《论语》英译语境化探索
|
摘要
《论语》是中国文化经典中的经典,其英译对于传播中国传统文化有着至关重要的意义。本文将从《论语》译本的辅文本视角,重点探讨《论语》英译所涉及的各种“语境化”。
翻译研究领域已然意识到对各种语境变量的静态研究已不能解释翻译过程的动态实际,还不如探察翻译文本的生产和接受的语境化过程。而翻译研究领域的“语境化”(contextualization)一词可以用在不同的层面,表示不同的意思。譬如描述翻译研究就强调“语境化”。描述翻译研究摒弃了传统的“原文—译文”对应,将翻译视为一种文化现实,注重考察接受方文化和接受情境。因此,描述翻译研究的“语境化”指的是将译本和翻译活动置于大的社会、文化、历史语境中进行考察和评价,能使翻译批评更为客观。神学和《圣经》翻译也提倡“语境化”,指的是将信息适境地迁移到接受方文化,使之被理解。而同样是为了实现被理解的目的,丰厚翻译则主张提供相关的源语语境。就具体操作而言,翻译无疑是一种语言交际活动,语言使用本身就是一个“语境化”过程,而翻译就是一个利用语境、调动语境甚或营造语境来理解意义,然后生成意义的双重语境化活动。
鉴于“语境化”一词可以表示多种含义,本文区分了翻译中的语境化和翻译的语境化,宏观策略层面的语境化和微观操作层面的语境化,适境语境化和造境语境化等几对概念。“翻译中的语境化”是指译者在翻译活动中要经历的语境化阐释和表达过程,属于翻译过程研究的范畴;“翻译的语境化”是将翻译活动置于其翻译语境中加以考察,是描述翻译学视野下的翻译批评。它们之间有区别,也有联系。翻译批评所进行“翻译的语境化”仍然需要考虑译者在“翻译中的语境化”,才能全面、正确、客观地认识翻译活动,解释翻译现象,评价译者译作。“宏观层面的语境化”指的是翻译的宏观策略,主要表现出两种取向:一种是适应译语文化语境的“适境语境化”,另一种是基于源语文化语境的“造境语境化”。适境语境化尊重译语文化语境,并根据接受语境对文本的表现形式及意义进行适当的调适,借用译语中的文化意象进行语境重构;造境语境化则尊重源语文化语境,强调在源语语境的基础上复制语境,并迁移到译语中。就微观层面而言,翻译是一个包括译者与作者、译者与读者的两轮交际活动,而交际就是一个明示—推理过程。在前一轮交际中,即在语境化阐释阶段,译者是受话人,他依靠对自身认知语境的不断取舍和建构去推理、解读文本信息。在第二轮交际中,即语境化表达阶段,译者是发话人,为了实现自己的交际目的,译者可以利用一定的语境化手段,营造一个有利于实现自身交际目的的语境。
本文在区分各种“语境化”概念的基础上,通过观察译本中的辅文本,具体分析了《论语》英译本的生产和接受过程中涉及的各个意义上的“语境化”。为此,全文共分八章:
第一章介绍《论语》英译研究的背景和现状,引出本文的辅文本观察视角和研究方法。译本的辅文本无疑是观察翻译的重要窗口,而以往的研究认为,译本的辅文本可以揭示译者的翻译动机、目的、策略以及翻译规范。本文通过观察《论语》英译本丰富的辅文本发现,辅文本在揭示译者的宏观翻译策略的同时,还能够充分说明翻译微观层面的语境化过程。以往对翻译过程的研究方法主要是有声思维法、译文倒推法。然而,有声思维法研究对象有限,且研究对象未必具有广泛代表性;译文倒推法的研究者又免不了带有很大的主观臆测成分,且译者的表达并不完全等同于其理解,因此对翻译过程的解释力不强,而从辅文本进行观察则可兼取二者之长。
第二章探讨《论语》英译的特殊性,并回顾其英译简史。第一,《论语》作为先秦文献的典型,文本在语言文字上以及在文本的权威性上都较为特殊;第二,由于时间、空间和文化的跨度,现代译者对古籍文献的阐释不是直接地与文本意义实现视域融合,而是要经由第三方(即历代阐释权威);第三,从文化而言,中国文化处于高语境一端,英美文化位于低语境一端;从语言而言,古代汉语位于高语境一端,现代英语位于低语境一端,因此,中国古籍的英译必然要遭遇语境的流失。这些都造成了《论语》英译特殊的困难。
第三章对“语境”概念的提出和发展,以及翻译领域所进行的语境研究进行了梳理。
第四章厘清了翻译研究领域涉及的“语境化”概念的含义,重点区分了“翻译中的语境化”和“翻译的语境化”,“宏观策略层面的语境化”和“微观操作层面的语境化”,“适境语境化”和“造境语境化”等概念,为后面几章的研究做好理论铺垫。
第五章和第六章具体讨论“翻译中的语境化”过程的两个阶段,即语境化阐释和语境化表达阶段。第五章重点分析语境化阐释阶段,涉及译者如何利用、调动认知语境理解原作者意义,指出此阶段中,译者在信任的基础之上,知识和理性的指导之下,对文本意义进行分析和推理,实现各个语境层面的认知和谐,得出合理的解读。同时,我们也通过观察译者对同义词的阐释,指出语境化阐释也不是发生在真空中的单纯语言行为,而是会受到权力的牵制,然而译者在此阶段受到的影响与表达阶段不同,主要来自专家权力和信息权力。第六章则侧重探讨语境化表达阶段,既从宏观上分析各个不同译本所采取的宏观策略,又在微观上观察译者如何利用语码转换、插图漫画等语境化信号和手段,以实现自身的交际目的。
第七章涉及“翻译的语境化”,即语境化视野下的《论语》英译批评,将翻译活动置于译本产生和接受的语境下进行审视和评价。本章在辅文本的基础上重点分析了辜鸿铭、马歇曼和理雅各译本,对这几个译本的各种批评提出新的看法。
第八章对本研究进行总结。本文作者认为,对《论语》这样一部经典作品的多个译本进行全方位的语境化探索对于典籍英译的实践和批评都是有意义的。
The translation of The Confucian Analects, which represents the culmination of Chinese classics, is of utmost importance in spreading traditional Chinese culture. This dissertation is intended to explore“contextualization‖in various senses involved in the translating and translations of the Confucian Analects based on the paratexts of its different versions.
The circle of translation studies has been aware of the fact that closer attention to processes of contextualization in both the production and reception of translated texts is more enlightening than any static listing of contextual variables which is far from being enough to explain the dynamic translating reality. However, the word“contextualization‖has been used in different senses at different levels in translation studies. For instance,“contextualization‖is highly valued in DTS (Descriptive Translation Studies) which abandon the traditional idea of correspondence between the source text and the target text, take translations as facts of the target culture and focus on the target culture and reception context. Therefore,“contextualization‖in the DTS sense means commenting and assessing a translation or a translation activity in a wider social, cultural and historical context. For this reason,“contextualization‖in DTS can contribute to more objective translation criticism. In the meantime,“contextualization‖is also advocated in theology and Bible translation where the word means adapting the message to the receptor culture to make it more understandable and acceptable. For the same reason of understandability,“thick translation‖, at the other extreme of the continuum of contextualization, argues for a reproduction of the source context involved. At the micro operational level, translation is undoubtedly an activity of linguistic communication, a special form of language use which, in itself, is a contextualization process. Therefore, translation is a dual-contextualization process of utilizing, modifying or even reshaping the context to understand the meaning contained in the source text and then generate meaning in the target text.
In view of the multiple meanings of the word“contextualization”, it is necessary for us to distinguish between“contextualization in translation”and“contextualization of translation”, between contextualization at the macro strategic level and that at the micro operational level, and between accommodative contextualization and reconstructive contextualization.
To be specific,“contextualization in translation”refers to the contextualized interpretation and re-expression performed by the translator in the translating process while“contextualization of translation”means examining a translation activity in its translation context, thus belonging to the category of translation criticism under the perspective of DTS. The two are different yet interconnected. When contextualizing a translation activity, one needs also to take into account the contextualization efforts made by the translator in the translating process so as to make a comprehensive, accurate and objective judgment of the translator, the translation activity or a particular translational phenomenon. At the macro strategic level, contextualization by a certain translator falls somewhere
on a continuum between two extremes– one of extremely accommodative contextualization which focuses on adapting to the target cultural context and the other of extremely reconstructive contextualization which values a reproduction of the original cultural context.
At the micro operational level, translation involves two rounds of ostensive-inferential communication (i.e., one between the translator and the author(s) and the other between the translator and the readers). In the first round of communication (to be named the stage of contextualized interpretation), the translator is the receptor who has to infer and interpret message contained in the source text by choosing from, giving up, and rebuilding his/her cognitive context. In the second round of communication (to be called the stage of contextualized re-expression), the translator becomes a speaker/writer who can adopt some contextualization devices and shape a favorable context in order to achieve his/her communicative purposes.
On the basis of distinguishing between the different meanings of“contextualization”, this dissertation, by observing the paratexts of the different versions of the Confucian Analects, will make specific analysis of the contextualization in various senses involved in the production and reception of the different versions. To achieve this goal, this dissertation will include eight chapters.
Chapter 1 gives a brief review of previous researches into the translation of the Confucian Analects and a general introduction to the research perspectives and methods in this current study. The paratext of a translated text is an important perspective to observe translation. However, previous literature has only shown that paratexts in and around a translated text can reveal the translator‘s motivations, purposes, strategies as well as the prevailing translation norms. This chapter argues that, in addition to revealing the translator‘s macro strategy, paratexts in and around a translated text can also illustrate the process of the translator‘s contextualization at the operational level. Past researches into the translating process mostly employ TAP (Think Aloud Protocol) or reverse engineering from the translated text. However, the objects under survey in TAP may not be widely representative and reverse engineering is subject to suspicions of being too subjective. Moreover, since the translator does not necessarily put what he/she understands from the source text into the target text, reverse engineering cannot fully explain the translating process. Fortunately, observation through the paratexts well integrates the merits of the above two methods.
Chapter 2 discusses the special characteristics of translating the Confucian Analects and reviews its history of being translated into English. Firstly, the Confucian Analects is special in its linguistic forms and the authority of the original text. Secondly, modern readers of the ancient Chinese classics do not have direct dialogue with the original author(s) and thus cannot achieve a“fusion of horizon”. They have to rely, more or less, on the third party, i.e. the authoritative commentators in history. Thirdly, culturally and linguistically speaking, the Chinese culture and Chinese language are high context culture / language while the English culture and English language are low context culture / language. Translating from ancient Chinese into modern English will surely suffer loss of context. All these constitute the special difficulties of translating the Confucian Analects.
Chapter 3 reviews the conception of the idea“context”and its development as well as its application in translation studies.
Chapter 4 sorts through the different meanings of“contextualization”as employed in translation studies and makes a distinction between“contextualization in translation”and“contextualization of translation”, between contextualization at the macro level and that at the micro level, as well as between accommodative contextualization and reconstructive contextualization, thus paving the way for discussions in the subsequent chapters.
Chapter 5 and 6 are devoted to the discussion of the contextualization process in translation. Chapter 5 focuses on the stage of contextualized interpretation, exploring how the translator utilizes, modifies and reshapes his/her own cognitive context to understand the message expressed in the source text. It is suggested that in this stage, the translator, based on a trust for the original author(s) and guided by his own schema and reason, tries to analyze and infer the textual meaning to achieve his cognitive consonance at different levels and finally arrive at a reasonable interpretation of the text. Meanwhile, by studying the interpretation of synonyms in the Confucian Analects, it is pointed out that contextualized interpretation is by no means a simple linguistic activity taking place in a vacuum but a complicated one manipulated by powers. Different from that in the stage of re-expression, power that is at work in the stage of interpretation mainly comes from expert power and information power. Chapter 6 probes into the stage of contextualized re-expression at both the macro and micro levels. Macroscopically speaking, contextualization is a continuum between the two extremes of accommodative contextualization and reconstructive contextualization. At the micro level, the chapter mainly looks into two major areas, namely code-switching and versions with comics, analyzing how the translator uses, modifies and even reshapes the context to realize his/her own communicative objectives.
Chapter 7 focuses on“contextualization of translation”. In other words, this chapter reevaluates the translations by Ku Hung-ming, Joshua Marshman and James Legge by putting the different versions back into their respective translation contexts.
The last chapter summarizes the current research. The author points out that a multi-dimensional exploration into the contextualization in different senses in different versions of such a representative classics as the Confucian Analects is surely of great significance to both the translation practice and translation criticism of Chinese classics.
翻译研究领域已然意识到对各种语境变量的静态研究已不能解释翻译过程的动态实际,还不如探察翻译文本的生产和接受的语境化过程。而翻译研究领域的“语境化”(contextualization)一词可以用在不同的层面,表示不同的意思。譬如描述翻译研究就强调“语境化”。描述翻译研究摒弃了传统的“原文—译文”对应,将翻译视为一种文化现实,注重考察接受方文化和接受情境。因此,描述翻译研究的“语境化”指的是将译本和翻译活动置于大的社会、文化、历史语境中进行考察和评价,能使翻译批评更为客观。神学和《圣经》翻译也提倡“语境化”,指的是将信息适境地迁移到接受方文化,使之被理解。而同样是为了实现被理解的目的,丰厚翻译则主张提供相关的源语语境。就具体操作而言,翻译无疑是一种语言交际活动,语言使用本身就是一个“语境化”过程,而翻译就是一个利用语境、调动语境甚或营造语境来理解意义,然后生成意义的双重语境化活动。
鉴于“语境化”一词可以表示多种含义,本文区分了翻译中的语境化和翻译的语境化,宏观策略层面的语境化和微观操作层面的语境化,适境语境化和造境语境化等几对概念。“翻译中的语境化”是指译者在翻译活动中要经历的语境化阐释和表达过程,属于翻译过程研究的范畴;“翻译的语境化”是将翻译活动置于其翻译语境中加以考察,是描述翻译学视野下的翻译批评。它们之间有区别,也有联系。翻译批评所进行“翻译的语境化”仍然需要考虑译者在“翻译中的语境化”,才能全面、正确、客观地认识翻译活动,解释翻译现象,评价译者译作。“宏观层面的语境化”指的是翻译的宏观策略,主要表现出两种取向:一种是适应译语文化语境的“适境语境化”,另一种是基于源语文化语境的“造境语境化”。适境语境化尊重译语文化语境,并根据接受语境对文本的表现形式及意义进行适当的调适,借用译语中的文化意象进行语境重构;造境语境化则尊重源语文化语境,强调在源语语境的基础上复制语境,并迁移到译语中。就微观层面而言,翻译是一个包括译者与作者、译者与读者的两轮交际活动,而交际就是一个明示—推理过程。在前一轮交际中,即在语境化阐释阶段,译者是受话人,他依靠对自身认知语境的不断取舍和建构去推理、解读文本信息。在第二轮交际中,即语境化表达阶段,译者是发话人,为了实现自己的交际目的,译者可以利用一定的语境化手段,营造一个有利于实现自身交际目的的语境。
本文在区分各种“语境化”概念的基础上,通过观察译本中的辅文本,具体分析了《论语》英译本的生产和接受过程中涉及的各个意义上的“语境化”。为此,全文共分八章:
第一章介绍《论语》英译研究的背景和现状,引出本文的辅文本观察视角和研究方法。译本的辅文本无疑是观察翻译的重要窗口,而以往的研究认为,译本的辅文本可以揭示译者的翻译动机、目的、策略以及翻译规范。本文通过观察《论语》英译本丰富的辅文本发现,辅文本在揭示译者的宏观翻译策略的同时,还能够充分说明翻译微观层面的语境化过程。以往对翻译过程的研究方法主要是有声思维法、译文倒推法。然而,有声思维法研究对象有限,且研究对象未必具有广泛代表性;译文倒推法的研究者又免不了带有很大的主观臆测成分,且译者的表达并不完全等同于其理解,因此对翻译过程的解释力不强,而从辅文本进行观察则可兼取二者之长。
第二章探讨《论语》英译的特殊性,并回顾其英译简史。第一,《论语》作为先秦文献的典型,文本在语言文字上以及在文本的权威性上都较为特殊;第二,由于时间、空间和文化的跨度,现代译者对古籍文献的阐释不是直接地与文本意义实现视域融合,而是要经由第三方(即历代阐释权威);第三,从文化而言,中国文化处于高语境一端,英美文化位于低语境一端;从语言而言,古代汉语位于高语境一端,现代英语位于低语境一端,因此,中国古籍的英译必然要遭遇语境的流失。这些都造成了《论语》英译特殊的困难。
第三章对“语境”概念的提出和发展,以及翻译领域所进行的语境研究进行了梳理。
第四章厘清了翻译研究领域涉及的“语境化”概念的含义,重点区分了“翻译中的语境化”和“翻译的语境化”,“宏观策略层面的语境化”和“微观操作层面的语境化”,“适境语境化”和“造境语境化”等概念,为后面几章的研究做好理论铺垫。
第五章和第六章具体讨论“翻译中的语境化”过程的两个阶段,即语境化阐释和语境化表达阶段。第五章重点分析语境化阐释阶段,涉及译者如何利用、调动认知语境理解原作者意义,指出此阶段中,译者在信任的基础之上,知识和理性的指导之下,对文本意义进行分析和推理,实现各个语境层面的认知和谐,得出合理的解读。同时,我们也通过观察译者对同义词的阐释,指出语境化阐释也不是发生在真空中的单纯语言行为,而是会受到权力的牵制,然而译者在此阶段受到的影响与表达阶段不同,主要来自专家权力和信息权力。第六章则侧重探讨语境化表达阶段,既从宏观上分析各个不同译本所采取的宏观策略,又在微观上观察译者如何利用语码转换、插图漫画等语境化信号和手段,以实现自身的交际目的。
第七章涉及“翻译的语境化”,即语境化视野下的《论语》英译批评,将翻译活动置于译本产生和接受的语境下进行审视和评价。本章在辅文本的基础上重点分析了辜鸿铭、马歇曼和理雅各译本,对这几个译本的各种批评提出新的看法。
第八章对本研究进行总结。本文作者认为,对《论语》这样一部经典作品的多个译本进行全方位的语境化探索对于典籍英译的实践和批评都是有意义的。
The translation of The Confucian Analects, which represents the culmination of Chinese classics, is of utmost importance in spreading traditional Chinese culture. This dissertation is intended to explore“contextualization‖in various senses involved in the translating and translations of the Confucian Analects based on the paratexts of its different versions.
The circle of translation studies has been aware of the fact that closer attention to processes of contextualization in both the production and reception of translated texts is more enlightening than any static listing of contextual variables which is far from being enough to explain the dynamic translating reality. However, the word“contextualization‖has been used in different senses at different levels in translation studies. For instance,“contextualization‖is highly valued in DTS (Descriptive Translation Studies) which abandon the traditional idea of correspondence between the source text and the target text, take translations as facts of the target culture and focus on the target culture and reception context. Therefore,“contextualization‖in the DTS sense means commenting and assessing a translation or a translation activity in a wider social, cultural and historical context. For this reason,“contextualization‖in DTS can contribute to more objective translation criticism. In the meantime,“contextualization‖is also advocated in theology and Bible translation where the word means adapting the message to the receptor culture to make it more understandable and acceptable. For the same reason of understandability,“thick translation‖, at the other extreme of the continuum of contextualization, argues for a reproduction of the source context involved. At the micro operational level, translation is undoubtedly an activity of linguistic communication, a special form of language use which, in itself, is a contextualization process. Therefore, translation is a dual-contextualization process of utilizing, modifying or even reshaping the context to understand the meaning contained in the source text and then generate meaning in the target text.
In view of the multiple meanings of the word“contextualization”, it is necessary for us to distinguish between“contextualization in translation”and“contextualization of translation”, between contextualization at the macro strategic level and that at the micro operational level, and between accommodative contextualization and reconstructive contextualization.
To be specific,“contextualization in translation”refers to the contextualized interpretation and re-expression performed by the translator in the translating process while“contextualization of translation”means examining a translation activity in its translation context, thus belonging to the category of translation criticism under the perspective of DTS. The two are different yet interconnected. When contextualizing a translation activity, one needs also to take into account the contextualization efforts made by the translator in the translating process so as to make a comprehensive, accurate and objective judgment of the translator, the translation activity or a particular translational phenomenon. At the macro strategic level, contextualization by a certain translator falls somewhere
on a continuum between two extremes– one of extremely accommodative contextualization which focuses on adapting to the target cultural context and the other of extremely reconstructive contextualization which values a reproduction of the original cultural context.
At the micro operational level, translation involves two rounds of ostensive-inferential communication (i.e., one between the translator and the author(s) and the other between the translator and the readers). In the first round of communication (to be named the stage of contextualized interpretation), the translator is the receptor who has to infer and interpret message contained in the source text by choosing from, giving up, and rebuilding his/her cognitive context. In the second round of communication (to be called the stage of contextualized re-expression), the translator becomes a speaker/writer who can adopt some contextualization devices and shape a favorable context in order to achieve his/her communicative purposes.
On the basis of distinguishing between the different meanings of“contextualization”, this dissertation, by observing the paratexts of the different versions of the Confucian Analects, will make specific analysis of the contextualization in various senses involved in the production and reception of the different versions. To achieve this goal, this dissertation will include eight chapters.
Chapter 1 gives a brief review of previous researches into the translation of the Confucian Analects and a general introduction to the research perspectives and methods in this current study. The paratext of a translated text is an important perspective to observe translation. However, previous literature has only shown that paratexts in and around a translated text can reveal the translator‘s motivations, purposes, strategies as well as the prevailing translation norms. This chapter argues that, in addition to revealing the translator‘s macro strategy, paratexts in and around a translated text can also illustrate the process of the translator‘s contextualization at the operational level. Past researches into the translating process mostly employ TAP (Think Aloud Protocol) or reverse engineering from the translated text. However, the objects under survey in TAP may not be widely representative and reverse engineering is subject to suspicions of being too subjective. Moreover, since the translator does not necessarily put what he/she understands from the source text into the target text, reverse engineering cannot fully explain the translating process. Fortunately, observation through the paratexts well integrates the merits of the above two methods.
Chapter 2 discusses the special characteristics of translating the Confucian Analects and reviews its history of being translated into English. Firstly, the Confucian Analects is special in its linguistic forms and the authority of the original text. Secondly, modern readers of the ancient Chinese classics do not have direct dialogue with the original author(s) and thus cannot achieve a“fusion of horizon”. They have to rely, more or less, on the third party, i.e. the authoritative commentators in history. Thirdly, culturally and linguistically speaking, the Chinese culture and Chinese language are high context culture / language while the English culture and English language are low context culture / language. Translating from ancient Chinese into modern English will surely suffer loss of context. All these constitute the special difficulties of translating the Confucian Analects.
Chapter 3 reviews the conception of the idea“context”and its development as well as its application in translation studies.
Chapter 4 sorts through the different meanings of“contextualization”as employed in translation studies and makes a distinction between“contextualization in translation”and“contextualization of translation”, between contextualization at the macro level and that at the micro level, as well as between accommodative contextualization and reconstructive contextualization, thus paving the way for discussions in the subsequent chapters.
Chapter 5 and 6 are devoted to the discussion of the contextualization process in translation. Chapter 5 focuses on the stage of contextualized interpretation, exploring how the translator utilizes, modifies and reshapes his/her own cognitive context to understand the message expressed in the source text. It is suggested that in this stage, the translator, based on a trust for the original author(s) and guided by his own schema and reason, tries to analyze and infer the textual meaning to achieve his cognitive consonance at different levels and finally arrive at a reasonable interpretation of the text. Meanwhile, by studying the interpretation of synonyms in the Confucian Analects, it is pointed out that contextualized interpretation is by no means a simple linguistic activity taking place in a vacuum but a complicated one manipulated by powers. Different from that in the stage of re-expression, power that is at work in the stage of interpretation mainly comes from expert power and information power. Chapter 6 probes into the stage of contextualized re-expression at both the macro and micro levels. Macroscopically speaking, contextualization is a continuum between the two extremes of accommodative contextualization and reconstructive contextualization. At the micro level, the chapter mainly looks into two major areas, namely code-switching and versions with comics, analyzing how the translator uses, modifies and even reshapes the context to realize his/her own communicative objectives.
Chapter 7 focuses on“contextualization of translation”. In other words, this chapter reevaluates the translations by Ku Hung-ming, Joshua Marshman and James Legge by putting the different versions back into their respective translation contexts.
The last chapter summarizes the current research. The author points out that a multi-dimensional exploration into the contextualization in different senses in different versions of such a representative classics as the Confucian Analects is surely of great significance to both the translation practice and translation criticism of Chinese classics.
引文
Akmajian, Adrian et al. 2001. Linguistics: An Introduction to Language and Communication (Fifth Edition) [M]. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Alves, Fabio & Gon?alves, JoséLuiz V.R. 2003. A Relevance Theory Approach to the Investigation of Inferential Processes in Translation [A]. in Fabio Alves (ed.) Triangulating Translation: Perspectives in Process-Oriented Research [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Ames, Roger T. & Rosemont, Henry, Jr. 1998. The Analects of Confucius: A Philosophical Translation [M]. New York: The Ballantine Publishing Group.
Appiah, Kwame Anthony. 2000. Thick Translation [A]. in Lawrence Venuti (ed.) Translation Studies Reader [C]. London: Routledge. 417-429.
Auer, Peter. 1998. Code-switching in Conversation: Language, Interaction and Identity [C]. London: Routledge.
Backus, Robert L. 1969. Review [J]. Journal of the American Oriental Society. (3): 676 Baker, Mona. 2004. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies [Z]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Baker, Mona. 2006. Contextualization in Translator-and-Interpreter-Mediated Events [J]. Journal of Pragmatics (3): 321-337.
Bassnett, Susan & Lefevere, Andre. 1990. Language, History, and Culture [C]. London: Cassel. Bell, Roger T. 1991. Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice [M]. London & New York: Longman.
Boyle, J. M. 2008. Review [J]. Choice. (10): 1779.
Brooks, E. Bruce & Brooks, A. Taeko. 1998. Original Analects: Sayings of Confucius and His Successors [M]. New York: Columbia University Press.
Brooks, E. Bruce & Brooks, A. Taeko. 2002. Word Philology and Text Philology in Analects 9:1 [A]. in Bryan W. Van Norden (ed.) Confucius and the Analects: New Essays [C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 163-215.
Bruya, Brian & Tsai, Chih Chung. 1996. Confucius Speaks : Words to Live By [M]. New York: Anchor Books.
Bruya, Brian & Tsai, Chih Chung. 2005. Confucius Speaks: the Message of the Benevolent [M].北京:现代出版社.
Carrell, Patricia L. & Eisterhold, Joanna C. 1998. Schema Theory and ESL Reading Pedagogy [A]. in Patricial L. Carrell, Joanne Devine, David E. Eskey (eds.) Interactive Approaches to Second
Language Reading [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Catford, J. C. 1965. A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay in Applied Linguistics [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chan, Stephen T. 2002. Christian Philosophy and the Rise of Cultural Christians in China: An Exploration in the Relationship of Christian Theology and Chinese Culture [C]. paper presented at American Philosophical Association, Midwest Conference in Chicago, IL. April 26.
Chan, Wing-tsit. 1951. Review [J]. Philosophy East and West. (2): 71-72.
Cheang, Alice W. 2000. The Master's Voice: On Reading, Translating and Interpreting the "Analects" of Confucius [J]. The Review of Politics (3): 563-581.
Cheng, Anne. 1999. Review [J]. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies University of London. (2): 387-388.
Cheung, Martha P. Y. 2006. An Anthology of Chinese Discourse on Translation: From Earliest Times to the Buddhist Project [M]. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
Cheung, Martha P. Y. 2007. On Thick Translation as a Mode of Cultural Representation [A]. in Dorothy Kenny & Kyongjoo Ryou (eds.) Across Boundaries: International Perspectives on Translation Studies [C]. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Dattner, Benjamin.1990. A Framework for Understanding Cross-Cultural Misunderstandings [A]. in Scarcella, Robin C., Andersen, Elaine S. & Krashen, Stephen D. (eds.) Developing Communicative Competence in A Second Language [C]. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Dawson, Raymond. 1993. The Analects [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
De Fina, Anna. 2007. Code-switching and the Construction of Ethnic Identity in a community of Practice [J]. Language in Society (36): 371-392.
Dechant, Emerald V. 1991. Understanding and Teaching Reading: An Interactive Model [M]. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Delabastita, Dirk. 1993. There(?)s a Double Tongue: An Investigation into the Translation of Shakespeare(?)s Wordplay with Special Reference to Hamlet [M]. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Dubs, Homer H. 1939. Review[J]. The Journal of Philosophy (36): 557-558.
Duranti, Alessandro & Goodwin, Charles. 1992. Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fenollosa, Ernest & Pound, Ezra. 1968. The Written Characters as a Medium for Poetry [M]. San Francisco: City Light Books.
Forsyth, Donelson R. 1990. Group Dynamics (second edition)[M]. Pacific Grove: Brooks / Cole Publishing Company.
Gambier, Yves. 2003. Introduction: Screen Transadaptation: Perception and Reception [J]. The Translator (2): 171-189.
Geertz, Clifford. 2000. Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays [M]. New York: Basic Books.
Genette, Gérard. 1997. Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gentner, Dedre.1998. Analogy. [A]. in William Bechtel & George Graham (eds.) A Companion to Cognitive Science [C]. Malden: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 107-113.
Giles, Lionel. 1907. The Sayings of Confucius: A New Translation of the Greater Part of the Confucian Analects [M]. London: J. Murray.
Gill, David & Adams, Bridge. 1998. ABC of Communication Studies (second edition) [M]. Thomas Nelson & Sons Ltd.
Gumperz, John J. & Gumperz, Jenny Cook. 1982. Introduction: Language and the Communication of Social Identity [A]. in John J. Gumperz (ed.) Language and Social Identity [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gumperz, John J. 1992. Contextualization and Understanding [A]. in Alessandro Duranti & Charles Goodwin (eds.) Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 229-252.
Gutt, Ernst-August. 2004. Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Harvey, Robert. 2009. How Comics Came to Be [A]. in Jeet Heer & Kent Worcester (eds.) A Comics Studies Reader [C]. Mississippi: University Press of Mississippi. 25-45.
Hatim, Basil & Mason, Ian. 1997. The Translator as Communicator [M]. London: Routledge. Hatim, Basil & Mason, Ian. 2001. Discourse and the Translator [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Hegel, Robert E. 1984. Review [J]. Chinese Literature: Essays, Articles, Reviews (CLEAR) (6): 204. Henderson, John B. 1999. Review [J]. The Journal of Asian Studies (3): 791-793.
Hermans, Theo. 1999. Translation in Systems: Descriptive and Systemic Approach Explained [M]. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
Hermans, Theo. 2001.“Shall I Apologize Translation(?)”[J]. Journal of Translation Studies (5): 1-18. Hermans, Theo. 2003. Cross-Cultural Translation Studies as Thick Translation [J]. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies (3): 380-389.
Hesselgrave, David J. & Rommen, Edward. 2003. Contextualization: Meanings, Methods, and Models [M]. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House.
Hickey, Leo. 2001. Perlocutionary Equivalence: Marking, Exegesis and Recontextualization [A]. in Leo Hickey (ed.) The Pragmatics of Translation [C]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. 217-232.
House, Juliane. 1997. Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited [M]. Tübingen: Narr. House, Juliane. 2006. Text and Context in Translation [J]. Journal of Pragmatics (3): 338-358. Huang, Chichung. 1997. The Analects of Confucius [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hymes, Dell. 1974. Foundations of Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach [M]. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Jacobsen, John Ask. 2008.“Yes. I See What You Mean.”——City of Glass, the Graphic Novel: An Intersemiotic Translation [D]. Roskilde University, Denmark.
Jakobson, Roman. 2000. On Linguistic Aspects of Translation [A]. in Lawrence Venuti (ed.) The Translation Studies Reader [C]. New York: Routledge. 138-143.
Joshi, Sunder. 1938. Review[J]. The Journal of Religion (3): 373-374.
Katan, David. 2004. Translating Cultures: An Introduction for Translators, Interpreters and Mediators [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Khu, John B. et al.. 1997. The Confucian Bible. Book 1, Analects: the non-theocentric code for concerned humans [M]. Beijing: World Affairs Press.
Kiraly, Donald C.. 1995. Pathways to Translation: Pedagogy and Process [M]. Kent: Kent State University Press.
Kline, T. C. III. 1999. Review [J]. Pacific Affairs (2): 266-267.
Kovala, Urpo. 1996. Translations, Paratextual Mediation, and Ideological Closure [J]. Target (1): 119–147.
Ku, Hung-ming. 1898. The Discourses and Sayings of Confucius:A New Special Translation Illustrated with Quotations from Goethe and Other Writers [M]. Shanghai : Kelly and Walsh, Ltd.
Ku, Hung-ming. 1922. The Spirit of the Chinese People (second edition)[M]. Peking: The Commercial Press Work Ltd.
Kwan, Shui-Man. 2005. From Indigenization to Contextualization: A Change in Discursive Practice Rather Than a Shift in Paradigm [J]. Studies in World Christianity (11) : 236– 250.
Lau, D.C..1979. The Analects (Lun yü)[M]. Harmondsworth; New York: Penguin Books. Legge, James. 1960. The Chinese Classics: with a translation, critical and exegetical notes, prolegomena and copious indexes (Vol. 1) [M]. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Levinson, Stephen. 1983. Pragmatics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leys, Simon. 1997. The Analects of Confucius [M]. New York & London: Norton. Lin, Yutang. 1938. The Wisdom of Confucius [M]. New York: Random House, Inc.
Liu, Ts‘un-yan. 1967. Ku Hung-ming and His Interpretation of Chinese Civilization. in Drake, F. S. (ed.) Symposium on Historical, Archaeological and Linguistic Studies on Southern China, Southeast Asia and the Hong Kong Region[C]. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Luke, Kang-Kwong. 1998. Why Two Languages Might Be Better Than One: Motivations of Language Mixing in Hong Kong [A]. in M. C. Pennington (ed.) Language in Hong Kong at Century(?)s End [C]. 145-159.
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, John. 1981. Language and Linguistics: An Introduction [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maciel, Ruberval Franco. 2004. Schema Theory to the Field of Reading in A Foreign Language Teaching [J]. Revista do Mestrado em Linguistica Aplicada da UNISINOS (2): 1-11.
Marshman, Joshua. 1809. The Works of Confucius [M]. Serampore: Mission Press. McCloud, Scott. 1993. Understanding Comic [M]. London: HarperColins.
Mey, Jacob. L. 2001. Pragmatics: An Introduction (second edition) [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Murphy, M. Lynne. 2003. Semantic Relations and the Lexicon [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Newmark, Peter. 1988. A Textbook of Translation [M]. Prentice-Hall International.
Neyland, Daniel. 2008. Organizational Ethnography [M]. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Nida, Eugene A. & Taber, Charles R. 1982. The Theory and Practice of Translation [M]. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Osborne, Grant R. 2006. The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (second edition)[M]. InterVarsity Press.
Schaberg, David. 2001.“Sell it! Sell it!”: Recent Translations of Lunyu [J]. Chinese Literature: Essays, Articles, Reviews (CLEAR). (23): 115-139.
Shenk, Wilbert R. 2005. Contextual Theology: The Last Frontier [A]. in Lamin. O. Snneh & Joel A Carpenter (eds) The Changing Face of Christianity: Africa, the West, and the World [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 191-208.
Shih, Chung-ling. 2008. Corpus-based Study of Differences in Explicitation -- Between Literature Translations for Children and for Adults [J]. Translation Journal (3).
Sia, Adam. 2000. The Complete Analects of Confucius [M]. Singapore: Asiapac. Slingerland, Edward Gilman. 2000. Review: Why Philosphy Is Not“Extra”in Understanding the Analects [J]. Philosophy East and West (1): 137-141.
Slingerland, Edward Gilman. 2003. Confucius Analects: with Selections from Traditional Commentaries [M]. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
Smalley, William Allen. 1991. Translation as Mission: Bible Translation in the Modern Missionary Movement [M]. Macon: Mercer University Press.
Soothill, William Edward. 1910. The Analects of Confucius [M]. Yokohama: The Author‘s & Fukuin Printing Company Ltd.
Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Deirdre. 2001. Relevance: Communication and Cognition (second edition) [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Steiner, George. 2001. After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Tahir-Gür(?)a(?)lar, (?)ehnaz. 2007. What Texts Don‘t Tell: The Uses of Paratexts in Translation Research [A]. in Theo Hermans (ed.) Crosscultral Transgressions (Research Models in Translation StudiesII: Historical and Ideological Issues) [C]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Toury, Gideon. 2001. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
van Dijk, Teun A.. 1997. Cognitive Context Models and Discourse [A]. in Maxim. I. Stamenov (ed.). Language Structure, Discourse, and the Access to Consciousness [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing Co. 189-226.
Vermeer, Hans. 2000. Skopos and Commission in Translation Action [A]. in Lawrence Venuti (ed.) The Translation Studies Reader [C]. London: Routledge. 221-232.
Verschueren, Jef. 2000. Understanding Pragmatics [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press & Edward Arnold (Publishers) Ltd.
Verschueren, Jef. 2007. The Interventionist Role of (Re)contextualization in Translation [A]. in Jeremy Munday (ed.) Translation as Intervention [C]. London: Continuum International Publishing Group. 71-83.
Waley, Arthur. 1938. The Analects of Confucius [M]. London: George Allen & Unwin; New York: Macmillan Company.
Ware, James R.. 1955. The Sayings of Confucius [M]. New York: The New American Library of World Literature.
Zitawi, Jehan. 2008. Contextualizing Disney Comics within the Arab Culture [J]. Meta: Translators' Journal. (1): 139-153.
Bell, Roger T.秦洪武译. 2005.翻译与翻译过程:理论与实践[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社.
白欲晓. 2008.格义探微[J].宗教学研究(2): 64-69.
白兆麟. 1996.关于校勘学的性质与对象[J].古籍整理研究学刊(1): 26. 25-28.
蔡志忠. 1990.孔子说:仁者的叮咛[M].北京:生活·读者·新知三联书店.
陈浪. 2008.当代语言学途径翻译研究的新发展[D].上海外国语大学博士学位论文.
陈治安、文旭. 1997.试论语境的特征与功能[J].外国语(4): 22-26.
陈可培. 2006.偏见与宽容、翻译与吸纳——理雅各的汉学研究与《论语》英译[D].上海师范大学博士论文.
程石泉. 1975.论语读训解故[M].台北:先知出版社.
程永生. 2001.描写交际翻译学[M].合肥:安徽大学出版社.
辞海编辑委员会. 1980.辞海(哲学分册) [Z].上海:上海辞书出版社.
单德兴. 2007.翻译与脉络[M].北京:清华大学出版社.
邓军. 2007.热内特互文性理论研究[D].厦门大学硕士学位论文.
邸爱英. 2008.《论语》语言的简约性与《论语》英译的多样性[J].电子科技大学学报(6): 47-50.
邸爱英. 2008.析当代《论语》英译的多元化趋势[A].第十八届世界翻译大会论文集.
邸爱英. 2009.马殊曼与世界第一个《论语》英译本[J].读书(5): 83-88.
杜学敏. 2009.《论语》中说类动词的翻译对比研究[D].大连海事大学硕士学位论文.
段峰. 2009.论翻译理论研究的认知视角[J].四川师范大学学报(6): 90-94.
段怀清. 2005.理雅各《中国经典》翻译缘起及体例考略[J].浙江大学学报(3): 91-98.
樊培绪. 1999.理雅各、辜鸿铭英译儒经的不及与过[J].中国科技翻译(3): 50-52.
伽达默尔,洪汉鼎译. 2007.真理与方法[M].北京:商务印书馆.
高玉兰. 2007.认知及非认知语境与翻译[J].淮北煤炭师范学院学报(5): 1-9-110转188.
葛亚芬. 2009.从关联理论看《论语》的翻译[D].重庆大学大学硕士学位论文.
辜正坤. 1989.翻译标准多元互补论[J].北京社会科学(1): 70-78.
辜正坤. 2002 . Metatranslatology [J].中国翻译(4): 3-7; (5): 8-14.
辜正坤. 2005.译学津原[M].郑州:文心出版社.
管锡华. 2002.中国古代标点符号发展史[M].成都:巴蜀书社.
广陵书社. 1997.中国近代学人象传[M].扬州:江苏广陵古籍刻印社.
郭著章. 1999.翻译名家研究[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社.
海芳. 2003.翻译过程及其思考——TEM8(2002)考生汉译英词汇策略研究[J].中国翻译(1):79-81.
韩子满、刘芳. 2005.描述翻译研究的成就与不足[J].外语学刊(3): 97-101.
洪涛. 2008.红楼梦与诠释方法论[M].北京:北京图书馆出版社.
洪成玉. 1985.古汉语词义分析[M].天津:天津人民出版社.
胡霞. 2005.认知语境研究[D].浙江大学博士学位论文.
胡志挥. 1980.略谈文学翻译中的注释问题[J].外国语(6): 41-42.
黄德先、杜小军. 2008.翻译研究的现实转向[J].上海翻译(3): 16-19.
黄德先. 2004.翻译中的类文本研究[J].外国语言文学(增刊).
黄金贵. 2002.古汉语同义词辨释论[M].上海:上海古籍出版社.
黄兴涛. 1995.文化怪杰辜鸿铭[M].北京:中华书局.
黄兴涛. 1998.旷世怪杰:名人笔下的辜鸿铭,辜鸿铭笔下的名人[M].上海:东方出版中心.
霍尔,爱德华(?)T著、居延安等译. 1988.超越文化[M].上海:上海文化出版社.
江洁仪. 2005.从功能翻译理论角度看图画故事书汉译[D].广东外语外贸大学硕士学位论文.
姜欣、姜怡、林萌. 2009.高低语境文化错层在典籍英译中的显现及对策[J].外语与外语教学(5): 49-51.
姜海清. 2004.语境与翻译[J].外语研究(5): 54-56.
金定元. 1986.语用学——研究语境的科学[J].中国语文天地(1).
金学勤. 2009.《论语》成书“层累论”及西方汉学界相关评论[J].孔子研究(3): 21-29.
孔庆茂. 1996.辜鸿铭评传[M].南昌:百花洲文艺出版社.
乐黛云、张辉. 1999.文化传递与文学形象[C].北京:北京大学出版社.
李楚成. 2003.香港粤语与英语的语码转换[J].外语教学与研究(1): 13-20.
李红满. 2007.从功能语言学的视角论《尤利西斯》中语码转换的翻译[J].中山大学研究生学刊(3): 125-132.
李夏阳. 2004.从社会语言学角度看语码转换的翻译[D].上海外国语大学硕士学位论文.
李运兴. 2001.语篇翻译引论[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司.
李运兴. 2007.论翻译语境[J].中国翻译(2): 17-23.
李运兴. 2010.翻译语境描写论纲[M].北京:清华大学出版社.
李占喜. 2005.翻译过程的关联—顺应研究:文化意象处理举隅[D].广东外语外贸大学博士学位论文.
栗长江. 2008.文学翻译语境化探索[M].北京:线装书局.
廖七一. 2004.当代英国翻译理论[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社.
林语堂. 2005.林语堂散文经典全编(第2卷) [M].北京:九州出版社.
刘宝楠. 1957.论语正义[M].北京:中华书局.
刘军平. 2009.西方翻译理论通史[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社.
刘宓庆. 2007 a.翻译教学:实务与理论[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司.
刘宓庆. 2007 b.文化翻译论纲[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司.
刘笑敢. 2006 .“反向格义”与中国哲学研究的困境——以老子之道的诠释为例[J].南京大学学报(2): 76-90.
刘雪芹. 2005.翻译批评要有多维意识[J].广西民族学院学报(4): 130-133.
刘雪芹. 2010.典籍复译的危机——《论语》英译二百年(1809-2009)之启示[J].广西民族大学学报(3): 163-170.
卢以纬著、王克仲集注. 1988.助语词集注[M].北京:中华书局.
吕俊. 2002.翻译研究:从文本理论到权力话语[J].四川外语学院学报(1): 106-109.
麻争旗. 1997.论影视翻译的基本原则[J].现代传播—北京广播学院学报(5): 81-84.
马德五. 2005.孔子说(汉英对照).上海:上海世界图书出版公司.
马建忠. 2000.马氏文通[M].北京:商务印书馆.
马祖毅. 1999.中国翻译史(上卷)[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社.
马祖毅、任荣珍. 2003.汉籍外译史(修订版)[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社.
南怀瑾. 2002.论语别裁[M].上海:复旦大学出版社.
裴文. 2000.现代英语语境学[M].合肥:安徽大学出版社.
彭利元. 2002.论翻译语境[J].株洲工学院学报(1): 106-108.
彭利元. 2005.论语境化的翻译[D].湖南师范大学博士学位论文.
彭子游. 2005.论语英译[M].沈阳:万卷出版公司.
钱穆. 1993.钱宾四先生全集(Vol.3)论语新解[M].台北:联经出版事业股份有限公司.
钱钟书. 1995.七缀集(修订本) [M].上海:上海古籍出版社.
邵镜人. 1978.同光风雨录[M].台北:鼎文书局.
石永浩. 2008.试论副文本对翻译和翻译研究的意义[A].第十八届世界翻译大会论文.
宋旭、杨自俭. 2003.译者的原文理解过程探讨[J].四川外语学院学报(5): 117-121.
孙艺风. 2008.翻译与多元之美[J].中国翻译(4): 10-19.
孙占元、王玉君. 2001.走出国门——前驱先路的中外文化交往与文化交流的使者[M].济南:山东教育出版社.
唐明贵. 2009.论语学史[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社.
王辉. 2003.理雅各与《中国经典》[J].中国翻译(2): 37-41.
王辉. 2006.辜鸿铭英译儒经的文化用心——兼评王国维“书辜氏汤生英译《中庸》后”[J].外国语言文学(3): 186-191.
王力. 1980.龙虫并雕斋文集(第一册)[M].北京:中华书局.
王力. 1982.同源字典[M].北京:商务印书馆.
王茜. 2009.文学作品翻译中的注释研究——关联理论的视角[D].上海外国语大学硕士学位论文.
王琰. 2010.《论语》英译与西方汉学的当代发展[J].中国翻译(3): 24-32.
王勇. 2006. 20年来的《论语》英译研究[J].求索(5): 178-181.
王勇. 2009.《论语》英译的转喻视角研究[D].上海交通大学博士学位论文.
王秉钦. 2008.对比语义学与翻译[M].天津:南开大学出版社.
王东波. 2008.《论语》英译的缘起与发展[J].孔子研究(4): 119-125.
王东风. 2010.形式的复活:从诗学的角度反思文学翻译[J].中国翻译(1): 6-12.
王怀贞. 2008.翻译过程的认知心理描述——Bell翻译过程的信息加工模式评介[J].山东大学学报(1): 70-75.
王建华. 2002.关于语境的构成与分类[J].语言文字应用(3): 2-9.
王建华. 2003.论语境的功能及实现[J].修辞学习(2): 1-5.
王树槐. 2010.吉拉里的建构主义翻译教学:贡献与缺陷[J].天津:天津外国语学院学报(4): 44-49.
王晓朝. 2002.破除中西文化交流的三大思想障碍[J].扬州大学学报(1): 17-22.
王引之. 2000.经义述闻[M].南京:江苏古籍出版社.
王永强. 2009.《论语》在英美的译介与传播[J].时代文学(6): 25-26.
王玉霓. 1999.从误译看语境在翻译中的作用[J].中国翻译(1): 18-20.
王忠亮. 1991.关于文学翻译中的注释问题[J].外语学刊(2): 56-60.
魏在江. 2007.英汉语篇连贯认知对比研究[M].上海:复旦大学出版社.
肖维青、冯庆华. 2009.论开放多元的翻译批评观[J].译林(2): 218-220.
徐复观. 1996.中国人文精神之阐扬[M].北京:中国广播电视出版社.
许雷、屠国元、曹剑. 2010.后现代语境下跨文化传播的“图像转向”——蔡志忠漫画中英文版《论语》的启示[J].贵州大学学报(2): 132-135.
许葵花. 2007 a .认知语境语义阐释功能的实证研究[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社.
许葵花. 2007 b.试析认知语境的动态功能[J].中美英语教学(4): 42-46
许渊冲. 2005. Confucius Modernized: Thus Spoke the Master. [M].北京:高等教育出版社.
严爱华. 2005.连环画翻译[D].上海外国语大学硕士学位论文.
阳志清. 1992.论书面语语码转换[J].现代外语(1): 1-6.
杨念群. 2001.“辜鸿铭现象”的起源与阐释:虚拟的想象抑或历史的真实?[J].浙江社会科学(2): 130-139.
杨平. 2008 a.中西文化交流视域下的《论语》英译研究[D].南开大学博士学位论文.
杨平. 2008 b.评西方传教士《论语》翻译的基督教化倾向[J].人文杂志(2): 42-47.
杨平. 2009.《论语》英译的概述与评析[J].浙江教育学院学报(5): 37-47.
杨平. 2010. 20世纪《论语》的英译与诠释[J].孔子研究(2): 19-30.
杨伯峻. 2006.论语译注(简体字本)[M].北京:中华书局.
杨晓荣. 2005.翻译批评导论[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司.
姚振军. 2009.描述翻译学视野中的翻译批评[J].外语与外语教学(10): 61-64.
于国栋. 2000.语码转换的语用学研究[J].外国语(6): 22-27.
岳峰. 2004.架设东西方的桥梁——英国汉学家理雅各研究[M].福州:福建人民出版社.
曾启雄、罗光志. 2003.连环漫画视觉分格之调查探讨-—以台湾漫画金像奖少女漫画为中心[A].国际华文设计教育研讨会论文集[C]. 285-295.
张鲁宁. 2003.浅析语言结构棱镜下的高语境与低语境文化——兼谈其对翻译、教学的启示[J].四川外语学院学报(1): 133-137.
张茂泽. 2007.中国古代宗教思想的特点[J].华夏文化(4): 7-10
张南峰. 2004.中西译学批评[M].北京:清华大学出版社.
张向阳. 2005 a.论翻译中的语境化[J].株洲工学院学报(3): 120-121.
张向阳. 2005 b.论再度语境化及其在翻译中的应用[D].湖南师范大学硕士学位论文.
赵益. 2006.古典文献学原理刍议[A].李浩、贾玉强主编:古代文献的考证与诠释[C].上海:上海古籍出版社.
赵世瑜. 2008.文本、文类、语境与历史重构[J].清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版) (1): 5-9.
赵艳芳. 2001.认知语言学概论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
郑诗鼎. 1997.语境与文学翻译[M].重庆:西南师范大学出版社.
钟明国. 2009.辜鸿铭《论语》翻译的自我东方化倾向及其对翻译目的的消解[J].外国语文(2): 135-139.
周春才. 2004.论语图典[M].北京:中国文联出版社.
周春才著, Paul White译. 2008. The Illustrated Book of THE ANALECTS.北京:新世界出版社.
周光庆. 1989.古汉语词汇学简论[M].武汉:华中师范大学出版社.
周红民. 2002.认知语境与翻译[J].外语与外语教学(11): 46-48.
朱长河. 2006.话语角色转换的迈氏标记模式研究[J].韶关学院学报(10): 98-101.
朱永生. 2005.语境动态研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社.
邹琦. 2005.文学翻译中的注释[D].解放军外国语学院硕士学位论文.
―Appeal to their authorities, speak their language, use their imagery‖,引自福音传道网站http://www.internetevangelismday.com/contextualization.php 6
Boulogne, Pieter. The Early Dutch Construction of F.M. Dostoevskij: From Translational Data to Polysystemic Working Hypotheses [A]. in Pieter Boulogne (ed.) Translation and Its Others: Selected Papers of the CETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2007[C]. http://www.kuleuven.be/cetra/papers/papers.html. 2008.
Eno, Robert. The Analects of Confucius [EB/OL]. 2005. www.indiana.edu/~p374/Analects-374.pdf Flesher, Luna: Cognitive Dissonance and Consonance: The Basics for Former Mormons [J]. http://www.rationalrevelation.com/library/cogdis.html. retrieved 2010-5-31. Giannossa, Leonardo. A Paratextual Analysis of I Promessi Sposi [EB/OL]. Canadian Association for Translation Studies Young Researchers Papers http://www.uottawa.ca/associations/act-cats/English/YoungResearchers/Papers.htm. 2010-7-27.
Gottlieb, Henrik. Multidimensional Translation: Semantics Turned Semiotics [A]. in Challenges of Multidimensional Translation: MuTra 2005 Conference Proceedings [C]. http://www.euroconferences.info/proceedings/2005_Proceedings/2005_proceedings.html Matsuta, Ken: Think-Aloud Protocols: A Means of Observing Cognitive Processes of Language Learners [EB/OL]. http://www.lib.yamagata-u.ac.jp/you-campus/koeki/kiyou-koeki/3/3-pA67-74.pdf
Ryle, Gilbert. 1968. The Thinking of Thoughts: What is (?)Le Penseur (?)Doing(?) [J]. (18). Reprinted from 'University Lectures'. http://lucy.ukc.ac.uk/CSACSIA/Vol11/Papers/ryle_1.html . Retrieved 2010-04-10.
Serafini, Frank & Giorgis, Cyndi. Reading Aloud and Beyond: Fostering the Intellectual Life with Older Readers [C]. Portsmouth: Heinemann. 2003. http://www.frankserafini.com/PubArticles/BookChapters/Making%20Meaning.htm
Tashlitsky, Xenia. Lost in Translation: Winnie-the-Pooh in Russian and English. [EB/OL]. http://www.international.ucla.edu/cms/files/Tashlitsky.pdf 2010-07-25.
Ernest Wendland. 2001. Bible Translation and Contextualization [J]. The Lamp (Jan.– Feb.). Reprinted at http://www.jctr.org.zm/bulletins/bible-transl.htm
冯时:天上人间——中国古代天文学的现实意义.燕山讲堂第65期. 2010-04-08.
王崇尧.从“人权宣言”到“乡土神学”[J].当代杂志2007(236). http://www.cjcu.edu.tw/chowo/pr/teachers/chongiau7056/7.pdf
Alves, Fabio & Gon?alves, JoséLuiz V.R. 2003. A Relevance Theory Approach to the Investigation of Inferential Processes in Translation [A]. in Fabio Alves (ed.) Triangulating Translation: Perspectives in Process-Oriented Research [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Ames, Roger T. & Rosemont, Henry, Jr. 1998. The Analects of Confucius: A Philosophical Translation [M]. New York: The Ballantine Publishing Group.
Appiah, Kwame Anthony. 2000. Thick Translation [A]. in Lawrence Venuti (ed.) Translation Studies Reader [C]. London: Routledge. 417-429.
Auer, Peter. 1998. Code-switching in Conversation: Language, Interaction and Identity [C]. London: Routledge.
Backus, Robert L. 1969. Review [J]. Journal of the American Oriental Society. (3): 676 Baker, Mona. 2004. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies [Z]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Baker, Mona. 2006. Contextualization in Translator-and-Interpreter-Mediated Events [J]. Journal of Pragmatics (3): 321-337.
Bassnett, Susan & Lefevere, Andre. 1990. Language, History, and Culture [C]. London: Cassel. Bell, Roger T. 1991. Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice [M]. London & New York: Longman.
Boyle, J. M. 2008. Review [J]. Choice. (10): 1779.
Brooks, E. Bruce & Brooks, A. Taeko. 1998. Original Analects: Sayings of Confucius and His Successors [M]. New York: Columbia University Press.
Brooks, E. Bruce & Brooks, A. Taeko. 2002. Word Philology and Text Philology in Analects 9:1 [A]. in Bryan W. Van Norden (ed.) Confucius and the Analects: New Essays [C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 163-215.
Bruya, Brian & Tsai, Chih Chung. 1996. Confucius Speaks : Words to Live By [M]. New York: Anchor Books.
Bruya, Brian & Tsai, Chih Chung. 2005. Confucius Speaks: the Message of the Benevolent [M].北京:现代出版社.
Carrell, Patricia L. & Eisterhold, Joanna C. 1998. Schema Theory and ESL Reading Pedagogy [A]. in Patricial L. Carrell, Joanne Devine, David E. Eskey (eds.) Interactive Approaches to Second
Language Reading [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Catford, J. C. 1965. A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay in Applied Linguistics [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chan, Stephen T. 2002. Christian Philosophy and the Rise of Cultural Christians in China: An Exploration in the Relationship of Christian Theology and Chinese Culture [C]. paper presented at American Philosophical Association, Midwest Conference in Chicago, IL. April 26.
Chan, Wing-tsit. 1951. Review [J]. Philosophy East and West. (2): 71-72.
Cheang, Alice W. 2000. The Master's Voice: On Reading, Translating and Interpreting the "Analects" of Confucius [J]. The Review of Politics (3): 563-581.
Cheng, Anne. 1999. Review [J]. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies University of London. (2): 387-388.
Cheung, Martha P. Y. 2006. An Anthology of Chinese Discourse on Translation: From Earliest Times to the Buddhist Project [M]. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
Cheung, Martha P. Y. 2007. On Thick Translation as a Mode of Cultural Representation [A]. in Dorothy Kenny & Kyongjoo Ryou (eds.) Across Boundaries: International Perspectives on Translation Studies [C]. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Dattner, Benjamin.1990. A Framework for Understanding Cross-Cultural Misunderstandings [A]. in Scarcella, Robin C., Andersen, Elaine S. & Krashen, Stephen D. (eds.) Developing Communicative Competence in A Second Language [C]. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Dawson, Raymond. 1993. The Analects [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
De Fina, Anna. 2007. Code-switching and the Construction of Ethnic Identity in a community of Practice [J]. Language in Society (36): 371-392.
Dechant, Emerald V. 1991. Understanding and Teaching Reading: An Interactive Model [M]. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Delabastita, Dirk. 1993. There(?)s a Double Tongue: An Investigation into the Translation of Shakespeare(?)s Wordplay with Special Reference to Hamlet [M]. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Dubs, Homer H. 1939. Review[J]. The Journal of Philosophy (36): 557-558.
Duranti, Alessandro & Goodwin, Charles. 1992. Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fenollosa, Ernest & Pound, Ezra. 1968. The Written Characters as a Medium for Poetry [M]. San Francisco: City Light Books.
Forsyth, Donelson R. 1990. Group Dynamics (second edition)[M]. Pacific Grove: Brooks / Cole Publishing Company.
Gambier, Yves. 2003. Introduction: Screen Transadaptation: Perception and Reception [J]. The Translator (2): 171-189.
Geertz, Clifford. 2000. Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays [M]. New York: Basic Books.
Genette, Gérard. 1997. Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gentner, Dedre.1998. Analogy. [A]. in William Bechtel & George Graham (eds.) A Companion to Cognitive Science [C]. Malden: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 107-113.
Giles, Lionel. 1907. The Sayings of Confucius: A New Translation of the Greater Part of the Confucian Analects [M]. London: J. Murray.
Gill, David & Adams, Bridge. 1998. ABC of Communication Studies (second edition) [M]. Thomas Nelson & Sons Ltd.
Gumperz, John J. & Gumperz, Jenny Cook. 1982. Introduction: Language and the Communication of Social Identity [A]. in John J. Gumperz (ed.) Language and Social Identity [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gumperz, John J. 1992. Contextualization and Understanding [A]. in Alessandro Duranti & Charles Goodwin (eds.) Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 229-252.
Gutt, Ernst-August. 2004. Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Harvey, Robert. 2009. How Comics Came to Be [A]. in Jeet Heer & Kent Worcester (eds.) A Comics Studies Reader [C]. Mississippi: University Press of Mississippi. 25-45.
Hatim, Basil & Mason, Ian. 1997. The Translator as Communicator [M]. London: Routledge. Hatim, Basil & Mason, Ian. 2001. Discourse and the Translator [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Hegel, Robert E. 1984. Review [J]. Chinese Literature: Essays, Articles, Reviews (CLEAR) (6): 204. Henderson, John B. 1999. Review [J]. The Journal of Asian Studies (3): 791-793.
Hermans, Theo. 1999. Translation in Systems: Descriptive and Systemic Approach Explained [M]. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
Hermans, Theo. 2001.“Shall I Apologize Translation(?)”[J]. Journal of Translation Studies (5): 1-18. Hermans, Theo. 2003. Cross-Cultural Translation Studies as Thick Translation [J]. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies (3): 380-389.
Hesselgrave, David J. & Rommen, Edward. 2003. Contextualization: Meanings, Methods, and Models [M]. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House.
Hickey, Leo. 2001. Perlocutionary Equivalence: Marking, Exegesis and Recontextualization [A]. in Leo Hickey (ed.) The Pragmatics of Translation [C]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. 217-232.
House, Juliane. 1997. Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited [M]. Tübingen: Narr. House, Juliane. 2006. Text and Context in Translation [J]. Journal of Pragmatics (3): 338-358. Huang, Chichung. 1997. The Analects of Confucius [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hymes, Dell. 1974. Foundations of Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach [M]. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Jacobsen, John Ask. 2008.“Yes. I See What You Mean.”——City of Glass, the Graphic Novel: An Intersemiotic Translation [D]. Roskilde University, Denmark.
Jakobson, Roman. 2000. On Linguistic Aspects of Translation [A]. in Lawrence Venuti (ed.) The Translation Studies Reader [C]. New York: Routledge. 138-143.
Joshi, Sunder. 1938. Review[J]. The Journal of Religion (3): 373-374.
Katan, David. 2004. Translating Cultures: An Introduction for Translators, Interpreters and Mediators [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Khu, John B. et al.. 1997. The Confucian Bible. Book 1, Analects: the non-theocentric code for concerned humans [M]. Beijing: World Affairs Press.
Kiraly, Donald C.. 1995. Pathways to Translation: Pedagogy and Process [M]. Kent: Kent State University Press.
Kline, T. C. III. 1999. Review [J]. Pacific Affairs (2): 266-267.
Kovala, Urpo. 1996. Translations, Paratextual Mediation, and Ideological Closure [J]. Target (1): 119–147.
Ku, Hung-ming. 1898. The Discourses and Sayings of Confucius:A New Special Translation Illustrated with Quotations from Goethe and Other Writers [M]. Shanghai : Kelly and Walsh, Ltd.
Ku, Hung-ming. 1922. The Spirit of the Chinese People (second edition)[M]. Peking: The Commercial Press Work Ltd.
Kwan, Shui-Man. 2005. From Indigenization to Contextualization: A Change in Discursive Practice Rather Than a Shift in Paradigm [J]. Studies in World Christianity (11) : 236– 250.
Lau, D.C..1979. The Analects (Lun yü)[M]. Harmondsworth; New York: Penguin Books. Legge, James. 1960. The Chinese Classics: with a translation, critical and exegetical notes, prolegomena and copious indexes (Vol. 1) [M]. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Levinson, Stephen. 1983. Pragmatics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leys, Simon. 1997. The Analects of Confucius [M]. New York & London: Norton. Lin, Yutang. 1938. The Wisdom of Confucius [M]. New York: Random House, Inc.
Liu, Ts‘un-yan. 1967. Ku Hung-ming and His Interpretation of Chinese Civilization. in Drake, F. S. (ed.) Symposium on Historical, Archaeological and Linguistic Studies on Southern China, Southeast Asia and the Hong Kong Region[C]. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Luke, Kang-Kwong. 1998. Why Two Languages Might Be Better Than One: Motivations of Language Mixing in Hong Kong [A]. in M. C. Pennington (ed.) Language in Hong Kong at Century(?)s End [C]. 145-159.
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, John. 1981. Language and Linguistics: An Introduction [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maciel, Ruberval Franco. 2004. Schema Theory to the Field of Reading in A Foreign Language Teaching [J]. Revista do Mestrado em Linguistica Aplicada da UNISINOS (2): 1-11.
Marshman, Joshua. 1809. The Works of Confucius [M]. Serampore: Mission Press. McCloud, Scott. 1993. Understanding Comic [M]. London: HarperColins.
Mey, Jacob. L. 2001. Pragmatics: An Introduction (second edition) [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Murphy, M. Lynne. 2003. Semantic Relations and the Lexicon [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Newmark, Peter. 1988. A Textbook of Translation [M]. Prentice-Hall International.
Neyland, Daniel. 2008. Organizational Ethnography [M]. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Nida, Eugene A. & Taber, Charles R. 1982. The Theory and Practice of Translation [M]. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Osborne, Grant R. 2006. The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (second edition)[M]. InterVarsity Press.
Schaberg, David. 2001.“Sell it! Sell it!”: Recent Translations of Lunyu [J]. Chinese Literature: Essays, Articles, Reviews (CLEAR). (23): 115-139.
Shenk, Wilbert R. 2005. Contextual Theology: The Last Frontier [A]. in Lamin. O. Snneh & Joel A Carpenter (eds) The Changing Face of Christianity: Africa, the West, and the World [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 191-208.
Shih, Chung-ling. 2008. Corpus-based Study of Differences in Explicitation -- Between Literature Translations for Children and for Adults [J]. Translation Journal (3).
Sia, Adam. 2000. The Complete Analects of Confucius [M]. Singapore: Asiapac. Slingerland, Edward Gilman. 2000. Review: Why Philosphy Is Not“Extra”in Understanding the Analects [J]. Philosophy East and West (1): 137-141.
Slingerland, Edward Gilman. 2003. Confucius Analects: with Selections from Traditional Commentaries [M]. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
Smalley, William Allen. 1991. Translation as Mission: Bible Translation in the Modern Missionary Movement [M]. Macon: Mercer University Press.
Soothill, William Edward. 1910. The Analects of Confucius [M]. Yokohama: The Author‘s & Fukuin Printing Company Ltd.
Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Deirdre. 2001. Relevance: Communication and Cognition (second edition) [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Steiner, George. 2001. After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Tahir-Gür(?)a(?)lar, (?)ehnaz. 2007. What Texts Don‘t Tell: The Uses of Paratexts in Translation Research [A]. in Theo Hermans (ed.) Crosscultral Transgressions (Research Models in Translation StudiesII: Historical and Ideological Issues) [C]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Toury, Gideon. 2001. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
van Dijk, Teun A.. 1997. Cognitive Context Models and Discourse [A]. in Maxim. I. Stamenov (ed.). Language Structure, Discourse, and the Access to Consciousness [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing Co. 189-226.
Vermeer, Hans. 2000. Skopos and Commission in Translation Action [A]. in Lawrence Venuti (ed.) The Translation Studies Reader [C]. London: Routledge. 221-232.
Verschueren, Jef. 2000. Understanding Pragmatics [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press & Edward Arnold (Publishers) Ltd.
Verschueren, Jef. 2007. The Interventionist Role of (Re)contextualization in Translation [A]. in Jeremy Munday (ed.) Translation as Intervention [C]. London: Continuum International Publishing Group. 71-83.
Waley, Arthur. 1938. The Analects of Confucius [M]. London: George Allen & Unwin; New York: Macmillan Company.
Ware, James R.. 1955. The Sayings of Confucius [M]. New York: The New American Library of World Literature.
Zitawi, Jehan. 2008. Contextualizing Disney Comics within the Arab Culture [J]. Meta: Translators' Journal. (1): 139-153.
Bell, Roger T.秦洪武译. 2005.翻译与翻译过程:理论与实践[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社.
白欲晓. 2008.格义探微[J].宗教学研究(2): 64-69.
白兆麟. 1996.关于校勘学的性质与对象[J].古籍整理研究学刊(1): 26. 25-28.
蔡志忠. 1990.孔子说:仁者的叮咛[M].北京:生活·读者·新知三联书店.
陈浪. 2008.当代语言学途径翻译研究的新发展[D].上海外国语大学博士学位论文.
陈治安、文旭. 1997.试论语境的特征与功能[J].外国语(4): 22-26.
陈可培. 2006.偏见与宽容、翻译与吸纳——理雅各的汉学研究与《论语》英译[D].上海师范大学博士论文.
程石泉. 1975.论语读训解故[M].台北:先知出版社.
程永生. 2001.描写交际翻译学[M].合肥:安徽大学出版社.
辞海编辑委员会. 1980.辞海(哲学分册) [Z].上海:上海辞书出版社.
单德兴. 2007.翻译与脉络[M].北京:清华大学出版社.
邓军. 2007.热内特互文性理论研究[D].厦门大学硕士学位论文.
邸爱英. 2008.《论语》语言的简约性与《论语》英译的多样性[J].电子科技大学学报(6): 47-50.
邸爱英. 2008.析当代《论语》英译的多元化趋势[A].第十八届世界翻译大会论文集.
邸爱英. 2009.马殊曼与世界第一个《论语》英译本[J].读书(5): 83-88.
杜学敏. 2009.《论语》中说类动词的翻译对比研究[D].大连海事大学硕士学位论文.
段峰. 2009.论翻译理论研究的认知视角[J].四川师范大学学报(6): 90-94.
段怀清. 2005.理雅各《中国经典》翻译缘起及体例考略[J].浙江大学学报(3): 91-98.
樊培绪. 1999.理雅各、辜鸿铭英译儒经的不及与过[J].中国科技翻译(3): 50-52.
伽达默尔,洪汉鼎译. 2007.真理与方法[M].北京:商务印书馆.
高玉兰. 2007.认知及非认知语境与翻译[J].淮北煤炭师范学院学报(5): 1-9-110转188.
葛亚芬. 2009.从关联理论看《论语》的翻译[D].重庆大学大学硕士学位论文.
辜正坤. 1989.翻译标准多元互补论[J].北京社会科学(1): 70-78.
辜正坤. 2002 . Metatranslatology [J].中国翻译(4): 3-7; (5): 8-14.
辜正坤. 2005.译学津原[M].郑州:文心出版社.
管锡华. 2002.中国古代标点符号发展史[M].成都:巴蜀书社.
广陵书社. 1997.中国近代学人象传[M].扬州:江苏广陵古籍刻印社.
郭著章. 1999.翻译名家研究[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社.
海芳. 2003.翻译过程及其思考——TEM8(2002)考生汉译英词汇策略研究[J].中国翻译(1):79-81.
韩子满、刘芳. 2005.描述翻译研究的成就与不足[J].外语学刊(3): 97-101.
洪涛. 2008.红楼梦与诠释方法论[M].北京:北京图书馆出版社.
洪成玉. 1985.古汉语词义分析[M].天津:天津人民出版社.
胡霞. 2005.认知语境研究[D].浙江大学博士学位论文.
胡志挥. 1980.略谈文学翻译中的注释问题[J].外国语(6): 41-42.
黄德先、杜小军. 2008.翻译研究的现实转向[J].上海翻译(3): 16-19.
黄德先. 2004.翻译中的类文本研究[J].外国语言文学(增刊).
黄金贵. 2002.古汉语同义词辨释论[M].上海:上海古籍出版社.
黄兴涛. 1995.文化怪杰辜鸿铭[M].北京:中华书局.
黄兴涛. 1998.旷世怪杰:名人笔下的辜鸿铭,辜鸿铭笔下的名人[M].上海:东方出版中心.
霍尔,爱德华(?)T著、居延安等译. 1988.超越文化[M].上海:上海文化出版社.
江洁仪. 2005.从功能翻译理论角度看图画故事书汉译[D].广东外语外贸大学硕士学位论文.
姜欣、姜怡、林萌. 2009.高低语境文化错层在典籍英译中的显现及对策[J].外语与外语教学(5): 49-51.
姜海清. 2004.语境与翻译[J].外语研究(5): 54-56.
金定元. 1986.语用学——研究语境的科学[J].中国语文天地(1).
金学勤. 2009.《论语》成书“层累论”及西方汉学界相关评论[J].孔子研究(3): 21-29.
孔庆茂. 1996.辜鸿铭评传[M].南昌:百花洲文艺出版社.
乐黛云、张辉. 1999.文化传递与文学形象[C].北京:北京大学出版社.
李楚成. 2003.香港粤语与英语的语码转换[J].外语教学与研究(1): 13-20.
李红满. 2007.从功能语言学的视角论《尤利西斯》中语码转换的翻译[J].中山大学研究生学刊(3): 125-132.
李夏阳. 2004.从社会语言学角度看语码转换的翻译[D].上海外国语大学硕士学位论文.
李运兴. 2001.语篇翻译引论[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司.
李运兴. 2007.论翻译语境[J].中国翻译(2): 17-23.
李运兴. 2010.翻译语境描写论纲[M].北京:清华大学出版社.
李占喜. 2005.翻译过程的关联—顺应研究:文化意象处理举隅[D].广东外语外贸大学博士学位论文.
栗长江. 2008.文学翻译语境化探索[M].北京:线装书局.
廖七一. 2004.当代英国翻译理论[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社.
林语堂. 2005.林语堂散文经典全编(第2卷) [M].北京:九州出版社.
刘宝楠. 1957.论语正义[M].北京:中华书局.
刘军平. 2009.西方翻译理论通史[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社.
刘宓庆. 2007 a.翻译教学:实务与理论[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司.
刘宓庆. 2007 b.文化翻译论纲[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司.
刘笑敢. 2006 .“反向格义”与中国哲学研究的困境——以老子之道的诠释为例[J].南京大学学报(2): 76-90.
刘雪芹. 2005.翻译批评要有多维意识[J].广西民族学院学报(4): 130-133.
刘雪芹. 2010.典籍复译的危机——《论语》英译二百年(1809-2009)之启示[J].广西民族大学学报(3): 163-170.
卢以纬著、王克仲集注. 1988.助语词集注[M].北京:中华书局.
吕俊. 2002.翻译研究:从文本理论到权力话语[J].四川外语学院学报(1): 106-109.
麻争旗. 1997.论影视翻译的基本原则[J].现代传播—北京广播学院学报(5): 81-84.
马德五. 2005.孔子说(汉英对照).上海:上海世界图书出版公司.
马建忠. 2000.马氏文通[M].北京:商务印书馆.
马祖毅. 1999.中国翻译史(上卷)[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社.
马祖毅、任荣珍. 2003.汉籍外译史(修订版)[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社.
南怀瑾. 2002.论语别裁[M].上海:复旦大学出版社.
裴文. 2000.现代英语语境学[M].合肥:安徽大学出版社.
彭利元. 2002.论翻译语境[J].株洲工学院学报(1): 106-108.
彭利元. 2005.论语境化的翻译[D].湖南师范大学博士学位论文.
彭子游. 2005.论语英译[M].沈阳:万卷出版公司.
钱穆. 1993.钱宾四先生全集(Vol.3)论语新解[M].台北:联经出版事业股份有限公司.
钱钟书. 1995.七缀集(修订本) [M].上海:上海古籍出版社.
邵镜人. 1978.同光风雨录[M].台北:鼎文书局.
石永浩. 2008.试论副文本对翻译和翻译研究的意义[A].第十八届世界翻译大会论文.
宋旭、杨自俭. 2003.译者的原文理解过程探讨[J].四川外语学院学报(5): 117-121.
孙艺风. 2008.翻译与多元之美[J].中国翻译(4): 10-19.
孙占元、王玉君. 2001.走出国门——前驱先路的中外文化交往与文化交流的使者[M].济南:山东教育出版社.
唐明贵. 2009.论语学史[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社.
王辉. 2003.理雅各与《中国经典》[J].中国翻译(2): 37-41.
王辉. 2006.辜鸿铭英译儒经的文化用心——兼评王国维“书辜氏汤生英译《中庸》后”[J].外国语言文学(3): 186-191.
王力. 1980.龙虫并雕斋文集(第一册)[M].北京:中华书局.
王力. 1982.同源字典[M].北京:商务印书馆.
王茜. 2009.文学作品翻译中的注释研究——关联理论的视角[D].上海外国语大学硕士学位论文.
王琰. 2010.《论语》英译与西方汉学的当代发展[J].中国翻译(3): 24-32.
王勇. 2006. 20年来的《论语》英译研究[J].求索(5): 178-181.
王勇. 2009.《论语》英译的转喻视角研究[D].上海交通大学博士学位论文.
王秉钦. 2008.对比语义学与翻译[M].天津:南开大学出版社.
王东波. 2008.《论语》英译的缘起与发展[J].孔子研究(4): 119-125.
王东风. 2010.形式的复活:从诗学的角度反思文学翻译[J].中国翻译(1): 6-12.
王怀贞. 2008.翻译过程的认知心理描述——Bell翻译过程的信息加工模式评介[J].山东大学学报(1): 70-75.
王建华. 2002.关于语境的构成与分类[J].语言文字应用(3): 2-9.
王建华. 2003.论语境的功能及实现[J].修辞学习(2): 1-5.
王树槐. 2010.吉拉里的建构主义翻译教学:贡献与缺陷[J].天津:天津外国语学院学报(4): 44-49.
王晓朝. 2002.破除中西文化交流的三大思想障碍[J].扬州大学学报(1): 17-22.
王引之. 2000.经义述闻[M].南京:江苏古籍出版社.
王永强. 2009.《论语》在英美的译介与传播[J].时代文学(6): 25-26.
王玉霓. 1999.从误译看语境在翻译中的作用[J].中国翻译(1): 18-20.
王忠亮. 1991.关于文学翻译中的注释问题[J].外语学刊(2): 56-60.
魏在江. 2007.英汉语篇连贯认知对比研究[M].上海:复旦大学出版社.
肖维青、冯庆华. 2009.论开放多元的翻译批评观[J].译林(2): 218-220.
徐复观. 1996.中国人文精神之阐扬[M].北京:中国广播电视出版社.
许雷、屠国元、曹剑. 2010.后现代语境下跨文化传播的“图像转向”——蔡志忠漫画中英文版《论语》的启示[J].贵州大学学报(2): 132-135.
许葵花. 2007 a .认知语境语义阐释功能的实证研究[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社.
许葵花. 2007 b.试析认知语境的动态功能[J].中美英语教学(4): 42-46
许渊冲. 2005. Confucius Modernized: Thus Spoke the Master. [M].北京:高等教育出版社.
严爱华. 2005.连环画翻译[D].上海外国语大学硕士学位论文.
阳志清. 1992.论书面语语码转换[J].现代外语(1): 1-6.
杨念群. 2001.“辜鸿铭现象”的起源与阐释:虚拟的想象抑或历史的真实?[J].浙江社会科学(2): 130-139.
杨平. 2008 a.中西文化交流视域下的《论语》英译研究[D].南开大学博士学位论文.
杨平. 2008 b.评西方传教士《论语》翻译的基督教化倾向[J].人文杂志(2): 42-47.
杨平. 2009.《论语》英译的概述与评析[J].浙江教育学院学报(5): 37-47.
杨平. 2010. 20世纪《论语》的英译与诠释[J].孔子研究(2): 19-30.
杨伯峻. 2006.论语译注(简体字本)[M].北京:中华书局.
杨晓荣. 2005.翻译批评导论[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司.
姚振军. 2009.描述翻译学视野中的翻译批评[J].外语与外语教学(10): 61-64.
于国栋. 2000.语码转换的语用学研究[J].外国语(6): 22-27.
岳峰. 2004.架设东西方的桥梁——英国汉学家理雅各研究[M].福州:福建人民出版社.
曾启雄、罗光志. 2003.连环漫画视觉分格之调查探讨-—以台湾漫画金像奖少女漫画为中心[A].国际华文设计教育研讨会论文集[C]. 285-295.
张鲁宁. 2003.浅析语言结构棱镜下的高语境与低语境文化——兼谈其对翻译、教学的启示[J].四川外语学院学报(1): 133-137.
张茂泽. 2007.中国古代宗教思想的特点[J].华夏文化(4): 7-10
张南峰. 2004.中西译学批评[M].北京:清华大学出版社.
张向阳. 2005 a.论翻译中的语境化[J].株洲工学院学报(3): 120-121.
张向阳. 2005 b.论再度语境化及其在翻译中的应用[D].湖南师范大学硕士学位论文.
赵益. 2006.古典文献学原理刍议[A].李浩、贾玉强主编:古代文献的考证与诠释[C].上海:上海古籍出版社.
赵世瑜. 2008.文本、文类、语境与历史重构[J].清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版) (1): 5-9.
赵艳芳. 2001.认知语言学概论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
郑诗鼎. 1997.语境与文学翻译[M].重庆:西南师范大学出版社.
钟明国. 2009.辜鸿铭《论语》翻译的自我东方化倾向及其对翻译目的的消解[J].外国语文(2): 135-139.
周春才. 2004.论语图典[M].北京:中国文联出版社.
周春才著, Paul White译. 2008. The Illustrated Book of THE ANALECTS.北京:新世界出版社.
周光庆. 1989.古汉语词汇学简论[M].武汉:华中师范大学出版社.
周红民. 2002.认知语境与翻译[J].外语与外语教学(11): 46-48.
朱长河. 2006.话语角色转换的迈氏标记模式研究[J].韶关学院学报(10): 98-101.
朱永生. 2005.语境动态研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社.
邹琦. 2005.文学翻译中的注释[D].解放军外国语学院硕士学位论文.
―Appeal to their authorities, speak their language, use their imagery‖,引自福音传道网站http://www.internetevangelismday.com/contextualization.php 6
Boulogne, Pieter. The Early Dutch Construction of F.M. Dostoevskij: From Translational Data to Polysystemic Working Hypotheses [A]. in Pieter Boulogne (ed.) Translation and Its Others: Selected Papers of the CETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2007[C]. http://www.kuleuven.be/cetra/papers/papers.html. 2008.
Eno, Robert. The Analects of Confucius [EB/OL]. 2005. www.indiana.edu/~p374/Analects-374.pdf Flesher, Luna: Cognitive Dissonance and Consonance: The Basics for Former Mormons [J]. http://www.rationalrevelation.com/library/cogdis.html. retrieved 2010-5-31. Giannossa, Leonardo. A Paratextual Analysis of I Promessi Sposi [EB/OL]. Canadian Association for Translation Studies Young Researchers Papers http://www.uottawa.ca/associations/act-cats/English/YoungResearchers/Papers.htm. 2010-7-27.
Gottlieb, Henrik. Multidimensional Translation: Semantics Turned Semiotics [A]. in Challenges of Multidimensional Translation: MuTra 2005 Conference Proceedings [C]. http://www.euroconferences.info/proceedings/2005_Proceedings/2005_proceedings.html Matsuta, Ken: Think-Aloud Protocols: A Means of Observing Cognitive Processes of Language Learners [EB/OL]. http://www.lib.yamagata-u.ac.jp/you-campus/koeki/kiyou-koeki/3/3-pA67-74.pdf
Ryle, Gilbert. 1968. The Thinking of Thoughts: What is (?)Le Penseur (?)Doing(?) [J]. (18). Reprinted from 'University Lectures'. http://lucy.ukc.ac.uk/CSACSIA/Vol11/Papers/ryle_1.html . Retrieved 2010-04-10.
Serafini, Frank & Giorgis, Cyndi. Reading Aloud and Beyond: Fostering the Intellectual Life with Older Readers [C]. Portsmouth: Heinemann. 2003. http://www.frankserafini.com/PubArticles/BookChapters/Making%20Meaning.htm
Tashlitsky, Xenia. Lost in Translation: Winnie-the-Pooh in Russian and English. [EB/OL]. http://www.international.ucla.edu/cms/files/Tashlitsky.pdf 2010-07-25.
Ernest Wendland. 2001. Bible Translation and Contextualization [J]. The Lamp (Jan.– Feb.). Reprinted at http://www.jctr.org.zm/bulletins/bible-transl.htm
冯时:天上人间——中国古代天文学的现实意义.燕山讲堂第65期. 2010-04-08.
王崇尧.从“人权宣言”到“乡土神学”[J].当代杂志2007(236). http://www.cjcu.edu.tw/chowo/pr/teachers/chongiau7056/7.pdf