译学词典的本体论研究
|
摘要
本文是通过本体论的视角组织起来的,其讨论和论证也是根据本体论的有关要求和特点展开的。本体论有助于人们理解事物的存在及其本质。从自然阶段到人文主义阶段,本体论逐渐从形而上学的王国进入到现实世界,并把有关人类生存和文化的实际问题作为其研究的课题。尽管对本体论的认识存在不同,但是,对其特点的认识还存在诸多共同之处,其主要表现为：存在的本源性、本体与现象的统一性、圆环阐释性、强调功能等。本文各章节正是建立在这些本体论的特点之上的。
译学词典有其词典学渊源。词典文化有着悠久的历史,但是,作为关于词典编纂与研究的词典学则是在二十世纪后半期才发展起来的。词典学主要探讨词典的本质、特性、类型以及功能等。在很长一段的时间内,词典学被当作语言学的一个分支,因为那时的词典研究主要采取语言学的视角。后来，对词典的跨学科研究开拓了人们的学术视野,从而使得词典学逐渐发展成为一门独立的学科。作为一门独立的学科,词典学必定有其内在的体系和性质,也必然会表现出它的新的特点,其主要体现为：多学科综合、视野开放以及实践取向等。这些特点蕴涵了译学词典的词典学渊源。译学词典有其翻译学渊源。译学词典的存在包含两个基本的本体内容,一是形式,一是内容。词典学渊源决定了译学词典是一种词典；翻译学渊源决定了译学词典是一种专科词典。翻译学的多元性决定了翻译研究中多种视角的共存性与互补性,译学词典作为一种翻译研究的方法,是翻译学的一个新的研究视角。翻译学的系统性决定了,作为一门独立学科,翻译学必然有其理论体系和研究方法,而译学词典则有利于译学知识的系统化。翻译学的开放性决定了译学研究总是可以不断丰富的,因为翻译学的跨学科研究在不断地加强,译学词典研究是词典学与翻译学相结合的产物,它符合翻译学的开放性。
译学词典的存在取决于翻译学和词典学的融合。随着诸多译学词典的出现以及相关的理论研究,译学词典的名与实已经得以确立。就译学词典的本体要素,本文从四个方面加以论述：1)材料因。材料因指译学词典的本体内容材料。翻译学的本体内容构成了译学词典的本体内容。随着跨学科性的不断加强,翻译学必然要涉及各种知识,这些知识主要建立在翻译学的概念、术语和专名之上。2)形式因。就形式因而言,它应该反映词典学要求,因此,译学词典的形式因主要是针对词典学的,它能够证实译学词典的表现形式是否符合词典学的规则要求。在这方面,本文主要讨论了译学词典的宏观结构、微观结构及其装帧特征。3)效果因。效果因指译学词典本体的生发性。译学词典的现象取决于译学词典的本体,译学词典的本体又必须通过译学词典的各种现象表现出来。因而,译学词典的本体与现象应该密切地结合起来。4)目的因。目的因指译学词典的目的,它能证实译学词典的功能与价值。实体的本体要素是相互依赖的,从而形成一个有机的整体,这些本体要素既对立又统一,使得实体具有了发展的内在动力。通过证实其它要素存在的意义或价值,每个本体要素自身才被赋予了存在的意义或价值,这就形成一个阐释圆环。译学词典研究的本体要素构成了一个阐释圆环,随着这个阐释圆环的运动发展,译学词典研究就具有了内在的发展动力。译学词典研究的阐释圆环主要由译学词典的编者、译学词典理论、译学词典用户以及社会文化背景所构成。就编者方面,本文讨论了他们对译学词典研编的感性、知性与理性,以及他们的职业道德。就译学词典理论方面,本文主要讨论了译学词典的本质、类型、编纂原则、结构、功能,以及历史等。就译学词典用户方面,本文主要讨论了他们的译学词典意识、认知能力,以及交往的有效性等。就社会文化方面,本文主要讨论了译学词典的出版、科学技术、以及意识形态等。从本体论的角度而言,译学词典研究的所有要素都是相互联系的,从而构成了一个阐释圆环。
词典编纂是文化活动的一部分,有着悠久的历史。然而,很长一段时间,词典的功能没有得到关注,因而,词典编纂没有得到学术研究。在西方,直到十八世纪,词典学家才开始讨论词典的质量问题。相比较而言,译学词典则非常年轻,只有三十年左右的历史,因此,还没能引起学者们足够的关注,人们对译学词典的功能还没有足够的理解。本文对译学词典的功能进行了探讨,从而证明译学词典存在的价值,推动译学词典的研编。就译学词典研究的功能方面,本文首先讨论了译学词典研究成为一门学科的可能性。根据学科学的有关理论,本文讨论了译学词典研究的内在动力、学科环境,以及学科指标体系。内在动力取决于译学词典研究阐释圆环的运动发展。与译学词典研究的相关学科,如：翻译学、词典学、语言学、信息工程、交际学、出版学、图书馆学、语料库等,构成了译学词典研究的学科环境。根据学科指标体系,本文讨论了译学词典研究的定义、研究对象、历史必然性、创始人及其代表作、理论体系、研究方法,以及研究目标等。译学词典研究能澄清诸多误解,也能结揭示其动力机制、发展模式,以及发展空间等。此外,学者们的学科构建意识以及他们的理论勇气在推动译学词典研编方面也起着重要作用。
在结论部分,本文主要谈了如下方面的内容：本体论在本研究中重要性,本研究主要发现或贡献,本研究的局限性,以及对未来研究的初步设想。从本体论的视角来讨论译学词典及其研究有利于对其特性和功能的理解。就本研究的主要贡献方面,本文指出了它的思维价值、应用价值,以及学科生态的思想。在思维价值上,本文讨论了系统分析与系统综合的结合,以及共时审视与历时审视的结合。在应用价值上,本文讨论了它对翻译学、专科词典学,以及译学词典研究本身的贡献。在学科生态思想上,本文讨论了它的描写功能、综合功能,以及过滤功能等。就本研究的局限性方面,本文指出,在研究方法上没有突出实证研究与案例研究,其研究文献也主要限于国内。就未来的研究,本文提出如下设想：编纂更多的译学词典,提高人们对译学词典研编的意识,规范译学词典的批评等。
The dissertation is organized by the ontological perspective, and the relevant discussion and argumentation of the dissertation are carried out by the requirements and properties of ontology. Ontology can help people to understand the existence and nature of things. From the natural phase to humanistic one, ontology has stepped out of the metaphysical realm to the physical world, and the actual problems about human life and culture have become the research subjects of ontology. Despite the differences between understandings of ontology, there exist some common ones in terms of the properties of ontology, which are mainly expressed by the origin of existence, unification of noumenon and phenomenon, hermeneutic circle, and the emphasis of function. It is just on the basis of these properties of ontology that the chapters of the dissertation are built.
The translatological dictionary has its lexicographical origin. There is a long history of dictionary culture, but lexicography, which mainly deals with the dictionary making and research, is just developed in the latter half of the 20th century. Lexicography mainly goes around the nature, property, typology, and function of the dictionary. For a long time, lexicography had been regarded as a branch of linguistics, as it dealt with the dictionary research only from the linguistic perspective. Later on, interdisciplinary study of the dictionary broadened people's academic horizon, and lexicography gradually developed into an independent discipline. As an independent discipline, lexicography must have its inner system and characters, and it is certain for lexicography to show its new properties, which are mainly characterized by its multidisciplinary integration, open perspective, and practice-oriented tendency. It is just these characteristics of lexicography that imply the lexicographical origin of the translatological dictionary. The translatological dictionary has its translatological origin. The existence of the translatological dictionary contains two noumenal aspects:one is the form and the other content. The lexicographical origin determines that the translatological dictionary is a kind of dictionary; the translatological origin determines that the translatological dictionary is a kind of specialized dictionary. The multivariate property of translatology determines the coexistence and mutual complementation of the multivariate perspectives in translation studies. The translatological dictionary, a way to deal with the translatological matters, is a new research perspective to translation studies. The systematic property of translatology determines that translatology, as an independent discipline, must have its theoretical system and research methodology. The translatological dictionary is conducive to the systematization the translatological matters. The open property of translatology determines that translation study is always open to be enriched, for interdisciplinary study in translatology is increasingly strengthened. The study of translatological dictionary, derived from the integration of lexicography and translatology, accords with the open property of translatology.
The existence of the translatological dictionary lies in the integration of translatology and lexicography. With the production of translatological dictionaries and the theoretical study of them, the name and nature of the translatological dictionary have been established. As for the noumenal elements of the translatological dictionary, the dissertation argues from four aspects:a) Material cause. The material cause refers to the noumenal materials of the translatological dictionary. The noumenal materials of translatology constitute the noumenal materials of the translatological dictionary. With a strong tendency of interdisciplinarity, translatology must involve various kinds of knowledge, which are mainly composed of translatological concepts, terms, and proper nouns. b) Formal cause. In respect of the formal cause, it should reflect the requirements of lexicography. Therefore, the formal cause of the translatological dictionary should be oriented towards lexicography, which can verify if the presentation form of the translatological dictionary satisfies the lexicographical rules and regulations. In this respect, the dissertation mainly talks about the macrostructure, microstructure, and the physical features. c) Efficient cause. Efficient cause refers to the productivity of the noumenon of the translatological dictionary. The phenomena of the translatological dictionary are determined by the noumenon, and the noumenon of the translatological dictionary should be presented by the various phenomena. Therefore, the noumenon and phenomena of the translatological dictionary should be closely unified. d) Final cause. The final cause refers to purposes of the translatological dictionary, which can verify the function or value of the translatological dictionary. The noumenal elements of an entity are mutually dependent upon, forming an organic whole, and with the contradiction and unification of the noumenal elements, an entity is endowed with the inner drive for development. Each noumenal element is endowed with their existent meaning or value by its proving the existent meaning or value of the other elements, thus forming a hermeneutic circle. The noumenal elements of the study of translatological dictionary form a hermeneutic circle. With the movement of the hermeneutic circle, the study of translatological dictionary is endowed with its inner drive for development. The hermeneutic circle of the study of translatological dictionary is mainly composed of the dictionary compilers, theories concerning the translatological dictionaries, dictionary users, and the social and cultural background. In terms of the compilers, the dissertation discusses their perception, understanding, reason of the compilation and study of the translatological dictionary, and their professionalism as well. In terms of the theories, the dissertation mainly talks about the translatological dictionary in terms of its nature, typology, compilation principle, structure, criticism, function, and history. In terms of the users, the dissertation mainly talks about their awareness of the translatological dictionary, their cognitive competence, and the valid communication. In terms of the social and cultural background, the dissertation mainly talks about the publication of the translatological dictionary, science and technology, and ideology. All the elements of the study of translatological dictionary are ontologically related, forming a hermeneutic circle.
Dictionary compilation is a part of cultural activities, leaving behind a long history. However, for a long time, the dictionary-making had escaped from the academic research, as people paid little heed to its functions. Not until the 18th century in the West did the lexicographers begin to talk about the quality of dictionaries. Comparatively, the translatological dictionary is much younger, with a short history of about three decades. Therefore, the study of translatological dictionary is too young to attract enough attention from the scholars, and as a result, people have not well understood the functions of the translatological dictionary. The dissertation probes into the functions of the study of translatological dictionary, testifying the existent values of the translatological dictionary, which can promote the development of the compilation and study of translatological dictionary. As for the functions, the dissertation first talks about the possibility for the study of translatological dictionary to be a discipline. According to the disciplinary science, the dissertation talks about the study of translatological dictionary in terms of its inner impetus, disciplinary environment, and disciplinary index system. The inner impetus lies in the movement of the hermeneutic circle of the study of translatological dictionary. The relevant disciplines, such as translatology, lexicography, linguistics, information engineering, communication theory, publication, bibliotheca, corpus, and so on, constitute a disciplinary environment. According to the disciplinary index system, the dissertation talks about the study of translatological dictionary in terms of its definition, research object, historical necessity, founder and his magnum opus, theoretical system, research methodology, and research objective. The study of translatological dictionary can clarify some misunderstandings. The study of translatological dictionary can also reveal its dynamical mechanism, its development pattern, and its development space. In addition, the scholars' discipline-building consciousness and their theory courage play an important role in promoting the compilation and study of the translatological dictionary.
In conclusion, the dissertation deals with these aspects:significance of the application of ontology in this study, main findings or contributions of this study, limitations of this study, and some proposed future studies. To discuss the translatological dictionary and its study from the ontological perspective is conducive to the understanding of their properties and functions. In terms of the main findings of the study, the dissertation points out its thinking value, application value, and the ideas of disciplinary ecology. To elucidate the thinking value, the dissertation talks about the combination of systematic analysis and synthesis, and the combination of synchronic and diachronic surveys. To elucidate the application value, the dissertation talks about the contributions made by the compilation and study of translatological dictionary to translatology, specialized lexicography, and the study of translatological dictionary itself. To elucidate the ideas of disciplinary ecology, the dissertation talks about the descriptive function, integrative function, and filtrating function of the study of translatological dictionary. In terms of the limitations of the study, the dissertation points out that little effort is made to the empirical study and case study, and the research literature is mainly confined to China. In terms of the future studies, the dissertation proposes to make more translatological dictionaries, to raise people's awareness of the compilation and study of translatological dictionary, and to study the criticism specification of the translatological dictionary.
译学词典有其词典学渊源。词典文化有着悠久的历史,但是,作为关于词典编纂与研究的词典学则是在二十世纪后半期才发展起来的。词典学主要探讨词典的本质、特性、类型以及功能等。在很长一段的时间内,词典学被当作语言学的一个分支,因为那时的词典研究主要采取语言学的视角。后来，对词典的跨学科研究开拓了人们的学术视野,从而使得词典学逐渐发展成为一门独立的学科。作为一门独立的学科,词典学必定有其内在的体系和性质,也必然会表现出它的新的特点,其主要体现为：多学科综合、视野开放以及实践取向等。这些特点蕴涵了译学词典的词典学渊源。译学词典有其翻译学渊源。译学词典的存在包含两个基本的本体内容,一是形式,一是内容。词典学渊源决定了译学词典是一种词典；翻译学渊源决定了译学词典是一种专科词典。翻译学的多元性决定了翻译研究中多种视角的共存性与互补性,译学词典作为一种翻译研究的方法,是翻译学的一个新的研究视角。翻译学的系统性决定了,作为一门独立学科,翻译学必然有其理论体系和研究方法,而译学词典则有利于译学知识的系统化。翻译学的开放性决定了译学研究总是可以不断丰富的,因为翻译学的跨学科研究在不断地加强,译学词典研究是词典学与翻译学相结合的产物,它符合翻译学的开放性。
译学词典的存在取决于翻译学和词典学的融合。随着诸多译学词典的出现以及相关的理论研究,译学词典的名与实已经得以确立。就译学词典的本体要素,本文从四个方面加以论述：1)材料因。材料因指译学词典的本体内容材料。翻译学的本体内容构成了译学词典的本体内容。随着跨学科性的不断加强,翻译学必然要涉及各种知识,这些知识主要建立在翻译学的概念、术语和专名之上。2)形式因。就形式因而言,它应该反映词典学要求,因此,译学词典的形式因主要是针对词典学的,它能够证实译学词典的表现形式是否符合词典学的规则要求。在这方面,本文主要讨论了译学词典的宏观结构、微观结构及其装帧特征。3)效果因。效果因指译学词典本体的生发性。译学词典的现象取决于译学词典的本体,译学词典的本体又必须通过译学词典的各种现象表现出来。因而,译学词典的本体与现象应该密切地结合起来。4)目的因。目的因指译学词典的目的,它能证实译学词典的功能与价值。实体的本体要素是相互依赖的,从而形成一个有机的整体,这些本体要素既对立又统一,使得实体具有了发展的内在动力。通过证实其它要素存在的意义或价值,每个本体要素自身才被赋予了存在的意义或价值,这就形成一个阐释圆环。译学词典研究的本体要素构成了一个阐释圆环,随着这个阐释圆环的运动发展,译学词典研究就具有了内在的发展动力。译学词典研究的阐释圆环主要由译学词典的编者、译学词典理论、译学词典用户以及社会文化背景所构成。就编者方面,本文讨论了他们对译学词典研编的感性、知性与理性,以及他们的职业道德。就译学词典理论方面,本文主要讨论了译学词典的本质、类型、编纂原则、结构、功能,以及历史等。就译学词典用户方面,本文主要讨论了他们的译学词典意识、认知能力,以及交往的有效性等。就社会文化方面,本文主要讨论了译学词典的出版、科学技术、以及意识形态等。从本体论的角度而言,译学词典研究的所有要素都是相互联系的,从而构成了一个阐释圆环。
词典编纂是文化活动的一部分,有着悠久的历史。然而,很长一段时间,词典的功能没有得到关注,因而,词典编纂没有得到学术研究。在西方,直到十八世纪,词典学家才开始讨论词典的质量问题。相比较而言,译学词典则非常年轻,只有三十年左右的历史,因此,还没能引起学者们足够的关注,人们对译学词典的功能还没有足够的理解。本文对译学词典的功能进行了探讨,从而证明译学词典存在的价值,推动译学词典的研编。就译学词典研究的功能方面,本文首先讨论了译学词典研究成为一门学科的可能性。根据学科学的有关理论,本文讨论了译学词典研究的内在动力、学科环境,以及学科指标体系。内在动力取决于译学词典研究阐释圆环的运动发展。与译学词典研究的相关学科,如：翻译学、词典学、语言学、信息工程、交际学、出版学、图书馆学、语料库等,构成了译学词典研究的学科环境。根据学科指标体系,本文讨论了译学词典研究的定义、研究对象、历史必然性、创始人及其代表作、理论体系、研究方法,以及研究目标等。译学词典研究能澄清诸多误解,也能结揭示其动力机制、发展模式,以及发展空间等。此外,学者们的学科构建意识以及他们的理论勇气在推动译学词典研编方面也起着重要作用。
在结论部分,本文主要谈了如下方面的内容：本体论在本研究中重要性,本研究主要发现或贡献,本研究的局限性,以及对未来研究的初步设想。从本体论的视角来讨论译学词典及其研究有利于对其特性和功能的理解。就本研究的主要贡献方面,本文指出了它的思维价值、应用价值,以及学科生态的思想。在思维价值上,本文讨论了系统分析与系统综合的结合,以及共时审视与历时审视的结合。在应用价值上,本文讨论了它对翻译学、专科词典学,以及译学词典研究本身的贡献。在学科生态思想上,本文讨论了它的描写功能、综合功能,以及过滤功能等。就本研究的局限性方面,本文指出,在研究方法上没有突出实证研究与案例研究,其研究文献也主要限于国内。就未来的研究,本文提出如下设想：编纂更多的译学词典,提高人们对译学词典研编的意识,规范译学词典的批评等。
The dissertation is organized by the ontological perspective, and the relevant discussion and argumentation of the dissertation are carried out by the requirements and properties of ontology. Ontology can help people to understand the existence and nature of things. From the natural phase to humanistic one, ontology has stepped out of the metaphysical realm to the physical world, and the actual problems about human life and culture have become the research subjects of ontology. Despite the differences between understandings of ontology, there exist some common ones in terms of the properties of ontology, which are mainly expressed by the origin of existence, unification of noumenon and phenomenon, hermeneutic circle, and the emphasis of function. It is just on the basis of these properties of ontology that the chapters of the dissertation are built.
The translatological dictionary has its lexicographical origin. There is a long history of dictionary culture, but lexicography, which mainly deals with the dictionary making and research, is just developed in the latter half of the 20th century. Lexicography mainly goes around the nature, property, typology, and function of the dictionary. For a long time, lexicography had been regarded as a branch of linguistics, as it dealt with the dictionary research only from the linguistic perspective. Later on, interdisciplinary study of the dictionary broadened people's academic horizon, and lexicography gradually developed into an independent discipline. As an independent discipline, lexicography must have its inner system and characters, and it is certain for lexicography to show its new properties, which are mainly characterized by its multidisciplinary integration, open perspective, and practice-oriented tendency. It is just these characteristics of lexicography that imply the lexicographical origin of the translatological dictionary. The translatological dictionary has its translatological origin. The existence of the translatological dictionary contains two noumenal aspects:one is the form and the other content. The lexicographical origin determines that the translatological dictionary is a kind of dictionary; the translatological origin determines that the translatological dictionary is a kind of specialized dictionary. The multivariate property of translatology determines the coexistence and mutual complementation of the multivariate perspectives in translation studies. The translatological dictionary, a way to deal with the translatological matters, is a new research perspective to translation studies. The systematic property of translatology determines that translatology, as an independent discipline, must have its theoretical system and research methodology. The translatological dictionary is conducive to the systematization the translatological matters. The open property of translatology determines that translation study is always open to be enriched, for interdisciplinary study in translatology is increasingly strengthened. The study of translatological dictionary, derived from the integration of lexicography and translatology, accords with the open property of translatology.
The existence of the translatological dictionary lies in the integration of translatology and lexicography. With the production of translatological dictionaries and the theoretical study of them, the name and nature of the translatological dictionary have been established. As for the noumenal elements of the translatological dictionary, the dissertation argues from four aspects:a) Material cause. The material cause refers to the noumenal materials of the translatological dictionary. The noumenal materials of translatology constitute the noumenal materials of the translatological dictionary. With a strong tendency of interdisciplinarity, translatology must involve various kinds of knowledge, which are mainly composed of translatological concepts, terms, and proper nouns. b) Formal cause. In respect of the formal cause, it should reflect the requirements of lexicography. Therefore, the formal cause of the translatological dictionary should be oriented towards lexicography, which can verify if the presentation form of the translatological dictionary satisfies the lexicographical rules and regulations. In this respect, the dissertation mainly talks about the macrostructure, microstructure, and the physical features. c) Efficient cause. Efficient cause refers to the productivity of the noumenon of the translatological dictionary. The phenomena of the translatological dictionary are determined by the noumenon, and the noumenon of the translatological dictionary should be presented by the various phenomena. Therefore, the noumenon and phenomena of the translatological dictionary should be closely unified. d) Final cause. The final cause refers to purposes of the translatological dictionary, which can verify the function or value of the translatological dictionary. The noumenal elements of an entity are mutually dependent upon, forming an organic whole, and with the contradiction and unification of the noumenal elements, an entity is endowed with the inner drive for development. Each noumenal element is endowed with their existent meaning or value by its proving the existent meaning or value of the other elements, thus forming a hermeneutic circle. The noumenal elements of the study of translatological dictionary form a hermeneutic circle. With the movement of the hermeneutic circle, the study of translatological dictionary is endowed with its inner drive for development. The hermeneutic circle of the study of translatological dictionary is mainly composed of the dictionary compilers, theories concerning the translatological dictionaries, dictionary users, and the social and cultural background. In terms of the compilers, the dissertation discusses their perception, understanding, reason of the compilation and study of the translatological dictionary, and their professionalism as well. In terms of the theories, the dissertation mainly talks about the translatological dictionary in terms of its nature, typology, compilation principle, structure, criticism, function, and history. In terms of the users, the dissertation mainly talks about their awareness of the translatological dictionary, their cognitive competence, and the valid communication. In terms of the social and cultural background, the dissertation mainly talks about the publication of the translatological dictionary, science and technology, and ideology. All the elements of the study of translatological dictionary are ontologically related, forming a hermeneutic circle.
Dictionary compilation is a part of cultural activities, leaving behind a long history. However, for a long time, the dictionary-making had escaped from the academic research, as people paid little heed to its functions. Not until the 18th century in the West did the lexicographers begin to talk about the quality of dictionaries. Comparatively, the translatological dictionary is much younger, with a short history of about three decades. Therefore, the study of translatological dictionary is too young to attract enough attention from the scholars, and as a result, people have not well understood the functions of the translatological dictionary. The dissertation probes into the functions of the study of translatological dictionary, testifying the existent values of the translatological dictionary, which can promote the development of the compilation and study of translatological dictionary. As for the functions, the dissertation first talks about the possibility for the study of translatological dictionary to be a discipline. According to the disciplinary science, the dissertation talks about the study of translatological dictionary in terms of its inner impetus, disciplinary environment, and disciplinary index system. The inner impetus lies in the movement of the hermeneutic circle of the study of translatological dictionary. The relevant disciplines, such as translatology, lexicography, linguistics, information engineering, communication theory, publication, bibliotheca, corpus, and so on, constitute a disciplinary environment. According to the disciplinary index system, the dissertation talks about the study of translatological dictionary in terms of its definition, research object, historical necessity, founder and his magnum opus, theoretical system, research methodology, and research objective. The study of translatological dictionary can clarify some misunderstandings. The study of translatological dictionary can also reveal its dynamical mechanism, its development pattern, and its development space. In addition, the scholars' discipline-building consciousness and their theory courage play an important role in promoting the compilation and study of the translatological dictionary.
In conclusion, the dissertation deals with these aspects:significance of the application of ontology in this study, main findings or contributions of this study, limitations of this study, and some proposed future studies. To discuss the translatological dictionary and its study from the ontological perspective is conducive to the understanding of their properties and functions. In terms of the main findings of the study, the dissertation points out its thinking value, application value, and the ideas of disciplinary ecology. To elucidate the thinking value, the dissertation talks about the combination of systematic analysis and synthesis, and the combination of synchronic and diachronic surveys. To elucidate the application value, the dissertation talks about the contributions made by the compilation and study of translatological dictionary to translatology, specialized lexicography, and the study of translatological dictionary itself. To elucidate the ideas of disciplinary ecology, the dissertation talks about the descriptive function, integrative function, and filtrating function of the study of translatological dictionary. In terms of the limitations of the study, the dissertation points out that little effort is made to the empirical study and case study, and the research literature is mainly confined to China. In terms of the future studies, the dissertation proposes to make more translatological dictionaries, to raise people's awareness of the compilation and study of translatological dictionary, and to study the criticism specification of the translatological dictionary.
引文
Anderman, G.& M. Rogers. (2006) Translation Today:Trends and Perspectives. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Ayer, A. J. (1978) The Central Questions of Philosophy. Suffolk:Penguin Books.
Baker, M. (2004) Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Bassnett, S.& A. Lefevere. (2001) Constructing Cultures:Essays on Literary Translation. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Bassnett, S. (2004) Translation Studies. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Bell, R. T. (2001) Translation and Translating:Theory and Practice. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Bejoint, H. (2002) Modern Lexicography:An Introduction. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Bergenholtz, H.& Sven T., eds. (1995) Manual of Specialized Lexicography:The Preparation of Specialized Dictionaries. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamin Publishing Company.
Bowker, Lynne et al. (1998) Unity in Diversity? Current Trends in Translation Studies. Manchester:St. Jerome Publishing.
Bussmann, H. (2000) Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. Trans. Gregory P. Trauth and Kerstin Kazzazi. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Chan Sin-wai. (1993) A Glossary of Translation Terms:Chinese-English, English-Chinese. Hong Kong:The Chinese University Press.
Chan Sin-wai & D. E. Poland. Eds. (2001) An Encyclopedia of Translation: Chinese-English, English-Chinese. Hong Kong:The Chinese University Press.
Chan Sin-wai. (2004) A Dictionary of Translation Technology. Hong Kong:The Chinese University Press.
David, K. (2001) Deconstruction and Translation. Manchester:St. Jerome Publishing.
Frye, N. (1980) Creation and Recreation. Toronto:University of Toronto Press.
Gao Lei & Sun Yingchun. (2009) Ontological Perspective on the Studies of Translatological Dictionaries. American Journal of Translation Studies,1.
Gentzler, E. (2004) Contemporary Translation Theories. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Gutt, E. A. (2004) Translation and Relevance:Cognition and Context. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Hatim, B.& I. Mason. (2001) Discourse and the Translator. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Hatim, B. (2001) Communication across Cultures:Translation Theory and Contrastive Text Linguistics. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Hartmann, R.R.K. (1983) Lexicography:Principles and Practice. London:Academic Press.
Hartmann, R.R.K.& G. James. (2000) Dictionary of Lexicography. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Hartmann, R. R. K. (2005) Teaching and Researching Lexicography. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Hermans, T. (2004) Translation in Systems:Descriptive and System-Oriented Approaches Explained. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Hickey, L. (2001) The Pragmatics of Translation. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Jackson, H. (2002) Lexicography:An Introduction. London and New York:Routledge.
Johnson, K.& H. Johnson. (2001) Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied Linguistics:A Handbook for Language Teaching. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Kennedy, G. (2000) An Introduction to Corpus Linguistics. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Kolak, D. (2005) Lovers of Wisdom:An Introduction to Philosophy with Integrated Readings. Beijing:Peking University Press.
Landau, S. I. (1989) Dictionary:The Art and Craft of Lexicography. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Lefevere, A. (2004) Translation, Rewriting, and the Manipulation of Literary Fame. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Maslow, A. H. (1968) Toward a Psychology of Being. New York:Van Nostrand.
Munday, J. (2001) Introducing Translation Studies:Theories and Applications. London and New York:Routledge.
Newmark, P. A. (2001) Textbook of Translation. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Newmark, P. (2001) Approaches to Translation. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Newmark, P. (2006) About Translation. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Nida, E. A. (1998) Language, Culture and Translating. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Nida, E. A. (2001) Language and Culture-Contexts in Translating. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Nielson, S. (1994) The Bilingual SLP Dictionary:Principles and Practice of Legal Language. Gunter Narr Verlag.
Nord, C. (2001) Translation as a Purposeful Activity:Functionalist Approaches Explained. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Ress, K. (2004) Translation Criticism:The Potentials & Limitations. Trans. Rhodes, E. F. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Robinson, D. (2006) Western Translation Theory:from Herodotus to Nietzsche. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Snell-Hornby, M. (2002) Translation Studies:An Integrated Approach. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Shuttleworth, M. & M. Cowie. (2004) Dictionary of Translation Studies. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Svensen, B. (1993) Practical Lexicography:Principles and Methods of Dictionary-making. Trans. John Sykes and Kerstin Schofield. Oxford and New York:Oxford UP.
Taylor, J. R. (2001) Linguistic Categorization:Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Toury, G. (2001) Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Venuti, L. (2000) The Translation Studies Reader. London:Routledge.
Wartenberg, T. E. (2002) The Nature of Art:An Anthology. Beijing:Peking University Press.
Wilss, W. (2001) The Science of Translation:Problems and Methods. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Zgusta, L. (1971) Manual of Lexicography. Praha:Academia.
Zhu Gang. (2001) Twentieth Century Western Critical Theories. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
保罗·利科, (1988)《哲学主要趋向》,李幼蒸等译,北京：商务印书馆。
蔡新乐,(2005)《翻译的本体论研究》,上海：上海译文出版社。
蔡毅,段京华,(2000)《苏联翻译理论》,武汉：湖北教育出版社。
陈定安,(1991)《英汉比较与翻译》,北京：中国对外翻译出版公司、商务印书馆(香港有限公司)。
陈炳超,(1991)《辞书编纂学概论》,上海：复旦大学出版社。
陈楚祥,(1994) “术语术语学术语词典”,外语与外语教学,第4期。
陈菲,(1998) “《中国翻译词典》评介”,上海科技翻译,第2期。
陈福康,(2000)《中国译学理论史稿》,上海：上海外语教育出版社。
陈燮君,1991《学科学导轮—学科发展理论探索》,上海：上海三联书店。
成中英,(2000)《本体与诠释》,北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店。
(1979)《辞海》, 上海：上海辞书出版社。
戴维·克里斯特尔,(2000)《现代语言学词典》,沈家煊译,北京：商务印书馆。
笛卡儿,(1986)《第一哲学沉思集》,庞景仁译,北京：商务印书馆。
范敏,(2008) “篇章语言学视角下的译学词典研究”,山东大学。
方梦之,(2002) “术语建设与译学进展”,《译学新探》,杨自俭,青岛：青岛出版社。
方梦之,(2004)《译学辞典》,上海：上海外语教育出版社。
冯达文,郭齐勇,(2005)《新编中国哲学史》,北京：人民出版社。
冯志伟,(1997)《现代术语学引论》,北京：语文出版社。
伏尔泰,(1997)《哲学辞典》(上、下),王燕生译,北京：商务印书馆。
高雷,(2007) “翻译学词典的类型、特征及其编纂原则”,齐齐哈尔大学学报(哲学社会科学版),第2期。
龚榆,(2005)《本体论：在探索真理的道路上》,上海：三联书店。
辜正坤,(1998)“外来术语翻译与中国学术问题”,中国翻译,第6期。
辜正坤,(2003)《中西诗比较鉴赏与翻译理论》,北京：清华大学出版社。
辜正坤,(2006)《译学津原》,郑州：郑州文心出版社出版。
郭建中,(2000)《当代美国翻译理论》,武汉：湖北教育出版社。
郭延礼,(2001)《中国近代翻译文学概论》,武汉：湖北教育出版社。
郭著章等,(1999)《翻译名家研究》,武汉：湖北教育出版社。
哈贝马斯,(1999)《认识与兴趣》,郭官义等译,学林出版社。
海德格尔,(2006)《存在与时间》,陈嘉映,王庆节译,北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店。
何华连,(2000)“工具书的鉴别与评价”,浙江师大学报,第4期。
贺晓丽,(2007)“译学词典的检索性”,科教文汇,第7期。
黑格尔,(2007)《小逻辑》,北京：中国社会科学出版社。
胡明扬,谢自立,梁式中,郭成韬,李大中,(1982)《词典学概论》,北京：中国人民大学出版社。
胡明扬,(2006)“中国词典编纂史上一个划时代的里程碑”,语言文字应用,第1期。
黄建华,(2001)《词典论》,上海：上海辞书出版社。
黄建华,陈楚祥,(2001)《双语词典学导论》,北京：商务印书馆。
黄颂杰等,(2002)《西方哲学多维透视》,上海：上海人民出版社。
黄希玲,(2003)“《翻译百科全书》简评”,山东外语教学,第4期。
黄希玲,(2004)“论专科词典的编纂原则”,辞书研究,第6期。
黄希玲,孙迎春,(2005)“论译学词典的研编”,外语与外语教学,第1期。
黄希玲,(2005)“论译学词典的研编”,山东大学外国语学院。
黄希玲,(2007)“基于系统理论的译学词典理论建构”,辞书研究,第3期。
黄忠廉,李亚舒,(2004)《科学翻译学》,北京：中国对外翻译出版公司。
贾卫国,(2000)《英汉对照描写辞典》,上海：上海交通大学出版社。
蒋侠,(2005)“综合性译学词典的现状与展望”,山东大学外国语学院。
康德,(1999)《实践理性批判》,韩水法译,北京：商务印书馆。
康德,(2001)《实践理性批判》,关文运译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社。
柯飞,(2000)“《翻译研究百科全书》点评”,外语教学与研究,第1期。
柯林斯,(1989)《精选英语词典》, 北京：中国对外翻译出版公司。
兰多,(2005)《词典编纂的艺术与技巧》,章宜华,夏立新译,北京：商务印书馆。
李彬,(2003)《符号透视：传播内容的本体诠释》,上海：复旦大学出版社。
李尔钢,(2002)《现代辞典学导论》,上海：汉语大词典出版社。
李俊文,(2006)“本体论：哲学永恒的理论诉求”,黑龙江社会科学,第5期。
李明,周敬华,(2002)《双语词典编纂》,上海：上海外语教育出版社。
李思孝,(2003)《简明西方文论史》,北京：北京大学出版社。
李绍明,(2002)“《中国翻译词典》指疵”,山东外语教学,第4期。
李翔海,邓克武,(2006)《成中英文集·本体诠释学》,武汉：湖北人民出版社。
李祥俊,(2006)“本体论与中国传统哲学的终极探求”,阴山学刊,第6期。
李泽厚,(2002)《历史本体论》,北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店。
廖七一,(2000)《当代西方翻译理论探索》,南京：译林出版社。
廖七一,(2001)《当代英国翻译理论》,武汉：湖北教育出版社。
林煌天,贺崇寅等,(1991)《中国科技翻译家辞典》,上海：上海翻译出版公司。
林煌天,(1997)《中国翻译词典》,武汉：湖北教育出版社。
林穗芳,(1998)“中国翻译事业进程中的里程碑”,中国读书评论,第5期。
林玉山,(1992)《中国辞书编纂史略》,郑州：中州古籍出版社。
刘达,(1992)《百科全书学概论》,北京：北京航空航天大学出版社。
刘宓庆,(2001)《翻译与语言哲学》,北京：中国对外翻译出版公司。
刘宓庆,(2005a)《中西翻译思想比较研究》,北京：中国对外翻译出版公司。
刘宓庆,(2005b)《翻译美学导论》,北京：中国对外翻译出版公司。
刘宓庆,(2005c)《新编当代翻译理论》,北京：中国对外翻译出版公司。
刘新芳,(2003)“综合性译学词典的编排体例探讨”,苏州科技学院学报(社会科学版),第2期。
刘叶秋,(2003)《中国字典史略》,北京：中华书局。
刘重德,(1999)《英汉翻译例句词典》,长沙：湖南文艺出版社。
罗思明,(2008)《词典学新论》,合肥：安徽教育出版社。
罗选民,(2003)“评介《英汉翻译例句词典》”,外语教学与研究,第2期。
吕俊,(2004) “论翻译研究的本体回归——对翻译研究‘文化转向’的反思”,外国语,第4期。
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。
马蒂尼奇,(2004)《语言哲学》,牟博等译,北京：商务印书馆。
马珂,孙承唐,(2001)《中国当代翻译工作者大词典》,西安：陕西旅游出版社。
马妮,韩秋红,(2006) “20世纪西方哲学本体论研究概述”,学习与探索,第6期。
马祖毅,2001《中国翻译简史：“五四”以前部分》,北京：中国对外翻译出版公司。
门罗·C·比厄斯利,(2006)《西方美学简史》,高建平译,北京：北京大学出版社。
穆雷,(1999)《中国翻译教学研究》,上海：上海外语教育出版社。
裴文,(2003)《索绪尔：本真状态及其张力》,北京：商务印书馆。
彭卓吾,(2002)《翻译学：一门新兴科学的创立》,北京：北图出版社。
齐良骥,(2000)《康德的知识学》,北京：商务印书馆。
沙特尔沃思,考伊,(2005)《翻译学词典》,谭载喜译,北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
邵献图,(1990)《西文工具书概论》,北京：北京大学出版社。
申雨平,(1999)《西方翻译理论精选》,北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
史企曾,(2006)《史氏汉英翻译大词典》,昆明：云南出版集团公司、云南人民出版社。
舒也,(2006)“本体论的价值之维”,浙江社会科学,第3期。
司马云杰,(2003)《价值实现论：关于人的文化主体性及其价值实现的研究》,西安：陕西人民出版社。
孙萃英,(2007)“翻译学词典《译学大词典》评介”,大学英语(学术版),第3期。
孙艺风,仲伟合,(2004)《翻译研究关键词》,北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
孙艺风,(2006)“离散译者的文化使命”,中国翻译,第1期。
孙迎春,(1999)《译学大词典》,北京：中国世界语出版社。
孙迎春,(2001a)“论综合性译学词典的编纂”,山东外语教学,第1期。
孙迎春,(2001b)《汉英双向翻译学语林》,济南：山东大学出版社。
孙迎春,(2002a) “论译学词典编纂对翻译学学科建设的重要性”,山东外语教学,第3期。
孙迎春,(2002b)“论译学词典的描写性”,外语与外语教学,第9期。
孙迎春,(2003a)“译学词典类型初议”,中国翻译,第5期。
孙迎春,(2003b)《译学词典与译学理论文集》,济南：山东大学出版社。
孙迎春,(2005)《2004翻译学词典与译学理论文集》,天津：天津教育出版社。
孙迎春,(2006)《翻译学词典博士文集》,天津：天津教育出版社。
孙迎春,(2007)“译学词典：编者主体性”,外国语言文学,第1期。
孙迎春,(2008)《科学词典译编》,北京：中国对外翻译出版公司。
孙迎春,(2009)《译学词典论》,上海：上海外语教育出版社。
孙致礼,(1996)《1949—1966：中国英美文学翻译概论》,南京：译林出版社。
谭载喜,(2000)《翻译学》,武汉：湖北教育出版社。
谭载喜,(2004)《西方翻译简史》,北京：商务印书馆。
谭载喜,(2004)“《翻译研究词典》的翻译原则与方法”,中国翻译,第6期。
特伦斯·霍克斯,(1997)《结构主义和符号学》,瞿铁鹏译,上海：上海译文出版社。
王秉钦,(2004)《20世纪中国翻译思想史》,天津：南开大学出版社。
王东风,(2007)“功能语言学与后解构主义时代的翻译研究”,中国翻译,第3期。
王宏印,(2003)《中国传统译论经典诠释——从道安到傅雷》,武汉：湖北教育出版社。
王宏印,(2006)《文学翻译批评论稿》,上海：上海外语教育出版社。
王克非,(2003)“论翻译工具书的研编”,中国翻译,第4期。
王克非,(2004)《双语对应语料库：研制与应用》,北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
王晓升,(2006)《哈贝马斯的现代性社会理论》,北京：社会科学文献出版社。
王晓红,(2005)“本体论：人之存在的理论诉求”,社会科学辑刊,第2期。
威廉姆·奥斯维特,(1999)《哈贝马斯》,沈亚生译,哈尔滨：黑龙江人民出版社。
魏向清等,(2001)“新世纪词典学理论研究趋势展望”,外语与外语教学,第4期。
魏向清,(2005)《双语词典译义研究》,上海：上海译文出版社。
夏基松,(1998)《现代西方哲学教程新编》(上、下),北京：高等教育出版社。
夏南强,(2003)“辞书编纂要‘与时俱进’”，编辑之友,第3期。
肖岚,(1982)“专科词典怎样选词”,辞书研究,第1期。
谢天振,(2003)《翻译研究新视野》,青岛：青岛出版社。
谢天振,(2008)“翻译本体研究与翻译研究本体”,中国翻译,第5期。
谢维营,(2004)“关于本体论演化的历史考察”,烟台大学学报(哲学社会科学版),第2期。
谢维营,(2005)“本体论的兴衰与哲学时代主题的转换”,南京师大学报(社会科学版),第5期。
熊十力,(2006)《体用论》,北京：中国人民大学出版社。
休谟,(1981)《人性论》,关文运译,北京：商务印书馆。
许钧,袁筱一等,(2001)《当代法国翻译理论》,武汉：湖北教育出版社。
许钧,(2006)《翻译论》,武汉：湖北教育出版社。
徐庆凯,(1995)“论专科词典的分类编排”,辞书研究,第2期。
徐庆凯等,(2006)《辞书编纂纪事》,北京：商务印书馆。
徐时仪,(1995)“社会需求与辞书编纂”,辞书研究,第4期。
许渊冲,(1984)《翻译的艺术》,北京：中国对外翻译出版社。
阎开振,(2001)“原型的发现与阐释”,中州学刊,第3期。
杨恩寰,梅宝树,(2004)《艺术学》,北京：人民出版社。
杨自俭,(1994)《译学新论》,武汉：湖北教育出版社。
杨自俭,(2002)“我国译学建设的形势与任务”,中国翻译,第1期。
杨祖希,徐庆凯,1991《专科辞典学》,成都：四川辞书出版社。
应奇,(2000)《概念图式与形而上学》,上海：学林出版社。
雍和明,(2003)《交际词典学》,上海：上海外语教育出版社。
雍和明,罗振跃,张相明,(2006)《中国辞典史论》,北京：中华书局。
喻承久,(2004)“本体论的时代使命”,湖北社会科学,第11期。
于海江,(2003)《单语学习者词典批评》,开封：河南大学出版社。
俞建梁,黄和斌,(2008)“原型范畴理论的缺陷与不足”,外语学刊,第2期。
俞宣孟,(1999)《本体论研究》,上海：上海人民出版社。
曾东京,(2003)《2003年第五届全国双语词典学术研讨会论文》,上海：上海外语教育出版社。
曾东京,(2004)“《译学词典》的三大亮点”,上海科技翻译,第4期。
曾东京,(2005a)“也论翻译学词典”,中国翻译,第4期。
曾东京,(2005b)“《中国翻译词典》得失论”,上海翻译,译学词典理论专集。
曾东京,刘坤坤,(2006)“论翻译学词典的体例”,学术研究,第9期。
曾东京,(2007)《翻译学词典编纂之理论研究》,上海：上海大学出版社。
张柏然,(1998)“翻译本体论的断想”,外语与外语教学,第4期。
张柏然,魏向清,(2001)《双语词典学论集》,南京：江苏教育出版社。
张柏然,韩江洪,(2005)“论翻译学词典的特征与释义原则”,中国翻译,第2期。
张广森,(2005)“不可超越的本体论”,学习与探索,第5期。
张南峰,(2004)《中西译学批评》,北京：清华大学出版社。
张牛,(2009) “试论系统分析综合法及其方法论启示”,重庆邮电大学学报(社会科学版),第3期。
张思洁,(2006)《中国传统译论范畴及其体系》,上海：上海译文出版社。
张万方,(1991)“评《中国翻译家词典》”,中国翻译,第5期。
张万起等,(2006)“吕叔湘先生与辞书学”,语文研究,第1期。
张文儒,郭建宁,(2001)《中国现代哲学》,北京：北京大学出版社。
赵巍等,(2006a)“译学词典的原型及评价系统”,四川外语学院学报,第5期。
赵巍,(2006b)“译学辞典的原型及评价系统”,山东大学。
赵振铎,(1998)《辞书学纲要》,成都：四川辞书出版社。
赵振铎,(2001)《字典论》,上海：上海辞书出版社。
郑敏,(1998)《结构—解构视角：语言·文化·评论》, 北京：清华大学出版社。
郑元会,孙迎春,(2005)“译学词典：词条右项信息素”,中国翻译,第5期。(1988)《中国翻译家词典》,北京：中国对外翻译出版公司。
周仪,罗平,(1999)《翻译与批评》,武汉：湖北教育出版社。
朱立元,(2002)《当代西方文艺理论》,上海：华东师范大学出版社。
兹古斯塔,(1983)《词典学概论》,林书武等译,北京：商务印书馆。
左大鹏,(2006)“本体论内涵对哲学范式转换的审视”,内蒙古社会科学(汉文版),第1期。
Ayer, A. J. (1978) The Central Questions of Philosophy. Suffolk:Penguin Books.
Baker, M. (2004) Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Bassnett, S.& A. Lefevere. (2001) Constructing Cultures:Essays on Literary Translation. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Bassnett, S. (2004) Translation Studies. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Bell, R. T. (2001) Translation and Translating:Theory and Practice. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Bejoint, H. (2002) Modern Lexicography:An Introduction. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Bergenholtz, H.& Sven T., eds. (1995) Manual of Specialized Lexicography:The Preparation of Specialized Dictionaries. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamin Publishing Company.
Bowker, Lynne et al. (1998) Unity in Diversity? Current Trends in Translation Studies. Manchester:St. Jerome Publishing.
Bussmann, H. (2000) Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. Trans. Gregory P. Trauth and Kerstin Kazzazi. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Chan Sin-wai. (1993) A Glossary of Translation Terms:Chinese-English, English-Chinese. Hong Kong:The Chinese University Press.
Chan Sin-wai & D. E. Poland. Eds. (2001) An Encyclopedia of Translation: Chinese-English, English-Chinese. Hong Kong:The Chinese University Press.
Chan Sin-wai. (2004) A Dictionary of Translation Technology. Hong Kong:The Chinese University Press.
David, K. (2001) Deconstruction and Translation. Manchester:St. Jerome Publishing.
Frye, N. (1980) Creation and Recreation. Toronto:University of Toronto Press.
Gao Lei & Sun Yingchun. (2009) Ontological Perspective on the Studies of Translatological Dictionaries. American Journal of Translation Studies,1.
Gentzler, E. (2004) Contemporary Translation Theories. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Gutt, E. A. (2004) Translation and Relevance:Cognition and Context. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Hatim, B.& I. Mason. (2001) Discourse and the Translator. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Hatim, B. (2001) Communication across Cultures:Translation Theory and Contrastive Text Linguistics. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Hartmann, R.R.K. (1983) Lexicography:Principles and Practice. London:Academic Press.
Hartmann, R.R.K.& G. James. (2000) Dictionary of Lexicography. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Hartmann, R. R. K. (2005) Teaching and Researching Lexicography. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Hermans, T. (2004) Translation in Systems:Descriptive and System-Oriented Approaches Explained. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Hickey, L. (2001) The Pragmatics of Translation. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Jackson, H. (2002) Lexicography:An Introduction. London and New York:Routledge.
Johnson, K.& H. Johnson. (2001) Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied Linguistics:A Handbook for Language Teaching. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Kennedy, G. (2000) An Introduction to Corpus Linguistics. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Kolak, D. (2005) Lovers of Wisdom:An Introduction to Philosophy with Integrated Readings. Beijing:Peking University Press.
Landau, S. I. (1989) Dictionary:The Art and Craft of Lexicography. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Lefevere, A. (2004) Translation, Rewriting, and the Manipulation of Literary Fame. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Maslow, A. H. (1968) Toward a Psychology of Being. New York:Van Nostrand.
Munday, J. (2001) Introducing Translation Studies:Theories and Applications. London and New York:Routledge.
Newmark, P. A. (2001) Textbook of Translation. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Newmark, P. (2001) Approaches to Translation. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Newmark, P. (2006) About Translation. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Nida, E. A. (1998) Language, Culture and Translating. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Nida, E. A. (2001) Language and Culture-Contexts in Translating. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Nielson, S. (1994) The Bilingual SLP Dictionary:Principles and Practice of Legal Language. Gunter Narr Verlag.
Nord, C. (2001) Translation as a Purposeful Activity:Functionalist Approaches Explained. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Ress, K. (2004) Translation Criticism:The Potentials & Limitations. Trans. Rhodes, E. F. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Robinson, D. (2006) Western Translation Theory:from Herodotus to Nietzsche. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Snell-Hornby, M. (2002) Translation Studies:An Integrated Approach. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Shuttleworth, M. & M. Cowie. (2004) Dictionary of Translation Studies. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Svensen, B. (1993) Practical Lexicography:Principles and Methods of Dictionary-making. Trans. John Sykes and Kerstin Schofield. Oxford and New York:Oxford UP.
Taylor, J. R. (2001) Linguistic Categorization:Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Toury, G. (2001) Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Venuti, L. (2000) The Translation Studies Reader. London:Routledge.
Wartenberg, T. E. (2002) The Nature of Art:An Anthology. Beijing:Peking University Press.
Wilss, W. (2001) The Science of Translation:Problems and Methods. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Zgusta, L. (1971) Manual of Lexicography. Praha:Academia.
Zhu Gang. (2001) Twentieth Century Western Critical Theories. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
保罗·利科, (1988)《哲学主要趋向》,李幼蒸等译,北京：商务印书馆。
蔡新乐,(2005)《翻译的本体论研究》,上海：上海译文出版社。
蔡毅,段京华,(2000)《苏联翻译理论》,武汉：湖北教育出版社。
陈定安,(1991)《英汉比较与翻译》,北京：中国对外翻译出版公司、商务印书馆(香港有限公司)。
陈炳超,(1991)《辞书编纂学概论》,上海：复旦大学出版社。
陈楚祥,(1994) “术语术语学术语词典”,外语与外语教学,第4期。
陈菲,(1998) “《中国翻译词典》评介”,上海科技翻译,第2期。
陈福康,(2000)《中国译学理论史稿》,上海：上海外语教育出版社。
陈燮君,1991《学科学导轮—学科发展理论探索》,上海：上海三联书店。
成中英,(2000)《本体与诠释》,北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店。
(1979)《辞海》, 上海：上海辞书出版社。
戴维·克里斯特尔,(2000)《现代语言学词典》,沈家煊译,北京：商务印书馆。
笛卡儿,(1986)《第一哲学沉思集》,庞景仁译,北京：商务印书馆。
范敏,(2008) “篇章语言学视角下的译学词典研究”,山东大学。
方梦之,(2002) “术语建设与译学进展”,《译学新探》,杨自俭,青岛：青岛出版社。
方梦之,(2004)《译学辞典》,上海：上海外语教育出版社。
冯达文,郭齐勇,(2005)《新编中国哲学史》,北京：人民出版社。
冯志伟,(1997)《现代术语学引论》,北京：语文出版社。
伏尔泰,(1997)《哲学辞典》(上、下),王燕生译,北京：商务印书馆。
高雷,(2007) “翻译学词典的类型、特征及其编纂原则”,齐齐哈尔大学学报(哲学社会科学版),第2期。
龚榆,(2005)《本体论：在探索真理的道路上》,上海：三联书店。
辜正坤,(1998)“外来术语翻译与中国学术问题”,中国翻译,第6期。
辜正坤,(2003)《中西诗比较鉴赏与翻译理论》,北京：清华大学出版社。
辜正坤,(2006)《译学津原》,郑州：郑州文心出版社出版。
郭建中,(2000)《当代美国翻译理论》,武汉：湖北教育出版社。
郭延礼,(2001)《中国近代翻译文学概论》,武汉：湖北教育出版社。
郭著章等,(1999)《翻译名家研究》,武汉：湖北教育出版社。
哈贝马斯,(1999)《认识与兴趣》,郭官义等译,学林出版社。
海德格尔,(2006)《存在与时间》,陈嘉映,王庆节译,北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店。
何华连,(2000)“工具书的鉴别与评价”,浙江师大学报,第4期。
贺晓丽,(2007)“译学词典的检索性”,科教文汇,第7期。
黑格尔,(2007)《小逻辑》,北京：中国社会科学出版社。
胡明扬,谢自立,梁式中,郭成韬,李大中,(1982)《词典学概论》,北京：中国人民大学出版社。
胡明扬,(2006)“中国词典编纂史上一个划时代的里程碑”,语言文字应用,第1期。
黄建华,(2001)《词典论》,上海：上海辞书出版社。
黄建华,陈楚祥,(2001)《双语词典学导论》,北京：商务印书馆。
黄颂杰等,(2002)《西方哲学多维透视》,上海：上海人民出版社。
黄希玲,(2003)“《翻译百科全书》简评”,山东外语教学,第4期。
黄希玲,(2004)“论专科词典的编纂原则”,辞书研究,第6期。
黄希玲,孙迎春,(2005)“论译学词典的研编”,外语与外语教学,第1期。
黄希玲,(2005)“论译学词典的研编”,山东大学外国语学院。
黄希玲,(2007)“基于系统理论的译学词典理论建构”,辞书研究,第3期。
黄忠廉,李亚舒,(2004)《科学翻译学》,北京：中国对外翻译出版公司。
贾卫国,(2000)《英汉对照描写辞典》,上海：上海交通大学出版社。
蒋侠,(2005)“综合性译学词典的现状与展望”,山东大学外国语学院。
康德,(1999)《实践理性批判》,韩水法译,北京：商务印书馆。
康德,(2001)《实践理性批判》,关文运译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社。
柯飞,(2000)“《翻译研究百科全书》点评”,外语教学与研究,第1期。
柯林斯,(1989)《精选英语词典》, 北京：中国对外翻译出版公司。
兰多,(2005)《词典编纂的艺术与技巧》,章宜华,夏立新译,北京：商务印书馆。
李彬,(2003)《符号透视：传播内容的本体诠释》,上海：复旦大学出版社。
李尔钢,(2002)《现代辞典学导论》,上海：汉语大词典出版社。
李俊文,(2006)“本体论：哲学永恒的理论诉求”,黑龙江社会科学,第5期。
李明,周敬华,(2002)《双语词典编纂》,上海：上海外语教育出版社。
李思孝,(2003)《简明西方文论史》,北京：北京大学出版社。
李绍明,(2002)“《中国翻译词典》指疵”,山东外语教学,第4期。
李翔海,邓克武,(2006)《成中英文集·本体诠释学》,武汉：湖北人民出版社。
李祥俊,(2006)“本体论与中国传统哲学的终极探求”,阴山学刊,第6期。
李泽厚,(2002)《历史本体论》,北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店。
廖七一,(2000)《当代西方翻译理论探索》,南京：译林出版社。
廖七一,(2001)《当代英国翻译理论》,武汉：湖北教育出版社。
林煌天,贺崇寅等,(1991)《中国科技翻译家辞典》,上海：上海翻译出版公司。
林煌天,(1997)《中国翻译词典》,武汉：湖北教育出版社。
林穗芳,(1998)“中国翻译事业进程中的里程碑”,中国读书评论,第5期。
林玉山,(1992)《中国辞书编纂史略》,郑州：中州古籍出版社。
刘达,(1992)《百科全书学概论》,北京：北京航空航天大学出版社。
刘宓庆,(2001)《翻译与语言哲学》,北京：中国对外翻译出版公司。
刘宓庆,(2005a)《中西翻译思想比较研究》,北京：中国对外翻译出版公司。
刘宓庆,(2005b)《翻译美学导论》,北京：中国对外翻译出版公司。
刘宓庆,(2005c)《新编当代翻译理论》,北京：中国对外翻译出版公司。
刘新芳,(2003)“综合性译学词典的编排体例探讨”,苏州科技学院学报(社会科学版),第2期。
刘叶秋,(2003)《中国字典史略》,北京：中华书局。
刘重德,(1999)《英汉翻译例句词典》,长沙：湖南文艺出版社。
罗思明,(2008)《词典学新论》,合肥：安徽教育出版社。
罗选民,(2003)“评介《英汉翻译例句词典》”,外语教学与研究,第2期。
吕俊,(2004) “论翻译研究的本体回归——对翻译研究‘文化转向’的反思”,外国语,第4期。
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。
马蒂尼奇,(2004)《语言哲学》,牟博等译,北京：商务印书馆。
马珂,孙承唐,(2001)《中国当代翻译工作者大词典》,西安：陕西旅游出版社。
马妮,韩秋红,(2006) “20世纪西方哲学本体论研究概述”,学习与探索,第6期。
马祖毅,2001《中国翻译简史：“五四”以前部分》,北京：中国对外翻译出版公司。
门罗·C·比厄斯利,(2006)《西方美学简史》,高建平译,北京：北京大学出版社。
穆雷,(1999)《中国翻译教学研究》,上海：上海外语教育出版社。
裴文,(2003)《索绪尔：本真状态及其张力》,北京：商务印书馆。
彭卓吾,(2002)《翻译学：一门新兴科学的创立》,北京：北图出版社。
齐良骥,(2000)《康德的知识学》,北京：商务印书馆。
沙特尔沃思,考伊,(2005)《翻译学词典》,谭载喜译,北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
邵献图,(1990)《西文工具书概论》,北京：北京大学出版社。
申雨平,(1999)《西方翻译理论精选》,北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
史企曾,(2006)《史氏汉英翻译大词典》,昆明：云南出版集团公司、云南人民出版社。
舒也,(2006)“本体论的价值之维”,浙江社会科学,第3期。
司马云杰,(2003)《价值实现论：关于人的文化主体性及其价值实现的研究》,西安：陕西人民出版社。
孙萃英,(2007)“翻译学词典《译学大词典》评介”,大学英语(学术版),第3期。
孙艺风,仲伟合,(2004)《翻译研究关键词》,北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
孙艺风,(2006)“离散译者的文化使命”,中国翻译,第1期。
孙迎春,(1999)《译学大词典》,北京：中国世界语出版社。
孙迎春,(2001a)“论综合性译学词典的编纂”,山东外语教学,第1期。
孙迎春,(2001b)《汉英双向翻译学语林》,济南：山东大学出版社。
孙迎春,(2002a) “论译学词典编纂对翻译学学科建设的重要性”,山东外语教学,第3期。
孙迎春,(2002b)“论译学词典的描写性”,外语与外语教学,第9期。
孙迎春,(2003a)“译学词典类型初议”,中国翻译,第5期。
孙迎春,(2003b)《译学词典与译学理论文集》,济南：山东大学出版社。
孙迎春,(2005)《2004翻译学词典与译学理论文集》,天津：天津教育出版社。
孙迎春,(2006)《翻译学词典博士文集》,天津：天津教育出版社。
孙迎春,(2007)“译学词典：编者主体性”,外国语言文学,第1期。
孙迎春,(2008)《科学词典译编》,北京：中国对外翻译出版公司。
孙迎春,(2009)《译学词典论》,上海：上海外语教育出版社。
孙致礼,(1996)《1949—1966：中国英美文学翻译概论》,南京：译林出版社。
谭载喜,(2000)《翻译学》,武汉：湖北教育出版社。
谭载喜,(2004)《西方翻译简史》,北京：商务印书馆。
谭载喜,(2004)“《翻译研究词典》的翻译原则与方法”,中国翻译,第6期。
特伦斯·霍克斯,(1997)《结构主义和符号学》,瞿铁鹏译,上海：上海译文出版社。
王秉钦,(2004)《20世纪中国翻译思想史》,天津：南开大学出版社。
王东风,(2007)“功能语言学与后解构主义时代的翻译研究”,中国翻译,第3期。
王宏印,(2003)《中国传统译论经典诠释——从道安到傅雷》,武汉：湖北教育出版社。
王宏印,(2006)《文学翻译批评论稿》,上海：上海外语教育出版社。
王克非,(2003)“论翻译工具书的研编”,中国翻译,第4期。
王克非,(2004)《双语对应语料库：研制与应用》,北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
王晓升,(2006)《哈贝马斯的现代性社会理论》,北京：社会科学文献出版社。
王晓红,(2005)“本体论：人之存在的理论诉求”,社会科学辑刊,第2期。
威廉姆·奥斯维特,(1999)《哈贝马斯》,沈亚生译,哈尔滨：黑龙江人民出版社。
魏向清等,(2001)“新世纪词典学理论研究趋势展望”,外语与外语教学,第4期。
魏向清,(2005)《双语词典译义研究》,上海：上海译文出版社。
夏基松,(1998)《现代西方哲学教程新编》(上、下),北京：高等教育出版社。
夏南强,(2003)“辞书编纂要‘与时俱进’”，编辑之友,第3期。
肖岚,(1982)“专科词典怎样选词”,辞书研究,第1期。
谢天振,(2003)《翻译研究新视野》,青岛：青岛出版社。
谢天振,(2008)“翻译本体研究与翻译研究本体”,中国翻译,第5期。
谢维营,(2004)“关于本体论演化的历史考察”,烟台大学学报(哲学社会科学版),第2期。
谢维营,(2005)“本体论的兴衰与哲学时代主题的转换”,南京师大学报(社会科学版),第5期。
熊十力,(2006)《体用论》,北京：中国人民大学出版社。
休谟,(1981)《人性论》,关文运译,北京：商务印书馆。
许钧,袁筱一等,(2001)《当代法国翻译理论》,武汉：湖北教育出版社。
许钧,(2006)《翻译论》,武汉：湖北教育出版社。
徐庆凯,(1995)“论专科词典的分类编排”,辞书研究,第2期。
徐庆凯等,(2006)《辞书编纂纪事》,北京：商务印书馆。
徐时仪,(1995)“社会需求与辞书编纂”,辞书研究,第4期。
许渊冲,(1984)《翻译的艺术》,北京：中国对外翻译出版社。
阎开振,(2001)“原型的发现与阐释”,中州学刊,第3期。
杨恩寰,梅宝树,(2004)《艺术学》,北京：人民出版社。
杨自俭,(1994)《译学新论》,武汉：湖北教育出版社。
杨自俭,(2002)“我国译学建设的形势与任务”,中国翻译,第1期。
杨祖希,徐庆凯,1991《专科辞典学》,成都：四川辞书出版社。
应奇,(2000)《概念图式与形而上学》,上海：学林出版社。
雍和明,(2003)《交际词典学》,上海：上海外语教育出版社。
雍和明,罗振跃,张相明,(2006)《中国辞典史论》,北京：中华书局。
喻承久,(2004)“本体论的时代使命”,湖北社会科学,第11期。
于海江,(2003)《单语学习者词典批评》,开封：河南大学出版社。
俞建梁,黄和斌,(2008)“原型范畴理论的缺陷与不足”,外语学刊,第2期。
俞宣孟,(1999)《本体论研究》,上海：上海人民出版社。
曾东京,(2003)《2003年第五届全国双语词典学术研讨会论文》,上海：上海外语教育出版社。
曾东京,(2004)“《译学词典》的三大亮点”,上海科技翻译,第4期。
曾东京,(2005a)“也论翻译学词典”,中国翻译,第4期。
曾东京,(2005b)“《中国翻译词典》得失论”,上海翻译,译学词典理论专集。
曾东京,刘坤坤,(2006)“论翻译学词典的体例”,学术研究,第9期。
曾东京,(2007)《翻译学词典编纂之理论研究》,上海：上海大学出版社。
张柏然,(1998)“翻译本体论的断想”,外语与外语教学,第4期。
张柏然,魏向清,(2001)《双语词典学论集》,南京：江苏教育出版社。
张柏然,韩江洪,(2005)“论翻译学词典的特征与释义原则”,中国翻译,第2期。
张广森,(2005)“不可超越的本体论”,学习与探索,第5期。
张南峰,(2004)《中西译学批评》,北京：清华大学出版社。
张牛,(2009) “试论系统分析综合法及其方法论启示”,重庆邮电大学学报(社会科学版),第3期。
张思洁,(2006)《中国传统译论范畴及其体系》,上海：上海译文出版社。
张万方,(1991)“评《中国翻译家词典》”,中国翻译,第5期。
张万起等,(2006)“吕叔湘先生与辞书学”,语文研究,第1期。
张文儒,郭建宁,(2001)《中国现代哲学》,北京：北京大学出版社。
赵巍等,(2006a)“译学词典的原型及评价系统”,四川外语学院学报,第5期。
赵巍,(2006b)“译学辞典的原型及评价系统”,山东大学。
赵振铎,(1998)《辞书学纲要》,成都：四川辞书出版社。
赵振铎,(2001)《字典论》,上海：上海辞书出版社。
郑敏,(1998)《结构—解构视角：语言·文化·评论》, 北京：清华大学出版社。
郑元会,孙迎春,(2005)“译学词典：词条右项信息素”,中国翻译,第5期。(1988)《中国翻译家词典》,北京：中国对外翻译出版公司。
周仪,罗平,(1999)《翻译与批评》,武汉：湖北教育出版社。
朱立元,(2002)《当代西方文艺理论》,上海：华东师范大学出版社。
兹古斯塔,(1983)《词典学概论》,林书武等译,北京：商务印书馆。
左大鹏,(2006)“本体论内涵对哲学范式转换的审视”,内蒙古社会科学(汉文版),第1期。