许渊冲唐诗英译研究
|
摘要
中国古典诗歌既有悠久的现实主义传统，是儒家思想的重要文学载体，又融入了浪漫主义诗风的影响,并在唐代取得了巅峰成就。在中西交流日盛和文化全球化的背景下，中国对外翻译出版公司于2007年推出了许渊冲英译的《唐诗三百首》，旨在帮助西方读者认识和了解唐诗之美，弘扬灿烂的中华民族文化，拉近民族心理距离。
在国内古诗英译领域，许渊冲先生堪称贡献最大、同时最具争议的人物。他在古诗英译的实践和理论层面都取得了令人瞩目的成绩，其古诗英译实践和理论形成过程大致分为三个时期——储备酝酿期、发展高峰期和改进完善期。
国外学者针对许渊冲古诗英译的研究还相当零散、不成体系，且由于评论者的专业背景、个人审美和文学倾向各不相同，其观点也褒贬各异、主观随性。而国内学者则从不同的角度对许渊冲古诗英译的理论与实践进行了研究。针对许渊冲古诗英译的文论，近几年在数量和质量上突飞猛进，研究内容更加丰富，研究方法更加科学，但仍存在一些主观随意的感悟式点评，质量良莠不齐、观点褒贬不一。国内研究的常见局限性在于：理论视野不够开阔，批评标准比较单一，观点论证不够严密。
笔者针对许渊冲研究现状中的局限与不足，对许渊冲英译《唐诗三百首》一书进行了描写性个案研究，归纳分析译作的特点及译者的策略抉择，重构译本所遵循的翻译规范；同时考察其翻译规范的形成原因和运作效果，力图公正客观地评价译者及其译诗，为古诗英译的实践与批评提供些微有益的观照。
本文采用了对比、描写、分析、推导等系列研究方法，重构许渊冲唐诗译本中隐含的翻译规范。为提高分析的效度与信度，本文尽量使客观描写与逻辑论证相结合，统筹对文化历史语境的纵向考察和横向比较，兼顾文本分析中的人文判断和科学论证。此外，在检验译本翻译规范的运作效果时，本文借鉴了比较权威的实证调查结果，正所谓“他山之石，可以攻玉”。
“规范”这一概念本属于社会学范畴，是某一文化群体共同遵守的引导正确社会行为的观念或指令。在长达两千多年的发展历程中,翻译规范研究逐渐从零散走向系统、从规定走向描写。
系统开展翻译规范研究的学者首推以色列籍译论家——图里。通过对希伯来翻译文学进行大量而系统的考察，图里提出了规范运作于整个翻译过程的论断。图里认为，译者在实际翻译过程中通常受到三类规范的制约：初始规范、预备规范和操作规范。初始规范决定译者对翻译的总体倾向，指译者首先须在源语文本规范与目标语文化规范之间做出基本选择；预备规范影响翻译政策和翻译的直接性；操作规范支配着翻译过程中所作的各种实际抉择，指导译者在翻译活动中使用的翻译技巧。在翻译规范研究中，研究者应以目标语文化为取向，关注译文中的常规性“迁移现象”，并根据译者的抉择倾向，重构译者所遵循的翻译规范。
图里的翻译规范理论为本文确立研究框架和研究方法提供了有力的支撑，但笔者同时认识到，图里的研究也存在着一定的历史局限性，因而笔者根据实际研究情景，适时调整主体理论的应用方式并发掘其它理论的多元互补价值。
笔者遵循图里对翻译规范的分类，采用描写性研究方法，分别考察了许译《唐诗三百首》所遵循的初始规范、预备规范和操作规范。
许译唐诗的预备规范顺应了国家的翻译政策，反映了中西文化交流的时代需求，涵盖了直接翻译的必要性和可行性。当前，英美国家对中国文化的传播，尤其是典籍文化的译介，总体表现出开放的接受态度；而中国也以空前积极主动的态度开展跨文化交流活动，推出中国文化精粹。中西文化背景共同营造了开放有利的翻译环境，中国对外翻译出版公司依据国家的翻译政策制定了适宜的翻译目的，所选翻译材料兼顾了弘扬民族文化精粹和激发目标读者兴趣的需求。中国译界认同并偏爱直接翻译方式，翻译发起方根据翻译能力和创作倾向选择了合适的翻译人选，使直接翻译能够顺利进行，文化交流能够增加深度。
许译唐诗的操作规范隐含于译者在文本微观层面所选择的翻译策略之中。笔者通过对比分析，发现许译唐诗中的主要翻译问题可归为内容和形式两大类，主要位于十个层面，即：体裁之选择、建行之形式、音韵之表现、节奏之安排、标点之处理、语句之衔接、语义模糊之处理、意象之传递、文化专名之翻译、数词之翻译。而译者灵活处理这十个语言微观层面的各种翻译问题，其操作规范受到源语和目标语文化的双重影响,在不同的翻译语境下有不同的体现形式。译者以传达原作的主要形式特点和整体意境为目的，使译诗的体裁、建行形式、音韵特征和意象尽量贴近原作，并在此基础上适度融合英语诗歌的诗学特征，在最大程度上争取译诗的表述地道、逻辑清楚、语义明晰，呈现给读者带有唐诗韵味的格律译诗。在具体翻译过程中，译者灵活使用了增添、省略、转换、合并、切分、反译等翻译技巧，充分发挥了译者的主体性和创造性。
许译唐诗的初始规范体现为宏观的译者翻译倾向和译诗面貌特征。许渊冲对于唐诗的本质风格要素十分重视，在翻译中尽量保留传译，以展现唐诗的特色和魅力，从而表现出靠近源语文化系统的翻译整体倾向。这种选择倾向是由译者的终极翻译目的决定的，即：让唐诗走向世界，提高中华文化精粹的国际影响力。然而在具体操作策略中，如标点、衔接、选词、句法等关联主题意义理解的细节方面，译者又兼顾了目标语语文化规范，比较均衡地处理了两种文化规范的制约作用。
回顾总结许译唐诗的特殊文化语境，本文认为译本隐含的翻译规范体现了双重社会文化因素、尤其是源语文化因素对译者的影响，具体而言，其形成主要受到政治经济发展格局、翻译目的、主流诗学、主流翻译观念和译者主体性等因素的影响。通过考察目标读者对译本的接受态度，可以认为，译本所遵循的翻译规范运作效果良好，许译唐诗的质量得到了目标读者的基本肯定，部分实现了跨文化交流的预期效果，为唐诗走向世界奠定了良好的基础。笔者提出，要使中国的古诗英译事业蓬勃发展，翻译实践者、批评研究者和出版发行方仍需共同努力，克服局限、发挥优势，切实提高中西跨文化交流的效果。
本文从翻译规范角度对许渊冲唐诗英译进行了描写性研究，开拓了古诗英译领域的研究新视角。同时本文丰富了描写性翻译研究的成果，探索了翻译规范理论的实际应用模式，对翻译学科的发展具有一定的理论意义和实践价值。此外，本研究以国内典型译者的典型译作为研究对象，从而具有一定的代表性和应用推广价值，期望能给古诗英译爱好者以理论及方法上的启迪。
本论文只是关于许译唐诗的初步研究，还存在理论视野不够开阔、探讨不够全面深入、数据不够直接充足等研究局限，笔者在今后的研究中会进一步拓宽视野、改进方法、深化研究，力求发掘更有价值的研究成果。
Embodying key notions of Confucianism and developing along a realistictradition since ancient times, classical Chinese poetry reached its climax achievementin Tang dynasty, incorporating the poetic spirit of Romanticism simultaneously.
Against the background of frequent cross-cultural communication and rapidcultural globalization in the21stcentury, China Translation&Publishing Corporationpublished in2007the300Tang Poems (Classified by Theme) translated by XuYuanchong, aiming to display the enchanting beauty of classical Chinese poetry toEnglish readers, to promote brilliant Chinese traditional culture and to narrow downnational gaps between the East and the West.
Xu Yuanchong, regarded as a most distinguished and most controversial Chinesetranslator, has translated and published a series of classical Chinese poems intoEnglish or French, and his translation works and thoughts keep attracting theresearchers’ attention in China. Xu’s career in translating classical Chinese poems intoEnglish could be roughly divided into three periods–the preparatory period, theprospering period, and the perfecting period.
Research abroad on Xu Yuanchong and his translation is still rather fragmentaryand unsystematic, and the few criticisms available are different in opinions andsomewhat subjective in nature due to variant academic backgrounds and aesthetictastes of foreign scholars. By contrast, domestic research on Xu Yuanchong is muchmore prosperous, appearing frequently in forms of academic journal articles,monographs, theses or dissertations. These studies have made greater achievement inwidth of scope, depth of analysis and variety of perspectives; however, they still needpromotion in objectivity and systematicity as modern cases of translation studies. Asprescriptive translation studies aiming at value-judging and standard-setting prevailwell over descriptive translation studies, limitations such as illogicality inargument-reasoning, imbalance in perspective-choosing and monotony in the standardfor evaluation could now and then be found in these studies.
Realizing the problems in present studies on Xu and his translations, the author decides to take a descriptive case study on one of his major translation work–300Tang Poems (Classified by Theme). By observing linguistic features of the translationand translating strategies adopted by the translator, the author tries to reconstruct thetranslational norms embedded in the translation, to investigate the forming causes andworking effects of those translational norms, and to evaluate the translator and hisworks in an objective and impartial manner. It is hoped that this dissertation couldprovide some inspiration and insight for the practice and research in the field ofclassical-Chinese-poetry translation.
This dissertation applies such researching method as comparison, description,analysis, deduction, etc. to the reconstruction of translational norms in the book. Toimprove the validity and reliability of the dissertation, the author tries her best toreflect both the humanistic and scientific nature of the translation studies, byincorporating objective description with logical judgment, quantitative investigationwith qualitative analysis, and diachronic examination with synchronic comparison.Besides, to verify the actual communicative effects of the translational norms adoptedby the translator, the author refers to some authoritative data acquired by otherscholars in related empirical research.
This dissertation adopts Toury’s theory on translational norms as the basictheoretical framework in reconstructing the translational norms embedded in300TangPoems. Toury’s theory is adjusted flexibly to situational needs while being applied tothe development of argumentation, and it is supplemented properly by relevantculture-oriented translation theories, which consolidate effectively the theoreticalframework of this dissertation.
The concept “norm” is originally a sociological term, which refers to principlesor standards directing and regulating people’s social behavior to maintain propersocial order. Studies on translational norms virtually run through the whole history oftranslation studies, and after the development over two thousand years, the researchon translational norms has gradually changed its model from sporadic to systematic,from prescriptive to descriptive.
Toury is generally counted as the first learner who made a systematical descriptive study on translational norms. After a study on large quantities of theHebrew translated literary works, he proposed that “Norms can be expected to operatenot only in translation of all kinds, but also at every stage in the translating event, andhence to be reflected on every level of its product”(Toury,2001:58).
According to Toury, there are three basic kinds of norms operating in the wholeprocess of translation, namely: initial norm, preliminary norms and operational norms.Among them, initial norm concerns the translator’s fundamental choice betweenrequirements of source culture and target culture involved in translation. Preliminarynorms reflect and influence two different but related aspects: translation policies anddirectness of translation. And operational norms, which can be subdivided intomatricial norms and textural-linguistic norms, direct concrete decisions on translationstrategies in the process of translation. For a study on translational norms, aretrospective target-oriented approach is suggested by Toury. The researcher shouldpay special attention to regular “shifts” in translated versions, which usually betraythe inclination of the translator’s decision, and could be very valuable to normreconstructing.
Toury’s thought on translational norms provides an inspiring perspective for theauthor to establish the theoretical framework and research approach of thisdissertation. Following the categorizing methods of Toury on translational norms, theauthor makes a descriptive case study on300Tang Poems translated by XuYuanchong, and tries to reconstruct the preliminary norms, operational norms andinitial norm embedded in the book of translation.
1). Preliminary norms. The preliminary norms observed in this book conform tothe open translation policies in China，satisfy the global needs of cross-culturalcommunication，and reflect the necessity and feasibility of direct translation.
Under a favorable global surrounding for translation, China Translation&Publishing Corporation has set proper translation objectives complying with statetranslation policies. The materials for translation are chosen to cater for doubleobjectives–promoting the influence of Chinese culture and arousing target readers’interests in reading Chinese classics. To ensure the quality of direct translation, China Translation&Publishing Corporation invited Xu Yuanchong as the responsibletranslator, who is credited with translation competence and mastery of both Englishand Chinese.
2）Operational norms. Operational norms in this book are reflected in Xu’sconcrete translating strategies to solve translation problems.
After a comparative study between the original text and translated text of asample poem, the author classifies typical problems in translating Tang poems into tentypes, which lie on two levels of the poetic language: form and meaning. Theserepresentative translation problems concern genre, arrangement of line, rhymingpattern, rhythm pattern, punctuation, cohesion， obscurity of meaning, image,culture-loaded noun, and symbolic use of number. Xu solves those translationproblems in flexible yet somewhat regular ways, and the operational norms he abidesby reflect double influences of Chinese and English cultures.
Xu tries his best to make the genre, arrangement of line, musical effect, imageand holistic meaning of the translated version consistent with the original text,intending to convey the main poetic characteristics and overall artistic conceptions ofTang poetry. On the basis of achieving global stylistic similarity with Tang poetry, thetranslator incorporates literary features of English poems in his translation whensuitable, presenting the translated poems with smooth language, cohesive logic andclear connotation, yet without losing literary flavor of Tang poetry. In the translatingprocess, the translator makes flexible use of such skills as amplification, deletion,conversion, combination, division, negation, etc., giving full play to translator’ssubjectivity and creativity.
3) Initial norm. The initial norm shows the translator’s primary inclinationbetween source culture and target culture and determines the macro-appearance of thetranslated poems.
In Xu’s translation, great attention is given to show the peculiar beauty andflavor of Tang poems, and essential literary characteristics in genre, meaning and styleof Tang poems are conveyed to the greatest extent. This reveals the translator’sprimary inclination to the Chinese culture in translation, which could be attributed to the ultimate purpose of his translation–to introduce Tang poetry to western readersand promote the cultural status of Chinese literature. However, compromise in thetranslator’s choices between source culture and target culture can also be identified inmany details of the translated poems. For example, the handling methods onpunctuation, cohesion, diction, grammar, etc., help promote the readability oftranslated poems. The translator is source-oriented on a macro textual level, yettarget-oriented in a micro linguistic level, dealing with the influences of Chinese andEnglish culture in a balanced way.
Reviewing the special cultural background against which Xu translates300TangPoems, the author holds that this book of translation is influenced by double culturesof Chinese and English, especially by Chinese cultural factors. To be specific, themain cultural factors influencing the shaping of translational norms in this bookinclude at least five categories: political and economic developing situation, aims oftranslation, mainstream poetics, prevalent notions on translation and translator’ssubjectivity.
The target readers’ responses to Xu’s translated poems are observed and analyzedfor a just and reasonable evaluation. Research shows that Xu’s translation is generallyaccepted by target readers as fair or good, which demonstrates that his translation ofTang poems is effective in a degree for cross-cultural communication, and couldrealize the basic translation aims of the publisher.
Yet through the case study on Xu Yuanchong, the author could still locate somedeficiencies in the field of translating classical Chinese poetry to English. Thereremains a long way for traditional Chinese culture to go to the world and to gainglobal recognition. On this account, the dissertation makes some tentative suggestionson the translators, the critics and the translation agents, calling on the three-sidedcooperation and efforts to improve cross-cultural communication between the Eastand the West through translation activities.
By studying the translational norms embedded in300Tang Poems translated byXu Yuanchong, this dissertation initiate a unique research perspective in the field ofclassical-Chinese-poetry translation. Also the dissertation accumulates the new findings of descriptive translation studies and makes a beneficial try to apply thetheory of translational norms to practical analysis, hence acquiring both theoreticaland practical significance in a way. Besides, this dissertation chooses therepresentative translations of a representative Chinese translator as the object of study,the research methods and findings of which could be applied and extended to otherstudies in related field, shedding inspiration to general translators and researchers.
As a tentative study on the translation of classical Chinese poetry, thisdissertation could not be devoid of some weaknesses in research, such as beingnarrow and limited in theoretical horizon, superficial and partial in analysis, indirectand insufficient in supporting data, etc., which affect the objectivity andcomprehensiveness of the conclusion. In further studies in the future, the author willtry her best to avoid these deficiencies, to improve research methods and to makegreater research achievements.
在国内古诗英译领域，许渊冲先生堪称贡献最大、同时最具争议的人物。他在古诗英译的实践和理论层面都取得了令人瞩目的成绩，其古诗英译实践和理论形成过程大致分为三个时期——储备酝酿期、发展高峰期和改进完善期。
国外学者针对许渊冲古诗英译的研究还相当零散、不成体系，且由于评论者的专业背景、个人审美和文学倾向各不相同，其观点也褒贬各异、主观随性。而国内学者则从不同的角度对许渊冲古诗英译的理论与实践进行了研究。针对许渊冲古诗英译的文论，近几年在数量和质量上突飞猛进，研究内容更加丰富，研究方法更加科学，但仍存在一些主观随意的感悟式点评，质量良莠不齐、观点褒贬不一。国内研究的常见局限性在于：理论视野不够开阔，批评标准比较单一，观点论证不够严密。
笔者针对许渊冲研究现状中的局限与不足，对许渊冲英译《唐诗三百首》一书进行了描写性个案研究，归纳分析译作的特点及译者的策略抉择，重构译本所遵循的翻译规范；同时考察其翻译规范的形成原因和运作效果，力图公正客观地评价译者及其译诗，为古诗英译的实践与批评提供些微有益的观照。
本文采用了对比、描写、分析、推导等系列研究方法，重构许渊冲唐诗译本中隐含的翻译规范。为提高分析的效度与信度，本文尽量使客观描写与逻辑论证相结合，统筹对文化历史语境的纵向考察和横向比较，兼顾文本分析中的人文判断和科学论证。此外，在检验译本翻译规范的运作效果时，本文借鉴了比较权威的实证调查结果，正所谓“他山之石，可以攻玉”。
“规范”这一概念本属于社会学范畴，是某一文化群体共同遵守的引导正确社会行为的观念或指令。在长达两千多年的发展历程中,翻译规范研究逐渐从零散走向系统、从规定走向描写。
系统开展翻译规范研究的学者首推以色列籍译论家——图里。通过对希伯来翻译文学进行大量而系统的考察，图里提出了规范运作于整个翻译过程的论断。图里认为，译者在实际翻译过程中通常受到三类规范的制约：初始规范、预备规范和操作规范。初始规范决定译者对翻译的总体倾向，指译者首先须在源语文本规范与目标语文化规范之间做出基本选择；预备规范影响翻译政策和翻译的直接性；操作规范支配着翻译过程中所作的各种实际抉择，指导译者在翻译活动中使用的翻译技巧。在翻译规范研究中，研究者应以目标语文化为取向，关注译文中的常规性“迁移现象”，并根据译者的抉择倾向，重构译者所遵循的翻译规范。
图里的翻译规范理论为本文确立研究框架和研究方法提供了有力的支撑，但笔者同时认识到，图里的研究也存在着一定的历史局限性，因而笔者根据实际研究情景，适时调整主体理论的应用方式并发掘其它理论的多元互补价值。
笔者遵循图里对翻译规范的分类，采用描写性研究方法，分别考察了许译《唐诗三百首》所遵循的初始规范、预备规范和操作规范。
许译唐诗的预备规范顺应了国家的翻译政策，反映了中西文化交流的时代需求，涵盖了直接翻译的必要性和可行性。当前，英美国家对中国文化的传播，尤其是典籍文化的译介，总体表现出开放的接受态度；而中国也以空前积极主动的态度开展跨文化交流活动，推出中国文化精粹。中西文化背景共同营造了开放有利的翻译环境，中国对外翻译出版公司依据国家的翻译政策制定了适宜的翻译目的，所选翻译材料兼顾了弘扬民族文化精粹和激发目标读者兴趣的需求。中国译界认同并偏爱直接翻译方式，翻译发起方根据翻译能力和创作倾向选择了合适的翻译人选，使直接翻译能够顺利进行，文化交流能够增加深度。
许译唐诗的操作规范隐含于译者在文本微观层面所选择的翻译策略之中。笔者通过对比分析，发现许译唐诗中的主要翻译问题可归为内容和形式两大类，主要位于十个层面，即：体裁之选择、建行之形式、音韵之表现、节奏之安排、标点之处理、语句之衔接、语义模糊之处理、意象之传递、文化专名之翻译、数词之翻译。而译者灵活处理这十个语言微观层面的各种翻译问题，其操作规范受到源语和目标语文化的双重影响,在不同的翻译语境下有不同的体现形式。译者以传达原作的主要形式特点和整体意境为目的，使译诗的体裁、建行形式、音韵特征和意象尽量贴近原作，并在此基础上适度融合英语诗歌的诗学特征，在最大程度上争取译诗的表述地道、逻辑清楚、语义明晰，呈现给读者带有唐诗韵味的格律译诗。在具体翻译过程中，译者灵活使用了增添、省略、转换、合并、切分、反译等翻译技巧，充分发挥了译者的主体性和创造性。
许译唐诗的初始规范体现为宏观的译者翻译倾向和译诗面貌特征。许渊冲对于唐诗的本质风格要素十分重视，在翻译中尽量保留传译，以展现唐诗的特色和魅力，从而表现出靠近源语文化系统的翻译整体倾向。这种选择倾向是由译者的终极翻译目的决定的，即：让唐诗走向世界，提高中华文化精粹的国际影响力。然而在具体操作策略中，如标点、衔接、选词、句法等关联主题意义理解的细节方面，译者又兼顾了目标语语文化规范，比较均衡地处理了两种文化规范的制约作用。
回顾总结许译唐诗的特殊文化语境，本文认为译本隐含的翻译规范体现了双重社会文化因素、尤其是源语文化因素对译者的影响，具体而言，其形成主要受到政治经济发展格局、翻译目的、主流诗学、主流翻译观念和译者主体性等因素的影响。通过考察目标读者对译本的接受态度，可以认为，译本所遵循的翻译规范运作效果良好，许译唐诗的质量得到了目标读者的基本肯定，部分实现了跨文化交流的预期效果，为唐诗走向世界奠定了良好的基础。笔者提出，要使中国的古诗英译事业蓬勃发展，翻译实践者、批评研究者和出版发行方仍需共同努力，克服局限、发挥优势，切实提高中西跨文化交流的效果。
本文从翻译规范角度对许渊冲唐诗英译进行了描写性研究，开拓了古诗英译领域的研究新视角。同时本文丰富了描写性翻译研究的成果，探索了翻译规范理论的实际应用模式，对翻译学科的发展具有一定的理论意义和实践价值。此外，本研究以国内典型译者的典型译作为研究对象，从而具有一定的代表性和应用推广价值，期望能给古诗英译爱好者以理论及方法上的启迪。
本论文只是关于许译唐诗的初步研究，还存在理论视野不够开阔、探讨不够全面深入、数据不够直接充足等研究局限，笔者在今后的研究中会进一步拓宽视野、改进方法、深化研究，力求发掘更有价值的研究成果。
Embodying key notions of Confucianism and developing along a realistictradition since ancient times, classical Chinese poetry reached its climax achievementin Tang dynasty, incorporating the poetic spirit of Romanticism simultaneously.
Against the background of frequent cross-cultural communication and rapidcultural globalization in the21stcentury, China Translation&Publishing Corporationpublished in2007the300Tang Poems (Classified by Theme) translated by XuYuanchong, aiming to display the enchanting beauty of classical Chinese poetry toEnglish readers, to promote brilliant Chinese traditional culture and to narrow downnational gaps between the East and the West.
Xu Yuanchong, regarded as a most distinguished and most controversial Chinesetranslator, has translated and published a series of classical Chinese poems intoEnglish or French, and his translation works and thoughts keep attracting theresearchers’ attention in China. Xu’s career in translating classical Chinese poems intoEnglish could be roughly divided into three periods–the preparatory period, theprospering period, and the perfecting period.
Research abroad on Xu Yuanchong and his translation is still rather fragmentaryand unsystematic, and the few criticisms available are different in opinions andsomewhat subjective in nature due to variant academic backgrounds and aesthetictastes of foreign scholars. By contrast, domestic research on Xu Yuanchong is muchmore prosperous, appearing frequently in forms of academic journal articles,monographs, theses or dissertations. These studies have made greater achievement inwidth of scope, depth of analysis and variety of perspectives; however, they still needpromotion in objectivity and systematicity as modern cases of translation studies. Asprescriptive translation studies aiming at value-judging and standard-setting prevailwell over descriptive translation studies, limitations such as illogicality inargument-reasoning, imbalance in perspective-choosing and monotony in the standardfor evaluation could now and then be found in these studies.
Realizing the problems in present studies on Xu and his translations, the author decides to take a descriptive case study on one of his major translation work–300Tang Poems (Classified by Theme). By observing linguistic features of the translationand translating strategies adopted by the translator, the author tries to reconstruct thetranslational norms embedded in the translation, to investigate the forming causes andworking effects of those translational norms, and to evaluate the translator and hisworks in an objective and impartial manner. It is hoped that this dissertation couldprovide some inspiration and insight for the practice and research in the field ofclassical-Chinese-poetry translation.
This dissertation applies such researching method as comparison, description,analysis, deduction, etc. to the reconstruction of translational norms in the book. Toimprove the validity and reliability of the dissertation, the author tries her best toreflect both the humanistic and scientific nature of the translation studies, byincorporating objective description with logical judgment, quantitative investigationwith qualitative analysis, and diachronic examination with synchronic comparison.Besides, to verify the actual communicative effects of the translational norms adoptedby the translator, the author refers to some authoritative data acquired by otherscholars in related empirical research.
This dissertation adopts Toury’s theory on translational norms as the basictheoretical framework in reconstructing the translational norms embedded in300TangPoems. Toury’s theory is adjusted flexibly to situational needs while being applied tothe development of argumentation, and it is supplemented properly by relevantculture-oriented translation theories, which consolidate effectively the theoreticalframework of this dissertation.
The concept “norm” is originally a sociological term, which refers to principlesor standards directing and regulating people’s social behavior to maintain propersocial order. Studies on translational norms virtually run through the whole history oftranslation studies, and after the development over two thousand years, the researchon translational norms has gradually changed its model from sporadic to systematic,from prescriptive to descriptive.
Toury is generally counted as the first learner who made a systematical descriptive study on translational norms. After a study on large quantities of theHebrew translated literary works, he proposed that “Norms can be expected to operatenot only in translation of all kinds, but also at every stage in the translating event, andhence to be reflected on every level of its product”(Toury,2001:58).
According to Toury, there are three basic kinds of norms operating in the wholeprocess of translation, namely: initial norm, preliminary norms and operational norms.Among them, initial norm concerns the translator’s fundamental choice betweenrequirements of source culture and target culture involved in translation. Preliminarynorms reflect and influence two different but related aspects: translation policies anddirectness of translation. And operational norms, which can be subdivided intomatricial norms and textural-linguistic norms, direct concrete decisions on translationstrategies in the process of translation. For a study on translational norms, aretrospective target-oriented approach is suggested by Toury. The researcher shouldpay special attention to regular “shifts” in translated versions, which usually betraythe inclination of the translator’s decision, and could be very valuable to normreconstructing.
Toury’s thought on translational norms provides an inspiring perspective for theauthor to establish the theoretical framework and research approach of thisdissertation. Following the categorizing methods of Toury on translational norms, theauthor makes a descriptive case study on300Tang Poems translated by XuYuanchong, and tries to reconstruct the preliminary norms, operational norms andinitial norm embedded in the book of translation.
1). Preliminary norms. The preliminary norms observed in this book conform tothe open translation policies in China，satisfy the global needs of cross-culturalcommunication，and reflect the necessity and feasibility of direct translation.
Under a favorable global surrounding for translation, China Translation&Publishing Corporation has set proper translation objectives complying with statetranslation policies. The materials for translation are chosen to cater for doubleobjectives–promoting the influence of Chinese culture and arousing target readers’interests in reading Chinese classics. To ensure the quality of direct translation, China Translation&Publishing Corporation invited Xu Yuanchong as the responsibletranslator, who is credited with translation competence and mastery of both Englishand Chinese.
2）Operational norms. Operational norms in this book are reflected in Xu’sconcrete translating strategies to solve translation problems.
After a comparative study between the original text and translated text of asample poem, the author classifies typical problems in translating Tang poems into tentypes, which lie on two levels of the poetic language: form and meaning. Theserepresentative translation problems concern genre, arrangement of line, rhymingpattern, rhythm pattern, punctuation, cohesion， obscurity of meaning, image,culture-loaded noun, and symbolic use of number. Xu solves those translationproblems in flexible yet somewhat regular ways, and the operational norms he abidesby reflect double influences of Chinese and English cultures.
Xu tries his best to make the genre, arrangement of line, musical effect, imageand holistic meaning of the translated version consistent with the original text,intending to convey the main poetic characteristics and overall artistic conceptions ofTang poetry. On the basis of achieving global stylistic similarity with Tang poetry, thetranslator incorporates literary features of English poems in his translation whensuitable, presenting the translated poems with smooth language, cohesive logic andclear connotation, yet without losing literary flavor of Tang poetry. In the translatingprocess, the translator makes flexible use of such skills as amplification, deletion,conversion, combination, division, negation, etc., giving full play to translator’ssubjectivity and creativity.
3) Initial norm. The initial norm shows the translator’s primary inclinationbetween source culture and target culture and determines the macro-appearance of thetranslated poems.
In Xu’s translation, great attention is given to show the peculiar beauty andflavor of Tang poems, and essential literary characteristics in genre, meaning and styleof Tang poems are conveyed to the greatest extent. This reveals the translator’sprimary inclination to the Chinese culture in translation, which could be attributed to the ultimate purpose of his translation–to introduce Tang poetry to western readersand promote the cultural status of Chinese literature. However, compromise in thetranslator’s choices between source culture and target culture can also be identified inmany details of the translated poems. For example, the handling methods onpunctuation, cohesion, diction, grammar, etc., help promote the readability oftranslated poems. The translator is source-oriented on a macro textual level, yettarget-oriented in a micro linguistic level, dealing with the influences of Chinese andEnglish culture in a balanced way.
Reviewing the special cultural background against which Xu translates300TangPoems, the author holds that this book of translation is influenced by double culturesof Chinese and English, especially by Chinese cultural factors. To be specific, themain cultural factors influencing the shaping of translational norms in this bookinclude at least five categories: political and economic developing situation, aims oftranslation, mainstream poetics, prevalent notions on translation and translator’ssubjectivity.
The target readers’ responses to Xu’s translated poems are observed and analyzedfor a just and reasonable evaluation. Research shows that Xu’s translation is generallyaccepted by target readers as fair or good, which demonstrates that his translation ofTang poems is effective in a degree for cross-cultural communication, and couldrealize the basic translation aims of the publisher.
Yet through the case study on Xu Yuanchong, the author could still locate somedeficiencies in the field of translating classical Chinese poetry to English. Thereremains a long way for traditional Chinese culture to go to the world and to gainglobal recognition. On this account, the dissertation makes some tentative suggestionson the translators, the critics and the translation agents, calling on the three-sidedcooperation and efforts to improve cross-cultural communication between the Eastand the West through translation activities.
By studying the translational norms embedded in300Tang Poems translated byXu Yuanchong, this dissertation initiate a unique research perspective in the field ofclassical-Chinese-poetry translation. Also the dissertation accumulates the new findings of descriptive translation studies and makes a beneficial try to apply thetheory of translational norms to practical analysis, hence acquiring both theoreticaland practical significance in a way. Besides, this dissertation chooses therepresentative translations of a representative Chinese translator as the object of study,the research methods and findings of which could be applied and extended to otherstudies in related field, shedding inspiration to general translators and researchers.
As a tentative study on the translation of classical Chinese poetry, thisdissertation could not be devoid of some weaknesses in research, such as beingnarrow and limited in theoretical horizon, superficial and partial in analysis, indirectand insufficient in supporting data, etc., which affect the objectivity andcomprehensiveness of the conclusion. In further studies in the future, the author willtry her best to avoid these deficiencies, to improve research methods and to makegreater research achievements.
引文
Agnes, M. et al.(eds.). Webster’s New World College Dictionary (4thedition)[Z].Cleveland; Ohio: Wiley Publishing, Inc.2004.
Alvarez, R. et al.(eds.). Transltion, Power, Subversion [C]. Clevedon: Multilingualmatters.1996.
Bartsch, R. Norms of Language:Theoretical and Practical Aspects [M].London; NewYork: Longman.1987.
Bassnett, S.(ed.), Translating Literature [C]. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer.1997.
Bassnett, S.&Lefevere, A. Translation, History and Culture [M]. London and NewYork: PrinterPublishers.1998.
Bassnett, S.&Lefevere, A. Constructing Cultures: Essays on Literary Translation[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.2001.
Benjamin, W. The Task of the Translator [A]. Harry, Z.(ed.). The Translation StudiesReader [C]. London and New York: Routledge.2000.
Chesterman, A. From “is” to “ought”: Laws, norms and strategies in translationstudies [J]. Target.1993(5):1-20.
Chesterman, A. Memes of Translation [M]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.1997.
Cranmer-Byng. The Never Ending Wrong and Other Renderings of the Chinese fromthe prose translations of Herbert A. Gile.[M]. London: GrantRichards.1902.
Davis, J. Social Creativity [A]. C.M. Hann (ed.). When History Accelerates: Essayson Rapid Social Change, Complexity and Creativity [C]. London and AtlanticHighlands, NJ: The Athlone Press.1994.
Even-Zohar, I. Papers in Historical Poetics [A]. B. Hrushovski and I. Even-Zohar(eds). Papers on Poetics and Semiotics [C]. Tel Aviv: Universtiy PublishingProjects.1978a.
Even-Zohar, I. The position of translated literature within the literay polysystem [A].J.S Holmes et al.(eds.). Literature and Translation: New Perspective in LiteraryStudies [C]. Leuven: Acco.1978b
Even-Zohar, I. Polysystem Studies [J]. Poetics Today.1990(1):9-26.
Gadamer, H.-G. Truth and Method [M]. Joel Winsheimer&Donald G. Marshall(Trans.). London: Continuum International Publishing Group.2004.
Gentzler, E. Contemporary Translation Studies [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai ForeignLanguage Education Press.2004.
Hermans, T.(ed.). The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Translation[M]. London: Croom Helm,1985.
Hermans, T. Translational Norms and Correct Translations [A]. K.M. vanLeuven-Zwart and T. Naaijkens (eds.). Translation Studies: The State of the Art[C]. Amsterdam: Rodopi.1991.
Hermans, T. Norms and determination of translation: A theorectical framework [A].R.Alvarez et al.(eds.). Transltion, Power, Subversion [C]. Clevedon:Multilingual matters.1996.
Hermans, T. The task of translator in the European renaissance. Explorations in adiscursive field [A]. S.Bassnett (ed.). Translating Literature [C]. Cambridge: D.S.Brewer.1997a.
Hermans, T. Translation as institution [A]. M.Snell-Hornby et al.(eds.). Transltion asIntercultural Communication [C]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.1997b.
Hermans, T. Translation and normativity [A]. C.Schaffner (ed.). Translation andNorms [C]. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.1999.
Hermans, T. Some concluding comments on the debates and the responses [A].C.Schaffner (ed.). Translation and Norms [C]. Clevedon: Multilingual MattersLtd.1999.
Hermans, T. Translation in System—Descriptive and System-oriented ApproachesExplained [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.2004.
Holmes, J.S., Lambert, J.&van den Broek, R.(eds.). Literature and Translation: NewPerspective in Literary Studies [C]. Leuven: Acco.1978
Holmes, J.S. Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies [M].Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.2007.
Jauss, H.R. Toward an Aesthetic of Reception [M].University of Minnesota Press.1985.
Kenner, H. The Pound Era [M]. Berkeley&LosAngeles: University of CaliforniaPress.1971.
Kern, R. Orientalism, Modernism, and the American Poem [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press.1996.
Lefevere, A. Translating Poetry: Seven Strategies and a Blue Print Van Gorcum [M].Assen: msterdam.1975.
Lefevere, A. Translation, Rewriting and Manipulation of Literary Fame [M].Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.2001.
Levy, J. Translation as a Decision Process [A]. R.Jakobson (ed.). To Honour RomanJakobson: Essays on his70th Birthday [C], Vol.2, The Hague: Mouton.1967
Liu, J. Y. Book Review on Yii-t'ai hsin-yung (New Songs from a Jade Terrace): AnAnthology of Early Chinese Love Poetry [J]. The Journal of Asian Studies.1983(4):906-907.
Lowell&Ayscough.(tr.). Fir-Flower Tablets [M]. Boston: Hughton Mifflin, Co.1921.
Newmark, P. A Textbook of Translation [M]. Oxford: Pergamon.1988
Newmark, P. Paragraphs on Translation [M]. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.1989
Nida, E. Toward a Science of Translating [M]. Leiden: Brill,1964.
Nida, E.&Charles T. The Theory and Practice of Translation [M] Leiden: Brill.1969.
Nida, E. Language, Culture and Translation [M]. ShanghaiForeign languageEducation Press.1993.
Nord, C. Translating as a Purposeful Activity—Functionalist Approaches Expained[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
Popovic, A. The Concept“shift of Experience”in Translation Analysis [A]. J.S.Holmes(ed.).The Nature of Translation--Essays on the Theory and Practice of LiteraryTranslation [C].The Hague: Mouton.1970.
Popovic, A. Dictionary for the Analysis of Literature Translation[Z]. Edmonton: TheUniversity of Alberta, Department of Comparative Literature; Nitra: ThePedagogical Faculty, Department of Literary Communication.1976.
Pound, E. Cathay [Z]. London: Elkin Mathews.1915.
Reiss, K. The Translation Criticism: The Potentials and limitations [M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.2004
Reiss, K.&Vermeer, H. Groundwork for a General Theory of Translation [M].Tubingen: Niemeyer.1984.
Robinson, D. Who translates? Translator subjectivities beyond reason [M]. Albany:State University of New York Press.2001.
Schaffner, C. The Concept of Norms in Translation Studies [A]. C.Schaffner (ed.).Translation and Norms [C]. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.1999.
Schaffner, C.(ed.). Translation and Norms[C]. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.1999.
Schaffener, C.&Adab, B. Translation as Intercultural Communication–Contrast asConflict [A]. Snell-Hornby, M. et al.(eds.) Transltion as InterculturalCommunication [C]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.1997.
Snell-Hornby, M. Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach [M]. Amsterdam andPhiladelphia: Benjamins.1988.
Snell-Hornby, M. et al.(eds.). Transltion as Intercultural Communication [C].Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.1997
Toury, G. The nature and role of norms in literary translation [A]. J.S Holmes et al.(eds.) Literature and Translation: New Perspective in Literary Studies [C].Leuven: Acco.1978.
Toury, G. In Search of a Theory of Translation [M].Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute forPoetics and Semiotics.1980.
Toury, G. Translation across Cultures [M].New Delhi: Bahri Publications.1987.
Toury, G. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond [M]. Amsterdam andPhiladelphia: Benjamins.1995.
Toury, G. A Handful of Paragraphs on “Translation” and “Norms”[A]. C.Schaffner(ed.) Translation and Norms [C]. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.1999.
Turnbull, J. et al.(eds.). Oxford Advanced English Dictionary (8thedition)[Z].Oxford: Oxford University Press.2010.
Venuti, L. The Translation Studies Reader [M]. New York: Routledge.2000
Waley, A.(tr.) A Hundred and Seventy Chinese Poems [Z].New York: Alfred A.Knopf.1922.
Waley, A. Introduction to A Hundred and Seventy Chinese Poems（1962edition）[A].Ivan Morris.(ed.) Madly Singing in the Mountain: An Appreciation andAnthology of Arthur Waley [C].London: George Allen&UN Win Ltd.1970.
Weinberger, E.&Paz, O. Nineteen Ways of Looking at Wang Wei [M]. London:Asphodel Press,1987.
Williams, R.J. Mapping the Invisible: Orientalist Mythologies in the Translation ofChinese Poetry [MA]. Utah State University.2001.
常智勇.描述翻译研究发展述评[J].黑龙江高教研究,2010(11)：158-160.
陈德鸿、张南峰.西方翻译理论精选[M].香港：香港城市大学出版社,2000.
陈福康.中国译学理论史稿[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,1992.
陈国坚.三十年诗词西译杂谈——兼评许渊冲教授的三美论[J].广东外语外贸大学学报,2008(1)：20-24.
陈炎、李红春.儒道释背景下的唐代诗歌[M].北京：昆仑出版社,2003.
程章灿.汉诗英译与英语现代诗歌——以魏理的汉诗英译及跳跃韵律为中心[J].江苏行政学院学报,2003(3)：115-120.
丛滋杭.翻译理论与翻译教学[J].中国科技翻译,2007(2)：35-39.
丛滋杭.中国古典诗歌英译理论研究[M].北京：国防工业出版社,2007.
党争胜.“三化”并举译“长恨”,“三美”齐备诗如“歌”——许渊冲英译《长恨歌》赏评[J].外语教学,2008(1)：83-87.
丁娟.从“三美论”评析《如梦令》的许渊冲英译本[J].语文学刊(外语教育与教学),2009(11)：83-84,86.
范祥涛.奈达“读者反应论”的源流及其评价[J].外语教学,2006(6)：86-88.
冯丽霞.许渊冲英译中诗在大学英语学习者中的接受调查[J].黑龙江史志,2009(7)：119-120.
冯庆华.文体翻译论[M].上海：上海翻译出版社,2002.
冯庆华.红译艺坛：红楼梦翻译艺术研究[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2006.
冯庆华.母语文化下的译者风格：《红楼梦》霍克斯与闵福德译本研究[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2008.
冯庆华.实用翻译教程：英汉互译（第三版）[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2010.
傅浩.我的译诗原则和方法及作为译者的修养[N].中华读书报,2002-6-19.
傅浩(著).陈子慕(译)论中国古诗的英译[J]..国外文学,2005(1)：52-61.
葛校琴、张柏然.后现代语境下的译者主体性研究[M].上海：上海译文出版社,2006.
龚光明.翻译思维学[M].上海：上海社会科学院出版社,2004.
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.
郭沫若.郭沫若集[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2005.
海岸(编).中西诗歌翻译百年论集[C].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2007.
韩子满.文学翻译杂合研究[M].上海：上海译文出版社,2005.
何善秀.许渊冲教授诗歌翻译中的美学追求——孟浩然的两首英译诗赏析[J].华东交通大学学报.2005(6)：152-154,62.
黑格尔[德].朱光潜译,美学(第3册,下)[M].北京：商务印书馆,1981.
黄志浩.古代诗词创作与鉴赏[M].上海：汉语大词典出版社,2002
蒋孔阳.蒋孔阳美学艺术论集[M].南昌：江西人民出版社,1988.
姜秋霞.文学翻译中的审美过程：格式塔意象再造[M].北京：商务印书馆,2002.
孔慧怡.谈中诗英译与翻译批评[J].外国语,1991(5)：22-26.
孔慧怡.翻译·文学·文化[M].北京：北京大学出版社,1999.
孔慧怡.亚洲翻译传统与现代动向[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2000.
兰世雄(选注).唐宋诗词名句鉴赏[M].合肥：安徽人民出版社,2002.
雷淑娟.文学语言美学修辞[M].上海：学林出版社,2004.
黎昌抱.英语同源修辞格及其翻译[J].外语教学,2004(1)：56-59.
黎昌抱.王佐良翻译风格研究[M].北京：光明日报出版社,2009.
郦青.李清照词英译对比研究[M].上海：三联书店,2009.
李菡.论《汉英对照唐诗三百首》的美学特征[J].出版发行研究,2003(1)：47-50.
李明.翻译批评与赏析[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社,2006.
李奭学.得意忘言——翻译、文学与文化评论[M].北京：三联书店,2007.
李小琼.通过回译,对比《静夜思》的四种英译本——翻译课堂练习一例[J].大学英语,2000(12)：21-22.
李岫、秦林芳.论20世纪中外文学交流[J].比较文学与比较文化研究,2000(2)：102-113.
李玉良.《诗经》英译研究[M].济南：齐鲁书社,2007.
廖七一.翻译规范及其研究途径[J].外语教学,2009(1)：95-98,103.
林家修.许渊冲翻译理论在《汉英对照唐诗三百首》中的再现[J].西南民族大学学报(人文社科版),2005(1)：396-399.
林玉娟.从《螽斯》英译看诗的可译性及译者的超越[J].广东外语外贸大学学报,2004(4)：22-24.
刘华文.汉诗英译中的主体审美论[M].上海：上海译文出版社,2005.
刘文军.翻译·文学·形象他者建构[J].外语与翻译,2010(4)：1-8.
刘勰[南朝].文心雕龙[M].北京：人民文学出版社,1958.
刘英凯.试论奈达“读者反应”论在中国的负面作用[J].上海科技翻译,1997(1)：1-6.
刘云红.论文学翻译批评的多元功能[J].中国翻译,2003(3)：28-30.
刘重德.文学翻译十讲[M].北京：中国对外翻译出版公司,1991.
鲁迅.鲁迅全集[M].北京：人民文学出版社,1980.
鲁迅.汉文学史纲要[M].北京：人民文学出版社,2006.
罗素[英].胡品清(译).中西文话之比较[M].长春：长春时代文艺出版社,1988.
罗新璋(编).翻译论集[M].北京：商务印书馆,1984.
吕进.“诗家语”的审美[N].人民日报,2010-11-16.
吕俊.普遍语用学的翻译观——一种交往理论的翻译观[J].外语与外语教学,2003(7)：42-46.
吕俊、侯向群.翻译学——一个建构主义的视角[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2006.
吕俊、侯向群.翻译批评学引论[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2009.
吕淑湘、许渊冲(编).中诗英译比录[M].香港：三联书店,1988.
马红军.从文学翻译到翻译文学[M].上海：上海译文出版社,2006.
毛华奋.汉语古诗英译比读与研究[M].上海：上海社会科学院出版社,2007.
冒键.踩高跷的“孔子”：庞德与中国古典文化[J].当代外国文学,2002(2)：82-90.
穆雷、诗怡.翻译主体的“发现”与研究——兼评中国翻译家研究[J].中国翻译.2003(1)：12-18.
潘文国.译入与译出——谈中国译者从事汉籍英译的意义[J].中国翻译,2004(2)：40-43.
庞德[美].黄运特(译).庞德诗选-比萨诗章[M].桂林：漓江出版社,1998.
钱钟书.钱钟书散文[M].杭州：浙江文艺出版社,1997.
萨义德[美].王宇根(译).东方学[M].上海：生活·读书·新知三联书店,1999.
尚永亮.元和贬谪文学艺术特征初探[J].陕西师大学报(哲社版),1990(4)：88-94.
申小龙、宋永培(编).新文化古代汉语(第1册)[M].南宁：广西人民出版社,1995.
宋钧.唐诗中本体隐喻翻译的描写性研究——以许渊冲译《(英汉对照)唐诗三百首》为案例[MA].广东外语外贸大学,2009.
谭业升.论翻译文本对比分析的描写翻译学方法[J].外语与外语教学,2006(12)：48-51.
特威切尔[美].张子清(译).庞德的《华夏集》和意象派诗[J].外国文学评论,1992(1)：86-91.
王程程.谈许渊冲的“三化”对意美表达的作用[J].湖北广播电视大学学报,2009(9)：108-109.
王凤霞.从许渊冲诗歌翻译看文化转基因的再现——以许渊冲先生所译《游东田》为例[J].西华大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2008(1)：101-103,112.
王宏印.文学翻译批评论稿[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2006.
王厚平.美学视角下的文学翻译艺术研究[D].上海外国语大学,2010.
王瑾.内容与形式：功能文体学观照下的古诗英译[J].四川外语学院学报,2004(5)：105-109.
汪榕培、王宏.中国典籍英译[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2009.
王守义,约翰·诺弗尔.唐宋诗词英译[M].哈尔滨：黑龙江人民出版社,1989.
王佐良.英语文体学论文集[C].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,1980.
吴珺如.论词之意境及其在翻译中的重构[D].上海外国语大学,2009.
温建平.汉诗英译中的人称确定与译者的诠释空间[J].外语与外语教学,2005(1)：50-54.
闻一多.闻一多全集[M]一卷.上海：开明书店,1948.
翁显良.古诗英译[C].北京：北京出版社,1985.
翁显良.本色与变相[A].杨自俭、刘学云(编).翻译新论(1983-1992)[C].武汉：湖北教育出版社,1994.
吴波.论译者的主体性[D].华东师范大学,2005.
吴钧陶.唐诗英译的百年会展[A].王峰、马琰(编著).唐诗英译集注、比录、鉴评与索引[M].西安：陕西人民出版社,2011.
夏传才.论语讲座[M].桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2007.
萧涤非(等).唐诗鉴赏辞典[M].上海：上海辞书出版社,1983.
谢天振.翻译研究新视野[M].青岛：青岛出版社,2003a.
谢天振.当代西方翻译翻译研究的三大突破和两大转向[J].四川外国语学院学报2003b (5)：110-116.
许钧.文学翻译的理论与实践——翻译对话录[C].南京：译林出版社,2001.
许渊冲.翻译的艺术[M].北京：中国对外翻译出版公司,1984a.
许渊冲(译).唐诗一百五十首[Z].西安：陕西人民出版社,1984b.
许渊冲.三谈“意美、音美、形美”[J].深圳大学学报(2),1987：70-77.
许渊冲.追忆似水年华[M].北京三联出版社,1996.
许渊冲.中诗英韵探胜[M].北京,北京大学出版社,1997.
许渊冲.诗书人生[M].天津：百花文艺出版社,2003a.
许渊冲.文学与翻译[M].北京大学出版社,2003b.
许渊冲(译).汉英双讲中国古诗100首[Z].大连：大连出版社,2003c.
许渊冲.山阴道上：许渊冲散文随笔选集[M].北京：中央编译出版社,2005.
许渊冲.翻译的艺术[M].北京：五湖传播出版社,2006.
许渊冲(译).唐诗三百首[Z].北京：中国对外翻译出版公司,2007.
颜学军.中国古诗英译的诗体和散体[J].天津外国语学院学报,2005(2)：22-24.
杨青.简论许渊冲的中诗英译[J].大连民族学院学报,2003(3)：85-87.
杨晓荣.翻译批评导论[M].北京：中国对外翻译出版社公司,2005.
杨秀梅、包通法.中国古典诗歌英译研究历史与现状[J].外语与外语教学,2009(12)：57-60.
杨自俭,刘学云.翻译新论[C].武汉：湖北教育出版社,1994.
姚斯[德],霍拉勃[美].周宁,金元浦(译),接受美学与接受理论[M].大连：辽宁人民出版社,1987.
叶嘉莹.词学新诠[C].北京：北京大学出版社,2008.
余光中.翻译与创作[A].罗新璋(编).翻译论集[C].北京：商务印书馆,1984.
袁行霈.中国诗歌艺术研究[M](增订版).北京：北京大学出版社,1996.
曾彦修.从古诗标点谈到古籍标点宜分两种类型[J].出版工作,1989(2)：52-55.
查明建、田雨.论译者主体性——从译者文化地位的边缘化谈起[J].中国翻译,2003(1)：19-24.
张彩虹.操纵理论与中国诗歌翻译领域的拓展[J].广西民族大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2008(6)：110-111,126.
张冬梅.立法与阐释——翻译规范研究的范式比较与问题思考[J].外语与外语教学,2010(1)：74-76.
张今.文学翻译原理[M].河南：河南大学出版社,1987.
张全.全球化语境下的跨文化翻译研究[M].昆明：云南大学出版社,2010.
章艳.在规范和偏离之间——清末民初小说翻译规范研究[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2011.
张云霞.中国古典诗词翻译中美的传递——谈许渊冲诗译中的意美,音美和形美[J].沈阳大学学报,2008(3)：30-32.
张智中.如诗入诗,自成一家——许渊冲先生古典诗词英译的语言风格[J].安徽理工大学学报(社科版),2005(2)：33-37.
张智中.许渊冲与翻译艺术[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社,2006.
张智中.诗歌形式与汉诗英译[J].天津外国语学院学报,2007(5)：33-42.
赵彦春.论中国古典诗词英译[J].现代外语,1996(2)：31-36.
郑海凌.译语的异化与优化[J].中国翻译,2001(3)：3-7.
中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室(编).现代汉语词典(第5版)[Z].北京：商务印书馆,2007.
钟玲.美国诗与中国梦[M].桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2003.
周汝昌.千秋一寸心：唐宋诗词鉴赏讲座[M].北京：华艺出版社,2000.
周彦.庞德误译浅析[J].中国翻译,1994(4)：38-40.
周振甫.周振甫讲古代诗词[M].南京：江苏教育出版社,2005.
朱光潜.艺文杂谈[M].合肥：安徽人民出版社,1981.
朱光潜.朱光潜美学文集(第二卷)[M].上海：上海文艺出版社,1982.
朱光潜.诗论[M].北京：三联书店出版社,1984.
朱徽.中英比较诗艺[M].成都：四川大学出版社,1996.
朱徽.唐诗在美国的翻译与接受[J].四川大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2004(4)：84-89.
朱徽.中国诗歌在英语世界——英美译家汉诗翻译研究[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2009.
朱明海.许渊冲翻译研究——翻译审美批评视角[D].上海外国语大学,2008.
Alvarez, R. et al.(eds.). Transltion, Power, Subversion [C]. Clevedon: Multilingualmatters.1996.
Bartsch, R. Norms of Language:Theoretical and Practical Aspects [M].London; NewYork: Longman.1987.
Bassnett, S.(ed.), Translating Literature [C]. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer.1997.
Bassnett, S.&Lefevere, A. Translation, History and Culture [M]. London and NewYork: PrinterPublishers.1998.
Bassnett, S.&Lefevere, A. Constructing Cultures: Essays on Literary Translation[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.2001.
Benjamin, W. The Task of the Translator [A]. Harry, Z.(ed.). The Translation StudiesReader [C]. London and New York: Routledge.2000.
Chesterman, A. From “is” to “ought”: Laws, norms and strategies in translationstudies [J]. Target.1993(5):1-20.
Chesterman, A. Memes of Translation [M]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.1997.
Cranmer-Byng. The Never Ending Wrong and Other Renderings of the Chinese fromthe prose translations of Herbert A. Gile.[M]. London: GrantRichards.1902.
Davis, J. Social Creativity [A]. C.M. Hann (ed.). When History Accelerates: Essayson Rapid Social Change, Complexity and Creativity [C]. London and AtlanticHighlands, NJ: The Athlone Press.1994.
Even-Zohar, I. Papers in Historical Poetics [A]. B. Hrushovski and I. Even-Zohar(eds). Papers on Poetics and Semiotics [C]. Tel Aviv: Universtiy PublishingProjects.1978a.
Even-Zohar, I. The position of translated literature within the literay polysystem [A].J.S Holmes et al.(eds.). Literature and Translation: New Perspective in LiteraryStudies [C]. Leuven: Acco.1978b
Even-Zohar, I. Polysystem Studies [J]. Poetics Today.1990(1):9-26.
Gadamer, H.-G. Truth and Method [M]. Joel Winsheimer&Donald G. Marshall(Trans.). London: Continuum International Publishing Group.2004.
Gentzler, E. Contemporary Translation Studies [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai ForeignLanguage Education Press.2004.
Hermans, T.(ed.). The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Translation[M]. London: Croom Helm,1985.
Hermans, T. Translational Norms and Correct Translations [A]. K.M. vanLeuven-Zwart and T. Naaijkens (eds.). Translation Studies: The State of the Art[C]. Amsterdam: Rodopi.1991.
Hermans, T. Norms and determination of translation: A theorectical framework [A].R.Alvarez et al.(eds.). Transltion, Power, Subversion [C]. Clevedon:Multilingual matters.1996.
Hermans, T. The task of translator in the European renaissance. Explorations in adiscursive field [A]. S.Bassnett (ed.). Translating Literature [C]. Cambridge: D.S.Brewer.1997a.
Hermans, T. Translation as institution [A]. M.Snell-Hornby et al.(eds.). Transltion asIntercultural Communication [C]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.1997b.
Hermans, T. Translation and normativity [A]. C.Schaffner (ed.). Translation andNorms [C]. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.1999.
Hermans, T. Some concluding comments on the debates and the responses [A].C.Schaffner (ed.). Translation and Norms [C]. Clevedon: Multilingual MattersLtd.1999.
Hermans, T. Translation in System—Descriptive and System-oriented ApproachesExplained [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.2004.
Holmes, J.S., Lambert, J.&van den Broek, R.(eds.). Literature and Translation: NewPerspective in Literary Studies [C]. Leuven: Acco.1978
Holmes, J.S. Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies [M].Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.2007.
Jauss, H.R. Toward an Aesthetic of Reception [M].University of Minnesota Press.1985.
Kenner, H. The Pound Era [M]. Berkeley&LosAngeles: University of CaliforniaPress.1971.
Kern, R. Orientalism, Modernism, and the American Poem [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press.1996.
Lefevere, A. Translating Poetry: Seven Strategies and a Blue Print Van Gorcum [M].Assen: msterdam.1975.
Lefevere, A. Translation, Rewriting and Manipulation of Literary Fame [M].Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.2001.
Levy, J. Translation as a Decision Process [A]. R.Jakobson (ed.). To Honour RomanJakobson: Essays on his70th Birthday [C], Vol.2, The Hague: Mouton.1967
Liu, J. Y. Book Review on Yii-t'ai hsin-yung (New Songs from a Jade Terrace): AnAnthology of Early Chinese Love Poetry [J]. The Journal of Asian Studies.1983(4):906-907.
Lowell&Ayscough.(tr.). Fir-Flower Tablets [M]. Boston: Hughton Mifflin, Co.1921.
Newmark, P. A Textbook of Translation [M]. Oxford: Pergamon.1988
Newmark, P. Paragraphs on Translation [M]. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.1989
Nida, E. Toward a Science of Translating [M]. Leiden: Brill,1964.
Nida, E.&Charles T. The Theory and Practice of Translation [M] Leiden: Brill.1969.
Nida, E. Language, Culture and Translation [M]. ShanghaiForeign languageEducation Press.1993.
Nord, C. Translating as a Purposeful Activity—Functionalist Approaches Expained[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
Popovic, A. The Concept“shift of Experience”in Translation Analysis [A]. J.S.Holmes(ed.).The Nature of Translation--Essays on the Theory and Practice of LiteraryTranslation [C].The Hague: Mouton.1970.
Popovic, A. Dictionary for the Analysis of Literature Translation[Z]. Edmonton: TheUniversity of Alberta, Department of Comparative Literature; Nitra: ThePedagogical Faculty, Department of Literary Communication.1976.
Pound, E. Cathay [Z]. London: Elkin Mathews.1915.
Reiss, K. The Translation Criticism: The Potentials and limitations [M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.2004
Reiss, K.&Vermeer, H. Groundwork for a General Theory of Translation [M].Tubingen: Niemeyer.1984.
Robinson, D. Who translates? Translator subjectivities beyond reason [M]. Albany:State University of New York Press.2001.
Schaffner, C. The Concept of Norms in Translation Studies [A]. C.Schaffner (ed.).Translation and Norms [C]. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.1999.
Schaffner, C.(ed.). Translation and Norms[C]. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.1999.
Schaffener, C.&Adab, B. Translation as Intercultural Communication–Contrast asConflict [A]. Snell-Hornby, M. et al.(eds.) Transltion as InterculturalCommunication [C]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.1997.
Snell-Hornby, M. Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach [M]. Amsterdam andPhiladelphia: Benjamins.1988.
Snell-Hornby, M. et al.(eds.). Transltion as Intercultural Communication [C].Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.1997
Toury, G. The nature and role of norms in literary translation [A]. J.S Holmes et al.(eds.) Literature and Translation: New Perspective in Literary Studies [C].Leuven: Acco.1978.
Toury, G. In Search of a Theory of Translation [M].Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute forPoetics and Semiotics.1980.
Toury, G. Translation across Cultures [M].New Delhi: Bahri Publications.1987.
Toury, G. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond [M]. Amsterdam andPhiladelphia: Benjamins.1995.
Toury, G. A Handful of Paragraphs on “Translation” and “Norms”[A]. C.Schaffner(ed.) Translation and Norms [C]. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.1999.
Turnbull, J. et al.(eds.). Oxford Advanced English Dictionary (8thedition)[Z].Oxford: Oxford University Press.2010.
Venuti, L. The Translation Studies Reader [M]. New York: Routledge.2000
Waley, A.(tr.) A Hundred and Seventy Chinese Poems [Z].New York: Alfred A.Knopf.1922.
Waley, A. Introduction to A Hundred and Seventy Chinese Poems（1962edition）[A].Ivan Morris.(ed.) Madly Singing in the Mountain: An Appreciation andAnthology of Arthur Waley [C].London: George Allen&UN Win Ltd.1970.
Weinberger, E.&Paz, O. Nineteen Ways of Looking at Wang Wei [M]. London:Asphodel Press,1987.
Williams, R.J. Mapping the Invisible: Orientalist Mythologies in the Translation ofChinese Poetry [MA]. Utah State University.2001.
常智勇.描述翻译研究发展述评[J].黑龙江高教研究,2010(11)：158-160.
陈德鸿、张南峰.西方翻译理论精选[M].香港：香港城市大学出版社,2000.
陈福康.中国译学理论史稿[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,1992.
陈国坚.三十年诗词西译杂谈——兼评许渊冲教授的三美论[J].广东外语外贸大学学报,2008(1)：20-24.
陈炎、李红春.儒道释背景下的唐代诗歌[M].北京：昆仑出版社,2003.
程章灿.汉诗英译与英语现代诗歌——以魏理的汉诗英译及跳跃韵律为中心[J].江苏行政学院学报,2003(3)：115-120.
丛滋杭.翻译理论与翻译教学[J].中国科技翻译,2007(2)：35-39.
丛滋杭.中国古典诗歌英译理论研究[M].北京：国防工业出版社,2007.
党争胜.“三化”并举译“长恨”,“三美”齐备诗如“歌”——许渊冲英译《长恨歌》赏评[J].外语教学,2008(1)：83-87.
丁娟.从“三美论”评析《如梦令》的许渊冲英译本[J].语文学刊(外语教育与教学),2009(11)：83-84,86.
范祥涛.奈达“读者反应论”的源流及其评价[J].外语教学,2006(6)：86-88.
冯丽霞.许渊冲英译中诗在大学英语学习者中的接受调查[J].黑龙江史志,2009(7)：119-120.
冯庆华.文体翻译论[M].上海：上海翻译出版社,2002.
冯庆华.红译艺坛：红楼梦翻译艺术研究[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2006.
冯庆华.母语文化下的译者风格：《红楼梦》霍克斯与闵福德译本研究[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2008.
冯庆华.实用翻译教程：英汉互译（第三版）[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2010.
傅浩.我的译诗原则和方法及作为译者的修养[N].中华读书报,2002-6-19.
傅浩(著).陈子慕(译)论中国古诗的英译[J]..国外文学,2005(1)：52-61.
葛校琴、张柏然.后现代语境下的译者主体性研究[M].上海：上海译文出版社,2006.
龚光明.翻译思维学[M].上海：上海社会科学院出版社,2004.
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.
郭沫若.郭沫若集[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2005.
海岸(编).中西诗歌翻译百年论集[C].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2007.
韩子满.文学翻译杂合研究[M].上海：上海译文出版社,2005.
何善秀.许渊冲教授诗歌翻译中的美学追求——孟浩然的两首英译诗赏析[J].华东交通大学学报.2005(6)：152-154,62.
黑格尔[德].朱光潜译,美学(第3册,下)[M].北京：商务印书馆,1981.
黄志浩.古代诗词创作与鉴赏[M].上海：汉语大词典出版社,2002
蒋孔阳.蒋孔阳美学艺术论集[M].南昌：江西人民出版社,1988.
姜秋霞.文学翻译中的审美过程：格式塔意象再造[M].北京：商务印书馆,2002.
孔慧怡.谈中诗英译与翻译批评[J].外国语,1991(5)：22-26.
孔慧怡.翻译·文学·文化[M].北京：北京大学出版社,1999.
孔慧怡.亚洲翻译传统与现代动向[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2000.
兰世雄(选注).唐宋诗词名句鉴赏[M].合肥：安徽人民出版社,2002.
雷淑娟.文学语言美学修辞[M].上海：学林出版社,2004.
黎昌抱.英语同源修辞格及其翻译[J].外语教学,2004(1)：56-59.
黎昌抱.王佐良翻译风格研究[M].北京：光明日报出版社,2009.
郦青.李清照词英译对比研究[M].上海：三联书店,2009.
李菡.论《汉英对照唐诗三百首》的美学特征[J].出版发行研究,2003(1)：47-50.
李明.翻译批评与赏析[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社,2006.
李奭学.得意忘言——翻译、文学与文化评论[M].北京：三联书店,2007.
李小琼.通过回译,对比《静夜思》的四种英译本——翻译课堂练习一例[J].大学英语,2000(12)：21-22.
李岫、秦林芳.论20世纪中外文学交流[J].比较文学与比较文化研究,2000(2)：102-113.
李玉良.《诗经》英译研究[M].济南：齐鲁书社,2007.
廖七一.翻译规范及其研究途径[J].外语教学,2009(1)：95-98,103.
林家修.许渊冲翻译理论在《汉英对照唐诗三百首》中的再现[J].西南民族大学学报(人文社科版),2005(1)：396-399.
林玉娟.从《螽斯》英译看诗的可译性及译者的超越[J].广东外语外贸大学学报,2004(4)：22-24.
刘华文.汉诗英译中的主体审美论[M].上海：上海译文出版社,2005.
刘文军.翻译·文学·形象他者建构[J].外语与翻译,2010(4)：1-8.
刘勰[南朝].文心雕龙[M].北京：人民文学出版社,1958.
刘英凯.试论奈达“读者反应”论在中国的负面作用[J].上海科技翻译,1997(1)：1-6.
刘云红.论文学翻译批评的多元功能[J].中国翻译,2003(3)：28-30.
刘重德.文学翻译十讲[M].北京：中国对外翻译出版公司,1991.
鲁迅.鲁迅全集[M].北京：人民文学出版社,1980.
鲁迅.汉文学史纲要[M].北京：人民文学出版社,2006.
罗素[英].胡品清(译).中西文话之比较[M].长春：长春时代文艺出版社,1988.
罗新璋(编).翻译论集[M].北京：商务印书馆,1984.
吕进.“诗家语”的审美[N].人民日报,2010-11-16.
吕俊.普遍语用学的翻译观——一种交往理论的翻译观[J].外语与外语教学,2003(7)：42-46.
吕俊、侯向群.翻译学——一个建构主义的视角[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2006.
吕俊、侯向群.翻译批评学引论[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2009.
吕淑湘、许渊冲(编).中诗英译比录[M].香港：三联书店,1988.
马红军.从文学翻译到翻译文学[M].上海：上海译文出版社,2006.
毛华奋.汉语古诗英译比读与研究[M].上海：上海社会科学院出版社,2007.
冒键.踩高跷的“孔子”：庞德与中国古典文化[J].当代外国文学,2002(2)：82-90.
穆雷、诗怡.翻译主体的“发现”与研究——兼评中国翻译家研究[J].中国翻译.2003(1)：12-18.
潘文国.译入与译出——谈中国译者从事汉籍英译的意义[J].中国翻译,2004(2)：40-43.
庞德[美].黄运特(译).庞德诗选-比萨诗章[M].桂林：漓江出版社,1998.
钱钟书.钱钟书散文[M].杭州：浙江文艺出版社,1997.
萨义德[美].王宇根(译).东方学[M].上海：生活·读书·新知三联书店,1999.
尚永亮.元和贬谪文学艺术特征初探[J].陕西师大学报(哲社版),1990(4)：88-94.
申小龙、宋永培(编).新文化古代汉语(第1册)[M].南宁：广西人民出版社,1995.
宋钧.唐诗中本体隐喻翻译的描写性研究——以许渊冲译《(英汉对照)唐诗三百首》为案例[MA].广东外语外贸大学,2009.
谭业升.论翻译文本对比分析的描写翻译学方法[J].外语与外语教学,2006(12)：48-51.
特威切尔[美].张子清(译).庞德的《华夏集》和意象派诗[J].外国文学评论,1992(1)：86-91.
王程程.谈许渊冲的“三化”对意美表达的作用[J].湖北广播电视大学学报,2009(9)：108-109.
王凤霞.从许渊冲诗歌翻译看文化转基因的再现——以许渊冲先生所译《游东田》为例[J].西华大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2008(1)：101-103,112.
王宏印.文学翻译批评论稿[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2006.
王厚平.美学视角下的文学翻译艺术研究[D].上海外国语大学,2010.
王瑾.内容与形式：功能文体学观照下的古诗英译[J].四川外语学院学报,2004(5)：105-109.
汪榕培、王宏.中国典籍英译[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2009.
王守义,约翰·诺弗尔.唐宋诗词英译[M].哈尔滨：黑龙江人民出版社,1989.
王佐良.英语文体学论文集[C].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,1980.
吴珺如.论词之意境及其在翻译中的重构[D].上海外国语大学,2009.
温建平.汉诗英译中的人称确定与译者的诠释空间[J].外语与外语教学,2005(1)：50-54.
闻一多.闻一多全集[M]一卷.上海：开明书店,1948.
翁显良.古诗英译[C].北京：北京出版社,1985.
翁显良.本色与变相[A].杨自俭、刘学云(编).翻译新论(1983-1992)[C].武汉：湖北教育出版社,1994.
吴波.论译者的主体性[D].华东师范大学,2005.
吴钧陶.唐诗英译的百年会展[A].王峰、马琰(编著).唐诗英译集注、比录、鉴评与索引[M].西安：陕西人民出版社,2011.
夏传才.论语讲座[M].桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2007.
萧涤非(等).唐诗鉴赏辞典[M].上海：上海辞书出版社,1983.
谢天振.翻译研究新视野[M].青岛：青岛出版社,2003a.
谢天振.当代西方翻译翻译研究的三大突破和两大转向[J].四川外国语学院学报2003b (5)：110-116.
许钧.文学翻译的理论与实践——翻译对话录[C].南京：译林出版社,2001.
许渊冲.翻译的艺术[M].北京：中国对外翻译出版公司,1984a.
许渊冲(译).唐诗一百五十首[Z].西安：陕西人民出版社,1984b.
许渊冲.三谈“意美、音美、形美”[J].深圳大学学报(2),1987：70-77.
许渊冲.追忆似水年华[M].北京三联出版社,1996.
许渊冲.中诗英韵探胜[M].北京,北京大学出版社,1997.
许渊冲.诗书人生[M].天津：百花文艺出版社,2003a.
许渊冲.文学与翻译[M].北京大学出版社,2003b.
许渊冲(译).汉英双讲中国古诗100首[Z].大连：大连出版社,2003c.
许渊冲.山阴道上：许渊冲散文随笔选集[M].北京：中央编译出版社,2005.
许渊冲.翻译的艺术[M].北京：五湖传播出版社,2006.
许渊冲(译).唐诗三百首[Z].北京：中国对外翻译出版公司,2007.
颜学军.中国古诗英译的诗体和散体[J].天津外国语学院学报,2005(2)：22-24.
杨青.简论许渊冲的中诗英译[J].大连民族学院学报,2003(3)：85-87.
杨晓荣.翻译批评导论[M].北京：中国对外翻译出版社公司,2005.
杨秀梅、包通法.中国古典诗歌英译研究历史与现状[J].外语与外语教学,2009(12)：57-60.
杨自俭,刘学云.翻译新论[C].武汉：湖北教育出版社,1994.
姚斯[德],霍拉勃[美].周宁,金元浦(译),接受美学与接受理论[M].大连：辽宁人民出版社,1987.
叶嘉莹.词学新诠[C].北京：北京大学出版社,2008.
余光中.翻译与创作[A].罗新璋(编).翻译论集[C].北京：商务印书馆,1984.
袁行霈.中国诗歌艺术研究[M](增订版).北京：北京大学出版社,1996.
曾彦修.从古诗标点谈到古籍标点宜分两种类型[J].出版工作,1989(2)：52-55.
查明建、田雨.论译者主体性——从译者文化地位的边缘化谈起[J].中国翻译,2003(1)：19-24.
张彩虹.操纵理论与中国诗歌翻译领域的拓展[J].广西民族大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2008(6)：110-111,126.
张冬梅.立法与阐释——翻译规范研究的范式比较与问题思考[J].外语与外语教学,2010(1)：74-76.
张今.文学翻译原理[M].河南：河南大学出版社,1987.
张全.全球化语境下的跨文化翻译研究[M].昆明：云南大学出版社,2010.
章艳.在规范和偏离之间——清末民初小说翻译规范研究[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2011.
张云霞.中国古典诗词翻译中美的传递——谈许渊冲诗译中的意美,音美和形美[J].沈阳大学学报,2008(3)：30-32.
张智中.如诗入诗,自成一家——许渊冲先生古典诗词英译的语言风格[J].安徽理工大学学报(社科版),2005(2)：33-37.
张智中.许渊冲与翻译艺术[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社,2006.
张智中.诗歌形式与汉诗英译[J].天津外国语学院学报,2007(5)：33-42.
赵彦春.论中国古典诗词英译[J].现代外语,1996(2)：31-36.
郑海凌.译语的异化与优化[J].中国翻译,2001(3)：3-7.
中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室(编).现代汉语词典(第5版)[Z].北京：商务印书馆,2007.
钟玲.美国诗与中国梦[M].桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2003.
周汝昌.千秋一寸心：唐宋诗词鉴赏讲座[M].北京：华艺出版社,2000.
周彦.庞德误译浅析[J].中国翻译,1994(4)：38-40.
周振甫.周振甫讲古代诗词[M].南京：江苏教育出版社,2005.
朱光潜.艺文杂谈[M].合肥：安徽人民出版社,1981.
朱光潜.朱光潜美学文集(第二卷)[M].上海：上海文艺出版社,1982.
朱光潜.诗论[M].北京：三联书店出版社,1984.
朱徽.中英比较诗艺[M].成都：四川大学出版社,1996.
朱徽.唐诗在美国的翻译与接受[J].四川大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2004(4)：84-89.
朱徽.中国诗歌在英语世界——英美译家汉诗翻译研究[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2009.
朱明海.许渊冲翻译研究——翻译审美批评视角[D].上海外国语大学,2008.