制衡·融合·阻抗
|
摘要
本文着重考察了五四运动后期学衡派的翻译活动。该派是中国五四时期翻译高潮中一支重要的力量,但因不合新文化运动主流以及对同时代和后世对该派的片面认知,使他们在翻译方面的贡献被长期遮蔽了。通过对典型文本的分析,对学衡派翻译活动的译介背景、选材、策略运用、译文特点等方面进行深入细致的探讨,从而揭示出学衡派翻译活动在五四新文化运动的地位和作用,以及他们通过翻译西学所意欲传达的理念和期望达到的目的。本文的最终目的在探求学衡派翻译活动在翻译学方面的理论价值。
论文共分六章。第一章绪论主要涉及三个方面。首先阐明对学衡派翻译活动在翻译史上长期受遮蔽的原因,提出在其他学科“反思五四”的今天,学衡派的翻译活动应该引起翻译史与翻译研究领域的认识;然后对国内现有的有关学衡派研究进行了多方位的综述,并由此指出学衡派翻译研究在各类研究中的缺失,从而阐明论文的选题意义;最后对本论文研究的视角和范围进行了界定,明确了研究中所使用的理论工具,以及预期达到的写作目的。
正文从宏观和微观对学衡派的翻译活动展开研究。第二章从描写翻译学的角度对学衡派的翻译活动在整个五四时期翻译活动中的地位和作用进行了细致的描述,尤其是从多元系统论的主流与边缘之间对立斗争的视角对学衡派与新文化倡导者二者之间的互动关系做了详细的说明,并籍此凸显学衡派翻译活动的主要特征和内容。最后,在对学衡派翻译活动整体描述的基础上,提出多元系统论边缘系统对中心系统的制衡机制,并以学衡派为例阐明制衡机制的作用和对多元系统的产生的效果,来补充多元系统论中对边缘系统描述不充分的不足。
第三、四、五章深入到《学衡》杂志发表的各类译文展开分析研究。第三章主要以赛义德的理论旅行和姚斯的接受理论为框架分析学衡派留学成员服膺的白璧德新人文主义思想在中国的接受情况。本章首先指明目前学界对白璧德在中国五四语境下的接受存在着“对话观”和“误读观”两种相向的认识.前者普遍将《学衡》杂志上发表的译文认同为白璧德的理论原型,而后者则认为学衡派以儒家思想归化了新人文主义思想,以服务于同新文化倡导者展开论战的目的。通过对白璧德思想的体系性阅读和原文与译文之间的比较分析,本文认为学衡派翻译白璧德新人文主义思想采取的是一种“融合”的路径。在翻译过程中,儒家思想和新人文主义思想在译者的“文化阐释”中通过义理关联得到沟通,二者相互渗透,彼此沾染了对方,结果是二者都发生了变化。在此认识基础上,本章提出理论跨文化旅行的翻译模式,以突出译者和“文化阐释”在翻译过程的作用。
第四章和第五章为学衡派的文学翻译研究,各选取有代表性的个案进行分析。第四章将当前热门的叙事学基本理论应用到小说译本《钮康氏家传》的研究中。通过分析原本与译本在叙事者、叙事视角、叙事声音和叙事时间几个方面的异同来检验译本与原本的对应情况,从而客观地判定该个案所运用的翻译策略。在运用叙事学理论时,文章希望提请注意的是原文和译文之间的叙事结构对比分析过程中源语叙事传统、译入语叙事传统、故事、原文叙事和译文叙事五个层面对应的复杂性。此外,在小说翻译过程中,对翻译产生直接影响的是叙述的话语层而非故事层,因为作者是通过叙述话语来塑造人物、反映生活的,对译者而言,作者所采用的任何语言手段都是他创造性再现的对象,因而可以说故事是完全独立于作家的写作风格的,同样的故事可以以不同的方式来表达。
第五章主要对《学衡》一作多译这样一个特殊的现象进行研究,借助文化学派的相关理论分析一作多译形成背后各种操纵的因素。通过对各个译作与原作从诗歌形式到意象的分析,揭示译者在归化原文过程中传承古典诗歌文化的理念。最后,通过对异化和归化概念内涵的认识,指出学衡派归化翻译在五四异化为主流的特殊语境下所发挥的是一种阻抗功能,是学衡派彰显自我文化身份的一种行为方式。因此,阻抗性并非只是异化翻译策略的主要特征,在特殊的文化语境下,归化翻译同样可以具有阻抗性。
最后一章为结论部分,对学衡派翻译活动这个特殊的现象进行性质判定,并提出本论文的理论意义与不足,以及该研究引反的现实思考。结论指出,学衡派的翻译活动兼具古代与现代双重性质。它的古代性在于,在白话文已确立为书面语通行全国的20年代,《学衡》上的译文同其他文章一样,依然用文言,许多译文在手法上接近严复林纾的翻译,而与现代翻译主流不符;它的现代性则在它的翻译目的与新文化倡导者一样,都是借助西方的新思想新理念构建新文化和新文学的一种尝试,其意义是依附于新文化运动而存在的。
The purpose of this dissertation is to investigate the Xueheng School's translation activities in the 1920s when the May 4~(th) Movement was in full swing after its preliminary success throughout the nation.A significant group who has participated earnestly in the cultural and literary debates in the 1920s,the Xueheng School has for a long time been left marginal in the research of modem Chinese intellectual history and literary history due to its objection to the main trends of the times.For this reason,their contributions to modern translated literature also sink into oblivion.By reviewing its members' achievements in introducing foreign ideas and literature during the May 4~(th) movement,the dissertation holds that it is high time that we gave the Xueheng School's its due place in the overall translation activities of the May 4~(th) Movement. Representative translated texts are selected from diverse columns of the school's major magazine named as Xueheng in Chinese(The Critical Review in English) in order to present the characteristics of the school's translation activities.By finding out the contextual factors for its members' involvement in translation,the guiding principles for its translators' selection of the materials to be translated and use of translating strategy as well as the characteristics of the translated texts,the dissertation endeavors to pinpoint the status of the Xueheng School's translation activities in the much broader scope of translation at the time of the May 4~(th) Movement.It argues that only by placing the Xueheng School's translation activities against the overall picture of the modern transformation of Chinese culture can we fully recognize the connecting role their translations played not only between the foreign and Chinese cultures but also between the traditional and the modern Chinese culture.The ultimate objective of this dissertation is to explore the theoretical significances that the Xueheng School's translation activities have for Translation Studies.
The dissertation consists of 6 chapters.The first chapter,the introduction,starts with stating the reasons for the Xueheng school's long absence in the writing of translation history and points out that when academic studies in such fields as history, literature,and intellect have started to re-examine the May 4~(th) Movement in terms of its radicalism and rediscover the role of the Xueheng School,Translation Studies(TS), especially the field of translated history,cannot afford to overlook again the Xueheng School's translation activities.Then,a literature review of previous researches related with the Xueheng School is provided.It is found out in the review that most of the literature deals with the Xueheng School in terms of its thinking,view of cultural evolution,education,literary criticism and historical studies,and little,if any,has been done from the perspective of TS.This long absence of systemic research into its translation activities in various Xueheng School-related studies indicates consequently the immediacy and significance of the present study.The last section of this chapter offers a statement of the study perspective,scope,objectives and methodology of the research.
In the main part of the dissertation,macro and micro investigations of the Xueheng School's translation activities are carried out.By "macro" it is meant to place the Xueheng School's translation activities in the cultural context in which it occurred and thus to observe the interaction between the Xueheng School's translations as a system and translations by other schools and groups,especially those representing the dominant values of the New Culture Movement,while by "micro" it is meant to make a detailed analysis of translated texts so as to reveal the specific translating process.
Chapter Two presents,from the perspective of the Descriptive Translation Studies (DTS),a comprehensive description of the position the Xueheng School's translation activities hold and the role they play in the whole translation endeavor during the May 4~(th) period.Concentrated efforts are devoted especially to the elucidation of the interaction between Xueheng's translation activities and predominant translation activities at that time within the framework of Polysystem Theory proposed by Israeli theorist Itmar Even-Zohar.As the first of its kind to view translations from a macro perspective,Polysystem Theory views translation not as the linguistic equivalence of the source text,but as a result of the struggles of competing subsystems for the dominant position within the larger socio-cultural polysystem.In the literary polysystem he puts forward three pairs of binary oppositions as the internal working mechanism:canonized and un-canonized products,central and peripheral position,and primary and secondary models.He believes that these three pairs of binary oppositions constitute the driving forces for a literature.The systemic view of social or cultural phenomena and the idea of binary opposition are employed in the present research.Two adjustments are made to the theory before its application to the present research:one is the determination of the size of the polysystem and the other is the matter of static or dynamic view of the polysystem.In the present study the whole translation activities of the 1920s are viewed as a polysystem and translation activities engaged into by various schools and groups are its integral parts(systems).This polysystem is a static as a whole since it has just gone through a drastic revolution and is about to enter a relatively stabilized period,although inside the polysystem various systems are still in a permanent opposition and struggle.The Polysystem theory proves to be very effective after minor modifications in that the idea of opposition and that of center vs.periphery make it possible not only to account adequately for the relationship between various translation systems represented by different interests in foreign works in the translation polysytem,but also to reveal the contents and characteristics of the Xueheng School's translation activities.In the May 4~(th) translation polysystem,the center is occupied by the translation of western ideas with scientism and pragmatism as the main trend in the intellectual circle and realism and romanticism in foreign literature.As a peripheral and weak entity in that polysystem,the Xueheng School has the wish to rebel the newly-established May 4~(th) translation tradition.In Xueheng(The Critical Review) the members voice their theoretical protest against the New Culture School and put their ideas into the translating practice.Although they can never move to the center of the translation polysystem,their translations are an indispensable part of entire translation polysystem during the May 4~(th) Movement and have their influence upon the Chinese ideology and literature.
On the basis of a complete description of the counter-action of the Xueheng School's translation activities,a checking mechanism is proposed as a supplement to the Polysystem Theory for the following reasons:First,a polysytem acts as an ecological field in which each member has a place and plays a role in the direction of its advancement.Second,a polysystem would lose vitality for being excessively exploited if the system in the central position were only allowed to exist and function.The research argues that it is the checking ability of the systems in the peripheral position that keeps the balanced and healthy development of a polysystem.In Zohar's work, focus is mainly laid on the evolution of a polysystem and consequently on the system taking(or to be taking) the central position while the counter-force of the systems in periphery has been totally neglected.Therefore,the role of the peripheral systems has to be described and the checking mechanism in the polysystem has to be proposed so as to present a comprehensive picture of the operation of a polysystem.
Chapter Three,Four and Five proceed with the research by going internally into the analysis of various translations published in Xueheng(The Critical Review).Chapter Three deals with the reception issue of Irving Babbitt and his New Humanist ideas within the framework of both the idea of theory traveling and mutation initiated by. American post-colonial Critic Edward W.Said and Reception Theory proposed by German literary theorist and esthetician H.R.Jauss.It is pointed out firstly that two diverging opinions exist as to the reception issue of Babbitt and his ideas:one regards the translated ideas in Xueheng(The Critical Review) as the original ones articulated by American New Humanists themselves and pays no heed to the modification done by the translators for the purpose of domestic debate.The other rejects the aforementioned opinion by pointing out the fact that there is a deliberate understanding on the part of the translators,and as a consequence American New Humanistic ideas have been acculturated with analogical Confucian teachings to serve the Xueheng School's purpose of reviving the value of Confucianism which has already been dethroned from the predominant ideology of Chinese people in the sweeping May 4th Movement. While admitting the reasonable elements in both opinions,the study also points out their inadequacies.On the one hand,it should be noticed that importing foreign new ideas to revolutionize Chinese stagnant ideology is the major trend at that time and the Xueheng School is of no exception but join the dominant schools and groups in this endeavor instead of sticking to the tradition only.This is most Outstanding distinction between the Xueheng School and other conservative schools.Therefore,the Xueheng School can be classified as a different branch of the New Culture camp in the aspect of importing foreign ideas.It is in the sense of relying on the foreign knowledge that we can say American New Humanism(partially) is transmitted to Chinese cultural context via translation by the Xueheng School.On the other hand,however,Xueheng is different from the New Culture School in that it refuses to abandon wholly the tradition, especially the Confucianism and insists on the fundamental values of the Confucian teaching as permanently valid throughout time.It is because of this difference that the Xueheng School has a strong intention of reviving Confucianism in its translation.But the Xueheng School knows clearly that to restore Confucianism from its dethronement a new method has to be devised.This new method is to establish teaching correlatives between American New Humanism and Confucianism.The study finds out that in the translating process the mechanism of "cultural interpretation" operates when the translators correlate the two ideologies produced in different cultural contexts.For illustration,by extracting three pairs of corresponding core concepts such as "decorum vs.礼","higher/lower wills vs.理/欲",and "inner check vs.以理制欲" from source text (ST) and translated text(TT) respectively,the study shows convincingly that these three pairs of concepts have all taken on a new connotation respectively in this "cultural interpretation,'.The result of the "cultural interpretation" is that two ideologies have both changed:the New Humanism is tinted with a Confucian touch and the Confucianism is transformed by getting rid of its invalid parts.The method of teaching correlative proves to be very effective in debate since the Xueheng is regarded as toughest opponent of all conservative schools in the May 4~(th) Movement.Based upon the analysis of the reception of New Humanism in China,the chapter proposes a model for idea's cross-cultural travel via translation.In this model the role of the translator is emphasized since he is the key in wielding his power of "cultural interpretation".It is believed that teaching correlative can also be found in other ideas' cross-cultural transmission by focusing on the "cultural interpretation" of the media. Misunderstanding is not the only means to interpretate what happens in the cross-cultural understanding.
Both chapter Four and Five address the Xueheng School's translation activities in the aspect of literary works,based on representative case studies.Chapter Four focuses on the analysis of the characteristics of the fiction translation in the magazine of Xueheng through an intensive discussion of a particular case-the translation of The Neweomes by British novelist William Makepeace Thackeray.The selection of this novel as the subject for case study arises from the complexity of Thackeray's being accepted by the translator into his translation agenda.Thackeray,a member belonging with realistic writers' camp,seems to meet in every way the requirements of the prevailing translation trend and thus a suitable candidate for translation by the New Culture School.It is also known that the Xueheng School would by no means follow the lead of the prevailing literary values and engage in translation by resorting to the same foreign resources.Therefore,it can be safely inferred that the translator selects Thackeray in line with his consistent stance and as a result appropriates and manipulates the foreign writer to satisfy his own need in a totally different way from his opponents.Fundamentally speaking,the decision of incorporating Thackeray into the translator's agenda lies in the fact that Thackeray comes closer to Xueheng scholars than to the camp of the New Culture for he attaches much importance to the preaching of permanent moral and spiritual values as an essential function of fiction.Then,some fundamental methods of narratology are employed in the comparative analysis of the original and translated texts in terms of narrator,narrative angle of view,narrator's voice and time sequence of the narration.By examining the similarities and differences in the narrative structures between the original and translated texts the translating strategy employed is scientifically defined.It is can be seen that use of rarratology in doing text analysis adds an important dimension to the traditional methods in which the evaluation of equivalence is established only in terms of the comparative analysis of the content since the general cognition is to regard a piece of fiction as consisting of transferable material content only.One point that should be mentioned,however,is that more complex elements are involved when the theory is used in parallel analysis of ST and TT.The research discovers that the comparison is in effect done in the following five aspects:the narrative tradition of the SL,the narrative structure of the ST,story itself,the narrative structure of the TT,and the narrative tradition of the TL.An inter-textual comparison between the ST and the TT is not sufficient to define the translating strategy because it has to be determined whether and to what extent that the TT deviates from the narrative tradition of the TL to the ST and the narrative tradition of the SL.It is also found that in the process of translating a novel,it is the discourse rather than the story that exerts a direct influence on translating because for the translator,the discursive means the author uses in the ST are the object to be creatively represented in the TT.Story,therefore,can be said independent of the writer's writing style.A same story can be expressed in various ways.
Chapter 5 focuses mainly on a special reoccurring translation phenomenon in Xueheng(The Critical Review),that is,one work with multiple versions published simultaneously.Selecting eight versions of one poem by William Wordsworth as the representative case for study,this chapter starts with a thorough analysis of the form and image in translations as compared with the ST.It is found that the ST is transformed by its translators to various extents into Chinese poems with the original poetic form replaced by Chinese regular classic form and original poetic images giving way to Chinese ones frequently used in Chinese prosody.In a word,all exotic traits of the original poem have been totally lost in every translation and all the translations look like Chinese original classical poems.The fact that the same strategy is used in all eight versions unanimously contributes to a possible understanding that all the translators are manipulated to infuse a philosophy of cultural inheritance(of classical poetry in the case under study) in their view of translation.Therefore investigation is made on the formation of this special translation phenomenon by referring to the Manipulation Theory proposed by Andre Lefevere.Interestingly the domesticating strategy used in poetry translation,in effect in all translations in Xueheng(The Critical Review) as a whole,sheds a new light on the present understanding of Venuti's distinction between foreignization and domestication.In his discussion Venuti proposes the foreignizing translation in order to resist the dominant literary values at home by registering exotic features both in languages and cultures.Therefore,foreignizing translation is hold to be a resistant action by the peripheral values against the fate of being dominated by the prevailing values and a means of signifying their cultural identity.Thus domesticating translation can be understood perfectly in the same way as being resistant since in the May 4~(th) New Cultural-Literary Movement the dominant language being used for translating is the vernacular Chinese instead of the classical Chinese and the translation is more ST-oriented than TT-oriented for the purpose of establishing Chinese new literature on foreign literary models.Compared with the prevalent foreignizing translation,the domesticating translation enhances the identity of the Xueheng translators as an opponent to the dominant translating trend in a more noticeable fashion, attracting not only readers' attention to the content of STs represented,but also the way how the translators represent.In other words,this strategy is Xueheng scholars' cultural behavior of making clear their cultural stance as preserving culture in translation and building bridge between foreign and Chinese cultures.The Xueheng School's domesticating strategy is same as Venuti's proposal of foreignizing strategy in their pursuit of visibility in the domestic culture.The difference in terms of resistance between them is that Venuti achieves it by retaining foreign linguistic and cultural traits in the TTs and the Xueheng School achieves it by finding cultural similarity with domestic tradition.
The last chapter forms the concluding part of the dissertation which offers an evaluation of the nature of the Xueheng school's translation activities,a statement of the theoretical significance and some limitations of the present study,and reflections on present situation of Translation Studies aroused by this study.It is concluded that the Xueheng School's translation activities bear a dual nature of antiquity and modernity. The former lies,most obviously,in the adherence to classical Chinese as its translating language in Xueheng(The Critical Review) when vernacular Chinese has already been established as the nationwide official language in the twenties of the 20th century. Many other obsolete translating techniques,as shown in the study,move the Xueheng School's translation closer to those of Yan Fu and Lin Shu in appearance,but deviant from the dominant translating trend of the May 4~(th) Movement.The modernity of the Xueheng School's translation activities is best manifested in the goal of translating.Like the New Culture School,the Xueheng School also represents an active attempt of constructing Chinese new culture and new literature on the basis of importing foreign new ideas and new literature.As a pair of co-existing contradictory values,the Xueheng School's translation activities acquire a clear and complete understanding only in the presence of the New Culture School,and vice versa.In a word,the modernity of the Xueheng School's translation activities owes its significance to the modern New Culture Movement.
论文共分六章。第一章绪论主要涉及三个方面。首先阐明对学衡派翻译活动在翻译史上长期受遮蔽的原因,提出在其他学科“反思五四”的今天,学衡派的翻译活动应该引起翻译史与翻译研究领域的认识;然后对国内现有的有关学衡派研究进行了多方位的综述,并由此指出学衡派翻译研究在各类研究中的缺失,从而阐明论文的选题意义;最后对本论文研究的视角和范围进行了界定,明确了研究中所使用的理论工具,以及预期达到的写作目的。
正文从宏观和微观对学衡派的翻译活动展开研究。第二章从描写翻译学的角度对学衡派的翻译活动在整个五四时期翻译活动中的地位和作用进行了细致的描述,尤其是从多元系统论的主流与边缘之间对立斗争的视角对学衡派与新文化倡导者二者之间的互动关系做了详细的说明,并籍此凸显学衡派翻译活动的主要特征和内容。最后,在对学衡派翻译活动整体描述的基础上,提出多元系统论边缘系统对中心系统的制衡机制,并以学衡派为例阐明制衡机制的作用和对多元系统的产生的效果,来补充多元系统论中对边缘系统描述不充分的不足。
第三、四、五章深入到《学衡》杂志发表的各类译文展开分析研究。第三章主要以赛义德的理论旅行和姚斯的接受理论为框架分析学衡派留学成员服膺的白璧德新人文主义思想在中国的接受情况。本章首先指明目前学界对白璧德在中国五四语境下的接受存在着“对话观”和“误读观”两种相向的认识.前者普遍将《学衡》杂志上发表的译文认同为白璧德的理论原型,而后者则认为学衡派以儒家思想归化了新人文主义思想,以服务于同新文化倡导者展开论战的目的。通过对白璧德思想的体系性阅读和原文与译文之间的比较分析,本文认为学衡派翻译白璧德新人文主义思想采取的是一种“融合”的路径。在翻译过程中,儒家思想和新人文主义思想在译者的“文化阐释”中通过义理关联得到沟通,二者相互渗透,彼此沾染了对方,结果是二者都发生了变化。在此认识基础上,本章提出理论跨文化旅行的翻译模式,以突出译者和“文化阐释”在翻译过程的作用。
第四章和第五章为学衡派的文学翻译研究,各选取有代表性的个案进行分析。第四章将当前热门的叙事学基本理论应用到小说译本《钮康氏家传》的研究中。通过分析原本与译本在叙事者、叙事视角、叙事声音和叙事时间几个方面的异同来检验译本与原本的对应情况,从而客观地判定该个案所运用的翻译策略。在运用叙事学理论时,文章希望提请注意的是原文和译文之间的叙事结构对比分析过程中源语叙事传统、译入语叙事传统、故事、原文叙事和译文叙事五个层面对应的复杂性。此外,在小说翻译过程中,对翻译产生直接影响的是叙述的话语层而非故事层,因为作者是通过叙述话语来塑造人物、反映生活的,对译者而言,作者所采用的任何语言手段都是他创造性再现的对象,因而可以说故事是完全独立于作家的写作风格的,同样的故事可以以不同的方式来表达。
第五章主要对《学衡》一作多译这样一个特殊的现象进行研究,借助文化学派的相关理论分析一作多译形成背后各种操纵的因素。通过对各个译作与原作从诗歌形式到意象的分析,揭示译者在归化原文过程中传承古典诗歌文化的理念。最后,通过对异化和归化概念内涵的认识,指出学衡派归化翻译在五四异化为主流的特殊语境下所发挥的是一种阻抗功能,是学衡派彰显自我文化身份的一种行为方式。因此,阻抗性并非只是异化翻译策略的主要特征,在特殊的文化语境下,归化翻译同样可以具有阻抗性。
最后一章为结论部分,对学衡派翻译活动这个特殊的现象进行性质判定,并提出本论文的理论意义与不足,以及该研究引反的现实思考。结论指出,学衡派的翻译活动兼具古代与现代双重性质。它的古代性在于,在白话文已确立为书面语通行全国的20年代,《学衡》上的译文同其他文章一样,依然用文言,许多译文在手法上接近严复林纾的翻译,而与现代翻译主流不符;它的现代性则在它的翻译目的与新文化倡导者一样,都是借助西方的新思想新理念构建新文化和新文学的一种尝试,其意义是依附于新文化运动而存在的。
The purpose of this dissertation is to investigate the Xueheng School's translation activities in the 1920s when the May 4~(th) Movement was in full swing after its preliminary success throughout the nation.A significant group who has participated earnestly in the cultural and literary debates in the 1920s,the Xueheng School has for a long time been left marginal in the research of modem Chinese intellectual history and literary history due to its objection to the main trends of the times.For this reason,their contributions to modern translated literature also sink into oblivion.By reviewing its members' achievements in introducing foreign ideas and literature during the May 4~(th) movement,the dissertation holds that it is high time that we gave the Xueheng School's its due place in the overall translation activities of the May 4~(th) Movement. Representative translated texts are selected from diverse columns of the school's major magazine named as Xueheng in Chinese(The Critical Review in English) in order to present the characteristics of the school's translation activities.By finding out the contextual factors for its members' involvement in translation,the guiding principles for its translators' selection of the materials to be translated and use of translating strategy as well as the characteristics of the translated texts,the dissertation endeavors to pinpoint the status of the Xueheng School's translation activities in the much broader scope of translation at the time of the May 4~(th) Movement.It argues that only by placing the Xueheng School's translation activities against the overall picture of the modern transformation of Chinese culture can we fully recognize the connecting role their translations played not only between the foreign and Chinese cultures but also between the traditional and the modern Chinese culture.The ultimate objective of this dissertation is to explore the theoretical significances that the Xueheng School's translation activities have for Translation Studies.
The dissertation consists of 6 chapters.The first chapter,the introduction,starts with stating the reasons for the Xueheng school's long absence in the writing of translation history and points out that when academic studies in such fields as history, literature,and intellect have started to re-examine the May 4~(th) Movement in terms of its radicalism and rediscover the role of the Xueheng School,Translation Studies(TS), especially the field of translated history,cannot afford to overlook again the Xueheng School's translation activities.Then,a literature review of previous researches related with the Xueheng School is provided.It is found out in the review that most of the literature deals with the Xueheng School in terms of its thinking,view of cultural evolution,education,literary criticism and historical studies,and little,if any,has been done from the perspective of TS.This long absence of systemic research into its translation activities in various Xueheng School-related studies indicates consequently the immediacy and significance of the present study.The last section of this chapter offers a statement of the study perspective,scope,objectives and methodology of the research.
In the main part of the dissertation,macro and micro investigations of the Xueheng School's translation activities are carried out.By "macro" it is meant to place the Xueheng School's translation activities in the cultural context in which it occurred and thus to observe the interaction between the Xueheng School's translations as a system and translations by other schools and groups,especially those representing the dominant values of the New Culture Movement,while by "micro" it is meant to make a detailed analysis of translated texts so as to reveal the specific translating process.
Chapter Two presents,from the perspective of the Descriptive Translation Studies (DTS),a comprehensive description of the position the Xueheng School's translation activities hold and the role they play in the whole translation endeavor during the May 4~(th) period.Concentrated efforts are devoted especially to the elucidation of the interaction between Xueheng's translation activities and predominant translation activities at that time within the framework of Polysystem Theory proposed by Israeli theorist Itmar Even-Zohar.As the first of its kind to view translations from a macro perspective,Polysystem Theory views translation not as the linguistic equivalence of the source text,but as a result of the struggles of competing subsystems for the dominant position within the larger socio-cultural polysystem.In the literary polysystem he puts forward three pairs of binary oppositions as the internal working mechanism:canonized and un-canonized products,central and peripheral position,and primary and secondary models.He believes that these three pairs of binary oppositions constitute the driving forces for a literature.The systemic view of social or cultural phenomena and the idea of binary opposition are employed in the present research.Two adjustments are made to the theory before its application to the present research:one is the determination of the size of the polysystem and the other is the matter of static or dynamic view of the polysystem.In the present study the whole translation activities of the 1920s are viewed as a polysystem and translation activities engaged into by various schools and groups are its integral parts(systems).This polysystem is a static as a whole since it has just gone through a drastic revolution and is about to enter a relatively stabilized period,although inside the polysystem various systems are still in a permanent opposition and struggle.The Polysystem theory proves to be very effective after minor modifications in that the idea of opposition and that of center vs.periphery make it possible not only to account adequately for the relationship between various translation systems represented by different interests in foreign works in the translation polysytem,but also to reveal the contents and characteristics of the Xueheng School's translation activities.In the May 4~(th) translation polysystem,the center is occupied by the translation of western ideas with scientism and pragmatism as the main trend in the intellectual circle and realism and romanticism in foreign literature.As a peripheral and weak entity in that polysystem,the Xueheng School has the wish to rebel the newly-established May 4~(th) translation tradition.In Xueheng(The Critical Review) the members voice their theoretical protest against the New Culture School and put their ideas into the translating practice.Although they can never move to the center of the translation polysystem,their translations are an indispensable part of entire translation polysystem during the May 4~(th) Movement and have their influence upon the Chinese ideology and literature.
On the basis of a complete description of the counter-action of the Xueheng School's translation activities,a checking mechanism is proposed as a supplement to the Polysystem Theory for the following reasons:First,a polysytem acts as an ecological field in which each member has a place and plays a role in the direction of its advancement.Second,a polysystem would lose vitality for being excessively exploited if the system in the central position were only allowed to exist and function.The research argues that it is the checking ability of the systems in the peripheral position that keeps the balanced and healthy development of a polysystem.In Zohar's work, focus is mainly laid on the evolution of a polysystem and consequently on the system taking(or to be taking) the central position while the counter-force of the systems in periphery has been totally neglected.Therefore,the role of the peripheral systems has to be described and the checking mechanism in the polysystem has to be proposed so as to present a comprehensive picture of the operation of a polysystem.
Chapter Three,Four and Five proceed with the research by going internally into the analysis of various translations published in Xueheng(The Critical Review).Chapter Three deals with the reception issue of Irving Babbitt and his New Humanist ideas within the framework of both the idea of theory traveling and mutation initiated by. American post-colonial Critic Edward W.Said and Reception Theory proposed by German literary theorist and esthetician H.R.Jauss.It is pointed out firstly that two diverging opinions exist as to the reception issue of Babbitt and his ideas:one regards the translated ideas in Xueheng(The Critical Review) as the original ones articulated by American New Humanists themselves and pays no heed to the modification done by the translators for the purpose of domestic debate.The other rejects the aforementioned opinion by pointing out the fact that there is a deliberate understanding on the part of the translators,and as a consequence American New Humanistic ideas have been acculturated with analogical Confucian teachings to serve the Xueheng School's purpose of reviving the value of Confucianism which has already been dethroned from the predominant ideology of Chinese people in the sweeping May 4th Movement. While admitting the reasonable elements in both opinions,the study also points out their inadequacies.On the one hand,it should be noticed that importing foreign new ideas to revolutionize Chinese stagnant ideology is the major trend at that time and the Xueheng School is of no exception but join the dominant schools and groups in this endeavor instead of sticking to the tradition only.This is most Outstanding distinction between the Xueheng School and other conservative schools.Therefore,the Xueheng School can be classified as a different branch of the New Culture camp in the aspect of importing foreign ideas.It is in the sense of relying on the foreign knowledge that we can say American New Humanism(partially) is transmitted to Chinese cultural context via translation by the Xueheng School.On the other hand,however,Xueheng is different from the New Culture School in that it refuses to abandon wholly the tradition, especially the Confucianism and insists on the fundamental values of the Confucian teaching as permanently valid throughout time.It is because of this difference that the Xueheng School has a strong intention of reviving Confucianism in its translation.But the Xueheng School knows clearly that to restore Confucianism from its dethronement a new method has to be devised.This new method is to establish teaching correlatives between American New Humanism and Confucianism.The study finds out that in the translating process the mechanism of "cultural interpretation" operates when the translators correlate the two ideologies produced in different cultural contexts.For illustration,by extracting three pairs of corresponding core concepts such as "decorum vs.礼","higher/lower wills vs.理/欲",and "inner check vs.以理制欲" from source text (ST) and translated text(TT) respectively,the study shows convincingly that these three pairs of concepts have all taken on a new connotation respectively in this "cultural interpretation,'.The result of the "cultural interpretation" is that two ideologies have both changed:the New Humanism is tinted with a Confucian touch and the Confucianism is transformed by getting rid of its invalid parts.The method of teaching correlative proves to be very effective in debate since the Xueheng is regarded as toughest opponent of all conservative schools in the May 4~(th) Movement.Based upon the analysis of the reception of New Humanism in China,the chapter proposes a model for idea's cross-cultural travel via translation.In this model the role of the translator is emphasized since he is the key in wielding his power of "cultural interpretation".It is believed that teaching correlative can also be found in other ideas' cross-cultural transmission by focusing on the "cultural interpretation" of the media. Misunderstanding is not the only means to interpretate what happens in the cross-cultural understanding.
Both chapter Four and Five address the Xueheng School's translation activities in the aspect of literary works,based on representative case studies.Chapter Four focuses on the analysis of the characteristics of the fiction translation in the magazine of Xueheng through an intensive discussion of a particular case-the translation of The Neweomes by British novelist William Makepeace Thackeray.The selection of this novel as the subject for case study arises from the complexity of Thackeray's being accepted by the translator into his translation agenda.Thackeray,a member belonging with realistic writers' camp,seems to meet in every way the requirements of the prevailing translation trend and thus a suitable candidate for translation by the New Culture School.It is also known that the Xueheng School would by no means follow the lead of the prevailing literary values and engage in translation by resorting to the same foreign resources.Therefore,it can be safely inferred that the translator selects Thackeray in line with his consistent stance and as a result appropriates and manipulates the foreign writer to satisfy his own need in a totally different way from his opponents.Fundamentally speaking,the decision of incorporating Thackeray into the translator's agenda lies in the fact that Thackeray comes closer to Xueheng scholars than to the camp of the New Culture for he attaches much importance to the preaching of permanent moral and spiritual values as an essential function of fiction.Then,some fundamental methods of narratology are employed in the comparative analysis of the original and translated texts in terms of narrator,narrative angle of view,narrator's voice and time sequence of the narration.By examining the similarities and differences in the narrative structures between the original and translated texts the translating strategy employed is scientifically defined.It is can be seen that use of rarratology in doing text analysis adds an important dimension to the traditional methods in which the evaluation of equivalence is established only in terms of the comparative analysis of the content since the general cognition is to regard a piece of fiction as consisting of transferable material content only.One point that should be mentioned,however,is that more complex elements are involved when the theory is used in parallel analysis of ST and TT.The research discovers that the comparison is in effect done in the following five aspects:the narrative tradition of the SL,the narrative structure of the ST,story itself,the narrative structure of the TT,and the narrative tradition of the TL.An inter-textual comparison between the ST and the TT is not sufficient to define the translating strategy because it has to be determined whether and to what extent that the TT deviates from the narrative tradition of the TL to the ST and the narrative tradition of the SL.It is also found that in the process of translating a novel,it is the discourse rather than the story that exerts a direct influence on translating because for the translator,the discursive means the author uses in the ST are the object to be creatively represented in the TT.Story,therefore,can be said independent of the writer's writing style.A same story can be expressed in various ways.
Chapter 5 focuses mainly on a special reoccurring translation phenomenon in Xueheng(The Critical Review),that is,one work with multiple versions published simultaneously.Selecting eight versions of one poem by William Wordsworth as the representative case for study,this chapter starts with a thorough analysis of the form and image in translations as compared with the ST.It is found that the ST is transformed by its translators to various extents into Chinese poems with the original poetic form replaced by Chinese regular classic form and original poetic images giving way to Chinese ones frequently used in Chinese prosody.In a word,all exotic traits of the original poem have been totally lost in every translation and all the translations look like Chinese original classical poems.The fact that the same strategy is used in all eight versions unanimously contributes to a possible understanding that all the translators are manipulated to infuse a philosophy of cultural inheritance(of classical poetry in the case under study) in their view of translation.Therefore investigation is made on the formation of this special translation phenomenon by referring to the Manipulation Theory proposed by Andre Lefevere.Interestingly the domesticating strategy used in poetry translation,in effect in all translations in Xueheng(The Critical Review) as a whole,sheds a new light on the present understanding of Venuti's distinction between foreignization and domestication.In his discussion Venuti proposes the foreignizing translation in order to resist the dominant literary values at home by registering exotic features both in languages and cultures.Therefore,foreignizing translation is hold to be a resistant action by the peripheral values against the fate of being dominated by the prevailing values and a means of signifying their cultural identity.Thus domesticating translation can be understood perfectly in the same way as being resistant since in the May 4~(th) New Cultural-Literary Movement the dominant language being used for translating is the vernacular Chinese instead of the classical Chinese and the translation is more ST-oriented than TT-oriented for the purpose of establishing Chinese new literature on foreign literary models.Compared with the prevalent foreignizing translation,the domesticating translation enhances the identity of the Xueheng translators as an opponent to the dominant translating trend in a more noticeable fashion, attracting not only readers' attention to the content of STs represented,but also the way how the translators represent.In other words,this strategy is Xueheng scholars' cultural behavior of making clear their cultural stance as preserving culture in translation and building bridge between foreign and Chinese cultures.The Xueheng School's domesticating strategy is same as Venuti's proposal of foreignizing strategy in their pursuit of visibility in the domestic culture.The difference in terms of resistance between them is that Venuti achieves it by retaining foreign linguistic and cultural traits in the TTs and the Xueheng School achieves it by finding cultural similarity with domestic tradition.
The last chapter forms the concluding part of the dissertation which offers an evaluation of the nature of the Xueheng school's translation activities,a statement of the theoretical significance and some limitations of the present study,and reflections on present situation of Translation Studies aroused by this study.It is concluded that the Xueheng School's translation activities bear a dual nature of antiquity and modernity. The former lies,most obviously,in the adherence to classical Chinese as its translating language in Xueheng(The Critical Review) when vernacular Chinese has already been established as the nationwide official language in the twenties of the 20th century. Many other obsolete translating techniques,as shown in the study,move the Xueheng School's translation closer to those of Yan Fu and Lin Shu in appearance,but deviant from the dominant translating trend of the May 4~(th) Movement.The modernity of the Xueheng School's translation activities is best manifested in the goal of translating.Like the New Culture School,the Xueheng School also represents an active attempt of constructing Chinese new culture and new literature on the basis of importing foreign new ideas and new literature.As a pair of co-existing contradictory values,the Xueheng School's translation activities acquire a clear and complete understanding only in the presence of the New Culture School,and vice versa.In a word,the modernity of the Xueheng School's translation activities owes its significance to the modern New Culture Movement.
引文
[1] Appiah, Kwame Anthony. Thick Translation[A]. in The Translation Studies Reader[C]. Lawrence Venuti ed. London: Routledge, 2000:417-429
[2] Babbitt, Irving. Masters of Modern French Criticism[M]. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1912(reprinted in 1981)
[3] Babbit, Irving. Rousseau and Romanticism[M]. Boston and New York: Houghton Mittlin Company, 1919
[4] Babbitt, Irving. On Being Creative, and Other Essays[M]. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1932。
[5] Babbitt, Irving. Democracy and Leadership[M]. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1939.
[6] Babbitt, Irving. Literature and the American College- Essays in Defense of the Humanities [M]. Los Angeles: Gateway Editions, Inc., 1956.
[7] Bassnett-Mcguire, Susan. Translation Studies (Revised Edition) [M]. London and New York: Routledge, 1991.
[8] Bassnett Susan and Andre Lefevere. Constructing Culture: Essays on Literary Translation[M]. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd., 1998.
[9] Catford, J. C. A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Esssay in Applied Linguistics[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965
[10]Chien Hou. Lrving Babbitt in China, Ph. D. Dissertation[D]. SUNY/Stony Brook, 1980
[11]Eoyang Eugene Chen. The Transparent Eye: Reflection on Translation, Chinese Literature, and Comparative Poetics[M]. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1993
[12]Even-Zohar, Itamar. Polysystem Theory[J]. Poetics Today, 1990, Vol. 11, No.1: 9-16
[13]Even-Zohar, Itamar. The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem [J]. Poetics Today, 1990, Vol. 11, No.1: 45-51
[14]Gentzler, Edwin. Contemporary Translation Theories [M] .London &New York: Routledge,1993.
[15]Hermans,Theo.Translation in Systems:Descriptive and System-oriented Approaches Explained[M].Manchester:St.Jerome Publishing,1999.
[16]Hirsch,Eric Donald.Validity in Interpretation[M].New Haven:Yale University Press,1967.
[17]Holmes,James S."Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies",Approaches to Translation Studies 7[M].Amsterdam:Rodopi,1988
[18]Jauss,Hans Robert.Toward an Aesthetics of Reception[M].Minneapolis:The University of Minnesota Press,1983
[19]Lefevere,Andre Translation,Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame[M].London:Routledge,1992
[20]Nida,E.A.& Charles R.Taber,The Theory and Practice of Translation[M].Leiden:E.J.Brill,1969.
[21]Said,Edward W.Traveling Theory[A].in The World,The Text,and the Critic[C].Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1983:226-247
[22]Said,Edward W.Traveling Theory Reconsidered[A].in Reflections on Exile and Other Essays[C].Cambridge:Harvard University Press,2000:436-452
[23]Shuttleworth,Mark & Moira Cowie.Dictionary of Translation Studies[Z].Manchester:St.Jerome Publishing,1997
[24]Snell-Homby,Mary.Translation Studies-An Integrated Approach[M].Amsterdam:John Benjamin,1988
[25]Thackeray,William Makepeace.The Newcomes[M].London:J.M.Dent and Sons,1952.
[26]Venuti,Lawrence.The Translator's Invisibility-A History of Translation[Z].London and New York:Routledge,1995
[27]Venuti,Lawrence.Translation and the Formation of Cultural Identities[J]in Cultural Functions of Translation[M].edited by Christina Schaffner and Helen Kelly-Holmes.Clevedon:Multilinguial matters Ltd,1995
[28]巴尔胡达罗夫[苏].语言与翻译[M]北京:中国对外翻译出版社,1985
[29]本杰明·史华兹[美].寻求富强:严复与西方[M].江苏人民出版社,1995
[30]宾恩海.中国现代文学流派概论[M].合肥:安徽大学出版社,2007
[31]布斯,W.C.[美]著.华明等译.小说修辞学[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1987
[32]陈独秀,敬告青年[N].青年杂志.1915年9月,第1卷第1号
[33]陈建中.翻译是模仿:兼论吴宓的翻译观[J].四川外语学院学报,1991(1):99-107
[34]陈建中.吴宓的译诗(上)[J].外语教学与研究,1993(2):31-38
[35]陈建中.吴宓的译诗(下)[J].外语教学与研究,1993(2):55-58
[36]陈鹏.理:形式本体与道德本体--新理学与程朱理学的一种比较[M].中国哲学史,1997(2):105:111
[37]陈平原.中国小说叙事模式的转变[M],北京:北京大学出版社,2003
[38]陈平原.中国现代小说的起点--清末民初小说研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005
[39]陈希.被遮蔽的另面景观--论学衡派与西方现代诗歌[J].中山大学学报(社会科学版),2003(4):25-30
[40]陈子展.最近三十年中国文学史[M].上海:上海太平洋书店,1937
[41]程颢,程颐撰.王孝鱼点校.二程集[M].北京:中华书局,1981
[42]大卫·侯弗勒[美].白璧德与美国当代保守思想[J].见:美国《人文》杂志社编.人文主义:全盘反思[C].北京:三联书店,2003:172-201
[43]代迅.吴宓、学衡派与中国现代文论建设[J].见:王泉根主编.多维视野中的吴宓[C].重庆:重庆出版社,2001:335-348
[44]狄更斯[英].林纾,魏易译.块肉余生述[M].北京:商务印书馆,1981
[45]段怀清.白璧德与中国文化[M].北京:首都师范大学出版社,2006
[46]段怀清.欧文·白壁德与西方主义的批判[J].跨文化对话,2002(3)
[47]段怀清.新人文主义:美国与中国--欧文·白璧德与《学衡》派知识分子群研究[D].上海:复旦大学,1994
[48]方华文.20世纪中国翻译史[M].西安:西北大学出版社,2005
[49]方开瑞.从吴宓的翻译活动看小说翻译中叙述文体的变化[J].中国翻译,2007(1):32-35
[50]方开瑞.民国时期采用章回体译述小说问题[J].广东外语外贸大学学报,2007(3):73-77
[51]方梦之.译学的“一体三环”--从编纂《译学辞典》谈翻译体系[J].上海翻译,2006(1)
[52]高恒文.东南大学与“学衡派”[M].桂林:广西师范大学出版社,2002
[53]高玉.现代汉语与中国现代文学[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2003
[54]葛桂录.他者的眼光--中英文学关系论稿[M].银川:宁夏人民教育出版社,2003
[55]葛桂录.华兹华斯及其作品在中国的译介与接受(1900-1949)[J].四川外语学院学报,2001(2):12-15
[56]葛桂录.文学翻译的文化传承--华兹华斯八首译诗论析[J].外语教学,1999(4):36-40
[57]郭沫若.文学革命之回顾[J].见:沫若文集第10卷[C].北京:人民文学出版社,1959
[58]郭延礼.中国近代翻译文学概论[M],长沙:湖北教育出版社,2005
[59]郝大维、安乐哲[美].先贤的民主[M].南京:江苏人民出版社,2004
[60]赫施[美].解释的有效性[M].北京:三联书店,1991
[61]黄绳.民族形式与语言问题[N].大公报·文艺副刊.1939年12月15日.
[62]韩南[美].尹慧珉译.中国白话小说史[M],杭州:浙江古籍出版社,1989
[63]胡适.谈新诗[J].见:中国新文学大系·建设理论集[M].上海:上海良友图书公司,1935
[64]胡适.易卜生主义[J].新青年.第4卷第6号,191 8年6月
[65]蒋书丽.论吴宓中西融合的文化理想与实践[D].上海:华东师范大学,2002
[66]乐黛云.世界文化对话中的中国现代保守主义[J].中国文化,1989(1):132-136
[67]乐黛云.文化差异与文化误读[J].中国文化研究,1994(2):17-19
[68]李广琼.学衡派与新人文主义中国化[D].广州:中山大学,2006
[69]李淑玲,吴格非.萨克雷及其小说在二十世纪中国的传播与接受[J].外语与翻译,2005(2):61-66
[70]李怡.论“学衡派”与五四新文学运动[J].中国社会科学,1998(6):150-164
[71]李一鸣.中国新文学史讲话[M].上海:世界书局,1932
[72]李有成.白璧德与中国[J].台湾:中外文学,1991年第十二卷第三期:48-71
[73]梁实秋.白璧德及其人文主义[J].现代,第5卷第6期,1934年10月1日
[74]梁实秋.关于白璧德先生及其思想[A].见:梁实秋等编著.关于白璧德大师[C].台湾:巨浪出版社,1977
[75]梁实秋.现代中国文学之浪漫的趋势[J].见:刘俊等编著.中国现当代文学研究导引[C].南京:南京大学出版社,2006
[76]廖七一.多元系统[J].外国文学,2004(04):48-52
[77]刘禾[美].宋伟杰译,跨语际实践--文学民族文化与被译介的现代性(中国1900-1937)[M].北京:三联书店,2002
[78]刘霁.操纵翻译的多重因素--罗塞蒂诗歌在《学衡》的译介[J].外语与翻译,2005(2):8-13
[79]刘霁.学术网络、知识传播中的文学译介研究--以“学衡派”为中心[D].上海:复旦大学,2007
[80]刘黎红.五四文化保守主义思潮研究[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2006
[81]刘述先.文化哲学[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江教育出版社,1988
[82]柳诒徵.中国文化史(下卷)[M].上海:东方出版中心,1988
[83]刘耘华.诠释的圆环:明末清初传教士对儒家经典的解释及其本土回应[M].北京大学出版社,2005
[84]陆建德.破碎思想体系的残编:英美文学与思想史论稿[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2001
[85]鲁迅.花边文学·看书琐记[M].北京:人民文学出版社,1980
[86]鲁迅.鲁迅全集(第一卷)[C].北京:人民文学出版社,1981
[87]罗钢.叙事学导论[M],昆明:云南人民出版社,1994
[88]罗兰·巴特.叙事作品结构分析导论[J].见:张寅德编选.叙事学研究[C].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1989
[89]罗素[英]著.何兆武,李约瑟译.西方哲学史(下卷)[M].北京:商务印书馆,1976
[90]罗新璋.翻译论集[C].北京:商务印书馆,1984
[91]马祖毅.中国翻译通史[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,2006
[92]茅盾.文艺大众化问题--二月十四日在汉口量才图书馆的讲演[N].救亡日报.1938年3月9、10日
[93]梅光迪.人文主义和现代中国[A].见:罗岗,陈春艳编.梅光迪文录[C].沈阳:辽宁教育出版社,2001
[94]孟昭毅,李载道.中国翻译文学史[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005
[95]欧文·白璧德.孙宜学译.卢梭与浪漫主义[M].石家庄:河北教育出版社,2003
[96]欧文·白璧德.张沛,张源译.文学与美国的大学[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2004
[97]钱理群等.中国现代文学三十年[M].上海:上海文艺出版社,1998
[98]钱钟书.林纾的翻译[J].见:钱钟书.七缀集[C].北京:三联书店,2002
[99]萨克雷[英]著.王培德译.钮可谟一家(上册)[Z].北京:人民文学出版社,1984
[100]赛义德[美]著.谢少波等译.赛义德自选集[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1999
[101]孙尚扬,郭兰芳编.国故新知论--学衡派文化论著辑要[C].北京:中国广播电视出版社,1995
[102]邵伯周.中国现代文学思潮研究[M].上海:学林出版社,1993
[103]申丹.叙述学与小说文体学研究[M].北京:北京大学出版,1998
[104]沈松侨.学衡派与五四时期的反新文化运动[M].台湾:台湾大学出版委员会,1984
[105]沈卫威.回眸“学衡派”--文化保守主义的现代命运[M].北京:人民出版社,1999
[106]沈卫威.吴宓与《学衡》[M].开封:河南大学出版社,2000
[107]沈卫威.我所界定的“学衡派”[J].文艺争鸣,2007(5):84-87
[108]田丰.文化进步论[M].广州:广东高等教育出版社,2002
[109]王东风.翻译文学的文化地位与译者的文化态度[J].中国翻译,2000(4):3-9
[110]王东风.归化与异化:矛与盾的交锋?[J].中国翻译,2002(5):26-28
[111]王敦书.斯宾格勒的“文化形态史观”在华之最初传播[J].历史研究,2002 (4):180-185
[112]王建开.中国近代翻译的特殊形态及思考[J].见:谢天振主编.翻译的理论建设与文化透视[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000:284-291
[113]王建开.五四以来我国英美文学作品译介史:1919-1949[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2003
[114]王宁.文化翻译与经典阐释[M].北京:中华书局,2006
[115]王平.中国古代小说叙事研究[M].石家庄:河北人民出版社,2001
[116]王晴佳[美].白璧德与“学衡派”--一个学术史的比较研究[J].见:陆晓光主编.人文东方--旅外中国学者研究论集[C].上海:上海文艺出版社,2002:504-554
[117]王庆华.话本小说文体研究[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社,2006
[118]王泉根.论吴宓与20世纪中国文化[J].见:王泉根主编.多维视野中的吴宓[C].重庆:重庆出版社,2001:175-199
[119]王润华.中西文学关系研究[M].台北:台湾东大图书公司,1978
[120]王向远,陈言.二十世纪中国文学翻译之争[M].南昌:百花洲文艺出版社,2006
[121]吴宓.孔子之价值及孔教之精义[A].见:徐葆耕编选.会通派如是说:吴宓集[C].上海:上海文艺出版社,1998
[122]吴宓.吴宓自编年谱[M].北京:三联书店,1995
[123]吴宓.吴宓日记(第一册)[Z].北京:三联书店,1998
[124]吴宓.吴宓日记(第三册)[Z].北京:三联书店,1998
[125]吴宓.英文诗话[J].见:吴宓诗话[C]:北京:商务印书馆2005
[126]武新军.现代性与古典传统--论中国现代文学中的“古典倾向”[M].开封:河南大学出版社,2005
[127]伍蠡甫.西方文论选(下卷)[C].上海:上海译文出版社,1979
[128]谢世坚.从中国近代翻译文学看多元系统理论的局限性[J].四川外语学院学报,2002(4):103-05
[129]谢天振.多元系统理论:翻译研究领域的拓展[J].外国语,2003(4):59-66
[130]谢天振、查明建.中国现代翻译文学史[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2004
[131]杨义.中国叙事学[M].北京:人民出版社,1998
[132]叶绍钧.创作的要素[J].小说月报,1921年第12卷第7号
[133]伊塔马·埃文-佐哈尔著.张南峰译.多元系统论[J].中国翻译,2002(04):21-27
[134]于德英.用另一只眼睛看多元系统论--多元系统论的形式主义分析[J].中国翻译,2004(5):12-16
[135]余英时.钱穆与中国文化[M].上海:上海远东出版社,1994
[136]俞兆平.科学主义思潮中的学衡派[J].吉首大学学报(社会科学版),2002(02):50-56
[137]查明建,谢天振.中国20世纪外国文学翻译史[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,2007
[138]赵毅衡.当说者被说的时侯--比较叙述学导论[M],北京:中国人民大学出版社,1998
[139]张弘.吴宓:理想的使者[M].北京:文津出版社,2005
[140]张南峰.从边缘走向中心?-从多元系统论的角度看中国翻译研究的过去和未来[J].外国语,2001(4):61-69
[141]张南峰.走出死胡同,建立翻译学[J].外国语,1995(3):1-3
[142]张培基等.英汉翻译教程[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1980
[143]张萍萍.论《学衡》[D].济南:山东大学,2002
[144]张寅德编选.叙事学研究[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1989
[145]张祥龙.海德格尔传[M].石家庄:河北人民出版社,1998
[146]郑师渠.在欧化与国粹之间--学衡派文化思想研究[M].北京:北京师范大学出版社,2001
[147]郑振铎.文学大纲[M].北京:商务印书馆,1927
[148]郑振铎.新文学大系·文学论争集导言[C].上海:上海良友图书出版公司,1936
[149]周佩瑶.“学衡派”的身份想象:“人文主义者”与“圣人”[D],北京:北京师范大学,2007
[150]周淑媚.学衡派翻译研究[J].台湾:东海中文学报,2006年第18期:47-77
[151]周晓明,王又平.现代中国文学史[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,2004
[152]周云.学衡派思想研究[M].兰州:甘肃人民出版社,2005
[153]周作人.思想革命[J].胡适.中国新文学大系·建设理论集[C].上海:上海良友图书公司,1935
[154]朱徽.吴宓的翻译观[J].见:王泉根主编.多维视野中的吴宓[C].重庆:重庆出版社,2001:390-397
[155]朱寿桐.中国现代社团文学史[M].北京:人民文学出版社,2004
[156]朱熹.黎靖德[宋]编.朱子语类(第五册)[M].北京:中华书局,1986
[157]朱熹撰.王星贤点校.朱子语类[M].北京:中华书局,.1994
[158]宗白华.讨论译名的提倡[J].宗白华全集(第1卷)[C].合肥:安徽教育出版社,1994
[159]邹昌林.中国礼文化[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,2000
[160]左丘明撰.杜预[西晋]集解.左传[M].上海:上海古籍出版社,1997
[2] Babbitt, Irving. Masters of Modern French Criticism[M]. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1912(reprinted in 1981)
[3] Babbit, Irving. Rousseau and Romanticism[M]. Boston and New York: Houghton Mittlin Company, 1919
[4] Babbitt, Irving. On Being Creative, and Other Essays[M]. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1932。
[5] Babbitt, Irving. Democracy and Leadership[M]. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1939.
[6] Babbitt, Irving. Literature and the American College- Essays in Defense of the Humanities [M]. Los Angeles: Gateway Editions, Inc., 1956.
[7] Bassnett-Mcguire, Susan. Translation Studies (Revised Edition) [M]. London and New York: Routledge, 1991.
[8] Bassnett Susan and Andre Lefevere. Constructing Culture: Essays on Literary Translation[M]. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd., 1998.
[9] Catford, J. C. A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Esssay in Applied Linguistics[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965
[10]Chien Hou. Lrving Babbitt in China, Ph. D. Dissertation[D]. SUNY/Stony Brook, 1980
[11]Eoyang Eugene Chen. The Transparent Eye: Reflection on Translation, Chinese Literature, and Comparative Poetics[M]. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1993
[12]Even-Zohar, Itamar. Polysystem Theory[J]. Poetics Today, 1990, Vol. 11, No.1: 9-16
[13]Even-Zohar, Itamar. The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem [J]. Poetics Today, 1990, Vol. 11, No.1: 45-51
[14]Gentzler, Edwin. Contemporary Translation Theories [M] .London &New York: Routledge,1993.
[15]Hermans,Theo.Translation in Systems:Descriptive and System-oriented Approaches Explained[M].Manchester:St.Jerome Publishing,1999.
[16]Hirsch,Eric Donald.Validity in Interpretation[M].New Haven:Yale University Press,1967.
[17]Holmes,James S."Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies",Approaches to Translation Studies 7[M].Amsterdam:Rodopi,1988
[18]Jauss,Hans Robert.Toward an Aesthetics of Reception[M].Minneapolis:The University of Minnesota Press,1983
[19]Lefevere,Andre Translation,Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame[M].London:Routledge,1992
[20]Nida,E.A.& Charles R.Taber,The Theory and Practice of Translation[M].Leiden:E.J.Brill,1969.
[21]Said,Edward W.Traveling Theory[A].in The World,The Text,and the Critic[C].Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1983:226-247
[22]Said,Edward W.Traveling Theory Reconsidered[A].in Reflections on Exile and Other Essays[C].Cambridge:Harvard University Press,2000:436-452
[23]Shuttleworth,Mark & Moira Cowie.Dictionary of Translation Studies[Z].Manchester:St.Jerome Publishing,1997
[24]Snell-Homby,Mary.Translation Studies-An Integrated Approach[M].Amsterdam:John Benjamin,1988
[25]Thackeray,William Makepeace.The Newcomes[M].London:J.M.Dent and Sons,1952.
[26]Venuti,Lawrence.The Translator's Invisibility-A History of Translation[Z].London and New York:Routledge,1995
[27]Venuti,Lawrence.Translation and the Formation of Cultural Identities[J]in Cultural Functions of Translation[M].edited by Christina Schaffner and Helen Kelly-Holmes.Clevedon:Multilinguial matters Ltd,1995
[28]巴尔胡达罗夫[苏].语言与翻译[M]北京:中国对外翻译出版社,1985
[29]本杰明·史华兹[美].寻求富强:严复与西方[M].江苏人民出版社,1995
[30]宾恩海.中国现代文学流派概论[M].合肥:安徽大学出版社,2007
[31]布斯,W.C.[美]著.华明等译.小说修辞学[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1987
[32]陈独秀,敬告青年[N].青年杂志.1915年9月,第1卷第1号
[33]陈建中.翻译是模仿:兼论吴宓的翻译观[J].四川外语学院学报,1991(1):99-107
[34]陈建中.吴宓的译诗(上)[J].外语教学与研究,1993(2):31-38
[35]陈建中.吴宓的译诗(下)[J].外语教学与研究,1993(2):55-58
[36]陈鹏.理:形式本体与道德本体--新理学与程朱理学的一种比较[M].中国哲学史,1997(2):105:111
[37]陈平原.中国小说叙事模式的转变[M],北京:北京大学出版社,2003
[38]陈平原.中国现代小说的起点--清末民初小说研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005
[39]陈希.被遮蔽的另面景观--论学衡派与西方现代诗歌[J].中山大学学报(社会科学版),2003(4):25-30
[40]陈子展.最近三十年中国文学史[M].上海:上海太平洋书店,1937
[41]程颢,程颐撰.王孝鱼点校.二程集[M].北京:中华书局,1981
[42]大卫·侯弗勒[美].白璧德与美国当代保守思想[J].见:美国《人文》杂志社编.人文主义:全盘反思[C].北京:三联书店,2003:172-201
[43]代迅.吴宓、学衡派与中国现代文论建设[J].见:王泉根主编.多维视野中的吴宓[C].重庆:重庆出版社,2001:335-348
[44]狄更斯[英].林纾,魏易译.块肉余生述[M].北京:商务印书馆,1981
[45]段怀清.白璧德与中国文化[M].北京:首都师范大学出版社,2006
[46]段怀清.欧文·白壁德与西方主义的批判[J].跨文化对话,2002(3)
[47]段怀清.新人文主义:美国与中国--欧文·白璧德与《学衡》派知识分子群研究[D].上海:复旦大学,1994
[48]方华文.20世纪中国翻译史[M].西安:西北大学出版社,2005
[49]方开瑞.从吴宓的翻译活动看小说翻译中叙述文体的变化[J].中国翻译,2007(1):32-35
[50]方开瑞.民国时期采用章回体译述小说问题[J].广东外语外贸大学学报,2007(3):73-77
[51]方梦之.译学的“一体三环”--从编纂《译学辞典》谈翻译体系[J].上海翻译,2006(1)
[52]高恒文.东南大学与“学衡派”[M].桂林:广西师范大学出版社,2002
[53]高玉.现代汉语与中国现代文学[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2003
[54]葛桂录.他者的眼光--中英文学关系论稿[M].银川:宁夏人民教育出版社,2003
[55]葛桂录.华兹华斯及其作品在中国的译介与接受(1900-1949)[J].四川外语学院学报,2001(2):12-15
[56]葛桂录.文学翻译的文化传承--华兹华斯八首译诗论析[J].外语教学,1999(4):36-40
[57]郭沫若.文学革命之回顾[J].见:沫若文集第10卷[C].北京:人民文学出版社,1959
[58]郭延礼.中国近代翻译文学概论[M],长沙:湖北教育出版社,2005
[59]郝大维、安乐哲[美].先贤的民主[M].南京:江苏人民出版社,2004
[60]赫施[美].解释的有效性[M].北京:三联书店,1991
[61]黄绳.民族形式与语言问题[N].大公报·文艺副刊.1939年12月15日.
[62]韩南[美].尹慧珉译.中国白话小说史[M],杭州:浙江古籍出版社,1989
[63]胡适.谈新诗[J].见:中国新文学大系·建设理论集[M].上海:上海良友图书公司,1935
[64]胡适.易卜生主义[J].新青年.第4卷第6号,191 8年6月
[65]蒋书丽.论吴宓中西融合的文化理想与实践[D].上海:华东师范大学,2002
[66]乐黛云.世界文化对话中的中国现代保守主义[J].中国文化,1989(1):132-136
[67]乐黛云.文化差异与文化误读[J].中国文化研究,1994(2):17-19
[68]李广琼.学衡派与新人文主义中国化[D].广州:中山大学,2006
[69]李淑玲,吴格非.萨克雷及其小说在二十世纪中国的传播与接受[J].外语与翻译,2005(2):61-66
[70]李怡.论“学衡派”与五四新文学运动[J].中国社会科学,1998(6):150-164
[71]李一鸣.中国新文学史讲话[M].上海:世界书局,1932
[72]李有成.白璧德与中国[J].台湾:中外文学,1991年第十二卷第三期:48-71
[73]梁实秋.白璧德及其人文主义[J].现代,第5卷第6期,1934年10月1日
[74]梁实秋.关于白璧德先生及其思想[A].见:梁实秋等编著.关于白璧德大师[C].台湾:巨浪出版社,1977
[75]梁实秋.现代中国文学之浪漫的趋势[J].见:刘俊等编著.中国现当代文学研究导引[C].南京:南京大学出版社,2006
[76]廖七一.多元系统[J].外国文学,2004(04):48-52
[77]刘禾[美].宋伟杰译,跨语际实践--文学民族文化与被译介的现代性(中国1900-1937)[M].北京:三联书店,2002
[78]刘霁.操纵翻译的多重因素--罗塞蒂诗歌在《学衡》的译介[J].外语与翻译,2005(2):8-13
[79]刘霁.学术网络、知识传播中的文学译介研究--以“学衡派”为中心[D].上海:复旦大学,2007
[80]刘黎红.五四文化保守主义思潮研究[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2006
[81]刘述先.文化哲学[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江教育出版社,1988
[82]柳诒徵.中国文化史(下卷)[M].上海:东方出版中心,1988
[83]刘耘华.诠释的圆环:明末清初传教士对儒家经典的解释及其本土回应[M].北京大学出版社,2005
[84]陆建德.破碎思想体系的残编:英美文学与思想史论稿[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2001
[85]鲁迅.花边文学·看书琐记[M].北京:人民文学出版社,1980
[86]鲁迅.鲁迅全集(第一卷)[C].北京:人民文学出版社,1981
[87]罗钢.叙事学导论[M],昆明:云南人民出版社,1994
[88]罗兰·巴特.叙事作品结构分析导论[J].见:张寅德编选.叙事学研究[C].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1989
[89]罗素[英]著.何兆武,李约瑟译.西方哲学史(下卷)[M].北京:商务印书馆,1976
[90]罗新璋.翻译论集[C].北京:商务印书馆,1984
[91]马祖毅.中国翻译通史[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,2006
[92]茅盾.文艺大众化问题--二月十四日在汉口量才图书馆的讲演[N].救亡日报.1938年3月9、10日
[93]梅光迪.人文主义和现代中国[A].见:罗岗,陈春艳编.梅光迪文录[C].沈阳:辽宁教育出版社,2001
[94]孟昭毅,李载道.中国翻译文学史[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005
[95]欧文·白璧德.孙宜学译.卢梭与浪漫主义[M].石家庄:河北教育出版社,2003
[96]欧文·白璧德.张沛,张源译.文学与美国的大学[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2004
[97]钱理群等.中国现代文学三十年[M].上海:上海文艺出版社,1998
[98]钱钟书.林纾的翻译[J].见:钱钟书.七缀集[C].北京:三联书店,2002
[99]萨克雷[英]著.王培德译.钮可谟一家(上册)[Z].北京:人民文学出版社,1984
[100]赛义德[美]著.谢少波等译.赛义德自选集[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1999
[101]孙尚扬,郭兰芳编.国故新知论--学衡派文化论著辑要[C].北京:中国广播电视出版社,1995
[102]邵伯周.中国现代文学思潮研究[M].上海:学林出版社,1993
[103]申丹.叙述学与小说文体学研究[M].北京:北京大学出版,1998
[104]沈松侨.学衡派与五四时期的反新文化运动[M].台湾:台湾大学出版委员会,1984
[105]沈卫威.回眸“学衡派”--文化保守主义的现代命运[M].北京:人民出版社,1999
[106]沈卫威.吴宓与《学衡》[M].开封:河南大学出版社,2000
[107]沈卫威.我所界定的“学衡派”[J].文艺争鸣,2007(5):84-87
[108]田丰.文化进步论[M].广州:广东高等教育出版社,2002
[109]王东风.翻译文学的文化地位与译者的文化态度[J].中国翻译,2000(4):3-9
[110]王东风.归化与异化:矛与盾的交锋?[J].中国翻译,2002(5):26-28
[111]王敦书.斯宾格勒的“文化形态史观”在华之最初传播[J].历史研究,2002 (4):180-185
[112]王建开.中国近代翻译的特殊形态及思考[J].见:谢天振主编.翻译的理论建设与文化透视[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000:284-291
[113]王建开.五四以来我国英美文学作品译介史:1919-1949[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2003
[114]王宁.文化翻译与经典阐释[M].北京:中华书局,2006
[115]王平.中国古代小说叙事研究[M].石家庄:河北人民出版社,2001
[116]王晴佳[美].白璧德与“学衡派”--一个学术史的比较研究[J].见:陆晓光主编.人文东方--旅外中国学者研究论集[C].上海:上海文艺出版社,2002:504-554
[117]王庆华.话本小说文体研究[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社,2006
[118]王泉根.论吴宓与20世纪中国文化[J].见:王泉根主编.多维视野中的吴宓[C].重庆:重庆出版社,2001:175-199
[119]王润华.中西文学关系研究[M].台北:台湾东大图书公司,1978
[120]王向远,陈言.二十世纪中国文学翻译之争[M].南昌:百花洲文艺出版社,2006
[121]吴宓.孔子之价值及孔教之精义[A].见:徐葆耕编选.会通派如是说:吴宓集[C].上海:上海文艺出版社,1998
[122]吴宓.吴宓自编年谱[M].北京:三联书店,1995
[123]吴宓.吴宓日记(第一册)[Z].北京:三联书店,1998
[124]吴宓.吴宓日记(第三册)[Z].北京:三联书店,1998
[125]吴宓.英文诗话[J].见:吴宓诗话[C]:北京:商务印书馆2005
[126]武新军.现代性与古典传统--论中国现代文学中的“古典倾向”[M].开封:河南大学出版社,2005
[127]伍蠡甫.西方文论选(下卷)[C].上海:上海译文出版社,1979
[128]谢世坚.从中国近代翻译文学看多元系统理论的局限性[J].四川外语学院学报,2002(4):103-05
[129]谢天振.多元系统理论:翻译研究领域的拓展[J].外国语,2003(4):59-66
[130]谢天振、查明建.中国现代翻译文学史[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2004
[131]杨义.中国叙事学[M].北京:人民出版社,1998
[132]叶绍钧.创作的要素[J].小说月报,1921年第12卷第7号
[133]伊塔马·埃文-佐哈尔著.张南峰译.多元系统论[J].中国翻译,2002(04):21-27
[134]于德英.用另一只眼睛看多元系统论--多元系统论的形式主义分析[J].中国翻译,2004(5):12-16
[135]余英时.钱穆与中国文化[M].上海:上海远东出版社,1994
[136]俞兆平.科学主义思潮中的学衡派[J].吉首大学学报(社会科学版),2002(02):50-56
[137]查明建,谢天振.中国20世纪外国文学翻译史[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,2007
[138]赵毅衡.当说者被说的时侯--比较叙述学导论[M],北京:中国人民大学出版社,1998
[139]张弘.吴宓:理想的使者[M].北京:文津出版社,2005
[140]张南峰.从边缘走向中心?-从多元系统论的角度看中国翻译研究的过去和未来[J].外国语,2001(4):61-69
[141]张南峰.走出死胡同,建立翻译学[J].外国语,1995(3):1-3
[142]张培基等.英汉翻译教程[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1980
[143]张萍萍.论《学衡》[D].济南:山东大学,2002
[144]张寅德编选.叙事学研究[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1989
[145]张祥龙.海德格尔传[M].石家庄:河北人民出版社,1998
[146]郑师渠.在欧化与国粹之间--学衡派文化思想研究[M].北京:北京师范大学出版社,2001
[147]郑振铎.文学大纲[M].北京:商务印书馆,1927
[148]郑振铎.新文学大系·文学论争集导言[C].上海:上海良友图书出版公司,1936
[149]周佩瑶.“学衡派”的身份想象:“人文主义者”与“圣人”[D],北京:北京师范大学,2007
[150]周淑媚.学衡派翻译研究[J].台湾:东海中文学报,2006年第18期:47-77
[151]周晓明,王又平.现代中国文学史[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,2004
[152]周云.学衡派思想研究[M].兰州:甘肃人民出版社,2005
[153]周作人.思想革命[J].胡适.中国新文学大系·建设理论集[C].上海:上海良友图书公司,1935
[154]朱徽.吴宓的翻译观[J].见:王泉根主编.多维视野中的吴宓[C].重庆:重庆出版社,2001:390-397
[155]朱寿桐.中国现代社团文学史[M].北京:人民文学出版社,2004
[156]朱熹.黎靖德[宋]编.朱子语类(第五册)[M].北京:中华书局,1986
[157]朱熹撰.王星贤点校.朱子语类[M].北京:中华书局,.1994
[158]宗白华.讨论译名的提倡[J].宗白华全集(第1卷)[C].合肥:安徽教育出版社,1994
[159]邹昌林.中国礼文化[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,2000
[160]左丘明撰.杜预[西晋]集解.左传[M].上海:上海古籍出版社,1997