从视域融合角度分析译者翻译策略实施的倾向性
|
摘要
翻译是一个复杂的活动。译者在从事翻译活动的过程中,无疑会用到归化和异化两个基本翻译策略。如何把握好翻译策略的“度”,也就是在归化和异化中寻求平衡,对译者来说很重要。异化过度,译作会充满了翻译腔,读起来生硬。归化过度,抹杀了原作的洋味,又如同阅读国内作品,不利于读者了解异国文化。
本文作者从视域融合的角度对林语堂大师的译作Six Chapters of a Floating Life进行分析。作为主体的译者在翻译过程中其主体性发挥了积极作用,导致译者主体性决定译者对翻译策略实施的倾向性。现代西方阐释学认为阐释是对探索意义理解和解释的过程,不是再只是注重结果的哲学。伽达默尔提出的阐释学具有三个主要原则：理解的历史性,视域融合以及效果历史原则,该理论为翻译研究提供了新的理论依据。译者林语堂与作者沈复在性情与人生等方面具有相同之处,这导致了林语堂选择其作品进行翻译。林语堂在英汉两种语言方面的造诣极深,对于两种文化也是了如指掌,因此其译作极具典型性和可信性。在翻译过程中,林语堂为了满足西方读者的需要,适时采取同化这一翻译策略；为了将中国传统文化介绍给西方读者,适时采取异化这一翻译策略。本文作者通过对林语堂在翻译过程中针对各种语言因素采用的翻译策略应用的分析,得出译者主体性对于翻译策略的实施的倾向性起决定性作用。
Translation is a complex activity. In the translating progress, undoubtedly the translator applies the basic translation strategies, domestication and foreignization, to his translation version. As far as the translator is concerned, it is of importance to grasp firmly the degree of the translation strategies, that is to say, the translator must seek a balance between domestication and foreignization. Over foreignization leads to translationese, and the translation version reads stiff. And over domestication results in eliminating the foreign atmosphere of the source text, and the translation version reads like a domestic work. It is detrimental to the target language readers'understanding as to foreign cultures. Western modern hermeneutics offers theories for solving this issue.
The author of the thesis analyzes the English version of Six Chapters of a Floating Life, translated by Lin Yutang, from the perspective of fusion of horizons. As the subject, the subjectivity of the translator must make a full play of his\her subjectivity in the activity. As a result, the tendency toward application of translation strategies depends on the subjectivity of the translator. Modern western Hermeneutics is a science of exploring understanding and explaining meaning, not a science focusing on the result any longer. The three principles, historical interpretation, fusion of horizons and effective history, which put forward by Hans-George Gadamer, offer a strong theoretical base for the study of translators'subjectivity. Lin Yutang shares the same temperament and attitude towards the life with the original author Shen Fu, which leads Lin Yutang to choose Shen Fu's works to translate. Lin Yutang is proficient in English and Chinese, while he is greatly familiar with English and Chinese cultures, so his translated works are greatly typical and believable. In the course of translation, Lin Yutang adopts domestication appropriately in order to satisfy the readers; he adopts foreignization properly so as to introduce Chinese traditional culture to the West. Through the analysis the application of the translation strategies used for translating all kinds of language elements, the author of the thesis can a conclusion that the translator's tendency toward application of translation strategies depends on the subjectivity of the translator.
本文作者从视域融合的角度对林语堂大师的译作Six Chapters of a Floating Life进行分析。作为主体的译者在翻译过程中其主体性发挥了积极作用,导致译者主体性决定译者对翻译策略实施的倾向性。现代西方阐释学认为阐释是对探索意义理解和解释的过程,不是再只是注重结果的哲学。伽达默尔提出的阐释学具有三个主要原则：理解的历史性,视域融合以及效果历史原则,该理论为翻译研究提供了新的理论依据。译者林语堂与作者沈复在性情与人生等方面具有相同之处,这导致了林语堂选择其作品进行翻译。林语堂在英汉两种语言方面的造诣极深,对于两种文化也是了如指掌,因此其译作极具典型性和可信性。在翻译过程中,林语堂为了满足西方读者的需要,适时采取同化这一翻译策略；为了将中国传统文化介绍给西方读者,适时采取异化这一翻译策略。本文作者通过对林语堂在翻译过程中针对各种语言因素采用的翻译策略应用的分析,得出译者主体性对于翻译策略的实施的倾向性起决定性作用。
Translation is a complex activity. In the translating progress, undoubtedly the translator applies the basic translation strategies, domestication and foreignization, to his translation version. As far as the translator is concerned, it is of importance to grasp firmly the degree of the translation strategies, that is to say, the translator must seek a balance between domestication and foreignization. Over foreignization leads to translationese, and the translation version reads stiff. And over domestication results in eliminating the foreign atmosphere of the source text, and the translation version reads like a domestic work. It is detrimental to the target language readers'understanding as to foreign cultures. Western modern hermeneutics offers theories for solving this issue.
The author of the thesis analyzes the English version of Six Chapters of a Floating Life, translated by Lin Yutang, from the perspective of fusion of horizons. As the subject, the subjectivity of the translator must make a full play of his\her subjectivity in the activity. As a result, the tendency toward application of translation strategies depends on the subjectivity of the translator. Modern western Hermeneutics is a science of exploring understanding and explaining meaning, not a science focusing on the result any longer. The three principles, historical interpretation, fusion of horizons and effective history, which put forward by Hans-George Gadamer, offer a strong theoretical base for the study of translators'subjectivity. Lin Yutang shares the same temperament and attitude towards the life with the original author Shen Fu, which leads Lin Yutang to choose Shen Fu's works to translate. Lin Yutang is proficient in English and Chinese, while he is greatly familiar with English and Chinese cultures, so his translated works are greatly typical and believable. In the course of translation, Lin Yutang adopts domestication appropriately in order to satisfy the readers; he adopts foreignization properly so as to introduce Chinese traditional culture to the West. Through the analysis the application of the translation strategies used for translating all kinds of language elements, the author of the thesis can a conclusion that the translator's tendency toward application of translation strategies depends on the subjectivity of the translator.
引文
[1]Bassnett-McGuire. (1980). S. Translation Studies [M]. London:Methuen.
[2]Bassnett-McGuire.(1988, P6).S. Translation Studies [M].
[3]Bassnett, S.,& Lefevere. (2001). A Constructing Cultures—Essays on Literary Translation [M]. Shanghai:Shanghai Educational Press.
[4]Bell, R. (2001). Translation and Translating:Theory and Practice [M]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
[5]Berman, Antoine. (1995). Pour une critique des traductions:John Donne [M]. Paris: Callomard.
[6]Bilen, Osman. (2000, P47). The Historicity of Understanding and the Problem of Relativism in Gadamer's Philosophical Hermeneutics [M]. Washington, D.C:The Council for Research in Values and Philosophy,
[7]Catford, J.C. (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation [M]. London:Oxford University Press.
[8]Chan, E. (2000). "The Principles and the Translator s Agenda-A Systemic Approach to Yan Fu" in Crosscultural Transgressions. (ed.) Theo Hermans. Manchester UK and Northampton:St. Jerome Publishing.
[9]Collini, S. (1992, P1、22). Introduction:Interpretation Terminable and Interminable. Interpretation and Overinterpretation [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press.
[10]Derrida, J. (1985).Difference and Translation [M]. Ithaca:Cornell University Press.
[11]Gadamer, Hans-George translated by Garpett Barden and John Cumming. (1975/1994). Truth and Method [M]. China Social Sciences Publishing House.
[12]Gentzler, Edwin. (1993). Contemporary Translation Theories [M]. London/New York: Routledge.
[13]Gentzler, Edwin. (2004). Contemporary Translation Theories [M]. (Revised Second Edition) Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[14]Hatim, B&Mason, I. (2001). Discourse and the Translator [M]. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[15]Hatim, B. (2001). Communication Across Cultures-Translation Theory and Contrastive Text Linguistics [M]. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[16]Heidegger, M., John M.&Edward R. (tr.) (1999). Being and Time [M]. Beijing:China Social Sciences Publishing House.
[17]Holz-Manttari, J. (1984) Tanslatiotiotische handeln, Theories and Method [M]. Helsinki.
[18]Hornby, A.S. (1997) Oxford Advanced Learner's English-Chinese Dictionary, the 4th edition. Beijing:the Commercial Press.
[19]Kramsch, C. (2000). Language and Culture [M]. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[20]Lefevere. (1992). A. Translation History Culture [M]. London & New York:Routledge.
[21]Lotbiniere Harwood. (1991).S. Re-Belle est Infidele. La traduction comme pratique de reecriture au feminine [M]. (the body Bilingual. Translation as a Rewriting in the Feminie) Toronto and Montreal:The Women's Press.
[22]Massadier-Kenny, F., (1997). Towards a Redefinition of Feminist Translation Practice [J]. The Translator.
[23]Newmark, P. (2001). A textbook of Translation [M]. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[24]Nida, E. A. (1994). Sociolinguistics as a Crucial Factor in Translating and Interpreting. Unpublished manuscript.
[25]Nida, E. A. (2004). Towards a Science of Translating [M]. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign language Education Press.
[26]Nida & Taber, R.Charles. (1982, P55).Theory and Practice of Translation [M]. The Netherlands:E.J.Brill, Leidett.
[27]Nord, C. (1991). Text Analysis in Translation [M]. GA:Amsterdam Atlanta.
[28]Nord, C. (2001). Translation as a Purpose Activity [M]. Manchester:St. Jerome Publishing.
[29]Schaffner, C. (1995:1-8). "Editorial" Cultural Functions of Translation. Ed. Christina. Schaffner & Kelley-Holmes, H. Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.
[30]Schulte, R & John B. (1992). Theories of Translation:An Anthology of Essays From Dryden To Derrida [M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
[31]Schuttleworth, M.& Cowie, M. (1997). Dictionary of Translation Studies [M]. Manchester:St. Jerome.
[32]Selden, R. (1995). The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism (Vol.8) [J]. From Formalism to Post Structuralism. New York:Cambridge University Press.
[33]Shaw, R. D. (1988). Transcultration:The Cultural Factors in Translation and other Communication Tasks [M]. California:William Carvey Library, Pasadena.
[34]Snell-Hornby, M. (1988). Translation Studies:An Integrated Approach [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
[35]Snell-Hornby, M. (2001). Translation Studies:An Integrated Approach [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[37]Steiner, G. (2001). After Babel:Aspects of Language and Translation [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[38]Venuti, L. (1983). On the Different Methods of translating.
[39]Venuti, L. (1992).Rethinking Translation:Discourse, Subjectivity, Ideology [M]. London & New York:Routledge.
[40]Venuti, L. (1995a) The Translator's Invisibility [M]. London & New York:Routledge.
[41]Venuti, L. (1995b) The Scandals of Translation [M]. London & New York:Routledge.
[42]Venuti, L. (2000). The Translation Studies Readers [M]. London & New York: Routledge.
[43]陈大亮.(2004).谁是翻译主体[J].中国翻译,(2),3、7.
[44]陈福康.(2000).中国译学理论史稿[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
[45]陈先达.(1991).关于主体和主体性问题,哲学原理.
[46]陈少彬.(2009).顺应论观照下《浮生六记》林语堂译本赏析[J].合肥工业大学学报,(6).
[47]范晔.(2005).译者的主体因素与翻译选择—兼谈林语堂《浮生六记》英译本[J].湖南文理学院学报(社会科学版),(5)
[48]何燕.(2007).从风格翻译手段角度看林语堂英译的《浮生六记》[J].牡丹江大学学报,(11)
[49]洪汉鼎.(1997).诠释学—它的历史和当代发展[M].人民出版社.
[50]洪汉鼎.(2001).理解与解释—诠释学经典文选[M].东方出版社.
[51]胡彬.(2008).论翻译目的论的对象与翻译策略—评林语堂英译《浮生六记》[J].现代商贸工业,(13).
[52]胡兴文.(2006).林语堂的翻译思想及其英译《浮生六记》[J].安徽理工大学学报(社会科学版),(4).
[53]伽达默尔.(1992).真理与方法[M].上海：上海译文出版社.
[54]伽达默尔.(1994).哲学解释学[M].上海译文出版社.
[55]郭建中.(2000).韦努蒂及其解构主义的翻译策略[J].中国翻译,(1),P49、52.
[56]郭建中.(2000).当代美国翻译理论[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社.
[57]郭尚兴.(2010).论中国哲学典籍英译认知的多重历史视域融合[J].大连大学学报,(1).
[58]郭著章.(1999).翻译名家研究[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社.
[59]李梅.(2005).语言功能、文本类型对翻译策略的潜在影响—以浮生六记中文化词的翻译为例[J].文教资料,(33).
[60]李修群.(2009).论视域融合下的译者主体性[J].湖南科技学院学报,(9).
[61]李芝.(2009).从文化语境顺应的角度分析《浮生六记》英译本中文化词汇增译法的运用[J].新西部(下半月),(11).
[62]雷阿勇.(2009).语言与文化的典例—谈林语堂英译《浮生六记》中“笑”之文化意蕴[J].闽江学院学报,(3).
[63]林语堂.(1994).林语堂名著全集[M].长春：东北示范大学.
[64]林语堂.(2002).不亦快哉(林语堂中英对照丛书)[M].天津：天津百花文艺出版社.
[65]林语堂.(2002).苏东坡文选(林语堂中英对照丛书)[M].天津：天津百花文艺出版社.
[66]林语堂.(2002).记旧历除夕(林语堂中英对照丛书)[M].天津：天津百花文艺出版社.
[67]刘傲东.(2004).译者在翻译过程中的主体作用[J].社会科学家,(1),139-140.
[68]刘宓庆.(2003).文体与翻译[M].北京：中国对外翻译出版公司.
[69]刘宓庆.(2001).翻译与语言哲学[M].北京：中国对外翻译出版公司.
[70]刘泉厚.(2008).视域融合与解构主义视角下的翻译[J].齐齐哈尔医学院学报,(18).
[71]刘英莲.(2004).赏析《浮生六记》英译中文化特色之美的重现[J].辽宁工学院学报(社会科学版),(6).
[72]龙静.小议林语堂译作《浮生六记》特点[J].科技信息(科学教研),(32).
[73]刘听东.(2009).阐释学的视域融合对翻译研究的启示[J].北农业大学学报(社会科学版),(6).
[74]罗新璋.(1984).翻译论集[M].北京：商务印书馆.
[75]马向辉.(2007).视域二度融合视角下的翻译注释策略——一个个案分析[J].新西部(下半月),(9).
[76]孟祥德.(2009).译者的责任：矛盾、无奈与信念—简评林语堂对《浮生六记》中比喻的翻译[J].苏州教育学院学报,(2).
[77]彭娟.(2008).从翻译补偿的角度探讨文化缺省的重构—兼评《浮生六记》林语堂译本[J].安徽工业大学学报(社会科学版),(6).
[78]沈复著.浮生六记.林语堂译.Six Chapters of a Floating Life [M]. (1999),北京：外语教学与研究出版社.
[79]孙会军.(2004).从《浮生六记》等作品的英译看翻译规范的运作方式[J].解放军外国语学院学报,(3).
[80]施建伟.(1997).林语堂研究论文集[M].上海：同济出版社.
[81]谭载喜.(1991).西方翻译简史[M].北京：商务印书馆.
[82]谭载喜.(2000).翻译学[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社.
[83]屠国元.朱献珑.(2003),译者主体性：阐释学的阐释[J].中国翻译,(6),8、14.
[84]王东风.(2000).翻译文学的文化地位与译者的文化态度[J].中国翻译,(4).
[85]韦伟华.(2008).林语堂英译《浮生六记》的审美再现[J].牡丹江师范学院学报(哲学社会科学版),(6).
[86]王文斌.(2001).论译者在文学翻译中主体作用的必然性[J].外语与外语教学,(2),55、61.
[87]魏小萍.(1998).“主体性”涵义辨析[J].哲学研究,(2),22、28.
[88]谢天振.(1999).译介学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
[89]谢天振.(2000).翻译的理论建构与文化透视[M].上海外语教育出版社.
[90]谢天振.(2000).作者本意与文本本意—解释学理论与翻译研究[J].外国语,(3),53、60.
[91]谢天振.(2001).中国文学翻译史：实践与理论(专论)[M].
[92]谢天振.(2003).翻译研究新视野[M].青岛：青岛出版社.
[93]许钧.(2001).文学翻译的理论与实践—翻译对话录[M].上海：译林出版社.
[94]许钧.(2003).翻译论[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社.
[95]许钧.(2003).“创造性叛逆”和翻译主体性的确立[J].中国翻译,(1),6、11.
[96]严绍,汤玉.(2001).‘文化语境’与‘变异体’以及文学的发生学,多边文化研究,北京大学比较文学与比较文化研究,北京：新世界出版社.
[97]杨武能.(1987).阐释、接受与再创造的循环[J].中国翻译,(6),3、7.
[98]杨武能.(2003).再谈文学翻译主体[J].中国翻译,(3),10、13.
[99]袁莉.(2002).关于翻译主体的研究构想[A].张柏然,许钧主编.面向二十一世纪的译学研究[C].397、409,北京：商务印刷馆.
[100]袁莉.(2003).文学翻译主体的诠释学研究构想[J].解放军外国语学院学报,(3),74、78.
[101]翟红梅.(2006).林语堂《浮生六记》英译研究述评[J].安徽理工大学学报(社会科学版),(5).
[102]张德让.(2001).伽达默尔哲学阐释学与翻译研究[J].中国翻译,(4),23、25.
[103]张韧弦.(2001).浅谈译匠—译者的一个被忽视的角色[J].外语学刊,(3),84、88.
[104]张晓红.(2009).解释学的视域融合与商务英语函电教学[J].漯河职业技术学院学报,(6).
[105]中译本：《古希腊神话》[M],折鸿雁译,’(1999), 西安：西北土业大学出版社.
[106]周晓君.(2009).中国古典诗词文化意象传译中的视域融合[J].沈阳建筑大学学报(社会科学版)(4).
[107]朱聪.(2007).《浮生六记》两个英译本比较[J].商业文化(学术版),(5).
[108]朱狄.(1994).当代西方艺术哲学[M].北京：人民出版社.
[109]朱献珑.(2003).论文学翻译中的创造性叛逆—从阐释学角度分析[J].山东外语教学,(3),104.
[2]Bassnett-McGuire.(1988, P6).S. Translation Studies [M].
[3]Bassnett, S.,& Lefevere. (2001). A Constructing Cultures—Essays on Literary Translation [M]. Shanghai:Shanghai Educational Press.
[4]Bell, R. (2001). Translation and Translating:Theory and Practice [M]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
[5]Berman, Antoine. (1995). Pour une critique des traductions:John Donne [M]. Paris: Callomard.
[6]Bilen, Osman. (2000, P47). The Historicity of Understanding and the Problem of Relativism in Gadamer's Philosophical Hermeneutics [M]. Washington, D.C:The Council for Research in Values and Philosophy,
[7]Catford, J.C. (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation [M]. London:Oxford University Press.
[8]Chan, E. (2000). "The Principles and the Translator s Agenda-A Systemic Approach to Yan Fu" in Crosscultural Transgressions. (ed.) Theo Hermans. Manchester UK and Northampton:St. Jerome Publishing.
[9]Collini, S. (1992, P1、22). Introduction:Interpretation Terminable and Interminable. Interpretation and Overinterpretation [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press.
[10]Derrida, J. (1985).Difference and Translation [M]. Ithaca:Cornell University Press.
[11]Gadamer, Hans-George translated by Garpett Barden and John Cumming. (1975/1994). Truth and Method [M]. China Social Sciences Publishing House.
[12]Gentzler, Edwin. (1993). Contemporary Translation Theories [M]. London/New York: Routledge.
[13]Gentzler, Edwin. (2004). Contemporary Translation Theories [M]. (Revised Second Edition) Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[14]Hatim, B&Mason, I. (2001). Discourse and the Translator [M]. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[15]Hatim, B. (2001). Communication Across Cultures-Translation Theory and Contrastive Text Linguistics [M]. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[16]Heidegger, M., John M.&Edward R. (tr.) (1999). Being and Time [M]. Beijing:China Social Sciences Publishing House.
[17]Holz-Manttari, J. (1984) Tanslatiotiotische handeln, Theories and Method [M]. Helsinki.
[18]Hornby, A.S. (1997) Oxford Advanced Learner's English-Chinese Dictionary, the 4th edition. Beijing:the Commercial Press.
[19]Kramsch, C. (2000). Language and Culture [M]. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[20]Lefevere. (1992). A. Translation History Culture [M]. London & New York:Routledge.
[21]Lotbiniere Harwood. (1991).S. Re-Belle est Infidele. La traduction comme pratique de reecriture au feminine [M]. (the body Bilingual. Translation as a Rewriting in the Feminie) Toronto and Montreal:The Women's Press.
[22]Massadier-Kenny, F., (1997). Towards a Redefinition of Feminist Translation Practice [J]. The Translator.
[23]Newmark, P. (2001). A textbook of Translation [M]. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[24]Nida, E. A. (1994). Sociolinguistics as a Crucial Factor in Translating and Interpreting. Unpublished manuscript.
[25]Nida, E. A. (2004). Towards a Science of Translating [M]. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign language Education Press.
[26]Nida & Taber, R.Charles. (1982, P55).Theory and Practice of Translation [M]. The Netherlands:E.J.Brill, Leidett.
[27]Nord, C. (1991). Text Analysis in Translation [M]. GA:Amsterdam Atlanta.
[28]Nord, C. (2001). Translation as a Purpose Activity [M]. Manchester:St. Jerome Publishing.
[29]Schaffner, C. (1995:1-8). "Editorial" Cultural Functions of Translation. Ed. Christina. Schaffner & Kelley-Holmes, H. Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.
[30]Schulte, R & John B. (1992). Theories of Translation:An Anthology of Essays From Dryden To Derrida [M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
[31]Schuttleworth, M.& Cowie, M. (1997). Dictionary of Translation Studies [M]. Manchester:St. Jerome.
[32]Selden, R. (1995). The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism (Vol.8) [J]. From Formalism to Post Structuralism. New York:Cambridge University Press.
[33]Shaw, R. D. (1988). Transcultration:The Cultural Factors in Translation and other Communication Tasks [M]. California:William Carvey Library, Pasadena.
[34]Snell-Hornby, M. (1988). Translation Studies:An Integrated Approach [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
[35]Snell-Hornby, M. (2001). Translation Studies:An Integrated Approach [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[37]Steiner, G. (2001). After Babel:Aspects of Language and Translation [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[38]Venuti, L. (1983). On the Different Methods of translating.
[39]Venuti, L. (1992).Rethinking Translation:Discourse, Subjectivity, Ideology [M]. London & New York:Routledge.
[40]Venuti, L. (1995a) The Translator's Invisibility [M]. London & New York:Routledge.
[41]Venuti, L. (1995b) The Scandals of Translation [M]. London & New York:Routledge.
[42]Venuti, L. (2000). The Translation Studies Readers [M]. London & New York: Routledge.
[43]陈大亮.(2004).谁是翻译主体[J].中国翻译,(2),3、7.
[44]陈福康.(2000).中国译学理论史稿[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
[45]陈先达.(1991).关于主体和主体性问题,哲学原理.
[46]陈少彬.(2009).顺应论观照下《浮生六记》林语堂译本赏析[J].合肥工业大学学报,(6).
[47]范晔.(2005).译者的主体因素与翻译选择—兼谈林语堂《浮生六记》英译本[J].湖南文理学院学报(社会科学版),(5)
[48]何燕.(2007).从风格翻译手段角度看林语堂英译的《浮生六记》[J].牡丹江大学学报,(11)
[49]洪汉鼎.(1997).诠释学—它的历史和当代发展[M].人民出版社.
[50]洪汉鼎.(2001).理解与解释—诠释学经典文选[M].东方出版社.
[51]胡彬.(2008).论翻译目的论的对象与翻译策略—评林语堂英译《浮生六记》[J].现代商贸工业,(13).
[52]胡兴文.(2006).林语堂的翻译思想及其英译《浮生六记》[J].安徽理工大学学报(社会科学版),(4).
[53]伽达默尔.(1992).真理与方法[M].上海：上海译文出版社.
[54]伽达默尔.(1994).哲学解释学[M].上海译文出版社.
[55]郭建中.(2000).韦努蒂及其解构主义的翻译策略[J].中国翻译,(1),P49、52.
[56]郭建中.(2000).当代美国翻译理论[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社.
[57]郭尚兴.(2010).论中国哲学典籍英译认知的多重历史视域融合[J].大连大学学报,(1).
[58]郭著章.(1999).翻译名家研究[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社.
[59]李梅.(2005).语言功能、文本类型对翻译策略的潜在影响—以浮生六记中文化词的翻译为例[J].文教资料,(33).
[60]李修群.(2009).论视域融合下的译者主体性[J].湖南科技学院学报,(9).
[61]李芝.(2009).从文化语境顺应的角度分析《浮生六记》英译本中文化词汇增译法的运用[J].新西部(下半月),(11).
[62]雷阿勇.(2009).语言与文化的典例—谈林语堂英译《浮生六记》中“笑”之文化意蕴[J].闽江学院学报,(3).
[63]林语堂.(1994).林语堂名著全集[M].长春：东北示范大学.
[64]林语堂.(2002).不亦快哉(林语堂中英对照丛书)[M].天津：天津百花文艺出版社.
[65]林语堂.(2002).苏东坡文选(林语堂中英对照丛书)[M].天津：天津百花文艺出版社.
[66]林语堂.(2002).记旧历除夕(林语堂中英对照丛书)[M].天津：天津百花文艺出版社.
[67]刘傲东.(2004).译者在翻译过程中的主体作用[J].社会科学家,(1),139-140.
[68]刘宓庆.(2003).文体与翻译[M].北京：中国对外翻译出版公司.
[69]刘宓庆.(2001).翻译与语言哲学[M].北京：中国对外翻译出版公司.
[70]刘泉厚.(2008).视域融合与解构主义视角下的翻译[J].齐齐哈尔医学院学报,(18).
[71]刘英莲.(2004).赏析《浮生六记》英译中文化特色之美的重现[J].辽宁工学院学报(社会科学版),(6).
[72]龙静.小议林语堂译作《浮生六记》特点[J].科技信息(科学教研),(32).
[73]刘听东.(2009).阐释学的视域融合对翻译研究的启示[J].北农业大学学报(社会科学版),(6).
[74]罗新璋.(1984).翻译论集[M].北京：商务印书馆.
[75]马向辉.(2007).视域二度融合视角下的翻译注释策略——一个个案分析[J].新西部(下半月),(9).
[76]孟祥德.(2009).译者的责任：矛盾、无奈与信念—简评林语堂对《浮生六记》中比喻的翻译[J].苏州教育学院学报,(2).
[77]彭娟.(2008).从翻译补偿的角度探讨文化缺省的重构—兼评《浮生六记》林语堂译本[J].安徽工业大学学报(社会科学版),(6).
[78]沈复著.浮生六记.林语堂译.Six Chapters of a Floating Life [M]. (1999),北京：外语教学与研究出版社.
[79]孙会军.(2004).从《浮生六记》等作品的英译看翻译规范的运作方式[J].解放军外国语学院学报,(3).
[80]施建伟.(1997).林语堂研究论文集[M].上海：同济出版社.
[81]谭载喜.(1991).西方翻译简史[M].北京：商务印书馆.
[82]谭载喜.(2000).翻译学[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社.
[83]屠国元.朱献珑.(2003),译者主体性：阐释学的阐释[J].中国翻译,(6),8、14.
[84]王东风.(2000).翻译文学的文化地位与译者的文化态度[J].中国翻译,(4).
[85]韦伟华.(2008).林语堂英译《浮生六记》的审美再现[J].牡丹江师范学院学报(哲学社会科学版),(6).
[86]王文斌.(2001).论译者在文学翻译中主体作用的必然性[J].外语与外语教学,(2),55、61.
[87]魏小萍.(1998).“主体性”涵义辨析[J].哲学研究,(2),22、28.
[88]谢天振.(1999).译介学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
[89]谢天振.(2000).翻译的理论建构与文化透视[M].上海外语教育出版社.
[90]谢天振.(2000).作者本意与文本本意—解释学理论与翻译研究[J].外国语,(3),53、60.
[91]谢天振.(2001).中国文学翻译史：实践与理论(专论)[M].
[92]谢天振.(2003).翻译研究新视野[M].青岛：青岛出版社.
[93]许钧.(2001).文学翻译的理论与实践—翻译对话录[M].上海：译林出版社.
[94]许钧.(2003).翻译论[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社.
[95]许钧.(2003).“创造性叛逆”和翻译主体性的确立[J].中国翻译,(1),6、11.
[96]严绍,汤玉.(2001).‘文化语境’与‘变异体’以及文学的发生学,多边文化研究,北京大学比较文学与比较文化研究,北京：新世界出版社.
[97]杨武能.(1987).阐释、接受与再创造的循环[J].中国翻译,(6),3、7.
[98]杨武能.(2003).再谈文学翻译主体[J].中国翻译,(3),10、13.
[99]袁莉.(2002).关于翻译主体的研究构想[A].张柏然,许钧主编.面向二十一世纪的译学研究[C].397、409,北京：商务印刷馆.
[100]袁莉.(2003).文学翻译主体的诠释学研究构想[J].解放军外国语学院学报,(3),74、78.
[101]翟红梅.(2006).林语堂《浮生六记》英译研究述评[J].安徽理工大学学报(社会科学版),(5).
[102]张德让.(2001).伽达默尔哲学阐释学与翻译研究[J].中国翻译,(4),23、25.
[103]张韧弦.(2001).浅谈译匠—译者的一个被忽视的角色[J].外语学刊,(3),84、88.
[104]张晓红.(2009).解释学的视域融合与商务英语函电教学[J].漯河职业技术学院学报,(6).
[105]中译本：《古希腊神话》[M],折鸿雁译,’(1999), 西安：西北土业大学出版社.
[106]周晓君.(2009).中国古典诗词文化意象传译中的视域融合[J].沈阳建筑大学学报(社会科学版)(4).
[107]朱聪.(2007).《浮生六记》两个英译本比较[J].商业文化(学术版),(5).
[108]朱狄.(1994).当代西方艺术哲学[M].北京：人民出版社.
[109]朱献珑.(2003).论文学翻译中的创造性叛逆—从阐释学角度分析[J].山东外语教学,(3),104.