中西方伦理规范的差异及其对译者翻译策略的影响
|
摘要
不同的社会背景和民族文化影响着人们的伦理观念,人们的伦理价值观念又直接反映了某一民族的特性。由于意识形态、文化背景、历史渊源等诸多因素的影响,中西方的伦理观念之间存在着巨大的差异,诸如“中土伦理与政治结合,远西伦理与宗教结合”、“中土道德以家庭为本位,远西道德以个人为本位”、“中土道德主义务平等,远西道德主权利平等”、“中土重私德,远西重公德”、“中土家庭尚尊敬,远西家庭尚亲爱”等。(黄建中,1998:83-90)
鉴于中西方伦理观念之间的差异,不同的译者在译介过程中不可避免地会受到各自伦理观的影响,并在译文中采取不同的翻译策略。而以往关于中西伦理的对比研究多从哲学的角度进行,从文化或从英汉对比的角度来看待这些差异并结合翻译对之进行研究,还不多见。同样,海内外对于我国古典文学名著《红楼梦》所进行的英译研究也是数不胜数,可是,专门就不同的译者所代表的中西不同的伦理观念进行对比,并探讨其中的差异如何影响译者的翻译决策的研究还未见到。因此,本文试图从几个不同角度分析中西方伦理观念的差异,并探究这些差异对译者翻译策略的影响。基于家庭伦理、爱情伦理、婚姻伦理、女性观及性观念等诸多方面的对比研究,作者得出如下结论:中西方伦理观念之间存在的众多差异对译者的翻译行为会产生决定性的影响,甚至在很大程度上影响着译文的风格。通过对《红楼梦》两个英文全译本的例证研究,作者还指出,不同的译者在翻译过程中采取了诸如解释、补充、替换、省略等不同的翻译策略来处理原作中的伦理内容。换言之,中西方之间存在的伦理差异使得译者做出各自的伦理决定。有时候,译者还会出于自身的伦理判断而有意识或无意识地对原文进行改写。另外,由于文化差异以及译者认识差异的存在,在翻译过程中还会不可避免地产生误读和误译。译者自身的伦理意识会影响其译介行为,使得译文在一定程度上背离原作。
本文共分七章。第一章为引言。第二章从伦理学的定义出发,介绍了当代伦理学发展中几个有代表性的理论,并阐述了伦理与翻译研究的关系。第三章从三个主要方面论述了中西方伦理观念之间的差异,指出中西伦理观念上的众多不同大多来自群体取向与个体取向的分歧。第四章简要介绍了《红楼梦》及其翻译,以及当代学者对其英译本的研究状况。第五章作为本文的主体,通过对《红楼梦》两个英译本的例证分析,从家庭、宗教、爱情、婚姻、价值观念以及性观念等几个方面对比分析了中西方伦理观念之间的差异,并探讨其对译者翻译策略的影响。第六章略述由于伦理观念的差异而对原文造成的误读以及与之相关的改写。第七章为全文总结。
Different social backgrounds and national cultures have great effects on people's ethical concepts. On the other hand, people's ethical values, most sensitively and directly, reflect the unique features of a certain nation. Owing to the influence of such factors as ideology, cultural background, and historical origin, there has been a huge difference between Chinese and western ethical norms. There exist, indeed, contrastive ethical differences between China and the West such as "politics-combined vs. religion-combined ethic", "family-oriented vs. individual-oriented ethic", "equal obligations vs. equal rights", "personal morality vs. public morality" and "respect-emphasized vs. fraternity-emphasized family ethic", etc. (黄建中,1998:83-90)
In view of these ethical differences between Chinese and western cultures, different translators, in the process of translation, will be inevitably influenced by the ethical concepts of their own and adopt different translating strategies in their translation works. However, the contrastive studies done before on the Chinese and western ethical systems have been mostly from the viewpoint of philosophy. There are not many researches done from the angle of contrastive studies of English and Chinese and, at the same time, combined with translation to treat these ethical differences. Similarly, among the numerous studies done at home and abroad on the English versions of Hongloumeng, one of the greatest of Chinese literary works, few are conducted on the ethical differences between Chinese and western cultures and on the influence of these ethical differences on the translators' adoption of strategies.
Therefore, this thesis attempts, from different angles, to analyze the differences in ethical concepts between the two cultures, and to explore the influence of those differences on translators' translating strategies. Based on the contrastive study on the following aspects such as family ethics, love ethics, marriage ethics, women ethics, sexual ethics, and so on, the author comes to the conclusion that there are indeed numerous differences between Chinese and western ethical systems, and that these ethical differences will play a decisive role in translators' translating activities, and even influence, to a large extent, the style of the translation works. Through the case study on the two English versions of Hongloumeng, the writer of this thesis points out that different translators, nurtured under different ethical systems, may adopt different strategies such as expounding, amplifying, substituting, omitting, and the like, to deal with the ethical matters existing in the source language text in the process of translation. In other words, the differences in ethical norms between China and the West impel the translators to make ethical choices of their own. And sometimes, translators will also conduct rewritings, either consciously or unconsciously, to the original, according to their own moral judgments. Besides, owing to the presence of cultural differences and differences in translators' understanding, misreading and the consequent mistranslation will arise almost inevitably in the process of translation. In short, translators should build up a strong perception toward different ethical systems and make every effort to avoid cultural misreading and to retain the culturally heterogeneous messages of the original so as to make their translations maximally close to the source language texts.
This thesis consists of five chapters plus an introduction (Chapter 1) and a conclusion (Chapter 7). Chapter 2, starting from the definition of ethics, introduces several representative theories in contemporary researches on ethics and discusses the relationship between ethics and translation studies. Chapter 3 is a general analysis on the ethical differences between the Chinese and western cultures, pointing out the numerous differences between the Chinese and western ethical systems mainly derived from the divergence of group-orientation and individualism. Chapter 4 is a brief introduction to Hongloumeng and its translations as well as a survey of the contemporary scholars' researches on its English versions. As the main part of the thesis, Chapter 5, based on Chapter 2 and combined with a case study on the two English versions of Hongloumeng, offers a detailed contrastive analysis on the ethical differences between China and the West from such aspects as family, religion, love, marriage, values and sex, and meanwhile, explores how these differences in ethical concepts influence the translators' translating strategies. Chapter 6 touches upon misreading and related rewriting resulting from the differences in ethical conceptions.
鉴于中西方伦理观念之间的差异,不同的译者在译介过程中不可避免地会受到各自伦理观的影响,并在译文中采取不同的翻译策略。而以往关于中西伦理的对比研究多从哲学的角度进行,从文化或从英汉对比的角度来看待这些差异并结合翻译对之进行研究,还不多见。同样,海内外对于我国古典文学名著《红楼梦》所进行的英译研究也是数不胜数,可是,专门就不同的译者所代表的中西不同的伦理观念进行对比,并探讨其中的差异如何影响译者的翻译决策的研究还未见到。因此,本文试图从几个不同角度分析中西方伦理观念的差异,并探究这些差异对译者翻译策略的影响。基于家庭伦理、爱情伦理、婚姻伦理、女性观及性观念等诸多方面的对比研究,作者得出如下结论:中西方伦理观念之间存在的众多差异对译者的翻译行为会产生决定性的影响,甚至在很大程度上影响着译文的风格。通过对《红楼梦》两个英文全译本的例证研究,作者还指出,不同的译者在翻译过程中采取了诸如解释、补充、替换、省略等不同的翻译策略来处理原作中的伦理内容。换言之,中西方之间存在的伦理差异使得译者做出各自的伦理决定。有时候,译者还会出于自身的伦理判断而有意识或无意识地对原文进行改写。另外,由于文化差异以及译者认识差异的存在,在翻译过程中还会不可避免地产生误读和误译。译者自身的伦理意识会影响其译介行为,使得译文在一定程度上背离原作。
本文共分七章。第一章为引言。第二章从伦理学的定义出发,介绍了当代伦理学发展中几个有代表性的理论,并阐述了伦理与翻译研究的关系。第三章从三个主要方面论述了中西方伦理观念之间的差异,指出中西伦理观念上的众多不同大多来自群体取向与个体取向的分歧。第四章简要介绍了《红楼梦》及其翻译,以及当代学者对其英译本的研究状况。第五章作为本文的主体,通过对《红楼梦》两个英译本的例证分析,从家庭、宗教、爱情、婚姻、价值观念以及性观念等几个方面对比分析了中西方伦理观念之间的差异,并探讨其对译者翻译策略的影响。第六章略述由于伦理观念的差异而对原文造成的误读以及与之相关的改写。第七章为全文总结。
Different social backgrounds and national cultures have great effects on people's ethical concepts. On the other hand, people's ethical values, most sensitively and directly, reflect the unique features of a certain nation. Owing to the influence of such factors as ideology, cultural background, and historical origin, there has been a huge difference between Chinese and western ethical norms. There exist, indeed, contrastive ethical differences between China and the West such as "politics-combined vs. religion-combined ethic", "family-oriented vs. individual-oriented ethic", "equal obligations vs. equal rights", "personal morality vs. public morality" and "respect-emphasized vs. fraternity-emphasized family ethic", etc. (黄建中,1998:83-90)
In view of these ethical differences between Chinese and western cultures, different translators, in the process of translation, will be inevitably influenced by the ethical concepts of their own and adopt different translating strategies in their translation works. However, the contrastive studies done before on the Chinese and western ethical systems have been mostly from the viewpoint of philosophy. There are not many researches done from the angle of contrastive studies of English and Chinese and, at the same time, combined with translation to treat these ethical differences. Similarly, among the numerous studies done at home and abroad on the English versions of Hongloumeng, one of the greatest of Chinese literary works, few are conducted on the ethical differences between Chinese and western cultures and on the influence of these ethical differences on the translators' adoption of strategies.
Therefore, this thesis attempts, from different angles, to analyze the differences in ethical concepts between the two cultures, and to explore the influence of those differences on translators' translating strategies. Based on the contrastive study on the following aspects such as family ethics, love ethics, marriage ethics, women ethics, sexual ethics, and so on, the author comes to the conclusion that there are indeed numerous differences between Chinese and western ethical systems, and that these ethical differences will play a decisive role in translators' translating activities, and even influence, to a large extent, the style of the translation works. Through the case study on the two English versions of Hongloumeng, the writer of this thesis points out that different translators, nurtured under different ethical systems, may adopt different strategies such as expounding, amplifying, substituting, omitting, and the like, to deal with the ethical matters existing in the source language text in the process of translation. In other words, the differences in ethical norms between China and the West impel the translators to make ethical choices of their own. And sometimes, translators will also conduct rewritings, either consciously or unconsciously, to the original, according to their own moral judgments. Besides, owing to the presence of cultural differences and differences in translators' understanding, misreading and the consequent mistranslation will arise almost inevitably in the process of translation. In short, translators should build up a strong perception toward different ethical systems and make every effort to avoid cultural misreading and to retain the culturally heterogeneous messages of the original so as to make their translations maximally close to the source language texts.
This thesis consists of five chapters plus an introduction (Chapter 1) and a conclusion (Chapter 7). Chapter 2, starting from the definition of ethics, introduces several representative theories in contemporary researches on ethics and discusses the relationship between ethics and translation studies. Chapter 3 is a general analysis on the ethical differences between the Chinese and western cultures, pointing out the numerous differences between the Chinese and western ethical systems mainly derived from the divergence of group-orientation and individualism. Chapter 4 is a brief introduction to Hongloumeng and its translations as well as a survey of the contemporary scholars' researches on its English versions. As the main part of the thesis, Chapter 5, based on Chapter 2 and combined with a case study on the two English versions of Hongloumeng, offers a detailed contrastive analysis on the ethical differences between China and the West from such aspects as family, religion, love, marriage, values and sex, and meanwhile, explores how these differences in ethical concepts influence the translators' translating strategies. Chapter 6 touches upon misreading and related rewriting resulting from the differences in ethical conceptions.
引文
1Ayto,John.1993.Euphemisms[M].London:Bloomsbury Publishing Limited.
2Bassnett,Susan & Andre Lefevere.2001.Constructing Cultures:Essays on Literary Translation[C].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
3Berman,Antoine.1992.The Experience of the Foreign[M].New York:State University of New York Press.
4Bloomfield,Leonard.2001.Language[M].Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
5Cao,Xueqin.1973,1977,1980.The Story of the Stone(Vol.1-3).Trans.David Hawkes.Harmondsworth:Penguin Books Ltd.
6Cao,Xueqin,Gao E.1982,1986.The Story of the Stone(Vol.4-5).Trans.John Minford.Harmondsworth:Penguin Books Ltd.
7Chesterman,Andrew.1993."From 'Is' to 'Ought':Translation Laws,Norms and Strategies."[J].Target 5:1,11-20.
8Chesterman,Andrew.1997.Memes of Translation[M].Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
9Chesterman,Andrew.2001."Proposal for a Hieronymic Oath"[J].The Translator,Volume 7:(2),139-154.
10Harris,William & Levey,Judith.1975.The New Columbia Encyclopedia[M].New York & London:Columbia University Press.
11Koskinen,Kaisa.2000.Beyond Ambivalence.Postmodernity and the Ethics of Translation[M].Tampere:University of Tampere.
12Lefevere,Andre.2004.Translation,Rewriting,and the Manipulation of Literary Fame[M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
13Lefevere,Andre.2006.Translating Literature:Practice and Theory in a Comparative Literature Context[M].Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
14Munday,Jeremy.2001.Introducing Translation Studies? Theories and Application[M].London and New York:Routledge.
15Newmark,Peter.1981.Approaches to Translation[M].Oxford:Pergamon Institute of English.
16Newmark,Peter.1994."The Ethics of Translation."[J].Quality- Assurance,Management and Control,Proceedings ITI Conference 7.Ed.Catriona Picken.London:Institute of Translation & Interpreting,70-71.
17Nord,Christiane.1991.Text Analysis in Translation[M].Amsterdam:Rodopi.
18Pym,Anthony.1992.Translation and Text Transfer[M].Frankfurt / Main:Peterlang.
19Pym,Anthony.2001."Introduction:The Return to Ethics in Translation Studies."[J].The Translator.Volume 7:(2),129-138.
20Venuti,Lawrence.1995.The Translator's Invisibility[M].London and New York:Routledge.
21启云涛,1990,《酒神的欢歌与日神的沉咏》[M],沈阳:辽宁人民出版社。
22包惠南,包昂,2003,《中国文化与汉英翻译》[M],北京:外文出版社。
23(清)曹雪芹、高鹗著,杨宪益、戴乃迭译,1999,《红楼梦》:汉英对照,北京:外文出版社;长沙:湖南人民出版社,(大中华文库)。
24陈汝东,2001,《语言伦理学》[M],北京:北京大学出版社。
25崔丽芳,2000,论中国近代翻译文学中的误读现象[J],《南开学报》第3期,47-52页。
26崔妍,2004,论《红楼梦》个性化的人物对话及其在英译本中的体现[A],刘士聪主编,《红楼译评:<红楼梦>翻译研究论文集》[C],天津:南开大学出版社。
27崔永禄,2004,霍克斯译《红楼梦》中倾向性问题的思考[A],刘士聪主编,《红楼译评:<红楼梦>翻译研究论文集》[C],天津:南开大学出版社。
28戴庆厦,2004,《社会语言学概论》[M],北京:商务印书馆。
29(美)杜威著,胡适口译,2005,《杜威五大讲演》[M],合肥:安徽教育出版社。
30高扬先,2000,《走向普遍伦理》[M],南昌:江西人民出版社。
31郭广银,1995,《伦理学原理》[M],南京:南京大学出版社。
32郭建中,1998,翻译中的文化因素:异化与归化[J],《外国语》第2期,12-18页。
33(德)哈贝马斯,2001,《作为未来的过去》[M],杭州:浙江人民出版社。
34何广军、柯文礼,2004,从文化视域看《红楼梦》的英译[A],刘士聪主编,《红楼译评:<红楼梦>翻译研究论文集》[C],天津:南开大学出版社。
35何怀宏,2002,《什么是伦理学?》[M],北京:北京大学出版社。
36(英)黑尔,1999,《道德语言》[M],北京:商务印书馆。
37黄建中,1998,《比较伦理学》[M],济南:山东人民出版社。
38霍恩比,李北达译,1997,《牛津高阶英汉双解词典》:第四版[M],北京:商务印书馆。
39季羡林、许钧,1998,翻译之为用大矣哉[J],《译林》第4期。
40贾玉新,1997,跨文化交际学[M],上海:上海外语教育出版社。
41(德)孔汉斯、库舍尔,1997,全球伦理——世界宗教议会宣言[M],成都:四川人民出版社。
42孔慧怡,1999,《翻译-文学-文化》[M],北京:北京大学出版社。
43黎昌抱,2001,英汉亲属称谓词国俗差异研究[J],《四川外语学院学报》第2期,93-96页。
44李桂梅,2006,文化哲学视野中的中西爱情伦理比较[J],《深圳大学学报》(人文社会科学版)第2期,53-58页。
45李国林,2000,汉译外:传播中国文化的媒介[A],郭建中主编,《文化与翻译》[C],北京:中国对外翻译出版公司。
46李涛、肖维青,2001,《红楼梦》人名艺术及英译方法浅探[J],《江西师范大学学报》(哲学社会科学版)第2期,109-112页。
47连淑能,2002,论中西思维方式[J],《外语与外语教学》第2期,40-46页。
48梁漱溟,1987,《中国文化要义》[M],上海:学林出版社。
49廖七一,2001,《当代英国翻译理论》[M],武汉:湖北教育出版社。
50卢兴基、高鸣鸾,1985,《红楼梦的语言艺术》[M],北京:语文出版社。
51罗新璋,1984,《翻译论集》[C],北京:商务印书馆。
52(英)罗素,1963,《西方哲学史》:上卷[M],何兆武等译,北京:商务印书馆。
53吕敏宏,2002,“足译”与“忠实”——《红楼梦》英译本比较研究[J],《外语与外语教学》第7期,61-64页。
54马会娟,2004,译文千古事,得失寸心知——试析霍译《红楼梦》(第一卷)的风格走失[A],刘士聪主编,《红楼译评:<红楼梦>翻译研究论文集》[C],天津:南开大学出版社。
55牛红梅、彭传宇,2004,从中文亲属称谓语的英文翻译看中西方文化差异[J],《长春理工大学学报》(社会科学版)第4期,48-50页。
56.潘绍中、赫迎红,2004,谈谈汉英对译中的文化因素[J],《中国翻译》第2期,8-13页。
57钱钟书,1985,《七缀集》[M],上海:上海古籍出版社。
58裘燕萍,2003,汉英亲属称谓系统的对比研究[J],《四川外语学院学报》第3期,145-149页。
59申丹(Shen Dan).1988.Objectivity in the Translation of Narrative Fiction[J].Babel,(3),131-140.
60(荷)斯宾诺莎,1983,《伦理学》[M],北京:商务印书馆。
61(美)史密斯,1991,《中国人的性格》[M],延吉:延边大学出版社。
62(美)斯蒂文森,1997,《伦理学与语言》[M],北京:中国社会科学出版社。
63宋子燕,2004,《红楼梦》两个英译本对文化差异的处理[J],《华东交通大学学报》第3期,146-150页。
64孙致礼,2001,翻译与叛逆[J],《中国翻译》第4期,18-22页。
65田惠刚,1998,《中西人际称谓系统》[M],北京:外语教学与研究出版社。
66万俊人,2001,普世伦理与道德文化的多元视景[A],乐黛云、李比雄编,《跨文化对话6》[C],上海:上海文化出版社。
67.万俊人,2002,《现代性的伦理话语:第一编》[M],哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社。
68王静,2003,文化比较与译者的文化取向——《红楼梦》杨宪益和霍克斯英译本对比研究[J],《求索》第3期,214-216页。
69王淑梅、王娅,2001,中西伦理比较漫谈[J],《长春师范学院学报》第3期,25-27页。
70王颖,1998,掌握原文文化背景准确传递原文信息——浅析《红楼梦》两种英译本对文化内容的处理[J],《福建外语》第4期,28-32页。
71魏家海,2001,论翻译中的文化误读[J],《同济大学学报》(社会科学版)第6期,96-102页。
72魏家海,2003,解构主义与翻译文学的文化误读[J],《外国语言文学》(季刊)第3期,49-52页。
73.肖群忠,2001,《孝与中国文化》[M],北京:人民出版社。
74肖维青,2004,一家亲主义vs核心家庭制度——谈《红楼梦》人际称谓与翻译[A],刘士聪主编,《红楼译评:<红楼梦>翻译研究论文集》[C],天津:南开大学出版社。
75薛华,1998,《哈贝马斯的商谈伦理学》[M],沈阳:辽宁教育出版社。
76(古希腊)亚里士多德著,2003,《尼各马可伦理学》[M],廖申白译注,北京:商务印书馆。
77严群,2003,《亚里士多德之伦理思想》[M],北京:商务印书馆。
78姚大志,2000,《现代之后——20世纪晚期西方哲学》[M],北京:东方出版社。
79袁斌业,2003,论翻译中的改写因素[J],《广西师范大学学报》(哲学社会科学版)第4期,56-60页。
80张岱年,中西哲学比较的几个问题[A],王菊泉、郑立信编,2004,英汉语言文化对比研究:1995-2003[C],上海:上海外语教育出版社。
81章海山、张建如编著,1999,《伦理学引论》[M],北京:高等教育出版社。
82张红艳,2000,试评《红楼梦》中文化负载词的翻译[J],《安徽大学学报》(哲学社会科学版) 第4期,60-63页。
83张映先,2004,从符号学角度看《红楼梦》翻译中的文化差异[A],刘士聪主编,《红楼译评:<红楼梦>翻译研究论文集》[C],天津:南开大学出版社。
84赵海红,2003,爱欲·伦理——《罗密欧与朱丽叶》和《梁祝》之比较[J],《福建师范大学福清分校学报》第3期,36-40页。
85周中之,2004,《伦理学》[M],北京:人民出版社。
86朱军,1998,衔接恰当,译文生辉——评《红楼梦》的两种译本[J],《外语学刊》第4期,89-93页。
87左飚,2001,环性与线性:中西文化特性比较[J],《社会科学》第12期,68-72页。
2Bassnett,Susan & Andre Lefevere.2001.Constructing Cultures:Essays on Literary Translation[C].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
3Berman,Antoine.1992.The Experience of the Foreign[M].New York:State University of New York Press.
4Bloomfield,Leonard.2001.Language[M].Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
5Cao,Xueqin.1973,1977,1980.The Story of the Stone(Vol.1-3).Trans.David Hawkes.Harmondsworth:Penguin Books Ltd.
6Cao,Xueqin,Gao E.1982,1986.The Story of the Stone(Vol.4-5).Trans.John Minford.Harmondsworth:Penguin Books Ltd.
7Chesterman,Andrew.1993."From 'Is' to 'Ought':Translation Laws,Norms and Strategies."[J].Target 5:1,11-20.
8Chesterman,Andrew.1997.Memes of Translation[M].Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
9Chesterman,Andrew.2001."Proposal for a Hieronymic Oath"[J].The Translator,Volume 7:(2),139-154.
10Harris,William & Levey,Judith.1975.The New Columbia Encyclopedia[M].New York & London:Columbia University Press.
11Koskinen,Kaisa.2000.Beyond Ambivalence.Postmodernity and the Ethics of Translation[M].Tampere:University of Tampere.
12Lefevere,Andre.2004.Translation,Rewriting,and the Manipulation of Literary Fame[M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
13Lefevere,Andre.2006.Translating Literature:Practice and Theory in a Comparative Literature Context[M].Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
14Munday,Jeremy.2001.Introducing Translation Studies? Theories and Application[M].London and New York:Routledge.
15Newmark,Peter.1981.Approaches to Translation[M].Oxford:Pergamon Institute of English.
16Newmark,Peter.1994."The Ethics of Translation."[J].Quality- Assurance,Management and Control,Proceedings ITI Conference 7.Ed.Catriona Picken.London:Institute of Translation & Interpreting,70-71.
17Nord,Christiane.1991.Text Analysis in Translation[M].Amsterdam:Rodopi.
18Pym,Anthony.1992.Translation and Text Transfer[M].Frankfurt / Main:Peterlang.
19Pym,Anthony.2001."Introduction:The Return to Ethics in Translation Studies."[J].The Translator.Volume 7:(2),129-138.
20Venuti,Lawrence.1995.The Translator's Invisibility[M].London and New York:Routledge.
21启云涛,1990,《酒神的欢歌与日神的沉咏》[M],沈阳:辽宁人民出版社。
22包惠南,包昂,2003,《中国文化与汉英翻译》[M],北京:外文出版社。
23(清)曹雪芹、高鹗著,杨宪益、戴乃迭译,1999,《红楼梦》:汉英对照,北京:外文出版社;长沙:湖南人民出版社,(大中华文库)。
24陈汝东,2001,《语言伦理学》[M],北京:北京大学出版社。
25崔丽芳,2000,论中国近代翻译文学中的误读现象[J],《南开学报》第3期,47-52页。
26崔妍,2004,论《红楼梦》个性化的人物对话及其在英译本中的体现[A],刘士聪主编,《红楼译评:<红楼梦>翻译研究论文集》[C],天津:南开大学出版社。
27崔永禄,2004,霍克斯译《红楼梦》中倾向性问题的思考[A],刘士聪主编,《红楼译评:<红楼梦>翻译研究论文集》[C],天津:南开大学出版社。
28戴庆厦,2004,《社会语言学概论》[M],北京:商务印书馆。
29(美)杜威著,胡适口译,2005,《杜威五大讲演》[M],合肥:安徽教育出版社。
30高扬先,2000,《走向普遍伦理》[M],南昌:江西人民出版社。
31郭广银,1995,《伦理学原理》[M],南京:南京大学出版社。
32郭建中,1998,翻译中的文化因素:异化与归化[J],《外国语》第2期,12-18页。
33(德)哈贝马斯,2001,《作为未来的过去》[M],杭州:浙江人民出版社。
34何广军、柯文礼,2004,从文化视域看《红楼梦》的英译[A],刘士聪主编,《红楼译评:<红楼梦>翻译研究论文集》[C],天津:南开大学出版社。
35何怀宏,2002,《什么是伦理学?》[M],北京:北京大学出版社。
36(英)黑尔,1999,《道德语言》[M],北京:商务印书馆。
37黄建中,1998,《比较伦理学》[M],济南:山东人民出版社。
38霍恩比,李北达译,1997,《牛津高阶英汉双解词典》:第四版[M],北京:商务印书馆。
39季羡林、许钧,1998,翻译之为用大矣哉[J],《译林》第4期。
40贾玉新,1997,跨文化交际学[M],上海:上海外语教育出版社。
41(德)孔汉斯、库舍尔,1997,全球伦理——世界宗教议会宣言[M],成都:四川人民出版社。
42孔慧怡,1999,《翻译-文学-文化》[M],北京:北京大学出版社。
43黎昌抱,2001,英汉亲属称谓词国俗差异研究[J],《四川外语学院学报》第2期,93-96页。
44李桂梅,2006,文化哲学视野中的中西爱情伦理比较[J],《深圳大学学报》(人文社会科学版)第2期,53-58页。
45李国林,2000,汉译外:传播中国文化的媒介[A],郭建中主编,《文化与翻译》[C],北京:中国对外翻译出版公司。
46李涛、肖维青,2001,《红楼梦》人名艺术及英译方法浅探[J],《江西师范大学学报》(哲学社会科学版)第2期,109-112页。
47连淑能,2002,论中西思维方式[J],《外语与外语教学》第2期,40-46页。
48梁漱溟,1987,《中国文化要义》[M],上海:学林出版社。
49廖七一,2001,《当代英国翻译理论》[M],武汉:湖北教育出版社。
50卢兴基、高鸣鸾,1985,《红楼梦的语言艺术》[M],北京:语文出版社。
51罗新璋,1984,《翻译论集》[C],北京:商务印书馆。
52(英)罗素,1963,《西方哲学史》:上卷[M],何兆武等译,北京:商务印书馆。
53吕敏宏,2002,“足译”与“忠实”——《红楼梦》英译本比较研究[J],《外语与外语教学》第7期,61-64页。
54马会娟,2004,译文千古事,得失寸心知——试析霍译《红楼梦》(第一卷)的风格走失[A],刘士聪主编,《红楼译评:<红楼梦>翻译研究论文集》[C],天津:南开大学出版社。
55牛红梅、彭传宇,2004,从中文亲属称谓语的英文翻译看中西方文化差异[J],《长春理工大学学报》(社会科学版)第4期,48-50页。
56.潘绍中、赫迎红,2004,谈谈汉英对译中的文化因素[J],《中国翻译》第2期,8-13页。
57钱钟书,1985,《七缀集》[M],上海:上海古籍出版社。
58裘燕萍,2003,汉英亲属称谓系统的对比研究[J],《四川外语学院学报》第3期,145-149页。
59申丹(Shen Dan).1988.Objectivity in the Translation of Narrative Fiction[J].Babel,(3),131-140.
60(荷)斯宾诺莎,1983,《伦理学》[M],北京:商务印书馆。
61(美)史密斯,1991,《中国人的性格》[M],延吉:延边大学出版社。
62(美)斯蒂文森,1997,《伦理学与语言》[M],北京:中国社会科学出版社。
63宋子燕,2004,《红楼梦》两个英译本对文化差异的处理[J],《华东交通大学学报》第3期,146-150页。
64孙致礼,2001,翻译与叛逆[J],《中国翻译》第4期,18-22页。
65田惠刚,1998,《中西人际称谓系统》[M],北京:外语教学与研究出版社。
66万俊人,2001,普世伦理与道德文化的多元视景[A],乐黛云、李比雄编,《跨文化对话6》[C],上海:上海文化出版社。
67.万俊人,2002,《现代性的伦理话语:第一编》[M],哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社。
68王静,2003,文化比较与译者的文化取向——《红楼梦》杨宪益和霍克斯英译本对比研究[J],《求索》第3期,214-216页。
69王淑梅、王娅,2001,中西伦理比较漫谈[J],《长春师范学院学报》第3期,25-27页。
70王颖,1998,掌握原文文化背景准确传递原文信息——浅析《红楼梦》两种英译本对文化内容的处理[J],《福建外语》第4期,28-32页。
71魏家海,2001,论翻译中的文化误读[J],《同济大学学报》(社会科学版)第6期,96-102页。
72魏家海,2003,解构主义与翻译文学的文化误读[J],《外国语言文学》(季刊)第3期,49-52页。
73.肖群忠,2001,《孝与中国文化》[M],北京:人民出版社。
74肖维青,2004,一家亲主义vs核心家庭制度——谈《红楼梦》人际称谓与翻译[A],刘士聪主编,《红楼译评:<红楼梦>翻译研究论文集》[C],天津:南开大学出版社。
75薛华,1998,《哈贝马斯的商谈伦理学》[M],沈阳:辽宁教育出版社。
76(古希腊)亚里士多德著,2003,《尼各马可伦理学》[M],廖申白译注,北京:商务印书馆。
77严群,2003,《亚里士多德之伦理思想》[M],北京:商务印书馆。
78姚大志,2000,《现代之后——20世纪晚期西方哲学》[M],北京:东方出版社。
79袁斌业,2003,论翻译中的改写因素[J],《广西师范大学学报》(哲学社会科学版)第4期,56-60页。
80张岱年,中西哲学比较的几个问题[A],王菊泉、郑立信编,2004,英汉语言文化对比研究:1995-2003[C],上海:上海外语教育出版社。
81章海山、张建如编著,1999,《伦理学引论》[M],北京:高等教育出版社。
82张红艳,2000,试评《红楼梦》中文化负载词的翻译[J],《安徽大学学报》(哲学社会科学版) 第4期,60-63页。
83张映先,2004,从符号学角度看《红楼梦》翻译中的文化差异[A],刘士聪主编,《红楼译评:<红楼梦>翻译研究论文集》[C],天津:南开大学出版社。
84赵海红,2003,爱欲·伦理——《罗密欧与朱丽叶》和《梁祝》之比较[J],《福建师范大学福清分校学报》第3期,36-40页。
85周中之,2004,《伦理学》[M],北京:人民出版社。
86朱军,1998,衔接恰当,译文生辉——评《红楼梦》的两种译本[J],《外语学刊》第4期,89-93页。
87左飚,2001,环性与线性:中西文化特性比较[J],《社会科学》第12期,68-72页。