摘要
纽马克是英国著名的语言学家和翻译理论家,其翻译理论给翻译学界带来了深远的影响。尽管中西方翻译学者经常引用、讨论纽马克的翻译观点,以往的纽马克翻译理论研究存在着种种不足之处。本论文对纽马克翻译理论进行了重新审视,通过分析该理论的性质、基本假设、语言哲学基础、合理性以及适用范围,尝试对纽马克翻译理论作一个全面、客观、系统的研究。
本论文的基本论点是纽马克翻译理论从本质上来讲是一种折衷主义及伦理视角。纽马克翻译理论中的折衷主义主要体现在:首先,纽马克翻译理论吸收了许多其他学科的理论、观点和方法;其次,纽马克翻译理论试图弥合翻译研究中源语导向与译语导向之间的差距;再次,纽马克翻译理论强调翻译理论与翻译实践之间的紧密联系;第四,纽马克翻译理论试图涵盖所有的文本类型而不是单独针对某一种文本类型;最后,翻译过程不仅仅涉及各种两元对立范畴,如:源语与目的语、源语文化与目的语文化以及原文作者和译文读者,而且还涉及一些中间力量或因素;纽马克翻译理论不仅仅尝试解释翻译过程中涉及到的各种两元对立范畴而且还试图解释影响翻译过程的中间力量或因素。另外,纽马克翻译理论还从伦理视角研究翻译,该理论对翻译标准、翻译中的价值判断以及译者的责任和义务高度关注。在纽马克翻译伦理思想的框架下,翻译既是一种高尚的追求真理的职业又是一种语言、文学及文化批评工具。
本论文共分为四章。第一章回顾了中西方学者对纽马克翻译理论所作的研究工作并指出了以往的纽马克翻译理论研究所存在的不足之处。
纽马克翻译理论中的折衷主义首先体现在该理论的语言哲学基础来源上。论文的第二章揭示了纽马克翻译理论的语言哲学基础,指出该理论以下述语言哲学家的语言哲学思想为基础:戈特洛布·弗雷格、卡尔·布勒、罗曼·雅各布逊、列夫·维果茨基、J.L.奥斯汀、爱德华·萨丕尔以及本杰明·沃尔夫。首先,纽马克提出的翻译过程的三个层次,即:文本层次、指示层次及主观层次以弗雷格的“意义”、“指称”及“表象”这三个哲学概念为基础;其次,纽马克根据布勒的语言工具模式和雅各布逊的交际模式把文本分为:表达型文本、信息型文本以及呼唤型文本等三种文本类型范畴;最后,纽马克的语义翻译与交际翻译以维果茨基的内部言语与外部言语、奥斯汀的述谓句与施事句以及萨丕尔和沃尔夫的语言相对论为基础。纽马克翻译理论总是探求翻译过程中语言、思维和现实之间的关系,因此该理论肯定了翻译的可行性以及人类共同经验的可传达性。
第三章论述了纽马克翻译理论中的折衷主义思想。第一部分总结了纽马克翻译的折衷主义特色;第二部分分析了纽马克的翻译理论观,包括:纽马克对于翻译理论的性质、构成以及功能的看法:纽马克翻译理论中的三对基本假设:关于翻译性质和本质的假设、关于词语、文本和语境之间关系的假设以及关于语言、文化和翻译之间关系的假设。第三部分探讨了纽马克翻译理论从两元主义到折衷主义的转变。首先重新审视了语言翻译和交际翻译两分法,总结了语义翻译和交际翻译的基本特色,将语义翻译和交际翻译与豪斯的隐性翻译和显性翻译、诺德的文献型翻译和工具型翻译以及格特的直接翻译和间接翻译进行了对比,并详细列举了语义翻译和交际翻译的不足之处;其次,将纽马克后期提出的“翻译关联法”与其前期提出的语义翻译和交际翻译以及吉里·列维提出的“最小最大策略”进行了分析对比,指出纽马克为了缩小翻译理论与实践之间的差距对自己的翻译理论所做出的修改。
第四章围绕纽马克的翻译伦理思想展开。第一部分集中探讨了纽马克翻译伦理思想的三个主要组成部分:“翻译的终极目的”、“紧贴原文的翻译”以及“五项中间真理”,并得出以下几个结论:第一,纽马克的翻译伦理思想属于修改版的“再现”伦理模式;第二,纽马克的真理观是符合论真理观和共识论真理观的结合;第三,纽马克的翻译伦理思想属于个人伦理而不是职业伦理;最后,纽马克的翻译伦理思想深受F.R.利维斯的文学批评理论的影响。第二部分,首先将纽马克的“五项中间真理”与诺德的“功能加忠诚”、皮姆的“交互文化空间”以及彻斯特曼的“四种价值”进行了对比,其他三位学者的翻译伦理思想分别代表了“服务模式”、“交际模式”和“规范模式”;其次通过对四种翻译伦理思想以及四种翻译伦理模式进行对比分析,指出了这四种伦理模式的伦理学基础、适用范围以及局限性并借此初步构建了翻译伦理学的研究范式。
总而言之,本篇论文揭示了纽马克翻译理论的语言哲学基础,探讨了该理论的折衷主义思想以及伦理思想,以期使人们能够更全面地了解纽马克的翻译理论。
Peter Newmark is a famous British linguist and translation theorist whose translation theory has exerted a profound and far-reaching influence on the field of translation studies. Although Newmark's views on translation have often been quoted and discussed by translation scholars both in the west and in China, there are many deficiencies in the previous studies on Newmark's translation theory. This dissertation reexamines Newmark's translation theory by analyzing its nature, its basic assumptions, its linguistic-philosophical foundations, its validity and range of application in an attempt to make a comprehensive, objective and systematic study on Newmark's translation theory.
The basic argument in this dissertation is that Newmark's translation theory is an eclectic and ethical approach to translation in nature. Newmark's translation theory is eclectic because it manifests the following features: firstly, Newmark's translation theory draws on doctrines, ideas and methods from many other disciplines. Secondly, Newmark's translation theory attempts to narrow the gap between the source-text orientation and the target-text orientation in translation studies. Thirdly, Newmark's translation theory emphasizes the link between translation theory and translation practice. Fourthly, Newmark's translation theory endeavors to cover a wide variety of text categories rather than a single category of texts. Lastly, Newmark's translation theory attempts to account for the medial forces or factors involved in the translating process besides the basic dualistic factors such as the source language and the target language, the source culture and the target culture, the source text author and the target text reader. Newmark's translation theory is also an ethical approach since it is greatly concerned with translation standards, value-judgments in translation and the duties and rights of the translator. In the framework of Newmark's translation ethics, translation is a noble truth-seeking profession as well as an instrument of linguistic, literary and cultural criticism.
There are four chapters in this dissertation. Chapter One makes a survey of the research work done by the western and Chinese scholars on Newmark's translation theory, pointing out the deficiencies in the previous studies.
The eclecticism in Newmark's translation theory can be firstly demonstrated by the fact that it originates from many sources of language philosophy. Chapter Two reveals the linguistic-philosophical foundation of Newmark's translation theory. Newmark's translation theory is built on the language philosophy of Gottlob Frege, Karl Buhler, Roman Jakobson, Lev Vygotsky, J. L. Austin, Edward Sapir and Benjamin Whorf. Firstly, Newmark's three levels of translating: the textual level, the referential level and the subjective level are based on Frege's Sinn, Bedeutung and Vorstellung. Secondly, Newmark categorizes texts into the expressive, the informative and the vocative on the basis of Buhler's organon model of language and Jakobson's model of communication. Lastly, Newmark's distinction between semantic and communicative translation is based on Vygotsky's distinction between internal speech and external speech, J. L. Austin's distinction between "constative" and "performative" and Sapir and Whorf s propositions on linguistic relativism. As Newmark's translation theory always explores the connection between language, mind and reality in the translating process, it takes an affirmative attitude towards translation and towards the communicability of human common experience.
Chapter Three centers on the eclecticism in Newmark's translation theory. The first section of this chapter summarizes the eclectic features in Newmark's translation theory. The second section analyzes Newmark's conception of translation theory: Newmark's viewpoint on the nature, formation and functions of translation theory, characteristics of Newmark's translation theory, basic assumptions in Newmark's translation theory on the nature and essence of translation, on word, text and context and on language, culture and translation. The third section deals with the shift from dualism to eclecticism in Newmark's translation theory. Firstly, semantic and communicative translation are reexamined. The basic features of semantic and communicative translation are summarized, semantic and communicative translation are contrasted with House's covert and overt translation, Nord's documentary and instrumental translation and Gutt's direct and indirect translation, and the deficiencies in semantic and communicative translation are listed in detail. Secondly, Newmark's correlative approach to translation is analyzed in comparison with both Newmark's own semantic and communicative translation and with Jiri Levy's minimax strategy to find out the modifications Newmark has made in his translation theory in order to bridge the gap between translation theory and translation practice.
Chapter Four revolves around Newmark's translation ethics. The first section of the chapter focuses on the three main components of Newmark's translation ethics: "ultimate purposes of translation", "close translation" and "the five medial truths" and draws the conclusions that Newmark's translation ethics is a modified version of the model of representation, that Newmark's conception of truth is a combination of correspondence theory and consensus theory, that Newmark's translation ethics is personal ethics rather than professional ethics, and that his translation ethics is deeply influenced by F.R. Leavis' theory of literary criticism. In the second section, a comparison is first made between Newmark's "five medial truths" with Nords' "functional plus loyalty", Pym's "intercultural space" and Chesterman's "four values" and then another comparison made between the four ethical models represented by the four ethical theories: model of representation, model of service, model of communication and the norm-based model. Then through a critical analysis of the four ethical models and the four ethical theories, the ethical foundations, ranges of applications and limitations of the four models are pointed out and the paradigms of translation ethics are tentatively constructed.
In summary, this dissertation reveals the linguistic-philosophical foundation of Newmark's translation theory and discusses the eclecticism in Newmark's translation theory and Newmark's translation ethics to help to contribute to a better and clearer understanding of Newmark's translation theory.
引文
Anderman,Gunilla & Rogers,Margaret(Eds.).(1999).Word,Text,Translation:Liber Amicorum for Peter Newmark.Clevedon/Buffalo:Multilingual Matters.
Anderman,Gunilla & Rogers,Margaret(Eds.).(2003).Translation Today:Trends and Perspectives.Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.
Austin,J.L.(1961).Philosophical Papers(J.O.Urmson & G.J.Warnoek,Eds.).Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Austin,J.L.(1962).Sense and Sensibilia(Geoffrey J.Warnock,Ed.).Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Austin,J.L.(2002).How to do things with Words(J.O.Urmson,Ed.).Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Baker,Mona(Ed.).(2004).Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies.Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Educatior:Press.
Bassnett,Susan.(1997).The Translation of Literature.The Linguist,36(3):72-75.
Bassnett,Susan.(2004).Translation Studies.Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.(Origional work published in 1980)
Bassnett,Susan & Lefevere,Andr(?)(Eds.).(1990).Translation,History and Culture.London and New York:Pinter Publishers.
Bassnett,Susan & Lefevere,Andr(?)(Eds.).(1998).Constructing Culture:Essays on Literary Translation.Clevedon et al.:Multilinguai Matters.
Bell,Roger T.(1991).Translation and Translating:Theory and Practice.London and New York:Longman.
Benjamin,Walter.(1992).The task of the translator.(Harry Zohn & Rainer Sehulte,Trans.).In John Biguenet(Ed.),Theories of Translation:An Anthology of Essays from Dryden to Derrida(pp.71-82).Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
B(u｜¨)ler,K.(1918) Kritische Musterung der neueren Theorien des Satzes.In:Indo-germanisches Jahrbuch 6(1918/1920) 1-20.
B(u｜¨)ler,K.(1990).Theory of Language:the representational function of language.(D.F.Goodwin,Trans.).Amsterdam:Benjamins.(Original work published 1934)
Chan,Leo Tak-hung.(2004).Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory:Modes, Issues and Debates.Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Chesterman,Andrew.(1997).Memes of Translation:The Spread of ldeas in Translation Theory.Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Chesterman,Andrew.(1999).Description,explanation,prediction:A response to Gideon Toury and Theo Hermans.In Christina Sch(a｜¨)ffner(Ed.),Translation and Norms(pp.91-98).Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.
Chesterman,Andrew.(2001).Proposal for a Hieronymic oath.The Translator:Studies in Intercultural Communication,2,139-153.
Chesterman,Andrew & Wagner,Emma.(2002).Can Theory Help Translators?:A Dialogue Between the Ivory Tower and the Wordface.Fodag:St.Jerome Publishing.
Christina Sch(a｜¨)ffner(Ed).(2000).Debate.Current Issues in Language and Society,Multilingual Matters,Vol.7/3,229-244.
Collin,Finn& Guidmann,Finn.(2005).Meaning,Use and Truth:Introducing the Philosophy of Language.Aldershot & Hampshire:Ashgate.
Dawkins,Richard.(1976).The Seflish Gene.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Dollerup,Cay.(2007).Basics of Translation Studies.Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Dummett,Michael.(1981).Frege:Philosophy of Language.Cambridge/Massachusetts:Harvard University Press.
Eschbach,Achim.(1990).Editor's introdution-Karl B(u｜¨)hler:Sematologist.In Eschbach (ed.) Theory of Language:The Representational Function of Language(pp ⅹⅲ-ⅹlⅱ).Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Even - Zohar,Itamar.(1990).Polysystem theory.Poetics Today,11,1:9-26.
Frege,Gottlob.(1999).On sense and reference.(Max Black,Trans.).In A.W.Moore (Ed.) Meaning and Reference(pp.23-42),Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Frege,Gottlob.(1997) The thought.(Peter Geach & R.H.Stoothoff,Trans.).In Michael Beaney (ed.),The Frege Reader(pp.325-345),Oxford:Blackwell.
Gentzler,Edwin.(2001).Contemporary Translation Theories.Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Gutt,Ernst-August.(1990).A theoretical account of translation--without a translation theory.Target,2,135-164.
Gutt,Ernst-August.(1991).Translation and Relevance:Cogniton and Context.Oxford:Basil Blackwell.
Gutt,Ernst-August.(2000).Translation and Relevance:Cognition and Context.Manchester and Boston:St.Jerome Publishing.
Halliday,M.A.K.(1992).Language theory and translation practice.Rivista internazionale di tecnica della traduzione,0,(pilot issue) 15-25.
Hatim,B.& Mason,I.(1990).Discourse and the Translator.London:Longman.
Hatim,Basil.(2005).Teaching and Researching Translation.Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Rsearch Press.
Hermans,Theo(Ed.).(1985).The Manipulation of Literature:Studies in Literary Translation.London & Sydney:Croom Helm.
Hermans,Theo(Ed.).(1999).Translation in Systems:Descriptive and System-oriented Approaches Explained Manchester:St.Jerome Publishing.
Hladk(?),Josef(Ed.).(2003).Language and Function:to the memory of Jan Firbas.New York:John Benjamins Company.
Holmes,James.(2007).Translated! Papers on Literary and Translation Studies.Beijing:Benjing Language Teaching and Research Press.
House,Juliane.(1997).Translation Quality Assessment:A Model Revisited.T(u｜¨)bingen:Narr.
House,Juliane.(2001).Translation quality assessment:linguistic description versus social evaluation.Meta,XLVI,2,243-257.
Jakobson,Roman.(1960).Closing statement:linguistics and poetics".In T.A.Sebeok (Ed.),Style in Language(pp.350-377).Cambridge/Massachusetts:The MIT Press.
Kozulin,Alex.(1986).Vygotsky in context.In(Alex Kozulin,Ed.& Trans.),Thought and Language(pp.ⅹⅰ-lⅵ).Cambridge/Massachusetts/London:The MIT Press.
Larson,Mildred L.(Ed.).(1991).Translation:Theory and Practice,Tension and Interdependence.Binghamton:State University of New York.
Wilss,Wolfram.(1982).The Science of translation:Problems and Methods.T(u｜¨)bingen:Narr.
Lefevere,Andr(?).2004.Translation,Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame.Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Lev(?),,Ji(?)i.(2000).Translation as a decision process.In Lawrence Venuti(Ed.),The Translation Studies Reader(pp.148-159).London & New York:Routledge.
Munday,Jeremy.(2001).Introducing Translation Studies:Theories and Applications.London and New York:Routledge.
Newmark,Peter.(1973).An approach to translation.Babel,19,No.1,3-19.
Newmark,Peter.(1980).Teaching specialized translation.In Sven Olaf Poulsen & Wolfram Wilss(Eds.),Angewandte(U｜¨)bersetzungswissenschaft(pp.127-148).(?)arhus:(?)arhus Wirtschaftuniversita(a｜¨)t.
Newmark,Peter.(1981).Approaches to Translation.Oxford:Pergamon.
Newmark,Peter.(1982).The translation of authoritative statements:A discussion.Meta,vol.27,No.4,375-391.
Newmark,Peter.(1985).The translation of metaphor.In Wolf Paprott(?) and Ren(?) Dirven(Eds.),The Ubiquity of Metaphor:Metaphor in Language and Thought.Amsterdam (pp.295-326).John Benjamins.
Newmark,Peter.(1986).Translation studies:eight tentative directions for research and some dead ducks.In L.Wollin and H.Lindquist(Eds.) Translation studies in Scandinavia.Proceedings from the Scandinavian Symposium on Translation Theory(pp.37-50).(SSOTT) Ⅱ.Lund:CWK Gleerup.
Newmark,Peter.(1987).Translation and interpretation:Retrospect and prospect.British Studies in Applied Linguistics,3,31-37.
Newmark,Peter.(1988).A Textbook of Translation.New York & London:Prentice Hall.
Newmark,Peter.(1991).The curse of dogma in translation Studies.Lebende Spraehen,36:3,105-108.
Newmark,Peter.(1993).Paragraphs on Translation.Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.
Newmark,Peter.(1994).The ethics of translation.In Catriona Picken(Ed.) Quality-Assurance, Management and Control(pp.70-71).London:Institute of Translation &Interpreting.
Newmark,Peter.(1995a).A correlative approach to translation.In R.Martin-Gaitero(Ed.) V Encuentros Complutenses en torno a la traduccion(pp.33-41).Madrid:Editorial Complutense.
Newmark,Peter.(1995b).Truth and culture in translation.Lebende Sprachen,Vol.40,49-51.
Newmark,Peter.(1997).Why translation theory? What translation theory?.Journal of Translation Studies,No.1,94-101.
Newmark,Peter.(1998a).More Paragraphs on Translation.Clevedon:Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Newmark,Peter.(1999).Taking a stand on Mary Snell-Homby.Current Issues in Language and Society,Volume 6,No.2,pp.152-154.
Newmark,Peter.(2000).The deficiencies of Skopos Theory:A response to Anna Trosborg.Current Issues in Language and Society,Vol.7,No.3,259-260.
Newmark,Peter.(2001).A translator's approach to literary language.Across Languages and Cultures,2(1),5-14.
Newmark,Peter.(2003a).Functional sentence perspective and translation.In Josef Hladk(?)(ed.),Language and Function:to the Memory of Jan Firbas(,pp.237-245).Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Newmark,Peter.(2003b).Translation in a globalised world.Baumgarten,Nieole/B(o｜¨)ttger,Claudia/Motz,Markus/Probst,Julia(Eds.),(U｜¨)bersetzen,Interkulturelle Kommunikation,Spracherwerb und Sprachvermittlung - das Leben mit mehreren Sprachen.Festschrift f(u｜¨)r Juliane House zum 60.Geburtstag.Zeitschrift f(u｜¨)r Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht[Online],8(2/3),1-5.Verf(u｜¨)gbar:http://www.ualberta.ca/-german/ejoumal/Newmarkl.htm.
Newmark,Peter.(2004).Non-literary in the light of literary translation.Jostrans,Issue 1.http://www.jostrans.org/issue01/articles/newmark.htm.
Newmark,Peter.(2007).A new theory of translation.SBORN(?)K PRAC(?) FILOZOFICK(?)FAKULTY BRN(?)NSK(?) UNIVERZITY STUDIA MINORA FACULTATIS PHILOSOPHICAE UNIVERSITATIS BRUNENSIS S 13,2007-BRNO STUDIES IN ENGLISH 33,101-114.
Newmark,Peter.(2006).About Translation.Beijing:Beijing Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Neubert,Albert.(2003).Some of Peter Newmark's translation categories revisted.In Gunilla Anderman & Margaret Rogers(Eds.),Translation Today:Trends and Perspectives(pp.68-75).Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.
Nida,Eugene A.& Taber,Charles R.(2004).The Theory And Practice of Translation.Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Nida,Eugene A.(2001).Language and Culture:Contexts in Translating.Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Nord,Christiane.(2001).Translating as a Purposeful Activity:Functionalist Approaches Explained.Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Nord,Christiane.(2006).Text Analysis in Translation:Theory,Methodology,and Didactic Application of a Model for Translation-oriented Text Analysis.Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Pedrola,Monica.(1999).An interview with Peter Newmark.In Gunilla Anderman &Margaret Rogers(Eds.),Word,Text,Translation:Liber Amicorum for Peter Newmark(pp.17-22).Clevendon:Multilingual Matters.
Pinker,Steven.(1994).The Language Instinct:How the Mind Creates Language.New York:Harper Collins.
Pym,Anthony.(1992).Translation and Text Transfer.Frankfurt am Main:Lang.
Pym,Anthony.(1995).Schleiermacher and the problem of Blendlinge.Translation and Literature,4/1,5-30.
Pym,Anthony.(1997).Pour une(?)thique du traducteur.Arras:Artois Presses Universit(?)/Ottawa:Presses de l'Universit(?) d'Ottawa.
Pym,Anthony.(2001).Introduction:the return to ethics in translation Studies.The Translator:Studies in Intercutural Communication,(2),129-137.
Pym,Anthony.(2007).Method in Translation History.Beijing:Beijing Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Reiss,Katharina.(2004).Translation Criticism:The Potentials and Limitations.Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Robinson,Douglas.(2006).Western Translation Theory from Herodotus to Nietzsche.Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Sapir,Edward.(1929).The status of linguistics as a science.Language,5,207-214.
Sapir,Edward.(2002).Language:An Introduction to the Study of Speech.Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Sch(a｜¨)ffner,Christina & Kelly-Holmes,Helen(Eds.).(1995).Cultural Functions of Translation.Clevedon/Toronto/Adelaide:Multi-lingual Matters Ltd.
Sch(a｜¨)ffner,Christina(Ed.).(2007).Translation and Norms.Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Schleimacher,Friedrich.(1992).On the different methods of translating.In R.Schulte & J.Biguenet(Eds.),Theories of Translation:an Anthology of Essays from Dryden to Derrida(pp.36-54).Chicago/London:The University of Chicago Press.
Shea,David.(2005).Interview with Peter Newmark:Pioneering theoretician in scientific translation.Panace@:Boletin de Medicina y Traducci(?)n,Vol.6,No.21-22,392-394.
Shuttleworth,Mark & Cowie,Moira.(2004).Dictionary of Translation Studies.Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Snell-Homby,Mary.(1983).Metaphorical Thought and Translation:Taking a Stand on P.Newmark.Trier:L.A.U.T..[Serie A,Paper No.108]
Snell-Homby,Mary.(1999).Communicating in the global village:On language,translation and cultural identity.Current Issues in Language and Society,Volume 6,No.2,103-120.
Snell-Homby,Mary.(2001).Translation Studies:An Integrated Approach.Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Toury,Gideon.(1985).A rationale for descriptive translation studies.In T.Hermans (Ed.),The Manipulation of Literature:Studies in Literary Translation(pp.16-41).London:Croom Helm.
Toury,Gideon.(1985).Rationale for descriptive translation studies.In T.Hermans(Ed.)The Manipulation of Literature:Studies in Literary Translation(pp.16-24).London:Croom Helm.
Toury,Gideon.(1995).Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond.Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Viaggio,Sergio.(1991).Sematic and communicative translation:two approaches,one method.In Larson M.(Ed.),Translation:Theory and Practice,Tension and Interdependence(pp.172-187).New York:John Benjamins.
Viaggio,Sergio.(1992).Contesting Peter Newmark.Rivista intemazionale di tecnica della traduzione,0(pilot issue),27-58.
Venuti,Lawrence.(1994).Translation and the formation of cultural identities.In Christina Sch(a｜¨)ffner & Helen Kelly-Holmes(Eds.),Cultural Functions of Translation(pp.201-207).Clevedon/Toronto/Adelaide:Multilingual Matters.
Venuti,Lawrence.(Ed).(2000).The Translation Studies Reader.London/New York:Routledge.
Venuti,Lawrence.(2004).The Translator's Invisibility:A History of Translation.Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Vygotsky,Lev.(1986).Thought and Language.(A.Kozulin,Trans.).Cambridge/Massachusetts/London:The MIT Press.
Whorf,B.L.(1982).Language,Thought and Reality:Selected Writing of Benjamin Lee Whorf(John B.Carroll,Ed.).Cambridge:the MIT Press.
Wilss,Wolfram.(1982).The Science of Translation:Problems and Methods.T(u｜¨)bingen:Gunter Narr Verlag.
Shuttleworth,Mark & Cowie,Moira.(2004).Dictionary of Translation Studies.Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Cao,Jianxin.[曹建新],1994,纽马克新词翻译观评介.中国翻译(3):8-11。
Chen,Jun.[陈军],1994,语义翻译与交际翻译简评.杭州师范学院学报(社科版)(2):121-122。
Cheng,Mei.[成梅],1993,翻译理论探秘、反思及应用-纽马克翻译理论精选.上海科技翻译(1):36-38。
Deng,Weibo&Liao,Tao.[邓微波,廖涛],2005,文本类型理论观照下译者对原文失误的处理.重庆交通学院学报(社科版).(3):109-111。
Ding,Jianjiang.[丁建江].2003,文本类型理论与翻译.中国矿业大学学报(社会科学版)(3):118-124。
Foucault,[福柯],1999,疯癫与文明.(刘北成,杨远婴译).北京:三联书店。
Gao,Shengbing&Liu,Ying.[高圣兵,刘莺],2007,欠额翻译与超额翻译的辩证. 外语教学(5):79-82。
Gao,Yun&Han,Li.[高云,韩丽],2004,语用翻译当属交际翻译.西安外国语学院学报(1):45-47。
He,Sanning.[何三宁],2008,翻译多元论实证分析研究.北京:科学出版社。
He,Gangqiang.[何刚强],1996,当代英汉互译指导与实践.上海:华东理工大学出版社。
He,Gangqiang.[何刚强],2003,英汉口笔译技艺.上海:复旦大学出版社。
He,Gangqiang.[何刚强],2007,精艺谙道,循循善诱--翻译专业教师须具备三种功夫.外语界(3):24-29。
He,Gangqiang.[何刚强],2006,译学无疆,译才不器--翻译(院)系培养人才应有长远的眼光.上海翻译(2):39-42。
He,Gangqiang.[何刚强],2005,翻译的“学”与“术”--兼谈我国高校翻译系科(专业)面临的问题.中国翻译(2):34-37。
He,Xueyun.[贺学耘],2006,汉英公示语翻译的现状及其交际翻译策略.外语与外语教学(3):57-59。
He Zhigang.[贺志刚],2003,语言的功能与翻译.国外文学(2):12-19。
He,Ziran.[何自然],1997,语用学与英语学习.上海:上海外语教育出版社。
Jia Wenbo.[贾文波],2004a,文本类型的翻译策略导向.上海科技翻译(3):6-11。
Jia Wenbo.[贾文波],2004b,应用翻译功能论.北京:中国对外翻译出版公司。
Jiang,Tianping&Tang Meilian.[蒋天平,唐美莲],2003,人同此心,心同此理--奈达与纽马克的翻译理论的相通性.河北理工学院学报(社会科学版)(4):157-159。
Lao,Long.[劳陇],1990,“殊途同归”--试论严复、奈达和纽马克翻译理论的一致性[J].外国语(上海外国语大学学报)(5):50-52。
Lao,Long.1990,翻译教学的出路-理论与实践相结合.中国翻译(6):36-39。
Le,Meiyun.[乐眉云],1989,语言学与翻译理论.外国语(上海外国语大学学报)(5):38-41。
Li,Shuqin&Qianhong.[李书琴,钱红],2008,试论全球化语境下文化典籍翻译策略之选择.安徽大学学报(哲学社会科学版)(3):92-95.
Lin,Kenan.[林克难],1992,奈达与纽马克理论比较.中国翻译(3):39-42.
Liao,Qiyi.[廖七一],2000,当代西方翻译理论探索.南京:译林出版社。
Liao,Qiyi.[廖七一],2001,当代英国翻译理论.武汉:湖北教育出版社。
Liu,Miqing.[刘宓庆],2007,翻译与语言哲学(修订本).北京:中国对外翻译出版公司。
Liu,Shusen.[刘树森],1992,纽马克的翻译批评理论简析.中国翻译(2):49-53。
Liu,Yan.[刘艳],2006,奈达与纽马克翻译理论对比初探.长春师范学院学报(人文社会科学版)(1):120-122.
Lin,Xiaoqin.[林小芹],1987,纽马克论语义翻译与交际翻译.中国翻译(1):50-51。
Liu,Fagong＆Xu Beijia.[刘法公,徐蓓佳],2008,公示语汉英翻译原则的探索.外语与外语教学(2).47-50。
Rousseau.[卢梭],1985,爱弥儿--论教育.(李平沤译).北京:人民教育出版社1985年版。
Lv,Jun&Hou Xiangqun.[吕俊,侯向群],2006,翻译学:一个建构主义的视角.上海:上海外语教育出版社。
Ma,Dongniei.[马冬梅],2007,从纽马克的翻译理论阐释文学翻译不应得“意”忘形.兰州工业高等专科学校学报(1):72-75。
Ma,Hongjun.[马红军],2000,翻译批评散论.北京:中国对外翻译出版公司。
Mi,Jianguo.[米建国],2005,意义、真理、与信念:语言哲学论文集.台北:学富文化事业有限公司。
Niu,Xinsheng.[牛新生],2008,公示语文本类型与翻译探析.外语教学(3):89-92。
Pan,Jun.[潘珺],2005,功能对等与交际翻译之交汇点.江苏大学学报(社会科学版)(5):69-72。
Proust.[普鲁斯特],2001,追忆似水年华.(李恒基等译).南京:译林出版社.
Shakespeare,William.[莎士比亚],1947,威尼斯商人.(梁实秋译).上海:商务印书 馆。
Shakespeare,William.[莎士比亚],2005,威尼斯商人皆大欢喜(英汉对照莎士比亚全集).(朱生豪译).呼和浩特:远方出版社。
Shen,Lianyun.[申连云],2004,翻译研究的实然世界与应然世界.外语学刊(4):100-102。
Shen,Lianyun.[申连云],2008,尊重差异-当代翻译研究的伦理观.中国翻译(2):16-19。
Su,Wenxiu.[苏文秀],1998,奈达与纽马克翻译理论比较.四川外语学院学报(3):88-95。
Tang,Jun.[汤君],2007,翻译伦理的理论审视.外国语(4):57-64。
Wang,Ji.[王楫],1993,评纽马克的语义翻译.扬州师范学报(社会科学版)(3):62-67。
Wang Lina.[王莉娜],2008,析翻译伦理的四种模式.外语研究(6):84-88.
Wang,Zongyan.[王宗炎],1983,外国翻译理论评价文集.北京:中国对外翻译出版公司。
Xin,Xianyun.[辛献云],2001,从纽马克的文本范畴理论看翻译标准的相对性和多重性.解放军外国语学院学报(2):74-76。
Yang,Shichao.[杨士焯],1989,简析纽马克的语义翻译和交际翻译.福建外语(2):68-71。
Yang,Shichao.1998,彼得·纽马克翻译新观念概述.中国翻译(1):48-50。
Yuan,Hong.[原虹],2003,论语义翻译和交际翻译.中国科技翻译(2):2-3。
Yuan,Yi.[袁毅],2008,莱斯与纽马克基于文本类型的翻译理论之比较.陕西理工学院学报(社会科学版)(1):70-74。
Zhang Nanfeng.[张南峰],2004,中国译学批评.北京:清华大学出版社。
Zhang,Meifang.[张美芳],2001,从经验、文本到解构翻译概念--西方翻译教科书管窥[J].解放军外国语学院学报(2):12-14。
Zhang,Meifang.[张美芳],2003,英国译学界的名人.中国翻译(4):49-54。
Zhang,Meifang.[张美芳],2005,翻译研究的功能途径.上海:上海外语教育出版社。
Zhong,Weihe.[仲伟合],1998,访著名翻译理论家皮特·纽马克.语言与翻译(2):71-73。
Zhu,Chaowei.[祝朝伟],2002,文本类型理论与诗歌翻译.天津外国语学院学报(3):6-11。
Zhu,Xiaojing&Yang Fangying.[朱晓菁,杨方应],2006,当代西方翻译理论中的二分法.解放军外国语学院学报(5):78-81。
Zhu,Zhide.[朱植德],2005,信息类与感染类源语的改进与英译[J].温州师范学院学报(哲学社会科学版)(6):89-92。
Zhu,Zhiyu.[朱志瑜],2006,纽马克的翻译类型学.外国语(上海外国语大学学报).(6):51-57。
Webster's Third New International Dictionary,G.& C.Merriam Co,1976.
The New Encyzlopaedia Britannica(Vol.4).Chicago:Encyclopaedia Britannica,Inc.,1993.
Collins English Dictionary(21~(st) Century Edition).Glasgow:HarperCollinsPublishers,2000.
