释意与代码转换
|
摘要
二战后,会议口译研究逐渐受到关注,尤其是对交传和同传的研究。口译界最具影响力的理论学派之一是由达尼卡·塞莱丝科维奇和玛丽雅娜·勒代雷创建的,她们是“巴黎高等口笔译学院”最杰出的学者,该派以“理解—脱离语言外壳—表达”的三角模式为特色的释意理论而闻名。释意派强调意义对等,它明显区别于盛行已久的逐字代码转换(语言翻译),即基于语言形式对等的模式。
迄今为止,关于释意与代码转换之间关系的问题仍然存在,并没有很多直接涉及“释意与代码转换对立问题”的研究。释意派最初就与代码转换对立,把它看作是机械的“坏”方式,然而“脱离语言外壳”却忽视了原语效应和原语形式研究的重要性。本文认为,找出释意理论的缺点或瑕疵并使其发展,远比之前众多学者对它的盲目遵循甚至夸大更有意义。本文所持观点是:释意理论过于理想化,它排除了会议口译中代码转换的普遍性。在某种程度上,释意离不开代码转换;代码转换同样可以释意。由于有限的时间和紧张的压力,译者会无意识地受原语形式影响,凭借字典直接转换词语、词组、或句型。他不必释意便能不加思索地转换术语、成语、谚语和常套句,只要这些是约定俗成、频繁使用的翻译,并且已被译者熟记。
本文在资料收集及深入分析的基础上,试图提出“释意+代码转换”综合法模式的理论假设,并阐明观点:释意不应与代码转换完全对立。首先,本文通过追溯这两个理论模式,说明了两者矛盾的起源和本质。然后,就两种模式的可行性和现象,通过对两者的材料分析和一篇官方新闻发布会的个案调查研究,证明了释意与代码转换是同时存在的。基于实例分析,本文进一步探究了两者对立的问题以改进释意理论。释意并不是全部的依靠;代码转换(尤其在同传中)也十分重要,它能节省时间、减轻译者压力。最后,本文指出在以口译的直接性、迅速性和灵活性为目的的综合法视角下,释意与代码转换可以相互融合,并为将来的研究提出了一些建议。本文强调,任何一个片面的理论都可能走向极端。因此,使看似矛盾的两种模式相结合,必将为今后的口译研究注入新的活力。
Conference interpreting research (CIR) has enjoyed an increasing attention since its debut after the Second World War, including particular inquiries in the two major modes, namely consecutive interpreting (CI) and simultaneous interpreting (SI). One of the most influential theories on interpreting in the academia was wrought out by Danica Seleskovitch and Marianne Lederer, the most outstanding scholars of the Paris School, which is well-known for the interpretative theory featuring the triangle model of "comprehension-deverbalization-expression". This model emphasizes sense equivalence as a clear-cut distinction from the long prevailing model of word-for-word transcoding (linguistic translation), based on the formal equivalence.
So far there has remained the question of the relation between "interpretation" and "transcoding", and not much directly related exploration has focused on the issue of "interpretation vs. transcoding". The interpretative theory was initially against transcoding which is regarded as mechanically "bad", yet the term "deverbalization" neglects the SL effect and the importance of study on SL forms. This thesis argues that it is more meaningful to find out some shortcomings or blemishes of the interpretative theory and develop it further, rather than to blindly follow or magnify it as many scholars have done before. This thesis holds that the interpretative theory seems to be so idealized that it excludes a common evidence of transcoding in the conference interpreting. To some extent, interpretation depends on transcoding and transcoding also expresses meanings. Due to limited time and severe pressure, the interpreter will resort to the dictionary to transcode words, phrases, or sentence patterns. He can transcode without explanation for terminologies, idioms, proverbs and formulas so long as those things are established, frequently encountered and he has already memorized them to such a degree as to carry out automatic rendition.
This thesis endeavors to set forth a theoretical hypothesis of an integrated model of "interpretation + transcoding" on the ground of data collection and an in-depth discussion, so as to shed light on the viewpoint that interpretation should not be entirely contradictory to transcoding. By tracing these two theoretical backings, it first examines the origin and nature of the contradiction between the two theoretical models. In order to look into the feasibility and phenomena of both models, data with regard to both of them are analyzed and a detailed sample of an official press conference is investigated to prove the fact that interpretation and transcoding do exist simultaneously. Based on the analysis, it further explores some problems of the contradiction in order to improve the interpretative theory. Interpretation is not supposed to be total; while transcoding (especially in SI) is of vital importance, which can save time and reduce the interpreter's pressure. In conclusion, the thesis suggests that both modes could be reconciled in an integrated perspective for direct, prompt and flexible interpreting, and it will offer some insights for future studies. It highlights that any one-sided theory may tend to go to extreme. Therefore, a merger of the two seemingly conflicting poles is believed to breathe new vigor into the future CIR.
迄今为止,关于释意与代码转换之间关系的问题仍然存在,并没有很多直接涉及“释意与代码转换对立问题”的研究。释意派最初就与代码转换对立,把它看作是机械的“坏”方式,然而“脱离语言外壳”却忽视了原语效应和原语形式研究的重要性。本文认为,找出释意理论的缺点或瑕疵并使其发展,远比之前众多学者对它的盲目遵循甚至夸大更有意义。本文所持观点是:释意理论过于理想化,它排除了会议口译中代码转换的普遍性。在某种程度上,释意离不开代码转换;代码转换同样可以释意。由于有限的时间和紧张的压力,译者会无意识地受原语形式影响,凭借字典直接转换词语、词组、或句型。他不必释意便能不加思索地转换术语、成语、谚语和常套句,只要这些是约定俗成、频繁使用的翻译,并且已被译者熟记。
本文在资料收集及深入分析的基础上,试图提出“释意+代码转换”综合法模式的理论假设,并阐明观点:释意不应与代码转换完全对立。首先,本文通过追溯这两个理论模式,说明了两者矛盾的起源和本质。然后,就两种模式的可行性和现象,通过对两者的材料分析和一篇官方新闻发布会的个案调查研究,证明了释意与代码转换是同时存在的。基于实例分析,本文进一步探究了两者对立的问题以改进释意理论。释意并不是全部的依靠;代码转换(尤其在同传中)也十分重要,它能节省时间、减轻译者压力。最后,本文指出在以口译的直接性、迅速性和灵活性为目的的综合法视角下,释意与代码转换可以相互融合,并为将来的研究提出了一些建议。本文强调,任何一个片面的理论都可能走向极端。因此,使看似矛盾的两种模式相结合,必将为今后的口译研究注入新的活力。
Conference interpreting research (CIR) has enjoyed an increasing attention since its debut after the Second World War, including particular inquiries in the two major modes, namely consecutive interpreting (CI) and simultaneous interpreting (SI). One of the most influential theories on interpreting in the academia was wrought out by Danica Seleskovitch and Marianne Lederer, the most outstanding scholars of the Paris School, which is well-known for the interpretative theory featuring the triangle model of "comprehension-deverbalization-expression". This model emphasizes sense equivalence as a clear-cut distinction from the long prevailing model of word-for-word transcoding (linguistic translation), based on the formal equivalence.
So far there has remained the question of the relation between "interpretation" and "transcoding", and not much directly related exploration has focused on the issue of "interpretation vs. transcoding". The interpretative theory was initially against transcoding which is regarded as mechanically "bad", yet the term "deverbalization" neglects the SL effect and the importance of study on SL forms. This thesis argues that it is more meaningful to find out some shortcomings or blemishes of the interpretative theory and develop it further, rather than to blindly follow or magnify it as many scholars have done before. This thesis holds that the interpretative theory seems to be so idealized that it excludes a common evidence of transcoding in the conference interpreting. To some extent, interpretation depends on transcoding and transcoding also expresses meanings. Due to limited time and severe pressure, the interpreter will resort to the dictionary to transcode words, phrases, or sentence patterns. He can transcode without explanation for terminologies, idioms, proverbs and formulas so long as those things are established, frequently encountered and he has already memorized them to such a degree as to carry out automatic rendition.
This thesis endeavors to set forth a theoretical hypothesis of an integrated model of "interpretation + transcoding" on the ground of data collection and an in-depth discussion, so as to shed light on the viewpoint that interpretation should not be entirely contradictory to transcoding. By tracing these two theoretical backings, it first examines the origin and nature of the contradiction between the two theoretical models. In order to look into the feasibility and phenomena of both models, data with regard to both of them are analyzed and a detailed sample of an official press conference is investigated to prove the fact that interpretation and transcoding do exist simultaneously. Based on the analysis, it further explores some problems of the contradiction in order to improve the interpretative theory. Interpretation is not supposed to be total; while transcoding (especially in SI) is of vital importance, which can save time and reduce the interpreter's pressure. In conclusion, the thesis suggests that both modes could be reconciled in an integrated perspective for direct, prompt and flexible interpreting, and it will offer some insights for future studies. It highlights that any one-sided theory may tend to go to extreme. Therefore, a merger of the two seemingly conflicting poles is believed to breathe new vigor into the future CIR.
引文
Baker, Mona. In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation [M]. London and New York: Routledge, 1992.
Bassnett, S. Translation Studies [M]. London: Routledge, 1991.
Bloomfield, L. Language [M]. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1933.
Catford, J. C. A Linguistic Theory of Translation [M]. London: OUP, 1965.
Chernov, G. V. Inference and Anticipation in Simultaneous Interpreting [M]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2004.
Chesterman, A. Memes of Translation [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1997.
Chukovsky, K. The art of Translation. [M]. Knoxville, Tenn.: University of Tennessee Press, 1966/1984.
Danks, Joseph H et al. Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting [J]. California: Sage Publications, Volume 3, 1997.
De Bot, Kees. Simultaneous Interpreting as Language Production [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Gavins, J. and Steen, G. Cognitive Poetics in Practice [M]. London and New York: Routledge, 2003.
Gerver, D. A Psychological Approach to Simultaneous Interpretation, META, 20-2, p. 119-128,1975.
Gile, D. Methodological Aspects of Interpretation and Translation Research, Bridging the Gap: Empirical Research in Simultaneous Interpretation (S. Lambert and B. Moser-Mercer, eds.). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, p. 39-56, 1994a.
Gile, D. The role of Consecutive in Interpreter Training: A Cognitive View [OL]. en http://www.aiic.net. Communicate (AIIC) September-October, 2001.
Gile, D. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training [M]. Amsterdam /Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1995.
Glemet, R. Conference Interpreting, Aspects of Translation (A. H. Smith, ed.). London: Secker and Warburg, p. 105-122, 1958.
Halliday, M.A.K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar [M]. Edward Arnold, 1994.
Hatim, B. Teaching and Researching Translation [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2005.
Hudson, R. A. Sociolinguistics [M]. London: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Isham, W. P. Memory for Sentence After Simultaneous Interpretation: Evidence Both for and against Deverbalization, Bridging the gap: Empirical Research in Simultaneous Interpretation (S. Lambert and B. Moser-Mercer, eds.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, P. 191-212, 1994.
Jakobson, R. On Linguistic Aspects of Translation, On Translation (R. A. Brower, ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1959.
Jakobson, R. Selected writings II: Word and Language [M]. The Hague: Mouton, 1971.
Jones, R. Conference Interpreting Explained [M]. Manchester: St. Jerome, 2002.
Kade, O. and Cartellieri, C. Some Methodological Aspects of Simultaneous Interpreting, Babel, 17-2, p. 12-16, 1997.
Katan, D. Translating Cultures: An Introduction for Translators, Interpreters and Mediators [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004.
Laplace, C. L'interprete nocher des temps modernes (Israel, ed.), p. 189-215, 2002.
Lavault, E. Review of Marianne Lederer's La traduction aujourd'hui [J]. The Translator 2:1,96-100,1996.
Lederer, M. La Traduction simultanee, experience et theorie [M]. Paris: Minard Lettres Modernes, 1981.
Littlejohn, S. W. Theories of Human Communication [M]. USA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1999.
Lyons, J. Language and Linguistics [M]. Cambridge University Press, 1981.
Mark, S. and Moira, C. Dictionary of Translation Studies [M]. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 1997.
Marrakech, J. Deverbalization Meets Scenes-and-Frames Semantics [OL]. http://www.hf.uio.no/ilos/forskning/forskningsprosjekter/expertise/Marrakechl.doc, 2004.
Miller,G.A.Language andSpeech[M].San Francisco:W.H.Freeman and Co.,1981.
Munday,J.Introducing Translation Studies[M].London & New York:Routledge,2001.
Moser,B.Simultaneous Interpretation:A Hypothetical Model and Its Practical Application(Gerver and Sinaiko,eds.),p.353-68,1978.
Mounin,G.Les problemes theoriques de la traduction[M].Paris:Gallimard,1963.
Neubert,A.and Shreve,G.M.Translation as Text[M].Kent,Ohio:The Kent State University Press,1992.
Mouzourakis,P.How do we interpret?[OL].PMouzourakis@europarl.eu.int,2006.
Nabokov,V.Problems of Translation:Onegin in English,Partisan Review 22(4):496-512,1955.
Newmark,P.Approaches to Translation[M].Oxford:Pergamon Press,1981.
Newrnark,P.About Translation[M].Multilingual Matters Ltd,1991.
Newmark,P.Approaches to Translation[M].Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
Nida,E.A.Toward a Science of Translation[M].Leiden:E.J.Brill,1964.
Nida,E.A.Language and Culture:Contexts in Translating[M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
Nida,E.A.and Taber,C.The Theory and Practice of Translation[M].Leiden:Brill,1969/1982.
Schleiermacher,F.On the Different Methods of Translating,Western Translation Theory(D.Robinson,ed.).Manchester:St Jerome Publishing,p.225-238,1813/1997.
Seleskovitch,D.L'interpretation de conference,Babel,8-1,p.13-18,1962.
Seleskovitch,D.English Interpretation:A psychological approach to translating,Translation:Applications and Research(R.Brislin,ed.).New York:Gardner Press,p.92-116,1976.
Seleskovitch,D.Traduire,de l 'experience au concept[M].Patois:Didier,1976.
Seleskovitch,D.Interpreting for International Conferences[Z].Washington DC:Pen &Booth,1978.
Seleskovitch,D.& Lederer,M.Interpreter pour traduire[M].Paris:Didier Erudition, 1986.
Selver,P.The Art of Translating Poetry[M].London:Jon Baker,1996.Setton,R.Simultaneous Interpretation:a cognitive-pragmatic analysis[M].Amsterdam:Benjamins,1999.
Setton,R.Words and Sense:Revisiting Lexical Processes in Interpreting,Forum 1,p.139-168,2003.
Snell-Homby,M.Translation Studies:An Integrated Approach[M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
Turner,M.Reading Minds[M].Princeton University Press,1991.
Vinay,J.P.and Darbelnet,J.Comparative Stylistics of French and English:A Methodology for Translation[M].Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company,1995.
Wilss,W.Syntactic Anticipation in German-English Language Interpretation and Communication[M].Plenum:New York,London,1978.
Wilss,W.The Science of Translation[M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
Wirl,J.Grundsatzliches zur Problematik des Dolmetschens und des ubersetzens[M].Vienna:Wilhelm Braumuller,1958.
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English.4~(th)Edition,London:Harper Collins,1995.
Macmillan English Dictionary for Advance Learners.2~(nd)Edition,Oxford:Macmillan Education,2002.
Oxford Advanced Learner 's English-Chinese Dictionary.4~(th)Edition,Oxford:Oxford University Press,1989.
Oxford Advanced Learner's English-Chinese Dictionary.4~(th)Edition,The Commercial Press,1997.
Webster's Third New International Dictionary.6~(th)Edition,Random House Inc.,1976.http://www.fmprc.gov.cn.http://sh.dict.cn/search/?q=transcoding
鲍刚,口译理论概述[M].旅游教育出版社,1998.
鲍刚,口译理论概述[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版社,2005.
蔡小红,以跨学科的视野拓展口译研究[J].中国翻译,2001(2).
陈友良,语言翻译不是翻译语言[J].衡阳师范学院学报,2000(1).
[法]达尼卡·塞莱丝科维奇,(孙慧双译)口笔译概论[M].北京:北京语言学院出版社,1992.
杜争鸣,英汉同声传译中的“断点”浅议[J].上海科技翻译,1998(4).
杜争鸣,外语·翻译·文化[M].南京:东南大学出版社,2006.
郭建中,文化与翻译[M].中国对外翻译出版公司,1999.
胡维佳,功能翻译理论指导下的专有名词翻译[J].上海翻译,2006(4).
柯平,释意学派的翻译理论[J].中国翻译研究,2005(1).
李和庆,黄皓,薄振杰,西方翻译研究方法论:70年代以后[M].北京:北京大学出版社.2005.
李天舒,最新简明英语口译教程[M].世界图书出版公司,2003.
林巍,试论同声传译教学的思维和语言策略[J].解放军外国语学院报,2006(3).
刘和平,口译技巧-思维科学与口译推理教学法[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版社,2001.
刘和平,口译理论与教学研究现状及展望[J].中国翻译,2002(2).
刘和平,口译理论研究成果与趋势浅析[J].中国翻译,2005(4).
刘宓庆,汉英句子扩展机制对比研究[J].现代外语(总第55期),1992.
刘宓庆,汉英对比与翻译[M].江西教育出版社,1992.
刘宓庆,汉英句子扩展机制对比研究[J].现代外语(总第55期),1992.
刘宓庆,口笔译理论研究[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版社,2004.
刘海云,试论乔治穆南的翻译观[J].青海师范大学学报,2001(2).
[法]玛丽雅娜·勒德雷,(刘和平译)口笔译概论[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2001.
平洪,张国扬,英语习语与英美文化[M].外语教学与研究出版社,1999.
武光军,中西同声传译理论研究回顾与展望[J].中国科技翻译,2006(4).
许钧,文学翻译的理论与实践[M].南京:译林出版社,2001.
杨承淑,从“经济性原则”探讨“顺译”的运用[J].中国翻译,2002(6).
杨承淑,口译教学研究:理论与实践[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2005.
杨自俭,英汉语比较与翻译(4)[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2002.
郁福敏,郭珊琏,英汉习语对比[M].上海交通大学出版社,1999.
苑涛,汉英中国政治术语词典[M].南京:南京大学出版社,2005.
张维为.英汉同声传译[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1999.
章振邦,新编英语语法教程[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1998.
周泰国,英语现场口译技巧[M].江西丈化音像出版社,2002.
Bassnett, S. Translation Studies [M]. London: Routledge, 1991.
Bloomfield, L. Language [M]. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1933.
Catford, J. C. A Linguistic Theory of Translation [M]. London: OUP, 1965.
Chernov, G. V. Inference and Anticipation in Simultaneous Interpreting [M]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2004.
Chesterman, A. Memes of Translation [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1997.
Chukovsky, K. The art of Translation. [M]. Knoxville, Tenn.: University of Tennessee Press, 1966/1984.
Danks, Joseph H et al. Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting [J]. California: Sage Publications, Volume 3, 1997.
De Bot, Kees. Simultaneous Interpreting as Language Production [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Gavins, J. and Steen, G. Cognitive Poetics in Practice [M]. London and New York: Routledge, 2003.
Gerver, D. A Psychological Approach to Simultaneous Interpretation, META, 20-2, p. 119-128,1975.
Gile, D. Methodological Aspects of Interpretation and Translation Research, Bridging the Gap: Empirical Research in Simultaneous Interpretation (S. Lambert and B. Moser-Mercer, eds.). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, p. 39-56, 1994a.
Gile, D. The role of Consecutive in Interpreter Training: A Cognitive View [OL]. en http://www.aiic.net. Communicate (AIIC) September-October, 2001.
Gile, D. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training [M]. Amsterdam /Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1995.
Glemet, R. Conference Interpreting, Aspects of Translation (A. H. Smith, ed.). London: Secker and Warburg, p. 105-122, 1958.
Halliday, M.A.K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar [M]. Edward Arnold, 1994.
Hatim, B. Teaching and Researching Translation [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2005.
Hudson, R. A. Sociolinguistics [M]. London: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Isham, W. P. Memory for Sentence After Simultaneous Interpretation: Evidence Both for and against Deverbalization, Bridging the gap: Empirical Research in Simultaneous Interpretation (S. Lambert and B. Moser-Mercer, eds.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, P. 191-212, 1994.
Jakobson, R. On Linguistic Aspects of Translation, On Translation (R. A. Brower, ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1959.
Jakobson, R. Selected writings II: Word and Language [M]. The Hague: Mouton, 1971.
Jones, R. Conference Interpreting Explained [M]. Manchester: St. Jerome, 2002.
Kade, O. and Cartellieri, C. Some Methodological Aspects of Simultaneous Interpreting, Babel, 17-2, p. 12-16, 1997.
Katan, D. Translating Cultures: An Introduction for Translators, Interpreters and Mediators [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004.
Laplace, C. L'interprete nocher des temps modernes (Israel, ed.), p. 189-215, 2002.
Lavault, E. Review of Marianne Lederer's La traduction aujourd'hui [J]. The Translator 2:1,96-100,1996.
Lederer, M. La Traduction simultanee, experience et theorie [M]. Paris: Minard Lettres Modernes, 1981.
Littlejohn, S. W. Theories of Human Communication [M]. USA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1999.
Lyons, J. Language and Linguistics [M]. Cambridge University Press, 1981.
Mark, S. and Moira, C. Dictionary of Translation Studies [M]. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 1997.
Marrakech, J. Deverbalization Meets Scenes-and-Frames Semantics [OL]. http://www.hf.uio.no/ilos/forskning/forskningsprosjekter/expertise/Marrakechl.doc, 2004.
Miller,G.A.Language andSpeech[M].San Francisco:W.H.Freeman and Co.,1981.
Munday,J.Introducing Translation Studies[M].London & New York:Routledge,2001.
Moser,B.Simultaneous Interpretation:A Hypothetical Model and Its Practical Application(Gerver and Sinaiko,eds.),p.353-68,1978.
Mounin,G.Les problemes theoriques de la traduction[M].Paris:Gallimard,1963.
Neubert,A.and Shreve,G.M.Translation as Text[M].Kent,Ohio:The Kent State University Press,1992.
Mouzourakis,P.How do we interpret?[OL].PMouzourakis@europarl.eu.int,2006.
Nabokov,V.Problems of Translation:Onegin in English,Partisan Review 22(4):496-512,1955.
Newmark,P.Approaches to Translation[M].Oxford:Pergamon Press,1981.
Newrnark,P.About Translation[M].Multilingual Matters Ltd,1991.
Newmark,P.Approaches to Translation[M].Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
Nida,E.A.Toward a Science of Translation[M].Leiden:E.J.Brill,1964.
Nida,E.A.Language and Culture:Contexts in Translating[M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
Nida,E.A.and Taber,C.The Theory and Practice of Translation[M].Leiden:Brill,1969/1982.
Schleiermacher,F.On the Different Methods of Translating,Western Translation Theory(D.Robinson,ed.).Manchester:St Jerome Publishing,p.225-238,1813/1997.
Seleskovitch,D.L'interpretation de conference,Babel,8-1,p.13-18,1962.
Seleskovitch,D.English Interpretation:A psychological approach to translating,Translation:Applications and Research(R.Brislin,ed.).New York:Gardner Press,p.92-116,1976.
Seleskovitch,D.Traduire,de l 'experience au concept[M].Patois:Didier,1976.
Seleskovitch,D.Interpreting for International Conferences[Z].Washington DC:Pen &Booth,1978.
Seleskovitch,D.& Lederer,M.Interpreter pour traduire[M].Paris:Didier Erudition, 1986.
Selver,P.The Art of Translating Poetry[M].London:Jon Baker,1996.Setton,R.Simultaneous Interpretation:a cognitive-pragmatic analysis[M].Amsterdam:Benjamins,1999.
Setton,R.Words and Sense:Revisiting Lexical Processes in Interpreting,Forum 1,p.139-168,2003.
Snell-Homby,M.Translation Studies:An Integrated Approach[M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
Turner,M.Reading Minds[M].Princeton University Press,1991.
Vinay,J.P.and Darbelnet,J.Comparative Stylistics of French and English:A Methodology for Translation[M].Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company,1995.
Wilss,W.Syntactic Anticipation in German-English Language Interpretation and Communication[M].Plenum:New York,London,1978.
Wilss,W.The Science of Translation[M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
Wirl,J.Grundsatzliches zur Problematik des Dolmetschens und des ubersetzens[M].Vienna:Wilhelm Braumuller,1958.
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English.4~(th)Edition,London:Harper Collins,1995.
Macmillan English Dictionary for Advance Learners.2~(nd)Edition,Oxford:Macmillan Education,2002.
Oxford Advanced Learner 's English-Chinese Dictionary.4~(th)Edition,Oxford:Oxford University Press,1989.
Oxford Advanced Learner's English-Chinese Dictionary.4~(th)Edition,The Commercial Press,1997.
Webster's Third New International Dictionary.6~(th)Edition,Random House Inc.,1976.http://www.fmprc.gov.cn.http://sh.dict.cn/search/?q=transcoding
鲍刚,口译理论概述[M].旅游教育出版社,1998.
鲍刚,口译理论概述[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版社,2005.
蔡小红,以跨学科的视野拓展口译研究[J].中国翻译,2001(2).
陈友良,语言翻译不是翻译语言[J].衡阳师范学院学报,2000(1).
[法]达尼卡·塞莱丝科维奇,(孙慧双译)口笔译概论[M].北京:北京语言学院出版社,1992.
杜争鸣,英汉同声传译中的“断点”浅议[J].上海科技翻译,1998(4).
杜争鸣,外语·翻译·文化[M].南京:东南大学出版社,2006.
郭建中,文化与翻译[M].中国对外翻译出版公司,1999.
胡维佳,功能翻译理论指导下的专有名词翻译[J].上海翻译,2006(4).
柯平,释意学派的翻译理论[J].中国翻译研究,2005(1).
李和庆,黄皓,薄振杰,西方翻译研究方法论:70年代以后[M].北京:北京大学出版社.2005.
李天舒,最新简明英语口译教程[M].世界图书出版公司,2003.
林巍,试论同声传译教学的思维和语言策略[J].解放军外国语学院报,2006(3).
刘和平,口译技巧-思维科学与口译推理教学法[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版社,2001.
刘和平,口译理论与教学研究现状及展望[J].中国翻译,2002(2).
刘和平,口译理论研究成果与趋势浅析[J].中国翻译,2005(4).
刘宓庆,汉英句子扩展机制对比研究[J].现代外语(总第55期),1992.
刘宓庆,汉英对比与翻译[M].江西教育出版社,1992.
刘宓庆,汉英句子扩展机制对比研究[J].现代外语(总第55期),1992.
刘宓庆,口笔译理论研究[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版社,2004.
刘海云,试论乔治穆南的翻译观[J].青海师范大学学报,2001(2).
[法]玛丽雅娜·勒德雷,(刘和平译)口笔译概论[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2001.
平洪,张国扬,英语习语与英美文化[M].外语教学与研究出版社,1999.
武光军,中西同声传译理论研究回顾与展望[J].中国科技翻译,2006(4).
许钧,文学翻译的理论与实践[M].南京:译林出版社,2001.
杨承淑,从“经济性原则”探讨“顺译”的运用[J].中国翻译,2002(6).
杨承淑,口译教学研究:理论与实践[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2005.
杨自俭,英汉语比较与翻译(4)[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2002.
郁福敏,郭珊琏,英汉习语对比[M].上海交通大学出版社,1999.
苑涛,汉英中国政治术语词典[M].南京:南京大学出版社,2005.
张维为.英汉同声传译[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1999.
章振邦,新编英语语法教程[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1998.
周泰国,英语现场口译技巧[M].江西丈化音像出版社,2002.