论词之意境及其在翻译中的重构
摘要
中国是一个以诗闻名的国度。在中国传统文化中,诗歌享有极高的地位,非任何其他艺术形式可比。历代伟大诗人的盛名历经万代而不衰,其杰作至今仍广为传唱。在新文化运动之前,诗歌属于基础教育的一部分,在某些朝代甚至成为皇帝招贤纳士的一种选拔手段,因此历代骚人墨客多身兼朝廷要职,名仕官宦亦喜作诗词歌赋,为后人留下了浩如烟海的宝贵诗歌遗产。词,作为中国古典诗歌的一种主要形式,在其中占有很大的比重,可与诗并称诗坛双峰。
词原本是隋唐间兴起的一种伴随当时流行音乐供歌妓舞女在宴会或其他娱乐场合演唱的歌辞。唐代社会经济繁荣,娱乐业发展迅速,音乐歌舞盛行一时,由西域传入中原的燕乐因其新鲜活泼、富于变化尤为时人所好。当时主要由教坊乐工为燕乐曲调作辞,通过演唱广为流传。在其发展过程中,逐渐形成一个显著的特点,即严格按照乐曲的要求来制作歌辞,包括依乐章结构分片,依曲拍为句,依乐声高下用字,依曲调风格押韵,其文字形成一种句子长短不齐而有定格的形式。这种格式称作词牌,有固定名称,如《浣溪沙》、《蝶恋花》、《西江月》等。中唐之后文人开始效仿填词,词也便逐渐确立了它在中国诗歌中的地位,发展至宋而成一代之胜。
词体与诗体在题材内容上的区别在于各司其职,“诗言志而词娱情”。诗在题材上比较偏重政治主题,以国家兴亡、民生疾苦、胸怀抱负、宦海沉浮等为主要内容,抒发的主要是社会性的群体所共有的情感;而词在题材内容上的一个显著特色,就是以描写艳情闺怨、相思离别、伤春悲秋为主,抒发的大多是作者私人内心的真实情感。因此而形成了诗刚词柔、诗庄词媚的总体风格差异。词体与诗体在形式上的差异简言之主要在于诗(主要指近体诗)形式整齐、句式划一(每行五言或七言),格律句法相对固定,押韵格式要求一韵到底,一般隔行押韵;而词有词牌,多数分片,句式长短不齐,格律句法与押韵格式依词牌变化,可以换韵或押邻韵。
对于中国古典诗词而言,意境是其灵魂,有意境则自成高格,无意境则味同嚼蜡。因此,翻译中国古典诗词的重中之重便是意境的再现或重构。意境是富有中国特色的文艺美学概念,用以形容诗歌如水中月、镜中花般空灵虚幻的美感特质,也正因为其难以描述、无法定性而使得很多学者持诗歌不可译论。然而,通过梳理中国历代诗学评论,我们可以发现意境有其确定内涵,其主要审美特征可以概括为以下七个方面,即虚实相生、境生象外、物我齐一、意与境浑、真实自然、因小见大、心领神会。虚实相生即虚与实的统一,境生象外即境与象的关系,物我齐一即主客体的统一,意与境浑即情与景的交融,真实自然即表与里的一致,因小见大即个性与共性的统一,心领神会即创造与再创造的统一。词之意境由于词体之特殊性,在上述诸特征之外还具有幽微要眇和言长意远两个审美特征。
词境之幽微主要应归因于其双重语境。文人士大夫在作闺阁绣榻之词时可以有所托喻也可于无意识间流露自己的内心情感,无论何种情况均不能直言,而须有所凭借而婉曲达之。如刘克庄评刘叔安词所云,“借花卉以发骚人墨客之豪,托闺怨以寓放臣逐子之感”。清常州词派的张惠言因此而提出词体的比兴寄托说,并在《词选》中论述词体之隐幽曰:“意内而言外谓之词。其缘情造端,兴于微言,以相感动。极命风谣里巷男女哀乐,以道贤人君子幽约怨悱不能自言之情,低回要眇以喻其致。”词境之要眇在内容上主要是因为题材的选择,因其原本为酒筵歌席上用以助兴的歌词,内容自然多为伤春怨别的男女之情,即使有所托喻,表面也难以摆脱闺阁儿女之情。这种偏狭的题材容易导致意象的阴柔和词藻的绮艳,自然呈现要眇之姿。词境的这一特色在形式上主要是因为其固定的词牌格律、独特的词汇用语以及勾勒铺叙的艺术手法。词之字面多来源于唐李贺、李商隐等人的诗句,其词藻偏向于绮艳婉媚,而对于艺术性的刻意讲求则节制了情感的恣意宣泄,一旦情感表达的目的弱化,所形成的审美特征就倾向于委婉曲折、精雕细琢。这二者互相作用共同构建了词境之要眇。
词境之言长意远指的是词辞微旨远、“言有尽而意无穷”的特征。与诗直白的表达方式不同,词以婉曲著称,如中国画中的留白一般,给读者留下广阔的想象空间,读来余音缭绕、韵味无穷。词境之言长意远特征的形成与词中密集的意象、富有象征意义的语汇以及词中所用典故有关。意象的多义性以及意象组合的模糊性,蕴涵多层语义的象征语码与典故所阐发的多重语境空间结合在一起共同营建了词境富有言外之意、弦外之音的艺术特征。这种语义的模糊美对读者形成一种召唤结构,有待读者结合自己的经历发挥想象去填充空白、确定意义,可以保留多种解读可能,不必强求理解一致。正如常州词派周济所言,“读其篇者,临渊窥鱼,意为鲂鲤,中宵惊电,罔识东西。”(《介存斋论词杂著》)同派谭献更进一步提倡:“作者之用心未必然,而读者之用心何必不然。”(《复堂词录序》)
词境主要由音、意两方面构成。词之音韵美主要表现在词之协乐特质(包括音调的调配、词牌押韵格式、宫调风格、词之内在节奏等方面)和语音修辞上。词境在意方面分为点和面两个层次,点即词之字面词藻,面即意象意蕴。词之用语极讲究炼字,注重字面词藻的华丽典雅与点睛之词的选择,十分有助于阐发词境。意象是意境赖以生成的基础,意境由意象构成,但其关系远胜房子与砖头的关系,因为单个意象经过词人的精心选择与安排所取得的艺术效果远远超过单个意象的艺术效果的叠加。
由于汉英两种语言的异质性特征,在语言表层表现为语音系统、文字系统和句法系统等结构形式和分布形式,在语言中层表现为特定语言的表现法,比如重意合还是重形合,在语言深层表现为思维方式、思维特征和思维风格(刘宓庆,1996:372-373),词之翻译面临诸多障碍,意境的重构尤为困难。然而,译者无退路,惟有知难而上,尽量在可能情况下生产出最佳译文。在不影响语义表达的前提下完全再现原文的格律和音韵特征显然是不现实的,译者可以以译意为主,摆脱形式的桎梏,用自由体来翻译词体,然而鉴于声音效果对诗歌的重要性,译者应尽可能在译文中保持原文的音韵风貌,比较可行的一种方法是凭借汉语音节和英语重音在节奏方面的类似效果,使每行的译文重音数和原文的音节数大体相当来模仿原文的节奏感,并考虑语音与情感的对应效果,尽量用译语中的语音修辞手法来弥补原文音韵美的遗失。
对于意义翻译而言,最为重要的就是意象的重构。由于汉英两种语言在思维方式、思维特征和思维风格方面的不同以及两个民族在审美心理和文化传统方面的差异,意象的翻译实非易事,尤其是由重委婉含蓄的中国传统审美心理所导致的意象的多义性和意象组合的模糊性以及在数千年的诗歌传统中形成的富有象征意义的文化语码和典故意象,堪称词之意象重构道路上的拦路虎。了解了词之意象翻译的障碍之后,译者可以选择适当的翻译策略来应对不同类型的意象的翻译,以使原文意象在译文中得到忠实自然的再现。大意象的翻译由于更加侧重整体意象的再现,因此重点在于对全词的情感基调、意象内涵等方面的准确把握,尤其是语篇意义上的视角切换、语气情态风格以及双重语境的再现。小意象根据其表现方式可分为描述型意象、比喻型意象、象征型意象以及典故型意象,在翻译中应根据各自的特征而区别对待。在具体翻译中结合影响其策略选择的翻译目的与译文目标读者群这两个主要因素,以译文效果为终极目标,倾向于以直译为主,若原文意象在译语中对应缺失可以考虑直译加文内阐释或文外注解。意义再现的另一个方面就是词藻的翻译,译者需要具备对语言的敏感度和对诗意的悟性,以及对译语词汇的字面意义、联想意义、情感色彩以及语体风格的整体把握。
经过了对词之意境的分解剖析并提出了相应的翻译对策之后,词之意境在译文中的最终重构效果必须经由译语读者的进一步检验方可定论,因此,笔者在词境之审美特征及其审美构成的基础上设计了一份包含对于词境重构而言最为基本但又最为关键的十个问题的调查问卷,并选择了三首经典词作及其富有代表性的几个英译版本,由译语读者分别进行评估检验。结果证明,这种检验手段是行之有效且真实可靠的。
本文是笔者于博士期间所做的一项针对词之意境重构的尝试性研究,在此过程中注意到本课题的诸多方面还有待细致深入的探讨,如原作音韵效果的再现、译文中人称、格、数、时态等对于叙述视角、时间视角和空间视角的意义、意象的组合形式及其翻译、词作翻译中的意象新奇性对等等。由于时间限制这些方面在本论文中仅作简要介绍分析,有待将来进一步深化完善。由于作者自身知识面的局限,文中疏漏错误在所难免,敬请诸位方家斧正。
China is a country known for its poetry. In traditional Chinese culture, poetry held such a high position that it was unrivaled by any other single talent, ability, or practical accomplishment which would bring prestige, affluence, and even political power. The great poets were admired for their talent in poetry and their masterpieces have survived their periods and remained alive on people’s lips ever since they were written. Poetry composed a significant part of traditional education, which explains the phenomena that almost all the statesmen and officials composed poems, and our readers today are left with a legacy of such a huge anthology of poetry through all the ages. Among the classical Chinese poetry, ci poem (tz’u poem or lyric song), a second poetic form which developed during the Tang dynasty and prospered in the Sung dynasty, constitutes a high proportion and stands in the history of poetry as a rival of shi poem (regulated verse).
Ci poem originated from the entertainment songs written for the courtesans or singers to perform at banquets or for the embellishment of a social occasion in the Tang dynasty. The entertainment quarter of the Tang capital Chang’an witnessed the popularization of melodies and musical instruments from Central Asia. First the workers of music studios (教坊乐工) composed new words in Chinese to fit these melodies, and later some members of the literati followed suit. Each ci poem had to be fitted into an existing tune pattern bearing such titles as Butterflies Adore Flowers (蝶恋花), Moon on the West River (西江月), Prelude to Water Melody (西江月), Silk-Washing Stream (浣溪沙), etc. Hence there was a correlation between ci poem and music. This explains why ci poem was described as a musical literary genre expressed with voice and accompanied by musical instruments (啭之歌喉、被诸管弦的音乐文学) (Hunag, 2001: Prelude). The first ci anthology by known authors, most of whom literati, the Hua-chien Chi (Among the Flowers) was compiled by Zhao Chongzuo in the tenth century.
The most important reason why ci poem prospered in the Sung dynasty as a reaction to the shih tradition and developed into a full-fledged poetic genre mainly lies in the life attitude calling for freedom and individuality prevailing in Sung dynasty. Since Sung verses in the shih form are manifestly different from Tang poetry in that the former appeal more to human intellect than to emotions, the poet’s individuality is often blurred by the form and wit. Besides, the shih form of Chinese poetry has a long established tradition of“expressing intention or aspiration”(yen chih言志), which limits its function as an outlet of private emotions and individuality. Or in other words, the shih form in the Sung dynasty has become more a vehicle for ideology than an expression of self, while the ci form is mainly composed to express the poet’s delicate personal feelings, such as the sorrow of departure from beloved ones, the joy of reunion, the grief over the passing spring and the fading youth, the regret at disappearance of beautiful things, the melancholy over the coming of autumn and old age. Thus, it has formed the convention that shi poem is for expressing aspiration and ci poem is for delivering emotions (诗言志,词娱情).
Ci poem is different from shih poem in form as well as in content. Shih poem has a fixed form with a clear-cut regular verse-line scheme (either five or seven characters to each line) and one of the fixed prosodic patterns. Unlike shih poem, ci poem is made up of irregular verse lines, ranging from two or three words (in rare cases, even only one word) to nine words or even ten to the line. With its form determined by a specific tune, ci poem often consists of an arranged mixture of lines of various lengths (hence this form is also called long-and-short lines长短句) and is featured by a fixed rhyming scheme and a regulated prosodic pattern.
Yi-jing, which in a narrow sense, is a typical and unique aesthetic concept in Chinese art and literature, especially common as a poetic term, is used to refer to the very essence of poetry and what makes poetry untranslatable. Due to its intangible and indescribable qualities, Yi-jing is often compared to the flavor of flowers, most of which will be lost during the process of translation, or“the realm of the wordless and visionary”(Dante), which can be visualized in mind but not expressed in word. This dissertation does not try to give a clearly termed definition of it for fear that it might leave out more when trying to include everything essential. Since it is a concept developed through the history of changing poetic criticism, so the best way to define Yi-jing is to describe its critical artistic characteristics and let the readers figure out its essence by themselves.
According to the poetic criticism in more than one thousand years’history, the artistic characteristics of Yi-jing can be summarized in seven aspects, namely, the mutual enhancement of the virtual and the real (虚实相生), the formation of Yi-jing beyond the imagery (境生象外), the unity of subjects and objects (物我齐一), the fusion of feeling and scenery (意与境浑), the naturalness and truthfulness (真实自然), the embodiment of commonness in uniqueness (因小见大), appealing for perception and interpretation (心领神会). Besides the above mentioned seven characteristics, there are another two major ones specific to the Yi-jing of ci poem: one is being subtle and exquisite (幽微要眇), the other is being implicit and open for interpretation (言长意远).
The subtlety of ci poem is mainly contributed to its conventional double context. Since the members of literati took up composing ci poem, they used it as a means to express their personal and private feelings and emotions. Most of them had great ambition to advice the emperor on state administration or to lead the army to fight for the country, but few of them realized their dreams, and a large majority was filled with a mindful of grievances. To make it worse, the real feelings were not supposed to be revealed directly; therefore, they tend to express it in the guise of women’s voice. Writing in women’s voice, a common practice in classical Chinese poetry, became more pronounced in ci poem, partly because the female guise allowed men to express more tender emotions or personal feelings that might conflict with their official images as statesmen and administrators. Writing with borrowed voice also allowed poets to explore the experience of others, such as the female entertainers who sang and danced, the courtesans who provided intimate services for them, the beloved ladies who loved them, the lonely women waiting for their lover or husband, or the young beautiful girls who grieved over the fading flowers. At certain times it was conventional to use women’s voice, and love poetry, to express a broad range of male desires, even political sentiments as well, such as frustration over lack of recognition for their accomplishments by their superiors. Chang Hui-yen (张惠言), who started the Ch’ang-chou School of Ci Criticism (常州词派) with his Anthology of Song-Lyrics (《词选》), justified allegorical interpretation by examples such as Wen T’ing-yun’s ci poems. This proves that the poets who wrote ci poems for singing girls in order to take pleasure in the voice of a forlorn beauty could also turn impersonation into an allegory of their own experience in political life. Due to its allegorical interpretation or double context, ci poem is featured with subtlety.
The exquisiteness of ci poem lies in both its content and form. As mentioned above, ci poems were originally composed for the singing girls to perform on the banquet, the content usually focused on women’s sentiments, love, loneliness, melancholy, grief, etc. ? ?Though they may have double context or political reference, the surface layer of the theme is still about love or boudoir repining. The relatively narrow and feministic theme tints ci poem with a colour of delicacy. Besides, the fixed tune, the particular vocabulary, together with elaborating techniques help form the exquisiteness of ci poem. The fixed tune which prescribes the rhyming scheme and the flow of tonal movement and the elaborate composition techniques which intend to develop the theme in an artistic way refrain the poets from draining off their emotions, and the particular vocabulary inherited from those Tang poets with a delicate writing style like Li Ho, Li Shangyin helps enhance the exquisiteness of ci poem.
The implicitness and openness to interpretation compose another feature of the Yi-jing of ci poem, which means that ci poem, though short in form, would awaken long reverberations in the reader’s soul, as Su Shih once said,“The words stop, but the sense goes on to infinity”(言有尽而意无穷).“We might call the art one of eloquent or pregnant silence. What is said matters much less than what is left unsaid and only adumbrates what cannot be said. It springs from the same root as the subtle flair of leaving spaces beautifully empty in Chinese painting and Chinese gardening.”(Qian, 2005: 287) The formation of implicitness involves three factors: the imagery, the symbolic vocabulary, and the allusions. The imagery refers to the images which are used to denote verbal expressions that evoke mental pictures or physical sensations. The multifacetedness of images and the readers’individualized perception of the images work together to constitute the semantic ambiguity of ci poem. Besides, the poets were supposed to use no diction which had no origin in the earlier poems (无一字无出处), and thus they gradually formed a relatively fixed vocabulary for ci poem composition. The highly repetitive vocabulary which could be traced back to a variety of poems either of earlier dynasties or of the same period might endow some of the words with a symbolic meaning. The plural possibilities of back reference and conventional symbolic meaning of certain vocabulary are another factor that caused the implicitness and openness to interpretation of ci poem. The third factor is the employment of allusion in ci poems. Many poems quote or allude to earlier poems or historical figures. This tradition became especially pronounced in the Southern Sung dynasty. As Julie Landau (1997: Introduction to Symbols and Allusions) says,“The literate in China were, however, for millennia, a homogeneous group. They studied the same classics, memorized the same poems, led similar lives. In this context, a few words could do anything from play cleverly with a well-known image to evoke another situation that, by contrast or comparison, might add a new dimension to the poem.”The situations evoked or the context referred back to were another factor which contributed to the multiple layers of interpretation of ci poems. Chou Chi, another major theorist of the Ch’ang-chou School, valued ci poems more highly in proportion to their openness to the reader’s subjective response.“The reader of such a poem is like a man standing on the edge of a pool admiring the fish, who wonders whether it is a bream or a carp; or like someone exposed to a lightning flash in the dark, unable to tell whether it came from the east or the west.”(读其篇者,临渊窥鱼,意为鲂鲤,中宵惊电,罔识东西。) (《介存斋论词杂著》).
The Yi-jing of ci poem consists of two essential elements: sound and meaning. The sound effects are mainly achieved through tonal arrangement, rhyming scheme, style of the tune, internal rhythm, and phonetic rhetorical devices, the combination of which will produce some sound pattern that is suitable to convey a certain emotion or feeling, and thus help form the Yi-jing aimed by the poets. The beauty of meaning lies in both imagery and diction. The imagery is an indispensible part of Yi-jing in the sense that we can say Yi-jing is composed by imagery, but their relationship is far more complicated than that of a house and bricks because the Yi-jing produced by the combination of images extends far beyond the simple amount of the individual effect of separate images. Coincidentally, this fits well with one of the key concepts of Gestalt psychology originated in Germany in the 1920s, which states that the sense of whole is not the simple sum of all of its individual sensations; neither is it a separate sense which is isolated from its individual sensations. As Blocker once said, if you put a lemon beside an apple, the information they convey is no longer a lemon and an apple, but fruits. (Arnheim, 1998: 636) This implies that the images deliberately chosen and arranged will result in an interconversion and magically cause some chemical change among them, which will produce some indescribable but expected artistic effects—Yi-jing. Of course, the perception, selection, and combination of the images, to a great extent, depend on the composer’s talent and sensitivity as a poet.
The diction of ci poem is another critical factor related to meaning which contributes to the formation of Yi-jing. As Geoffrey Leech (1981: 9-23) has summarized,“meaning”in ? ?the wider sense may embrace conceptual sense, connotative sense, social sense, affective sense, reflected sense, collocative sense, and thematic sense. To ci poems, the conceptual sense, connotative sense, affective sense, reflected sense and thematic sense of the diction are especially important in expressing their Yi-jing.
Due to the great differences between Chinese and English in language such as phonetics, semantics, and syntax, and in culture such as aesthetic psychology, imagery perception, symbolic reference, and historical allusion, the translation of classical ci poem is no easy task and the reconstruction of Yi-jing in the translation is an even more challenging job. However, no matter how hard it is, the translator has no way to retreat. The only choice is to produce a text in the target language as close to the original as possible. Because of the large gap between the two languages’phonetic system, it is near impossible to keep the original rhyming scheme and flow of tonal movement in the translation. If we try to use a similar prosodic pattern in English to correspond to the original one, we will have to sacrifice a part of the meaning which might be more crucial to the Yi-jing of the original text, and hence affect the reconstruction of the Yi-jing in the translation. After weighing the pros and cons, we had better choose to remain faithful to the meaning than to the prosodic form. Therefore, the free verse is recommended for translating the classical ci poem to avoid possible damage to the meaning, but at the same time the translator should try all means to retain the inner rhythm of the original text in the hope of conveying similar emotions to the target reader. It is also advisable to use other phonetic rhetorical devices in English to make up for the loss of sound effect produced by the original text.
As for the translation of meaning, the most important part is the transference of imagery for images are the base which the Yi-jing of ci poem derives from. However, the rendering of images proves to be an arduous and complicated task due to several hard-to-remove obstacles. The largest one is caused by the cultural barriers, manifested in different perception of imagery, especially in its symbolic reference and historical allusion. The second is shaped by the ambiguity of imagery as a result of the multifacetedness and the fuzzy arrangement patterns of the images. The obstacle lies in the difficulty in exactly interpreting the images and pinning down the narrative perspective, temporal perspective, and spatial perspective. The main task of the translators’is to challenge the obstacles and reproduce the images employed in the original text to reconstruct its Yi-jing. Technically, the translator can tackle the images in ci poems by labeling them large image or small image. When dealing with the large image, the translator needs to pay more attention to the changing of perspective (point of view), the imitation of mood and tone, and the representation of double context in the layer of text. Chinese is a ideographic language emphasizing parataxis, while English is a phonographic language emphasizing hypotaxis; the former pays more attention to the coherence of the meaning, but the latter the cohesion of the form. Thanks to the elasticity of the syntax of Chinese, ci poem enjoys great freedom in expression by omitting the subject, tense, or linking words such as conjunctions and conjunctive adverbs. It can ambiguously express one thing but refer to another, or juxtapose two persons’activities or two events happening in two different places without even giving a clue of it. The ambiguity in expression is a major source of aesthetic experience, but it remains an obstacle in translation for English requires a clear statement of the subject, tense, and linking words; otherwise, the lines may sound awkward and imperceptible. When the ambiguities are clarified in the translation, the beauty brought by it also disappears.
The small images in ci poems, according to their means of expression, can be classified into four major types, namely, the descriptive images, the metaphorical images, the symbolic images, and the allusive images. The descriptive images refer to those images that compose the current scenery without any metaphorical, symbolic, or allusive meaning. The metaphorical images refer to those images containing metaphors; the symbolic images are those with symbolic meaning, and the allusive images are those expressed by means of allusions. The specific rendering techniques vary according to different types of images. For most of the descriptive images, so long as the images are universally common in human life, the translator can use literal translation to transfer the images of the original into the target text without losing any semantic beauty. If the descriptive images contain something unique in the source culture, the translator should add annotation (footnotes or endnotes) to explain what it is and it would be better if with illustrations, which is helpful in introducing the source culture and adding exotic flavor to the target text.
The metaphorical images fall into three categories: the metaphorical images comparing forms, the metaphorical images comparing qualities, and the metaphorical images containing cultural elements. Most of the first category needs no special treatment, but if the target language lacks the equivalent of the original vehicle, the translator has to decide whether to use some substitute in the target language to replace it, to add explanatory information, or attach an annotation or illustration to explain what the original vehicle looks like. Only if the original vehicle has a significant role in the original text, usually the translator would tend to use substitution. Substitution means finding another image which conveys a similar meaning and produces a similar effect on the readers of the target language as the original image does in the source language. The second category is similar to the first one. If the similarity between the vehicle and tenor is universally perceptible, the translator can use literal translation. Otherwise, the translator has to rely on explanatory information or annotations. As to those containing cultural elements, annotation is a necessity to reproduce the metaphorical image in the target text for the target reader needs to be equipped with everything which makes for facility of reading and intelligent appreciation.
The symbolic image is a product of China’s thousands’years of poetic tradition. An image may first appear in a poet’s work by accident, but the image was so successfully created and fitted into the poetic context that some other poet borrowed its allegorical meaning in his own poem. When this process was repeated by the same or different poets of the same time or different dynasties, the allegorical meaning became the symbolic meaning of the image and the image itself became what Lotman termed“Cultural Code”. Because of different poetic traditions and cultural perceptions, the chances that the English readers notice the symbolic images and identify their symbolic meaning are slight, so the translator has to provide supplementary information to make up for the cultural implications missed during the process of translation. Much similar to supplementation, annotation is sometimes supplied to explain the cultural significance of a more complex nature.
Due to the vast discrepancies between the two languages and cultures, it is almost impossible to find any equivalent of the allusive images in the original text. Therefore, the translator has to find a way to make up for the aesthetic effects brought by the original context of the allusion and the ambiguity in meaning which have been lost in the process of translation. Literal translation, literal translation plus supplementation, and literal translation aided by annotation all can be good choices under suitable circumstances. Most of the allusive images composed by quotations can be rendered directly, whereas the choice of rendering techniques of those containing historical figures or events depends largely on their context. If the context has already provided adequate information to help the readers comprehend the allusive image, literal translation is the best choice. If the context fails to provide sufficient information but the implied meaning of the allusive image is simple and easy to understand, literal translation plus supplementation can be a good choice. If the allusive image is ambiguous in meaning or the implied meaning is too complicated to decode and there is not enough information to help the readers figure out the meaning, the translator can adopt literal translation aided by annotation.
Although the choice of translation strategy can be greatly influenced by the type and status of the original text, the skopos (purpose) of translation, the target readers, the comparative position of the original culture to the target culture, and the translator himself (herself) and some other elements, the method based on literal translation, either supplemented by explanation or aided by annotation, is strongly recommended when there is no equivalent in the target language to correspond to the one in the original text for the following reasons. First, it encourages the communication between two widely different cultures. Second, it reproduces the inherent cultural meaning and“das Bedeutende”(意蕴) of the original. Third, it increases the exotic flavor of the target text, which might result in arousing the target readers’interest.
During the process of translation, the translator has to take another issue into consideration, which is the equivalence of novelty of images. Even if the original images are“faithfully”rendered into the target text, the effect they exert on the original readers can be quite different from that on the target readers due to the discrepancy in novelty of the images in two different languages and cultures. To prevent the possible loss of aesthetic effects, the translator should retain the defamiliarization devices in the original text or invent new ones to keep the sense of novelty of the original ones if the expressions already exist in the second language or are a part of the accustomed or clichéd expressions.
The reconstruction effects of Yi-jing in the translation of ci poems need to be testified and evaluated, so a questionnaire including most fundamental but critical questions based on the aesthetic features and composition of ci poem’s Yi-jing is designed to check the target readers’response to the translation of the original ci poems, which proves to be an effective and reliable device. It shows that the contemporary English readers tend to favour the classical Chinese ci poem being rendered into free verse English poem with its tune title translated in meaning and those which can lively reflect the internal rhythm, vividly transfer the images, and faithfully convey the connotative meanings of the dictions of the original ci poems are considered successful translations. The English readers who answered the questionnaire also show a preference on annotated translation when there is no equivalent in English.
This is a mere tentative study on the reconstruction of the Yi-jing of ci poem in translation conducted in the period of my doctoral research, and during this process I have noticed some aspects of this topic such as the reproduction of sound effect, the significance of the specification of tense, case, number, person related to the narrative perspective, temporal perspective, and spatial perspective, the combination patterns of images, and the equivalence of novelty of images need to be further studied, which are only mentioned or briefly discussed in this dissertation for time pressure and which will be the major directions of my future study. What I dream about is to discover a best way to reconstruct the Yi-jing of ci poem in translation and present its charm to the target readers as it does to the original ones, though it might for a long time remains a dream.
词原本是隋唐间兴起的一种伴随当时流行音乐供歌妓舞女在宴会或其他娱乐场合演唱的歌辞。唐代社会经济繁荣,娱乐业发展迅速,音乐歌舞盛行一时,由西域传入中原的燕乐因其新鲜活泼、富于变化尤为时人所好。当时主要由教坊乐工为燕乐曲调作辞,通过演唱广为流传。在其发展过程中,逐渐形成一个显著的特点,即严格按照乐曲的要求来制作歌辞,包括依乐章结构分片,依曲拍为句,依乐声高下用字,依曲调风格押韵,其文字形成一种句子长短不齐而有定格的形式。这种格式称作词牌,有固定名称,如《浣溪沙》、《蝶恋花》、《西江月》等。中唐之后文人开始效仿填词,词也便逐渐确立了它在中国诗歌中的地位,发展至宋而成一代之胜。
词体与诗体在题材内容上的区别在于各司其职,“诗言志而词娱情”。诗在题材上比较偏重政治主题,以国家兴亡、民生疾苦、胸怀抱负、宦海沉浮等为主要内容,抒发的主要是社会性的群体所共有的情感;而词在题材内容上的一个显著特色,就是以描写艳情闺怨、相思离别、伤春悲秋为主,抒发的大多是作者私人内心的真实情感。因此而形成了诗刚词柔、诗庄词媚的总体风格差异。词体与诗体在形式上的差异简言之主要在于诗(主要指近体诗)形式整齐、句式划一(每行五言或七言),格律句法相对固定,押韵格式要求一韵到底,一般隔行押韵;而词有词牌,多数分片,句式长短不齐,格律句法与押韵格式依词牌变化,可以换韵或押邻韵。
对于中国古典诗词而言,意境是其灵魂,有意境则自成高格,无意境则味同嚼蜡。因此,翻译中国古典诗词的重中之重便是意境的再现或重构。意境是富有中国特色的文艺美学概念,用以形容诗歌如水中月、镜中花般空灵虚幻的美感特质,也正因为其难以描述、无法定性而使得很多学者持诗歌不可译论。然而,通过梳理中国历代诗学评论,我们可以发现意境有其确定内涵,其主要审美特征可以概括为以下七个方面,即虚实相生、境生象外、物我齐一、意与境浑、真实自然、因小见大、心领神会。虚实相生即虚与实的统一,境生象外即境与象的关系,物我齐一即主客体的统一,意与境浑即情与景的交融,真实自然即表与里的一致,因小见大即个性与共性的统一,心领神会即创造与再创造的统一。词之意境由于词体之特殊性,在上述诸特征之外还具有幽微要眇和言长意远两个审美特征。
词境之幽微主要应归因于其双重语境。文人士大夫在作闺阁绣榻之词时可以有所托喻也可于无意识间流露自己的内心情感,无论何种情况均不能直言,而须有所凭借而婉曲达之。如刘克庄评刘叔安词所云,“借花卉以发骚人墨客之豪,托闺怨以寓放臣逐子之感”。清常州词派的张惠言因此而提出词体的比兴寄托说,并在《词选》中论述词体之隐幽曰:“意内而言外谓之词。其缘情造端,兴于微言,以相感动。极命风谣里巷男女哀乐,以道贤人君子幽约怨悱不能自言之情,低回要眇以喻其致。”词境之要眇在内容上主要是因为题材的选择,因其原本为酒筵歌席上用以助兴的歌词,内容自然多为伤春怨别的男女之情,即使有所托喻,表面也难以摆脱闺阁儿女之情。这种偏狭的题材容易导致意象的阴柔和词藻的绮艳,自然呈现要眇之姿。词境的这一特色在形式上主要是因为其固定的词牌格律、独特的词汇用语以及勾勒铺叙的艺术手法。词之字面多来源于唐李贺、李商隐等人的诗句,其词藻偏向于绮艳婉媚,而对于艺术性的刻意讲求则节制了情感的恣意宣泄,一旦情感表达的目的弱化,所形成的审美特征就倾向于委婉曲折、精雕细琢。这二者互相作用共同构建了词境之要眇。
词境之言长意远指的是词辞微旨远、“言有尽而意无穷”的特征。与诗直白的表达方式不同,词以婉曲著称,如中国画中的留白一般,给读者留下广阔的想象空间,读来余音缭绕、韵味无穷。词境之言长意远特征的形成与词中密集的意象、富有象征意义的语汇以及词中所用典故有关。意象的多义性以及意象组合的模糊性,蕴涵多层语义的象征语码与典故所阐发的多重语境空间结合在一起共同营建了词境富有言外之意、弦外之音的艺术特征。这种语义的模糊美对读者形成一种召唤结构,有待读者结合自己的经历发挥想象去填充空白、确定意义,可以保留多种解读可能,不必强求理解一致。正如常州词派周济所言,“读其篇者,临渊窥鱼,意为鲂鲤,中宵惊电,罔识东西。”(《介存斋论词杂著》)同派谭献更进一步提倡:“作者之用心未必然,而读者之用心何必不然。”(《复堂词录序》)
词境主要由音、意两方面构成。词之音韵美主要表现在词之协乐特质(包括音调的调配、词牌押韵格式、宫调风格、词之内在节奏等方面)和语音修辞上。词境在意方面分为点和面两个层次,点即词之字面词藻,面即意象意蕴。词之用语极讲究炼字,注重字面词藻的华丽典雅与点睛之词的选择,十分有助于阐发词境。意象是意境赖以生成的基础,意境由意象构成,但其关系远胜房子与砖头的关系,因为单个意象经过词人的精心选择与安排所取得的艺术效果远远超过单个意象的艺术效果的叠加。
由于汉英两种语言的异质性特征,在语言表层表现为语音系统、文字系统和句法系统等结构形式和分布形式,在语言中层表现为特定语言的表现法,比如重意合还是重形合,在语言深层表现为思维方式、思维特征和思维风格(刘宓庆,1996:372-373),词之翻译面临诸多障碍,意境的重构尤为困难。然而,译者无退路,惟有知难而上,尽量在可能情况下生产出最佳译文。在不影响语义表达的前提下完全再现原文的格律和音韵特征显然是不现实的,译者可以以译意为主,摆脱形式的桎梏,用自由体来翻译词体,然而鉴于声音效果对诗歌的重要性,译者应尽可能在译文中保持原文的音韵风貌,比较可行的一种方法是凭借汉语音节和英语重音在节奏方面的类似效果,使每行的译文重音数和原文的音节数大体相当来模仿原文的节奏感,并考虑语音与情感的对应效果,尽量用译语中的语音修辞手法来弥补原文音韵美的遗失。
对于意义翻译而言,最为重要的就是意象的重构。由于汉英两种语言在思维方式、思维特征和思维风格方面的不同以及两个民族在审美心理和文化传统方面的差异,意象的翻译实非易事,尤其是由重委婉含蓄的中国传统审美心理所导致的意象的多义性和意象组合的模糊性以及在数千年的诗歌传统中形成的富有象征意义的文化语码和典故意象,堪称词之意象重构道路上的拦路虎。了解了词之意象翻译的障碍之后,译者可以选择适当的翻译策略来应对不同类型的意象的翻译,以使原文意象在译文中得到忠实自然的再现。大意象的翻译由于更加侧重整体意象的再现,因此重点在于对全词的情感基调、意象内涵等方面的准确把握,尤其是语篇意义上的视角切换、语气情态风格以及双重语境的再现。小意象根据其表现方式可分为描述型意象、比喻型意象、象征型意象以及典故型意象,在翻译中应根据各自的特征而区别对待。在具体翻译中结合影响其策略选择的翻译目的与译文目标读者群这两个主要因素,以译文效果为终极目标,倾向于以直译为主,若原文意象在译语中对应缺失可以考虑直译加文内阐释或文外注解。意义再现的另一个方面就是词藻的翻译,译者需要具备对语言的敏感度和对诗意的悟性,以及对译语词汇的字面意义、联想意义、情感色彩以及语体风格的整体把握。
经过了对词之意境的分解剖析并提出了相应的翻译对策之后,词之意境在译文中的最终重构效果必须经由译语读者的进一步检验方可定论,因此,笔者在词境之审美特征及其审美构成的基础上设计了一份包含对于词境重构而言最为基本但又最为关键的十个问题的调查问卷,并选择了三首经典词作及其富有代表性的几个英译版本,由译语读者分别进行评估检验。结果证明,这种检验手段是行之有效且真实可靠的。
本文是笔者于博士期间所做的一项针对词之意境重构的尝试性研究,在此过程中注意到本课题的诸多方面还有待细致深入的探讨,如原作音韵效果的再现、译文中人称、格、数、时态等对于叙述视角、时间视角和空间视角的意义、意象的组合形式及其翻译、词作翻译中的意象新奇性对等等。由于时间限制这些方面在本论文中仅作简要介绍分析,有待将来进一步深化完善。由于作者自身知识面的局限,文中疏漏错误在所难免,敬请诸位方家斧正。
China is a country known for its poetry. In traditional Chinese culture, poetry held such a high position that it was unrivaled by any other single talent, ability, or practical accomplishment which would bring prestige, affluence, and even political power. The great poets were admired for their talent in poetry and their masterpieces have survived their periods and remained alive on people’s lips ever since they were written. Poetry composed a significant part of traditional education, which explains the phenomena that almost all the statesmen and officials composed poems, and our readers today are left with a legacy of such a huge anthology of poetry through all the ages. Among the classical Chinese poetry, ci poem (tz’u poem or lyric song), a second poetic form which developed during the Tang dynasty and prospered in the Sung dynasty, constitutes a high proportion and stands in the history of poetry as a rival of shi poem (regulated verse).
Ci poem originated from the entertainment songs written for the courtesans or singers to perform at banquets or for the embellishment of a social occasion in the Tang dynasty. The entertainment quarter of the Tang capital Chang’an witnessed the popularization of melodies and musical instruments from Central Asia. First the workers of music studios (教坊乐工) composed new words in Chinese to fit these melodies, and later some members of the literati followed suit. Each ci poem had to be fitted into an existing tune pattern bearing such titles as Butterflies Adore Flowers (蝶恋花), Moon on the West River (西江月), Prelude to Water Melody (西江月), Silk-Washing Stream (浣溪沙), etc. Hence there was a correlation between ci poem and music. This explains why ci poem was described as a musical literary genre expressed with voice and accompanied by musical instruments (啭之歌喉、被诸管弦的音乐文学) (Hunag, 2001: Prelude). The first ci anthology by known authors, most of whom literati, the Hua-chien Chi (Among the Flowers) was compiled by Zhao Chongzuo in the tenth century.
The most important reason why ci poem prospered in the Sung dynasty as a reaction to the shih tradition and developed into a full-fledged poetic genre mainly lies in the life attitude calling for freedom and individuality prevailing in Sung dynasty. Since Sung verses in the shih form are manifestly different from Tang poetry in that the former appeal more to human intellect than to emotions, the poet’s individuality is often blurred by the form and wit. Besides, the shih form of Chinese poetry has a long established tradition of“expressing intention or aspiration”(yen chih言志), which limits its function as an outlet of private emotions and individuality. Or in other words, the shih form in the Sung dynasty has become more a vehicle for ideology than an expression of self, while the ci form is mainly composed to express the poet’s delicate personal feelings, such as the sorrow of departure from beloved ones, the joy of reunion, the grief over the passing spring and the fading youth, the regret at disappearance of beautiful things, the melancholy over the coming of autumn and old age. Thus, it has formed the convention that shi poem is for expressing aspiration and ci poem is for delivering emotions (诗言志,词娱情).
Ci poem is different from shih poem in form as well as in content. Shih poem has a fixed form with a clear-cut regular verse-line scheme (either five or seven characters to each line) and one of the fixed prosodic patterns. Unlike shih poem, ci poem is made up of irregular verse lines, ranging from two or three words (in rare cases, even only one word) to nine words or even ten to the line. With its form determined by a specific tune, ci poem often consists of an arranged mixture of lines of various lengths (hence this form is also called long-and-short lines长短句) and is featured by a fixed rhyming scheme and a regulated prosodic pattern.
Yi-jing, which in a narrow sense, is a typical and unique aesthetic concept in Chinese art and literature, especially common as a poetic term, is used to refer to the very essence of poetry and what makes poetry untranslatable. Due to its intangible and indescribable qualities, Yi-jing is often compared to the flavor of flowers, most of which will be lost during the process of translation, or“the realm of the wordless and visionary”(Dante), which can be visualized in mind but not expressed in word. This dissertation does not try to give a clearly termed definition of it for fear that it might leave out more when trying to include everything essential. Since it is a concept developed through the history of changing poetic criticism, so the best way to define Yi-jing is to describe its critical artistic characteristics and let the readers figure out its essence by themselves.
According to the poetic criticism in more than one thousand years’history, the artistic characteristics of Yi-jing can be summarized in seven aspects, namely, the mutual enhancement of the virtual and the real (虚实相生), the formation of Yi-jing beyond the imagery (境生象外), the unity of subjects and objects (物我齐一), the fusion of feeling and scenery (意与境浑), the naturalness and truthfulness (真实自然), the embodiment of commonness in uniqueness (因小见大), appealing for perception and interpretation (心领神会). Besides the above mentioned seven characteristics, there are another two major ones specific to the Yi-jing of ci poem: one is being subtle and exquisite (幽微要眇), the other is being implicit and open for interpretation (言长意远).
The subtlety of ci poem is mainly contributed to its conventional double context. Since the members of literati took up composing ci poem, they used it as a means to express their personal and private feelings and emotions. Most of them had great ambition to advice the emperor on state administration or to lead the army to fight for the country, but few of them realized their dreams, and a large majority was filled with a mindful of grievances. To make it worse, the real feelings were not supposed to be revealed directly; therefore, they tend to express it in the guise of women’s voice. Writing in women’s voice, a common practice in classical Chinese poetry, became more pronounced in ci poem, partly because the female guise allowed men to express more tender emotions or personal feelings that might conflict with their official images as statesmen and administrators. Writing with borrowed voice also allowed poets to explore the experience of others, such as the female entertainers who sang and danced, the courtesans who provided intimate services for them, the beloved ladies who loved them, the lonely women waiting for their lover or husband, or the young beautiful girls who grieved over the fading flowers. At certain times it was conventional to use women’s voice, and love poetry, to express a broad range of male desires, even political sentiments as well, such as frustration over lack of recognition for their accomplishments by their superiors. Chang Hui-yen (张惠言), who started the Ch’ang-chou School of Ci Criticism (常州词派) with his Anthology of Song-Lyrics (《词选》), justified allegorical interpretation by examples such as Wen T’ing-yun’s ci poems. This proves that the poets who wrote ci poems for singing girls in order to take pleasure in the voice of a forlorn beauty could also turn impersonation into an allegory of their own experience in political life. Due to its allegorical interpretation or double context, ci poem is featured with subtlety.
The exquisiteness of ci poem lies in both its content and form. As mentioned above, ci poems were originally composed for the singing girls to perform on the banquet, the content usually focused on women’s sentiments, love, loneliness, melancholy, grief, etc. ? ?Though they may have double context or political reference, the surface layer of the theme is still about love or boudoir repining. The relatively narrow and feministic theme tints ci poem with a colour of delicacy. Besides, the fixed tune, the particular vocabulary, together with elaborating techniques help form the exquisiteness of ci poem. The fixed tune which prescribes the rhyming scheme and the flow of tonal movement and the elaborate composition techniques which intend to develop the theme in an artistic way refrain the poets from draining off their emotions, and the particular vocabulary inherited from those Tang poets with a delicate writing style like Li Ho, Li Shangyin helps enhance the exquisiteness of ci poem.
The implicitness and openness to interpretation compose another feature of the Yi-jing of ci poem, which means that ci poem, though short in form, would awaken long reverberations in the reader’s soul, as Su Shih once said,“The words stop, but the sense goes on to infinity”(言有尽而意无穷).“We might call the art one of eloquent or pregnant silence. What is said matters much less than what is left unsaid and only adumbrates what cannot be said. It springs from the same root as the subtle flair of leaving spaces beautifully empty in Chinese painting and Chinese gardening.”(Qian, 2005: 287) The formation of implicitness involves three factors: the imagery, the symbolic vocabulary, and the allusions. The imagery refers to the images which are used to denote verbal expressions that evoke mental pictures or physical sensations. The multifacetedness of images and the readers’individualized perception of the images work together to constitute the semantic ambiguity of ci poem. Besides, the poets were supposed to use no diction which had no origin in the earlier poems (无一字无出处), and thus they gradually formed a relatively fixed vocabulary for ci poem composition. The highly repetitive vocabulary which could be traced back to a variety of poems either of earlier dynasties or of the same period might endow some of the words with a symbolic meaning. The plural possibilities of back reference and conventional symbolic meaning of certain vocabulary are another factor that caused the implicitness and openness to interpretation of ci poem. The third factor is the employment of allusion in ci poems. Many poems quote or allude to earlier poems or historical figures. This tradition became especially pronounced in the Southern Sung dynasty. As Julie Landau (1997: Introduction to Symbols and Allusions) says,“The literate in China were, however, for millennia, a homogeneous group. They studied the same classics, memorized the same poems, led similar lives. In this context, a few words could do anything from play cleverly with a well-known image to evoke another situation that, by contrast or comparison, might add a new dimension to the poem.”The situations evoked or the context referred back to were another factor which contributed to the multiple layers of interpretation of ci poems. Chou Chi, another major theorist of the Ch’ang-chou School, valued ci poems more highly in proportion to their openness to the reader’s subjective response.“The reader of such a poem is like a man standing on the edge of a pool admiring the fish, who wonders whether it is a bream or a carp; or like someone exposed to a lightning flash in the dark, unable to tell whether it came from the east or the west.”(读其篇者,临渊窥鱼,意为鲂鲤,中宵惊电,罔识东西。) (《介存斋论词杂著》).
The Yi-jing of ci poem consists of two essential elements: sound and meaning. The sound effects are mainly achieved through tonal arrangement, rhyming scheme, style of the tune, internal rhythm, and phonetic rhetorical devices, the combination of which will produce some sound pattern that is suitable to convey a certain emotion or feeling, and thus help form the Yi-jing aimed by the poets. The beauty of meaning lies in both imagery and diction. The imagery is an indispensible part of Yi-jing in the sense that we can say Yi-jing is composed by imagery, but their relationship is far more complicated than that of a house and bricks because the Yi-jing produced by the combination of images extends far beyond the simple amount of the individual effect of separate images. Coincidentally, this fits well with one of the key concepts of Gestalt psychology originated in Germany in the 1920s, which states that the sense of whole is not the simple sum of all of its individual sensations; neither is it a separate sense which is isolated from its individual sensations. As Blocker once said, if you put a lemon beside an apple, the information they convey is no longer a lemon and an apple, but fruits. (Arnheim, 1998: 636) This implies that the images deliberately chosen and arranged will result in an interconversion and magically cause some chemical change among them, which will produce some indescribable but expected artistic effects—Yi-jing. Of course, the perception, selection, and combination of the images, to a great extent, depend on the composer’s talent and sensitivity as a poet.
The diction of ci poem is another critical factor related to meaning which contributes to the formation of Yi-jing. As Geoffrey Leech (1981: 9-23) has summarized,“meaning”in ? ?the wider sense may embrace conceptual sense, connotative sense, social sense, affective sense, reflected sense, collocative sense, and thematic sense. To ci poems, the conceptual sense, connotative sense, affective sense, reflected sense and thematic sense of the diction are especially important in expressing their Yi-jing.
Due to the great differences between Chinese and English in language such as phonetics, semantics, and syntax, and in culture such as aesthetic psychology, imagery perception, symbolic reference, and historical allusion, the translation of classical ci poem is no easy task and the reconstruction of Yi-jing in the translation is an even more challenging job. However, no matter how hard it is, the translator has no way to retreat. The only choice is to produce a text in the target language as close to the original as possible. Because of the large gap between the two languages’phonetic system, it is near impossible to keep the original rhyming scheme and flow of tonal movement in the translation. If we try to use a similar prosodic pattern in English to correspond to the original one, we will have to sacrifice a part of the meaning which might be more crucial to the Yi-jing of the original text, and hence affect the reconstruction of the Yi-jing in the translation. After weighing the pros and cons, we had better choose to remain faithful to the meaning than to the prosodic form. Therefore, the free verse is recommended for translating the classical ci poem to avoid possible damage to the meaning, but at the same time the translator should try all means to retain the inner rhythm of the original text in the hope of conveying similar emotions to the target reader. It is also advisable to use other phonetic rhetorical devices in English to make up for the loss of sound effect produced by the original text.
As for the translation of meaning, the most important part is the transference of imagery for images are the base which the Yi-jing of ci poem derives from. However, the rendering of images proves to be an arduous and complicated task due to several hard-to-remove obstacles. The largest one is caused by the cultural barriers, manifested in different perception of imagery, especially in its symbolic reference and historical allusion. The second is shaped by the ambiguity of imagery as a result of the multifacetedness and the fuzzy arrangement patterns of the images. The obstacle lies in the difficulty in exactly interpreting the images and pinning down the narrative perspective, temporal perspective, and spatial perspective. The main task of the translators’is to challenge the obstacles and reproduce the images employed in the original text to reconstruct its Yi-jing. Technically, the translator can tackle the images in ci poems by labeling them large image or small image. When dealing with the large image, the translator needs to pay more attention to the changing of perspective (point of view), the imitation of mood and tone, and the representation of double context in the layer of text. Chinese is a ideographic language emphasizing parataxis, while English is a phonographic language emphasizing hypotaxis; the former pays more attention to the coherence of the meaning, but the latter the cohesion of the form. Thanks to the elasticity of the syntax of Chinese, ci poem enjoys great freedom in expression by omitting the subject, tense, or linking words such as conjunctions and conjunctive adverbs. It can ambiguously express one thing but refer to another, or juxtapose two persons’activities or two events happening in two different places without even giving a clue of it. The ambiguity in expression is a major source of aesthetic experience, but it remains an obstacle in translation for English requires a clear statement of the subject, tense, and linking words; otherwise, the lines may sound awkward and imperceptible. When the ambiguities are clarified in the translation, the beauty brought by it also disappears.
The small images in ci poems, according to their means of expression, can be classified into four major types, namely, the descriptive images, the metaphorical images, the symbolic images, and the allusive images. The descriptive images refer to those images that compose the current scenery without any metaphorical, symbolic, or allusive meaning. The metaphorical images refer to those images containing metaphors; the symbolic images are those with symbolic meaning, and the allusive images are those expressed by means of allusions. The specific rendering techniques vary according to different types of images. For most of the descriptive images, so long as the images are universally common in human life, the translator can use literal translation to transfer the images of the original into the target text without losing any semantic beauty. If the descriptive images contain something unique in the source culture, the translator should add annotation (footnotes or endnotes) to explain what it is and it would be better if with illustrations, which is helpful in introducing the source culture and adding exotic flavor to the target text.
The metaphorical images fall into three categories: the metaphorical images comparing forms, the metaphorical images comparing qualities, and the metaphorical images containing cultural elements. Most of the first category needs no special treatment, but if the target language lacks the equivalent of the original vehicle, the translator has to decide whether to use some substitute in the target language to replace it, to add explanatory information, or attach an annotation or illustration to explain what the original vehicle looks like. Only if the original vehicle has a significant role in the original text, usually the translator would tend to use substitution. Substitution means finding another image which conveys a similar meaning and produces a similar effect on the readers of the target language as the original image does in the source language. The second category is similar to the first one. If the similarity between the vehicle and tenor is universally perceptible, the translator can use literal translation. Otherwise, the translator has to rely on explanatory information or annotations. As to those containing cultural elements, annotation is a necessity to reproduce the metaphorical image in the target text for the target reader needs to be equipped with everything which makes for facility of reading and intelligent appreciation.
The symbolic image is a product of China’s thousands’years of poetic tradition. An image may first appear in a poet’s work by accident, but the image was so successfully created and fitted into the poetic context that some other poet borrowed its allegorical meaning in his own poem. When this process was repeated by the same or different poets of the same time or different dynasties, the allegorical meaning became the symbolic meaning of the image and the image itself became what Lotman termed“Cultural Code”. Because of different poetic traditions and cultural perceptions, the chances that the English readers notice the symbolic images and identify their symbolic meaning are slight, so the translator has to provide supplementary information to make up for the cultural implications missed during the process of translation. Much similar to supplementation, annotation is sometimes supplied to explain the cultural significance of a more complex nature.
Due to the vast discrepancies between the two languages and cultures, it is almost impossible to find any equivalent of the allusive images in the original text. Therefore, the translator has to find a way to make up for the aesthetic effects brought by the original context of the allusion and the ambiguity in meaning which have been lost in the process of translation. Literal translation, literal translation plus supplementation, and literal translation aided by annotation all can be good choices under suitable circumstances. Most of the allusive images composed by quotations can be rendered directly, whereas the choice of rendering techniques of those containing historical figures or events depends largely on their context. If the context has already provided adequate information to help the readers comprehend the allusive image, literal translation is the best choice. If the context fails to provide sufficient information but the implied meaning of the allusive image is simple and easy to understand, literal translation plus supplementation can be a good choice. If the allusive image is ambiguous in meaning or the implied meaning is too complicated to decode and there is not enough information to help the readers figure out the meaning, the translator can adopt literal translation aided by annotation.
Although the choice of translation strategy can be greatly influenced by the type and status of the original text, the skopos (purpose) of translation, the target readers, the comparative position of the original culture to the target culture, and the translator himself (herself) and some other elements, the method based on literal translation, either supplemented by explanation or aided by annotation, is strongly recommended when there is no equivalent in the target language to correspond to the one in the original text for the following reasons. First, it encourages the communication between two widely different cultures. Second, it reproduces the inherent cultural meaning and“das Bedeutende”(意蕴) of the original. Third, it increases the exotic flavor of the target text, which might result in arousing the target readers’interest.
During the process of translation, the translator has to take another issue into consideration, which is the equivalence of novelty of images. Even if the original images are“faithfully”rendered into the target text, the effect they exert on the original readers can be quite different from that on the target readers due to the discrepancy in novelty of the images in two different languages and cultures. To prevent the possible loss of aesthetic effects, the translator should retain the defamiliarization devices in the original text or invent new ones to keep the sense of novelty of the original ones if the expressions already exist in the second language or are a part of the accustomed or clichéd expressions.
The reconstruction effects of Yi-jing in the translation of ci poems need to be testified and evaluated, so a questionnaire including most fundamental but critical questions based on the aesthetic features and composition of ci poem’s Yi-jing is designed to check the target readers’response to the translation of the original ci poems, which proves to be an effective and reliable device. It shows that the contemporary English readers tend to favour the classical Chinese ci poem being rendered into free verse English poem with its tune title translated in meaning and those which can lively reflect the internal rhythm, vividly transfer the images, and faithfully convey the connotative meanings of the dictions of the original ci poems are considered successful translations. The English readers who answered the questionnaire also show a preference on annotated translation when there is no equivalent in English.
This is a mere tentative study on the reconstruction of the Yi-jing of ci poem in translation conducted in the period of my doctoral research, and during this process I have noticed some aspects of this topic such as the reproduction of sound effect, the significance of the specification of tense, case, number, person related to the narrative perspective, temporal perspective, and spatial perspective, the combination patterns of images, and the equivalence of novelty of images need to be further studied, which are only mentioned or briefly discussed in this dissertation for time pressure and which will be the major directions of my future study. What I dream about is to discover a best way to reconstruct the Yi-jing of ci poem in translation and present its charm to the target readers as it does to the original ones, though it might for a long time remains a dream.
引文
1. Ayling, Alan & Duncan Mackintosh. A Collection of Chinese Lyrics. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1965.
2. Ayling, Alan & Duncan Mackintosh. A Further Collection of Chinese Lyrics and Other Poems. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1969.
3. Barnstone, Tony and Chou Ping. The Anchor Book of Chinese Poetry. New York: Anchor Books, 2005.
4. Bassnet, Susan & Andre Lefevere. Translation, History and Culture. London and New York: Printer Publishers, 1998.
5. Bassnett, Susan & Andre Lefevere. Constructing Cultures: Essays on Literary Translation. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.
6. Berman, Antoine. Pour Une Critique Des Traductions: John Donne. Paris: Gallimard, 1995.
7. Birch, Cyril. ed., Anthology of Chinese Literature from Early Times to the Fourteenth Century, New York: Grove Press, 1965.
8. Birch, Cyril. ed., Studies in Chinese Literature Genres. University of California Press, 1974.
9. Black, M.?More?about?Metaphor.?in?A.?Ortony?(ed.)?Metaphor?&?Thought,?1979.
10. Brodsky, Joseph. Less Than one: Selected Essays. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1987.
11. Brown, Gillian & George Yule. Discourse Analysis. London: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
12. Candlin, Clara M. The Herald Wind: Translation of Sung Dynasty Poems, Lyrics and Songs. Westport: Greenwood, 1955.
13. Chan Sin-wai and Pollard, David E. eds., An Encyclopedia of Translation. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, 1995.
14. Chang, Kang-I Sun. The Evolution of Chinese Tz’u Poetry from Late Tang to Northern Sung. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980.
15. Chaves, Jonathan, trans. and ed. The Columbia Book of Later Chinese Poetry: Yuan, Ming, and Ch'ing Dynasties (1279-1911). New York. Columbia University Press, 1986.
16. Classe, Olive (ed.). Encyclopedia of Literary Translation into English. London: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, 2000.
17. Cronin, Michael. Translating Ireland: Translation, Language and Culture. Cork University press, 1996.
18. Cryer, James. Plum Blossoms: Poems of Li Ch’ing-chao. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: Wren Press, 1984.
19. Empson, William. Seven Types of Ambiguity (3rd ed.). London : Penguin in association with Chatto & Windus, 1953.
20. Eoyang, Eugene Chen. The Transparent eye: Reflections on Translation Chinese Literature and Comparative Poetics. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1993.
21. Frost, William. Dryden and the Art of Translation. New Haven: Yale University Press, London: Oxford University Press, 1955.
22. Gentzler,Edwin. Contemporary Translation Theories. London: Routledge. 1993.
23. Greg, Whincup. The Heart of Chinese Poetry. New York: Anchor Press. 1987.
24. Hightower, James R. & Yeh, Florence Chia-ying. Studies in Chinese Poetry. Harvard University Press, 1998.
25. Huang, Guowen. Linguistic Explorations in Translation Studies: Analysis of English Translations of Ancient Chinese Poems and Lyrics. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language and Education Press, 2006.
26. Ingarden, Roman Evanston. The cognition of the literary work of art. (trans.) Ruth A. Crowley and Kenneth R. Olson. Northwestern University Press, 1973.
27. Kristeva, Julia. Revolution in Poetic Language. New York: Columbia University Press, 1984.
28. Iser, Wolfgang.“The Reading Process: a Phenomenological Approach”. The Implied Reader. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974, 274-294.
29. Iser, Wolfgang. The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980.
30. Jakobson, Roman.“Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics”, in Thomas Sebeok, ed. Style in Language. Cambridge, MIT Press, 1960.
31. Jauss, Hans Robert. Toward an Aesthetic of Reception. University of Minnesota Press,1985.
32. Landau, Julie, trans. Beyond Spring: Tzu Poems of the Sung Dynasty. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997.
33. Leech, G. N. Semantics: the Study of Meaning. Second Edition. Bungay, Suffolk: Richard Clay, 1981.
34. Lefevere, Andre. Translating Poetry: Seven Strategies and a Blue Print. Van Gorcum, Assen / Amsterdam. 1975.
35. Lewis, C. Days. The Poetic Image. New York: Oxford University Press, 1947.
36. Liu, James J. Y. The Art of Chinese Poetry. Chicago and London: the University of Chicago Press, 1962, 1974.
37. Liu, James J. Y. Major Lyricists of the Northern Sung. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974.
38. Liu, James J. Y. Some Literary Qualities of the Lyric (tz’u), from Studies in Chinese Literary Genres, edited by Cyril Birch, Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press, 1974.
39. Liu, James J. Y. Language—Paradox—Poetics. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1988.
40. Liu, Wu-chi. An Introduction to Chinese Literature. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1966.
41. Liu, Wu-chi & Lo, Irving Yucheng (eds.). Sunflower Splendor: Three Thousand Years of Chinese Poetry. New York: Anchor Books, 1975.
42. Lotman, Yuri. Universe of the Mind: A Semiotic Theory of Culture, trans. Ann Shukman, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1990
43. Mair, Victor, (ed.). The Columbia Anthology of Traditional Chinese Literature. New York: Columbia University Press, 1996.
44. Mey, Jacob. Pragmatics: An Introduction(2nd Edition). Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching & Research Press, Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 2001.
45. Mukarovsky , Jan. Structure, Sign and Function. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977.
46. Newmark, Peter. A Textbook of Translation. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001a.
47. Newmark, Peter. Approaches to Translation. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001b.
48. Nienhauser, William. H. Jr. (editor and compiler). The Indiana Companion to Traditional Chinese Literature. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1986.
49. Odgen, C. K. & Richard, I. A. 1923. (eds.). The Meaning of Meaning. London: Routledge & KeganPaul.
50. Owen, Stephen. Traditional Chinese Poetry and Poetics: an Omen of the World. Madison: the University of Wisconsin Press, 1985.
51. Owen, Stephen. (trans. and ed.). An Anthology of Chinese Literature: Beginnings to 1911. New York: W. W. Norton & Company Ltd., 1996.
52. Payne, Robert (ed.). The White Pony: An Anthology of Chinese Poetry from the Earliest Times to the Present Day, Newly Translated. New York: John Day, 1947; London: Allen and Unwin, 1949.
53. Pound, Ezra. How to read. New York Herald. Reprinted in T.S.Eliot(ed.)Literary Essays of Ezra Pound[C]. London: Faber and Faber, 1954,1928.15-40.
54. Qian, Zhongshu. A Collection of Qian Zhongshu’s English Essays. Beijing: Foreign language Teaching and Research Press, 2005.
55. Raffel, Burton. The Forked Tongue. Hague: Mouton& Co. N. V. Publisher, 1971
56. Raffel, Burton. The Art of Translating Poetry. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University. 1988
57. Raffel, Burton. The Art of Translating Prose. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University.1994
58. Reiss, Katharina. Translation Criticism: The Potentials and Limitations. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004.
59. Rexroth, Kenneth. One Hundred Poems from Chinese. New York: New Directions Publishing Corporation, 1956.
60. Rexroth, Kenneth. Love and the Turning Year—One Hundred More Poems from the Chinese. New York: New Directions Publishing Corporation, 1970.
61. Rexroth, Kenneth & Chung Ling. The Orchid Boat: Women Poets of China. New York: New Directions Publishing Corporation, 1972.
62. Rexroth, Kenneth & Chung Ling. Li Ch’ing-chao: Complete Poems. New York: New Directions Publishing Corporation, 1979.
63. Savory, Theodore H. The Art of Translation. London: Cape, 1957.
64. Seaton, J. P. (trans. and ed.). The Shambhala Anthology of Chinese Poetry. Boston: Shambhala Publications, Inc. 2006.
65. Soong, Stephen. C. (ed.). Song Without Music: Chinese Tz’u Poetry. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 1980.
66. Soong, Stephen. C. A Brotherhood in Song: Chinese Poetry and Poetics. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 1985.
67. Saussure, Ferdinand de. Course in general linguistics. New York : Philosophical Library, 1959.
68. Vermeer, Hans J. Skopos and Commission in Translational Action. in Andrew Chesterman (ed.). Readings in Translation Theory. Finland: Oy Finn Lectura Ab, 1989.
69. Waley, Arthur. Chinese Poems. London: Unwin Paperbacks, 1982.
70. Waley, Arthur. The Way and Its Power: Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching and Its Place in Chinese Thought.New York: Grove Widenfeld, 1958.
71. Waley, Arthur. 170 Chinese Poems. London: Constable, 1918; New York, 1919.
72. Wang, Jiaosheng. The Complete Ci-poems of Li Qingzhao: A New English Translation. Philadephia: University of Pennsylvania, Department of Oriental Studies, 1989.
73. Watson, Burton (ed.). The Columbia Book of Chinese Poetry: From Early Times to the Thirteenth Century, with Translations, New York. Columbia University Press, 1971.
74. Watson, Burton, (trans. and ed.). The Columbia Book of Chinese Poetry: From Early Times to the Thirteenth Century. New York: Columbia University Press, 1984.
75. Xie, Ming. Ezra Pound and the Appropriation of Chinese Poetry—Cathay, Translation, and Imagism. London: Routledge, 1998.
76. Yip. Wai-lim. Diffusion of Distances—Dialogues Between Chinese and Western Poetics. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993.
77. Yip. Wai-lim. Chinese Poetry—An Anthology of Major Modes and Genres. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1997.
78. Jackson, Richard. From Translation to Imitation. University of Tennessee. Academic Affairs. 2009. http://www.utc.edu/Academic/English/pm/ontransl.htm
1.阿恩海姆[美].艺术与视知觉[M].滕守尧、朱疆源译.成都:四川人民出版社,1998.
2.艾略特[美].受奖辞[A].T.S.艾略特诗选[Z].查良铮、赵毅衡、张子清译.成都:四川文艺出版社,1992.
3.班固[汉].汉书[M].北京:中华书局,1987.
4.彼得·琼斯[英].意象派诗选[Z].裘小龙译.桂林:漓江出版社,1986.
5.布洛克[美].美学新解[M].滕守尧译.沈阳:辽宁人民出版社,1987.
6.曹寅等[清].全唐诗[Z].北京:中华书局,2008.
7.陈福康.中国译学理论史稿[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1992.
8.陈鼓应.庄子今注今译[M].北京:中华书局,1999.
9.陈骙[南宋].文则注译[M].刘彦成注译.书目文献出版社,1988.
10.陈良运.意象、形象比较说[J].文学遗产.1986(4).
11.陈良运.中国诗学批评史[M].南昌:江西人民出版社,2001.
12.陈师道[宋].后山诗话.历代诗话[Z]. [清]何文焕辑.北京:中华书局,1982.
13.陈廷焯[清].白雨斋词话[M].上海:上海古籍出版社,1982.
14.陈望道.修辞学发凡[M].上海:上海教育出版社,1976:115.
15.陈莹.英汉节奏对比分析[J].西安外国语学院学报,2004(6).
16.陈莹.汉英音高体系比较[J].外语教学,1987(1).
17.陈植鄂.诗歌意象论—微观诗史初探[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社, 1990.
18.成复旺.神与物游—中国传统审美之路[M].济南:山东人民出版社,2007.
19.迟庆立.文化翻译策略的多样性与多译本互补研究[D].上海:上海外国语大学,2007.
20.初大告.中华隽词101首(汉英对照)[Z].北京:新世界出版社,1987.
21.笪重光[清].画筌.中国画论类编[Z].俞剑华(编).北京:人民美术出版社,1986.
22.范存忠.中国文化在启蒙时期的英国[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1991.
23.范晔[宋].后汉书.二十五史[Z].延吉:延边人民出版社,1996.
24.方成培[清].香研居词麈[M].沈阳:辽宁教育出版社,1998.
25.房玄龄[唐].晋书[M].北京:中华书局,2008.
26.费尔巴哈[德].费尔巴哈哲学著作选集(下卷)[C].荣震华等译.北京:商务印书馆,1984.
27.丰华瞻.译诗与民族化[J].翻译通讯.1981(3).
28.冯庆华.新编翻译教程(英汉互译)(增订版)[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2002.
29.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.
30.龚景浩.英译中国古词精选[Z].北京:商务印书馆,1999.
31.公孙尼子[战国].乐记[M].北京:人民音乐出版社,1958.
32.古风.现代意境研究述评[J].社会科学战线.1997(2).
33.顾炎武[清].日知录集释[M].上海:上海古籍出版社,2006.
34.辜正坤.翻译标准多元互补论[J].中国翻译.1989(1).
35.辜正坤.中西诗比较鉴赏与翻译理论[M].北京:清华大学出版社, 2003.
36.顾祖钊.艺术至境论[M].天津:百花文艺出版社,1992.
37.顾祖钊.论意境的称谓和渊源[J].文艺理论研究.1995(02).
38.顾祖钊.论王国维的艺术至境观[J].浙江社会科学.1996(5).
39.郭弘安.波德莱尔诗论及其他[M].上海:同济大学出版社,2006.
40.郭建中.当代美国翻译理论[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,2000.
41.郭茂倩[宋].乐府诗集(全四册)[Z].北京:中华书局,2007.
42.郭绍虞.郭绍虞说文论[M].上海:上海古籍出版社,2000.
43.郭绍虞.沧浪诗话校释[M].北京:人民文学出版社,1961.
44.郭豫亨.梅花字字香提要.四库全书总目[C].北京:中华书局.1965.
45.何善芬.英汉轻重音对比研究[J].外语与外语教学, 1999 (12).
46.何欣竹.古典诗词“月”意象探颐[J].山西师大学报(社会科学版)研究生论文专刊.卷34.2007.
47.洪毅然.形象与意象[J].文艺研究.1987(4).
48.胡庚申.翻译适应选择论[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,2004.
49.胡经之,李健.中国古典文艺学[M].北京:光明日报出版社,2006.
50.胡云翼.宋词选[Z].上海:上海古籍出版社,1982.
51.胡仔[宋].苕溪渔隐丛话[Z].北京:人民文学出版社,1962.
52.胡震亨[明].唐音癸签[M].上海:古典文学出版社,1957.
53.黄杲炘.诗歌翻译是否“只分坏和次坏的两种”[A].英汉语比较与翻译[C].刘重德编.青岛:青岛出版社,1998.
54.黄进德.唐五代词选[Z].上海:上海古籍出版社,2001.
55.黄昇[宋].花庵词选[Z].(蒋哲伦导读,云山辑评).上海:上海古籍出版社,2007.
56.黄庭坚[宋].山谷题跋[M].上海:上海远东出版社,1999.
57.姜夔[宋].白石道人诗说.白石诗词集[Z].北京:人民文学出版社,1998.
58.江永[清].音学辨微[M].台北:广文出版社,1966.
59.劳陇.诗歌的格律可以翻译吗?[J].国际关系学院学报. 1995(02).
60.乐黛云.中西文论互动的新视野[J].北大中文论坛·比较文学.2003.
61.乐黛云.跨文化之桥[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2002.
62.黎昌抱.王佐良翻译风格研究[M].北京:光明日报出版社,2009.
63.李重华.贞一斋诗说[M].上海:上海古籍出版社,2005.
64.李大师李延寿[南朝].南史[M].北京:中华书局,1975.
65.郦青.李清照词的英译对比研究[D].华东师范大学.2005.
66.李清照[宋].词论.苕溪渔隐丛话[Z](后集卷三十三).(胡仔著).北京:人民文学出版社,1962.
67.李维桢[明].来使君诗序.大泌山房集[Z].济南:齐鲁书社,1997.
68.李之仪[宋].跋吴思道小词.唐宋词集序跋汇编[Z].南京:江苏教育出版社,1990.
69.李壮鹰.诗式校注[M].济南:齐鲁书社,1987.
70.梁令娴[民国].艺蘅馆词选(丙卷)[M].广州:广东人民出版社,1981.
71.廖七一.当代英国翻译理论[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,2004.
72.林语堂.翻译的艺术[A].诗词翻译的艺术[C].《中国翻译》编辑部编.北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1987.
73.刘克庄.后村诗话[M].北京:中华书局,1983.
74.刘宓庆.汉英句子扩展机制对比研究[A].李瑞华编.英汉语言文化对比研究(1990-1994)[C].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1996.
75.刘宓庆.翻译美学导论(增订版)[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2005.
76.刘乃华.汉英语音系统主要特点之比较[J].南京师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 1988(3).
77.刘永济.宋词声律探源大纲词论[M].北京:中华书局, 2007.
78.刘若愚.中国诗学[M].杜国清译.台北:台湾幼狮文学公司,1977.
79.刘勰[南朝].文心雕龙[M].北京:人民文学出版社,1958.
80.刘恂[唐].岭南录异[M].南宁:广西民族出版社,1988.
81.刘义庆[南朝].世说新语[Z].北京:北京图书馆出版社,2007.
82.刘英凯.关于“三美”理论的再商榷[A].翻译新论[C].罗新璋(编).武汉:湖北教育出版社,2003.
83.刘禹锡[唐].刘禹锡集(卷二十九)[M].上海:上海人民出版社,1975.
84.刘重德.西奥多·萨瓦利索论述的翻译原则[J].外国语.第4期,1986.28.
85.龙榆生.唐宋名家词选[Z].上海:上海古籍出版社,1980.
86.卢卡契.卢卡契文学论文集(一)(山石译)[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1980.
87.陆法言[隋].切韵序.广韵校本[Z].周祖謨校.北京:中华书局,2004
88.陆时雍[明].诗境总论[M].历代诗话续编[C].北京:中华书局,1983.
89.吕叔湘.中诗英译比录[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1976.
90.罗大经[宋].鹤林玉露(卷一).北京:中华书局,2005.
91.罗积勇.用典研究[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2005.
92.马红军.翻译批评散论[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1998.
93.马红军.从文学翻译到翻译文学[M].上海:上海译文出版社,2006.
94.马祖毅、任荣珍.汉籍外译史[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社, 1997.
95.孟元老[宋].东京梦华录[M].上海:古典文学出版社,1956.
96.缪钺.诗词散论[M].上海:上海古籍出版社,1982.
97.欧阳炯[五代].花间集序.花间集[Z].赵崇祚(编).北京:文学古籍刊行社,1955.
98.潘文国.诗歌翻译中的诗歌语言问题[J].修辞学研究(第七辑).南京:南京大学出版社,1997.
99.蒲震元.中国艺术意境论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1995.
100.戚雨村等.语言学百科词典[Z].上海:上海辞书出版社,1993.
101.丘琼荪.燕乐探微[M].上海:上海古籍出版社,1989.
102.钱钟书.管锥编[M].北京:中华书局,1982.
103.钱钟书.七缀集[Z].上海:上海古籍出版社,1994.
104.钱钟书.钱钟书散文[M].杭州:浙江文艺出版社,1997.
105.裘小龙.中国古典爱情诗词选.上海:上海社会科学院出版社,2003.
106.荣格.心理学与文学[M].冯川译,苏克校.北京:三联书店出版社, 1992.
107.施蛰存、陈如江.宋元词话[M].上海:上海书店出版社,1999.
108.申丹.叙述学与小说文体学研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2001.
109.申丹.视角[J].外国文学.2003(3).
110.沈括[北宋].梦溪笔谈(上、下册)[M].苏州:江苏古籍出版社,1999.
111.沈雄.古今词话.词话丛编[Z].唐圭璋(编).北京:中华书局,1990.
112.沈义父.乐府指迷[M].蔡嵩云笺释.北京:人民文学出版社, 1981.
113.沈约[南朝].宋书[M].北京:中华书局,2003.
114.沈祖棻.宋词赏析[M].北京:北京出版社,2003.
115.十三经注疏[Z].北京:中华书局,1980.
116.石涛[清].画语录[M].北京:人民美术出版社,1959.
117.思果.翻译研究[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2001.
118.司空图[唐].二十四诗品译注评析[M].杜黎均译评.北京:北京出版社,1988.
119.苏珊·朗格[美].艺术问题[M].滕守尧等译.北京:中国社会科学出版社, 1983.
120.苏轼[宋].书晁补之所藏与可画竹.苏轼诗集(卷十六).北京:中华书局,1999.
121.孙克强.唐宋人词话[M].郑州:河南文艺出版社,1999.
122.谭德晶.唐诗宋词的艺术[M].学林出版社,2001.
123.谭福民.钱钟书的“化”论及其翻译实践[J].湖南师范大学学报,1997(2).
124.谭献.复堂词话[M].北京:人民文学出版社,1998.
125.谭载喜.西方翻译简史[M].北京:商务印书馆,1991.
126.谭载喜.新编奈达论翻译[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2002.
127.唐圭璋.全宋词[M].北京:中华书局,1965.
128.唐圭璋.唐宋词简释[M].上海:上海古籍出版社,1981.
129.唐圭璋.词话丛编(1-6册)[M].北京:中华书局,1990.
130.唐圭璋等.唐宋词鉴赏辞典[M].上海:上海辞书出版社,1988.
131.汤水辉.文学作品的“陌生化”与翻译[J].湖南大学学报(社会科学版),2005(3).
132.唐松波黄建霖.汉语修辞格大辞典[Z].北京:中国国际广播出版社,1989.
133.陶然.柳词双声叠韵考论[J].浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2008(5).
134.滕守尧.审美心理描述[M].成都:四川人民出版社,1998.
135.童庆炳.现代诗学问题十讲[M].青岛:中国海洋大学出版社,2005.
136.童庆炳.文学概论[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2002.
137.童庆炳程正民.文艺心理学教程[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2001.
138.脱脱阿鲁图等[元].宋史[M].北京:中华书局,1985.
139.万树[清].词律.北京:中华书局,1957.
140.王弼.周易略例.王弼集校释[M].北京:中华书局,1980.
141.王弼[魏晋].老子道德经注校译[M].北京:中华书局,2008.
142.王方俊张曾峒.唐宋词赏析[M].济南:山东文艺出版社,1984.
143.王夫之[清].王船山诗文集[Z].北京:中华书局,1962.
144.王夫之[清].姜斋诗话笺注[M].戴鸿森笺注.北京:人民文学出版社,1981.
145.王夫之[清].古诗评选[M].张国星点校.石家庄:河北大学出版社,2008.
146.王国维.人间词话[M].滕咸惠译评.长春:吉林文史出版社,1999.
147.王国维.王国维文学美学论著集[C].太原:北岳文艺出版社,1987.
148.王国维.王国维文集(第三卷)[C].北京:中国文史出版社,1997.
149.汪洪章.比较文学与欧美文学研究[M].上海:学林出版社, 2004.
150.王士祯.花草蒙拾.词话丛编[Z].(第一册)唐圭璋(编).北京:中华书局,1990.
151.汪耀进.意象批评[M].成都:四川文艺出版社, 1989.
152.汪裕雄.意象探源[M].合肥:安徽教育出版社,1996. p331-332
153.王立.心灵的图景—文学意象的主题史研究[M].上海:学林出版社,1999.
154.王力.诗词格律概要[M].北京:北京出版社,2002.
155.王守义.论中国古诗词英译[A].唐宋诗词英译[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社, 1989.
156.王应麟[宋].困学纪闻(全校本)[M].[清]翁元圻、乐保群校点;田松青校点;吕宗力校点.上海:上海古籍出版社,2008.
157.王又华[清].古今词论.词话丛编[Z](第一册).唐圭璋(编).北京:中华书局,1990.
158.王灼.碧鸡漫志.词话丛编[Z](第一册).唐圭璋(编).北京:中华书局,1990.
159.王佐良.英语文体学论文集[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1980a.
160.王佐良.英国诗文选译集[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1980b.
161.王佐良,丁往道.英语文体学引论[M].北京:外语与研究出版社,1987.
162.王佐良.王佐良文集[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1997.
163.魏收[北齐].魏书[M].北京:中华书局,2003.
164.魏万德、王爱军.语篇视点与诗词英译[J].武汉理工大学学报(社会科学版).2005(6).
165.文殊.诗词英译选[Z].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1989.
166.翁显良.意态由来画不成[C].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1983.
167.翁显良.古诗英译[M].北京:北京出版社,1985.
168.翁显良.本色与变相[A].杨自俭、刘学云(主编).翻译新论(1983-1992)[C].武汉:湖北教育出版社,1994.
169.吴惠娟.唐宋词审美观照[M].上海:学林出版社,1999.
170.吴晓.意象符号与情感空间[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1990.
171.吴熊和.唐宋词通论[M].杭州:浙江古籍出版社,1985.
172.吴丈蜀.词学概说[M].北京:中华书局,2000.
173.习晓明.英语普通话与汉语普通话词重音比较[J].外语教学,1999(1).
174.夏承焘.唐宋词字音之演变[A].词曲研究[C].王小盾杨栋编.武汉:湖北教育出版社,2004.
175.夏传才.中国古典诗词名篇分类鉴赏辞典[M].徐州:中国矿业大学出版社,1991.
176.夏昭炎.意境义界恣议[J].湘潭师范学院学报.1992(1),卷13.
177.许高渝王之光.论二十世纪我国的汉英语音对比研究[J].浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版).2002(5).
178.徐轨[清].词苑丛谈[M].唐圭璋校注.上海:上海古籍出版社,1981.
179.徐师曾[明].文体明辨[M].罗根泽校点.北京:人民文学出版社,1962.
180.许兴宝.人物意象研究—唐宋词的另一种关注[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2007.
181.许渊冲.唐宋词一百五十首(中英文对照)[Z].北京:北京大学出版社,1990.
182.许渊冲.诗书人生[M].天津:百花文艺出版社,2003.
183.许渊冲.文学与翻译[C].北京:北京大学出版社,2003.
184.许渊冲.宋词三百首英译[Z].北京:高等教育出版社,2004.
185.晏几道[北宋].小山词[M].上海:上海古籍出版社,1988.
186.严羽[南宋].沧浪诗话校译[M].北京:人民文学出版社,2005.
187.杨慎[明].词品[M].哈尔滨:北方文艺出版社,2000.
188.杨宪益戴乃迭.宋词[Z].北京:外文出版社,2001.
189.杨宪益.略谈我从事翻译工作的经历与体会[A].困难见巧—名家翻译经验谈[C].金圣华、黄国彬主编.北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1998.
190.杨自俭刘学云.翻译新论[C].武汉:湖北教育出版社,1994.
191.叶嘉莹.王国维及其文学批评[M].石家庄:河北教育出版社, 1997.
192.叶嘉莹.词之美感特质的形成与演进[M].北京:北京大学出版社, 2007a.
193.叶嘉莹.北宋名家词选讲[M].北京:北京大学出版社, 2007b.
194.叶嘉莹.南宋名家词选讲[M].北京:北京大学出版社, 2007c.
195.叶嘉莹.词学新诠[C].北京:北京大学出版社,2008.
196.叶朗.现代美学体系[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2003.
197.叶朗.中国美学史大纲[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2005.
198.叶梦得.避暑录话.全宋笔记[Z](第二编第十册).郑州:大象出版社,2003.
199.叶维廉.中国诗学[M].北京:三联书店出版,1992.
200.余光中.中国古典诗的句法[A].余光中谈翻译[C].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2007.
201.余嘉锡.世说新语笺疏[M].北京:中华书局,1983.
202.俞文豹[宋].吹剑三录[M].上海:上海古籍出版社,1958.
203.袁枚[清].随园诗话[M].北京:人民文学出版社,1960.
204.袁行霈.中国诗歌艺术研究[M](增订版).北京:北京大学出版社,1996a.
205.袁行霈.李杜诗歌的风格和意象[A].中国诗歌艺术研究[C].北京:北京大学出版社,1996b.
206.袁行霈.中国文学史(第二卷)[M].高等教育出版社,2005.
207.袁行霈.中国文学史(第三卷) [M].高等教育出版社,2005.
208.曾季狸[宋].艇斋诗话[M].上海:上海古籍出版社,2005.
209.曾昭岷.全唐五代词[Z].北京:中华书局,1999.
210.张南峰.特性与共性——论中国翻译学与翻译学的关系[J].中国翻译,2000(2).
211.张惠民.宋代词学资料汇编[Z].汕头:汕头大学出版社,1993.
212.张惠言.词选.词话丛编[Z].(第二册)唐圭璋(编).北京:中华书局,1990.
213.张睿吴爱丹.英汉语音对比研究——英语语音教学的实践意义[J].辽宁工业大学学报,2008(5),卷10.
214.张少康.中国古代文学创作论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1983.
215.张綖.诗余图谱凡例.唐圭璋(编).词话丛编[Z].北京:中华书局,1990.
216.张炎.词源.词话丛编[Z](第一册).唐圭璋(编).北京:中华书局,1990.
217.赵令畤.侯鲭录[M].北京:中华书局,2002.
218.郑奠,谭全基编.古汉语修辞学资料汇编[Z].北京:商务印书馆,1980.
219.郑骞.景午丛编[Z].台北:中华书局,1972.
220.钟锦.词学抉微[M].上海:华东师范出版社,2008.
221.钟嵘.诗品.历代诗话[Z].北京:中华书局,1982.
222.周德清[元].中原音韵[M].台北:台湾艺文出版社,1969.
223.周济[清].介存斋论词杂著[M].北京:人民文学出版社,1998.
224.周亮工[清].书影[M].上海:古典文学出版社,1957.
225.朱承爵[明].存余堂诗话.历代诗话[Z].北京:中华书局,1982.
226.朱光潜.朱光潜美学文集(第二卷)[M].上海:上海文艺出版社,1982.
227.朱光潜.诗论[M].北京:三联书店出版社,1984.
228.朱绍侯张海鹏齐涛.中国古代史(下册)[M].福州:福建人民出版社,2004.
229.朱熹[明].朱子语类.朱子全书[Z].上海:上海古籍出版社,2003.
230.朱彝尊[清].乐府雅词跋.曝书亭集[Z](卷三十四).四部丛刊初编(缩本).上海:商务印书馆,1936.
231.朱彝尊[清].陈纬云红盐词序.曝书亭集[Z](卷四十).四部丛刊初编(缩本).上海:商务印书馆,1936.
232.朱祖谋.疆村遗书[M].上海:上海古籍出版社,1989.
233.宗白华.美学散步[M].上海:上海人民出版社,1981.
234.宗白华.艺境[M].合肥:安徽教育出版社,2000.
235.宗延虎陈光磊主编.中国修辞史[M].长春:吉林教育出版社,2006. ?
2. Ayling, Alan & Duncan Mackintosh. A Further Collection of Chinese Lyrics and Other Poems. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1969.
3. Barnstone, Tony and Chou Ping. The Anchor Book of Chinese Poetry. New York: Anchor Books, 2005.
4. Bassnet, Susan & Andre Lefevere. Translation, History and Culture. London and New York: Printer Publishers, 1998.
5. Bassnett, Susan & Andre Lefevere. Constructing Cultures: Essays on Literary Translation. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.
6. Berman, Antoine. Pour Une Critique Des Traductions: John Donne. Paris: Gallimard, 1995.
7. Birch, Cyril. ed., Anthology of Chinese Literature from Early Times to the Fourteenth Century, New York: Grove Press, 1965.
8. Birch, Cyril. ed., Studies in Chinese Literature Genres. University of California Press, 1974.
9. Black, M.?More?about?Metaphor.?in?A.?Ortony?(ed.)?Metaphor?&?Thought,?1979.
10. Brodsky, Joseph. Less Than one: Selected Essays. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1987.
11. Brown, Gillian & George Yule. Discourse Analysis. London: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
12. Candlin, Clara M. The Herald Wind: Translation of Sung Dynasty Poems, Lyrics and Songs. Westport: Greenwood, 1955.
13. Chan Sin-wai and Pollard, David E. eds., An Encyclopedia of Translation. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, 1995.
14. Chang, Kang-I Sun. The Evolution of Chinese Tz’u Poetry from Late Tang to Northern Sung. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980.
15. Chaves, Jonathan, trans. and ed. The Columbia Book of Later Chinese Poetry: Yuan, Ming, and Ch'ing Dynasties (1279-1911). New York. Columbia University Press, 1986.
16. Classe, Olive (ed.). Encyclopedia of Literary Translation into English. London: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, 2000.
17. Cronin, Michael. Translating Ireland: Translation, Language and Culture. Cork University press, 1996.
18. Cryer, James. Plum Blossoms: Poems of Li Ch’ing-chao. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: Wren Press, 1984.
19. Empson, William. Seven Types of Ambiguity (3rd ed.). London : Penguin in association with Chatto & Windus, 1953.
20. Eoyang, Eugene Chen. The Transparent eye: Reflections on Translation Chinese Literature and Comparative Poetics. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1993.
21. Frost, William. Dryden and the Art of Translation. New Haven: Yale University Press, London: Oxford University Press, 1955.
22. Gentzler,Edwin. Contemporary Translation Theories. London: Routledge. 1993.
23. Greg, Whincup. The Heart of Chinese Poetry. New York: Anchor Press. 1987.
24. Hightower, James R. & Yeh, Florence Chia-ying. Studies in Chinese Poetry. Harvard University Press, 1998.
25. Huang, Guowen. Linguistic Explorations in Translation Studies: Analysis of English Translations of Ancient Chinese Poems and Lyrics. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language and Education Press, 2006.
26. Ingarden, Roman Evanston. The cognition of the literary work of art. (trans.) Ruth A. Crowley and Kenneth R. Olson. Northwestern University Press, 1973.
27. Kristeva, Julia. Revolution in Poetic Language. New York: Columbia University Press, 1984.
28. Iser, Wolfgang.“The Reading Process: a Phenomenological Approach”. The Implied Reader. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974, 274-294.
29. Iser, Wolfgang. The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980.
30. Jakobson, Roman.“Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics”, in Thomas Sebeok, ed. Style in Language. Cambridge, MIT Press, 1960.
31. Jauss, Hans Robert. Toward an Aesthetic of Reception. University of Minnesota Press,1985.
32. Landau, Julie, trans. Beyond Spring: Tzu Poems of the Sung Dynasty. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997.
33. Leech, G. N. Semantics: the Study of Meaning. Second Edition. Bungay, Suffolk: Richard Clay, 1981.
34. Lefevere, Andre. Translating Poetry: Seven Strategies and a Blue Print. Van Gorcum, Assen / Amsterdam. 1975.
35. Lewis, C. Days. The Poetic Image. New York: Oxford University Press, 1947.
36. Liu, James J. Y. The Art of Chinese Poetry. Chicago and London: the University of Chicago Press, 1962, 1974.
37. Liu, James J. Y. Major Lyricists of the Northern Sung. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974.
38. Liu, James J. Y. Some Literary Qualities of the Lyric (tz’u), from Studies in Chinese Literary Genres, edited by Cyril Birch, Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press, 1974.
39. Liu, James J. Y. Language—Paradox—Poetics. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1988.
40. Liu, Wu-chi. An Introduction to Chinese Literature. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1966.
41. Liu, Wu-chi & Lo, Irving Yucheng (eds.). Sunflower Splendor: Three Thousand Years of Chinese Poetry. New York: Anchor Books, 1975.
42. Lotman, Yuri. Universe of the Mind: A Semiotic Theory of Culture, trans. Ann Shukman, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1990
43. Mair, Victor, (ed.). The Columbia Anthology of Traditional Chinese Literature. New York: Columbia University Press, 1996.
44. Mey, Jacob. Pragmatics: An Introduction(2nd Edition). Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching & Research Press, Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 2001.
45. Mukarovsky , Jan. Structure, Sign and Function. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977.
46. Newmark, Peter. A Textbook of Translation. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001a.
47. Newmark, Peter. Approaches to Translation. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001b.
48. Nienhauser, William. H. Jr. (editor and compiler). The Indiana Companion to Traditional Chinese Literature. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1986.
49. Odgen, C. K. & Richard, I. A. 1923. (eds.). The Meaning of Meaning. London: Routledge & KeganPaul.
50. Owen, Stephen. Traditional Chinese Poetry and Poetics: an Omen of the World. Madison: the University of Wisconsin Press, 1985.
51. Owen, Stephen. (trans. and ed.). An Anthology of Chinese Literature: Beginnings to 1911. New York: W. W. Norton & Company Ltd., 1996.
52. Payne, Robert (ed.). The White Pony: An Anthology of Chinese Poetry from the Earliest Times to the Present Day, Newly Translated. New York: John Day, 1947; London: Allen and Unwin, 1949.
53. Pound, Ezra. How to read. New York Herald. Reprinted in T.S.Eliot(ed.)Literary Essays of Ezra Pound[C]. London: Faber and Faber, 1954,1928.15-40.
54. Qian, Zhongshu. A Collection of Qian Zhongshu’s English Essays. Beijing: Foreign language Teaching and Research Press, 2005.
55. Raffel, Burton. The Forked Tongue. Hague: Mouton& Co. N. V. Publisher, 1971
56. Raffel, Burton. The Art of Translating Poetry. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University. 1988
57. Raffel, Burton. The Art of Translating Prose. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University.1994
58. Reiss, Katharina. Translation Criticism: The Potentials and Limitations. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004.
59. Rexroth, Kenneth. One Hundred Poems from Chinese. New York: New Directions Publishing Corporation, 1956.
60. Rexroth, Kenneth. Love and the Turning Year—One Hundred More Poems from the Chinese. New York: New Directions Publishing Corporation, 1970.
61. Rexroth, Kenneth & Chung Ling. The Orchid Boat: Women Poets of China. New York: New Directions Publishing Corporation, 1972.
62. Rexroth, Kenneth & Chung Ling. Li Ch’ing-chao: Complete Poems. New York: New Directions Publishing Corporation, 1979.
63. Savory, Theodore H. The Art of Translation. London: Cape, 1957.
64. Seaton, J. P. (trans. and ed.). The Shambhala Anthology of Chinese Poetry. Boston: Shambhala Publications, Inc. 2006.
65. Soong, Stephen. C. (ed.). Song Without Music: Chinese Tz’u Poetry. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 1980.
66. Soong, Stephen. C. A Brotherhood in Song: Chinese Poetry and Poetics. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 1985.
67. Saussure, Ferdinand de. Course in general linguistics. New York : Philosophical Library, 1959.
68. Vermeer, Hans J. Skopos and Commission in Translational Action. in Andrew Chesterman (ed.). Readings in Translation Theory. Finland: Oy Finn Lectura Ab, 1989.
69. Waley, Arthur. Chinese Poems. London: Unwin Paperbacks, 1982.
70. Waley, Arthur. The Way and Its Power: Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching and Its Place in Chinese Thought.New York: Grove Widenfeld, 1958.
71. Waley, Arthur. 170 Chinese Poems. London: Constable, 1918; New York, 1919.
72. Wang, Jiaosheng. The Complete Ci-poems of Li Qingzhao: A New English Translation. Philadephia: University of Pennsylvania, Department of Oriental Studies, 1989.
73. Watson, Burton (ed.). The Columbia Book of Chinese Poetry: From Early Times to the Thirteenth Century, with Translations, New York. Columbia University Press, 1971.
74. Watson, Burton, (trans. and ed.). The Columbia Book of Chinese Poetry: From Early Times to the Thirteenth Century. New York: Columbia University Press, 1984.
75. Xie, Ming. Ezra Pound and the Appropriation of Chinese Poetry—Cathay, Translation, and Imagism. London: Routledge, 1998.
76. Yip. Wai-lim. Diffusion of Distances—Dialogues Between Chinese and Western Poetics. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993.
77. Yip. Wai-lim. Chinese Poetry—An Anthology of Major Modes and Genres. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1997.
78. Jackson, Richard. From Translation to Imitation. University of Tennessee. Academic Affairs. 2009. http://www.utc.edu/Academic/English/pm/ontransl.htm
1.阿恩海姆[美].艺术与视知觉[M].滕守尧、朱疆源译.成都:四川人民出版社,1998.
2.艾略特[美].受奖辞[A].T.S.艾略特诗选[Z].查良铮、赵毅衡、张子清译.成都:四川文艺出版社,1992.
3.班固[汉].汉书[M].北京:中华书局,1987.
4.彼得·琼斯[英].意象派诗选[Z].裘小龙译.桂林:漓江出版社,1986.
5.布洛克[美].美学新解[M].滕守尧译.沈阳:辽宁人民出版社,1987.
6.曹寅等[清].全唐诗[Z].北京:中华书局,2008.
7.陈福康.中国译学理论史稿[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1992.
8.陈鼓应.庄子今注今译[M].北京:中华书局,1999.
9.陈骙[南宋].文则注译[M].刘彦成注译.书目文献出版社,1988.
10.陈良运.意象、形象比较说[J].文学遗产.1986(4).
11.陈良运.中国诗学批评史[M].南昌:江西人民出版社,2001.
12.陈师道[宋].后山诗话.历代诗话[Z]. [清]何文焕辑.北京:中华书局,1982.
13.陈廷焯[清].白雨斋词话[M].上海:上海古籍出版社,1982.
14.陈望道.修辞学发凡[M].上海:上海教育出版社,1976:115.
15.陈莹.英汉节奏对比分析[J].西安外国语学院学报,2004(6).
16.陈莹.汉英音高体系比较[J].外语教学,1987(1).
17.陈植鄂.诗歌意象论—微观诗史初探[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社, 1990.
18.成复旺.神与物游—中国传统审美之路[M].济南:山东人民出版社,2007.
19.迟庆立.文化翻译策略的多样性与多译本互补研究[D].上海:上海外国语大学,2007.
20.初大告.中华隽词101首(汉英对照)[Z].北京:新世界出版社,1987.
21.笪重光[清].画筌.中国画论类编[Z].俞剑华(编).北京:人民美术出版社,1986.
22.范存忠.中国文化在启蒙时期的英国[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1991.
23.范晔[宋].后汉书.二十五史[Z].延吉:延边人民出版社,1996.
24.方成培[清].香研居词麈[M].沈阳:辽宁教育出版社,1998.
25.房玄龄[唐].晋书[M].北京:中华书局,2008.
26.费尔巴哈[德].费尔巴哈哲学著作选集(下卷)[C].荣震华等译.北京:商务印书馆,1984.
27.丰华瞻.译诗与民族化[J].翻译通讯.1981(3).
28.冯庆华.新编翻译教程(英汉互译)(增订版)[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2002.
29.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.
30.龚景浩.英译中国古词精选[Z].北京:商务印书馆,1999.
31.公孙尼子[战国].乐记[M].北京:人民音乐出版社,1958.
32.古风.现代意境研究述评[J].社会科学战线.1997(2).
33.顾炎武[清].日知录集释[M].上海:上海古籍出版社,2006.
34.辜正坤.翻译标准多元互补论[J].中国翻译.1989(1).
35.辜正坤.中西诗比较鉴赏与翻译理论[M].北京:清华大学出版社, 2003.
36.顾祖钊.艺术至境论[M].天津:百花文艺出版社,1992.
37.顾祖钊.论意境的称谓和渊源[J].文艺理论研究.1995(02).
38.顾祖钊.论王国维的艺术至境观[J].浙江社会科学.1996(5).
39.郭弘安.波德莱尔诗论及其他[M].上海:同济大学出版社,2006.
40.郭建中.当代美国翻译理论[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,2000.
41.郭茂倩[宋].乐府诗集(全四册)[Z].北京:中华书局,2007.
42.郭绍虞.郭绍虞说文论[M].上海:上海古籍出版社,2000.
43.郭绍虞.沧浪诗话校释[M].北京:人民文学出版社,1961.
44.郭豫亨.梅花字字香提要.四库全书总目[C].北京:中华书局.1965.
45.何善芬.英汉轻重音对比研究[J].外语与外语教学, 1999 (12).
46.何欣竹.古典诗词“月”意象探颐[J].山西师大学报(社会科学版)研究生论文专刊.卷34.2007.
47.洪毅然.形象与意象[J].文艺研究.1987(4).
48.胡庚申.翻译适应选择论[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,2004.
49.胡经之,李健.中国古典文艺学[M].北京:光明日报出版社,2006.
50.胡云翼.宋词选[Z].上海:上海古籍出版社,1982.
51.胡仔[宋].苕溪渔隐丛话[Z].北京:人民文学出版社,1962.
52.胡震亨[明].唐音癸签[M].上海:古典文学出版社,1957.
53.黄杲炘.诗歌翻译是否“只分坏和次坏的两种”[A].英汉语比较与翻译[C].刘重德编.青岛:青岛出版社,1998.
54.黄进德.唐五代词选[Z].上海:上海古籍出版社,2001.
55.黄昇[宋].花庵词选[Z].(蒋哲伦导读,云山辑评).上海:上海古籍出版社,2007.
56.黄庭坚[宋].山谷题跋[M].上海:上海远东出版社,1999.
57.姜夔[宋].白石道人诗说.白石诗词集[Z].北京:人民文学出版社,1998.
58.江永[清].音学辨微[M].台北:广文出版社,1966.
59.劳陇.诗歌的格律可以翻译吗?[J].国际关系学院学报. 1995(02).
60.乐黛云.中西文论互动的新视野[J].北大中文论坛·比较文学.2003.
61.乐黛云.跨文化之桥[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2002.
62.黎昌抱.王佐良翻译风格研究[M].北京:光明日报出版社,2009.
63.李重华.贞一斋诗说[M].上海:上海古籍出版社,2005.
64.李大师李延寿[南朝].南史[M].北京:中华书局,1975.
65.郦青.李清照词的英译对比研究[D].华东师范大学.2005.
66.李清照[宋].词论.苕溪渔隐丛话[Z](后集卷三十三).(胡仔著).北京:人民文学出版社,1962.
67.李维桢[明].来使君诗序.大泌山房集[Z].济南:齐鲁书社,1997.
68.李之仪[宋].跋吴思道小词.唐宋词集序跋汇编[Z].南京:江苏教育出版社,1990.
69.李壮鹰.诗式校注[M].济南:齐鲁书社,1987.
70.梁令娴[民国].艺蘅馆词选(丙卷)[M].广州:广东人民出版社,1981.
71.廖七一.当代英国翻译理论[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,2004.
72.林语堂.翻译的艺术[A].诗词翻译的艺术[C].《中国翻译》编辑部编.北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1987.
73.刘克庄.后村诗话[M].北京:中华书局,1983.
74.刘宓庆.汉英句子扩展机制对比研究[A].李瑞华编.英汉语言文化对比研究(1990-1994)[C].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1996.
75.刘宓庆.翻译美学导论(增订版)[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2005.
76.刘乃华.汉英语音系统主要特点之比较[J].南京师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 1988(3).
77.刘永济.宋词声律探源大纲词论[M].北京:中华书局, 2007.
78.刘若愚.中国诗学[M].杜国清译.台北:台湾幼狮文学公司,1977.
79.刘勰[南朝].文心雕龙[M].北京:人民文学出版社,1958.
80.刘恂[唐].岭南录异[M].南宁:广西民族出版社,1988.
81.刘义庆[南朝].世说新语[Z].北京:北京图书馆出版社,2007.
82.刘英凯.关于“三美”理论的再商榷[A].翻译新论[C].罗新璋(编).武汉:湖北教育出版社,2003.
83.刘禹锡[唐].刘禹锡集(卷二十九)[M].上海:上海人民出版社,1975.
84.刘重德.西奥多·萨瓦利索论述的翻译原则[J].外国语.第4期,1986.28.
85.龙榆生.唐宋名家词选[Z].上海:上海古籍出版社,1980.
86.卢卡契.卢卡契文学论文集(一)(山石译)[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1980.
87.陆法言[隋].切韵序.广韵校本[Z].周祖謨校.北京:中华书局,2004
88.陆时雍[明].诗境总论[M].历代诗话续编[C].北京:中华书局,1983.
89.吕叔湘.中诗英译比录[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1976.
90.罗大经[宋].鹤林玉露(卷一).北京:中华书局,2005.
91.罗积勇.用典研究[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2005.
92.马红军.翻译批评散论[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1998.
93.马红军.从文学翻译到翻译文学[M].上海:上海译文出版社,2006.
94.马祖毅、任荣珍.汉籍外译史[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社, 1997.
95.孟元老[宋].东京梦华录[M].上海:古典文学出版社,1956.
96.缪钺.诗词散论[M].上海:上海古籍出版社,1982.
97.欧阳炯[五代].花间集序.花间集[Z].赵崇祚(编).北京:文学古籍刊行社,1955.
98.潘文国.诗歌翻译中的诗歌语言问题[J].修辞学研究(第七辑).南京:南京大学出版社,1997.
99.蒲震元.中国艺术意境论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1995.
100.戚雨村等.语言学百科词典[Z].上海:上海辞书出版社,1993.
101.丘琼荪.燕乐探微[M].上海:上海古籍出版社,1989.
102.钱钟书.管锥编[M].北京:中华书局,1982.
103.钱钟书.七缀集[Z].上海:上海古籍出版社,1994.
104.钱钟书.钱钟书散文[M].杭州:浙江文艺出版社,1997.
105.裘小龙.中国古典爱情诗词选.上海:上海社会科学院出版社,2003.
106.荣格.心理学与文学[M].冯川译,苏克校.北京:三联书店出版社, 1992.
107.施蛰存、陈如江.宋元词话[M].上海:上海书店出版社,1999.
108.申丹.叙述学与小说文体学研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2001.
109.申丹.视角[J].外国文学.2003(3).
110.沈括[北宋].梦溪笔谈(上、下册)[M].苏州:江苏古籍出版社,1999.
111.沈雄.古今词话.词话丛编[Z].唐圭璋(编).北京:中华书局,1990.
112.沈义父.乐府指迷[M].蔡嵩云笺释.北京:人民文学出版社, 1981.
113.沈约[南朝].宋书[M].北京:中华书局,2003.
114.沈祖棻.宋词赏析[M].北京:北京出版社,2003.
115.十三经注疏[Z].北京:中华书局,1980.
116.石涛[清].画语录[M].北京:人民美术出版社,1959.
117.思果.翻译研究[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2001.
118.司空图[唐].二十四诗品译注评析[M].杜黎均译评.北京:北京出版社,1988.
119.苏珊·朗格[美].艺术问题[M].滕守尧等译.北京:中国社会科学出版社, 1983.
120.苏轼[宋].书晁补之所藏与可画竹.苏轼诗集(卷十六).北京:中华书局,1999.
121.孙克强.唐宋人词话[M].郑州:河南文艺出版社,1999.
122.谭德晶.唐诗宋词的艺术[M].学林出版社,2001.
123.谭福民.钱钟书的“化”论及其翻译实践[J].湖南师范大学学报,1997(2).
124.谭献.复堂词话[M].北京:人民文学出版社,1998.
125.谭载喜.西方翻译简史[M].北京:商务印书馆,1991.
126.谭载喜.新编奈达论翻译[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2002.
127.唐圭璋.全宋词[M].北京:中华书局,1965.
128.唐圭璋.唐宋词简释[M].上海:上海古籍出版社,1981.
129.唐圭璋.词话丛编(1-6册)[M].北京:中华书局,1990.
130.唐圭璋等.唐宋词鉴赏辞典[M].上海:上海辞书出版社,1988.
131.汤水辉.文学作品的“陌生化”与翻译[J].湖南大学学报(社会科学版),2005(3).
132.唐松波黄建霖.汉语修辞格大辞典[Z].北京:中国国际广播出版社,1989.
133.陶然.柳词双声叠韵考论[J].浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2008(5).
134.滕守尧.审美心理描述[M].成都:四川人民出版社,1998.
135.童庆炳.现代诗学问题十讲[M].青岛:中国海洋大学出版社,2005.
136.童庆炳.文学概论[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2002.
137.童庆炳程正民.文艺心理学教程[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2001.
138.脱脱阿鲁图等[元].宋史[M].北京:中华书局,1985.
139.万树[清].词律.北京:中华书局,1957.
140.王弼.周易略例.王弼集校释[M].北京:中华书局,1980.
141.王弼[魏晋].老子道德经注校译[M].北京:中华书局,2008.
142.王方俊张曾峒.唐宋词赏析[M].济南:山东文艺出版社,1984.
143.王夫之[清].王船山诗文集[Z].北京:中华书局,1962.
144.王夫之[清].姜斋诗话笺注[M].戴鸿森笺注.北京:人民文学出版社,1981.
145.王夫之[清].古诗评选[M].张国星点校.石家庄:河北大学出版社,2008.
146.王国维.人间词话[M].滕咸惠译评.长春:吉林文史出版社,1999.
147.王国维.王国维文学美学论著集[C].太原:北岳文艺出版社,1987.
148.王国维.王国维文集(第三卷)[C].北京:中国文史出版社,1997.
149.汪洪章.比较文学与欧美文学研究[M].上海:学林出版社, 2004.
150.王士祯.花草蒙拾.词话丛编[Z].(第一册)唐圭璋(编).北京:中华书局,1990.
151.汪耀进.意象批评[M].成都:四川文艺出版社, 1989.
152.汪裕雄.意象探源[M].合肥:安徽教育出版社,1996. p331-332
153.王立.心灵的图景—文学意象的主题史研究[M].上海:学林出版社,1999.
154.王力.诗词格律概要[M].北京:北京出版社,2002.
155.王守义.论中国古诗词英译[A].唐宋诗词英译[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社, 1989.
156.王应麟[宋].困学纪闻(全校本)[M].[清]翁元圻、乐保群校点;田松青校点;吕宗力校点.上海:上海古籍出版社,2008.
157.王又华[清].古今词论.词话丛编[Z](第一册).唐圭璋(编).北京:中华书局,1990.
158.王灼.碧鸡漫志.词话丛编[Z](第一册).唐圭璋(编).北京:中华书局,1990.
159.王佐良.英语文体学论文集[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1980a.
160.王佐良.英国诗文选译集[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1980b.
161.王佐良,丁往道.英语文体学引论[M].北京:外语与研究出版社,1987.
162.王佐良.王佐良文集[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1997.
163.魏收[北齐].魏书[M].北京:中华书局,2003.
164.魏万德、王爱军.语篇视点与诗词英译[J].武汉理工大学学报(社会科学版).2005(6).
165.文殊.诗词英译选[Z].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1989.
166.翁显良.意态由来画不成[C].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1983.
167.翁显良.古诗英译[M].北京:北京出版社,1985.
168.翁显良.本色与变相[A].杨自俭、刘学云(主编).翻译新论(1983-1992)[C].武汉:湖北教育出版社,1994.
169.吴惠娟.唐宋词审美观照[M].上海:学林出版社,1999.
170.吴晓.意象符号与情感空间[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1990.
171.吴熊和.唐宋词通论[M].杭州:浙江古籍出版社,1985.
172.吴丈蜀.词学概说[M].北京:中华书局,2000.
173.习晓明.英语普通话与汉语普通话词重音比较[J].外语教学,1999(1).
174.夏承焘.唐宋词字音之演变[A].词曲研究[C].王小盾杨栋编.武汉:湖北教育出版社,2004.
175.夏传才.中国古典诗词名篇分类鉴赏辞典[M].徐州:中国矿业大学出版社,1991.
176.夏昭炎.意境义界恣议[J].湘潭师范学院学报.1992(1),卷13.
177.许高渝王之光.论二十世纪我国的汉英语音对比研究[J].浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版).2002(5).
178.徐轨[清].词苑丛谈[M].唐圭璋校注.上海:上海古籍出版社,1981.
179.徐师曾[明].文体明辨[M].罗根泽校点.北京:人民文学出版社,1962.
180.许兴宝.人物意象研究—唐宋词的另一种关注[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2007.
181.许渊冲.唐宋词一百五十首(中英文对照)[Z].北京:北京大学出版社,1990.
182.许渊冲.诗书人生[M].天津:百花文艺出版社,2003.
183.许渊冲.文学与翻译[C].北京:北京大学出版社,2003.
184.许渊冲.宋词三百首英译[Z].北京:高等教育出版社,2004.
185.晏几道[北宋].小山词[M].上海:上海古籍出版社,1988.
186.严羽[南宋].沧浪诗话校译[M].北京:人民文学出版社,2005.
187.杨慎[明].词品[M].哈尔滨:北方文艺出版社,2000.
188.杨宪益戴乃迭.宋词[Z].北京:外文出版社,2001.
189.杨宪益.略谈我从事翻译工作的经历与体会[A].困难见巧—名家翻译经验谈[C].金圣华、黄国彬主编.北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1998.
190.杨自俭刘学云.翻译新论[C].武汉:湖北教育出版社,1994.
191.叶嘉莹.王国维及其文学批评[M].石家庄:河北教育出版社, 1997.
192.叶嘉莹.词之美感特质的形成与演进[M].北京:北京大学出版社, 2007a.
193.叶嘉莹.北宋名家词选讲[M].北京:北京大学出版社, 2007b.
194.叶嘉莹.南宋名家词选讲[M].北京:北京大学出版社, 2007c.
195.叶嘉莹.词学新诠[C].北京:北京大学出版社,2008.
196.叶朗.现代美学体系[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2003.
197.叶朗.中国美学史大纲[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2005.
198.叶梦得.避暑录话.全宋笔记[Z](第二编第十册).郑州:大象出版社,2003.
199.叶维廉.中国诗学[M].北京:三联书店出版,1992.
200.余光中.中国古典诗的句法[A].余光中谈翻译[C].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2007.
201.余嘉锡.世说新语笺疏[M].北京:中华书局,1983.
202.俞文豹[宋].吹剑三录[M].上海:上海古籍出版社,1958.
203.袁枚[清].随园诗话[M].北京:人民文学出版社,1960.
204.袁行霈.中国诗歌艺术研究[M](增订版).北京:北京大学出版社,1996a.
205.袁行霈.李杜诗歌的风格和意象[A].中国诗歌艺术研究[C].北京:北京大学出版社,1996b.
206.袁行霈.中国文学史(第二卷)[M].高等教育出版社,2005.
207.袁行霈.中国文学史(第三卷) [M].高等教育出版社,2005.
208.曾季狸[宋].艇斋诗话[M].上海:上海古籍出版社,2005.
209.曾昭岷.全唐五代词[Z].北京:中华书局,1999.
210.张南峰.特性与共性——论中国翻译学与翻译学的关系[J].中国翻译,2000(2).
211.张惠民.宋代词学资料汇编[Z].汕头:汕头大学出版社,1993.
212.张惠言.词选.词话丛编[Z].(第二册)唐圭璋(编).北京:中华书局,1990.
213.张睿吴爱丹.英汉语音对比研究——英语语音教学的实践意义[J].辽宁工业大学学报,2008(5),卷10.
214.张少康.中国古代文学创作论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1983.
215.张綖.诗余图谱凡例.唐圭璋(编).词话丛编[Z].北京:中华书局,1990.
216.张炎.词源.词话丛编[Z](第一册).唐圭璋(编).北京:中华书局,1990.
217.赵令畤.侯鲭录[M].北京:中华书局,2002.
218.郑奠,谭全基编.古汉语修辞学资料汇编[Z].北京:商务印书馆,1980.
219.郑骞.景午丛编[Z].台北:中华书局,1972.
220.钟锦.词学抉微[M].上海:华东师范出版社,2008.
221.钟嵘.诗品.历代诗话[Z].北京:中华书局,1982.
222.周德清[元].中原音韵[M].台北:台湾艺文出版社,1969.
223.周济[清].介存斋论词杂著[M].北京:人民文学出版社,1998.
224.周亮工[清].书影[M].上海:古典文学出版社,1957.
225.朱承爵[明].存余堂诗话.历代诗话[Z].北京:中华书局,1982.
226.朱光潜.朱光潜美学文集(第二卷)[M].上海:上海文艺出版社,1982.
227.朱光潜.诗论[M].北京:三联书店出版社,1984.
228.朱绍侯张海鹏齐涛.中国古代史(下册)[M].福州:福建人民出版社,2004.
229.朱熹[明].朱子语类.朱子全书[Z].上海:上海古籍出版社,2003.
230.朱彝尊[清].乐府雅词跋.曝书亭集[Z](卷三十四).四部丛刊初编(缩本).上海:商务印书馆,1936.
231.朱彝尊[清].陈纬云红盐词序.曝书亭集[Z](卷四十).四部丛刊初编(缩本).上海:商务印书馆,1936.
232.朱祖谋.疆村遗书[M].上海:上海古籍出版社,1989.
233.宗白华.美学散步[M].上海:上海人民出版社,1981.
234.宗白华.艺境[M].合肥:安徽教育出版社,2000.
235.宗延虎陈光磊主编.中国修辞史[M].长春:吉林教育出版社,2006. ?