“天人合一”与新建构认识翻译范式研究
|
摘要
本论文将中国传统哲学理念“天人合一”置于翻译学理论研究的框架内,试图对翻译活动的过程和目标挖掘出颇具新意的认识,从而指导翻译理论的研究和实践活动的展开。在本论文中,以富有中国本土特色的“主客互为”、“二元一体”、以及“和谐统一”为代表的的思维范式在与西方翻译界继结构主义和解构主义之后出现并发展的建构认识范式的类比和磨合中,构造出了一种中西合璧的辩证统一的一元诗性的思辨知性体系——“天人合一”的新建构认知翻译范式。本文将对西方以“二元对立”,科学实证主义为代表和特色的抽象思维形态进行思考和评价,提出其值得商榷之处,并强调中国传统的讲究和谐、平衡、统一的感性的诗性思维范式。这将赋予翻译理论研究更具多元性的理论视角以及理性思辨与感性认知相互交融协调的理论基调,并为翻译实践活动提供更具人文特色的和生命意义的分析方式和评价标准。
在西学的宏观文化背景下,西方译论将译者——即“人”置于翻译活动关系的对立面,把翻译视为译者研究的对象,可以驾驭,可以操纵,可以改写。这一认识将主体置于翻译诸关系和要素的对立面,本质上仍然反映了二元对立、主客二分的精神内核和思维基调。与之相异,中国传统哲学摒弃绝对的精神理念和对立思想,追求的是一种感性诗意体验和思辨性的思维能力。在千百年来这样的思想氛围笼罩下,“互为”、“统一”,强调主客体之间的整体关系成了中国人哲学思维范式的基调。在翻译学框架内,用“天人合一”的认识观对文本的解读和终极意义求索的活动是在一知性体系中将译者作为充分主体,但又与其它解读活动关系互为一体的认识活动。这样的认识观是将译者置于一个多元综合的认识关系和环境中,人与其它要素互为合作、和谐作用而达致合一的最佳理解和表征的一种认识,一种境界,一种过程。“天”既可谓“文本的元意义”的存在,又是文本意义的常量;而“人”是翻译活动中的主体,是译者。他们两者是一体的,而不是主体对客体的把握驾驭、控制和操纵;“合”是在翻译过程中,译者通过谨慎的构思和酝酿,使得能够投射自身思想的译文与原文本互为映衬、相得益彰,从而达致圆融化生这一理想状态的过程;而“一”是各种关系、要素致达理想化的状态,经由译者反复的锤炼和编排,辅助以灵性思维的闪现,从而使得译文重现原文本本义意义常量,两者“融合”的终极追求和最高理想。因此,“天人合一”对于如何认识翻译活动中的主体性,具有建构的本质和趋向。
笔者认为,中西两种思维范式指导下的翻译范式的舍取抉择问题是困扰翻译学界的一个桎梏。因为在此论文中,笔者通过对“天人合一”与建构认知翻译范式的研究和大胆结合,试图发现一种兼收并蓄的知性理论体系用来指导翻译理论研究和实践活动,即本文所提出的“新建构主义”。
鉴于“天人合一”的新建构认知翻译范式是一种崭新的思辨知性体系,笔者将撷取中西方哲学、语言学、现象学、阐释学、翻译学中的某一理论、某一论述或者某一概念对其进行理论补充和建构。具体而言,笔者将中国传统哲学理念“道象互为”作为参照维度,辅助以当代学者钱钟书的“化境说”对于译者对于文本的忠实性和创造性作出厘定;进而通过阐释哈贝马斯的“交往行为理论”,胡塞尔现象阐释学中的“先验性”和“意向性”,以及伽达默尔的“视域融合”概念,分别对于文本解读过程中的终极性、动态开放性以及译者和文本之间互动性作出阐释。在分析过程中,笔者试图发现这些上述理论与“天人合一”的建构认知翻译范式的相通之处,进而完善对其的探讨和研究。
翻译学负担着特殊的文化传导和交流的重大责任。本文在对中西方思维范式客观剖析的基础上,以中国本土特色的思维范式和哲学模态为参照维度,辅助以西方的哲学思维,试图建构一种兼收并蓄的译论,即“新建构主义”,从而给后来的研究者带来思维上的一些启发,并为中国译论的建构和完善尽绵薄之力。
This thesis attempts to put the traditional Chinese philosophical thinking paradigm天人合一(“Harmonious Unity of Man and Nature”, hereinafter referred to as HUMN) in the framework of translation studies, with the aim to look for novel cognitions of the process and goal of translation activities, and consequently to provide some guidance for translational abstract theories and practical activities. With comparison and compromise between oriental-featured thinking paradigm represented by“subject-object interaction”,“binary integration”, and“harmonious unity”, and Constructivist cognition which has emerged and developed after Structivism and Deconstructivism in the western academic field, this thesis tries to construct a unitary and poetic intellectual cognitive system that dialectically combines both Chinese and western thinking elements into a new-brand term, that is HUMN of the Neo-Constructivist cognition of translation paradigm. On the one hand, this thesis is to consider and evaluate the western abstract thinking mode featuring with“subject-object dichotomy”and scientific positivism; and on the other hand, it emphasizes and confirms the traditional Chinese poetic thinking mode pursuing harmony, balance and integration. The construction of the translational thinking paradigm of HUMN is to endow translation theoretical studies with a multi-dimensional angle and a fundamental keynote of fusing the rational analysis with perceptual cognition, as well as to provide translation activities with a novel analytical method and an evaluation criterion, both of which possess more cultural characteristics and life significances.
Against the background of the western philosophy, the western translation studies regard the translator as a dominant part to be totally isolated and opposite to the whole translation activities, as well as take translation activities as an object that the translator can control and manipulate at his or her will. It is the cognition that places the subject against all the relationships and elements in translation activities, and reflects its spiritual core and thinking basis of“subject-object dichotomy”. On the contrary, the traditional Chinese philosophy abandons the absolute spirits and antithetical ideas, and seeks for a taste of the poetic perception and speculative thinking capability. Influenced by such a kind of mental atmosphere for thousands of years,“interaction”,“integration”, and the holistic relationship of the subject and object have laid a solid basis for Chinese people’s philosophical thinking mode. In the framework of translation, the cognition of HUMN takes the translator as a subject and meanwhile interacts dynamically with other interpretational relationships and elements in a whole intellectual system. This cognition has placed the translator in a multi-dimensional cognitive system, in which he or she cooperates and interacts with other elements in the process of gaining the best understanding and representation of the original meaning.天(“Nature”) here stands for the confirmation of meta-meaning of the original text and authoritative position of the original author, and the constants of the meta-meaning as well;人(“man”) represents the translator, who is the subject of the interpretation activity.天and人are taken as a inseparable whole, neither of which can be regarded as a subject to manipulate and control the other.合(“harmonious process of integration”) means the ideal process of translation activity, in which the translator succeeds in creating a translated work that exhibits nearly all the beauties and taste of the original text and simultaneously enhance the perfection of itself.一(“oneness”or“unity”) shows the final and perfect integration between the original text, the author, the translator and the translated version. It is the idealist state or stratum of various relationships and elements embodied that the translated version becomes the best illumination and reflection of the original text and the author through the translator’s great efforts and inspirations. Therefore, HUMN is provided with the Constructivist feature in comprehending subjectivity in translation activities.
The author holds that how to select proper translation strategies is a knotty problem in translation studies. Thus, the author attempts to construct an intellectual system, which is nominated as“Neo-Constructivism”in this thesis, to guide theoretical research and practical activities through the bold connection of the traditional Chinese philosophical thinking mode of HUMN and Constructivist cognition that originally emerged in the western academic field.
Since HUMN in the framework of Neo-Constructivism is a brand-new intellectual system constructed in this thesis, the author is to theoretically consummate it by selectively extracting and illustrating some theory, some statement or some concept in either Chinese or western philosophy, linguistics, phenomenology, Hermeneutics, and Translatology. In detail, the author is to use the traditional Chinese philosophical paradigm of“Intergration of the Tao and Imagery”as well as Qian Zhongshu’s illustration of“Sublimation”to rationalize the translator’s loyalty and creativity to the original text; and then to adapt Gadamer’s“Fusion of Horizons”, Habermas’“Theory of Communication”, and Husserl’s phenomenological construction of“Transcendentality”and“Intentionality”to illustrate the interactive relationship between the translator’s and author’s horizons, explain the ultimacy in translation, and to construct a dynamic and open system of translation respectively. In analysis, the author is to seek for the similar basis of HUMN and the above theoretical points to better the research in this thesis.
Translatology shoulders the significant responsibility of culture transmission and exchange. This thesis analyzes both Chinese and western philosophical thinking paradigms objectively, trying to construct a translation paradigm that absorb the strong points of the two, to enlighten the following researchers and to better Chinese translation studies.
在西学的宏观文化背景下,西方译论将译者——即“人”置于翻译活动关系的对立面,把翻译视为译者研究的对象,可以驾驭,可以操纵,可以改写。这一认识将主体置于翻译诸关系和要素的对立面,本质上仍然反映了二元对立、主客二分的精神内核和思维基调。与之相异,中国传统哲学摒弃绝对的精神理念和对立思想,追求的是一种感性诗意体验和思辨性的思维能力。在千百年来这样的思想氛围笼罩下,“互为”、“统一”,强调主客体之间的整体关系成了中国人哲学思维范式的基调。在翻译学框架内,用“天人合一”的认识观对文本的解读和终极意义求索的活动是在一知性体系中将译者作为充分主体,但又与其它解读活动关系互为一体的认识活动。这样的认识观是将译者置于一个多元综合的认识关系和环境中,人与其它要素互为合作、和谐作用而达致合一的最佳理解和表征的一种认识,一种境界,一种过程。“天”既可谓“文本的元意义”的存在,又是文本意义的常量;而“人”是翻译活动中的主体,是译者。他们两者是一体的,而不是主体对客体的把握驾驭、控制和操纵;“合”是在翻译过程中,译者通过谨慎的构思和酝酿,使得能够投射自身思想的译文与原文本互为映衬、相得益彰,从而达致圆融化生这一理想状态的过程;而“一”是各种关系、要素致达理想化的状态,经由译者反复的锤炼和编排,辅助以灵性思维的闪现,从而使得译文重现原文本本义意义常量,两者“融合”的终极追求和最高理想。因此,“天人合一”对于如何认识翻译活动中的主体性,具有建构的本质和趋向。
笔者认为,中西两种思维范式指导下的翻译范式的舍取抉择问题是困扰翻译学界的一个桎梏。因为在此论文中,笔者通过对“天人合一”与建构认知翻译范式的研究和大胆结合,试图发现一种兼收并蓄的知性理论体系用来指导翻译理论研究和实践活动,即本文所提出的“新建构主义”。
鉴于“天人合一”的新建构认知翻译范式是一种崭新的思辨知性体系,笔者将撷取中西方哲学、语言学、现象学、阐释学、翻译学中的某一理论、某一论述或者某一概念对其进行理论补充和建构。具体而言,笔者将中国传统哲学理念“道象互为”作为参照维度,辅助以当代学者钱钟书的“化境说”对于译者对于文本的忠实性和创造性作出厘定;进而通过阐释哈贝马斯的“交往行为理论”,胡塞尔现象阐释学中的“先验性”和“意向性”,以及伽达默尔的“视域融合”概念,分别对于文本解读过程中的终极性、动态开放性以及译者和文本之间互动性作出阐释。在分析过程中,笔者试图发现这些上述理论与“天人合一”的建构认知翻译范式的相通之处,进而完善对其的探讨和研究。
翻译学负担着特殊的文化传导和交流的重大责任。本文在对中西方思维范式客观剖析的基础上,以中国本土特色的思维范式和哲学模态为参照维度,辅助以西方的哲学思维,试图建构一种兼收并蓄的译论,即“新建构主义”,从而给后来的研究者带来思维上的一些启发,并为中国译论的建构和完善尽绵薄之力。
This thesis attempts to put the traditional Chinese philosophical thinking paradigm天人合一(“Harmonious Unity of Man and Nature”, hereinafter referred to as HUMN) in the framework of translation studies, with the aim to look for novel cognitions of the process and goal of translation activities, and consequently to provide some guidance for translational abstract theories and practical activities. With comparison and compromise between oriental-featured thinking paradigm represented by“subject-object interaction”,“binary integration”, and“harmonious unity”, and Constructivist cognition which has emerged and developed after Structivism and Deconstructivism in the western academic field, this thesis tries to construct a unitary and poetic intellectual cognitive system that dialectically combines both Chinese and western thinking elements into a new-brand term, that is HUMN of the Neo-Constructivist cognition of translation paradigm. On the one hand, this thesis is to consider and evaluate the western abstract thinking mode featuring with“subject-object dichotomy”and scientific positivism; and on the other hand, it emphasizes and confirms the traditional Chinese poetic thinking mode pursuing harmony, balance and integration. The construction of the translational thinking paradigm of HUMN is to endow translation theoretical studies with a multi-dimensional angle and a fundamental keynote of fusing the rational analysis with perceptual cognition, as well as to provide translation activities with a novel analytical method and an evaluation criterion, both of which possess more cultural characteristics and life significances.
Against the background of the western philosophy, the western translation studies regard the translator as a dominant part to be totally isolated and opposite to the whole translation activities, as well as take translation activities as an object that the translator can control and manipulate at his or her will. It is the cognition that places the subject against all the relationships and elements in translation activities, and reflects its spiritual core and thinking basis of“subject-object dichotomy”. On the contrary, the traditional Chinese philosophy abandons the absolute spirits and antithetical ideas, and seeks for a taste of the poetic perception and speculative thinking capability. Influenced by such a kind of mental atmosphere for thousands of years,“interaction”,“integration”, and the holistic relationship of the subject and object have laid a solid basis for Chinese people’s philosophical thinking mode. In the framework of translation, the cognition of HUMN takes the translator as a subject and meanwhile interacts dynamically with other interpretational relationships and elements in a whole intellectual system. This cognition has placed the translator in a multi-dimensional cognitive system, in which he or she cooperates and interacts with other elements in the process of gaining the best understanding and representation of the original meaning.天(“Nature”) here stands for the confirmation of meta-meaning of the original text and authoritative position of the original author, and the constants of the meta-meaning as well;人(“man”) represents the translator, who is the subject of the interpretation activity.天and人are taken as a inseparable whole, neither of which can be regarded as a subject to manipulate and control the other.合(“harmonious process of integration”) means the ideal process of translation activity, in which the translator succeeds in creating a translated work that exhibits nearly all the beauties and taste of the original text and simultaneously enhance the perfection of itself.一(“oneness”or“unity”) shows the final and perfect integration between the original text, the author, the translator and the translated version. It is the idealist state or stratum of various relationships and elements embodied that the translated version becomes the best illumination and reflection of the original text and the author through the translator’s great efforts and inspirations. Therefore, HUMN is provided with the Constructivist feature in comprehending subjectivity in translation activities.
The author holds that how to select proper translation strategies is a knotty problem in translation studies. Thus, the author attempts to construct an intellectual system, which is nominated as“Neo-Constructivism”in this thesis, to guide theoretical research and practical activities through the bold connection of the traditional Chinese philosophical thinking mode of HUMN and Constructivist cognition that originally emerged in the western academic field.
Since HUMN in the framework of Neo-Constructivism is a brand-new intellectual system constructed in this thesis, the author is to theoretically consummate it by selectively extracting and illustrating some theory, some statement or some concept in either Chinese or western philosophy, linguistics, phenomenology, Hermeneutics, and Translatology. In detail, the author is to use the traditional Chinese philosophical paradigm of“Intergration of the Tao and Imagery”as well as Qian Zhongshu’s illustration of“Sublimation”to rationalize the translator’s loyalty and creativity to the original text; and then to adapt Gadamer’s“Fusion of Horizons”, Habermas’“Theory of Communication”, and Husserl’s phenomenological construction of“Transcendentality”and“Intentionality”to illustrate the interactive relationship between the translator’s and author’s horizons, explain the ultimacy in translation, and to construct a dynamic and open system of translation respectively. In analysis, the author is to seek for the similar basis of HUMN and the above theoretical points to better the research in this thesis.
Translatology shoulders the significant responsibility of culture transmission and exchange. This thesis analyzes both Chinese and western philosophical thinking paradigms objectively, trying to construct a translation paradigm that absorb the strong points of the two, to enlighten the following researchers and to better Chinese translation studies.
引文
Alvarez, R. & Vidal, M. C. A. (1997). Translation, Power, Subversion. (Ed.) Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Bao, T. F. [包通法],2008,论“和而不同”跨文化翻译策略的哲学认识观.无锡:江南大学学报(5):111。
Bao, T. F. [包通法],2005,宋诗学观照下白居易诗歌“浅、清、切”诗性体认与翻译.大连:外语与外语教学(12):40。
Bao, T. F. [包通法],2002,共识与相异.长春:吉林人民出版社。
Bassnett, S. & Lefevere, A. (2002). Constructing culture: Essays on literary translation. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Beijing University Team.[北京大学《荀子》注释组]. (1979).荀子新注[New Illustrations of Xunzi].北京:中华书局。
Bi, S. L. [毕胜利],2003,外语教学:阅读中的视域融合.北京:外语教学(6):56。
Black, S. M. (1959). Chapters from a Floating Life. Plaisow: The Curwen Press.
Catford, J. C. (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chen, D. L. [陈大亮],2006,重新认识钱钟书的“化境”理论.上海:上海翻译(4):3。
Chen, G. Y. [陈鼓应],1999,庄子今注今译.北京:北京:中华书局。
Chen, G. Q. [陈国强],2009,老子“道”的符号学维度及其民本意蕴.南宁:传承(9):135。
Chen, J. F. [陈江风],1996,天人合一观念和华夏文化传统.北京:三联书店。
Duan, Y. Y. & Li, X. L. [段彦艳,李晓亮],2009,“化境说”的传统译论基础及其美学渊源.石家庄:石家庄学院学报(2):87。
Fan, A. X. & Luan, Y. X. [范爱贤,栾贻信],2007,“象言”与“道”韵——儒道两家诗性语言学思想及其现代意义.淄博:管子学刊(3):60。
Fang, M. Z. [方梦之],2002,翻译新论与实践.青岛:青岛出版社。
Feng, Q. H. [冯庆华],2005,实用翻译教程.上海:上海外语教育出版社。
Fu, L. [傅雷],2006,傅雷文集.文艺卷.北京:当代世界出版社。
Fu, Y. L. & Lu, Q. [傅云龙,陆钦],2001,老子·庄子(全文注释本).北京:华夏出版社。
Gadamer.(1992).洪汉鼎译.真理与方法.上海:上海译文出版社。
Ge, R. J. [葛荣晋],2001,中国古代哲学范畴通论.北京:首都师范大学出版社。
Goger. T. B. (2001). Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Gong, G. M. [龚光明],2004,翻译思维学.上海:上海社会科学院出版社。
Han, Y. H. [韩永和],2006,老子传统生命学解析.北京:中国医药科技出版社。
He, S N. [何三宁],2008,一个全新的译学范式——建构主义译学——简评《翻译学——一个建构主义的视角》.长春:作家(10):198-199。
Hong, H. D. [洪汉鼎],2009,《真理与方法》译者序言.上海:上海译文出版社。Hou, X. Q. [侯向群],2003,“理解”的重释——建构主义的翻译学之理解观.哈尔滨:外语学刊(4):94。
Husserl. (1992).李幼蒸译.纯粹现象学通论.北京:商务印书馆:84。
Ji, X. L. [季羡林],1994,关于“天人合一”思想的再思考.北京:中国文化(2):9,13。
Ji, X. L. [季羡林],2009,“和谐”是大道.北京:思想盛宴(01):40。
Kearney. R. (2007). Research in Phenomenology. Boston: Boston College.
Li, H. H. [李海红],2009,建构主义翻译研究对读者主体的关照.马鞍山:安徽工业大学学报(1):99。
Li, J. [李晶],2007,解构与建构:互文性对翻译理论的影响.长沙:湖南第一师范学报(4):113。
Li, W. N. [李文宁],2008,关于主体间性在本体论上的探讨.武汉:文学教育(08):150。
Li, Y. F. [李云飞],2009,先验还原与现象学的世界问题.合肥:安徽大学学报(3):9。
Liu, H. B. [刘化兵],2008,陆九渊“六经注我,我注六经”本义辨析.长沙:中国文学研究(2):29-32。
Liu, H. J. [刘恒健],1993,中国哲学的天人合一与西方哲学的主客二分——兼与张世英先生商榷.西安:陕西师大学报(3):40,42-43。
Liu, J. [刘静],2009,钱钟书先生之“化境”翻译理论之我见.北京:科技创新导报(22):225。
Liu, M. Q. [刘宓庆],1989,中国翻译理论的基本模式问题[the Basic Mode of Translation Theory].广州:现代外语(1):5-9。
Liu, M. Q. & Fang, H. W. [刘宓庆,方华文],2006,中西翻译文化对谈录.兰州:兰州大学学报(5):118-123。
Lu, J. Y. [陆九渊],1980,陆九渊集.北京:中华书局:399。
Luo, X. Z. [罗新璋],1984,翻译论集.北京:商务印书馆:18-19, 79-84。
Lv, J. [吕俊],2001a,翻译研究:走过解构通向交往——哈贝马斯普遍语用学对翻译学的建构意义.大连:外语与外语教学(11):25。
Lv, J. [吕俊],2005,何为建构主义翻译学.大连:外语与外语教学(12):35, 36。
Lv, J. [吕俊],2001b,结构·解构·建构——我国翻译研究的回顾与展望.北京:中国翻译(6):8。
Ma, L. & Chen, Y. L. [马丽,陈玉林],2009,解读哈贝马斯的交往行为理论.沈阳:理论界(2):114, 115。
Mao, R. G. [毛荣贵],2005,翻译美学.上海:上海交通大学出版社。
Meetham, A. R. & Hudson, R. A. (1969). Encyclopaedia of linguistics, information andcontrol. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Newmark, P. (1988). A Textbook of Translation. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall International.
Nida, E. A. (1964). Towards a Science of Translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Nida, E. A. & Taber, C. R. (1969). Theory and Practise of Translation Litation. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Niu, C. L. [牛春玲],2007,“化境”之探——从解释学角度剖析诗歌翻译中的“意图”.重庆:重庆邮电大学学报(增刊):55。
Nord, C. (2007). Text Analysis in Translation: Theory, Methodology, and Didactic Application of a Model for Translation-Oriented Text Analysis. (Second Edition). Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Peng, Q. F. [彭启福],2007,“视域融合度”:伽达默尔的视域融合论批判.北京:学术月刊(8):56。
Qian, Y. S. [钱永生],2009,墨子人本思想的结构.长沙:湖南大学学报(1):5。
Qian, Z. S. [钱钟书],1984,林纾的翻译(翻译研究论文集).北京:外语教学与研究出版社。
Qian, Z. S. [钱钟书],1985,七缀集.上海:上海古籍出版社。
Qiao, P. & Zhai, S. R. & Song, H. W. [乔萍,翟淑蓉,宋洪玮],2002,散文佳作108篇.南京:译林出版社。
Qin, W. H. [秦文华],2008,译学的反思与重建——评译学新著《翻译学:一个建构主义的视角》.重庆:四川外语学院学报(3):141。
Shakespeare, W. (2009).哈姆雷特(朱生豪译).北京:世界图书出版公司,2009。
Shan, J. G. [单继刚],2007,翻译的哲学方面.北京:中国社会科学出版社。
Shen, F. [沈复],1999,浮生六记(林语堂译).北京:外语教学与研究出版社。
Sun, D. Y. [孙大雨],1997,古诗文英译集.上海:上海外语教育出版社。
Tan, F. M. [谭福民],1997,钱钟书的“化”论及其翻译实践.长沙:湖南师范大学社会科学学报(2):98-99。
Tan, Y. F. [谭云飞],2009,从现象学看文学翻译策略的选择.沈阳:辽宁行政学院学报(11):166,167。
Tan, Z. X. [谭载喜],1991,西方翻译简史.北京:商务印书馆。
Wang, F. [王峰],2007,西方阐释学美学局限研究.黑龙江:黑龙江人民出版社。
Wang, S. R. [王树人],2006,中国的“象思维”及其原创性问题.上海:学术月刊(1):52。
Wang, Y. H. [汪涌豪],1999,中国古代文学理论体系·范畴论.上海:复旦大学出版社。
Wang, Z. Q. [王志强],2008,从伽达默尔哲学解释学原理看阅读的本质.内蒙古:语文学刊(2):60。
Wang, Z. H. [王祖华],2006,建构的翻译学与翻译学的建构.重庆:四川外国语学院学报(2):73,76。
Wei, J. Y. [魏久尧],2001,胡塞尔现象学的革命性及其内在矛盾.延安:延安大学学报(4):13。
Wen, S. [文殊],1989,诗词英译选.北京:外语教学与研究出版社。
Winter, W. (1961).‘Impossibilities of translation’, in W. Arrowsmith & R. Shattuck (Ed.) The Craft and Context of Translation. New York: Anchor.
Wu, H. M. [伍华民],1987,文学翻译中的单词分译.上海:外国语(2):59。
Wu, X. Q. & Gao. C. Y. [吴学琴,高晨阳],1997,“道”与老子哲学的基本精神.济南:文史哲(2):80。
Xu, L. [许亮],2007,老子“道论”与柏拉图“理念论”之比较.北京:北京理工大学学报(6):82。
Xu, X. P. [徐学平],2000,等值论与功能语篇翻译.湛江:湛江师范学院学报(1):96。
Xu, Y. C. [许渊冲],2000,唐诗三百首.北京:高等教育出版社。
Xu, Y. C. [许渊冲],2002,文学翻译与科学翻译.上海:上海科技翻译(4):1。
Xu, Y. C., Lu, P. X. & Wu. J. T. [许渊冲,陆佩弦,吴钧陶],1988,唐诗三百首新译(英汉对照).北京:中国对外翻译出版公司:305。
Zhang, D. Z. [张道真],2002,实用英语语法.北京:外语教学与研究出版社。
Zhang, G. F. [章国锋],2000,哈贝马斯访谈录.北京:外国文学评论(01):29-31。
Zhang, M. P. [张美萍],2006,天人合一与主客二分关照下的表现与再现.长沙:湖南医科大学学报(1):21。
Zhang, Q. Y. [张乾元],2006,象外之意——周易意象学与中国书画美学.北京:中国书店。
Zhang, S. Y. [张世英],1991,“天人合一”与“主客二分”.北京:哲学研究(1):72。
Zhang, S. Y. [张世英],2007,中国古代的“天人合一”思想.北京:求是杂志(7):62。
Zhang, S. J. & Zhang, B. R. [张思洁,张柏然],2001,形合与意合的哲学思维反思.北京:中国翻译(4):14。
Zhang, W. F. & Qu, C. H. [张万防,翟长红],2008,解构和建构:伽达默尔和哈贝马斯的哲学翻译思想之比较.新余:新余高专学报(5):103,104。
Zhang, X. P. [张祥平],2004,《易》与人类思维.重庆:重庆出版社。
Zhang, Z. [张载],1985,张载集.北京:中华书局。
Zhao, L. H. [赵丽宏],2007,玉屑集.上海:上海人民出版社。
Zhao, K. Y. [赵奎英],2007,“道不可言”与“境生象外”——庄子语言哲学及其对意境论的影响.济南:山东师范大学学报(3):18。
Zhao, S. T. [赵耸婷],2001,建构主义:一种后结构主义学习理论.南通:南通师范学院学报(2):117。
Zheng, J. D. [郑家栋],2001,《论语》哲学注释.北京:中国社会科学出版社。
Zhu, H. L. [朱鸿亮],2006,化境的缺席与在场.洛阳:解放军外国语学院学报(2):81。
Zhu, J. P. [朱健平],2009,“视域融合”对译作与原作关系的动态描述.北京:外语教学(2):97。
Zhu, L. H. [朱灵慧],2007,结构?解构?建构?——评《翻译学:一个建构的视角》.合肥:科教文汇(10):189。
Zhu, Y. H. [朱义华],2008,文化建构下的文学翻译研究反思.无锡:江南大学学报(2):111。
Zhu, Z. Y. [朱忠元],2007,“象”与“体道”.兰州:甘肃高师学报(1):15。
Zou, D. Q. [邹东旗],1991,西方译论与“信达雅”.衡阳:衡阳师专学报(1):107。
Zou, X. M. & Li, F. Y. [邹兴明,李芳英],2004,解哈贝马斯“交往行动”概念的缺陷与启示.沈阳:信阳师范学院学报(1):14。
Bao, T. F. [包通法],2008,论“和而不同”跨文化翻译策略的哲学认识观.无锡:江南大学学报(5):111。
Bao, T. F. [包通法],2005,宋诗学观照下白居易诗歌“浅、清、切”诗性体认与翻译.大连:外语与外语教学(12):40。
Bao, T. F. [包通法],2002,共识与相异.长春:吉林人民出版社。
Bassnett, S. & Lefevere, A. (2002). Constructing culture: Essays on literary translation. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Beijing University Team.[北京大学《荀子》注释组]. (1979).荀子新注[New Illustrations of Xunzi].北京:中华书局。
Bi, S. L. [毕胜利],2003,外语教学:阅读中的视域融合.北京:外语教学(6):56。
Black, S. M. (1959). Chapters from a Floating Life. Plaisow: The Curwen Press.
Catford, J. C. (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chen, D. L. [陈大亮],2006,重新认识钱钟书的“化境”理论.上海:上海翻译(4):3。
Chen, G. Y. [陈鼓应],1999,庄子今注今译.北京:北京:中华书局。
Chen, G. Q. [陈国强],2009,老子“道”的符号学维度及其民本意蕴.南宁:传承(9):135。
Chen, J. F. [陈江风],1996,天人合一观念和华夏文化传统.北京:三联书店。
Duan, Y. Y. & Li, X. L. [段彦艳,李晓亮],2009,“化境说”的传统译论基础及其美学渊源.石家庄:石家庄学院学报(2):87。
Fan, A. X. & Luan, Y. X. [范爱贤,栾贻信],2007,“象言”与“道”韵——儒道两家诗性语言学思想及其现代意义.淄博:管子学刊(3):60。
Fang, M. Z. [方梦之],2002,翻译新论与实践.青岛:青岛出版社。
Feng, Q. H. [冯庆华],2005,实用翻译教程.上海:上海外语教育出版社。
Fu, L. [傅雷],2006,傅雷文集.文艺卷.北京:当代世界出版社。
Fu, Y. L. & Lu, Q. [傅云龙,陆钦],2001,老子·庄子(全文注释本).北京:华夏出版社。
Gadamer.(1992).洪汉鼎译.真理与方法.上海:上海译文出版社。
Ge, R. J. [葛荣晋],2001,中国古代哲学范畴通论.北京:首都师范大学出版社。
Goger. T. B. (2001). Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Gong, G. M. [龚光明],2004,翻译思维学.上海:上海社会科学院出版社。
Han, Y. H. [韩永和],2006,老子传统生命学解析.北京:中国医药科技出版社。
He, S N. [何三宁],2008,一个全新的译学范式——建构主义译学——简评《翻译学——一个建构主义的视角》.长春:作家(10):198-199。
Hong, H. D. [洪汉鼎],2009,《真理与方法》译者序言.上海:上海译文出版社。Hou, X. Q. [侯向群],2003,“理解”的重释——建构主义的翻译学之理解观.哈尔滨:外语学刊(4):94。
Husserl. (1992).李幼蒸译.纯粹现象学通论.北京:商务印书馆:84。
Ji, X. L. [季羡林],1994,关于“天人合一”思想的再思考.北京:中国文化(2):9,13。
Ji, X. L. [季羡林],2009,“和谐”是大道.北京:思想盛宴(01):40。
Kearney. R. (2007). Research in Phenomenology. Boston: Boston College.
Li, H. H. [李海红],2009,建构主义翻译研究对读者主体的关照.马鞍山:安徽工业大学学报(1):99。
Li, J. [李晶],2007,解构与建构:互文性对翻译理论的影响.长沙:湖南第一师范学报(4):113。
Li, W. N. [李文宁],2008,关于主体间性在本体论上的探讨.武汉:文学教育(08):150。
Li, Y. F. [李云飞],2009,先验还原与现象学的世界问题.合肥:安徽大学学报(3):9。
Liu, H. B. [刘化兵],2008,陆九渊“六经注我,我注六经”本义辨析.长沙:中国文学研究(2):29-32。
Liu, H. J. [刘恒健],1993,中国哲学的天人合一与西方哲学的主客二分——兼与张世英先生商榷.西安:陕西师大学报(3):40,42-43。
Liu, J. [刘静],2009,钱钟书先生之“化境”翻译理论之我见.北京:科技创新导报(22):225。
Liu, M. Q. [刘宓庆],1989,中国翻译理论的基本模式问题[the Basic Mode of Translation Theory].广州:现代外语(1):5-9。
Liu, M. Q. & Fang, H. W. [刘宓庆,方华文],2006,中西翻译文化对谈录.兰州:兰州大学学报(5):118-123。
Lu, J. Y. [陆九渊],1980,陆九渊集.北京:中华书局:399。
Luo, X. Z. [罗新璋],1984,翻译论集.北京:商务印书馆:18-19, 79-84。
Lv, J. [吕俊],2001a,翻译研究:走过解构通向交往——哈贝马斯普遍语用学对翻译学的建构意义.大连:外语与外语教学(11):25。
Lv, J. [吕俊],2005,何为建构主义翻译学.大连:外语与外语教学(12):35, 36。
Lv, J. [吕俊],2001b,结构·解构·建构——我国翻译研究的回顾与展望.北京:中国翻译(6):8。
Ma, L. & Chen, Y. L. [马丽,陈玉林],2009,解读哈贝马斯的交往行为理论.沈阳:理论界(2):114, 115。
Mao, R. G. [毛荣贵],2005,翻译美学.上海:上海交通大学出版社。
Meetham, A. R. & Hudson, R. A. (1969). Encyclopaedia of linguistics, information andcontrol. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Newmark, P. (1988). A Textbook of Translation. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall International.
Nida, E. A. (1964). Towards a Science of Translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Nida, E. A. & Taber, C. R. (1969). Theory and Practise of Translation Litation. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Niu, C. L. [牛春玲],2007,“化境”之探——从解释学角度剖析诗歌翻译中的“意图”.重庆:重庆邮电大学学报(增刊):55。
Nord, C. (2007). Text Analysis in Translation: Theory, Methodology, and Didactic Application of a Model for Translation-Oriented Text Analysis. (Second Edition). Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Peng, Q. F. [彭启福],2007,“视域融合度”:伽达默尔的视域融合论批判.北京:学术月刊(8):56。
Qian, Y. S. [钱永生],2009,墨子人本思想的结构.长沙:湖南大学学报(1):5。
Qian, Z. S. [钱钟书],1984,林纾的翻译(翻译研究论文集).北京:外语教学与研究出版社。
Qian, Z. S. [钱钟书],1985,七缀集.上海:上海古籍出版社。
Qiao, P. & Zhai, S. R. & Song, H. W. [乔萍,翟淑蓉,宋洪玮],2002,散文佳作108篇.南京:译林出版社。
Qin, W. H. [秦文华],2008,译学的反思与重建——评译学新著《翻译学:一个建构主义的视角》.重庆:四川外语学院学报(3):141。
Shakespeare, W. (2009).哈姆雷特(朱生豪译).北京:世界图书出版公司,2009。
Shan, J. G. [单继刚],2007,翻译的哲学方面.北京:中国社会科学出版社。
Shen, F. [沈复],1999,浮生六记(林语堂译).北京:外语教学与研究出版社。
Sun, D. Y. [孙大雨],1997,古诗文英译集.上海:上海外语教育出版社。
Tan, F. M. [谭福民],1997,钱钟书的“化”论及其翻译实践.长沙:湖南师范大学社会科学学报(2):98-99。
Tan, Y. F. [谭云飞],2009,从现象学看文学翻译策略的选择.沈阳:辽宁行政学院学报(11):166,167。
Tan, Z. X. [谭载喜],1991,西方翻译简史.北京:商务印书馆。
Wang, F. [王峰],2007,西方阐释学美学局限研究.黑龙江:黑龙江人民出版社。
Wang, S. R. [王树人],2006,中国的“象思维”及其原创性问题.上海:学术月刊(1):52。
Wang, Y. H. [汪涌豪],1999,中国古代文学理论体系·范畴论.上海:复旦大学出版社。
Wang, Z. Q. [王志强],2008,从伽达默尔哲学解释学原理看阅读的本质.内蒙古:语文学刊(2):60。
Wang, Z. H. [王祖华],2006,建构的翻译学与翻译学的建构.重庆:四川外国语学院学报(2):73,76。
Wei, J. Y. [魏久尧],2001,胡塞尔现象学的革命性及其内在矛盾.延安:延安大学学报(4):13。
Wen, S. [文殊],1989,诗词英译选.北京:外语教学与研究出版社。
Winter, W. (1961).‘Impossibilities of translation’, in W. Arrowsmith & R. Shattuck (Ed.) The Craft and Context of Translation. New York: Anchor.
Wu, H. M. [伍华民],1987,文学翻译中的单词分译.上海:外国语(2):59。
Wu, X. Q. & Gao. C. Y. [吴学琴,高晨阳],1997,“道”与老子哲学的基本精神.济南:文史哲(2):80。
Xu, L. [许亮],2007,老子“道论”与柏拉图“理念论”之比较.北京:北京理工大学学报(6):82。
Xu, X. P. [徐学平],2000,等值论与功能语篇翻译.湛江:湛江师范学院学报(1):96。
Xu, Y. C. [许渊冲],2000,唐诗三百首.北京:高等教育出版社。
Xu, Y. C. [许渊冲],2002,文学翻译与科学翻译.上海:上海科技翻译(4):1。
Xu, Y. C., Lu, P. X. & Wu. J. T. [许渊冲,陆佩弦,吴钧陶],1988,唐诗三百首新译(英汉对照).北京:中国对外翻译出版公司:305。
Zhang, D. Z. [张道真],2002,实用英语语法.北京:外语教学与研究出版社。
Zhang, G. F. [章国锋],2000,哈贝马斯访谈录.北京:外国文学评论(01):29-31。
Zhang, M. P. [张美萍],2006,天人合一与主客二分关照下的表现与再现.长沙:湖南医科大学学报(1):21。
Zhang, Q. Y. [张乾元],2006,象外之意——周易意象学与中国书画美学.北京:中国书店。
Zhang, S. Y. [张世英],1991,“天人合一”与“主客二分”.北京:哲学研究(1):72。
Zhang, S. Y. [张世英],2007,中国古代的“天人合一”思想.北京:求是杂志(7):62。
Zhang, S. J. & Zhang, B. R. [张思洁,张柏然],2001,形合与意合的哲学思维反思.北京:中国翻译(4):14。
Zhang, W. F. & Qu, C. H. [张万防,翟长红],2008,解构和建构:伽达默尔和哈贝马斯的哲学翻译思想之比较.新余:新余高专学报(5):103,104。
Zhang, X. P. [张祥平],2004,《易》与人类思维.重庆:重庆出版社。
Zhang, Z. [张载],1985,张载集.北京:中华书局。
Zhao, L. H. [赵丽宏],2007,玉屑集.上海:上海人民出版社。
Zhao, K. Y. [赵奎英],2007,“道不可言”与“境生象外”——庄子语言哲学及其对意境论的影响.济南:山东师范大学学报(3):18。
Zhao, S. T. [赵耸婷],2001,建构主义:一种后结构主义学习理论.南通:南通师范学院学报(2):117。
Zheng, J. D. [郑家栋],2001,《论语》哲学注释.北京:中国社会科学出版社。
Zhu, H. L. [朱鸿亮],2006,化境的缺席与在场.洛阳:解放军外国语学院学报(2):81。
Zhu, J. P. [朱健平],2009,“视域融合”对译作与原作关系的动态描述.北京:外语教学(2):97。
Zhu, L. H. [朱灵慧],2007,结构?解构?建构?——评《翻译学:一个建构的视角》.合肥:科教文汇(10):189。
Zhu, Y. H. [朱义华],2008,文化建构下的文学翻译研究反思.无锡:江南大学学报(2):111。
Zhu, Z. Y. [朱忠元],2007,“象”与“体道”.兰州:甘肃高师学报(1):15。
Zou, D. Q. [邹东旗],1991,西方译论与“信达雅”.衡阳:衡阳师专学报(1):107。
Zou, X. M. & Li, F. Y. [邹兴明,李芳英],2004,解哈贝马斯“交往行动”概念的缺陷与启示.沈阳:信阳师范学院学报(1):14。