《红楼梦》亲属称谓语的英译研究
|
摘要
本研究是对《红楼梦》的两个英译本——1892年到1893年间的乔利(H. Bencraft Joly)译本和1973年到1980年间的霍克思(David Hawkes)译本——进行的描述性研究。笔者选取《红楼梦》中的亲属称谓语及其翻译作为切入点,首先在微观层面对《红楼梦》中的亲属称谓语及其翻译进行了穷尽性的统计和定量分析,探讨了乔译本和霍译本的特点和差异。然后,在描述翻译学的宏观框架下,结合社会语言学的理论,将两个译本还原至其所产生的译语社会背景之中,探究这些特点和差异产生的社会和历史原因。
研究发现:第一,19世纪末出现的乔译本和20世纪后期出现的霍译本在对亲属称谓语的翻译上存在差异。这些差异主要体现在两个方面:一是选词上的不同,乔译使用的古旧、正式的词语较多,而霍译使用的现代化、口语化的昵称较多;二是翻译方式的不同,乔译严格“忠实”于原文,而霍译则灵活变通,其称谓语的翻译更符合西方语言的表达习惯。且差异二较之差异一更为显著。第二,译语社会(即英国社会)的变迁与两个译本呈现出的特点和差异有密不可分的关系。从社会语言学的角度来看,称谓语翻译中词汇使用上的变化反映出英国社会生活中家庭成员关系的变化。从描述翻译学的角度来看,称谓语翻译中译者选择的不同方式(或是策略)都有其深刻的社会和历史背景。第三,19世纪的乔译本中使用的古旧词汇多于20世纪的霍译本,但数量非常有限。当源语文本为古典作品时,译者在翻译过程中亦会使用一些较为老式的词语,以照应源语文本中的时代背景。因此,即使译者所处时代有所不同,在用词的古旧方面并无显著差异。第四,称谓语作为人类社会经年累月形成的规则和长期约定俗成的习惯的产物,在一定的历史时期内具有极大的稳定性。两个译本虽然前后相差近一个世纪,但称谓语词汇本身的变化很少。
本论文共五章。
第一章是绪论。简要介绍本研究的选题背景、缘由、意义及研究目的,交代欲解答的主要问题;对基本概念“称谓语”进行阐释,界定课题范围;说明本研究中对《红楼梦》版本的选择;然后,重点阐述本研究的理论基础:先概述描述翻译学和社会语言学的发展脉络和主要观点,而后探讨了两个理论与本研究的联系,以及如何将二者结合起来为本研究提供理论支持;最后提出研究假设。
第二章是文献综述。主要回顾了国内外学者对称谓语、称谓语翻译以及《红楼梦》中称谓语的研究情况。笔者从研究文献的统计学特征、研究对象的分布、研究文献的内容等三个方面对前人的成果进行了梳理,并从人类学领域和社会语言学领域两个方面对国外的研究情况进行描述。通过分析现有相关研究中存在的不足和空白点,指出本研究的创新点。
第三章是对《红楼梦》亲属称谓语概貌及其翻译情况的描述分析。首先,笔者对亲属称谓语进行了系统划分;然后从父系、母系、夫系、妻系四个系统入手对亲属称谓语及其翻译进行了详细的梳理和分析,最后探讨了亲属称谓语中的一个特殊的小类——合称和互称亲属称谓语及其翻译。
第四章是关于译本与译语社会关系的论述,是本论文的核心部分。笔者首先探讨了译本与译语社会变迁之间的关系,即十九世纪末的英国社会对乔译本的影响和二十世纪后期的英国社会对霍译本的影响;然后综合分析译语社会的变迁对译本产生的影响。
第五章是结论。笔者对本研究的结果进行总结,并阐述本研究的意义、局限性及可拓展的空间,对后续研究提出建议。
本研究对于称谓语的英译探讨是基于《红楼梦》乔译本和霍译本的比较。学术界鲜有对上述两个译本的比较研究,特别是对乔译本的研究更是寥寥无几。笔者希望以此为开端,打破这种失衡格局;同时,本文对《红楼梦》前八十回及其两个英译本中出现的所有亲属称谓语进行穷尽性研究,弥补了以往杂谈、漫谈式研究的不足,为《红楼梦》及其翻译研究提供更全面翔实的资料;另外,此研究的性质是定量研究与定性研究的结合。虽然描述翻译学是本研究的主体理论框架,但研究的起点是两个译本中称谓语在语言层面的转换。本论文从静态、封闭的文本系统入手,由内而外,至语言体系的外部系统分析而终,说明即使从外部因素来讨论翻译,也仍然需要对在源语和译语文化语境下的语言转换进行描写与分析,翻译研究始终不能脱离翻译的根本——语言。本研究证明将规范性翻译研究与描述性翻译研究结合起来是切实可行的,这为翻译研究提供了一个有效的研究范式。
The dissertation is a descriptive study of the two English versions of Hong Lou Meng, namely, Bencraft Joly’s version published in 1892 to 1893 and David Hawkes’version published in 1973 to 1980. Taking the analysis of kinship terms and their translations in the novel as a starting point, the dissertation conducts an exhaustive statistical and quantitative study at the micro-level first and points out the characteristics of each version and the differences between them. Then, in the theoretical framework of descriptive translation studies, supplemented by a sociolinguistics approach, the dissertation explores the social and historical reasons for the differences in the social context of the target culture.
Throughout human history people have sought to identify themselves and others in social contexts. As we learn to identify and categorize the world around us, we also learn our place within it. Our name sets us apart from every other human being. Just as our individual names connote our uniqueness within society, so do the kinship terms applied to us. Each culture has defined their own set of kinship terms and the roles they serve in society. Kinship terms may be influenced by culture, philosophical or religious assumptions, environment, or any number of factors. Through kinship terms, it is possible to understand a culture, particular interpersonal communication patterns, and normative elements of the family system, structure, and functions.
Kinship terms are the lexically identical terms and unique terminological systems labeled with a distinctive social and cultural nature. In different societies and cultures, there must be different systems of kinship terms. Chinese kinship system is a unique form of Chinese indigenous terms that has its roots deep in Chinese culture. It is the product of an agricultural society, a family-centered economy, and a hierarchical family system, and it is also one of the most complex systems of kinship terms in the world.
Hong Lou Meng, a milestone in the history of Chinese novel, is a masterpiece written in the mid-18th century during the Qing dynasty. The novel is remarkable not only for its huge cast of characters and psychological scope, but also for its precise and detailed observation of the life and social structures typical of 18th-century Chinese aristocracy. Over the past century, there was not a single subject in the Chinese academic community like the study of Hong Lou Meng, which caught the interest of large numbers of experts and scholars as well as the general readers and fans, and the interest never faded away. It seems that the whole of China can be found in this work, and every Chinese can find himself in it.
The novel provides a detailed, episodic record of the four wealthy and aristocratic families - Jia, Shi, Wang and Xue, especially the Rongguo House and the Ningguo House of Jia clan, two large, adjacent family compounds in the capital. Their ancestors were made dukes, and the two houses are among the most illustrious families in the capital. One of the clan’s offspring is made an Imperial Consort. The novel describes the Jias’wealth and influence in great naturalistic detail, and charts the Jias’fall from the height of their prestige, following some thirty main characters and over four hundred minor ones from the imperial family to the poor rural small households. The relationship of the characters, especially the relatives is extremely complicated. Specifically, from a vertical perspective, there is a description of five generations of Jia clan from the“water”Generation to the“grass”Generation; from a lateral perspective, there are complicated relations by blood and marriage among the four clans—Jia, Shi, Wang and Xue Thus, the system of kinship terms in Hong Lou Meng which reflects this complex relationship is naturally complicated as well. In the process of communication, with the involvement of social relations such as sovereign and subject, master and servant, colleagues and friends, the address terms used between relatives do not exactly accord with the rules of kinship terms, which makes the system even more complex. The meticulous system of kinship terms in this novel basically reflects the kinship terms in Chinese feudal society. Therefore, the author chooses the kinship terms and their translations as a starting point of the dissertation, and then discusses the relationship between language and society.
The research object of the dissertation are Joly’s and Hawkes’versions of Hong Lou Meng Considering the social context of the target culture, the focus of the study is the relationship of the language in the translation and the target society. Whether a century of social changes in the target society could be seen in the language of the two different versions of translation is the fundamental question to be answered. In view of the importance of“social”,“cultural”and“historical”factors, the author chooses the paradigm of descriptive translation studies which satisfies the need of this study from a macro perspective. The previous prescriptive translation studies mainly concern with a simple shift of language, the style of the literary texts or the standard of translation at the micro-level; while descriptive translation studies emphasize on the interaction between language and cultural factors, which provides translation studies with social, historical and cultural dimensions at a macro-level, coinciding with the focus of this study. As Professor Lin Kenan (林克难) says, prescriptive translation studies and descriptive translation studies are not contradictory. Descriptive translation studies, offering a macro framework, complement prescriptive translation studies perfectly. The two combining together can well reveal the whole of translation. Therefore, the starting point of the dissertation is the study of the language in translation, which is the noumenon in translation studies. The study of kinship terms is a key issue in the filed of sociolinguistics. There are numbers of literature on kinship terms or the way in which people in a certain area address their blood relations or relations by marriage. Sociolinguists believe that the study of the different systems of kinship terms help people understand their own language and culture in a more objective way. In addition, they also point out that through social changes, if the society has (or had) a complete set of kinship terms system, the changes could be reflected in the language. From the perspective of sociolinguistics, the system of kinship terms in social context can reveal the relationship of language form and social meaning which is instructive for the study of the translation of kinship terms in the dissertation. Thus, descriptive translation studies and sociolinguistics together serve as the theoretical basis for the study.
Descriptive translation studies was first introduced by James S. Holmes, and then further developed with an emphasis on“function”by Gideon Toury in Descriptive Translation Studies and beyond. Toury emphasizes approaching translation within a target-oriented framework, for he considers translations as facts of a target culture. Scholars of literary translation have found the approach particularly productive, notwithstanding criticism of the over-emphasis on the text and target-orientedness, especially when the corpus invites a longitudinal and historical approach. Toury believes that there is no way a translation could share the same systematic space with its original. He points out,“a translation would never be in a position to bear on the source culture again, on occasion even on the source text itself. Text, and hence the cultural systems which host them, have been known to have been affected by translations of theirs. It is nonetheless significant that any such practice involves a reversal of roles, in full accordance with our starting point: while genetically a translation, the affecting entity no longer functions as one. To be sure, it is not just any translation that would exert an influence on its original. Rather, it is a fact of a particular target culture, which is, moreover, regarded as privileged for that precise reason. The fact that translations often serve as a basis for further acts of translation is no refutation of the target-oriented assumption either: a translation does function as a source text in a such instances, it is still a fact of a former target culture now turned into mediating one, and it is picked up and assigned the role of a source text not because of anything it may inherently possess, but in accordance with the concerns of a new prospective recipient system”(Toury Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond 26-27). He reformulates his point as follows:“translations are facts of target cultures; on occasion facts of a special status, sometimes even constituting identifiable (sub)systems of their own, but of the target culture in any event (ibid 29).”This reformulation implies that, while certainly indispensable, establishing the culture-internal status of a text as a translation does not in itself provide a sufficient basis for studying it as one. Any attempt to offer exhaustive descriptions and viable explanations would necessitate a proper contextualization (ibid 29). Toury has been credited and criticized for shifting the focus of research in translation studies from the source text and culture to the target text and culture. When researchers take inspiration from Toury’s publications, they invariably emphasize the target translation and how it functions in the target system, the link obviously being made between Itamar Even-Zohar’s literary polysystem and Toury’s work on how translations function within the target system, especially in relation to target system constraints. Descriptive translation studies theory is a logically self-consistent model for describing the behavior of a related set of translation phenomena. It is supported by Toury’s own experimental evidence and is testable. Through his work on descriptive translation studies, Toury contributed to the interest in the sociology of translation and translator behavior by laying the foundation for a social orientation in translation studies.
The primary concern of sociolinguistic scholarship is to study correlations between language use and social structure. Its focus is different from other disciplines that take an interest in language. Sociolinguistics is concerned with describing language use as a social phenomenon and, where possible, it attempts to establish causal links between language and society, pursuing the complementary questions of what language contributes to making community possible and how communities shape their languages by using them. Kinship is one of the universals in human society and therefore plays an important role in both the regulation of behavior and the formation of social groups. Kinship systems depend on the social recognition and cultural implementation of relationships derived from descent and marriage and normally involve a set of kinship terms that define the universe of kin and that may be extended metaphorically to non-kin. The description and analysis of kinship terms has traditionally assumed a central place in sociolinguistic studies, and considerable progress has been made in their classification and analysis. Kinship terms, according to Leach (143) are“category words by means of which an individual is taught to recognize the significant groupings in the social structure into which he is born”. In most societies, kinship terms are utilized in daily life, both in reference and in direct address, and often their use is required by custom, which are found to vary in different societies with respect to a number of characteristics. The terminological system frequently represents a distinctive subset of the lexicon, and the linguist can provide greater understanding of it by componential analysis, formal analysis, and historical reconstruction of earlier forms. The kinship system has various and complex relations with the social institutions that together make up the total social system, or social structure. Because kinship enters into economic, political, legal, and ritual relationships in various societies, there is sometimes a tendency to ignore or underestimate its significance. The function of kinship terminology in interaction is a symbolic one. When it is used it defines for the participants the general mode of behavior to be followed in particular social situations. The universality and enduring character of kinship suggest its importance in binding men and women together in society and providing a foundation for the building of more specific social structures. Thus the change of kinship terms could be a possible evidence for social and cultural change.
Although descriptive translation studies and sociolinguistics belong to different disciplines, they share similarities in theory origin and research method. Both attaching great importance to social and cultural factors, they can well work together to provide theoretical support for this study. Descriptive translation studies provide the theoretical framework at the macro-level. That is to say, the comparison between the two English versions is not to discuss the norm of the translation or judge or criticize the different versions with a universal standard, but to explore the causes of the differences through the analysis of the translation of the kinship terms from a social and historical perspective. Description and explanation are the ultimate goals of the study; while sociolinguistics gives theoretical guidance at the micro-level, namely, how to explore the relationship of kinship terms and the society.
The dissertation, making a complete and systematic description of kinship terms in Hong Lou Meng and its two English versions, is a qualitative study by nature. On the basis of the description, the study aims for the exploration of the underlying causes of the differences. In addition, a quantitative research method is adopted in the collection and analysis of the initial data.
The specific steps of this study are as follows:
First, select the two Chinese editions of Hong Lou Meng published by people’s literature publishing house and Shuangqingxian publishing house. Collate the two editions and make the collation table, then highlight the address terms in the collation table for future reference.
Second, taking people’s edition as the Chinese source text, find out all the address terms in the first 80 chapters and their English equivalents in Joly’s and Hawkes’versions. Then apply statistical procedures to process text into word frequency list and make the table with each entry form in both Chinese and English.
Third, divide all the address terms into two categories: kinship terms and social terms. Kinship terms are subdivided according to its characteristics. Then comparison is made between Joly’s and Hawkes’s versions in each category aiming to identify similarities and differences.
Fourth, set Joly’s and Hawkes’versions in the target society in which they are hosted - the late 19 century’s Britain and the late 20th century’s Britain. Through a methodological approach of historical materialism, analyze the British society during these two periods, particularly family life and social relations, and then find out, from the perspective of sociolinguistics, that if social changes cause the change in language forms in the two English versions of Hong Lou Meng. Finally, in the theoretical framework of descriptive translation studies, discuss the social and historical impact on translation.
In this study, the following hypotheses are made:
1. Assume that differences exist in the translation of kinship terms in the two English versions of Hong Lou Meng;
2. Assume that social changes in target society during different periods of time can be reflected in the language of the translation.
The findings are as follows: First, there are differences between Joly’s version and Hawkes’version as far as the translations of kinship terms are concerned. The differences are mainly in two aspects: 1. the choice of words, Joly tends to use archaic and formal words; while Hawkes’version is full of modern and colloquial vocabulary. 2. translation strategy, Joly’s version emphasizes greatly on the“faithfulness”to the original text; while Hawkes’is much more flexible, which appears more consistent with the western way of expression. The latter is the more obvious of the two differences. Second, social changes in target society (i.e. the British society) and the characteristics and differences of the two versions are closely related. From the point of view of sociolinguistics, the different vocabulary in the translation reflects the change in British family relationships. From the perspective of descriptive translation studies, employment of a certain strategy in the process of translation has its profound social and historical reasons. Third, there are more archaic words in Joly’s version than that in Hawkes’one, but the total number is very small. When the source text is a classical work in the 18th century, translators tend to use some old-fashioned words so that the target text will reads like a classical one as well. Therefore, even if translators live in different times, the number of the archaic words used in translation does not show much difference. Fourth, kinship terms, as the product of the many-year formation of rules and custom of human society show great stability in a certain historical period. Although Joly’s version is nearly a century earlier than Hawkes’, there is hardly any difference when the vocabulary itself is concerned.
This dissertation is divided into five chapters.
Chapter 1 is an introduction. It briefly introduces the background, origin, significance, research purposes and the major questions to be answered. It also includes the explanation of the basic concept of“kinship terms”, definition of the subject areas and clarification of the choice of the Hong Lou Meng versions. Then, based on an overview of the development and major points of descriptive translation studies and sociolinguistics, the author discusses how to combine the two theories that serve as the theoretical support of this study, and puts forward the hypotheses.
Chapter 2 is literature review. It reviews the relevant literature on kinship terms and their translation at home and abroad. From the perspective of statistical characteristics, the distribution of the subject and the content of the previous studies, the author discusses the findings in the field of sociolinguistics and anthropology. Through the analysis of the existing shortcomings in former research, the author brings out the innovation of this study.
Chapter 3 is the description and analysis of kinship terms and their translation in Hong Lou Meng on the basis of five systematically divided categories--paternal side, maternal side, side of husband, side of wife, and a special small group, kinship terms that refer to a number of people or used to address each other. .
Chapter 4 is the discussion of the relation between target text and target society, which is the core part of the dissertation. The author examines British society in the late 19th century and late 20th century in which the two English versions are hosted respectively, and explores the social and historical influences on Joly’s and Hawkes’versions.
Chapter 5 is the conclusion. The author summarizes the findings of the study and points out the significance and limitations with suggestions for further research.
The discussion on the translation of kinship terms in this study is based on the comparison between Joly’s and Hawkes’versions of Hong Lou Meng. Few academic work has been conducted on the comparative study of the above two versions, but even fewer studies on Joly’s version. The dissertation is written in the hope of breaking this pattern of imbalance; at the same time, the exhaustive statistical work done on kinship terms in the first 80 chapters of Hong Lou Meng and its two English versions, providing more comprehensive and detailed data, makes up for the shortcomings of previous studies. In addition, the study is the combination of quantitative and qualitative research methods. Although the descriptive translation studies is the main theoretical framework of the dissertation, the starting point of the study is the description of the shift of language in source and target texts. The study, starting from the description of the static and closed language system, and ending up with an analysis of the external system, shows that even to discuss external factors, there is still the need for the description and analysis of the source language and target language in the context of the source and target culture. The study of language is always the foundation of translation studies. In this way, the study demonstrates the feasibility of combining normative translation studies and descriptive translation studies, which provides translation studies with an effective paradigm.
研究发现:第一,19世纪末出现的乔译本和20世纪后期出现的霍译本在对亲属称谓语的翻译上存在差异。这些差异主要体现在两个方面:一是选词上的不同,乔译使用的古旧、正式的词语较多,而霍译使用的现代化、口语化的昵称较多;二是翻译方式的不同,乔译严格“忠实”于原文,而霍译则灵活变通,其称谓语的翻译更符合西方语言的表达习惯。且差异二较之差异一更为显著。第二,译语社会(即英国社会)的变迁与两个译本呈现出的特点和差异有密不可分的关系。从社会语言学的角度来看,称谓语翻译中词汇使用上的变化反映出英国社会生活中家庭成员关系的变化。从描述翻译学的角度来看,称谓语翻译中译者选择的不同方式(或是策略)都有其深刻的社会和历史背景。第三,19世纪的乔译本中使用的古旧词汇多于20世纪的霍译本,但数量非常有限。当源语文本为古典作品时,译者在翻译过程中亦会使用一些较为老式的词语,以照应源语文本中的时代背景。因此,即使译者所处时代有所不同,在用词的古旧方面并无显著差异。第四,称谓语作为人类社会经年累月形成的规则和长期约定俗成的习惯的产物,在一定的历史时期内具有极大的稳定性。两个译本虽然前后相差近一个世纪,但称谓语词汇本身的变化很少。
本论文共五章。
第一章是绪论。简要介绍本研究的选题背景、缘由、意义及研究目的,交代欲解答的主要问题;对基本概念“称谓语”进行阐释,界定课题范围;说明本研究中对《红楼梦》版本的选择;然后,重点阐述本研究的理论基础:先概述描述翻译学和社会语言学的发展脉络和主要观点,而后探讨了两个理论与本研究的联系,以及如何将二者结合起来为本研究提供理论支持;最后提出研究假设。
第二章是文献综述。主要回顾了国内外学者对称谓语、称谓语翻译以及《红楼梦》中称谓语的研究情况。笔者从研究文献的统计学特征、研究对象的分布、研究文献的内容等三个方面对前人的成果进行了梳理,并从人类学领域和社会语言学领域两个方面对国外的研究情况进行描述。通过分析现有相关研究中存在的不足和空白点,指出本研究的创新点。
第三章是对《红楼梦》亲属称谓语概貌及其翻译情况的描述分析。首先,笔者对亲属称谓语进行了系统划分;然后从父系、母系、夫系、妻系四个系统入手对亲属称谓语及其翻译进行了详细的梳理和分析,最后探讨了亲属称谓语中的一个特殊的小类——合称和互称亲属称谓语及其翻译。
第四章是关于译本与译语社会关系的论述,是本论文的核心部分。笔者首先探讨了译本与译语社会变迁之间的关系,即十九世纪末的英国社会对乔译本的影响和二十世纪后期的英国社会对霍译本的影响;然后综合分析译语社会的变迁对译本产生的影响。
第五章是结论。笔者对本研究的结果进行总结,并阐述本研究的意义、局限性及可拓展的空间,对后续研究提出建议。
本研究对于称谓语的英译探讨是基于《红楼梦》乔译本和霍译本的比较。学术界鲜有对上述两个译本的比较研究,特别是对乔译本的研究更是寥寥无几。笔者希望以此为开端,打破这种失衡格局;同时,本文对《红楼梦》前八十回及其两个英译本中出现的所有亲属称谓语进行穷尽性研究,弥补了以往杂谈、漫谈式研究的不足,为《红楼梦》及其翻译研究提供更全面翔实的资料;另外,此研究的性质是定量研究与定性研究的结合。虽然描述翻译学是本研究的主体理论框架,但研究的起点是两个译本中称谓语在语言层面的转换。本论文从静态、封闭的文本系统入手,由内而外,至语言体系的外部系统分析而终,说明即使从外部因素来讨论翻译,也仍然需要对在源语和译语文化语境下的语言转换进行描写与分析,翻译研究始终不能脱离翻译的根本——语言。本研究证明将规范性翻译研究与描述性翻译研究结合起来是切实可行的,这为翻译研究提供了一个有效的研究范式。
The dissertation is a descriptive study of the two English versions of Hong Lou Meng, namely, Bencraft Joly’s version published in 1892 to 1893 and David Hawkes’version published in 1973 to 1980. Taking the analysis of kinship terms and their translations in the novel as a starting point, the dissertation conducts an exhaustive statistical and quantitative study at the micro-level first and points out the characteristics of each version and the differences between them. Then, in the theoretical framework of descriptive translation studies, supplemented by a sociolinguistics approach, the dissertation explores the social and historical reasons for the differences in the social context of the target culture.
Throughout human history people have sought to identify themselves and others in social contexts. As we learn to identify and categorize the world around us, we also learn our place within it. Our name sets us apart from every other human being. Just as our individual names connote our uniqueness within society, so do the kinship terms applied to us. Each culture has defined their own set of kinship terms and the roles they serve in society. Kinship terms may be influenced by culture, philosophical or religious assumptions, environment, or any number of factors. Through kinship terms, it is possible to understand a culture, particular interpersonal communication patterns, and normative elements of the family system, structure, and functions.
Kinship terms are the lexically identical terms and unique terminological systems labeled with a distinctive social and cultural nature. In different societies and cultures, there must be different systems of kinship terms. Chinese kinship system is a unique form of Chinese indigenous terms that has its roots deep in Chinese culture. It is the product of an agricultural society, a family-centered economy, and a hierarchical family system, and it is also one of the most complex systems of kinship terms in the world.
Hong Lou Meng, a milestone in the history of Chinese novel, is a masterpiece written in the mid-18th century during the Qing dynasty. The novel is remarkable not only for its huge cast of characters and psychological scope, but also for its precise and detailed observation of the life and social structures typical of 18th-century Chinese aristocracy. Over the past century, there was not a single subject in the Chinese academic community like the study of Hong Lou Meng, which caught the interest of large numbers of experts and scholars as well as the general readers and fans, and the interest never faded away. It seems that the whole of China can be found in this work, and every Chinese can find himself in it.
The novel provides a detailed, episodic record of the four wealthy and aristocratic families - Jia, Shi, Wang and Xue, especially the Rongguo House and the Ningguo House of Jia clan, two large, adjacent family compounds in the capital. Their ancestors were made dukes, and the two houses are among the most illustrious families in the capital. One of the clan’s offspring is made an Imperial Consort. The novel describes the Jias’wealth and influence in great naturalistic detail, and charts the Jias’fall from the height of their prestige, following some thirty main characters and over four hundred minor ones from the imperial family to the poor rural small households. The relationship of the characters, especially the relatives is extremely complicated. Specifically, from a vertical perspective, there is a description of five generations of Jia clan from the“water”Generation to the“grass”Generation; from a lateral perspective, there are complicated relations by blood and marriage among the four clans—Jia, Shi, Wang and Xue Thus, the system of kinship terms in Hong Lou Meng which reflects this complex relationship is naturally complicated as well. In the process of communication, with the involvement of social relations such as sovereign and subject, master and servant, colleagues and friends, the address terms used between relatives do not exactly accord with the rules of kinship terms, which makes the system even more complex. The meticulous system of kinship terms in this novel basically reflects the kinship terms in Chinese feudal society. Therefore, the author chooses the kinship terms and their translations as a starting point of the dissertation, and then discusses the relationship between language and society.
The research object of the dissertation are Joly’s and Hawkes’versions of Hong Lou Meng Considering the social context of the target culture, the focus of the study is the relationship of the language in the translation and the target society. Whether a century of social changes in the target society could be seen in the language of the two different versions of translation is the fundamental question to be answered. In view of the importance of“social”,“cultural”and“historical”factors, the author chooses the paradigm of descriptive translation studies which satisfies the need of this study from a macro perspective. The previous prescriptive translation studies mainly concern with a simple shift of language, the style of the literary texts or the standard of translation at the micro-level; while descriptive translation studies emphasize on the interaction between language and cultural factors, which provides translation studies with social, historical and cultural dimensions at a macro-level, coinciding with the focus of this study. As Professor Lin Kenan (林克难) says, prescriptive translation studies and descriptive translation studies are not contradictory. Descriptive translation studies, offering a macro framework, complement prescriptive translation studies perfectly. The two combining together can well reveal the whole of translation. Therefore, the starting point of the dissertation is the study of the language in translation, which is the noumenon in translation studies. The study of kinship terms is a key issue in the filed of sociolinguistics. There are numbers of literature on kinship terms or the way in which people in a certain area address their blood relations or relations by marriage. Sociolinguists believe that the study of the different systems of kinship terms help people understand their own language and culture in a more objective way. In addition, they also point out that through social changes, if the society has (or had) a complete set of kinship terms system, the changes could be reflected in the language. From the perspective of sociolinguistics, the system of kinship terms in social context can reveal the relationship of language form and social meaning which is instructive for the study of the translation of kinship terms in the dissertation. Thus, descriptive translation studies and sociolinguistics together serve as the theoretical basis for the study.
Descriptive translation studies was first introduced by James S. Holmes, and then further developed with an emphasis on“function”by Gideon Toury in Descriptive Translation Studies and beyond. Toury emphasizes approaching translation within a target-oriented framework, for he considers translations as facts of a target culture. Scholars of literary translation have found the approach particularly productive, notwithstanding criticism of the over-emphasis on the text and target-orientedness, especially when the corpus invites a longitudinal and historical approach. Toury believes that there is no way a translation could share the same systematic space with its original. He points out,“a translation would never be in a position to bear on the source culture again, on occasion even on the source text itself. Text, and hence the cultural systems which host them, have been known to have been affected by translations of theirs. It is nonetheless significant that any such practice involves a reversal of roles, in full accordance with our starting point: while genetically a translation, the affecting entity no longer functions as one. To be sure, it is not just any translation that would exert an influence on its original. Rather, it is a fact of a particular target culture, which is, moreover, regarded as privileged for that precise reason. The fact that translations often serve as a basis for further acts of translation is no refutation of the target-oriented assumption either: a translation does function as a source text in a such instances, it is still a fact of a former target culture now turned into mediating one, and it is picked up and assigned the role of a source text not because of anything it may inherently possess, but in accordance with the concerns of a new prospective recipient system”(Toury Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond 26-27). He reformulates his point as follows:“translations are facts of target cultures; on occasion facts of a special status, sometimes even constituting identifiable (sub)systems of their own, but of the target culture in any event (ibid 29).”This reformulation implies that, while certainly indispensable, establishing the culture-internal status of a text as a translation does not in itself provide a sufficient basis for studying it as one. Any attempt to offer exhaustive descriptions and viable explanations would necessitate a proper contextualization (ibid 29). Toury has been credited and criticized for shifting the focus of research in translation studies from the source text and culture to the target text and culture. When researchers take inspiration from Toury’s publications, they invariably emphasize the target translation and how it functions in the target system, the link obviously being made between Itamar Even-Zohar’s literary polysystem and Toury’s work on how translations function within the target system, especially in relation to target system constraints. Descriptive translation studies theory is a logically self-consistent model for describing the behavior of a related set of translation phenomena. It is supported by Toury’s own experimental evidence and is testable. Through his work on descriptive translation studies, Toury contributed to the interest in the sociology of translation and translator behavior by laying the foundation for a social orientation in translation studies.
The primary concern of sociolinguistic scholarship is to study correlations between language use and social structure. Its focus is different from other disciplines that take an interest in language. Sociolinguistics is concerned with describing language use as a social phenomenon and, where possible, it attempts to establish causal links between language and society, pursuing the complementary questions of what language contributes to making community possible and how communities shape their languages by using them. Kinship is one of the universals in human society and therefore plays an important role in both the regulation of behavior and the formation of social groups. Kinship systems depend on the social recognition and cultural implementation of relationships derived from descent and marriage and normally involve a set of kinship terms that define the universe of kin and that may be extended metaphorically to non-kin. The description and analysis of kinship terms has traditionally assumed a central place in sociolinguistic studies, and considerable progress has been made in their classification and analysis. Kinship terms, according to Leach (143) are“category words by means of which an individual is taught to recognize the significant groupings in the social structure into which he is born”. In most societies, kinship terms are utilized in daily life, both in reference and in direct address, and often their use is required by custom, which are found to vary in different societies with respect to a number of characteristics. The terminological system frequently represents a distinctive subset of the lexicon, and the linguist can provide greater understanding of it by componential analysis, formal analysis, and historical reconstruction of earlier forms. The kinship system has various and complex relations with the social institutions that together make up the total social system, or social structure. Because kinship enters into economic, political, legal, and ritual relationships in various societies, there is sometimes a tendency to ignore or underestimate its significance. The function of kinship terminology in interaction is a symbolic one. When it is used it defines for the participants the general mode of behavior to be followed in particular social situations. The universality and enduring character of kinship suggest its importance in binding men and women together in society and providing a foundation for the building of more specific social structures. Thus the change of kinship terms could be a possible evidence for social and cultural change.
Although descriptive translation studies and sociolinguistics belong to different disciplines, they share similarities in theory origin and research method. Both attaching great importance to social and cultural factors, they can well work together to provide theoretical support for this study. Descriptive translation studies provide the theoretical framework at the macro-level. That is to say, the comparison between the two English versions is not to discuss the norm of the translation or judge or criticize the different versions with a universal standard, but to explore the causes of the differences through the analysis of the translation of the kinship terms from a social and historical perspective. Description and explanation are the ultimate goals of the study; while sociolinguistics gives theoretical guidance at the micro-level, namely, how to explore the relationship of kinship terms and the society.
The dissertation, making a complete and systematic description of kinship terms in Hong Lou Meng and its two English versions, is a qualitative study by nature. On the basis of the description, the study aims for the exploration of the underlying causes of the differences. In addition, a quantitative research method is adopted in the collection and analysis of the initial data.
The specific steps of this study are as follows:
First, select the two Chinese editions of Hong Lou Meng published by people’s literature publishing house and Shuangqingxian publishing house. Collate the two editions and make the collation table, then highlight the address terms in the collation table for future reference.
Second, taking people’s edition as the Chinese source text, find out all the address terms in the first 80 chapters and their English equivalents in Joly’s and Hawkes’versions. Then apply statistical procedures to process text into word frequency list and make the table with each entry form in both Chinese and English.
Third, divide all the address terms into two categories: kinship terms and social terms. Kinship terms are subdivided according to its characteristics. Then comparison is made between Joly’s and Hawkes’s versions in each category aiming to identify similarities and differences.
Fourth, set Joly’s and Hawkes’versions in the target society in which they are hosted - the late 19 century’s Britain and the late 20th century’s Britain. Through a methodological approach of historical materialism, analyze the British society during these two periods, particularly family life and social relations, and then find out, from the perspective of sociolinguistics, that if social changes cause the change in language forms in the two English versions of Hong Lou Meng. Finally, in the theoretical framework of descriptive translation studies, discuss the social and historical impact on translation.
In this study, the following hypotheses are made:
1. Assume that differences exist in the translation of kinship terms in the two English versions of Hong Lou Meng;
2. Assume that social changes in target society during different periods of time can be reflected in the language of the translation.
The findings are as follows: First, there are differences between Joly’s version and Hawkes’version as far as the translations of kinship terms are concerned. The differences are mainly in two aspects: 1. the choice of words, Joly tends to use archaic and formal words; while Hawkes’version is full of modern and colloquial vocabulary. 2. translation strategy, Joly’s version emphasizes greatly on the“faithfulness”to the original text; while Hawkes’is much more flexible, which appears more consistent with the western way of expression. The latter is the more obvious of the two differences. Second, social changes in target society (i.e. the British society) and the characteristics and differences of the two versions are closely related. From the point of view of sociolinguistics, the different vocabulary in the translation reflects the change in British family relationships. From the perspective of descriptive translation studies, employment of a certain strategy in the process of translation has its profound social and historical reasons. Third, there are more archaic words in Joly’s version than that in Hawkes’one, but the total number is very small. When the source text is a classical work in the 18th century, translators tend to use some old-fashioned words so that the target text will reads like a classical one as well. Therefore, even if translators live in different times, the number of the archaic words used in translation does not show much difference. Fourth, kinship terms, as the product of the many-year formation of rules and custom of human society show great stability in a certain historical period. Although Joly’s version is nearly a century earlier than Hawkes’, there is hardly any difference when the vocabulary itself is concerned.
This dissertation is divided into five chapters.
Chapter 1 is an introduction. It briefly introduces the background, origin, significance, research purposes and the major questions to be answered. It also includes the explanation of the basic concept of“kinship terms”, definition of the subject areas and clarification of the choice of the Hong Lou Meng versions. Then, based on an overview of the development and major points of descriptive translation studies and sociolinguistics, the author discusses how to combine the two theories that serve as the theoretical support of this study, and puts forward the hypotheses.
Chapter 2 is literature review. It reviews the relevant literature on kinship terms and their translation at home and abroad. From the perspective of statistical characteristics, the distribution of the subject and the content of the previous studies, the author discusses the findings in the field of sociolinguistics and anthropology. Through the analysis of the existing shortcomings in former research, the author brings out the innovation of this study.
Chapter 3 is the description and analysis of kinship terms and their translation in Hong Lou Meng on the basis of five systematically divided categories--paternal side, maternal side, side of husband, side of wife, and a special small group, kinship terms that refer to a number of people or used to address each other. .
Chapter 4 is the discussion of the relation between target text and target society, which is the core part of the dissertation. The author examines British society in the late 19th century and late 20th century in which the two English versions are hosted respectively, and explores the social and historical influences on Joly’s and Hawkes’versions.
Chapter 5 is the conclusion. The author summarizes the findings of the study and points out the significance and limitations with suggestions for further research.
The discussion on the translation of kinship terms in this study is based on the comparison between Joly’s and Hawkes’versions of Hong Lou Meng. Few academic work has been conducted on the comparative study of the above two versions, but even fewer studies on Joly’s version. The dissertation is written in the hope of breaking this pattern of imbalance; at the same time, the exhaustive statistical work done on kinship terms in the first 80 chapters of Hong Lou Meng and its two English versions, providing more comprehensive and detailed data, makes up for the shortcomings of previous studies. In addition, the study is the combination of quantitative and qualitative research methods. Although the descriptive translation studies is the main theoretical framework of the dissertation, the starting point of the study is the description of the shift of language in source and target texts. The study, starting from the description of the static and closed language system, and ending up with an analysis of the external system, shows that even to discuss external factors, there is still the need for the description and analysis of the source language and target language in the context of the source and target culture. The study of language is always the foundation of translation studies. In this way, the study demonstrates the feasibility of combining normative translation studies and descriptive translation studies, which provides translation studies with an effective paradigm.
引文
①There is a considerable literature on kinship terminology, describing how people in various parts of the world refer to relatives by blood (or descent) and marriage.译文参考雷红波译《社会语言学引论》(第五版),复旦大学出版社,2009,第270页。
②A brief look at such a different (address) system may possibly allow us to gain a more objective perspective on what we do with our own language and in our own culture.译文参考同上,第314页。
①A whole society which is undergoing social change is also likely to show certain indications of such change if the language in use in that society has (or had) a complex system of address.译文参考同上,第321页。
①Descriptive translation studies—when they attend to process, product, and function—set translation practices in time and, thus by extension, in politics, ideology, economics, culture.译文参考林克难“翻译研究:从规范走向描写”,《中国翻译》2001年第6期,第43页。
①李明洁《现代汉语称谓系统的分类标准与功能分析》(《华东师范大学学报》,1997年05期)、李树新《论汉语称谓的两大原则》(《内蒙古大学学报》,2004年05期)等。鉴于相关文献数量较多,此处不一一列出。每一类别只选取被引频次较高的两篇文献作为代表。以下同。
②吴振国《称谓方式与社会结构》(《语文建设》,1993年09期)、李明洁《千呼万唤风云际会——漫谈50年来的社会变革与称谓变迁》(《语文建设》,1999年02期)等。
③李明洁《称呼语的社会阶层分析规则》(《语文建设》,1997年03期)、方冬革《从社会发展看汉语称谓及其语用变化》(《辽宁教育行政学院学报》,2007年11期)等。
④易亚新《常德方言男性亲属称谓词的泛化及其文化内涵》(《常德师范学院学报》,2002年06期)、陈立中《汉语方言亲属称谓词语中的排行标志》(《湘潭大学学报》,2006年01期)等。
⑤贾延柱《先生、同志等称谓考释》(《丹东师专学报》,1997年04期)、田正,章小谦《“老师”称谓源流考》(《浙江大学学报》,2007年03期)等。
⑥李树新《现代汉语称谓词与中国传统文化》(《内蒙古社会科学》,1990年03期)、陈月明《现代汉语亲属称谓系统以及文化印记》(《现代汉语》,1990年05期)等。
⑦吉常宏《谦称和敬称——正确使用称谓词之二》(《语文建设》,2001年04期)、王琴《汉语亲属称谓使用的现状》(《成都大学学报》,2005年02期)等。
⑧丁夏《称谓与文化——从对外汉语教学的角度看汉语称谓词语》(《清华大学学报》,1995年04期)、崔希亮《现代汉语称谓系统与对外汉语教学》(《语言教学与研究》,1996年02期)等。
⑨高德坤《法语称谓简谈》(《外交学院学报》,1987年01期)、刘大安《日本人夫妻称谓初探》(《外语学刊》,1996年02期)等。
⑩黎昌抱《英汉亲属称谓词国俗差异研究》(《四川外语学院学报》,2001年02期)、方经民《日汉亲属称谓的语用情境对比研究》(《语言教学与研究》,2001年02期)等。
①上述关于《红楼梦》称谓语翻译的文献是在“外国语言文字学科”类别下列出的,其它类别下搜索到的相关文献并未一一列出。
②柳丽娜《〈红楼梦〉中称谓语的翻译》(广东外语外贸大学硕士论文,2006)、高旼喜《关于〈红楼梦〉韩译本中称谓语的若干问题》(《红楼梦学刊》,2009年05期)。
③5个英译本分别为:乔译、霍译、杨译、王际真译本和麦克休姐妹(Florence Mchugh and Isabel Mchugh)译本。
①李敏《〈官场现形记〉称谓管窥》(山东大学硕士论文,2006)、廖颂举《〈儒林外史〉称谓之文化透视》(《时代文学》,2007年01期)等。
②《红楼梦》称谓语的相关文献有:孙炜《〈红楼梦〉的亲属称谓(上)》(《红楼梦学刊》,1990年04期)、《〈红楼梦〉的亲属称谓(下)》(《红楼梦学刊》,1991年01期)、徐静茜《论〈红楼梦〉人物的对称称谓》(《湖州师专学报》,1993年02期)、刘丹青《〈红楼梦〉姨类称谓的语义类型研究》(《中国语文》,1997年04期)、刘汝山,王智红《〈红楼梦〉人物称谓形式的社会语言学透析》(《青岛海洋大学学报》,2002年02期)、张彦《〈红楼梦〉中的称谓与中国传统称谓文化》(《安徽广播电视大学学报》,2005年02期)、沈力《〈红楼梦〉中人称指示语的语用研究》(上海外国语大学硕士论文,2005)、陈毅平《〈红楼梦〉称呼语研究》(武汉大学出版社,2005)、陈建萍《真“姑娘”,假“姑娘”?——〈红楼梦〉中“姑娘”称呼语的语义语用辨析》(《红楼梦学刊》,2006年02期)、胡欣裕《这“姑娘”不是那“姑娘”——也谈〈红楼梦〉中“姑娘”这一称呼语》(《红楼梦学刊》,2006年04期)、李生占《读红楼谈称谓》(2006贵州省首届古典文学与民俗文化研讨会论文集)、武洁《〈红楼梦〉称谓的语用研究》(河北师范大学硕士论文,2006)、王家宏《〈红楼梦〉称谓语研究》(西南大学硕士论文,2006)、李敏《从〈红楼梦〉看汉语亲属称谓的特点》(《滨州学院学报》,2007年01期)、唐雪凝《这“姑娘”就是那“姑娘”——对〈红楼梦〉中“姑娘”称呼语的看法》(《红楼梦学刊》,2007年04期)、张征《〈红楼梦〉人物换称的语用研究》(北京师范大学博士论文,2007)、陈建萍《“姐姐”长“,姐姐”短——论〈红楼梦〉“姐姐”称谓语的泛化》(《红楼梦学刊》,2009年02期)、杜秋云《〈红楼梦〉丫鬟人物称谓内蕴管窥》(《文学教育(上)》,2007年08期)方芳《从〈红楼梦〉中的称谓词看中国传统文化》(《大众文艺》,2009年03期)等。
②人民文学出版社1964年第3版1979年1印的四卷本《红楼梦》,以下引文除特殊说明外皆出于此版本。
①具体操作方法可参见肖维青“自建语料库与翻译批评”,《外语研究》,2005年第4期:62-65。
①译文参照《〈红楼梦〉管窥——英译、语言与文化》一书附录中“霍克思译本序跋”(范圣宇311-393)。
Braun, F. Terms of Address: Problems of Patterns and Usage in Various Languages and Cultures. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1988.
Cao Xueqin. The Dream of the Red Chamber. Trans. H. Bencraft Joly. Ed. Steve Thomas. South Australia: U of Adelaide, 2009.10 Jul. 2010 〈http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/c/cao_xueqin/c2359h/〉.
Cao Xueqin. The Sory of the Stone. 5 vols. Trans. David Hawkes. London: Penguin, 1973.
Dash, Kedarnath. Invitation to Social and Cultural Anthropology. New Delhi: Atlantic,2004.
David Hawkes. Introduction. The Sory of the Stone. 5 vols. Cao Xueqin. Trans. David Hawkes. London: Penguin, 1973. 1: 45-46; 2:17-21; 3:13-20.
Dunkling, Leslie. Introduction. A Dictionary of Epithets and Terms of Address. London: Routledge, 1990. 1-36.
Gullestad, Marianne, and Martine Segalen. ed. Family and Kinship in Europe. London: Biddles, 1997.
Hudson, Richard A. Sociolinguistics.北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2000.
Hymes, Dell.“Sociolinguistics and the Ethnography of Speaking.”Social Anthropology and Language. Ed. Edwin Ardener. London: Routledge, 1971. 47-95.
Joly, H. Bencraft. Preface. The Dream of the Red Chamber. Cao Xueqin.Trans. Joly. Ed. Steve Thomas. South Australia: U of Adelaide, 2009.10 Jul. 2010 〈http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/c/cao_xueqin/c2359h/〉
Leach, E. R.“Concerning trobriand clans and the kinship category‘tabu’”. The Developmental Cycle in Domestic Groups. Ed. J. Goody. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.1958.120-145.
Munday, Jeremy. Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications. London and New York: Routledge, 2001.
Peletz, Michael G.“Kinship Studies in Late Twentieth-Century Anthropology.”Annual Review of Anthropology. Vol. 24 (1995): 343-372.
Perry, Ruth. Novel Relations: the Transformation of Kinship in English Literature and Culture 1748-1818. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2004.
Schneider, David M. American Kinship: a Cultural Account. Chicago: Chicago UP, 1968.
Harris, Alfred. Foreword. After Nature: English Kinship in the Late Twentieth Century. By Marilyn Strathern. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1992. xv-xvi.
Taavitsainen, Irma, and Andreas H. Jucker. ed. Diachronic Perspectives on Address Term Systems. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins, 2003.
Toury, Gideon. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond.上海:上海外语教育出版社,2001.
Toury, Gideon.“A Rationale for Descriptive Translation Studies.”The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Translation. Ed. Theo Hermans. London and Sydney: Croom Helm,1985. 16-42.
Turner, Christopher. Family and Kinship in Modern Britain: an Introduction. London: Routledge and Paul, 1969.
Tymoczko, Maria. Translation in a Postcolonial Context. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 1999.
Wardhaugh, Ronald. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. 3rd ed.北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2000.
Zhao Yuenren.“Chinese Terms of Address.”Language 32 (1956): 217-241.
阿萨·勃里格斯.英国社会史.陈叔平,刘城,刘幼勤,周俊文译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,1991.
陈宏薇,江帆.“难忘的历程——《红楼梦》英译事业的描写性研究.”中国翻译5(2003):46-52.
陈建平.“社会语言学的理论基础.”广东外语外贸大学学报3(2002):1-7.
陈维昭.“《红楼梦》版本与《红楼梦》文本——沟通版本研究与文本研究.”红楼梦学刊4(2002):86-102.
陈维昭.红学通史.上海:上海人民出版社,2005.
陈原.社会语言学.北京:商务印书馆,2000.
陈毅平.《红楼梦》称呼语研究.武汉:武汉大学出版社,2005.
崔希亮.“现代汉语称谓系统与对外汉语教学.”语言教学与研究2(1996):34-47.
邓云乡.红楼风俗名物谭:邓云乡论红楼梦.北京:文化艺术出版社,2006.
邓云乡.红楼梦导读.成都:巴蜀书社,1991.
东方早报.《红楼梦》英译者霍克思:魂牵“红楼”念北平. 2009年9月7日.〈http://book.hexun.com/2009-09-07/120980278.html〉.
杜桂晨,常金莲.红楼人物百家言:王熙凤.北京:中华书局,2006.
E.A.韦斯特马克.人类婚姻史.三卷本.李彬,李毅夫,欧阳觉亚译.北京:商务印书馆,2002.第三卷:984-985; 1027.
范圣宇.《红楼梦》管窥——英译、语言与文化.北京:中国社会科学出版社,2004.
冯惠民,李肇翔,杨梦东.点校说明.称谓录.梁章钜著.北京:中华书局,1996. 1-5.
冯其庸.“论《红楼梦》的思想.”红尘冷眼魇红楼:红楼方家谈.徐建华编.北京:团结出版社,2006. 350-353.
冯庆华.母语文化下的译者风格.上海:上海外语教育出版社,2008.
葛桂录.中英文学关系编年史.上海:上海三联书店,2004.
郭豫适.引言.红学研究小史稿.郭豫适.上海:上海文艺出版社,1980.
韩子满,刘芳.“描述翻译研究的成就与不足.”外语学刊3(2005):97-101.
汉语大词典编辑委员会汉语大词典编纂处.汉语大词典:缩印本.上海:上海辞书出版社,2007.
何伟亚.英国的课业:19世纪中国的帝国主义教程.刘天路,邓红风译.北京:社会科学文献出版社,2007.
胡文彬.自序.《红楼梦》在国外.北京:中华书局,1993. 1-8.
黄玉顺.“中国传统的“他者”意识——古代汉语人称代词的分析.”中国哲学史2(2003):91-98.
籍秀琴.姓氏·名字·称谓.郑州:大象出版社,1997.
贾娇燕.“《醒世姻缘传》社会称谓研究.”博士论文.山东大学,2008.
姜其煌.欧美红学.郑州:大象出版社,2005.
江帆.“他乡的石头记:《红楼梦》百年英译史研究.”博士论文.复旦大学,2007.
李波.《史记》字频研究.北京:商务印书馆,2006.
李虹.“2009国际红楼梦学术研讨会在山东蓬莱召开.”红楼梦学刊5(2009):19-35.
李吉东.“《汉语称谓大词典》述评.”山东教育学院学报5(2002):81-84.
李侃,李时岳,李德征,杨策,龚书铎.中国近代史.北京:中华书局,1994.
李希凡,冯其庸.红楼梦大辞典.北京:文化艺术出版社,2010.
李云龙.“《语言自迩集》的文化接受、干预与对外汉语教材的编写.”课程·教材·教法5(2009):93-98.
林克难.“翻译研究:从规范走向描写.”中国翻译6(2001):43-45.
林涛.正说清朝三百年.北京:中国国际广播出版社,2005.
林以亮.自序.红楼梦西游记:细评红楼梦新英译.林以亮.台北:联经出版事业股份有限公司,1976.
刘梦溪.红楼梦与百年中国.石家庄:河北教育出版社,1999.
刘心武.刘心武揭秘红楼梦.北京:东方出版社,2005.
路易斯·亨利·摩尔根.古代社会.杨东莼,马雍,马巨译.北京:商务印书馆,1977.
罗伯特·F·墨菲.文化与社会人类学引论.王卓君译.北京:商务印书馆,2009.
罗纳德·沃德华.社会语言学引论.雷红波译.上海:复旦大学出版社,2009.
吕俊.“谈称谓的翻译.”山东外语教学3(1993):39-43.
马宏基,常庆丰.称谓语.北京:新华出版社,1998.
马丽.“《三国志》称谓词研究.”博士论文.复旦大学,2005.
欧阳健.“眼别真膺心识古今——和蔡义江先生讨论《红楼梦》版本.”红楼梦学刊3(1994):215-233.
齐鹏飞.中华人民共和国史.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2009.
乔志强.中国近代社会史.北京:人民出版社,1992.
钱乘旦,许洁明.英国通史.上海:上海社会科学院出版社,2002.
上海古籍出版社,上海书店.二十五史.上海:上海古籍出版社,1986.清史稿(上):8931.
沈锡伦.中国传统文化和语言.上海:上海教育出版社,2004.
沈治钧.红楼梦成书研究.北京:中国书店,2004.
史凤仪.中国古代婚姻与家庭.武汉:湖北人民出版社,1987.
孙炜.“《红楼梦》的亲属称谓(上).”红楼梦学刊4(1990):115-137.
孙维张.汉语社会语言学.贵阳:贵州人民出版社,1991.
孙玉明.序.双清仙馆本·新评绣像红楼梦全传.曹雪芹,高鹗.北京:北京图书馆出版社,2004.1-33.
谭载喜.总序.新编奈达论翻译.谭载喜.北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1999.1-3.
田惠刚.中西人际称谓系统.北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1997.
王德仁.序言.百年中英关系.王为民.北京:世界知识出版社,2006. 9-14.
王金波.“乔利《红楼梦》英译本的底本考证.”明清小说研究1(2007):277-287.
王金波,王燕.“被忽视的第一个《红楼梦》120回英文全译本——邦斯尔神父《红楼梦》英译文简介.”红楼梦学刊1(2010):195-209.
王为民.百年中英关系.北京:世界知识出版社,2006.
王云五,蔡元培,吴敬恒.中英外交史.北京:商务印书馆,1933.
翁乃群.“美、英社会文化人类学研究的时空变迁.”民族研究1(2000):17-26.
武际可.“‘爬灰’与‘养小叔子’考.”全球华人科学博客圈. 2008年7月3日. 〈http://www.sciencenet.cn/m/user_content.aspx?id=31158〉.
吴浩.自由与传统——20世纪英国文化.北京:东方出版社,1999.
吴克岐.忏玉楼丛书提要.北京:北京图书馆出版社,2002.
肖维青.“自建语料库与翻译批评.”外语研究4(2005):62-65.
徐兆寿.“一夫一妻制的弊端.”非常对话.北京:中国青年出版社,2003. 2011年1月6日〈http://book.sina.com.cn/longbook/else/1102322888_abnormalconversation/18.shtml〉.
徐志诚.译后记.中国亲属称谓指南.冯汉骥著.上海:上海文艺出版社,1989. 138-139.
杨永林.社会语言学研究:功能·称谓·性别篇.上海:上海外语教育出版社,2004.
么孝颖.“称谓语=称呼语吗?——对称谓语和称呼语的概念阐释.”外语教学7(2008):20-24.
姚亚平.“现代汉语称谓系统变化的两大基本趋势.”语言文字应用3(1995):94-99.
尤金·奈达.“关于社会语言学.”祝畹瑾译.社会语言学译文集.祝畹瑾编.北京:北京大学出版社,1985. 17-35.
郁永奎.“《红楼梦》‘爬灰’‘养叔’探赜.”洛阳师专学报3(1999):75-78.
袁庭栋.古人称谓漫谈.北京:中华书局,1994.
曾文雄.“对翻译研究‘文化转向’的反思.”外语研究3(2006):45-47.
赵蓉晖.“社会语言学的历史与现状.”外语研究1(2003):13-26.
张国风.漫话红楼梦.石家庄:河北人民出版社,2000.
郑尔宁.“近二十年来现代汉语称谓语研究综述.”语文学刊2(2005):120-122.
郑献芹.“近十年来汉语称谓词语研究概况及分析.”江西社会科学5(2006):181-184.
郑向前.“《红楼梦》早期抄本研究综述.”红楼梦学刊3(1991):307-320.
钟如雄.“汉语称谓词的性别异化.”西南民族学院学报4(2002):215-220.
周汝昌.红楼夺目红.北京:作家出版社,2003.
周汝昌.红楼十二层.太原:书海出版社,2005.
中共中央马克思恩格斯列宁斯大林著作编译局.马克思恩格斯选集.四卷合集.北京:人民出版社,1972.第四卷:11.
中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室.现代汉语词典(2002年增补本).北京:商务印书馆,2002.
朱一玄.红楼梦人物谱.天津:百花文艺出版社,1986.
网络在线汉语词典http://chazidian.com/
网络版《朗文当代英语词典》http://www.ldoceonline.com/
②A brief look at such a different (address) system may possibly allow us to gain a more objective perspective on what we do with our own language and in our own culture.译文参考同上,第314页。
①A whole society which is undergoing social change is also likely to show certain indications of such change if the language in use in that society has (or had) a complex system of address.译文参考同上,第321页。
①Descriptive translation studies—when they attend to process, product, and function—set translation practices in time and, thus by extension, in politics, ideology, economics, culture.译文参考林克难“翻译研究:从规范走向描写”,《中国翻译》2001年第6期,第43页。
①李明洁《现代汉语称谓系统的分类标准与功能分析》(《华东师范大学学报》,1997年05期)、李树新《论汉语称谓的两大原则》(《内蒙古大学学报》,2004年05期)等。鉴于相关文献数量较多,此处不一一列出。每一类别只选取被引频次较高的两篇文献作为代表。以下同。
②吴振国《称谓方式与社会结构》(《语文建设》,1993年09期)、李明洁《千呼万唤风云际会——漫谈50年来的社会变革与称谓变迁》(《语文建设》,1999年02期)等。
③李明洁《称呼语的社会阶层分析规则》(《语文建设》,1997年03期)、方冬革《从社会发展看汉语称谓及其语用变化》(《辽宁教育行政学院学报》,2007年11期)等。
④易亚新《常德方言男性亲属称谓词的泛化及其文化内涵》(《常德师范学院学报》,2002年06期)、陈立中《汉语方言亲属称谓词语中的排行标志》(《湘潭大学学报》,2006年01期)等。
⑤贾延柱《先生、同志等称谓考释》(《丹东师专学报》,1997年04期)、田正,章小谦《“老师”称谓源流考》(《浙江大学学报》,2007年03期)等。
⑥李树新《现代汉语称谓词与中国传统文化》(《内蒙古社会科学》,1990年03期)、陈月明《现代汉语亲属称谓系统以及文化印记》(《现代汉语》,1990年05期)等。
⑦吉常宏《谦称和敬称——正确使用称谓词之二》(《语文建设》,2001年04期)、王琴《汉语亲属称谓使用的现状》(《成都大学学报》,2005年02期)等。
⑧丁夏《称谓与文化——从对外汉语教学的角度看汉语称谓词语》(《清华大学学报》,1995年04期)、崔希亮《现代汉语称谓系统与对外汉语教学》(《语言教学与研究》,1996年02期)等。
⑨高德坤《法语称谓简谈》(《外交学院学报》,1987年01期)、刘大安《日本人夫妻称谓初探》(《外语学刊》,1996年02期)等。
⑩黎昌抱《英汉亲属称谓词国俗差异研究》(《四川外语学院学报》,2001年02期)、方经民《日汉亲属称谓的语用情境对比研究》(《语言教学与研究》,2001年02期)等。
①上述关于《红楼梦》称谓语翻译的文献是在“外国语言文字学科”类别下列出的,其它类别下搜索到的相关文献并未一一列出。
②柳丽娜《〈红楼梦〉中称谓语的翻译》(广东外语外贸大学硕士论文,2006)、高旼喜《关于〈红楼梦〉韩译本中称谓语的若干问题》(《红楼梦学刊》,2009年05期)。
③5个英译本分别为:乔译、霍译、杨译、王际真译本和麦克休姐妹(Florence Mchugh and Isabel Mchugh)译本。
①李敏《〈官场现形记〉称谓管窥》(山东大学硕士论文,2006)、廖颂举《〈儒林外史〉称谓之文化透视》(《时代文学》,2007年01期)等。
②《红楼梦》称谓语的相关文献有:孙炜《〈红楼梦〉的亲属称谓(上)》(《红楼梦学刊》,1990年04期)、《〈红楼梦〉的亲属称谓(下)》(《红楼梦学刊》,1991年01期)、徐静茜《论〈红楼梦〉人物的对称称谓》(《湖州师专学报》,1993年02期)、刘丹青《〈红楼梦〉姨类称谓的语义类型研究》(《中国语文》,1997年04期)、刘汝山,王智红《〈红楼梦〉人物称谓形式的社会语言学透析》(《青岛海洋大学学报》,2002年02期)、张彦《〈红楼梦〉中的称谓与中国传统称谓文化》(《安徽广播电视大学学报》,2005年02期)、沈力《〈红楼梦〉中人称指示语的语用研究》(上海外国语大学硕士论文,2005)、陈毅平《〈红楼梦〉称呼语研究》(武汉大学出版社,2005)、陈建萍《真“姑娘”,假“姑娘”?——〈红楼梦〉中“姑娘”称呼语的语义语用辨析》(《红楼梦学刊》,2006年02期)、胡欣裕《这“姑娘”不是那“姑娘”——也谈〈红楼梦〉中“姑娘”这一称呼语》(《红楼梦学刊》,2006年04期)、李生占《读红楼谈称谓》(2006贵州省首届古典文学与民俗文化研讨会论文集)、武洁《〈红楼梦〉称谓的语用研究》(河北师范大学硕士论文,2006)、王家宏《〈红楼梦〉称谓语研究》(西南大学硕士论文,2006)、李敏《从〈红楼梦〉看汉语亲属称谓的特点》(《滨州学院学报》,2007年01期)、唐雪凝《这“姑娘”就是那“姑娘”——对〈红楼梦〉中“姑娘”称呼语的看法》(《红楼梦学刊》,2007年04期)、张征《〈红楼梦〉人物换称的语用研究》(北京师范大学博士论文,2007)、陈建萍《“姐姐”长“,姐姐”短——论〈红楼梦〉“姐姐”称谓语的泛化》(《红楼梦学刊》,2009年02期)、杜秋云《〈红楼梦〉丫鬟人物称谓内蕴管窥》(《文学教育(上)》,2007年08期)方芳《从〈红楼梦〉中的称谓词看中国传统文化》(《大众文艺》,2009年03期)等。
②人民文学出版社1964年第3版1979年1印的四卷本《红楼梦》,以下引文除特殊说明外皆出于此版本。
①具体操作方法可参见肖维青“自建语料库与翻译批评”,《外语研究》,2005年第4期:62-65。
①译文参照《〈红楼梦〉管窥——英译、语言与文化》一书附录中“霍克思译本序跋”(范圣宇311-393)。
Braun, F. Terms of Address: Problems of Patterns and Usage in Various Languages and Cultures. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1988.
Cao Xueqin. The Dream of the Red Chamber. Trans. H. Bencraft Joly. Ed. Steve Thomas. South Australia: U of Adelaide, 2009.10 Jul. 2010 〈http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/c/cao_xueqin/c2359h/〉.
Cao Xueqin. The Sory of the Stone. 5 vols. Trans. David Hawkes. London: Penguin, 1973.
Dash, Kedarnath. Invitation to Social and Cultural Anthropology. New Delhi: Atlantic,2004.
David Hawkes. Introduction. The Sory of the Stone. 5 vols. Cao Xueqin. Trans. David Hawkes. London: Penguin, 1973. 1: 45-46; 2:17-21; 3:13-20.
Dunkling, Leslie. Introduction. A Dictionary of Epithets and Terms of Address. London: Routledge, 1990. 1-36.
Gullestad, Marianne, and Martine Segalen. ed. Family and Kinship in Europe. London: Biddles, 1997.
Hudson, Richard A. Sociolinguistics.北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2000.
Hymes, Dell.“Sociolinguistics and the Ethnography of Speaking.”Social Anthropology and Language. Ed. Edwin Ardener. London: Routledge, 1971. 47-95.
Joly, H. Bencraft. Preface. The Dream of the Red Chamber. Cao Xueqin.Trans. Joly. Ed. Steve Thomas. South Australia: U of Adelaide, 2009.10 Jul. 2010 〈http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/c/cao_xueqin/c2359h/〉
Leach, E. R.“Concerning trobriand clans and the kinship category‘tabu’”. The Developmental Cycle in Domestic Groups. Ed. J. Goody. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.1958.120-145.
Munday, Jeremy. Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications. London and New York: Routledge, 2001.
Peletz, Michael G.“Kinship Studies in Late Twentieth-Century Anthropology.”Annual Review of Anthropology. Vol. 24 (1995): 343-372.
Perry, Ruth. Novel Relations: the Transformation of Kinship in English Literature and Culture 1748-1818. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2004.
Schneider, David M. American Kinship: a Cultural Account. Chicago: Chicago UP, 1968.
Harris, Alfred. Foreword. After Nature: English Kinship in the Late Twentieth Century. By Marilyn Strathern. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1992. xv-xvi.
Taavitsainen, Irma, and Andreas H. Jucker. ed. Diachronic Perspectives on Address Term Systems. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins, 2003.
Toury, Gideon. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond.上海:上海外语教育出版社,2001.
Toury, Gideon.“A Rationale for Descriptive Translation Studies.”The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Translation. Ed. Theo Hermans. London and Sydney: Croom Helm,1985. 16-42.
Turner, Christopher. Family and Kinship in Modern Britain: an Introduction. London: Routledge and Paul, 1969.
Tymoczko, Maria. Translation in a Postcolonial Context. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 1999.
Wardhaugh, Ronald. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. 3rd ed.北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2000.
Zhao Yuenren.“Chinese Terms of Address.”Language 32 (1956): 217-241.
阿萨·勃里格斯.英国社会史.陈叔平,刘城,刘幼勤,周俊文译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,1991.
陈宏薇,江帆.“难忘的历程——《红楼梦》英译事业的描写性研究.”中国翻译5(2003):46-52.
陈建平.“社会语言学的理论基础.”广东外语外贸大学学报3(2002):1-7.
陈维昭.“《红楼梦》版本与《红楼梦》文本——沟通版本研究与文本研究.”红楼梦学刊4(2002):86-102.
陈维昭.红学通史.上海:上海人民出版社,2005.
陈原.社会语言学.北京:商务印书馆,2000.
陈毅平.《红楼梦》称呼语研究.武汉:武汉大学出版社,2005.
崔希亮.“现代汉语称谓系统与对外汉语教学.”语言教学与研究2(1996):34-47.
邓云乡.红楼风俗名物谭:邓云乡论红楼梦.北京:文化艺术出版社,2006.
邓云乡.红楼梦导读.成都:巴蜀书社,1991.
东方早报.《红楼梦》英译者霍克思:魂牵“红楼”念北平. 2009年9月7日.〈http://book.hexun.com/2009-09-07/120980278.html〉.
杜桂晨,常金莲.红楼人物百家言:王熙凤.北京:中华书局,2006.
E.A.韦斯特马克.人类婚姻史.三卷本.李彬,李毅夫,欧阳觉亚译.北京:商务印书馆,2002.第三卷:984-985; 1027.
范圣宇.《红楼梦》管窥——英译、语言与文化.北京:中国社会科学出版社,2004.
冯惠民,李肇翔,杨梦东.点校说明.称谓录.梁章钜著.北京:中华书局,1996. 1-5.
冯其庸.“论《红楼梦》的思想.”红尘冷眼魇红楼:红楼方家谈.徐建华编.北京:团结出版社,2006. 350-353.
冯庆华.母语文化下的译者风格.上海:上海外语教育出版社,2008.
葛桂录.中英文学关系编年史.上海:上海三联书店,2004.
郭豫适.引言.红学研究小史稿.郭豫适.上海:上海文艺出版社,1980.
韩子满,刘芳.“描述翻译研究的成就与不足.”外语学刊3(2005):97-101.
汉语大词典编辑委员会汉语大词典编纂处.汉语大词典:缩印本.上海:上海辞书出版社,2007.
何伟亚.英国的课业:19世纪中国的帝国主义教程.刘天路,邓红风译.北京:社会科学文献出版社,2007.
胡文彬.自序.《红楼梦》在国外.北京:中华书局,1993. 1-8.
黄玉顺.“中国传统的“他者”意识——古代汉语人称代词的分析.”中国哲学史2(2003):91-98.
籍秀琴.姓氏·名字·称谓.郑州:大象出版社,1997.
贾娇燕.“《醒世姻缘传》社会称谓研究.”博士论文.山东大学,2008.
姜其煌.欧美红学.郑州:大象出版社,2005.
江帆.“他乡的石头记:《红楼梦》百年英译史研究.”博士论文.复旦大学,2007.
李波.《史记》字频研究.北京:商务印书馆,2006.
李虹.“2009国际红楼梦学术研讨会在山东蓬莱召开.”红楼梦学刊5(2009):19-35.
李吉东.“《汉语称谓大词典》述评.”山东教育学院学报5(2002):81-84.
李侃,李时岳,李德征,杨策,龚书铎.中国近代史.北京:中华书局,1994.
李希凡,冯其庸.红楼梦大辞典.北京:文化艺术出版社,2010.
李云龙.“《语言自迩集》的文化接受、干预与对外汉语教材的编写.”课程·教材·教法5(2009):93-98.
林克难.“翻译研究:从规范走向描写.”中国翻译6(2001):43-45.
林涛.正说清朝三百年.北京:中国国际广播出版社,2005.
林以亮.自序.红楼梦西游记:细评红楼梦新英译.林以亮.台北:联经出版事业股份有限公司,1976.
刘梦溪.红楼梦与百年中国.石家庄:河北教育出版社,1999.
刘心武.刘心武揭秘红楼梦.北京:东方出版社,2005.
路易斯·亨利·摩尔根.古代社会.杨东莼,马雍,马巨译.北京:商务印书馆,1977.
罗伯特·F·墨菲.文化与社会人类学引论.王卓君译.北京:商务印书馆,2009.
罗纳德·沃德华.社会语言学引论.雷红波译.上海:复旦大学出版社,2009.
吕俊.“谈称谓的翻译.”山东外语教学3(1993):39-43.
马宏基,常庆丰.称谓语.北京:新华出版社,1998.
马丽.“《三国志》称谓词研究.”博士论文.复旦大学,2005.
欧阳健.“眼别真膺心识古今——和蔡义江先生讨论《红楼梦》版本.”红楼梦学刊3(1994):215-233.
齐鹏飞.中华人民共和国史.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2009.
乔志强.中国近代社会史.北京:人民出版社,1992.
钱乘旦,许洁明.英国通史.上海:上海社会科学院出版社,2002.
上海古籍出版社,上海书店.二十五史.上海:上海古籍出版社,1986.清史稿(上):8931.
沈锡伦.中国传统文化和语言.上海:上海教育出版社,2004.
沈治钧.红楼梦成书研究.北京:中国书店,2004.
史凤仪.中国古代婚姻与家庭.武汉:湖北人民出版社,1987.
孙炜.“《红楼梦》的亲属称谓(上).”红楼梦学刊4(1990):115-137.
孙维张.汉语社会语言学.贵阳:贵州人民出版社,1991.
孙玉明.序.双清仙馆本·新评绣像红楼梦全传.曹雪芹,高鹗.北京:北京图书馆出版社,2004.1-33.
谭载喜.总序.新编奈达论翻译.谭载喜.北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1999.1-3.
田惠刚.中西人际称谓系统.北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1997.
王德仁.序言.百年中英关系.王为民.北京:世界知识出版社,2006. 9-14.
王金波.“乔利《红楼梦》英译本的底本考证.”明清小说研究1(2007):277-287.
王金波,王燕.“被忽视的第一个《红楼梦》120回英文全译本——邦斯尔神父《红楼梦》英译文简介.”红楼梦学刊1(2010):195-209.
王为民.百年中英关系.北京:世界知识出版社,2006.
王云五,蔡元培,吴敬恒.中英外交史.北京:商务印书馆,1933.
翁乃群.“美、英社会文化人类学研究的时空变迁.”民族研究1(2000):17-26.
武际可.“‘爬灰’与‘养小叔子’考.”全球华人科学博客圈. 2008年7月3日. 〈http://www.sciencenet.cn/m/user_content.aspx?id=31158〉.
吴浩.自由与传统——20世纪英国文化.北京:东方出版社,1999.
吴克岐.忏玉楼丛书提要.北京:北京图书馆出版社,2002.
肖维青.“自建语料库与翻译批评.”外语研究4(2005):62-65.
徐兆寿.“一夫一妻制的弊端.”非常对话.北京:中国青年出版社,2003. 2011年1月6日〈http://book.sina.com.cn/longbook/else/1102322888_abnormalconversation/18.shtml〉.
徐志诚.译后记.中国亲属称谓指南.冯汉骥著.上海:上海文艺出版社,1989. 138-139.
杨永林.社会语言学研究:功能·称谓·性别篇.上海:上海外语教育出版社,2004.
么孝颖.“称谓语=称呼语吗?——对称谓语和称呼语的概念阐释.”外语教学7(2008):20-24.
姚亚平.“现代汉语称谓系统变化的两大基本趋势.”语言文字应用3(1995):94-99.
尤金·奈达.“关于社会语言学.”祝畹瑾译.社会语言学译文集.祝畹瑾编.北京:北京大学出版社,1985. 17-35.
郁永奎.“《红楼梦》‘爬灰’‘养叔’探赜.”洛阳师专学报3(1999):75-78.
袁庭栋.古人称谓漫谈.北京:中华书局,1994.
曾文雄.“对翻译研究‘文化转向’的反思.”外语研究3(2006):45-47.
赵蓉晖.“社会语言学的历史与现状.”外语研究1(2003):13-26.
张国风.漫话红楼梦.石家庄:河北人民出版社,2000.
郑尔宁.“近二十年来现代汉语称谓语研究综述.”语文学刊2(2005):120-122.
郑献芹.“近十年来汉语称谓词语研究概况及分析.”江西社会科学5(2006):181-184.
郑向前.“《红楼梦》早期抄本研究综述.”红楼梦学刊3(1991):307-320.
钟如雄.“汉语称谓词的性别异化.”西南民族学院学报4(2002):215-220.
周汝昌.红楼夺目红.北京:作家出版社,2003.
周汝昌.红楼十二层.太原:书海出版社,2005.
中共中央马克思恩格斯列宁斯大林著作编译局.马克思恩格斯选集.四卷合集.北京:人民出版社,1972.第四卷:11.
中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室.现代汉语词典(2002年增补本).北京:商务印书馆,2002.
朱一玄.红楼梦人物谱.天津:百花文艺出版社,1986.
网络在线汉语词典http://chazidian.com/
网络版《朗文当代英语词典》http://www.ldoceonline.com/