版社,2011.
王化鹏.论现代汉语词的双音节化及其发展规律[J].北方论丛,2000，(6):120-125.
王堪法、黄国文.略谈英语的静态动词与动态动词[J].现代外语，1981,(6):16-21.
王敏.风格与气韵—雪莱《西风颂》三家译文之比较[J].西安外国语学院学报,2000，(4):55-59.
王牧群.谈首字母缩略词充当委婉语的修辞作用[J].英语知识，1997，(10)：4-5.
王平.文学翻译批评学[M].杭州出版社,2006.
王青.基于语料库的《尤利西斯》汉译句式特征研究[J].外国语言文学,2011(2):99-107.
王胜宝.“会话含义”与小说对话的理解和翻译[J].中国翻译,1996，(3):14-17.
王守元,苗兴伟.预设与文学语篇的构建[J].外语与外语教学,2003，(2):1-6.
王希杰.修辞学导论[M].长沙:湖南师范大学出版社,2011.
王希杰.汉语修辞学(修订本)[M].北京:商务印书馆,2004.
王义印.英语动态名词用法[J].殷都学刊,1987，(2):117.
王佐良,丁往道.英语文体学引论[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1987.
温秀颖.翻译批评——从理论到实践[M].天津:南开大学出版社,2007.
武光军.当代中西翻译质量评估模式的进展、元评估及发展方向[J].外语研究,2007，(4):73-79.
吴建.从文学文体学视角评《傲慢与偏见》的三个译本[J].南京邮电大学学报,2013，(1):88-94.
吴礼权.现代汉语修辞学[M].复旦大学出版社,2006.
吴群.合意之外,尚需合宜---在翻译中必须把握语域[J].中国翻译,2002，(2):43-46.
夏昭慧,曹合建.文体翻译对等的量化评估[J].湖南大学学报,2003，(1):84-87.
辛献云.篇章象似性与英诗汉译[J].解放军外语学院学报,2006，(4):67-72.
辛志英.话语分析的新发展---多模态话语分析[J].社会科学辑刊,2008，(5):208-211.
熊琦.英语形容词的静态与动态意义及用法[J].外语学刊,1993，(5):37-40.
徐纠纠.现代汉语联想回指分析[J].中国语文,2005，(3):195-204.
许钧,穆雷.翻译学概论[M].南京:译林出版社,2009.
许钧.文学翻译批评研究[M].南京:译林出版社,1992.
徐有志.现代文体学研究的90年[J].外国语,2000，(4):65-74.
徐有志.有关普通文体学理论建构的几个问题[J].外语与外语教学,2000，(11):24-31.
徐有志.文体学流派区分的出发点、参照系和作业面[J].外国语,2003，(5):53-59.
徐有志.语义角色与作品风格[J].福建外语,1993，(3-4期合刊):19-22.
许余龙.篇章回指的功能语用探索[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2006.
许渊冲.翻译的艺术[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1984.
杨鸿儒.当代中国修辞学[M].北京:中国世界语出版社,1997.
杨山青.实用文体英汉翻译[M].北京:国防工业出版社,2010.
杨晓荣.翻译批评标准的传统思路和现代视野[J].中国翻译，2001，(6):11-15.
杨晓荣.翻译批评导论[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2005.
杨雪燕.话语分析与戏剧语言文体学[J].外语教学与研究,1991，(3):17-22.
杨雪燕.试论戏剧在语言文体学中的地位[J].外国语，1989，(2):67-70.
俞东明.戏剧文体与戏剧文体学[J].浙江大学学报,1996，(2):100-103.
俞东明.话语角色类型及其在言语交际中的转换[J].外国语，1996，(1):19-22.
俞东明,左进.语用模糊、会话策略与戏剧人物刻画[J].外语教学与研究,2004，(5):379-384.
虞建华.英语短篇小说教程[M].高等教育出版社,2010.
张德禄.功能文体学[M].济南：山东教育出版社,1998.
张德禄.语相突出特征的文体效应[J].山东外语教学，1995，(2):1-5.
张德禄.韩礼德功能文体学理论述评[J].外语教学与研究,1999，(1):43-49.
张光明.认知隐喻翻译研究[M].北京:国防工业出版社,2010.
张美芳.翻译研究的功能途径[M].上海外语教育出版社,2006.
张文涛,刘继华.从文体功能看语言编译的翻译---比较<围城>一封家书的两种译文[J].外语学刊,2005，(3):68-71.
张英进.从现代文体学看文学风格与翻译[J].外国语,1986，(1):4-9.
赵秀明,赵张进.文学翻译批评:理论、方法与实践[M].吉林大学出版社,2010.
赵艳芳.认知语言学概论[M].上海外语教育出版社,2001.
张道振.小说汉译中人物话语翻译的叙述操控[J].天津外国语学院学报,2012(6):43-47.
郑宇敏.准作者叙述话语及其翻译[J].外语研究,2003，(2):36-42.
周禅秀.含意理论在文学翻译中的应用[J].中国翻译,2001，(1):39-41.
周国光.汉语语音修辞论略[J].广州大学学报,2004，(8):50-56.
朱纯深.从句法像似性与“异常”句式的翻译看文学翻译中的文体意识[J].中国翻译,2004，(1):28-35.
朱立元.当代西方文艺理论[M].华东师范大学出版社,2005.
Al-Qinai, J. Translation Quality Assessment: Strategies, Parameters and Procedures[J].Meta, XLV,2000:497-519.
Baker, M. Towards a Methodology for Investigating the Style of a Literary Translator[J].Target,12,2000,(2):241-266.
Baker, M. Translation and Conflict: A Narrative Account [M]. Routledge,2006.
Barthes, R. Style and Its Image[A]. in Chatman, S.(ed). Literary Style: A Symposium[C].OUP,1971.
Baynham, Mike&Fina, De Anna. Dislocations/relocations: Narratives of Displacement[M]. St. Jerome Publishing,2005.
Beaugrande, R.&Dressler, W. Introduction to Text Linguistics[M]. London&Newyork:Longman,1981.
Bensoussan,M.&Rosenhouse, J. Evaluating Students’ Translations by Discourse Analysis[J]. Babel,1990:65-84.
Boase-Beier, Jean. Translation and Style: A Brief Introduction[J]. Language andLiterature, Vol.13,2004,(1):9-14.
Boase-Beier, Jean. Stylistic Approaches to Translation[M]. SFLEP,2006.
Boase-Beier, Jean. Translation and Timelessness[J]. JLS,2009,(38):101-114.
Boase-Beier, Jean. Mind Style Translated[J]. Style, Vol.37,2003,(3):253-265.
Bosseaux, C. How Does It Feel: Point of View in Translation: The Case of Virginia Woolfinto French[M]. Rodopi,2007.
Bousfield, Derek.‘Never a Truer Word Said in Jest’: A pragmatic Analysis ofImpoliteness as Banter in Henry IV [A]. in M, Lambrou&P, Stockwell(eds).Contemporary Stylistics[C]. Continuum,2007, Part I:209-220.
Bradford, R. Stylistics[M]. London: Routledge,1997.
Brown, P. and Levinson, S.C. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage[M].Cambridge University Press,1987.
Burrows, John. Englishing of Juneval Computational Stylistics and Translated Texts[J].Style, Vol.36,2002,(4):677-699.
Burton, D. Through Glass Darkly: Through Dark Glasses[A]. In R. Carter(ed) Languageand Literature. An Introductory Reader in Stylistics[C]. London: George Allen andUnwi,1982:195-214.
Calvo, C. In Defense of Celia: Discourse Analysis and Women’s Discourse in As YouLike It[A].In K.Wales(ed), Feminist Linguistics in Literary Criticism[C].Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer,1994:91-116.
Carter, R.&Simpson, P.(eds) Language, Discourse and Literature. An IntroductoryReader in Discourse Stylistics[C]. London: Unwin Hyman,1989.
Chan, T.L. Readers, Reading and Reception of Translated Fiction in Chinese, NovelEncounters [M]. St Jerome Publishing,2010.
Cockerill, Hiroko. Style and Narrative in Translation: the Contribution of FutabateiShimei[M]. St. Jerome Publishing,2008.
Culpeper, J. Politeness in Drama[A], in J. Culpeper, P. Verdonk and M. Short(eds),Exploring the Language of Drama: From Text to Context[C]. London: Routledge,1998,83-95.
Duchan, J. F, Bruder, G. A.&Hewitt, L.E.(eds). Deixis in Narrrative. A CognitiveScience Perspective[C]. Hillsday, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc,1995.
Federico, F. Translation as Stylistic Evolution: Italo Calvino, Creative Translator ofRaymond, Queneau[M]. Rodopi,2009.
Fish, S.E. Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities[M].Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press,1980.
Fowler, R. Style and Structure in Literature: Essays in the New Stylistics [M]. Oxford:Basil Black well,1975.
Fowler, R. Linguistic Criticism[M]. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press,1986.
Froceville, C. Pictorial Metaphor in Advertising[M]. London&NewYork: Routledge,1996.
Gavins, J&Steen, G. C. Cognitive Poetics in Practice[M].London and New York:Routledge,2003.
Gerald, F.S. Don Quixote and the Shelton Translation: A Stylistic Analysis[M]. StudiaHumanitatis,1982.
Ghazala, Hasan. Stylistic-semantic and Grammatical Functions of Punctuation inEnglish-Arabic Translation[J]. Babel,2004,(3):230-245.
Halliday, M.A.K. Linguistic Function and Literary Style: An Inquiry into the Languageof William Golding’s The Inheritors[A]. In D.C.Freeman(ed). Essays in ModernStylistics[C]. London and New York: Methuen,1981:325-260.
Halliday, M. A. K. Linguistic Function and Literary Style: An Inquiry into The Languageof William Golding: The Inheritors[A], in Seymour Chatman(ed). Literary Style: ASymposium[C]. OUP,1971:330-368.
Halliday, M. A. The Users and Uses of Language [A].in Richard W. Bailey&Jay L.Robinson (eds) Varieties of Present-day English[C]. London: MaCmillan,1973.
Halliday, M. A. K. Explorations in the Functions of Language[M]. London: EdwardArnold,1973:103-143.
Hardy, E. Donald. Politeness in Flannery O'Connor's Fiction: Social Interaction,Language, and the Body [J]. Style, Vol.44, Winter2010,(4):524-546.
Hatim, Basil. The translation of style: Linguistic Markedness and textual evaluativeness[J]. Journal of Applied linguistics, vol1.3,2004:229-246.
Hiraga, Masako. Metaphor and Iconicity: A cognitive Approach to Analyzing Texts [M].Houndsmill, Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan,2005.
Horton, David. Linguistic Structure, Stylistic Value, and Translation Strategy:Introducing Thomas Mann’s Aschenbach in English [J]. Translation and Literature,2010,(19):42-71.
House, J. A Model for Translation Quality Assessment [M]. Tübingen: Narr,1977.
House, J. Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited [M]. Tübingen: Narr,1997.
Huang, Xiaocong. Stylistic Approaches to Literary Translation: With particular referenceto English Chinese and Chinese English Translation[M].The University ofBirmingham, PHD Dissertation,2011.
Huang, Yan. Anaphora: A Cross-linguistic Study [M]. Oxford: OUP,2000.
Huddleston, R&Pullum, G. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language[M].Cambridge University Press,2002.
Jeffries, L&Mcintyre, D. Stylistics[M].Cambridge University Press,2010.
Krahmer, E&Piwek, P. Varieties of Anaphora, Introduction[A]. In Krahmer, E&Piwek,P.(eds) Varieties of Anaphora, Reader ESSLLI2000[C], Birmingham,2000.
Kress, G.&Leeuwen, Van. Reading Images—the Grammar of Visual Design[M]. London:Routledge,1996.
Lakoff, G.&Johnson, M. Metaphors We Live By[M]. University of Chicago Press,1980.
Leech, G. N. Pragmatic Principles in Shaw’s You Never Can Tell[A], in M. Toolan(ed).Language, Text and Context: Essays in Stylistics[C]. London. Routledge,1992:259-279.
Leech, G. N. A Linguistic Guide to English Poetry [M]. Longman,1969.
Leech, G. N.&Short, M. Style of Fiction[M]. SFLEP,2001.
Levinson, S. C. Pragmatics[M].Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press,1983.
Levin,S.R. Internal and Extemal Deviation in Poetry [J]. Word,1965,(21):225-237.
Li, Bo. The ‘Stylistic’Turn?[J]. Translation Quarterly,2010,(56):99-107.
Malmker, Kirsten. Translational stylistics: Dulcken’s translations of Hans ChristianAndersen[J]. Language and Literature, Vol.13,2004,(1):13-24.
Malmkj r, Kirsten. Translational stylistics: Dulcken’s translations of Hans ChristianAndersen[J]. Language and Literature, Vol.13,2004,(1):13–24.
Maher, Brigid. Recreation and Style: Translating humorous literature in Italian andEnglish[M]. John Benjamins Publishing Company,2011.
Marco, Joseph. Translating Style and Styles of Translating: Henry James and EdgarAllan Poe in Catalan[J]. Language and Literature, Vol.13,2004,(1):73-90.
Millán-Varela, Carmen. Hearing Voices: James Joyce, Narrative Voice and MinorityTranslation[J]. Language and Literature, Vol.13,2004,(1):37–54.
Mills, S. Feminist Stylistics[A]. in Brown, K.(ed) Encyclopedia of Language andLinguistics[C]. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science,2006:221-223.
Newmark, Peter. A Textbook of Translation[M].Hemel Hempstead: Prentice HallInternational,1988.
Nida, E. A. Towards a Science of Translating [M]. Leiden: E.J. Brill,1964.
Nida, E.A. Language, Culture and Translating[M]. SFLEP,1993.
N rgaard, N. Key Terms in Stylistics[M].NY: Continuum International Pub. Group,2010.
Ohmman, R. Generative Grammars and the Concept of Literary Style[J]. Word,1964,(20):423-439.
Palmer, R. F. The English Verb [M]. New York: Longman,1989.
Park, T. Translating Style: The English Modernists and Their Italian Translations[M].Cassell,1997.
Park, T. Translating Style: A literary Approach to Translation, A translation Approach toLiterature(2nd edition)[M]. St Jerome Publishing,2007.
Paternoster, Annick. Inappropriate inspectors: Impoliteness and Over-politeness in IanRankin’s and Andrea Camilleri’s Crime Series[J]. Language and Literature,2012,(3):311-324.
Quirk, R.et al. A Comprehensive grammar of the English Language[M]. New York:Longman Group Ltd,1985.
Reiss, K. Translation Criticism: The Potentials&Limitations[M]. SFLEP,2004.
Sacks, H, Schegloff, A&Jefferson, G. A Simplest Systematics for the Organization ofTurn-taking for Conversation [J]. Language, Vol.50,1974:696-735.
Sarang, Vilas. The Stylistics of Literary Translation: A Study with Reference to Englishand Marathi[M]. Gurudev Tagore Chair of Comparative Literature, University ofBombay,1988.
Scott, F.S. A Linguistic Study of Its Classes and Structures [M]. London: HeinemannEducations,1968.
Sebeok, T.A.(ed). Style in Language[C].Mass: MIT Press,1960.
Shen, Dan. Literary Stylistics and Translation: With Particular Reference to EnglishTranslations of Chinese Fictional Prose[D]. University of Edinburgh,1987.
Shiyab, S&Lynch, S. M. Can Literary Style Be translated?[J]. Babel,2006,52,(3),262-275.
Short, M. Exploring the Language of Poems, Plays and Prose [M]. Longman,1996.
Simpson, P. Politeness Phenomena in Ionesco’s The Lesson[A], in R. Carter and P.Simpson (eds) Language, Discourse and Literature[C]. London: Routledge,1989:170–193.
Simpson, P. Stylistics: A Resource Book for Students[M]. Longdon: Routledge,2004.
Stalnaker, R. Pragmatic Presuppositions[A] in Robert Stalnaker, R.(ed), Context andContent[C]. Oxford University Press,1974.
Stockwell, P. Cognitive Poetics:An Introduction[M]. London: Routledge,2002.
Strawson, P. F. On Referring[J]. Mind, Vol.59,1950:320-344.
Tannen, D. Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse[M]. Norwood, NJ: Ablex,1984.
Thompson, G. Introducing Functional Grammar [M]. London: Arnold,1996.
Thorne, J.P. Stylistics and Generative Grammars[J]. Journal of Linguistics,1965,(1):49-59.
Toolan, M. The Stylistics of Fiction: A Literary-Linguistic Approach [M]. Routledge,1990.
Toolan, M(ed). Language, Text and Context: Essays in Stylistics[C]. London: Routledge,1992.
Turner, Allan. Translation and Criticism:The Stylistic Mirror[J]. Yearbook of EnglishStudies, Vol.36,2006,(1):168–176.
Tytler, A.F. Essay on the Principles of Translation (3rd Revised Edition)[M].JohnBenjamins Publishing, Co.,1978.
Waston, G&Zyngier, S(eds). Literature and Stylistics for Language Learners:Theory andPractice[C]. London: Palgrave,2007.
Weber, J. J. The Stylistics Reader: From Roman Jakobson to the Present [C]. London&New York: Arnold,1996.
Williams, M. Translation Quality Assessment: An Argumentation-Centred Approach [M].University of Ottawa Press,2004.
Wilss, W. The Science of Translation: Problems and Methods [M]. SFLEP,1981/2001.
Winters, Marion. Modal Particles Explained: How Modal Particles Creep intoTranslations and Reveal Translators’ Styles [J]. Target,21,2009,(1),74–97.
Wójcik-Leese, E. Salient Ordering of Free Verse and Its Translation [J]. Language andLiterature, Vol9,2000,(2):170-181.
Vinay P.J&Darbelnet, J. Comparative Stylistics of French and English: A Methodologyfor Translation[M]. John Benjamins Pub Co,1995.
Xu, Xiumei. Style Is the Relationship: A Relevance-theoretic Approach to theTranslator’s Style[J]. Babel,52,2006,(4),334–348.
陈刚,腾超.英语文学作品中人称指称的汉译---语篇衔接、效果及读者[J].外语研究,2003，(6):39-43.
蔡基刚.英汉词汇对比研究[M].复旦大学出版社,2008.
陈定安.英汉修辞与翻译[M].北京:中国青年出版社,2004.
陈福康.中国翻译理论史稿[M].上海外语教育出版社,2000.
陈宏薇.方法技巧批评:翻译教学与实践研究[M].上海外语教育出版社,2008.
陈汝东.当代汉语修辞学[M].北京大学出版社,2004.
陈望道.辞学发凡[M].上海教育出版社,1997.
陈新.英汉文体翻译教程[M].北京大学出版社,1999.
程爱民.论文体学对翻译研究的意义[J].外语研究,1994，(2):39-43.
程锡麟.英语短篇小说赏析[M].重庆大学出版社，2008.
笪玉霞.汉英飞白辞格的比较与翻译[J].济南大学学报,2003，(3):59-63.
戴凡.时间衔接在Three Days to See中的文体意义与翻译[J].中国翻译，2011，(6):60-63.
杜丽霞.美国短篇小说选读[M].西安交通大学出版社,2001.
杜争鸣.连贯与文体:关于英汉语篇翻译中的交际力度问题[J].外语研究，2002，(1):57-61.
方开瑞.论小说翻译中的人物视角问题[J].中国翻译,2003，(6):28-34.
方开瑞.叙述学和文体学在小说翻译研究中的应用[J].中国翻译,2007，(4):58-61.
冯庆华.文体翻译论[M].上海外语教育出版社,2002.
封宗信.文体学分析、解读与翻译批评[J].外语与翻译,2000，(4):46-51.
封宗信.文学文体学—文学翻译批评的试金石---评介《文学文体学与小说翻译》[J].中国翻译,1999，(5):40-42.
顾维勇.实用文体翻译[M].北京:国防工业出版社,2006.
辜正坤.中西诗歌比较鉴赏与翻译理论[M].北京：清华大学出版社,2003.
郭建民.英汉超音段音位的比较分析[J].云梦学刊,1993，(2):82-88.
郭著章.翻译名家研究[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社,1999.
韩光清，王法政.英语缩略语略议[J].北京大学学报(访问学者专刊),2000:243-247.
韩子满.试论方言对译的局限性--以张谷若先生译《德伯家的苔丝》为例[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2002，(4):87-90.
何三宁.“关联理论”视角下的翻译质量评估[J].南京师范大学学报,2010，(1):155-160.
侯国金.语用标记等效原则[D].上海外国语大学博士论文,2004.
侯国金.语用标记等效值[J].中国翻译,2005，(5):30-34.
侯国金.语用标记价值假说与语用标记等效翻译假说[J].外语学刊,2005，(2):15-23.
侯维瑞.文体研究和翻译[J].外国语,1988，(3):18-27.
侯维瑞.文学文体学[M].上海外语教育出版社,2008.
胡曙中.英汉修辞比较研究[M].上海外语教育出版社,1993.
胡显耀.基于语料库的汉语翻译小说词语特征研究[J].外语教学与研究,2007，(3):214-220.
胡显耀、曾佳.翻译小说“被”字句的频率、结构及语义韵研究[J].外国语,2010，(3):73-79.
胡壮麟.理论文体学[M].北京大学出版社,2000.
胡壮麟等.系统功能语言学概论[M].北京大学出版社,2005.
胡壮麟,刘世生.西方文体学辞典[A].北京:清华大学出版社,2004.
黄国文.杜牧《清明》英译文的逻辑功能分析[J].外语与翻译,2002，(1):1-6.
黄国文.翻译研究的语言学探索:古诗词英译本的语言学分析[M].上海外语教育出版社,2006.
贾晓庆.叙述文体学—理论建构与应用[D].河南大学博士论文,2006.
蒋和舟.英汉名词回指形式对比分析[J].四川外语学院学报,2007，(6):97-100.
蓝纯.现代汉语预设引发项初探[J].外语研究,1999，(3):11-19.
李贵如.现代修辞学[M].北京:经济科学出版社,1995.
黎运汉.汉语风格学[M].广州:广东教育出版社，2000.
李志岭.语相学与诗歌解读[M].福建外语,2002，(2):56-61.
连淑能.英汉对比研究[M].北京:高等教育出版社,1993.
连淑能.英汉对比研究(增订本)[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2010.
刘德军.汉语古诗隐喻的英译[J].外语与翻译,2002，(2):47-50.
刘宓庆.文体与翻译[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1998.
刘世生.文体学概论[M].北京大学出版社,2006.
刘肖岩.语用前提与戏剧对白翻译[J].外语研究,2001，(2):74-76.
陆楼法.翻译的第三个层次—文体表达[J].外国语，1991，(5):27-34.
卢卫中.象似性与“形神皆似”翻译[J].外国语,2003，(6):62-69.
鲁迅.南腔北调集[M].人民文学出版社,2006.
罗常培,王均.普通语音学纲要[M].北京:科学出版社,1957.
吕俊,侯向群.翻译批评学引论[M].上海外语教育出版社,2009.
吕敏宏.葛浩文小说翻译叙事研究[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2011.
吕世生.语用前提对称与文化信息等值——《红楼梦》英译本译例分析[J].外语学刊,2003，(1):104-107.
吕叔湘.现代汉语单双音节问题初探[J].中国语文,1963，(1):10-23.
毛延生.精神隐喻背后的“失认”与“失神”——论《生命法则》中的适应性悖论[J].中南大学学报，2010，(3):106-110.
彭晓明.诗歌意境、意象及其辨证关系[J].广西社会科学,2002.
钱冠连.美学语言学:语言美和言语美[M].深圳:海天出版社,1993.
秦秀白.文体学理论述评[J].外语教学与研究,1988，(3):28-34.
秦秀白.英语语体和文体要略[M].上海外语教育出版社,2001.
任晓霏.戏剧对白翻译中的话轮转换—戏剧翻译研究的一项戏剧文体学案例分[J].外语教学理论与实践，2010，(1):77-83.
司显柱.功能语言学与翻译研究:翻译质量评估模式建构[M].北京大学出版社,2007.
邵璐.西方翻译理论中的叙事文体学趋势[J].外语研究,2011，(4):86-92.
申丹.西方文体学新发展[M].上海外语教育出版社，2008.
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.论文学文体学在翻译学科建设中的重要性[J].中国翻译,2002，(1):11-15.
申丹.文学文体学与小说翻译[M].北京大学出版社,1995.
申丹.叙述学与小说文体学研究[M].北京大学出版社,1998.
申丹.叙述学与小说文体学研究（第二版）[M].北京大学出版社,2001.
沈家煊.我看汉语的词类[J].语言科学,2009，(1):1-12.
申迎丽,孙致礼.由《尤利西斯》中译本看小说翻译中叙事视角的传译[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2004，(5):51-57.
孙迎春.张若谷翻译艺术研究[M].北京对外翻译出版公司,2004.
孙致礼.翻译：理论与实践探索[M].南京:译林出版社,1999.
唐跃,谭学纯.小说语言美学[M].合肥:安徽教育出版社,1995.
王德春.语言学概论[M].上海外语教育出版社,1997.
王东风.变异还是差异—文学翻译中的文体转换失误分析[J].外国语,2004，(1):62-68.
王东风.小说翻译的语义连贯重构[J].中国翻译,2005，(3):37-43.
王东风.有标记连贯与小说翻译中的连贯重构—以意识流小说Ulysses的翻译为例[J].外语教学与研究,2006，(5):303-308.
王宏.“合意”还需“合宜”——从文体角度谈翻译[J].中国翻译,2003，(1):36-39.
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.英诗经典名译评析:从莎士比亚到金斯伯格[M].济南:山东大学出版社,2004.
王宏印.英语诗歌选译[M].北京:国防工业出版社,2011.
王化鹏.论现代汉语词的双音节化及其发展规律[J].北方论丛,2000，(6):120-125.
王堪法、黄国文.略谈英语的静态动词与动态动词[J].现代外语，1981,(6):16-21.
王敏.风格与气韵—雪莱《西风颂》三家译文之比较[J].西安外国语学院学报,2000，(4):55-59.
王牧群.谈首字母缩略词充当委婉语的修辞作用[J].英语知识，1997，(10)：4-5.
王平.文学翻译批评学[M].杭州出版社,2006.
王青.基于语料库的《尤利西斯》汉译句式特征研究[J].外国语言文学,2011(2):99-107.
王胜宝.“会话含义”与小说对话的理解和翻译[J].中国翻译,1996，(3):14-17.
王守元,苗兴伟.预设与文学语篇的构建[J].外语与外语教学,2003，(2):1-6.
王希杰.修辞学导论[M].长沙:湖南师范大学出版社,2011.
王希杰.汉语修辞学(修订本)[M].北京:商务印书馆,2004.
王义印.英语动态名词用法[J].殷都学刊,1987，(2):117.
王佐良,丁往道.英语文体学引论[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1987.
温秀颖.翻译批评——从理论到实践[M].天津:南开大学出版社,2007.
武光军.当代中西翻译质量评估模式的进展、元评估及发展方向[J].外语研究,2007，(4):73-79.
吴建.从文学文体学视角评《傲慢与偏见》的三个译本[J].南京邮电大学学报,2013，(1):88-94.
吴礼权.现代汉语修辞学[M].复旦大学出版社,2006.
吴群.合意之外,尚需合宜---在翻译中必须把握语域[J].中国翻译,2002，(2):43-46.
夏昭慧,曹合建.文体翻译对等的量化评估[J].湖南大学学报,2003，(1):84-87.
辛献云.篇章象似性与英诗汉译[J].解放军外语学院学报,2006，(4):67-72.
辛志英.话语分析的新发展---多模态话语分析[J].社会科学辑刊,2008，(5):208-211.
熊琦.英语形容词的静态与动态意义及用法[J].外语学刊,1993，(5):37-40.
徐纠纠.现代汉语联想回指分析[J].中国语文,2005，(3):195-204.
许钧,穆雷.翻译学概论[M].南京:译林出版社,2009.
许钧.文学翻译批评研究[M].南京:译林出版社,1992.
徐有志.现代文体学研究的90年[J].外国语,2000，(4):65-74.
徐有志.有关普通文体学理论建构的几个问题[J].外语与外语教学,2000，(11):24-31.
徐有志.文体学流派区分的出发点、参照系和作业面[J].外国语,2003，(5):53-59.
徐有志.语义角色与作品风格[J].福建外语,1993，(3-4期合刊):19-22.
许余龙.篇章回指的功能语用探索[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2006.
许渊冲.翻译的艺术[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1984.
杨鸿儒.当代中国修辞学[M].北京:中国世界语出版社,1997.
杨山青.实用文体英汉翻译[M].北京:国防工业出版社,2010.
杨晓荣.翻译批评标准的传统思路和现代视野[J].中国翻译，2001，(6):11-15.
杨晓荣.翻译批评导论[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2005.
杨雪燕.话语分析与戏剧语言文体学[J].外语教学与研究,1991，(3):17-22.
杨雪燕.试论戏剧在语言文体学中的地位[J].外国语，1989，(2):67-70.
俞东明.戏剧文体与戏剧文体学[J].浙江大学学报,1996，(2):100-103.
俞东明.话语角色类型及其在言语交际中的转换[J].外国语，1996，(1):19-22.
俞东明,左进.语用模糊、会话策略与戏剧人物刻画[J].外语教学与研究,2004，(5):379-384.
虞建华.英语短篇小说教程[M].高等教育出版社,2010.
张德禄.功能文体学[M].济南：山东教育出版社,1998.
张德禄.语相突出特征的文体效应[J].山东外语教学，1995，(2):1-5.
张德禄.韩礼德功能文体学理论述评[J].外语教学与研究,1999，(1):43-49.
张光明.认知隐喻翻译研究[M].北京:国防工业出版社,2010.
张美芳.翻译研究的功能途径[M].上海外语教育出版社,2006.
张文涛,刘继华.从文体功能看语言编译的翻译---比较<围城>一封家书的两种译文[J].外语学刊,2005，(3):68-71.
张英进.从现代文体学看文学风格与翻译[J].外国语,1986，(1):4-9.
赵秀明,赵张进.文学翻译批评:理论、方法与实践[M].吉林大学出版社,2010.
赵艳芳.认知语言学概论[M].上海外语教育出版社,2001.
张道振.小说汉译中人物话语翻译的叙述操控[J].天津外国语学院学报,2012(6):43-47.
郑宇敏.准作者叙述话语及其翻译[J].外语研究,2003，(2):36-42.
周禅秀.含意理论在文学翻译中的应用[J].中国翻译,2001，(1):39-41.
周国光.汉语语音修辞论略[J].广州大学学报,2004，(8):50-56.
朱纯深.从句法像似性与“异常”句式的翻译看文学翻译中的文体意识[J].中国翻译,2004，(1):28-35.
朱立元.当代西方文艺理论[M].华东师范大学出版社,2005.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |