忠实之后：翻译伦理探索
|
摘要
在漫长的翻译史中，种种理论话语都包含强烈的道德内涵，其中大部分，如果不能说全部的话，都或明白或隐性地涉及“应该如何翻译”这一话题。在历史上，对翻译伦理的探讨通常都围绕着“忠实”这一概念。而自上世纪八、九十年代以来，随着翻译研究视阈的不断拓展，翻译概念得到了前所未有的扩展，集中体现了求同伦理和差异伦理之间的差别，一旦抛弃了对虚幻的同一性的追求，种种差异为翻译伦理问题开启了无数新的可能。诸多翻译研究者和行业从业者对翻译伦理问题投注了越来越多的关注和热情，伦理和翻译的关系已经逐渐成为翻译理论家们绕不开的话题，有关翻译伦理的论述异彩纷呈。
本研究从史的角度总结和梳理了上世纪八九十年代以来中西方有代表性的翻译伦理研究成果，并结合伦理学的相关原理、从元理论研究的角度对其中存在的问题和误区进行了分析和反思，在此基础上对“翻译伦理”概念的准确界定、“伦理学途径”翻译研究的进一步发展提出自己的思考。
本研究共由七部分构成。第一部分为绪论，主要介绍了本文研究课题的由来以及本研究的目标、意义和方法。
第二章对上世纪八、九十年代翻译伦理问题成为译学界热点以来的中西方翻译伦理研究进行简要综述，为本研究之后的论述提供一个背景铺垫。
第三章追溯了上世纪八、九十年代以来翻译伦理由“求同”转为“差异”的发展轨迹，并对差异伦理进行了反思。在后现代性主导的语境下，普遍性受到批判，差异性得到张扬，翻译角色和翻译伦理发生了种种重塑，传统的忠实论难以为继，自贝尔曼之后，韦努蒂理论、后殖民研究、女性主义研究纷纷强调彰显“差异性”。然而，新兴的差异伦理也不能摆脱伦理上的质疑。一方面，种种秉持后现代理念的解放性理论途径彻底颠覆了传统的原文或原意忠实论，但究其实质，只是对“定义忠实的规则”抱有“强烈的怀疑”，而其差异伦理主张无异于调整忠实定义规则之后的某种改写版忠实论，导致双重标准的质疑；另一方面，作为差异伦理旨归的“显形”、“直译”、“异化”等策略都显得异常模糊，在实际运用中陷入无穷尽的解释困境，以至于更接近于一种立场的选择而不是实践翻译策略。后现代语境下种种张扬的“差异”凸显出了翻译伦理问题，而其答案不可能是某种新型的、简单化的“应该忠于……”或“对……负责”。
第四章主要在义务论的视阈下介绍和评价了上世纪七八十年代以来翻译职业伦理领域的重要成果。早期目的论强调理论框架的“价值无涉”，但无论是其理论话语本质上的规定性，或是第二代目的论者诺德作为传统忠实论修正版的“忠诚”概念，均暗含规范伦理诉求，直接关照职业翻译领域；安东尼·皮姆的职业伦理模型旨在为翻译行业构建一个隐形且具有专业独立性的共同职业形象，为此要求译者“忠诚于作为交互文化空间的翻译职业”；切斯特曼在义务论和功利论框架下对翻译伦理的基础理论问题进行了多方探讨，并基于麦金太尔的德性伦理学理论提出了承诺伦理模式，其成果对于翻译职业伦理的建构具有重要意义。上述三种研究均可大致归入义务论规范伦理范畴，在促进翻译职业化方面具有不可替代的作用，但职业伦理并不能保证道德上的“好”，翻译伦理研究显然不止于职业伦理规范的建构。
第五章探讨了翻译研究中的规定性、描写性与翻译伦理问题的关系。通过追溯翻译研究由传统的规定性转向描写研究、再走向新一轮的规定性的发展历程，本章试图揭示，在研究方法上把规定与描写截然对立的做法，与翻译领域中另外一些传统的二元对立命题，如忠实或叛逆、隐形或显形等一样，并非有意义地探讨“应该如何译”问题的关键所在。而恰恰是在忠或不忠、规定或描写的理论解释力无以为继的时候，真正的伦理问题才显露出来。
第六章结合翻译研究领域的当下状况和伦理学相关理论从多角度对“翻译伦理”基本概念进行了深入分析。本章首先介绍和探讨了翻译伦理问题在国内兴起的时代背景以及当前国内翻译伦理研究明显的“规范”导向，其后引入伦理学领域对“伦理”和“道德”、“规范”和“价值”这两对术语在概念、意义上的区分，在此基础上提出，“翻译伦理”不等于“伦理规范”，引入道德哲学、德性伦理学相关资源探索翻译中真正的道德价值，以此关照职业规范的制订，才是“伦理学途径”翻译研究最具潜力的发展路向。
“结语”部分对研究进行了总结与回顾，并指出了本研究的价值、局限以及未来的发展空间。
Throughout its history, discourse on translation has included strong moral overtones; many, if notall, contributions dwell either explicitly or implicitly on the issue of how translations ought to beproduced. Traditionally, discussions of ethics of translation have tended to resolve around the centralnotion of “fidelity”. Ever since1980s, the concept of translation has been undergoing unprecedentedenlargement along with the considerable expansion of the vision of translation studies, epitomizing thedifference between the ethics of sameness and the ethics of difference. Once we abandon the quest forthe visionary sameness, the multitude of differences opens the question of ethics into new domains,which have been the focus of attention among an ever-increasing number of translation researchers andpractitioners. The whole issue of ethics is now very much a live topic profusely dwelt on by translationtheorists.
This study on the ethics of translation focuses on the contemporary developments within both theWestern and the Chinese field of translation studies. Based on a meta-theoretical analysis andassessment of the state of the art in the ethics of translation in contemporary translation theory, and theclarification of some existing problems and disputes, this study attempts to shed light on theconceptualization of an “ethics of translation” or an “ethical approach” to translation studies.
This study is composed of seven parts. The introduction serves as a lead-in to the issue underconsideration. A brief account of the aim of research and the methods used is also included.
Chapter2gives a brief historical review of the past research on the ethics of translation dated from1980s, offering relevant background information for later discussions.
Chapter3traces the decisive shift from the ethics of sameness to the ethics of difference and offersreflections on the latter. In a postmodernity-governed era which favors difference over universality, theethical tradition of translational fidelity has been rendered obsolete amid the varied reformulations ofthe role and ethics of translation under way since Antoine Berman, and along the lines by LawrenceVenuti, post-colonialists and feminists. However, these distinctly postmodern deconstructive approachesmerely entertain “deep suspicion of rules defining fidelity”, and the explanatory power of the concept offidelity itself is still very much sought-after as long as the rules for definition are agreed on, hence allthe revised versions of fidelity with the discussion repeatedly turning back to the question of where thetranslation’s fidelity should be directed to. Apparently, such stances are subject to the danger of double standards. Moreover, the ambivalent notions of translators’ visibility, literalism, and foreignization resultso often in impossible dilemmas of explanation in translation practice that they tell more of the choiceof stance than of practical strategy. The much-propagated postmodern “differences” unveil the vexedissue of ethics of translation, to which no revised version of “ought to” can work as a simple solution.
Chapter4analyses and assesses the significant results in the exploration of professional ethics oftranslation in contemporary translation theory. The skopos theory is essentially prescriptive despite itsdescriptive value-free assumptions, and together with the introduction of the notion of “loyalty” byChristiane Nord, includes an unmistakable ethical dimension that bears on the translation profession.Anthony Pym’s model of professional ethics is subordinate to the aim of assisting in the creation of acollective identity of invisible and professional translators, to which end “translators’ prime loyalty mustbe to their profession as an intercultural space”. Andrew Chesterman probes into the fundamentaltheoretical issues of translation ethics under the general framework of deontology, and drawing onMacIntyre’s classic virtue ethics proposes the professional code of commitment. All the threeapproaches fall generally into the category of deontological normative ethics, contributing largely to thedevelopment of translation into a professional practice. Nevertheless, just as no code of practice canguarantee the moral “good”, so the ethics of translation should involve far more than is required by theprofession.
Chapter5dwells on the debate between the so-called prescriptivism and descriptivism intranslation studies and its bearing on the ethics of translation as well. Based on an overview and analysisof the shift from the prescriptive tradition to the contemporary descriptive approach, and the recenttendency towards a new approach to prescriptivism, this chapter contends that the “ought to/not to”dilemma can not be meaningfully or fruitfully discussed through a mutually exclusive employment ofeither prescriptive or descriptive research method. The true moral choice arises only when discussionsof translation cease to resolve around such problematic dichotomies as fidelity/betrayal,invisibility/visibility, form/content, or prescriptivism/descriptivism.
Chapter6gives a thorough exploration of the concept of “translation ethics” based on criticalreflections on its current usage in the domestic academic circles, where an apparent “norm”-orientedtendency can be observed in the discussions of ethics of translation. Drawing on the conceptualdifferentiation of “ethics” vs.“morality” and “norm” vs.“(moral) value” in moral philosophy, it isargued that “ethics of translation” is not to be equated with “ethical norms/code”. The future of “ethicalapproach” translation studies lie prospectively in the exploration of the true moral value in translation to bear on the formulation of a code of practice, with the support of relevant theoretical resources in moralphilosophy and virtue ethics.
The conclusion offers a short summary of the whole work, and elaborates on the advancements,limitations of the present study and prospects for further research.
本研究从史的角度总结和梳理了上世纪八九十年代以来中西方有代表性的翻译伦理研究成果，并结合伦理学的相关原理、从元理论研究的角度对其中存在的问题和误区进行了分析和反思，在此基础上对“翻译伦理”概念的准确界定、“伦理学途径”翻译研究的进一步发展提出自己的思考。
本研究共由七部分构成。第一部分为绪论，主要介绍了本文研究课题的由来以及本研究的目标、意义和方法。
第二章对上世纪八、九十年代翻译伦理问题成为译学界热点以来的中西方翻译伦理研究进行简要综述，为本研究之后的论述提供一个背景铺垫。
第三章追溯了上世纪八、九十年代以来翻译伦理由“求同”转为“差异”的发展轨迹，并对差异伦理进行了反思。在后现代性主导的语境下，普遍性受到批判，差异性得到张扬，翻译角色和翻译伦理发生了种种重塑，传统的忠实论难以为继，自贝尔曼之后，韦努蒂理论、后殖民研究、女性主义研究纷纷强调彰显“差异性”。然而，新兴的差异伦理也不能摆脱伦理上的质疑。一方面，种种秉持后现代理念的解放性理论途径彻底颠覆了传统的原文或原意忠实论，但究其实质，只是对“定义忠实的规则”抱有“强烈的怀疑”，而其差异伦理主张无异于调整忠实定义规则之后的某种改写版忠实论，导致双重标准的质疑；另一方面，作为差异伦理旨归的“显形”、“直译”、“异化”等策略都显得异常模糊，在实际运用中陷入无穷尽的解释困境，以至于更接近于一种立场的选择而不是实践翻译策略。后现代语境下种种张扬的“差异”凸显出了翻译伦理问题，而其答案不可能是某种新型的、简单化的“应该忠于……”或“对……负责”。
第四章主要在义务论的视阈下介绍和评价了上世纪七八十年代以来翻译职业伦理领域的重要成果。早期目的论强调理论框架的“价值无涉”，但无论是其理论话语本质上的规定性，或是第二代目的论者诺德作为传统忠实论修正版的“忠诚”概念，均暗含规范伦理诉求，直接关照职业翻译领域；安东尼·皮姆的职业伦理模型旨在为翻译行业构建一个隐形且具有专业独立性的共同职业形象，为此要求译者“忠诚于作为交互文化空间的翻译职业”；切斯特曼在义务论和功利论框架下对翻译伦理的基础理论问题进行了多方探讨，并基于麦金太尔的德性伦理学理论提出了承诺伦理模式，其成果对于翻译职业伦理的建构具有重要意义。上述三种研究均可大致归入义务论规范伦理范畴，在促进翻译职业化方面具有不可替代的作用，但职业伦理并不能保证道德上的“好”，翻译伦理研究显然不止于职业伦理规范的建构。
第五章探讨了翻译研究中的规定性、描写性与翻译伦理问题的关系。通过追溯翻译研究由传统的规定性转向描写研究、再走向新一轮的规定性的发展历程，本章试图揭示，在研究方法上把规定与描写截然对立的做法，与翻译领域中另外一些传统的二元对立命题，如忠实或叛逆、隐形或显形等一样，并非有意义地探讨“应该如何译”问题的关键所在。而恰恰是在忠或不忠、规定或描写的理论解释力无以为继的时候，真正的伦理问题才显露出来。
第六章结合翻译研究领域的当下状况和伦理学相关理论从多角度对“翻译伦理”基本概念进行了深入分析。本章首先介绍和探讨了翻译伦理问题在国内兴起的时代背景以及当前国内翻译伦理研究明显的“规范”导向，其后引入伦理学领域对“伦理”和“道德”、“规范”和“价值”这两对术语在概念、意义上的区分，在此基础上提出，“翻译伦理”不等于“伦理规范”，引入道德哲学、德性伦理学相关资源探索翻译中真正的道德价值，以此关照职业规范的制订，才是“伦理学途径”翻译研究最具潜力的发展路向。
“结语”部分对研究进行了总结与回顾，并指出了本研究的价值、局限以及未来的发展空间。
Throughout its history, discourse on translation has included strong moral overtones; many, if notall, contributions dwell either explicitly or implicitly on the issue of how translations ought to beproduced. Traditionally, discussions of ethics of translation have tended to resolve around the centralnotion of “fidelity”. Ever since1980s, the concept of translation has been undergoing unprecedentedenlargement along with the considerable expansion of the vision of translation studies, epitomizing thedifference between the ethics of sameness and the ethics of difference. Once we abandon the quest forthe visionary sameness, the multitude of differences opens the question of ethics into new domains,which have been the focus of attention among an ever-increasing number of translation researchers andpractitioners. The whole issue of ethics is now very much a live topic profusely dwelt on by translationtheorists.
This study on the ethics of translation focuses on the contemporary developments within both theWestern and the Chinese field of translation studies. Based on a meta-theoretical analysis andassessment of the state of the art in the ethics of translation in contemporary translation theory, and theclarification of some existing problems and disputes, this study attempts to shed light on theconceptualization of an “ethics of translation” or an “ethical approach” to translation studies.
This study is composed of seven parts. The introduction serves as a lead-in to the issue underconsideration. A brief account of the aim of research and the methods used is also included.
Chapter2gives a brief historical review of the past research on the ethics of translation dated from1980s, offering relevant background information for later discussions.
Chapter3traces the decisive shift from the ethics of sameness to the ethics of difference and offersreflections on the latter. In a postmodernity-governed era which favors difference over universality, theethical tradition of translational fidelity has been rendered obsolete amid the varied reformulations ofthe role and ethics of translation under way since Antoine Berman, and along the lines by LawrenceVenuti, post-colonialists and feminists. However, these distinctly postmodern deconstructive approachesmerely entertain “deep suspicion of rules defining fidelity”, and the explanatory power of the concept offidelity itself is still very much sought-after as long as the rules for definition are agreed on, hence allthe revised versions of fidelity with the discussion repeatedly turning back to the question of where thetranslation’s fidelity should be directed to. Apparently, such stances are subject to the danger of double standards. Moreover, the ambivalent notions of translators’ visibility, literalism, and foreignization resultso often in impossible dilemmas of explanation in translation practice that they tell more of the choiceof stance than of practical strategy. The much-propagated postmodern “differences” unveil the vexedissue of ethics of translation, to which no revised version of “ought to” can work as a simple solution.
Chapter4analyses and assesses the significant results in the exploration of professional ethics oftranslation in contemporary translation theory. The skopos theory is essentially prescriptive despite itsdescriptive value-free assumptions, and together with the introduction of the notion of “loyalty” byChristiane Nord, includes an unmistakable ethical dimension that bears on the translation profession.Anthony Pym’s model of professional ethics is subordinate to the aim of assisting in the creation of acollective identity of invisible and professional translators, to which end “translators’ prime loyalty mustbe to their profession as an intercultural space”. Andrew Chesterman probes into the fundamentaltheoretical issues of translation ethics under the general framework of deontology, and drawing onMacIntyre’s classic virtue ethics proposes the professional code of commitment. All the threeapproaches fall generally into the category of deontological normative ethics, contributing largely to thedevelopment of translation into a professional practice. Nevertheless, just as no code of practice canguarantee the moral “good”, so the ethics of translation should involve far more than is required by theprofession.
Chapter5dwells on the debate between the so-called prescriptivism and descriptivism intranslation studies and its bearing on the ethics of translation as well. Based on an overview and analysisof the shift from the prescriptive tradition to the contemporary descriptive approach, and the recenttendency towards a new approach to prescriptivism, this chapter contends that the “ought to/not to”dilemma can not be meaningfully or fruitfully discussed through a mutually exclusive employment ofeither prescriptive or descriptive research method. The true moral choice arises only when discussionsof translation cease to resolve around such problematic dichotomies as fidelity/betrayal,invisibility/visibility, form/content, or prescriptivism/descriptivism.
Chapter6gives a thorough exploration of the concept of “translation ethics” based on criticalreflections on its current usage in the domestic academic circles, where an apparent “norm”-orientedtendency can be observed in the discussions of ethics of translation. Drawing on the conceptualdifferentiation of “ethics” vs.“morality” and “norm” vs.“(moral) value” in moral philosophy, it isargued that “ethics of translation” is not to be equated with “ethical norms/code”. The future of “ethicalapproach” translation studies lie prospectively in the exploration of the true moral value in translation to bear on the formulation of a code of practice, with the support of relevant theoretical resources in moralphilosophy and virtue ethics.
The conclusion offers a short summary of the whole work, and elaborates on the advancements,limitations of the present study and prospects for further research.
引文
西文文献
Arrojo, Rosemary. Fidelity and the Gendered Translation[J]. TTR,7(2),1994:147-164.
Arrojo, Rosemary. The Ethics of Translation in Contemporary Approaches to Translator Training[A].Martha Tennent (ed.). Training for the New Millennium: Pedagogies for Translation andInterpreting[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,2005:225-245.
Baker, Mona. Translation and Conflict[M]. London: Routledge,2006.
Baker, Mona. Ethics of Renarration, An Interview with Andrew Chesterman[J]. Cultus,1(1),2009:10-33.
Baker, Mona&Gabriela Saldanha (eds.). Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (2nd Edition)[C].2009.
Basalamah, Salah. La Traduction Citoyenne n’est pas une Métaphore[J]. TTR,18(2),2005:49–70.
Bauman, Zygmunt. Postmodern Ethics[M]. Blackwell, Oxford and Cambridge,1993.
Berman, Antoine. L’épreuve de L’étranger[M]. Paris: Editions Gallimard; translated by S. Heyvaert asThe Experience of the Foreign: Culture and Translation in Romantic Germany, Albany, NY: StateUniversity of New York,1984/1992.
Berman, Antoine. Pour une Critique des Traductions: John Donne[M]. Editions de Gallimard, Paris,1995.
Berman, Antoine. La Traduction et la Letter ou L’Auberge du Lointain[M]. Editions du Seuil, Paris,1999.
Berman, Antoine. L'age de la Traduction[M]. Editions de Presses Universitaires de Vineennes, Paris,2008.
Bermann, Sandra&Michael Wood (eds.). Nation, Language and the Ethics of Translation[C]. NJ:Princeton University Press,2005.
Brownlie, Siobhan. Distinguishing Some Approaches to Translation Research: The Issue of InterpretiveConstraints[J]. The Translator,9(1),2003:39-64.
Brownlie, Siobhan. Situating Discourse on Translation and Conflict[J]. Social Semiotics,17(2),2007:135-150.
Brownlie, Siobhan. Descriptive vs. Committed Approaches[A]. Mona Baker&Gabriela Saldanha (eds.).Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (2nd Edition)[C].2009:77-80.
Chesterman, Andrew. From ‘Is’ to ‘Ought’: Laws, Norms and Strategies in Translation Studies[J].Target,5(1),1993:1–20.
Chesterman, Andrew. Ethics of Translation[A]. M. Snell-Hornby et al.(eds.). Translation asIntercultural Communication[C]. Amsterdam&Philadelphia: John Benjamins,1997a:147-160.
Chesterman, Andrew. Memes of Translation[M]. Amsterdam&Philadelphia: John Benjamins,1997b.
Chesterman, Andrew. The Empirical Status of Prescriptivism[J]. Folia Translatologica6,1999:9-19.
Chesterman, Andrew. Proposal for a Hieronymic Oath[J]. The Translator,7(2),2001:139-153.
Chesterman, Andrew. Beyond the Particular[A]. A. Mauranen&P. Kujamki (eds.). TranslationUniversals: Do They Exist?[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,2004a:33-49.
Chesterman, Andrew. Hypothesis about Translation Universals[A]. G. Hansen et al.(eds.). Claims,Changes and Challenges in Translation Studies[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,2004b:1-13.
Chesterman, Andrew. Paradigm Problems?[A]. C. Sch ffner (ed.). Translation Research andInterpreting Research. Traditions, Gaps and Synergies[C]. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters,2004c:52-56.
Chesterman, Andrew. Questions in the Sociology of Translation[A]. J. Ferreira Duarte et al.(eds.).Translation Studies at the Interface of Disciplines[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,2006:9–27.
Chesterman, Andrew. On the Idea of a Theory[J]. Across Languages and Cultures,8(1),2007a:1-16.
Chesterman, Andrew. Bridge Concepts in Translation Sociology[A]. M. Wolf&A. Fukari (eds.).Constructing a Sociology of Translation[C]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins,2007b:171-183.
Chesterman, Andrew. The Status of Interpretive Hypotheses[A]. G. Hansen et al.(eds.). Efforts andModels in Interpreting and Translation Research[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,2008:49-61.
Chesterman, Andrew. Skopos Theory: A Retrospective Assessment[A]. W. Kallmeyer et al.(eds.).Perspektiven auf Kommunikation. Festschrift für Liisa Tittula zum60Geburtstag[C]. Berlin:SAXA Verlag,2010:209-225.
Cronin, Michael. The Empire Talks Back: Orality, Heteronomy and the Cultural Turn in InterpretingStudies[A]. E. Gentzler&M. Tymoczko (eds.). Translation and Power[C]. Boston&Amherst:University of Massachusetts Press,2002:45-62.
Culler, Jonathan. Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1997.
Davis, Kathleen. Deconstruction and Translation[M]. Manchester: St Jerome,2001.
Derrida, Jacques. Force of Law: The Mystical Foundation of Authority[A]. Mary Quaintance trans. D.Cornell et al.(ed.). Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice[C]. London: Routledge,1992:3-67.
Derrida, Jacques. What Is a "Relevant" Translation?[J]. Lawrence Venuti trans. Critical Inquiry,2001,(2):174-200.
Eaglestone, Robert. Levinas, Translation and Ethics[A]. S. Bermann&M. Wood (eds.). Nation,Language and the Ethics of Translation[C]. Princeton: Princeton University Press,2005:127-138.
Fiola, Marco A.(ed.) Translation, Ethics and Society[C]. Special Issue of TTR,17(2),2004.
Fisher, Walter R. Human Communication as Narration: Toward a Philosophy of Reason, Value, andAction[M]. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press,1987.
Gentzler, Edwin. Contemporary Translation Theories (Revised2ndEdition)[M]. Shanghai: ShanghaiForeign Language Education Press,2004.
Georges Mounin. Les Belles Infidèles[M]. Editions de Presses Universitaires de Lille. Lille,1994.
Gile, Daniel. Response to the Invited Papers[A]. C. Sch ffner (ed.). Translation Research andInterpreting Research: Traditions, Gaps and Synergies[C]. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters,2004:124-127.
Godard, Babara. Theorizing Feminist Discourse/Translation[J]. S. Bassnett&G. Barbara (eds.).L'Ethique du Traduire: Antoine Berman et le《Virage Ethique》 en Traduction. TTR,(14)2,2001.
Hermans, Theo. Translation in Systems: Descriptive and System-oriented Approaches Explained[M].Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,1999/2004.
Hermans, Theo. Translation, Ethics, Politics[A]. Jeremy Munday (ed.) The Routledge Companion toTranslation Studies[C]. Routledge,2009:93-105.
Holmes, James S. The Name and Nature of Translation Studies[A]. L. Venuti (ed.). The TranslationStudies Reader (2nd Edition)[C]. London&New York: Routledge,1972/2004:180–192.
Holmes, James S. Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies[M]. Amsterdam:Rodopi,1988.
Holz-M ntt ri, Justa&Hans J. Vermeer. Entwurf fur einen Studiengan Translatorik und einen Promotionsstudiengang Translatologie [J]. Kaantaja/Oversattaren,1985,(3):4-6.
Inghilleri, Moira. Habitus, Field and Discourse: Interpreting as a Socially Situated Activity[J]. Target,15(2),2003:243–268.
Inghilleri, Moira. Mediating Zones of Uncertainty: Interpreter Agency, the Interpreting Habitus andPolitical Asylum Adjudication[J]. The Translator,11(1),2005a:69–85.
Inghilleri, Moira.(ed.) Bourdieu and the Sociology of Translation and Interpreting[C]. Special Issue ofThe Translator,11(2),2005b.
Inghilleri, Moira. The Sociology of Bourdieu and the Construction of the “Object” in Translation andInterpreting Studies[J]. Bourdieu and the Sociology of Translation and Interpreting, Special Issueof The Translator,11(2),2005c:125–145.
Inghilleri, Moira. National Sovereignty vs. Universal Rights: Interpreting Justice in a Global Context[J].Translation and Conflict, Special Issue of Social Semiotics,17(2),2007:195–212.
Inghilleri, Moira. The Ethical Task of the Translator in the Geo-political Arena: From Iraq toGuantánamo Bay[J]. Translation Studies,2008,(2):212-223.
Inghilleri, Moira. Ethics[A]. Mona Baker&Gabriela Saldanha (eds.). Routledge Encyclopedia ofTranslation Studies (2nd Edition)[C].2009a:100-103.
Inghilleri, Moira. Translators in War Zones: Ethics Under Fire in Iraq[A]. Esperanca Bielsa&Christopher Hughes (eds.). Globalisation, Political Violence and Translation[C]. Houndsmills:Palgrave Macmillan,2009b:207-221.
Inghilleri, Moira, Harding, Sue-Ann. Translating Violent Conflict[J]. Translation and Violent Conflict,
Speci al Issue ofThe Translator,16(2),2010:165-173.
Kelly, Louis G. The True Interpreter: A History of Translation Theory and Practice in the West[M].Oxford: Basil Blackwell,1979.
Koskinen, Kaisa. Beyond Ambivalence: Postmodernity and the Ethics of Translation[M]. Tampere:University of Tampere,2000.
Koskinen, Kaisa. Shared Culture?: Reflections on Recent Trends in Translation Studies[J]. Target,16(1),2004:143–156.
Lane-Mercier, Gillian. Translating the Untranslatable: The Translator's Aesthetic, Ideological andPolitical Responsibility[J]. Target,9(1),1997:43-68.
Larkosh, Chris. Levinas, Latin American Thought and the Futures of Translational Ethics[J]. TTR,17(2),2004:27–44.
Laygues, Arnaud. Review Article of Buber, Marcel, and Levinas[J]. The Return to Ethics, Special issueof The Translator,7(2),2001.
Laygues, Arnaud. La Traducteur Semeur d’éthique. Pour une Application de la Pensée d’EmmanuelLevinas à la Traduction[J]. TTR,17(2),2004:45–56.
Lefevere, André. Translation, Rewriting,&the Manipulation of Literary Fame[M]. London&NewYork: Routledge,1992.
Lefevere, André. Comparative Literature and Translation[J]. Comparative Literature,47(1),1995:1-10.
Levine, Suzanne Jill. The Subversive Scribe. Translating Latin American Fiction[M]. Saint Paul:Graywolf Press,1991.
Levy, Ji í. Translation as a Decision Process[A]. L. Venuti (eds.). The Translation Studies Reader[C].London&New York: Routledge,1967/2000:148-159.
Munday, Jeremy. Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications (2nd Edition)[M].London&New York: Routledge,2008.
Newmark, Peter. A Textbook of Translation[M]. New Jersey: Prentice Hall,1988.
Nida, Eugene A. Toward A Science of Translating: With Special Reference to Principles and ProceduresInvolved in Bible Translating[M]. Leiden: E. J. Brill,1964.
Nida, Eugene A.&C. R. Taber. The Theory and Practice of Translation[M]. Leiden: E. J. Brill,1969.
Nord, Christiane. Text Analysis in Translation: Theory, Methodology, and Didactic Application of aModel for Translation-Oriented Text Analysis[M]. Amsterdam: Rodopi.1991.
Nord, Christiane. Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained [M].Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,1997/2001.
Popovi, Anton. The Concept of “Shift of Expression” in Translation Analysis[A]. James S. Holmes(ed.). The Nature of Translation: Essays on the Theory and Practice of Literary Translation[C].The Hague&Paris: Mouton,1970:78–90.
Popper, Karl. Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach[M]. Oxford: Clarendon Press.1972.
Pym, Anthony. Translation and Text Transfer: An Essay on the Principles of InterculturalCommunication[M]. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main, Berlin and Bern,1992.
Pym, Anthony. Translation as a Transaction Cost [J]. Meta,40(4),1995:594–605.
Pym, Anthony. Pour une Ethique du Traducteur[M]. Editions de Presses de1'Universite d'Ottawa,Ottawa,1997.
Pym, Anthony. Method in Translation History[M]. Manchester: St Jerome,1998.
Pym, Anthony (ed.). The Return to Ethics[C]. Special Issue of The Translator,7(2),2001a.
Pym, Anthony. On Translator History. Interviewed by John Milton[J]. Emerging Views on TranslationHistory in Brazil, Special Issue of Crop6(Universidade de Sao Paulo),2001b:273-284.
Pym, Anthony. Translational Ethics and Electronic Technologies[OL]. URL:http://usuaris.tinet.cat/apym/on-line/translation/lisbon_ethics.pdf.2003:1-8.
Pym, Anthony. Philosophy and Translation[A]. Piotr Kuhiwczak&Karin Littau (eds.). A Companion toTranslation Studies[C]. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters,2007a:24–44.
Pym, Anthony. On History in Formal Conceptualizations of Translation[J]. Across Languages andCultures.8(2),2007b:153-166.
Pym, Anthony. Western Translation Theories as Responses to Equivalence[OL]. Based on a talk givento the Innsbrucker Internationale Ringvorlesung zur Translationswissenschaft, UniversitatInnsbruck, March12,2008.2009:1-13.
Pym, Anthony. Exploring Translation Theories[M]. London&New York: Routledge,2010a.
Pym, Anthony. Translation Theory as Historical Problem-Solving[OL]. Based on a Public Lecture in2010hosted by the Rikkyo Graduate School of Intercultural Communication, June5,2010.2010b:1-13.
Pym, Anthony. Translation and Text Transfer: An Essay on the Principles of InterculturalCommunication (Revised Edition)[M]. Tarragona: Intercultural Studies Group,2010c.
Pym, Anthony (ed.). Translation Research Terms: A Tentative Glossary for Moments of Perplexity andDispute[OL]. Anthony Pym (ed.). Translation Research Projects3, Tarragona: Intercultural StudiesGroup,2011:75-110.
Reiss, Katharina,&Hans J. Vermeer. Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie[M].Tübingen: Niemeyer.1984.
Robinson, Douglas. The Translator’s Turn[M]. Baltimore&London: Johns Hopkins University Press,1991.
Robinson, Douglas. What is Translation? Centrifugal Theories, Critical Intervention[M]. London: TheKent State University Press,1997.
Sch ffner, Christina (ed.). Translation and Norms[C]. Clevedon&Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters,1999.
Shuttleworth, Mark&Moira Cowie. Dictionary of Translation Studies[M]. Manchester: St. Jerome.1997.
Simon, Sherry. Gender in Translation: Cultural Identity and the Politics of Translation[M]. London:Routledge,1996.
Simeoni, Daniel. The Pivotal Status of the Translator’s Habitus[J]. Target,10(1),1998:1-39.
Staten, Henry. Tracking the “Native Informant”: Cultural Translation as the Horizon of LiteraryTranslation[A]. S. Bermann&M. Wood (eds.). Nation, Language and the Ethics of Translation[C].Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,2005:11–26.
Toury, Gideon. In Search of Theory of Translation[M]. Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute for Poetics andSemiotics,1980.
Toury, Gideon. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign LanguageEducation Press,1995/2001.
Toury, Gideon. Probabilistic Explanations in Translation Studies: Universals-or a Challenge to theVery Concept [A]. G. Hansen et al.(eds.). Claims, Changes and Challenges in Translation Studies.Selected Contributions for the EST Congress, Copenhagen[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,2004a:15-25.
Toury, Gideon. Probabilistic Explanations in Translation Studies: Welcome as They Are, Would TheyQualify as Universals[A]. A. Mauranen&P. Kujam ki (eds.). Translation Universals: Do TheyExist[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,2004b:15-32.
Tymoczko, Maria. Translation and Political Engagement. Activism, Social Change and the Role ofTranslation in Geopolitical Shifts[J]. The Translator,6(1),2000:23-47.
Tymoczko, Maria. Enlarging Translation, Empowering Translators[M]. Manchester: St Jerome,2007.
Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation[M]. London&New York:Routledge,1995.
Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Towards an Ethics of Difference[M]. London:Routledge,1998.
Venuti, Lawrenc. The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation (2ndEdition)[M]. London&New York: Routledge,2008.
Vermeer, H.J. A Skopos Theory of Translation (Some Arguments For and Against)[M]. Heidelberg:TEXTconTEXT,1996.
Williams, J.&A. Chesterman. The Map: A Beginner’s Guide to Doing Research in TranslationStudies[M]. Manchester: St. Jerome,2002.
埃德温·根茨勒.翻译、后结构主义与权力[A].陈永国.翻译与后现代性[C].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005:123-140.
蔡新乐.翻译的本体论研究——翻译研究的第三条道路、主体间性与人的元翻译构成[M].上海:上海译文出版社,2005.
曹明伦.论以忠实为取向的翻译标准——兼论严复的“信达雅”[J].中国翻译,2006,(4):12-18.
曾记.“忠实”的嬗变——翻译伦理的多元定位[J].外语研究,2008,(6):79-83.
查明建,田雨.论译者主体性——从译者文化地位的边缘化谈起[J].中国翻译,2003,(1):19-24.
陈大亮.谁是翻译主体[J].中国翻译,2004,(2):3-7.
陈大亮.翻译研究:从主体性向主体间性转向[J].中国翻译,2005,(2):3-9.
陈德鸿,张南峰.西方翻译理论精选[M].香港:香港城市大学出版社,2000.
陈丽娟.翻译研究中的后殖民女性主义视角——自我反思的立场[D].岭南大学,2011.
陈琳,张春柏.从玄奘与哲罗姆的比较看中西翻译思想之差异[J].外语研究,2006a,(1):61-65.
陈新良.论“忠实”作为翻译标准及其意义[J].四川外语学院学报,2007,(2):125-129.
陈瑛.论翻译的伦理之维[J].长沙大学学报,2007,(4):94-96.
陈志杰,吕俊.社会规范与译者价值创造[J].外语与外语教学,2010,(1):69-73.
陈志杰,吕俊.译者的责任选择——对切斯特曼翻译伦理思想的反思[J].外语与外语教学,2011,(1):62-65.
陈志杰.对当前译学研究的伦理学反思[J].外语教学,2011,(6):100-103.
程炼.伦理学导论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2008.
戴兆国.德性伦理论要[J].伦理学研究,2007,(2):30-35.
杜玉生.西方当代伦理学的发展与译学研究——翻译研究中的伦理性问题[J].广东外语外贸大学学报,2008,(1):25-29.
樊浩.“伦理”-“道德”的历史哲学形态[J].学习与探索,2011,(1):7-13.
冯庆华.文体翻译论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2002.
冯庆华.母语文化下的译者风格[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2008.
高玉.论“忠实”作为文学翻译范畴的伦理性[J].外国文学,2004,(2):89-95.
葛林.翻译伦理再思考[J].广州大学学报（社会科学版）,2007,(12):71-75.
葛林.论跨文化伦理对翻译的规约[D].厦门大学,2008.
龚群.生命与实践理性[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2004.
龚群.社会伦理十讲[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2008.
龚群.德性伦理学的特征与维度[J].道德与文明,2009,(3):11-14.
郭建中.韦努蒂访谈录[J].中国翻译,2008,(3):43-46.
郭沫若.理想的翻译之我见[A].罗新璋编.翻译论集[C].北京:商务印书馆,1984:331-333,1923.
哈贝马斯.交往行为理论:行为合理性与社会合理化[M].曹卫东译.上海:上海人民出版社,2004.
贺显斌.韦努蒂翻译理论的局限性[J].外国语,2007,(3):76-80.
侯林平,姜泗平.我国近十年来译者主体性研究的回顾与反思[J].山东科技大学学报（社会科学版）,2006,(3):100-104.
黄德先.文化途径翻译研究:争议与回应[D].上海外国语大学，2010.
黄德先.自省翻译研究的西方中心——《扩展翻译,赋权译者》述评[J].外国语,2010,(1):86-90.
黄汉平.文学翻译“删节”和“增补”原作现象的文化透视——兼论钱钟书《林纾的翻译》[J].中国翻译,2003,(4):26-29.
黄立波,王克非.语料库翻译学:课题与进展[J].外语教学与研究,2011,(6):911-923.
加亚特里·查克拉沃蒂·斯皮瓦克.翻译的政治[A].陈永国主编.翻译与后现代性[C].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005a:215-236.
加亚特里·查克拉沃蒂·斯皮瓦克.关于翻译的问答:游移[A].陈永国主编.翻译与后现代性[C].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005b:237-245.
蒋童.从异化翻译的确立到存异伦理的解构:劳伦斯·韦努蒂翻译理论研究[D].首都师范大学,2008.
焦国成.论伦理——伦理概念与伦理学[J].江西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）,2011,(1):22-28.
杰里米·芒迪.翻译学导论——理论与实践[M].李德凤等译.北京:商务印书馆,2007.
李建华,胡祎赟.德性伦理的现代困境[J].哲学动态,2009,(5):34-39.
李建华,邹晖.从规范走向价值的伦理学:问题、定位与使命[J].哲学研究,2011,(8):110-114.
林克难.解读“norm”[J].中国翻译,2006,(4):15-18.
刘季春.独立成篇:超越“忠实”的忠实[J].上海翻译,2010,(1):41-45.
刘美玲.德性伦理还是规范伦理?[J].社会科学,2009,(7):119-125.
刘全福.批评视角:我国解构主义翻译研究的本土化进程[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2010,(1):51-56.
刘世芝.翻译、翻译主体性与翻译伦理[A].语言与文化研究（第六辑）[C].2010:143-145.
刘卫东.翻译伦理的回归与重构[J].中国外语,2008,(6):95-99.
刘亚猛.韦努蒂的“翻译伦理”及其自我解构[J].中国翻译.2005,(5):40-45.
刘亚猛.从“忠实于源文本”到“对源语文化负责”:也谈翻译规范的重构[J].中国翻译,2006,(6):11-16.
罗尔斯.正义论[M].何怀宏,何包钢,廖申白译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1988.
罗虹.翻译研究的伦理转向与思考[J].湘潭师范学院学报,2008,(5):61-63.
骆贤凤.中西翻译伦理研究述评[J].中国翻译,2009,(3):13-17.
吕俊.我国传统翻译研究中的盲点与误区[J].外国语,2001,(5):48-54.
吕俊.跨越文化障碍——巴比塔的重建[M].南京:东南大学出版社,2001.
吕俊,侯向群.翻译学——一个建构主义的视角[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2006.
吕俊,侯向群.翻译批评学引论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2009.
吕耀怀.规范伦理、德性伦理及其关联[J].哲学动态,2009,(5):29-33.
玛丽安·勒代雷.论翻译学研究方法[J].刘和平译.中国翻译,2010,(2):11-18.
麦金太尔.德性之后[M].龚群等译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1995.
麦金太尔.谁之正义?何种合理性?[M].万俊人等译.北京:当代中国出版社,1996.
茅盾.为发展文学翻译事业和提高翻译质量而奋斗[A].罗新璋编.翻译论集[C].北京:商务印书馆,1984:501-517,1954.
莫娜·贝克,安德普·切斯特曼.重述之道德规范[J].赵文静译.中国翻译,2009,(4):34-44.
莫娜·贝克.翻译与冲突——叙事性阐释[M].赵文静译.北京:北京大学出版社,2011.
倪梁康.译者的尴尬[J].读书,2004,(11):90-97.
潘文国.当代西方的翻译学研究——兼谈“翻译学”的学科性问题[J].中国翻译,2002,(2):34-37.
潘文国.《翻译与冲突》中文版序[A].莫娜·贝克著.赵文静译.翻译与冲突——叙事性阐释[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2011:5.
彭萍.伦理视角下的中国传统翻译活动研究[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008.
彭萍.中国传统译论中的伦理关注及其思想渊源探究[J].文教资料,2011,(6):27-29.
彭长江.翻译的忠实:含义、预设与实质——为翻译的忠实辩护之二[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2007,(6):65-69.
乔颖.趋向“他者的翻译”[D].河南大学,2007.
邵毅.重写与制约:从女性主义角度论《傲慢与偏见》的中译本[D].香港浸会大学,2007.
申连云.翻译研究中的规定和描写[J].外语教学,2004,(5):75-78.
申连云.尊重差异——当代翻译研究的伦理观[J].中国翻译,2008,(2):16-19.
申连云.怎么译:从“操纵”到“投降”[J].外国语,2010,(3):44-52.
申连云.翻译研究中的“真”、“善”、“美”[J].中国翻译,2011,(3):11-16.
申迎丽,仝亚辉.翻译伦理问题的同归——由《译者》之特刊《同归到伦理问题》出发[J].四川外语学院学院学报,2005,(2):94-99.
徐梦秋.20年来国内西方元伦理学研究的走向、成就与得失[J].哲学动态,2011,(1):56-64.
孙春晨.面向生活世界的伦理人类学[J].哲学研究,2011,(10):94-101.
孙宁宁.交往伦理学对翻译研究的启示[J].外交学院学报,2003,(3):90-96.
孙艺风.翻译规范与主体意识[J].中国翻译,2003,(3):3-9.
孙致礼.译者的职责[J].中国翻译,2007,(4):14-18.
谭载喜.中西译论的相似性[J].中国翻译,1999,(6):25-28.
谈小兰.翻译标准的解构分析[J].福建外语,2002,(1):40-43.
汤君.中国翻译与翻译研究现状反思[D].华东师范大学,2006.
汤君.翻译伦理的理论审视[J].外国语,2007,(4):57-64.
万俊人.关于美德伦理学研究的几个理论问题[J].道德与文明.2008a,(3):71-80.
万俊人.《追寻美德之路——麦金太尔对现代西方伦理危机的反思》序言[A].秦越存.追寻美德之路——麦金太尔对现代西方伦理危机的反思[M].北京:中央编译出版社,2008b:1-5.
王大智.关于展开翻译伦理研究的思考[J].外语与外语教学,2005,(12):44-47.
王大智.“翻译伦理”概念试析[J].外语与外语教学,2009,(12):61-63.
王大智.翻译与翻译伦理[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2012.
王东风.解构“忠实”——翻译神话的终结[J].中国翻译,2004,(6):4-9.
王海明.伦理学原理[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2001.
王海明.伦理学方法[M].北京:商务印书馆,2004.
王宏.怎么译:是操纵,还是投降？[J].外国语,2011,(3):84-89.
王洪涛.翻译学的学科建构与文化转向[M].上海:上海译文出版社,2008.
王克非,黄立波.语料库翻译学的几个术语[J].四川外语学院学报,2007,(6):101-105.
王克明.翻译与伦理学[J].外语与外语教学,2009,(5):45-48.
王莉娜.析翻译伦理的四种模式[J].外语研究,2008,(6):84-88.
王莉娜.翻译的折衷主义及伦理视角[D].复旦大学,2009.
王树槐.西方翻译理论研究的新进展——Anthony Pym的《翻译理论探索》述评[J].外国语,2011,(2):90-94.
魏则胜.在德性与规范之间[J].哲学研究,2011,(1):107-111.
吴建国,魏清光.翻译与伦理规范[J].上海翻译,2006,(2):1-6.
吴志杰,王育平.以诚立译——论翻译的伦理学转向[J].南京社会科学,2008,(8):136-142.
吴志杰.中国传统译论专题研究[M].上海:上海译文出版社,2009.
谢思田.“达”和“雅”解构之下的中西翻译忠实观融合研究[J].外国语,2007,(3):67-75.
徐普.安托瓦纳·贝尔曼翻译理论中的“伦理”问题[J].法国研究,2011,(2):67-75.
许宝强,袁伟.语言与翻译的政治[M].北京:中央编译出版社,2000.
许钧.论翻译活动的三个层面[J].外语教学与研究,1998,(3):49-54.
许钧.翻译论[M].湖北:湖北教育出版社,2003.
许钧,穆雷.翻译学概论[M].南京:译林出版社,2009.
雪莉·西蒙.热尔曼娜·德·斯塔尔和加亚特里·斯皮瓦克:文化掮客[A].陈永国主编.翻译与后现代性[C].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005:273-286.
杨洁,曾利沙.论翻译伦理学研究范畴的拓展[J].外国语,2010,(5):73-79.
杨武能.再谈文学翻译主体[J].中国翻译,2003(3):10-12.
杨晓荣.基于翻译本质观的翻译标准观:1978-2007[J].外语与外语教学,2008,(12):37-41.
于兰,杨俊峰.论翻译研究的伦理倾向[J].外语与外语教学,2010,(2):73-76.
余东.虽不能至,心向往之——关于翻译标准的思考[J].中国翻译,2005,(6):15-19.
臧夏雨.从翻译伦理视角论译者有意识的“不忠”[J].中国翻译,2012,(2):95-97.
张冬梅.信念分歧与态度分歧——操纵学派“忠实解构论”之实质与意义解析[J].外国语,2011,(3):83-88.
张景华.翻译伦理:韦努蒂翻译思想研究[M].上海:上海交通大学出版社,2009.
张南峰.从奈达等效原则的接受看中国译论研究中的价值判断[J].外国语,1999,(5):44-51.
张南峰.从边缘走向中心——从多元系统论的角度看中国翻译研究的过去与未来[J].中国翻译,2001,(4):61-69.
张南峰.中西译学批评[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2004.
张南峰.多元系统论中的规范概念[J].外国语,2008,(5):64-71.
张南峰.翻译研究、学术规范与文化传统[J].中国翻译,2010,(2):73-80.
张思洁.描述翻译学中的工具理性反思[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2004,(4):63-66.
张思洁,李贵荣.论译者之诚及致诚之道[J].外国语,2008,(2):62-67.
赵汀阳.人之常情[M].沈阳:辽宁人民出版社,1998.
赵汀阳.论可能生活（第2版）[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2010.
周炽成.中国人文社科研究自主性的慧觉与承继:以费孝通和赵汀阳为例[J].江海学刊,2011,(6):28-35.
周兆祥.译评:理论与实践[A].黎翠珍.翻译评赏[C].香港:商务印书馆,1996:1-19.
朱志瑜.翻译研究:规定、描写、伦理[J].中国翻译,2009,(3):5-12.
Arrojo, Rosemary. Fidelity and the Gendered Translation[J]. TTR,7(2),1994:147-164.
Arrojo, Rosemary. The Ethics of Translation in Contemporary Approaches to Translator Training[A].Martha Tennent (ed.). Training for the New Millennium: Pedagogies for Translation andInterpreting[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,2005:225-245.
Baker, Mona. Translation and Conflict[M]. London: Routledge,2006.
Baker, Mona. Ethics of Renarration, An Interview with Andrew Chesterman[J]. Cultus,1(1),2009:10-33.
Baker, Mona&Gabriela Saldanha (eds.). Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (2nd Edition)[C].2009.
Basalamah, Salah. La Traduction Citoyenne n’est pas une Métaphore[J]. TTR,18(2),2005:49–70.
Bauman, Zygmunt. Postmodern Ethics[M]. Blackwell, Oxford and Cambridge,1993.
Berman, Antoine. L’épreuve de L’étranger[M]. Paris: Editions Gallimard; translated by S. Heyvaert asThe Experience of the Foreign: Culture and Translation in Romantic Germany, Albany, NY: StateUniversity of New York,1984/1992.
Berman, Antoine. Pour une Critique des Traductions: John Donne[M]. Editions de Gallimard, Paris,1995.
Berman, Antoine. La Traduction et la Letter ou L’Auberge du Lointain[M]. Editions du Seuil, Paris,1999.
Berman, Antoine. L'age de la Traduction[M]. Editions de Presses Universitaires de Vineennes, Paris,2008.
Bermann, Sandra&Michael Wood (eds.). Nation, Language and the Ethics of Translation[C]. NJ:Princeton University Press,2005.
Brownlie, Siobhan. Distinguishing Some Approaches to Translation Research: The Issue of InterpretiveConstraints[J]. The Translator,9(1),2003:39-64.
Brownlie, Siobhan. Situating Discourse on Translation and Conflict[J]. Social Semiotics,17(2),2007:135-150.
Brownlie, Siobhan. Descriptive vs. Committed Approaches[A]. Mona Baker&Gabriela Saldanha (eds.).Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (2nd Edition)[C].2009:77-80.
Chesterman, Andrew. From ‘Is’ to ‘Ought’: Laws, Norms and Strategies in Translation Studies[J].Target,5(1),1993:1–20.
Chesterman, Andrew. Ethics of Translation[A]. M. Snell-Hornby et al.(eds.). Translation asIntercultural Communication[C]. Amsterdam&Philadelphia: John Benjamins,1997a:147-160.
Chesterman, Andrew. Memes of Translation[M]. Amsterdam&Philadelphia: John Benjamins,1997b.
Chesterman, Andrew. The Empirical Status of Prescriptivism[J]. Folia Translatologica6,1999:9-19.
Chesterman, Andrew. Proposal for a Hieronymic Oath[J]. The Translator,7(2),2001:139-153.
Chesterman, Andrew. Beyond the Particular[A]. A. Mauranen&P. Kujamki (eds.). TranslationUniversals: Do They Exist?[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,2004a:33-49.
Chesterman, Andrew. Hypothesis about Translation Universals[A]. G. Hansen et al.(eds.). Claims,Changes and Challenges in Translation Studies[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,2004b:1-13.
Chesterman, Andrew. Paradigm Problems?[A]. C. Sch ffner (ed.). Translation Research andInterpreting Research. Traditions, Gaps and Synergies[C]. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters,2004c:52-56.
Chesterman, Andrew. Questions in the Sociology of Translation[A]. J. Ferreira Duarte et al.(eds.).Translation Studies at the Interface of Disciplines[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,2006:9–27.
Chesterman, Andrew. On the Idea of a Theory[J]. Across Languages and Cultures,8(1),2007a:1-16.
Chesterman, Andrew. Bridge Concepts in Translation Sociology[A]. M. Wolf&A. Fukari (eds.).Constructing a Sociology of Translation[C]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins,2007b:171-183.
Chesterman, Andrew. The Status of Interpretive Hypotheses[A]. G. Hansen et al.(eds.). Efforts andModels in Interpreting and Translation Research[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,2008:49-61.
Chesterman, Andrew. Skopos Theory: A Retrospective Assessment[A]. W. Kallmeyer et al.(eds.).Perspektiven auf Kommunikation. Festschrift für Liisa Tittula zum60Geburtstag[C]. Berlin:SAXA Verlag,2010:209-225.
Cronin, Michael. The Empire Talks Back: Orality, Heteronomy and the Cultural Turn in InterpretingStudies[A]. E. Gentzler&M. Tymoczko (eds.). Translation and Power[C]. Boston&Amherst:University of Massachusetts Press,2002:45-62.
Culler, Jonathan. Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1997.
Davis, Kathleen. Deconstruction and Translation[M]. Manchester: St Jerome,2001.
Derrida, Jacques. Force of Law: The Mystical Foundation of Authority[A]. Mary Quaintance trans. D.Cornell et al.(ed.). Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice[C]. London: Routledge,1992:3-67.
Derrida, Jacques. What Is a "Relevant" Translation?[J]. Lawrence Venuti trans. Critical Inquiry,2001,(2):174-200.
Eaglestone, Robert. Levinas, Translation and Ethics[A]. S. Bermann&M. Wood (eds.). Nation,Language and the Ethics of Translation[C]. Princeton: Princeton University Press,2005:127-138.
Fiola, Marco A.(ed.) Translation, Ethics and Society[C]. Special Issue of TTR,17(2),2004.
Fisher, Walter R. Human Communication as Narration: Toward a Philosophy of Reason, Value, andAction[M]. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press,1987.
Gentzler, Edwin. Contemporary Translation Theories (Revised2ndEdition)[M]. Shanghai: ShanghaiForeign Language Education Press,2004.
Georges Mounin. Les Belles Infidèles[M]. Editions de Presses Universitaires de Lille. Lille,1994.
Gile, Daniel. Response to the Invited Papers[A]. C. Sch ffner (ed.). Translation Research andInterpreting Research: Traditions, Gaps and Synergies[C]. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters,2004:124-127.
Godard, Babara. Theorizing Feminist Discourse/Translation[J]. S. Bassnett&G. Barbara (eds.).L'Ethique du Traduire: Antoine Berman et le《Virage Ethique》 en Traduction. TTR,(14)2,2001.
Hermans, Theo. Translation in Systems: Descriptive and System-oriented Approaches Explained[M].Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,1999/2004.
Hermans, Theo. Translation, Ethics, Politics[A]. Jeremy Munday (ed.) The Routledge Companion toTranslation Studies[C]. Routledge,2009:93-105.
Holmes, James S. The Name and Nature of Translation Studies[A]. L. Venuti (ed.). The TranslationStudies Reader (2nd Edition)[C]. London&New York: Routledge,1972/2004:180–192.
Holmes, James S. Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies[M]. Amsterdam:Rodopi,1988.
Holz-M ntt ri, Justa&Hans J. Vermeer. Entwurf fur einen Studiengan Translatorik und einen Promotionsstudiengang Translatologie [J]. Kaantaja/Oversattaren,1985,(3):4-6.
Inghilleri, Moira. Habitus, Field and Discourse: Interpreting as a Socially Situated Activity[J]. Target,15(2),2003:243–268.
Inghilleri, Moira. Mediating Zones of Uncertainty: Interpreter Agency, the Interpreting Habitus andPolitical Asylum Adjudication[J]. The Translator,11(1),2005a:69–85.
Inghilleri, Moira.(ed.) Bourdieu and the Sociology of Translation and Interpreting[C]. Special Issue ofThe Translator,11(2),2005b.
Inghilleri, Moira. The Sociology of Bourdieu and the Construction of the “Object” in Translation andInterpreting Studies[J]. Bourdieu and the Sociology of Translation and Interpreting, Special Issueof The Translator,11(2),2005c:125–145.
Inghilleri, Moira. National Sovereignty vs. Universal Rights: Interpreting Justice in a Global Context[J].Translation and Conflict, Special Issue of Social Semiotics,17(2),2007:195–212.
Inghilleri, Moira. The Ethical Task of the Translator in the Geo-political Arena: From Iraq toGuantánamo Bay[J]. Translation Studies,2008,(2):212-223.
Inghilleri, Moira. Ethics[A]. Mona Baker&Gabriela Saldanha (eds.). Routledge Encyclopedia ofTranslation Studies (2nd Edition)[C].2009a:100-103.
Inghilleri, Moira. Translators in War Zones: Ethics Under Fire in Iraq[A]. Esperanca Bielsa&Christopher Hughes (eds.). Globalisation, Political Violence and Translation[C]. Houndsmills:Palgrave Macmillan,2009b:207-221.
Inghilleri, Moira, Harding, Sue-Ann. Translating Violent Conflict[J]. Translation and Violent Conflict,
Speci al Issue ofThe Translator,16(2),2010:165-173.
Kelly, Louis G. The True Interpreter: A History of Translation Theory and Practice in the West[M].Oxford: Basil Blackwell,1979.
Koskinen, Kaisa. Beyond Ambivalence: Postmodernity and the Ethics of Translation[M]. Tampere:University of Tampere,2000.
Koskinen, Kaisa. Shared Culture?: Reflections on Recent Trends in Translation Studies[J]. Target,16(1),2004:143–156.
Lane-Mercier, Gillian. Translating the Untranslatable: The Translator's Aesthetic, Ideological andPolitical Responsibility[J]. Target,9(1),1997:43-68.
Larkosh, Chris. Levinas, Latin American Thought and the Futures of Translational Ethics[J]. TTR,17(2),2004:27–44.
Laygues, Arnaud. Review Article of Buber, Marcel, and Levinas[J]. The Return to Ethics, Special issueof The Translator,7(2),2001.
Laygues, Arnaud. La Traducteur Semeur d’éthique. Pour une Application de la Pensée d’EmmanuelLevinas à la Traduction[J]. TTR,17(2),2004:45–56.
Lefevere, André. Translation, Rewriting,&the Manipulation of Literary Fame[M]. London&NewYork: Routledge,1992.
Lefevere, André. Comparative Literature and Translation[J]. Comparative Literature,47(1),1995:1-10.
Levine, Suzanne Jill. The Subversive Scribe. Translating Latin American Fiction[M]. Saint Paul:Graywolf Press,1991.
Levy, Ji í. Translation as a Decision Process[A]. L. Venuti (eds.). The Translation Studies Reader[C].London&New York: Routledge,1967/2000:148-159.
Munday, Jeremy. Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications (2nd Edition)[M].London&New York: Routledge,2008.
Newmark, Peter. A Textbook of Translation[M]. New Jersey: Prentice Hall,1988.
Nida, Eugene A. Toward A Science of Translating: With Special Reference to Principles and ProceduresInvolved in Bible Translating[M]. Leiden: E. J. Brill,1964.
Nida, Eugene A.&C. R. Taber. The Theory and Practice of Translation[M]. Leiden: E. J. Brill,1969.
Nord, Christiane. Text Analysis in Translation: Theory, Methodology, and Didactic Application of aModel for Translation-Oriented Text Analysis[M]. Amsterdam: Rodopi.1991.
Nord, Christiane. Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained [M].Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,1997/2001.
Popovi, Anton. The Concept of “Shift of Expression” in Translation Analysis[A]. James S. Holmes(ed.). The Nature of Translation: Essays on the Theory and Practice of Literary Translation[C].The Hague&Paris: Mouton,1970:78–90.
Popper, Karl. Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach[M]. Oxford: Clarendon Press.1972.
Pym, Anthony. Translation and Text Transfer: An Essay on the Principles of InterculturalCommunication[M]. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main, Berlin and Bern,1992.
Pym, Anthony. Translation as a Transaction Cost [J]. Meta,40(4),1995:594–605.
Pym, Anthony. Pour une Ethique du Traducteur[M]. Editions de Presses de1'Universite d'Ottawa,Ottawa,1997.
Pym, Anthony. Method in Translation History[M]. Manchester: St Jerome,1998.
Pym, Anthony (ed.). The Return to Ethics[C]. Special Issue of The Translator,7(2),2001a.
Pym, Anthony. On Translator History. Interviewed by John Milton[J]. Emerging Views on TranslationHistory in Brazil, Special Issue of Crop6(Universidade de Sao Paulo),2001b:273-284.
Pym, Anthony. Translational Ethics and Electronic Technologies[OL]. URL:http://usuaris.tinet.cat/apym/on-line/translation/lisbon_ethics.pdf.2003:1-8.
Pym, Anthony. Philosophy and Translation[A]. Piotr Kuhiwczak&Karin Littau (eds.). A Companion toTranslation Studies[C]. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters,2007a:24–44.
Pym, Anthony. On History in Formal Conceptualizations of Translation[J]. Across Languages andCultures.8(2),2007b:153-166.
Pym, Anthony. Western Translation Theories as Responses to Equivalence[OL]. Based on a talk givento the Innsbrucker Internationale Ringvorlesung zur Translationswissenschaft, UniversitatInnsbruck, March12,2008.2009:1-13.
Pym, Anthony. Exploring Translation Theories[M]. London&New York: Routledge,2010a.
Pym, Anthony. Translation Theory as Historical Problem-Solving[OL]. Based on a Public Lecture in2010hosted by the Rikkyo Graduate School of Intercultural Communication, June5,2010.2010b:1-13.
Pym, Anthony. Translation and Text Transfer: An Essay on the Principles of InterculturalCommunication (Revised Edition)[M]. Tarragona: Intercultural Studies Group,2010c.
Pym, Anthony (ed.). Translation Research Terms: A Tentative Glossary for Moments of Perplexity andDispute[OL]. Anthony Pym (ed.). Translation Research Projects3, Tarragona: Intercultural StudiesGroup,2011:75-110.
Reiss, Katharina,&Hans J. Vermeer. Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie[M].Tübingen: Niemeyer.1984.
Robinson, Douglas. The Translator’s Turn[M]. Baltimore&London: Johns Hopkins University Press,1991.
Robinson, Douglas. What is Translation? Centrifugal Theories, Critical Intervention[M]. London: TheKent State University Press,1997.
Sch ffner, Christina (ed.). Translation and Norms[C]. Clevedon&Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters,1999.
Shuttleworth, Mark&Moira Cowie. Dictionary of Translation Studies[M]. Manchester: St. Jerome.1997.
Simon, Sherry. Gender in Translation: Cultural Identity and the Politics of Translation[M]. London:Routledge,1996.
Simeoni, Daniel. The Pivotal Status of the Translator’s Habitus[J]. Target,10(1),1998:1-39.
Staten, Henry. Tracking the “Native Informant”: Cultural Translation as the Horizon of LiteraryTranslation[A]. S. Bermann&M. Wood (eds.). Nation, Language and the Ethics of Translation[C].Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,2005:11–26.
Toury, Gideon. In Search of Theory of Translation[M]. Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute for Poetics andSemiotics,1980.
Toury, Gideon. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign LanguageEducation Press,1995/2001.
Toury, Gideon. Probabilistic Explanations in Translation Studies: Universals-or a Challenge to theVery Concept [A]. G. Hansen et al.(eds.). Claims, Changes and Challenges in Translation Studies.Selected Contributions for the EST Congress, Copenhagen[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,2004a:15-25.
Toury, Gideon. Probabilistic Explanations in Translation Studies: Welcome as They Are, Would TheyQualify as Universals[A]. A. Mauranen&P. Kujam ki (eds.). Translation Universals: Do TheyExist[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,2004b:15-32.
Tymoczko, Maria. Translation and Political Engagement. Activism, Social Change and the Role ofTranslation in Geopolitical Shifts[J]. The Translator,6(1),2000:23-47.
Tymoczko, Maria. Enlarging Translation, Empowering Translators[M]. Manchester: St Jerome,2007.
Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation[M]. London&New York:Routledge,1995.
Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Towards an Ethics of Difference[M]. London:Routledge,1998.
Venuti, Lawrenc. The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation (2ndEdition)[M]. London&New York: Routledge,2008.
Vermeer, H.J. A Skopos Theory of Translation (Some Arguments For and Against)[M]. Heidelberg:TEXTconTEXT,1996.
Williams, J.&A. Chesterman. The Map: A Beginner’s Guide to Doing Research in TranslationStudies[M]. Manchester: St. Jerome,2002.
埃德温·根茨勒.翻译、后结构主义与权力[A].陈永国.翻译与后现代性[C].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005:123-140.
蔡新乐.翻译的本体论研究——翻译研究的第三条道路、主体间性与人的元翻译构成[M].上海:上海译文出版社,2005.
曹明伦.论以忠实为取向的翻译标准——兼论严复的“信达雅”[J].中国翻译,2006,(4):12-18.
曾记.“忠实”的嬗变——翻译伦理的多元定位[J].外语研究,2008,(6):79-83.
查明建,田雨.论译者主体性——从译者文化地位的边缘化谈起[J].中国翻译,2003,(1):19-24.
陈大亮.谁是翻译主体[J].中国翻译,2004,(2):3-7.
陈大亮.翻译研究:从主体性向主体间性转向[J].中国翻译,2005,(2):3-9.
陈德鸿,张南峰.西方翻译理论精选[M].香港:香港城市大学出版社,2000.
陈丽娟.翻译研究中的后殖民女性主义视角——自我反思的立场[D].岭南大学,2011.
陈琳,张春柏.从玄奘与哲罗姆的比较看中西翻译思想之差异[J].外语研究,2006a,(1):61-65.
陈新良.论“忠实”作为翻译标准及其意义[J].四川外语学院学报,2007,(2):125-129.
陈瑛.论翻译的伦理之维[J].长沙大学学报,2007,(4):94-96.
陈志杰,吕俊.社会规范与译者价值创造[J].外语与外语教学,2010,(1):69-73.
陈志杰,吕俊.译者的责任选择——对切斯特曼翻译伦理思想的反思[J].外语与外语教学,2011,(1):62-65.
陈志杰.对当前译学研究的伦理学反思[J].外语教学,2011,(6):100-103.
程炼.伦理学导论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2008.
戴兆国.德性伦理论要[J].伦理学研究,2007,(2):30-35.
杜玉生.西方当代伦理学的发展与译学研究——翻译研究中的伦理性问题[J].广东外语外贸大学学报,2008,(1):25-29.
樊浩.“伦理”-“道德”的历史哲学形态[J].学习与探索,2011,(1):7-13.
冯庆华.文体翻译论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2002.
冯庆华.母语文化下的译者风格[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2008.
高玉.论“忠实”作为文学翻译范畴的伦理性[J].外国文学,2004,(2):89-95.
葛林.翻译伦理再思考[J].广州大学学报（社会科学版）,2007,(12):71-75.
葛林.论跨文化伦理对翻译的规约[D].厦门大学,2008.
龚群.生命与实践理性[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2004.
龚群.社会伦理十讲[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2008.
龚群.德性伦理学的特征与维度[J].道德与文明,2009,(3):11-14.
郭建中.韦努蒂访谈录[J].中国翻译,2008,(3):43-46.
郭沫若.理想的翻译之我见[A].罗新璋编.翻译论集[C].北京:商务印书馆,1984:331-333,1923.
哈贝马斯.交往行为理论:行为合理性与社会合理化[M].曹卫东译.上海:上海人民出版社,2004.
贺显斌.韦努蒂翻译理论的局限性[J].外国语,2007,(3):76-80.
侯林平,姜泗平.我国近十年来译者主体性研究的回顾与反思[J].山东科技大学学报（社会科学版）,2006,(3):100-104.
黄德先.文化途径翻译研究:争议与回应[D].上海外国语大学，2010.
黄德先.自省翻译研究的西方中心——《扩展翻译,赋权译者》述评[J].外国语,2010,(1):86-90.
黄汉平.文学翻译“删节”和“增补”原作现象的文化透视——兼论钱钟书《林纾的翻译》[J].中国翻译,2003,(4):26-29.
黄立波,王克非.语料库翻译学:课题与进展[J].外语教学与研究,2011,(6):911-923.
加亚特里·查克拉沃蒂·斯皮瓦克.翻译的政治[A].陈永国主编.翻译与后现代性[C].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005a:215-236.
加亚特里·查克拉沃蒂·斯皮瓦克.关于翻译的问答:游移[A].陈永国主编.翻译与后现代性[C].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005b:237-245.
蒋童.从异化翻译的确立到存异伦理的解构:劳伦斯·韦努蒂翻译理论研究[D].首都师范大学,2008.
焦国成.论伦理——伦理概念与伦理学[J].江西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）,2011,(1):22-28.
杰里米·芒迪.翻译学导论——理论与实践[M].李德凤等译.北京:商务印书馆,2007.
李建华,胡祎赟.德性伦理的现代困境[J].哲学动态,2009,(5):34-39.
李建华,邹晖.从规范走向价值的伦理学:问题、定位与使命[J].哲学研究,2011,(8):110-114.
林克难.解读“norm”[J].中国翻译,2006,(4):15-18.
刘季春.独立成篇:超越“忠实”的忠实[J].上海翻译,2010,(1):41-45.
刘美玲.德性伦理还是规范伦理?[J].社会科学,2009,(7):119-125.
刘全福.批评视角:我国解构主义翻译研究的本土化进程[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2010,(1):51-56.
刘世芝.翻译、翻译主体性与翻译伦理[A].语言与文化研究（第六辑）[C].2010:143-145.
刘卫东.翻译伦理的回归与重构[J].中国外语,2008,(6):95-99.
刘亚猛.韦努蒂的“翻译伦理”及其自我解构[J].中国翻译.2005,(5):40-45.
刘亚猛.从“忠实于源文本”到“对源语文化负责”:也谈翻译规范的重构[J].中国翻译,2006,(6):11-16.
罗尔斯.正义论[M].何怀宏,何包钢,廖申白译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1988.
罗虹.翻译研究的伦理转向与思考[J].湘潭师范学院学报,2008,(5):61-63.
骆贤凤.中西翻译伦理研究述评[J].中国翻译,2009,(3):13-17.
吕俊.我国传统翻译研究中的盲点与误区[J].外国语,2001,(5):48-54.
吕俊.跨越文化障碍——巴比塔的重建[M].南京:东南大学出版社,2001.
吕俊,侯向群.翻译学——一个建构主义的视角[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2006.
吕俊,侯向群.翻译批评学引论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2009.
吕耀怀.规范伦理、德性伦理及其关联[J].哲学动态,2009,(5):29-33.
玛丽安·勒代雷.论翻译学研究方法[J].刘和平译.中国翻译,2010,(2):11-18.
麦金太尔.德性之后[M].龚群等译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1995.
麦金太尔.谁之正义?何种合理性?[M].万俊人等译.北京:当代中国出版社,1996.
茅盾.为发展文学翻译事业和提高翻译质量而奋斗[A].罗新璋编.翻译论集[C].北京:商务印书馆,1984:501-517,1954.
莫娜·贝克,安德普·切斯特曼.重述之道德规范[J].赵文静译.中国翻译,2009,(4):34-44.
莫娜·贝克.翻译与冲突——叙事性阐释[M].赵文静译.北京:北京大学出版社,2011.
倪梁康.译者的尴尬[J].读书,2004,(11):90-97.
潘文国.当代西方的翻译学研究——兼谈“翻译学”的学科性问题[J].中国翻译,2002,(2):34-37.
潘文国.《翻译与冲突》中文版序[A].莫娜·贝克著.赵文静译.翻译与冲突——叙事性阐释[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2011:5.
彭萍.伦理视角下的中国传统翻译活动研究[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008.
彭萍.中国传统译论中的伦理关注及其思想渊源探究[J].文教资料,2011,(6):27-29.
彭长江.翻译的忠实:含义、预设与实质——为翻译的忠实辩护之二[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2007,(6):65-69.
乔颖.趋向“他者的翻译”[D].河南大学,2007.
邵毅.重写与制约:从女性主义角度论《傲慢与偏见》的中译本[D].香港浸会大学,2007.
申连云.翻译研究中的规定和描写[J].外语教学,2004,(5):75-78.
申连云.尊重差异——当代翻译研究的伦理观[J].中国翻译,2008,(2):16-19.
申连云.怎么译:从“操纵”到“投降”[J].外国语,2010,(3):44-52.
申连云.翻译研究中的“真”、“善”、“美”[J].中国翻译,2011,(3):11-16.
申迎丽,仝亚辉.翻译伦理问题的同归——由《译者》之特刊《同归到伦理问题》出发[J].四川外语学院学院学报,2005,(2):94-99.
徐梦秋.20年来国内西方元伦理学研究的走向、成就与得失[J].哲学动态,2011,(1):56-64.
孙春晨.面向生活世界的伦理人类学[J].哲学研究,2011,(10):94-101.
孙宁宁.交往伦理学对翻译研究的启示[J].外交学院学报,2003,(3):90-96.
孙艺风.翻译规范与主体意识[J].中国翻译,2003,(3):3-9.
孙致礼.译者的职责[J].中国翻译,2007,(4):14-18.
谭载喜.中西译论的相似性[J].中国翻译,1999,(6):25-28.
谈小兰.翻译标准的解构分析[J].福建外语,2002,(1):40-43.
汤君.中国翻译与翻译研究现状反思[D].华东师范大学,2006.
汤君.翻译伦理的理论审视[J].外国语,2007,(4):57-64.
万俊人.关于美德伦理学研究的几个理论问题[J].道德与文明.2008a,(3):71-80.
万俊人.《追寻美德之路——麦金太尔对现代西方伦理危机的反思》序言[A].秦越存.追寻美德之路——麦金太尔对现代西方伦理危机的反思[M].北京:中央编译出版社,2008b:1-5.
王大智.关于展开翻译伦理研究的思考[J].外语与外语教学,2005,(12):44-47.
王大智.“翻译伦理”概念试析[J].外语与外语教学,2009,(12):61-63.
王大智.翻译与翻译伦理[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2012.
王东风.解构“忠实”——翻译神话的终结[J].中国翻译,2004,(6):4-9.
王海明.伦理学原理[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2001.
王海明.伦理学方法[M].北京:商务印书馆,2004.
王宏.怎么译:是操纵,还是投降？[J].外国语,2011,(3):84-89.
王洪涛.翻译学的学科建构与文化转向[M].上海:上海译文出版社,2008.
王克非,黄立波.语料库翻译学的几个术语[J].四川外语学院学报,2007,(6):101-105.
王克明.翻译与伦理学[J].外语与外语教学,2009,(5):45-48.
王莉娜.析翻译伦理的四种模式[J].外语研究,2008,(6):84-88.
王莉娜.翻译的折衷主义及伦理视角[D].复旦大学,2009.
王树槐.西方翻译理论研究的新进展——Anthony Pym的《翻译理论探索》述评[J].外国语,2011,(2):90-94.
魏则胜.在德性与规范之间[J].哲学研究,2011,(1):107-111.
吴建国,魏清光.翻译与伦理规范[J].上海翻译,2006,(2):1-6.
吴志杰,王育平.以诚立译——论翻译的伦理学转向[J].南京社会科学,2008,(8):136-142.
吴志杰.中国传统译论专题研究[M].上海:上海译文出版社,2009.
谢思田.“达”和“雅”解构之下的中西翻译忠实观融合研究[J].外国语,2007,(3):67-75.
徐普.安托瓦纳·贝尔曼翻译理论中的“伦理”问题[J].法国研究,2011,(2):67-75.
许宝强,袁伟.语言与翻译的政治[M].北京:中央编译出版社,2000.
许钧.论翻译活动的三个层面[J].外语教学与研究,1998,(3):49-54.
许钧.翻译论[M].湖北:湖北教育出版社,2003.
许钧,穆雷.翻译学概论[M].南京:译林出版社,2009.
雪莉·西蒙.热尔曼娜·德·斯塔尔和加亚特里·斯皮瓦克:文化掮客[A].陈永国主编.翻译与后现代性[C].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005:273-286.
杨洁,曾利沙.论翻译伦理学研究范畴的拓展[J].外国语,2010,(5):73-79.
杨武能.再谈文学翻译主体[J].中国翻译,2003(3):10-12.
杨晓荣.基于翻译本质观的翻译标准观:1978-2007[J].外语与外语教学,2008,(12):37-41.
于兰,杨俊峰.论翻译研究的伦理倾向[J].外语与外语教学,2010,(2):73-76.
余东.虽不能至,心向往之——关于翻译标准的思考[J].中国翻译,2005,(6):15-19.
臧夏雨.从翻译伦理视角论译者有意识的“不忠”[J].中国翻译,2012,(2):95-97.
张冬梅.信念分歧与态度分歧——操纵学派“忠实解构论”之实质与意义解析[J].外国语,2011,(3):83-88.
张景华.翻译伦理:韦努蒂翻译思想研究[M].上海:上海交通大学出版社,2009.
张南峰.从奈达等效原则的接受看中国译论研究中的价值判断[J].外国语,1999,(5):44-51.
张南峰.从边缘走向中心——从多元系统论的角度看中国翻译研究的过去与未来[J].中国翻译,2001,(4):61-69.
张南峰.中西译学批评[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2004.
张南峰.多元系统论中的规范概念[J].外国语,2008,(5):64-71.
张南峰.翻译研究、学术规范与文化传统[J].中国翻译,2010,(2):73-80.
张思洁.描述翻译学中的工具理性反思[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2004,(4):63-66.
张思洁,李贵荣.论译者之诚及致诚之道[J].外国语,2008,(2):62-67.
赵汀阳.人之常情[M].沈阳:辽宁人民出版社,1998.
赵汀阳.论可能生活（第2版）[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2010.
周炽成.中国人文社科研究自主性的慧觉与承继:以费孝通和赵汀阳为例[J].江海学刊,2011,(6):28-35.
周兆祥.译评:理论与实践[A].黎翠珍.翻译评赏[C].香港:商务印书馆,1996:1-19.
朱志瑜.翻译研究:规定、描写、伦理[J].中国翻译,2009,(3):5-12.