译者与翻译生态环境：文学译者批评的理论探索
|
摘要
译者是翻译活动的直接实施者,文学译者的各项活动一直备受翻译批评家的关注。本文对文学译者研究进行理论探讨,研究主要围绕两个设想展开：1)生态翻译学的新探索、新发现,或者对翻译的新认识会为翻译批评及其各分支带来新的启示；2)文学译者批评实践需要相关理论指导。基于此,本文阐释和拓展了生态翻译学理论中的“译者中心论”和“翻译生态环境”等译学新观点、新概念,析取相关内容与翻译批评发展趋势和发展诉求相融合,进而在此基础上提出一个具可操作性的文学译者批评模式,为文学译者研究提供理论指导。
论文由七个章节以及导言和结语组成。导言主要阐述了整篇文章的研究动因、研究假设、研究目的和框架。第一章为文献回顾,涵盖翻译批评和生态翻译学两个领域的研究内容,为融合两方面研究以及提出文学译者批评之名作准备。本章前半部分在综述翻译批评理论建构、内部分支间相互关系等方面的研究成果之后,梳理出翻译批评研究客体、批评标准、批评原则和批评方法的多元化发展趋势。其中重点指出,译者如今已经得到翻译批评家的关注,以译者为主要批评对象的翻译批评实践在数量上仅次于以译本为主要批评对象的翻译批评实践。本章后半部分是对生态翻译学的系统介绍,分析了这种生态视角翻译研究的产生背景之后,对其主要观点和概念、理论拓展和应用尝试进行全面回顾,并进行了简要评论。鉴于生态翻译学理论自身还有待发展和完善,下面两章主要致力于生态翻译学核心概念和观点的重新阐释,从中析取对文学译者批评研究有助益的成分。
第二章聚焦生态翻译学视阈下的译者。“译者中心论”揭示了译者在翻译过程中的中心地位,是继承了以往译者研究的成果。它将译者放在翻译过程和翻译生态环境中进行考察,使译者和原作、译作一起构成翻译活动的权力三角。这个概念蕴含的是四个以译者为视点的活动机制,以拓展的、宏观的翻译过程为线对译者活动进行系统描述——“事前预防”是准备机制,“多维适应与转换”是行动机制,“整合适应选择度”是评价机制,“事后追惩”是检查机制。“译者中心论”因而被解释为一种转向译者的翻译研究视点,让我们从译者的视角切入翻译研究：各活动机制不仅描述了译者的主动选择还点明了译者的被动适应,译者活动描述更加全面。
另一方面,生态翻译学将译者素养(即翻译能力)列为翻译评价参数之一却未进行深入研究,鉴于此,本文借鉴PACTE(巴塞罗那翻译能力研究小组)通过经验与实验相结合获得的研究成果进行生态翻译学“译者中心论”引导下的翻译能力研究。研究得出翻译能力由七个子能力构成,即专业能力、双语能力、社会文化能力、交际能力、心理能力、文体能力和策略能力,这些子能力将成为文学译者批评的重要参数。本章最后讨论了“译者中心论”的启示：这个概念点明了译者的中心地位和活动机制,夯实了译者研究的合理性,并使生态翻译学成为研究文学译者批评可以借鉴的基础理论之一。
第三章细致讨论了生态翻译学的另一个核心概念——“生态翻译环境”。通过词源分析以及语义演变分析,研究进行了概念拓展,将译者纳入生态翻译环境,消除了原定义中将译者与环境割裂开的质疑,探讨了译者与翻译生态环境的从属关系：它们是部分与整体之间的关系,译者作为能动的个体与翻译生态环境之间又存在一定的互动或者相互作用。其后,文章详细梳理了翻译生态环境的构成因素,剖析了翻译生态环境的特性——一个多维、动态、进化的多因素集合体,其内涵比“语境”这一概念更加丰富。这个概念重申了整体性原则和协同进化原则,自此研究任何一个翻译因素都不能采用孤立的、静止的视角,这一点对翻译批评极具启示意义。
第四章开篇即通过译者研究、翻译家研究和译者批评这三个概念的辨析阐明了文学译者批评的实质。文学译者批评被明确界定并纳入翻译学“应用”分支目录下。接着,文章指出,文学译者批评个案数量众多,仅次于文本批评个案,然而统计数据显示,文学译者批评的理论研究却相当匮乏。再者,以译本批评为目标的各理论不能完全照搬去评价译者这个能动个体,同时,翻译批评学的构建又更加凸显出文学译者批评理论的匮乏和个案研究与理论探索之间的不对称。因此,必须进行文学译者批评的理论构建。
文章接着指出,生态翻译学在本质上是一个关注译者的理论,以译者为研究视点并提出了一系列译者活动描述机制和研究原则,因此对文学译者批评实践很有指导意义,对文学译者批评的理论构建也具有一定的借鉴意义。此外,生态翻译学提倡以整体观进行翻译研究,认为译者及其译本是不可分割的整体,并且提出了一个多维研究框架,同时奉行协同进化原则,强调翻译影响因素之间的互动与变化。生态翻译学与文学译者批评在研究视点、研究原则、研究方法等方面存在共同之处,因此我们相信融合这两个翻译研究领域,借鉴生态翻译学理论中的合理成分进行文学译者批评的理论探索和模式构建是可行的。
文学译者批评的各理论问题分两章进行研究。第五章探讨文学翻译批评的原则、方法、内容和标准,第六章讨论批评程序、译者能力评估以及文学翻译批评的重要性。文学翻译批评的原则是一个两级体系：客观性和整体性是总原则,统领了四个子原则,即阐释性原则、宏观研究原则、个体性研究原则和历时视角原则。对译者的研究必须借助于译本研究,译本批评是译者批评的基础,因此译本批评的常用方法,包括文本分析法、对比法、抽样法、定性和定量法等,在译者批评研究中同样适用,此外,文学译者批评更加注重文献分析法、交谈法和问卷调查法这些更加贴近译者的研究方法。文学译者批评的核心内容是文学译者的翻译能力,同时辅以译本批评和社会文化批评,突出整体性研究。鉴于研究内容的多样化,文学译者批评的标准应该比文本批评的标准更加开放,涵盖更多维度。
第六章建议文学译者批评分为五个步骤,由介绍译者的生平、翻译经历、翻译思想到评估其代表译作,再到评估译者翻译成就和明确译者在目标语社会文化中的地位。文章进而讨论阐释文学译者各项翻译活动和评估其翻译能力的方法与手段。此外,文章还指出,文学译者批评的先决条件必须兼顾批评者的主观素质和各项客观条件,而文学译者批评研究的重要性主要体现在连接翻译理论与译者批评实践、定位文学译者和启发翻译教学或为译者培养提供启示等三个方面。
第七章以徐迟的翻译活动为例进行个案研究。简要介绍了徐迟这位中国现代著名作家的生平之后,文章细致考察其文学生涯、翻译生涯和文学翻译等方面的思想观点,并分析其代表译作《瓦尔登湖》。基于此,文章对徐迟的翻译活动进行阐释,对其翻译能力进行评估,最终将其定位为一位在现当代中国社会文化环境中富于探索精神并卓有成就的文学译者。在新模式指导下展开的徐迟研究相对较为全面,也较为客观,既展示了徐迟的文学翻译成就也点出了其不足之处。
结语部分总结认为,本论文的主要贡献是结合生态翻译学的合理成分进行文学译者批评理论研究,具体包括：1)将“译者中心论”重释为转向译者的研究视点、拓展了翻译生态环境的范畴；2)将文学译者批评定义为对文学译者翻译活动进行分析和评价的研究活动,并将文学译者批评定位为文学翻译批评的一个分支；3)为系统的文学译者批评提供原则、方法、内容、步骤等方面的理论指导；4)以徐迟为个案进行文学译者批评研究。论文最后指出,这项尝试性研究有其重要性,但也存在一些局限,并就此领域的深入研究提出一些建议。
Translator is the practitioner of translating process and activities of literary translators have embraced an abiding concern from the translation critics. The present dissertation probes into the theoretical phase of literary translator studies based on two basic assumptions:1) eco-translatological thoughts can be employed in translation criticism; and2) cases of literary translator criticism need theoretical guidance. It endeavors to put forward a maneuverable model of literary translator criticism and provide theoretical support for literary translator studies through reinterpreting the major arguments and concepts in Eco-translatology, including mainly "translator-centeredness" and "translational eco-environment", and integrating relevant parts in them and the trends and call within translation criticism.
The dissertation consists of seven chapters, in addition to Introduction and Conclusion. Introduction explicates the motivation, hypotheses, objectives and structure of the present study. Chapter One is a literature review of the current studies in both translation criticism and Eco-translatology to prepare for the coming integration of these two fields and most importantly the identification of literary translator criticism. In the first two sections, it provides a panorama of major findings in translation criticism (hereafter abbreviated as TC). It displays firstly previous discussions on TC theoretical construction and interrelations of TC sub-branches and then presents the pluralistic trends in this field in terms of research objects, criticizing criteria, principles and methods. What has been highlighted is the fact that the translator is now one criticizing object enjoying quantitative prominence just second to the translated texts (hereafter abbreviated as TT). The latter half of this chapter is an introduction and critical review of the main arguments, developments and application attempts of Eco-translatology. Findings in this ecological approach to translation studies are displayed in a comprehensive manner and their merits and faults are illuminated in a brief way. In view that Eco-translatology itself is under investigation, the ensuing two chapters are hence dedicated to the reinterpretation of its keynote concepts and arguments concerned to extract instructions to literary translator criticism.
Chapter Two focuses on the translator in an Eco-translatological context."Translator-centeredness", a disclosure of the central role of translator in translating process, is a notion inherited and derived from translator studies. Situating the translator in translating process and translational eco-environment, it sets up a power triangle of the translator together with the source and target texts. This notion ushers in four working mechanisms centering on the translator which should be understood as a descriptive system of translator's activities along the progression of the extended translating processes-"pre-event prevention" as the preparing mechanism,"multi-dimensional adaptation and transformation" as the acting mechanism,"degree of holistic adaptation and selection" as the evaluating mechanism and lastly "post-event penalty" and "survival of the fittest" as the checking mechanism."Translator-centeredness" is consequently decoded more as a research stance of being translator-oriented and the working mechanisms provide us a more comprehensive description of translator's activities for its incorporation of both passive adaptation and active selection.
On the other hand, in view that translator qualities, i.e., translation competence, have been skated around though argued as one parameter in the evaluating mechanism in Eco-translatology, a discussion of translation competence in light of this reinterpreted "translator-centeredness" follows, based on the findings of empirical-experimental research carried out by PACTE (Process in the Acquisition of Translation Competence and Evaluation). Seven subcompetences are suggested, namely, professional, bilingual, sociocultural, communicative, psychological, stylistic and strategic subcompetences, which will constitute the major content or parameter of literary translator criticism. This chapter is concluded with the implications of "translator-centeredness"-it reinforces the rationality of translator studies and lends Eco-translatology the power of serving as a possible theoretical basis to resort to when conducting studies on literary translators, with the illumination of the central role of the translator and the working mechanisms.
In Chapter Three,"translational eco-environment", another keynote concept of Eco-translatology, is elaborated on. Based on an etymological analysis, the present dissertation expands the scope of translational eco-environment to cover the translator to clear up the detaching suspicion aroused by its original definition, and then discusses the affiliation of translator to translational eco-environment and their interaction. Then a construction analysis comes in to clarify the components of translational eco-environment and a discussion of its characteristics display its nature of being a multidimensional, dynamic and evolving complex, which distinguishes itself from the notion of "context" Holistic and coevolving principles are strengthened with this umbrella term and no factor of translation is hence to be evaluated or studied as isolated or stationary, which are highly implicative to translation criticism.
Chapter Four opens with an endeavor to cast light on the essence of literary translator criticism by differentiating between translator studies, studies of expert translators and translator criticism. Literary translator criticism is clearly defined and located into the "applied" extensions of Translation Studies. Then it is pointed out that statistics highlight, however, the scarcity of theoretical explorations into literary translator criticism in contrast to the volume of case studies on literary translators, though they rank just second in number to those of TT criticism. In addition, theories targeting at TT criticism cannot satisfy the need for evaluating a subjective translator, and moreover, the construction of the Science of Translation Criticism sheds more light on this scarcity and imbalance. There emerges hence a pressing need for the theoretical construction of literary translator criticism.
Theoretical explorations in translation criticism will resort to the findings in the "pure" side of Translation Studies. Eco-translatology cuts itself in here for its strength of being a theory of translator in essence which not only explicates a translator-oriented stance but also proposes a series of working mechanisms to describe the translation-related activities of the translator. Moreover, its argument for the inseparability of translator and his/her translations and its proposal of a multidimensional framework recommend holism and its emphasis on interactive changes illuminates its co-evolving principle. Common grounds in terms of research focus, principles and methodology between Eco-translatology and literary translator criticism are believed to ensure the fusion between these two lines within translation studies and pave the way for the ensuing theoretical explorations and model construction in literary translator criticism through reliance on rational parts in Eco-translatology.
Theoretical issues of literary translator criticism to make up the criticizing model fall into Chapters Five and Six:the former probes into the principles, methods, contents and criteria and the latter elaborates on the procedures, translation competence assessment and significance of literary translator criticism. Chapter Five begins with an argument that the principles of literary translator criticism a two-graded system:objectivity and holism are two prevailing and general principles to incorporate four sub-principles, i.e., interpretivism, macroscopic view integrated with microscopic view, diachronic perspective and emphasis on individuality. Research methods significant for literary translator criticism, besides those inherited from TT criticism, are documentation, interviews and questionnaire surveys which focus more on the translators than on the translations. What constitute the core content or parameter of literary translator criticism are the subcompetences of the translator, and criticism of the literary TTs and that of the socioculture centered on the literary translator are two supportive parameters, rendering the criticism a holistic one in its true sense. In view of the diversity of research contents, the criteria of literary translator criticism should be more open and multidimensional than those of TT criticism.
In Chapter Six, a five-step plan has been designed for guiding the case studies of literary translator criticism, moving from the introduction of the translator's life history to that of his translating experiences and thoughts, to the assessment of his/her masterpiece translation(s) and finally to the evaluation of and location of this translator in the TL socioculture. Ways and manners of interpreting the translation-related activities of the literary translator and assessing his/her translation competence have been displayed. Prerequisites of literary translator criticism have been argued to involve subjective qualities of the critics and objective conditions and the significance of literary translator criticism is mainly embodied by its bridging the theory and practice, locating literary translators and illuminating translation teaching.
Chapter Seven is a case study of Xu Chi as a literary translator. The life, educational and translating experiences of this established writer of contemporary Chinese literature are addressed, his translating activities and thoughts on literary translation and translatability are scrutinized, his Chinese translations of Walden are analyzed and compared and his literary translation competence is assessed. Xu Chi is finally labeled as a pioneering and qualified literary translator in contemporary Chinese socioculture. Under the guidance of the model newly formulated, it is a comparatively comprehensive and objective study of Xu Chi to shed light on both the achievements and defects of Xu Chi as a literary translator.
In Conclusion, the major contribution of this dissertation is generalized to be the exploration of a tentative model for literary translator criticism, including:1) interpreting "translator-centeredness" to be a translator-oriented stance and expanding the scope of translational eco-environment;2) defining literary translator criticism as the analysis and evaluation of activities of literary translators and locating literary translator criticism as a sub-branch of literary translation criticism;3) exploring the principles, methods, contents and procedures of literary translator criticism; and4) conducting a case study of Xu Chi as a literary translator. Lastly, significance and limitations of this tentative research are stated and suggestions for future research are offered.
论文由七个章节以及导言和结语组成。导言主要阐述了整篇文章的研究动因、研究假设、研究目的和框架。第一章为文献回顾,涵盖翻译批评和生态翻译学两个领域的研究内容,为融合两方面研究以及提出文学译者批评之名作准备。本章前半部分在综述翻译批评理论建构、内部分支间相互关系等方面的研究成果之后,梳理出翻译批评研究客体、批评标准、批评原则和批评方法的多元化发展趋势。其中重点指出,译者如今已经得到翻译批评家的关注,以译者为主要批评对象的翻译批评实践在数量上仅次于以译本为主要批评对象的翻译批评实践。本章后半部分是对生态翻译学的系统介绍,分析了这种生态视角翻译研究的产生背景之后,对其主要观点和概念、理论拓展和应用尝试进行全面回顾,并进行了简要评论。鉴于生态翻译学理论自身还有待发展和完善,下面两章主要致力于生态翻译学核心概念和观点的重新阐释,从中析取对文学译者批评研究有助益的成分。
第二章聚焦生态翻译学视阈下的译者。“译者中心论”揭示了译者在翻译过程中的中心地位,是继承了以往译者研究的成果。它将译者放在翻译过程和翻译生态环境中进行考察,使译者和原作、译作一起构成翻译活动的权力三角。这个概念蕴含的是四个以译者为视点的活动机制,以拓展的、宏观的翻译过程为线对译者活动进行系统描述——“事前预防”是准备机制,“多维适应与转换”是行动机制,“整合适应选择度”是评价机制,“事后追惩”是检查机制。“译者中心论”因而被解释为一种转向译者的翻译研究视点,让我们从译者的视角切入翻译研究：各活动机制不仅描述了译者的主动选择还点明了译者的被动适应,译者活动描述更加全面。
另一方面,生态翻译学将译者素养(即翻译能力)列为翻译评价参数之一却未进行深入研究,鉴于此,本文借鉴PACTE(巴塞罗那翻译能力研究小组)通过经验与实验相结合获得的研究成果进行生态翻译学“译者中心论”引导下的翻译能力研究。研究得出翻译能力由七个子能力构成,即专业能力、双语能力、社会文化能力、交际能力、心理能力、文体能力和策略能力,这些子能力将成为文学译者批评的重要参数。本章最后讨论了“译者中心论”的启示：这个概念点明了译者的中心地位和活动机制,夯实了译者研究的合理性,并使生态翻译学成为研究文学译者批评可以借鉴的基础理论之一。
第三章细致讨论了生态翻译学的另一个核心概念——“生态翻译环境”。通过词源分析以及语义演变分析,研究进行了概念拓展,将译者纳入生态翻译环境,消除了原定义中将译者与环境割裂开的质疑,探讨了译者与翻译生态环境的从属关系：它们是部分与整体之间的关系,译者作为能动的个体与翻译生态环境之间又存在一定的互动或者相互作用。其后,文章详细梳理了翻译生态环境的构成因素,剖析了翻译生态环境的特性——一个多维、动态、进化的多因素集合体,其内涵比“语境”这一概念更加丰富。这个概念重申了整体性原则和协同进化原则,自此研究任何一个翻译因素都不能采用孤立的、静止的视角,这一点对翻译批评极具启示意义。
第四章开篇即通过译者研究、翻译家研究和译者批评这三个概念的辨析阐明了文学译者批评的实质。文学译者批评被明确界定并纳入翻译学“应用”分支目录下。接着,文章指出,文学译者批评个案数量众多,仅次于文本批评个案,然而统计数据显示,文学译者批评的理论研究却相当匮乏。再者,以译本批评为目标的各理论不能完全照搬去评价译者这个能动个体,同时,翻译批评学的构建又更加凸显出文学译者批评理论的匮乏和个案研究与理论探索之间的不对称。因此,必须进行文学译者批评的理论构建。
文章接着指出,生态翻译学在本质上是一个关注译者的理论,以译者为研究视点并提出了一系列译者活动描述机制和研究原则,因此对文学译者批评实践很有指导意义,对文学译者批评的理论构建也具有一定的借鉴意义。此外,生态翻译学提倡以整体观进行翻译研究,认为译者及其译本是不可分割的整体,并且提出了一个多维研究框架,同时奉行协同进化原则,强调翻译影响因素之间的互动与变化。生态翻译学与文学译者批评在研究视点、研究原则、研究方法等方面存在共同之处,因此我们相信融合这两个翻译研究领域,借鉴生态翻译学理论中的合理成分进行文学译者批评的理论探索和模式构建是可行的。
文学译者批评的各理论问题分两章进行研究。第五章探讨文学翻译批评的原则、方法、内容和标准,第六章讨论批评程序、译者能力评估以及文学翻译批评的重要性。文学翻译批评的原则是一个两级体系：客观性和整体性是总原则,统领了四个子原则,即阐释性原则、宏观研究原则、个体性研究原则和历时视角原则。对译者的研究必须借助于译本研究,译本批评是译者批评的基础,因此译本批评的常用方法,包括文本分析法、对比法、抽样法、定性和定量法等,在译者批评研究中同样适用,此外,文学译者批评更加注重文献分析法、交谈法和问卷调查法这些更加贴近译者的研究方法。文学译者批评的核心内容是文学译者的翻译能力,同时辅以译本批评和社会文化批评,突出整体性研究。鉴于研究内容的多样化,文学译者批评的标准应该比文本批评的标准更加开放,涵盖更多维度。
第六章建议文学译者批评分为五个步骤,由介绍译者的生平、翻译经历、翻译思想到评估其代表译作,再到评估译者翻译成就和明确译者在目标语社会文化中的地位。文章进而讨论阐释文学译者各项翻译活动和评估其翻译能力的方法与手段。此外,文章还指出,文学译者批评的先决条件必须兼顾批评者的主观素质和各项客观条件,而文学译者批评研究的重要性主要体现在连接翻译理论与译者批评实践、定位文学译者和启发翻译教学或为译者培养提供启示等三个方面。
第七章以徐迟的翻译活动为例进行个案研究。简要介绍了徐迟这位中国现代著名作家的生平之后,文章细致考察其文学生涯、翻译生涯和文学翻译等方面的思想观点,并分析其代表译作《瓦尔登湖》。基于此,文章对徐迟的翻译活动进行阐释,对其翻译能力进行评估,最终将其定位为一位在现当代中国社会文化环境中富于探索精神并卓有成就的文学译者。在新模式指导下展开的徐迟研究相对较为全面,也较为客观,既展示了徐迟的文学翻译成就也点出了其不足之处。
结语部分总结认为,本论文的主要贡献是结合生态翻译学的合理成分进行文学译者批评理论研究,具体包括：1)将“译者中心论”重释为转向译者的研究视点、拓展了翻译生态环境的范畴；2)将文学译者批评定义为对文学译者翻译活动进行分析和评价的研究活动,并将文学译者批评定位为文学翻译批评的一个分支；3)为系统的文学译者批评提供原则、方法、内容、步骤等方面的理论指导；4)以徐迟为个案进行文学译者批评研究。论文最后指出,这项尝试性研究有其重要性,但也存在一些局限,并就此领域的深入研究提出一些建议。
Translator is the practitioner of translating process and activities of literary translators have embraced an abiding concern from the translation critics. The present dissertation probes into the theoretical phase of literary translator studies based on two basic assumptions:1) eco-translatological thoughts can be employed in translation criticism; and2) cases of literary translator criticism need theoretical guidance. It endeavors to put forward a maneuverable model of literary translator criticism and provide theoretical support for literary translator studies through reinterpreting the major arguments and concepts in Eco-translatology, including mainly "translator-centeredness" and "translational eco-environment", and integrating relevant parts in them and the trends and call within translation criticism.
The dissertation consists of seven chapters, in addition to Introduction and Conclusion. Introduction explicates the motivation, hypotheses, objectives and structure of the present study. Chapter One is a literature review of the current studies in both translation criticism and Eco-translatology to prepare for the coming integration of these two fields and most importantly the identification of literary translator criticism. In the first two sections, it provides a panorama of major findings in translation criticism (hereafter abbreviated as TC). It displays firstly previous discussions on TC theoretical construction and interrelations of TC sub-branches and then presents the pluralistic trends in this field in terms of research objects, criticizing criteria, principles and methods. What has been highlighted is the fact that the translator is now one criticizing object enjoying quantitative prominence just second to the translated texts (hereafter abbreviated as TT). The latter half of this chapter is an introduction and critical review of the main arguments, developments and application attempts of Eco-translatology. Findings in this ecological approach to translation studies are displayed in a comprehensive manner and their merits and faults are illuminated in a brief way. In view that Eco-translatology itself is under investigation, the ensuing two chapters are hence dedicated to the reinterpretation of its keynote concepts and arguments concerned to extract instructions to literary translator criticism.
Chapter Two focuses on the translator in an Eco-translatological context."Translator-centeredness", a disclosure of the central role of translator in translating process, is a notion inherited and derived from translator studies. Situating the translator in translating process and translational eco-environment, it sets up a power triangle of the translator together with the source and target texts. This notion ushers in four working mechanisms centering on the translator which should be understood as a descriptive system of translator's activities along the progression of the extended translating processes-"pre-event prevention" as the preparing mechanism,"multi-dimensional adaptation and transformation" as the acting mechanism,"degree of holistic adaptation and selection" as the evaluating mechanism and lastly "post-event penalty" and "survival of the fittest" as the checking mechanism."Translator-centeredness" is consequently decoded more as a research stance of being translator-oriented and the working mechanisms provide us a more comprehensive description of translator's activities for its incorporation of both passive adaptation and active selection.
On the other hand, in view that translator qualities, i.e., translation competence, have been skated around though argued as one parameter in the evaluating mechanism in Eco-translatology, a discussion of translation competence in light of this reinterpreted "translator-centeredness" follows, based on the findings of empirical-experimental research carried out by PACTE (Process in the Acquisition of Translation Competence and Evaluation). Seven subcompetences are suggested, namely, professional, bilingual, sociocultural, communicative, psychological, stylistic and strategic subcompetences, which will constitute the major content or parameter of literary translator criticism. This chapter is concluded with the implications of "translator-centeredness"-it reinforces the rationality of translator studies and lends Eco-translatology the power of serving as a possible theoretical basis to resort to when conducting studies on literary translators, with the illumination of the central role of the translator and the working mechanisms.
In Chapter Three,"translational eco-environment", another keynote concept of Eco-translatology, is elaborated on. Based on an etymological analysis, the present dissertation expands the scope of translational eco-environment to cover the translator to clear up the detaching suspicion aroused by its original definition, and then discusses the affiliation of translator to translational eco-environment and their interaction. Then a construction analysis comes in to clarify the components of translational eco-environment and a discussion of its characteristics display its nature of being a multidimensional, dynamic and evolving complex, which distinguishes itself from the notion of "context" Holistic and coevolving principles are strengthened with this umbrella term and no factor of translation is hence to be evaluated or studied as isolated or stationary, which are highly implicative to translation criticism.
Chapter Four opens with an endeavor to cast light on the essence of literary translator criticism by differentiating between translator studies, studies of expert translators and translator criticism. Literary translator criticism is clearly defined and located into the "applied" extensions of Translation Studies. Then it is pointed out that statistics highlight, however, the scarcity of theoretical explorations into literary translator criticism in contrast to the volume of case studies on literary translators, though they rank just second in number to those of TT criticism. In addition, theories targeting at TT criticism cannot satisfy the need for evaluating a subjective translator, and moreover, the construction of the Science of Translation Criticism sheds more light on this scarcity and imbalance. There emerges hence a pressing need for the theoretical construction of literary translator criticism.
Theoretical explorations in translation criticism will resort to the findings in the "pure" side of Translation Studies. Eco-translatology cuts itself in here for its strength of being a theory of translator in essence which not only explicates a translator-oriented stance but also proposes a series of working mechanisms to describe the translation-related activities of the translator. Moreover, its argument for the inseparability of translator and his/her translations and its proposal of a multidimensional framework recommend holism and its emphasis on interactive changes illuminates its co-evolving principle. Common grounds in terms of research focus, principles and methodology between Eco-translatology and literary translator criticism are believed to ensure the fusion between these two lines within translation studies and pave the way for the ensuing theoretical explorations and model construction in literary translator criticism through reliance on rational parts in Eco-translatology.
Theoretical issues of literary translator criticism to make up the criticizing model fall into Chapters Five and Six:the former probes into the principles, methods, contents and criteria and the latter elaborates on the procedures, translation competence assessment and significance of literary translator criticism. Chapter Five begins with an argument that the principles of literary translator criticism a two-graded system:objectivity and holism are two prevailing and general principles to incorporate four sub-principles, i.e., interpretivism, macroscopic view integrated with microscopic view, diachronic perspective and emphasis on individuality. Research methods significant for literary translator criticism, besides those inherited from TT criticism, are documentation, interviews and questionnaire surveys which focus more on the translators than on the translations. What constitute the core content or parameter of literary translator criticism are the subcompetences of the translator, and criticism of the literary TTs and that of the socioculture centered on the literary translator are two supportive parameters, rendering the criticism a holistic one in its true sense. In view of the diversity of research contents, the criteria of literary translator criticism should be more open and multidimensional than those of TT criticism.
In Chapter Six, a five-step plan has been designed for guiding the case studies of literary translator criticism, moving from the introduction of the translator's life history to that of his translating experiences and thoughts, to the assessment of his/her masterpiece translation(s) and finally to the evaluation of and location of this translator in the TL socioculture. Ways and manners of interpreting the translation-related activities of the literary translator and assessing his/her translation competence have been displayed. Prerequisites of literary translator criticism have been argued to involve subjective qualities of the critics and objective conditions and the significance of literary translator criticism is mainly embodied by its bridging the theory and practice, locating literary translators and illuminating translation teaching.
Chapter Seven is a case study of Xu Chi as a literary translator. The life, educational and translating experiences of this established writer of contemporary Chinese literature are addressed, his translating activities and thoughts on literary translation and translatability are scrutinized, his Chinese translations of Walden are analyzed and compared and his literary translation competence is assessed. Xu Chi is finally labeled as a pioneering and qualified literary translator in contemporary Chinese socioculture. Under the guidance of the model newly formulated, it is a comparatively comprehensive and objective study of Xu Chi to shed light on both the achievements and defects of Xu Chi as a literary translator.
In Conclusion, the major contribution of this dissertation is generalized to be the exploration of a tentative model for literary translator criticism, including:1) interpreting "translator-centeredness" to be a translator-oriented stance and expanding the scope of translational eco-environment;2) defining literary translator criticism as the analysis and evaluation of activities of literary translators and locating literary translator criticism as a sub-branch of literary translation criticism;3) exploring the principles, methods, contents and procedures of literary translator criticism; and4) conducting a case study of Xu Chi as a literary translator. Lastly, significance and limitations of this tentative research are stated and suggestions for future research are offered.
引文
Baker, M. (2000). In Other Words:A Course-book on Translation. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. — (2000). Towards a Methodology for Investigation the Style of a Literary Translator. Target,12 (2):241-266. ———(2004). Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Bassnett, S.& A. Lefevere. (2001). Constructing Cultures:Essays on Literary Translation. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. ——(2004). Translation Studies (3rd edition). Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Bassnett, S.& P. Bush. (2006). The Translator as Writer. London & New York: Continuum.
Bate, J. (2000). The Song of the Earth. Cambridge MA:Harvard University Press.
Bayer-Hohenwarter, G. (2009). Translation Creativity:How to Measure the Unmeasurable. In Gopferich, S., Jakobsen, L. A. and I. M. Mees (eds.), Behind the Mind:Methods, Models and Results in Translation Process Research (pp.39-60). Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.
Baym, N. (1965). Thoreau's View of Science. Journal of the History of Ideas,26(2): 221-234.
Berleant, A. (1992). The Aesthetics to Environment. Philadelphia:Temple University Press. ———(1997). Living in the Landscape:Towards an Aesthetics of Environment. Lawrence:University Press of Kansas.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Nice, R. (tr.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Campbell, S. (1997). Translation into the Second Language. London & New York: Longman.
Catford, J. (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation:An Essay in Applied Linguistics. Oxford & London:Oxford University Press.
Chan, L. T. (2000). Colonization, Resistance and the Uses of Postcolonial Translation Theory in 20th-Century China. In Simon, S.& P., St-Pierre (eds.), Changing the Terms:Translating in the Postcolonial Era (pp.53-70). Ottawa:University of Ottawa Press.
Chesterman, A. (2000). Teaching Strategies for Emancipatory Translation. In Shaffner, C. and B. Adab (eds.), Developing Translation Competence (pp.77-90). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cronin, M. Translation and Globalization. London & New York:Routledge,2003.
Duarte, J., Rosa, A.& Seruya, T. (2006). Translation Studies at the Interface of Disciplines. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Even-Zohar, I. (2000). The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem. In L. Venuti (ed.), The Translation Studies Reader (pp.199-204). London:Routledge.
Garrard, G. (2004). Ecocriticism. London & New York:Routledge.
Gentzler, E. (2004). Contemporary Translation Theories. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Gopferich, S. (2009). Towards a Model of Translation Competence and Its Acquisition: The Longitudinal Study TransComp. In Gopferich, S., Jakobsen, L. A. and I. M. Mees (eds.), Behind the Mind:Methods, Models and Results in Translation Process Research (pp.11-38). Frederiksberg:Samfundslitteratur.
Gopferich, S.& R. Jaaskelainen. (2009). Process Research into the Development of Translation Competence:Where are We, and Where Do We Need to Go? Across Languages and Cultures,10(2):169-191.
Hatim, B.& I. Mason. (2001). Discourse and the Translator, Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Hermans, T. (ed.). (1985). The Manipulation of Literature:Studies in Literary Translation. Worcester:Billing and Sons Limited. ——(1999). Translation in Systems:Descriptive and System-oriented Approaches Explained. Manchester:St. Jerome.
Holmes, J. S. (2007). Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
House, J. (1997). Translation Quality Assessment:A Model Revisited. Tubingen:Narr.
Hu, Gengshen. (2001). Preliminary Study to Translation as Adaptation and Selection. Third Asian Translators'Forum, Hong Kong. ——(2003). Translation as Adaptation and Selection. Perspectives:Studies in Translatology,11(4):183-192. ——(2004a). Translator-centeredness. Perspectives:Studies in Translatology,12(2): 106-117.
Kaiser-Cooke, M. (2004). The Missing Link:Evolution, Reality and the Translation Paradigm. Frankfurt:Peter Lang.
Kamenicka, R. (2008). Explicitation Profile and Translator Style. In A, Pym & A, Perekrestenko (eds.), Translation Research Projects I (pp.117-130). Tarragona: Intercultural Studies Group.
Kenny, D. (1998). Creatures of Habit? What Translators Usually Do with Words. Meta, 43(4):515-523. ——(2001). Lexis and Creativity in Translation. Manchester:St. Jerome.
Kuhiwczak, P.& K. Littau (eds.). (2007). A Companion to Translation Studies. Clevedon, Buffalo/Toronto:Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Lambert, J. R.& H. van Gorp. (1985). On Describing Translations. In T. Hermans (ed.) The Manipulation of Literature:Studies in Literary Translation (pp.42-53), Beckenham:Croom Helm.
Lefevere, A. (2004a). Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. ———(2004b). Translation/History/Culture:A Sourcebook. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Lesznyak, M. (2007). Conceptualizing Translation Competence. Across Languages and Cultures,8(2):167-194.
Liu, Zhimo.& Zhang, Yafei. (1989). Stylistic Equivalence in Translation. Foreign Languages Research.21(3):38-46.
Loffredo, E.& M., Perteghella (eds.). (2006). Translation and Creativity:Perspectives on Creative Writing and Translation Studies. London:Continuum.
Merkle, D. (2008). Translation Constraints and the Sociological Turn in Literary Translation Studies. In A. Pym, M. Shlesinger & D. Simeoni (eds.). Beyond descriptive translation studies (pp.175-186). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Milton, J.& P., Bandia. (2009). Agents of Translation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:St. Jerome Publishing Company.
Munday, J. (1998). A Computer-assisted Approach to the Analysis of Translation Shifts. Meta,43 (4):542-556. ——(2001). Introducing Translation Studies. London/New York:Routledge.
Myerson, J. (ed.). (2000). Henry David Thoreau. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Newmark, P. (2001a). Approaches to Translation. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. ——(2001b). A Textbook of Translation. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Nida, E. A. (1964). Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden:E. J. Brill. ——(2001). Language and Culture:Contexts in Translating. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Nord, C. (1997). A Functional Typology of Translations. In Trosborg, A. (ed.), Text Typology and Translation (pp.43-66). Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company. ———(2001). Translating as a Purposeful Activity:Functionalist Approaches Explained. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
PACTE. (2003). Building a Translation Competence Model. In F. Alves (ed.) Triangulating Translation:Perspectives in Process Oriented Research (pp.43-66). Amsterdam:John Benjamins. ——(2005). Investigating translation competence:Conceptual and methodological issues. Meta,50 (2):609-619. ——(2009). Results of the Validation of the PACTE Translation Competence Model: Acceptability and Decision-making. Across Language and Culture,10 (2):207-230.
Pearsall, J. et al. (eds.) (2007). The New Oxford English-Chiese Dictionary. NOECD Translating and Publishing Committee (tr.), Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Puurtinen, T. (1994). Dynamic style as a parameter of acceptability in translated children's books. In M. Snell-Hornby, et al. (eds.), Translation studies:an interdiscipline (83-90). Amsterdam, Philadelphia:John benjamins. ———(2003). Genre-specific Features of Translationese? Linguistic Differences between Translated and Non-translated Finnish Children's Literature. Literary and Linguistic Computing,18 (4):389-406.
Pym, A. (1998). Method in Translation History. Manchester:St. Jerome Publishers.
Reiss, K. (2004). Translation Criticism:The Potentials and Limitations. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Robinson, D. (2001). Who Translates?-Translator Subjectivities Beyond Reason. New York:State University of New York Press. ——(2006a). The Translator's Turn. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. ——(2006b). Western Translation Theory:from Herodotus to Nietzsche. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Rose, G. M. (2007). Translation and Literary Criticism:Translation as Analysis. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Schaffner, C.& B. Adab (eds.). (2000). Developing Translation Competence. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sela-Sheffy, R.& M. Shlesinger. (2008). Strategies of Image-making and Status Advancement of Translators and Interpreters as a Marginal Occupational Group:A Research Project in Progress. In P. Anthony, et al. (eds.). Beyond Descriptive Translation Studies (pp.9-90.). Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Shuttleworth, M.& Cowie, M. (2004). Dictionary of Translation Studies. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Snell-Hornby, M. (2001). Translation Studies:An Integrated Approach. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. ——(2006). The Turns of Translation Studies:New paradigms or shifting viewpoints? Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Steiner, G. (2001). After Babel. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Thoreau, H. D. (1971). Walden. Princeton/New Jersey:Princeton University Press.
Toury, G. (1980). In Search of a Theory of Translation. Tel Aviv:The Porter Institute for Poetics and semiotics. ——(2001). Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Trosborg, A (ed.). (1997). Text Typology and Translation. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Tsai, F. (1995). Europeanized Structure in English-Chinese Translation. In Sin-wai Chan & David E. Pollard (eds.), An Encyclopedia of Translation (pp.242-248). Hongkong: The Chinese University Press.
Tymoczko, M. (2007). Enlarging Translation, Empowering Translator. Manchester:St. Jerome.
Varantola, K. (2003). Translators and Disposable Corpora. In F. Zanettin, S. Bernardini.& D. Stewart (eds.). Corpora in Translator Education (pp.55-70). Manchester:St. Jerome Publishing.
Venuti, L (ed.). (2000). The Translation Studies Reader. London and New York: Routledge. ———(2004). The Translator's Invisibility:A History of Translation. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Vermeer, H. J. (1996). A Skopos Theory of Translation:Some Arguments For and Against. Heidelberg:TEXTconTEXT-Verlag.
Wilss, W. (2001). The Science of Translation:Problems and Methods. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Worster, D. (1994). Nature's Economy:A History of Ecological Ideas (2nd edition). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
薄振杰、孙迎春、赵巍(2008),关于当代中国翻译批评研究的思考。《外语教学》,(3),72-76。
蔡登山(2011,8.8),徐迟的浪漫恋曲,《济南时报》
蔡新乐(2006),《翻译适应选择论》简评。《中国科技翻译》,(1),58-59。
陈大亮(2004),谁是翻译主体。《中国翻译》,(2),3-7。——(2005),翻译研究：从主体性向主体间性转向。《中国翻译》,(2),3-9。
陈福康(2000),《中国译学理论史稿》,上海：上海外语教育出版社。
陈红、胡清平(2007),“翻译适应选择论”在词语层面的左证。胡庚申(主编), 《翻译与跨文化交流：转向与拓展》(pp.169-174)。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
陈红(2009),E-时代词语的翻译：适应和选择,《解放军外国语学院学报》,(2),71-74。
陈鸣(2009),翻译批评也应“宽容”,《外语与外语教学》,(1),54-56。
陈玉刚(1989),中国翻译文学史稿。北京：中国对外翻译出版公司。
大卫·梭罗著(2005),《湖滨散记》,曾光辉编译,北京：中国书籍出版社。
戴志霍(2007),“文化环境与译者翻译策略的选择”,上海外国语大学。
邓伟志(2009),《永远的徐迟》,上海：上海远东出版社。
恩斯·哈格斯(2011),生态翻译学R & D报告：十年研究十大进展。《上海翻译》,(4),1-6。
范东生(2000),翻译的本质与翻译批评的根本性任务。《中国翻译》,(4),31-35。
方华文(2005),《20世纪中国翻译史》,西安：西北工业大学出版社。
方梦之(2004),《译学辞典》,上海：上海外语教育出版社。——(2011),论生态翻译环境。《上海翻译》,(1),1-5。
冯庆华(2002),《文体翻译论》,上海：上海外语教育出版社。
冯亦代(2009),一颗明星的陨落——哭徐迟。邓伟志(主编),《永远的徐迟》(pp.1-15),上海：上海远东出版社。
傅敬民(1997),论译者的个性问题。《上海科技翻译》,(4),3-5。
葛校琴(2006),《后现代语境下的译者主体性研究》,上海：上海译文出版社。
辜正坤(2006),《译学津原》,郑州：郑州文心出版社。
古远清(2006),徐迟与现代派。《外国文学研究》,(4),152-159。
桂乾元(1991),论翻译等值。《外国语》,(3),47-52,60。
郭著章(1999),《翻译名家研究》,武汉：湖北教育出版社。
韩子满(2002),文学翻译与杂合。《中国翻译》,(2),54-58。
亨利·大卫·梭罗著(1982),《瓦尔登湖》,徐迟译,上海：上海译文出版社。——著(1997),《瓦尔登湖》,徐迟译,长春：吉林人民出版社。——著(2006),《瓦尔登湖》,徐迟译,上海：上海译文出版社。
胡德香、熊秋香(2004),文化翻译批评初探。《语言与翻译(汉文)》,(4),52-56。
胡德香(2004),文化语境下的翻译批评：现状与反思。《解放军外国语学院学报》,(6),59-63。
胡庚申(2004b),《翻译适应选择论》,武汉：湖北教育出版社。
胡庚申(2004c),从“译者主体”到“译者中心”。《中国翻译》,(3),10-16。——(2008a),从术语看译论——翻译适应选择论概观。《上海翻译》,(2),1-5。——(2008b),生态翻译学解读。《中国翻译》,(6),11-15。——(2009a),傅雷翻译思想的生态翻译学诠释。《外国语》,(2),47-53。——(2009b),生态翻译学：译学研究的“跨学科整合”。《上海翻译》,(2),3-8。——(2011),关于“译者中心”问题的回应。《上海翻译》,(4),7-9。
胡牧(2006),翻译研究：一个社会学视角。《外语与外语教学》,(9),48-52。
胡壮麟、姜望琪(2002),《语言学高级教程》,北京：北京大学出版社。
黄国文(2006),《翻译研究的语言学探索——古诗词英译本的语言学分析》,上海：上海外语教育出版社。
黄梅花、胡庚申(2007),口译生态环境与译员的多维适应/选择。《澳门理工学报》(3),106-115。
黄琼英(2002),近十年来的翻译批评。《山东外语教学》,(4),69-72。
黄忠廉(2009),适应与选择：严复翻译思想探源。《上海翻译》,(4),7-10。
黄宗英(2009),徐迟绝响。邓伟志(主编),《永远的徐迟》(pp.31-34),上海：上海远东出版社。
姜秋霞、刘全国(2005),翻译文学与社会文化的关系：20世纪初与20世纪末我国翻译文学主题和来源的调查与分析。《外语教学与研究》,(1),67-72。
姜秋霞(2009),《文学翻译与社会文化的相互作用关系》,北京：外语教学与研究 出版社。
姜治文、文军(1999),《翻译批评论》,重庆：重庆大学出版社。
蒋骁华(2009),译者的选择性适应与适应性选择——评《牡丹亭》的三个译本。《上海翻译》,(4),11-15。
蒋骁华、宋志平、孟凡君(2011),生态翻译学理论的新探索——首届国际生态翻译学研讨会综述。《中国翻译》,(1),34-36。
蒋竹怡等(2007),《从生态视角看梭罗——重读<瓦尔登湖>》,北京：中国商务出版社。
焦卫红(2007),严复“信达雅”新解——以《天演论》汉译为例。《澳门理工学报》(2),111-120。
焦卫红、胡庚申(2008),“好了歌”的两个英译文比较。《澳门理工学报》,(2),124-131。
焦飚(2006),从“翻译适应选择论”看严复《天演论》的翻译。《成都教育学院学报》,(12),157-160。
孔慧怡(1999),《翻译文学文化》,北京：北京大学出版社。
赖德富(2010),翻译适应选择论视域下谈忠实性的限度。《温州大学学报(自然科学版)》,(2),51-56。
蓝红军、穆雷(2010),2009中国翻译研究综述。《上海翻译》,(3),21-26。
冷育宏(2011),生态翻译理论下译者真的是“中心”吗?——与胡庚申教授商榷。《上海翻译》,(3),71-73。
李德伦等(2009),音乐家徐迟。邓伟志(主编),《永远的徐迟》(pp.120-124),上海：上海远东出版社。
李静滞(2001),翻译批评：宏观与微观的统一。《外语学刊》,(2),90-93。
李钧学(2009),闪光的侧影——忆Uncle Andante。邓伟志(主编),《永远的徐迟》(pp.205-213),上海：上海远东出版社。
李文俊(1992),也谈文学翻译批评。《中国翻译》,(2),11-12,20。
李欣(2001),“翻译研究”各流派的阐释与梳理——介绍Theo Hermans翻译研究的系统论视角。《外语教学与研究》,(2),153-156。
李亚舒、黄忠廉(2005),《别开生面的理论构建——读胡庚申<翻译适应选择论)》《外语教学》,(6),95-96。
李毅(1984),对《瓦尔登湖》中译本的几点建议。《外国语》,(6),60-61。
廖七一(2000),《当代西方翻译理论探索》,南京：译林出版社。
林煌天(1997),《中国翻译词典》,武汉：湖北教育出版社。
林克难(1996),翻译批评不妨换个角度。《福建外语》,(2),45-47。
刘爱华(2011),徐迟：绝顶灵芝、空谷幽兰——生态翻译学视角下的翻译家研究。《中国外语》,(4)：95-100。——(2011),生态翻译学之“生态环境”探析。《东疆学刊》,(4),104-108。
刘嫦、赵友斌(2009),功能翻译理论给文学翻译批评的启示。《外语学刊》,(2),108-111。
刘宓庆(1999),《文化翻译论纲》,武汉：湖北教育出版社。——(2005a),《翻译美学导论》,北京：中国对外翻译出版公司。——(2005b),《新编当代翻译理论》,北京：中国对外翻译出版公司。
刘雅峰(2008),译有所为,译者何为?——文化全球化背景下外宣翻译及其译者研究。《山西师大学报(社会科学版)》,(3),140-142。——(2009),“译者的适应与选择：外宣翻译过程研究”,上海外国语大学。
刘艳芳(2009),从翻译适应选择论看新闻报道中隐喻习语的翻译。《上海翻译》,(4),16-20。
刘云虹、许钧(2004),一部具有探索精神的译学新著——《翻译适应选择论》评析。《中国翻译》,(6),40-43。
罗选民(2003),《外国文学翻译在中国》,合肥：安徽文艺出版社。
吕俊(2002),文学翻译：一种特殊的交往形式——交往行为理论的文学翻译观。《解放军外国语学院学报》,(1),63-66。——(2007),翻译标准的多元性与评价的客观性——价值学视域下翻译批评标准问题探讨。《外国语》,(2),67-73。
吕俊、侯向群(2006),《翻译学——一个建构主义的视角》,上海：上海外语教育出版社。——(2009),《翻译批评学引论》,上海：上海外语教育出版社
马晓冬(1999),《茶花女》汉译本的历时研究。《外语教学与研究》,(3),55-60。
孟凡君(2009),后现代之后的翻译研究新转向略论。胡庚申(主编),《翻译与跨文化：整合与创新》(pp.48-54),上海：上海外语教育出版社。
孟昭毅、李载道(2005),《中国翻译文学史》,北京：北京大学出版社。
穆雷、诗怡(2003),翻译主体的“发现”与研究——兼评中国翻译家研究。《中国翻译》,(1),12-18。
潘文国(2002),当代西方的翻译学研究——兼谈“翻译学”的学科性问题。《中国翻译》,(3),18-22。
萨克文·佰科维奇(主编)(2008),《剑桥美国文学史(第二卷)：散文作品(1820年-1865年)》,史志康等译,北京：中央编译出版社。
桑哲(2007),1949年后汉语词汇的规范化。《淮北职业技术学院学报》,(11),21-23。
邵志洪(2005),《汉英对比翻译导论》,上海：华东理工大学出版社。
沈求我(2009),忆徐迟。邓伟志(主编),《永远的徐迟》(pp.176-178),上海：上海远东出版社。
束慧娟(2010),生态翻译学视角下的公示语翻译——以上海世博会主题标语为例》,上海翻译,(2),39-42。
思果(2002),《译道探微》,北京：中国对外翻译出版公司。
司显柱(2007),论文学翻译批评研究。《江西社会科学》,(1),91-94。——(2008),翻译语篇质量评估模式再研究——功能语言学路向》。中国翻译，(2),57-60。
宋志平(2004),翻译：选择与顺应。《中国翻译》,(2),19-23。——(2007),《翻译适应选择论》——一部简约创新之作。《外语研究》,(5),105-106。
苏艳(2009),神话-原型批评视阈中的文学翻译批评研究。《外语学刊》,(2),104-107。
孙艺风(2003),翻译规范与主体意识。《中国翻译》,(3),3-9。——(2010),翻译学的何去何从。《中国翻译》,(2),5-10。
孙迎春主编(1999),《译学大词典》,北京：中国世界语出版社。——(2004),《张谷若翻译艺术研究》,北京：中国对外翻译出版公司。——(2009),《张谷若与“适应”、“选择”。《上海翻译》,(4),1-6。
孙致礼(1996),《1949—1966：中国英美文学翻译概论》,南京：译林出版社
谭载喜(2000),《翻译学》,武汉：湖北教育出版社。
汤俊霞(2009),徐一冰体育思想研究。《山西师大体育学院学报》,(S2),47-48。
仝亚辉(2010),PACTE翻译能力模式研究。《解放军外国语学院学报》,(5),88-93。
屠国元、李志奇(2007),论译者的思维结构。《中国翻译》,(5),16-21。
屠国元、朱献珑(2003),译者主体性：阐释学的阐释。《中国翻译》,(6)：8-14。
王秉钦(2004),《20世纪中国翻译思想史》,天津：南开大学出版社。
王东风(2007),功能语言学与后解构时代的翻译研究。《中国翻译》,(3),6-9。
王凤伯(1985),徐迟小传.王凤伯。孙露茜(主编),《徐迟研究专集》(pp.1-5),杭州：浙江文艺出版社。
王凤伯、孙露茜(主编)(1985),《徐迟研究专集》,杭州：浙江文艺出版社。
王宏(2011),生态翻译学核心理念考辨。《上海翻译》,(4),10-11。
王宏印(2003),《中国传统译论经典诠释——从道安到傅雷》,武汉：湖北教育出版社。——(2004),试论文学翻译批评的背景变量。《中国翻译》,(2),36-39。——(2006),《文学翻译批评论稿》,上海：上海外语教育出版社。——(2009),《文学翻译批评概论》,北京：中国人民大学出版社。
王建开(2003),《五四以来我国英美文学作品译介史：1919-1949》》,上海：上海外语教育出版社。
王克非(1994),论翻译文化史研究。《外语教学与研究》,(4),57-61。
王克非、胡显耀(2010),汉语翻译小说人称代词的外显化和变异。《中国外语》,(4),16-21。
王力(1943),《中国现代语法》,上海：商务印书馆。
王宁(2011),生态文学与生态翻译学：解构与建构。《中国翻译》,(2),10-15。
王诺(2008),《欧美生态批评——生态文学研究概论》,上海,学林出版社。
王平(2006),《文学翻译批评学》,杭州：杭州出版社。
王树槐、王若维(2008),翻译能力的构成因素和发展层次研究。《外语研究》,(5),80-88。
王晓元(1994),漫谈文学翻译批评。《外国语》,(2),19-21。
温秀颖(2007),《翻译批评——从理论到实践》,天津：南开大学出版社。
文军(2000),翻译批评：分类、作用、过程及标准。《重庆大学学报(社会科学版)》,(1),65-68。——(2001),论翻译批评的体系性——兼评两部翻译批评新著。《翻译季刊》,(20),77-90。
文军、刘萍(2006),中国翻译批评五十年——回顾与展望。《甘肃社会科学》, (2),38-43。
文月娥(2010),异化与归化关系新论：翻译适应选择论视角下的解读。《重庆交通大学学报》,(3),122-124。
武光军(2008),翻译研究新范式：进化论范式——《缺失的一环：进化,现实及翻译范式》述评。《外语研究》,(3),106-108。
吴义诚(2001),论翻译研究的科学范式。《外国语》,(5),55-60。
吴远庆、李洁平(2006),从《南中的猫》的翻译看译者的角色——基于“翻译适应选择论”。《安徽师范大学学报(人文社科版)》,(6),722-725。
夏元(2005),价值冲突中的《圣经》翻译——明末清初耶稣会传教士的翻译策略和关键译名选择。《中国翻译》,(1),51-55。
肖维青(2005),.自建语料库与翻译批评。《外语研究》,(4),60-65。——(2010),《翻译批评模式探索》,上海：上海外语教育出版社。
谢天振(1992),论文学翻译的创造性叛逆。《外国语》,(1),31-37。——(2007),《译介学导论》,北京：北京大学出版社。
邢杰(2007),译哲“思维习惯”——描述翻译学研究新视角。《中国翻译》,(5),10-15。
熊兵(2008),追寻翻译研究的发展轨迹——《翻译研究转向：新的范式或观念变革?》评介。《中国科技翻译》,(4),57-61。
徐迟(1943),美国诗歌的传统。《中原》,(1),25-26。——(1946),关于美国文学。《文联》,(3),19。——(1978),吸收外国文艺精华总和。《外国文学研究》,(1),1-2。——(1979),外国文学之于我(一)。《外国文学研究》,(1),88-90。——(1980),外国文学之于我(二)。《外国文学研究》,(3),72-77。——(1982a),《法国——一个春天的旅行》,上海：上海文艺出版社。——(1982b),现代化与现代派。《外国文学研究》,(1),115-117。——(1985),关于文艺写作的几个问题。王凤伯、孙露茜(主编),《徐迟研究专集》(pp.256-262),杭州：浙江文艺出版社。——(2007),《我的文学生涯》,天津：百花文艺出版社。
许建忠(2009),《翻译生态学》,北京：中国三峡出版社。
许钧(1992),《文学翻译批评研究》,南京：译林出版社。——(2003a),创造性叛逆和翻译主体性的确立。《中国翻译》,(1),6-11。——(2003b),翻译的主体间性与视界融合。《外语教学与研究》,(4),290-295。——(2003c),《翻泽论》,武汉：湖北教育出版社。
许 钧、穆甭(2009),中国翻译学研究30年(1978-2007)。《外国语》,(1),77-87。
徐鲁(1995),《瓦尔登湖》的魅力——徐迟和他的译著。《中国图书评论》,(5),42-43。——(1998),坎坷译路——徐迟的文学翻译生涯。《中国作家》,(1),104-113。——(2009),徐迟：绝顶上的灵芝。长江日报报业集团,http://cjmp.cnhan.com/ cjrb/html/2007-08/20/content 66172.html.
许伟(2006),平行语料库在翻译批评中的应用。《外语研究》,(2),54-59。
杨武能(1993),尴尬与自如傲慢与自卑——文学翻译家心理人格漫谈。《中国翻译》,(2),3-7。——(2003),再谈文学翻译主体。《中国翻译》,(3),10-12。
杨晓荣(1999),二元对立与第三种状态——对翻译标准问题的哲学思考。《外国语》,(3),57-62。——(2001),翻译批评标准的传统思路和现代视野。《中国翻译》,(6),11-15。——(2005),《翻译批评导论》,北京：中国对外翻译出版公司。
杨志红、王克非(2010),翻译能力及其研究。《外语教学》,(6),91-95。
姚君伟(2005),徐迟与美国文学在中国的译介。《外国文学研究》,(4),145-149。
姚振军(2009),描述翻译学视野中的翻译批评。《外语与外语教学》,(10),61-64。
叶嘉新(2006),徐迟译品处女集——《明天》。《出版史料》,(1),61-63。
于连江(2005),“多维视角下的文学翻译批评研究”,上海外国语大学。
喻云根(1996),《英美名著翻译比较》,武汉：湖北教育出版社。
袁锦翔(2002),《名家翻译研究与赏析》,武汉：湖北教育出版社。
袁莉(2002),关于翻译主体研究的构想。张柏然、许钧(主编),《面向二十一世纪的译学研究》(pp.397-409),北京：商务印书馆。——(2003),文学翻译主体的诠释学研究构想。《解放军外国语学院学报》,(3),74-78。
查明建、田雨(2003),论译者主体性——从译者文化地位的边缘化谈起。《中国翻译》,(1),19-24。
查明建、谢天振(2007),《中国20世纪外国文学翻译史》,武汉：湖北教育出版社。
翟红梅、张德让(2009),翻译适应选择论与林语堂英译《浮生六记》。《外语学刊》,(2),112-114。
张从益(2009),和合学途经的翻译研究。《外语学刊》,(3),94-96。
张建惠(2006),从选择与适应看英译汉的异质引进。《鲁东大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,(2),115-118。
张美芳(2002),利用语料库调查译者的文体——贝克研究新法评介。《解放军外国语学院学报》,(3),54-57。——(2006),重新审视现代语言学理论在翻译研究中的作用。《中国翻译》,(3),31-35。
张群星(2010),对“翻译适应选择论”的几点思考。《甘肃联合大学学报(社会科学版)》,(6),86-89。
张泽贤(2009),《中国近现代文学翻译版本闻见录(1934-1949)》,上海：上海远东出版社。
赵红(2007),《文本的多维视角分析与文学翻译》,上海：复旦大学出版社
赵家璧(1984),《编辑忆旧》,北京：三联书店。
赵军峰(2006),论翻译家研究的理论模式。《西安外国语学院学报》,(4),40-42。——(2007),翻译家研究的纵观性视角：梁实秋翻译活动个案研究。《中国翻译》,(2),28-32。
赵英(2008),从生态思想的角度看徐迟对《瓦尔登湖》的误译。《南京师范大学文学院学报》,(4),19-24。
赵勇(2010),“深度翻译”与意义阐释：以梭罗《瓦尔登湖》的典故翻译为例。《外语与外语教学》,(2),77-81。
赵志华(2011),“生存心态”：译者主体性研究的理据。《外语与外语教学》,(2),79-82。
郑海凌(2000),谈翻译批评的基本理论问题。《中国翻译》,(2),19-22。
郑贞、孙会军(2006),也谈翻译研究方法论——兼评胡庚申教授的《翻译适应选择论》。冯奇等(主编),《外语教学与文化》(pp.463-470),北京：外文出版社。
周仪、罗平(1999),《翻译与批评》,武汉：湖北教育出版社。
邾立志(1994),梭罗——一个超然独立的哲学家。《解放军外语学院学报》,(1),57-62。
朱月娥(2010),翻译主体生态系统中的译者主体性。《中国科技翻译》,(1),55-58。
庄和诚(1998),《英语词源趣谈》,上海：上海外语教育出版社。
祖利军(2007),全球化背景下的生态翻译。《中国外语》,(6),89-92。
Bassnett, S.& A. Lefevere. (2001). Constructing Cultures:Essays on Literary Translation. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. ——(2004). Translation Studies (3rd edition). Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Bassnett, S.& P. Bush. (2006). The Translator as Writer. London & New York: Continuum.
Bate, J. (2000). The Song of the Earth. Cambridge MA:Harvard University Press.
Bayer-Hohenwarter, G. (2009). Translation Creativity:How to Measure the Unmeasurable. In Gopferich, S., Jakobsen, L. A. and I. M. Mees (eds.), Behind the Mind:Methods, Models and Results in Translation Process Research (pp.39-60). Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.
Baym, N. (1965). Thoreau's View of Science. Journal of the History of Ideas,26(2): 221-234.
Berleant, A. (1992). The Aesthetics to Environment. Philadelphia:Temple University Press. ———(1997). Living in the Landscape:Towards an Aesthetics of Environment. Lawrence:University Press of Kansas.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Nice, R. (tr.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Campbell, S. (1997). Translation into the Second Language. London & New York: Longman.
Catford, J. (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation:An Essay in Applied Linguistics. Oxford & London:Oxford University Press.
Chan, L. T. (2000). Colonization, Resistance and the Uses of Postcolonial Translation Theory in 20th-Century China. In Simon, S.& P., St-Pierre (eds.), Changing the Terms:Translating in the Postcolonial Era (pp.53-70). Ottawa:University of Ottawa Press.
Chesterman, A. (2000). Teaching Strategies for Emancipatory Translation. In Shaffner, C. and B. Adab (eds.), Developing Translation Competence (pp.77-90). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cronin, M. Translation and Globalization. London & New York:Routledge,2003.
Duarte, J., Rosa, A.& Seruya, T. (2006). Translation Studies at the Interface of Disciplines. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Even-Zohar, I. (2000). The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem. In L. Venuti (ed.), The Translation Studies Reader (pp.199-204). London:Routledge.
Garrard, G. (2004). Ecocriticism. London & New York:Routledge.
Gentzler, E. (2004). Contemporary Translation Theories. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Gopferich, S. (2009). Towards a Model of Translation Competence and Its Acquisition: The Longitudinal Study TransComp. In Gopferich, S., Jakobsen, L. A. and I. M. Mees (eds.), Behind the Mind:Methods, Models and Results in Translation Process Research (pp.11-38). Frederiksberg:Samfundslitteratur.
Gopferich, S.& R. Jaaskelainen. (2009). Process Research into the Development of Translation Competence:Where are We, and Where Do We Need to Go? Across Languages and Cultures,10(2):169-191.
Hatim, B.& I. Mason. (2001). Discourse and the Translator, Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Hermans, T. (ed.). (1985). The Manipulation of Literature:Studies in Literary Translation. Worcester:Billing and Sons Limited. ——(1999). Translation in Systems:Descriptive and System-oriented Approaches Explained. Manchester:St. Jerome.
Holmes, J. S. (2007). Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
House, J. (1997). Translation Quality Assessment:A Model Revisited. Tubingen:Narr.
Hu, Gengshen. (2001). Preliminary Study to Translation as Adaptation and Selection. Third Asian Translators'Forum, Hong Kong. ——(2003). Translation as Adaptation and Selection. Perspectives:Studies in Translatology,11(4):183-192. ——(2004a). Translator-centeredness. Perspectives:Studies in Translatology,12(2): 106-117.
Kaiser-Cooke, M. (2004). The Missing Link:Evolution, Reality and the Translation Paradigm. Frankfurt:Peter Lang.
Kamenicka, R. (2008). Explicitation Profile and Translator Style. In A, Pym & A, Perekrestenko (eds.), Translation Research Projects I (pp.117-130). Tarragona: Intercultural Studies Group.
Kenny, D. (1998). Creatures of Habit? What Translators Usually Do with Words. Meta, 43(4):515-523. ——(2001). Lexis and Creativity in Translation. Manchester:St. Jerome.
Kuhiwczak, P.& K. Littau (eds.). (2007). A Companion to Translation Studies. Clevedon, Buffalo/Toronto:Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Lambert, J. R.& H. van Gorp. (1985). On Describing Translations. In T. Hermans (ed.) The Manipulation of Literature:Studies in Literary Translation (pp.42-53), Beckenham:Croom Helm.
Lefevere, A. (2004a). Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. ———(2004b). Translation/History/Culture:A Sourcebook. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Lesznyak, M. (2007). Conceptualizing Translation Competence. Across Languages and Cultures,8(2):167-194.
Liu, Zhimo.& Zhang, Yafei. (1989). Stylistic Equivalence in Translation. Foreign Languages Research.21(3):38-46.
Loffredo, E.& M., Perteghella (eds.). (2006). Translation and Creativity:Perspectives on Creative Writing and Translation Studies. London:Continuum.
Merkle, D. (2008). Translation Constraints and the Sociological Turn in Literary Translation Studies. In A. Pym, M. Shlesinger & D. Simeoni (eds.). Beyond descriptive translation studies (pp.175-186). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Milton, J.& P., Bandia. (2009). Agents of Translation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:St. Jerome Publishing Company.
Munday, J. (1998). A Computer-assisted Approach to the Analysis of Translation Shifts. Meta,43 (4):542-556. ——(2001). Introducing Translation Studies. London/New York:Routledge.
Myerson, J. (ed.). (2000). Henry David Thoreau. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Newmark, P. (2001a). Approaches to Translation. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. ——(2001b). A Textbook of Translation. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Nida, E. A. (1964). Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden:E. J. Brill. ——(2001). Language and Culture:Contexts in Translating. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Nord, C. (1997). A Functional Typology of Translations. In Trosborg, A. (ed.), Text Typology and Translation (pp.43-66). Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company. ———(2001). Translating as a Purposeful Activity:Functionalist Approaches Explained. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
PACTE. (2003). Building a Translation Competence Model. In F. Alves (ed.) Triangulating Translation:Perspectives in Process Oriented Research (pp.43-66). Amsterdam:John Benjamins. ——(2005). Investigating translation competence:Conceptual and methodological issues. Meta,50 (2):609-619. ——(2009). Results of the Validation of the PACTE Translation Competence Model: Acceptability and Decision-making. Across Language and Culture,10 (2):207-230.
Pearsall, J. et al. (eds.) (2007). The New Oxford English-Chiese Dictionary. NOECD Translating and Publishing Committee (tr.), Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Puurtinen, T. (1994). Dynamic style as a parameter of acceptability in translated children's books. In M. Snell-Hornby, et al. (eds.), Translation studies:an interdiscipline (83-90). Amsterdam, Philadelphia:John benjamins. ———(2003). Genre-specific Features of Translationese? Linguistic Differences between Translated and Non-translated Finnish Children's Literature. Literary and Linguistic Computing,18 (4):389-406.
Pym, A. (1998). Method in Translation History. Manchester:St. Jerome Publishers.
Reiss, K. (2004). Translation Criticism:The Potentials and Limitations. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Robinson, D. (2001). Who Translates?-Translator Subjectivities Beyond Reason. New York:State University of New York Press. ——(2006a). The Translator's Turn. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. ——(2006b). Western Translation Theory:from Herodotus to Nietzsche. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Rose, G. M. (2007). Translation and Literary Criticism:Translation as Analysis. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Schaffner, C.& B. Adab (eds.). (2000). Developing Translation Competence. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sela-Sheffy, R.& M. Shlesinger. (2008). Strategies of Image-making and Status Advancement of Translators and Interpreters as a Marginal Occupational Group:A Research Project in Progress. In P. Anthony, et al. (eds.). Beyond Descriptive Translation Studies (pp.9-90.). Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Shuttleworth, M.& Cowie, M. (2004). Dictionary of Translation Studies. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Snell-Hornby, M. (2001). Translation Studies:An Integrated Approach. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. ——(2006). The Turns of Translation Studies:New paradigms or shifting viewpoints? Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Steiner, G. (2001). After Babel. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Thoreau, H. D. (1971). Walden. Princeton/New Jersey:Princeton University Press.
Toury, G. (1980). In Search of a Theory of Translation. Tel Aviv:The Porter Institute for Poetics and semiotics. ——(2001). Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Trosborg, A (ed.). (1997). Text Typology and Translation. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Tsai, F. (1995). Europeanized Structure in English-Chinese Translation. In Sin-wai Chan & David E. Pollard (eds.), An Encyclopedia of Translation (pp.242-248). Hongkong: The Chinese University Press.
Tymoczko, M. (2007). Enlarging Translation, Empowering Translator. Manchester:St. Jerome.
Varantola, K. (2003). Translators and Disposable Corpora. In F. Zanettin, S. Bernardini.& D. Stewart (eds.). Corpora in Translator Education (pp.55-70). Manchester:St. Jerome Publishing.
Venuti, L (ed.). (2000). The Translation Studies Reader. London and New York: Routledge. ———(2004). The Translator's Invisibility:A History of Translation. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Vermeer, H. J. (1996). A Skopos Theory of Translation:Some Arguments For and Against. Heidelberg:TEXTconTEXT-Verlag.
Wilss, W. (2001). The Science of Translation:Problems and Methods. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Worster, D. (1994). Nature's Economy:A History of Ecological Ideas (2nd edition). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
薄振杰、孙迎春、赵巍(2008),关于当代中国翻译批评研究的思考。《外语教学》,(3),72-76。
蔡登山(2011,8.8),徐迟的浪漫恋曲,《济南时报》
蔡新乐(2006),《翻译适应选择论》简评。《中国科技翻译》,(1),58-59。
陈大亮(2004),谁是翻译主体。《中国翻译》,(2),3-7。——(2005),翻译研究：从主体性向主体间性转向。《中国翻译》,(2),3-9。
陈福康(2000),《中国译学理论史稿》,上海：上海外语教育出版社。
陈红、胡清平(2007),“翻译适应选择论”在词语层面的左证。胡庚申(主编), 《翻译与跨文化交流：转向与拓展》(pp.169-174)。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
陈红(2009),E-时代词语的翻译：适应和选择,《解放军外国语学院学报》,(2),71-74。
陈鸣(2009),翻译批评也应“宽容”,《外语与外语教学》,(1),54-56。
陈玉刚(1989),中国翻译文学史稿。北京：中国对外翻译出版公司。
大卫·梭罗著(2005),《湖滨散记》,曾光辉编译,北京：中国书籍出版社。
戴志霍(2007),“文化环境与译者翻译策略的选择”,上海外国语大学。
邓伟志(2009),《永远的徐迟》,上海：上海远东出版社。
恩斯·哈格斯(2011),生态翻译学R & D报告：十年研究十大进展。《上海翻译》,(4),1-6。
范东生(2000),翻译的本质与翻译批评的根本性任务。《中国翻译》,(4),31-35。
方华文(2005),《20世纪中国翻译史》,西安：西北工业大学出版社。
方梦之(2004),《译学辞典》,上海：上海外语教育出版社。——(2011),论生态翻译环境。《上海翻译》,(1),1-5。
冯庆华(2002),《文体翻译论》,上海：上海外语教育出版社。
冯亦代(2009),一颗明星的陨落——哭徐迟。邓伟志(主编),《永远的徐迟》(pp.1-15),上海：上海远东出版社。
傅敬民(1997),论译者的个性问题。《上海科技翻译》,(4),3-5。
葛校琴(2006),《后现代语境下的译者主体性研究》,上海：上海译文出版社。
辜正坤(2006),《译学津原》,郑州：郑州文心出版社。
古远清(2006),徐迟与现代派。《外国文学研究》,(4),152-159。
桂乾元(1991),论翻译等值。《外国语》,(3),47-52,60。
郭著章(1999),《翻译名家研究》,武汉：湖北教育出版社。
韩子满(2002),文学翻译与杂合。《中国翻译》,(2),54-58。
亨利·大卫·梭罗著(1982),《瓦尔登湖》,徐迟译,上海：上海译文出版社。——著(1997),《瓦尔登湖》,徐迟译,长春：吉林人民出版社。——著(2006),《瓦尔登湖》,徐迟译,上海：上海译文出版社。
胡德香、熊秋香(2004),文化翻译批评初探。《语言与翻译(汉文)》,(4),52-56。
胡德香(2004),文化语境下的翻译批评：现状与反思。《解放军外国语学院学报》,(6),59-63。
胡庚申(2004b),《翻译适应选择论》,武汉：湖北教育出版社。
胡庚申(2004c),从“译者主体”到“译者中心”。《中国翻译》,(3),10-16。——(2008a),从术语看译论——翻译适应选择论概观。《上海翻译》,(2),1-5。——(2008b),生态翻译学解读。《中国翻译》,(6),11-15。——(2009a),傅雷翻译思想的生态翻译学诠释。《外国语》,(2),47-53。——(2009b),生态翻译学：译学研究的“跨学科整合”。《上海翻译》,(2),3-8。——(2011),关于“译者中心”问题的回应。《上海翻译》,(4),7-9。
胡牧(2006),翻译研究：一个社会学视角。《外语与外语教学》,(9),48-52。
胡壮麟、姜望琪(2002),《语言学高级教程》,北京：北京大学出版社。
黄国文(2006),《翻译研究的语言学探索——古诗词英译本的语言学分析》,上海：上海外语教育出版社。
黄梅花、胡庚申(2007),口译生态环境与译员的多维适应/选择。《澳门理工学报》(3),106-115。
黄琼英(2002),近十年来的翻译批评。《山东外语教学》,(4),69-72。
黄忠廉(2009),适应与选择：严复翻译思想探源。《上海翻译》,(4),7-10。
黄宗英(2009),徐迟绝响。邓伟志(主编),《永远的徐迟》(pp.31-34),上海：上海远东出版社。
姜秋霞、刘全国(2005),翻译文学与社会文化的关系：20世纪初与20世纪末我国翻译文学主题和来源的调查与分析。《外语教学与研究》,(1),67-72。
姜秋霞(2009),《文学翻译与社会文化的相互作用关系》,北京：外语教学与研究 出版社。
姜治文、文军(1999),《翻译批评论》,重庆：重庆大学出版社。
蒋骁华(2009),译者的选择性适应与适应性选择——评《牡丹亭》的三个译本。《上海翻译》,(4),11-15。
蒋骁华、宋志平、孟凡君(2011),生态翻译学理论的新探索——首届国际生态翻译学研讨会综述。《中国翻译》,(1),34-36。
蒋竹怡等(2007),《从生态视角看梭罗——重读<瓦尔登湖>》,北京：中国商务出版社。
焦卫红(2007),严复“信达雅”新解——以《天演论》汉译为例。《澳门理工学报》(2),111-120。
焦卫红、胡庚申(2008),“好了歌”的两个英译文比较。《澳门理工学报》,(2),124-131。
焦飚(2006),从“翻译适应选择论”看严复《天演论》的翻译。《成都教育学院学报》,(12),157-160。
孔慧怡(1999),《翻译文学文化》,北京：北京大学出版社。
赖德富(2010),翻译适应选择论视域下谈忠实性的限度。《温州大学学报(自然科学版)》,(2),51-56。
蓝红军、穆雷(2010),2009中国翻译研究综述。《上海翻译》,(3),21-26。
冷育宏(2011),生态翻译理论下译者真的是“中心”吗?——与胡庚申教授商榷。《上海翻译》,(3),71-73。
李德伦等(2009),音乐家徐迟。邓伟志(主编),《永远的徐迟》(pp.120-124),上海：上海远东出版社。
李静滞(2001),翻译批评：宏观与微观的统一。《外语学刊》,(2),90-93。
李钧学(2009),闪光的侧影——忆Uncle Andante。邓伟志(主编),《永远的徐迟》(pp.205-213),上海：上海远东出版社。
李文俊(1992),也谈文学翻译批评。《中国翻译》,(2),11-12,20。
李欣(2001),“翻译研究”各流派的阐释与梳理——介绍Theo Hermans翻译研究的系统论视角。《外语教学与研究》,(2),153-156。
李亚舒、黄忠廉(2005),《别开生面的理论构建——读胡庚申<翻译适应选择论)》《外语教学》,(6),95-96。
李毅(1984),对《瓦尔登湖》中译本的几点建议。《外国语》,(6),60-61。
廖七一(2000),《当代西方翻译理论探索》,南京：译林出版社。
林煌天(1997),《中国翻译词典》,武汉：湖北教育出版社。
林克难(1996),翻译批评不妨换个角度。《福建外语》,(2),45-47。
刘爱华(2011),徐迟：绝顶灵芝、空谷幽兰——生态翻译学视角下的翻译家研究。《中国外语》,(4)：95-100。——(2011),生态翻译学之“生态环境”探析。《东疆学刊》,(4),104-108。
刘嫦、赵友斌(2009),功能翻译理论给文学翻译批评的启示。《外语学刊》,(2),108-111。
刘宓庆(1999),《文化翻译论纲》,武汉：湖北教育出版社。——(2005a),《翻译美学导论》,北京：中国对外翻译出版公司。——(2005b),《新编当代翻译理论》,北京：中国对外翻译出版公司。
刘雅峰(2008),译有所为,译者何为?——文化全球化背景下外宣翻译及其译者研究。《山西师大学报(社会科学版)》,(3),140-142。——(2009),“译者的适应与选择：外宣翻译过程研究”,上海外国语大学。
刘艳芳(2009),从翻译适应选择论看新闻报道中隐喻习语的翻译。《上海翻译》,(4),16-20。
刘云虹、许钧(2004),一部具有探索精神的译学新著——《翻译适应选择论》评析。《中国翻译》,(6),40-43。
罗选民(2003),《外国文学翻译在中国》,合肥：安徽文艺出版社。
吕俊(2002),文学翻译：一种特殊的交往形式——交往行为理论的文学翻译观。《解放军外国语学院学报》,(1),63-66。——(2007),翻译标准的多元性与评价的客观性——价值学视域下翻译批评标准问题探讨。《外国语》,(2),67-73。
吕俊、侯向群(2006),《翻译学——一个建构主义的视角》,上海：上海外语教育出版社。——(2009),《翻译批评学引论》,上海：上海外语教育出版社
马晓冬(1999),《茶花女》汉译本的历时研究。《外语教学与研究》,(3),55-60。
孟凡君(2009),后现代之后的翻译研究新转向略论。胡庚申(主编),《翻译与跨文化：整合与创新》(pp.48-54),上海：上海外语教育出版社。
孟昭毅、李载道(2005),《中国翻译文学史》,北京：北京大学出版社。
穆雷、诗怡(2003),翻译主体的“发现”与研究——兼评中国翻译家研究。《中国翻译》,(1),12-18。
潘文国(2002),当代西方的翻译学研究——兼谈“翻译学”的学科性问题。《中国翻译》,(3),18-22。
萨克文·佰科维奇(主编)(2008),《剑桥美国文学史(第二卷)：散文作品(1820年-1865年)》,史志康等译,北京：中央编译出版社。
桑哲(2007),1949年后汉语词汇的规范化。《淮北职业技术学院学报》,(11),21-23。
邵志洪(2005),《汉英对比翻译导论》,上海：华东理工大学出版社。
沈求我(2009),忆徐迟。邓伟志(主编),《永远的徐迟》(pp.176-178),上海：上海远东出版社。
束慧娟(2010),生态翻译学视角下的公示语翻译——以上海世博会主题标语为例》,上海翻译,(2),39-42。
思果(2002),《译道探微》,北京：中国对外翻译出版公司。
司显柱(2007),论文学翻译批评研究。《江西社会科学》,(1),91-94。——(2008),翻译语篇质量评估模式再研究——功能语言学路向》。中国翻译，(2),57-60。
宋志平(2004),翻译：选择与顺应。《中国翻译》,(2),19-23。——(2007),《翻译适应选择论》——一部简约创新之作。《外语研究》,(5),105-106。
苏艳(2009),神话-原型批评视阈中的文学翻译批评研究。《外语学刊》,(2),104-107。
孙艺风(2003),翻译规范与主体意识。《中国翻译》,(3),3-9。——(2010),翻译学的何去何从。《中国翻译》,(2),5-10。
孙迎春主编(1999),《译学大词典》,北京：中国世界语出版社。——(2004),《张谷若翻译艺术研究》,北京：中国对外翻译出版公司。——(2009),《张谷若与“适应”、“选择”。《上海翻译》,(4),1-6。
孙致礼(1996),《1949—1966：中国英美文学翻译概论》,南京：译林出版社
谭载喜(2000),《翻译学》,武汉：湖北教育出版社。
汤俊霞(2009),徐一冰体育思想研究。《山西师大体育学院学报》,(S2),47-48。
仝亚辉(2010),PACTE翻译能力模式研究。《解放军外国语学院学报》,(5),88-93。
屠国元、李志奇(2007),论译者的思维结构。《中国翻译》,(5),16-21。
屠国元、朱献珑(2003),译者主体性：阐释学的阐释。《中国翻译》,(6)：8-14。
王秉钦(2004),《20世纪中国翻译思想史》,天津：南开大学出版社。
王东风(2007),功能语言学与后解构时代的翻译研究。《中国翻译》,(3),6-9。
王凤伯(1985),徐迟小传.王凤伯。孙露茜(主编),《徐迟研究专集》(pp.1-5),杭州：浙江文艺出版社。
王凤伯、孙露茜(主编)(1985),《徐迟研究专集》,杭州：浙江文艺出版社。
王宏(2011),生态翻译学核心理念考辨。《上海翻译》,(4),10-11。
王宏印(2003),《中国传统译论经典诠释——从道安到傅雷》,武汉：湖北教育出版社。——(2004),试论文学翻译批评的背景变量。《中国翻译》,(2),36-39。——(2006),《文学翻译批评论稿》,上海：上海外语教育出版社。——(2009),《文学翻译批评概论》,北京：中国人民大学出版社。
王建开(2003),《五四以来我国英美文学作品译介史：1919-1949》》,上海：上海外语教育出版社。
王克非(1994),论翻译文化史研究。《外语教学与研究》,(4),57-61。
王克非、胡显耀(2010),汉语翻译小说人称代词的外显化和变异。《中国外语》,(4),16-21。
王力(1943),《中国现代语法》,上海：商务印书馆。
王宁(2011),生态文学与生态翻译学：解构与建构。《中国翻译》,(2),10-15。
王诺(2008),《欧美生态批评——生态文学研究概论》,上海,学林出版社。
王平(2006),《文学翻译批评学》,杭州：杭州出版社。
王树槐、王若维(2008),翻译能力的构成因素和发展层次研究。《外语研究》,(5),80-88。
王晓元(1994),漫谈文学翻译批评。《外国语》,(2),19-21。
温秀颖(2007),《翻译批评——从理论到实践》,天津：南开大学出版社。
文军(2000),翻译批评：分类、作用、过程及标准。《重庆大学学报(社会科学版)》,(1),65-68。——(2001),论翻译批评的体系性——兼评两部翻译批评新著。《翻译季刊》,(20),77-90。
文军、刘萍(2006),中国翻译批评五十年——回顾与展望。《甘肃社会科学》, (2),38-43。
文月娥(2010),异化与归化关系新论：翻译适应选择论视角下的解读。《重庆交通大学学报》,(3),122-124。
武光军(2008),翻译研究新范式：进化论范式——《缺失的一环：进化,现实及翻译范式》述评。《外语研究》,(3),106-108。
吴义诚(2001),论翻译研究的科学范式。《外国语》,(5),55-60。
吴远庆、李洁平(2006),从《南中的猫》的翻译看译者的角色——基于“翻译适应选择论”。《安徽师范大学学报(人文社科版)》,(6),722-725。
夏元(2005),价值冲突中的《圣经》翻译——明末清初耶稣会传教士的翻译策略和关键译名选择。《中国翻译》,(1),51-55。
肖维青(2005),.自建语料库与翻译批评。《外语研究》,(4),60-65。——(2010),《翻译批评模式探索》,上海：上海外语教育出版社。
谢天振(1992),论文学翻译的创造性叛逆。《外国语》,(1),31-37。——(2007),《译介学导论》,北京：北京大学出版社。
邢杰(2007),译哲“思维习惯”——描述翻译学研究新视角。《中国翻译》,(5),10-15。
熊兵(2008),追寻翻译研究的发展轨迹——《翻译研究转向：新的范式或观念变革?》评介。《中国科技翻译》,(4),57-61。
徐迟(1943),美国诗歌的传统。《中原》,(1),25-26。——(1946),关于美国文学。《文联》,(3),19。——(1978),吸收外国文艺精华总和。《外国文学研究》,(1),1-2。——(1979),外国文学之于我(一)。《外国文学研究》,(1),88-90。——(1980),外国文学之于我(二)。《外国文学研究》,(3),72-77。——(1982a),《法国——一个春天的旅行》,上海：上海文艺出版社。——(1982b),现代化与现代派。《外国文学研究》,(1),115-117。——(1985),关于文艺写作的几个问题。王凤伯、孙露茜(主编),《徐迟研究专集》(pp.256-262),杭州：浙江文艺出版社。——(2007),《我的文学生涯》,天津：百花文艺出版社。
许建忠(2009),《翻译生态学》,北京：中国三峡出版社。
许钧(1992),《文学翻译批评研究》,南京：译林出版社。——(2003a),创造性叛逆和翻译主体性的确立。《中国翻译》,(1),6-11。——(2003b),翻译的主体间性与视界融合。《外语教学与研究》,(4),290-295。——(2003c),《翻泽论》,武汉：湖北教育出版社。
许 钧、穆甭(2009),中国翻译学研究30年(1978-2007)。《外国语》,(1),77-87。
徐鲁(1995),《瓦尔登湖》的魅力——徐迟和他的译著。《中国图书评论》,(5),42-43。——(1998),坎坷译路——徐迟的文学翻译生涯。《中国作家》,(1),104-113。——(2009),徐迟：绝顶上的灵芝。长江日报报业集团,http://cjmp.cnhan.com/ cjrb/html/2007-08/20/content 66172.html.
许伟(2006),平行语料库在翻译批评中的应用。《外语研究》,(2),54-59。
杨武能(1993),尴尬与自如傲慢与自卑——文学翻译家心理人格漫谈。《中国翻译》,(2),3-7。——(2003),再谈文学翻译主体。《中国翻译》,(3),10-12。
杨晓荣(1999),二元对立与第三种状态——对翻译标准问题的哲学思考。《外国语》,(3),57-62。——(2001),翻译批评标准的传统思路和现代视野。《中国翻译》,(6),11-15。——(2005),《翻译批评导论》,北京：中国对外翻译出版公司。
杨志红、王克非(2010),翻译能力及其研究。《外语教学》,(6),91-95。
姚君伟(2005),徐迟与美国文学在中国的译介。《外国文学研究》,(4),145-149。
姚振军(2009),描述翻译学视野中的翻译批评。《外语与外语教学》,(10),61-64。
叶嘉新(2006),徐迟译品处女集——《明天》。《出版史料》,(1),61-63。
于连江(2005),“多维视角下的文学翻译批评研究”,上海外国语大学。
喻云根(1996),《英美名著翻译比较》,武汉：湖北教育出版社。
袁锦翔(2002),《名家翻译研究与赏析》,武汉：湖北教育出版社。
袁莉(2002),关于翻译主体研究的构想。张柏然、许钧(主编),《面向二十一世纪的译学研究》(pp.397-409),北京：商务印书馆。——(2003),文学翻译主体的诠释学研究构想。《解放军外国语学院学报》,(3),74-78。
查明建、田雨(2003),论译者主体性——从译者文化地位的边缘化谈起。《中国翻译》,(1),19-24。
查明建、谢天振(2007),《中国20世纪外国文学翻译史》,武汉：湖北教育出版社。
翟红梅、张德让(2009),翻译适应选择论与林语堂英译《浮生六记》。《外语学刊》,(2),112-114。
张从益(2009),和合学途经的翻译研究。《外语学刊》,(3),94-96。
张建惠(2006),从选择与适应看英译汉的异质引进。《鲁东大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,(2),115-118。
张美芳(2002),利用语料库调查译者的文体——贝克研究新法评介。《解放军外国语学院学报》,(3),54-57。——(2006),重新审视现代语言学理论在翻译研究中的作用。《中国翻译》,(3),31-35。
张群星(2010),对“翻译适应选择论”的几点思考。《甘肃联合大学学报(社会科学版)》,(6),86-89。
张泽贤(2009),《中国近现代文学翻译版本闻见录(1934-1949)》,上海：上海远东出版社。
赵红(2007),《文本的多维视角分析与文学翻译》,上海：复旦大学出版社
赵家璧(1984),《编辑忆旧》,北京：三联书店。
赵军峰(2006),论翻译家研究的理论模式。《西安外国语学院学报》,(4),40-42。——(2007),翻译家研究的纵观性视角：梁实秋翻译活动个案研究。《中国翻译》,(2),28-32。
赵英(2008),从生态思想的角度看徐迟对《瓦尔登湖》的误译。《南京师范大学文学院学报》,(4),19-24。
赵勇(2010),“深度翻译”与意义阐释：以梭罗《瓦尔登湖》的典故翻译为例。《外语与外语教学》,(2),77-81。
赵志华(2011),“生存心态”：译者主体性研究的理据。《外语与外语教学》,(2),79-82。
郑海凌(2000),谈翻译批评的基本理论问题。《中国翻译》,(2),19-22。
郑贞、孙会军(2006),也谈翻译研究方法论——兼评胡庚申教授的《翻译适应选择论》。冯奇等(主编),《外语教学与文化》(pp.463-470),北京：外文出版社。
周仪、罗平(1999),《翻译与批评》,武汉：湖北教育出版社。
邾立志(1994),梭罗——一个超然独立的哲学家。《解放军外语学院学报》,(1),57-62。
朱月娥(2010),翻译主体生态系统中的译者主体性。《中国科技翻译》,(1),55-58。
庄和诚(1998),《英语词源趣谈》,上海：上海外语教育出版社。
祖利军(2007),全球化背景下的生态翻译。《中国外语》,(6),89-92。