“译者登场”——英若诚戏剧翻译系统研究
|
摘要
人类文明步入21世纪,人类在尽享现代科学技术所带来的前所未有的物质财富的同时,也在不断美化自己的精神家园,作为高雅艺术的戏剧就是其中一个标志性元素。在全球化、国际化的大背景下,戏剧翻译同戏剧艺术一样得到了繁荣和发展;戏剧翻译研究也从“被人遗忘的角落”渐显生机。但是,由于戏剧理论家一般不关心翻译,很多翻译家又不懂戏剧艺术,使得戏剧翻译研究在阅读与表演两种翻译目的的矛盾中踯躅难行,深陷“迷宫”。学者们对于戏剧翻译中的核心问题,诸如戏剧翻译的本质、可表演性、动作性文本、文化移植、观演体系等等,存在大量的分歧甚致偏见。
尼古拉瑞(2002)在多年戏剧翻译研究的基础上,发现戏剧翻译中长期以来的读演纠纷,实际上反映了翻译研究界的一个普遍现象——规定性研究的弊端,也可以说是一种思维方式上的谬误。在翻译实践中,根本没有明确的读演界限,或者说这两条界限很难区分开来。因此,将戏剧翻译进行读、演的两极分化没有根据,只是一种简单化的错觉。可见,戏剧翻译研究亟需一种科学的范式作指导。另外,不少学者意识到,戏剧翻译研究不应该停留在戏剧翻译要不要可表演性上,而是需要大量的实证研究去考察那些使戏剧具有可表演性的因素。这正是本研究着重探讨和分析的问题。
戏剧是一种特殊的文学体裁样式,与诗歌、散文、小说等其他文学体裁不同,戏剧创作在很大程度上受制于舞台表演,具有文学性和舞台性的双重性本质。戏剧翻译同戏剧创作一样,需要综合考虑戏剧性的特质,既要保证翻译戏剧的文学性,在塑造典型形象、传达深刻主题上做文章;又要关照舞台表演的口头性、即时性和大众性特点,语言须干脆利索,富于节奏感,保证文字信号向声音信号转化时上口、顺耳,为特定时空情境下,演员的舞台表演和观众的现场接受创造有利条件。戏剧翻译作为一个复杂的系统,不仅涉及两种语言的交流,还与两种语言背后的戏剧文化和审美传统具有千丝万缕的联系,使得不少戏剧翻译学者大有“望洋兴叹”之嫌。
本研究选取英若诚作为研究对象。英若诚集导演、演员和翻译于一身,具备了理想的戏剧译者身份。作为一个“登场”的戏剧译者,他的戏剧翻译理论与实践的研究具有极强的代表性,对于揭示戏剧翻译本质规律具有重要价值。英若诚独特而具代表性的戏剧译者身份及其戏剧翻译理论和翻译实践启迪我们,戏剧本身是一个庞杂的系统,戏剧翻译涉及两种语言和两种戏剧文化传统,全面系统的研究方法是解决戏剧翻译中一系列复杂问题的关键。正如系统哲学的创始人之一拉兹洛所言:“人类要想了解自己面对的大自然以及人类社会自身,必须发展一种普遍的系统理论。”
系统范式为戏剧翻译研究提供了科学有效的认识论和方法论平台。首先,系统本体论为戏剧翻译研究提供了科学有效的指导思想。研究表明,从整体的、系统的视角认识戏剧翻译是揭示戏剧翻译文学性、舞台性兼备的戏剧性本质特征的有效途径,也是解决长期以来困扰戏剧翻译研究诸多分歧的关键。戏剧不同于其他文学体裁,登场敷演是戏之为戏的根本。英若诚总结的戏剧翻译的口语化、动作性、性格化以及文学性标准正是戏剧翻译系统观的体现,也是对于戏剧翻译文学性、舞台性双重性本质的准确把握。其次,系统认识论强调人类的认识过程是认知主体和周围环境(客体)相互作用的过程,对于科学地界定翻译过程中译者的主体性具有重大意义,也为英若诚戏剧翻译的研究视角提供了参考。通过考察英若诚的文化世家背景、英若诚戏剧翻译所处的历时、共时语境及其观众的审美视阈,从历史学、文化学、文艺学和戏剧文体学等角度探究英若诚戏剧翻译的文本选择、策略运用和文化取向,全面而系统地揭示英若诚集出身名门的导演、演员和翻译于一身的戏剧译者身份背后戏剧翻译的本质特征。再次,系统价值论从价值是主体对其周围环境的一种适应状态出发,认为主体与其周围环境之间适应或匹配得越好,那么主体的价值就越高。据此,通过英若诚翻译戏剧在特定目的语文化背景下的接受和影响的文化价值调查,对其翻译戏剧进行价值判断,挖掘英若诚翻译戏剧在中国文化现代化建设进程中的巨大价值和历史意义。最后,系统方法论为我们在具体研究中宏观、微观研究相互映衬,定性、定量分析互相结合,横向、纵向比较互为补充的系统研究方法提供了有力的方法论支持。
在理论构建的基础上,英若诚戏剧翻译的文本选择、翻译理论和翻译实践以及文化价值依次得到系统的考察、梳理、研究和调查。
从英若诚戏剧翻译的历史文化背景和中西戏剧交流传统着手,通过对其所选择的八部戏剧进行意识形态和戏剧文化诗学特征的考察,探究英若诚戏剧翻译的文化诗学和主题特点,证明其戏剧翻译文本选择背后所折射的译者执着的戏剧艺术追求和崇高精神境界,也为英若诚戏剧翻译的价值判断提供一定的线索和依据。同其导演、演员的译者身份相吻合,这些文本均为中外不同历史时期的名家名作,它们携带着剧作家独具一格的戏剧艺术语言和戏剧表现手段以及他们对人生的深刻感悟和独到见解,为目的语读者/观众带来经典和现代戏剧艺术的精华,给他们带来耳目一新、回味无穷的艺术享受。“父亲翻译的每一部作品的演出都在当时社会中引起巨大反响,不能不说是一个奇迹。这依赖于他超群的艺术鉴赏力和敏锐的洞察力,他精通中英语言和文化,知识渊博,学贯中西,自己本身又是出色的导演和表演艺术家,集这些因素于一身,父亲是独一无二的!”(英若诚名剧译丛序言,1999:7)
通过细读《名剧译丛》的《译者序》以及柯文辉主编的传记《英若诚》,我们梳理出英若诚的戏剧翻译思想。英若诚从可表演性和文学性两方面总结了戏剧翻译的本质特征。出于戏剧表演和导演考虑,英若诚强调翻译戏剧的口语化和动作性;从文学角度提出戏剧翻译的性格化和文学诗情的保留。从戏剧观众的接受来看,他主张戏剧译者应该更多地照顾目的语观众的审美习惯,而同时也要引导观众欣赏异域文化的优秀元素。可见,英若诚是从戏剧性的本质特征入手,综合戏剧的文学性和舞台性,并把现场观众的反应纳入研究视野,充分反映了其戏剧翻译的整体观。
在具体的文本分析中,针对英若诚提出的戏剧翻译思想,以戏剧观演为参照,分别从口语化、动作性、性格化三方面对其翻译戏剧进行实证研究。借助语用学、戏剧文体学、系统功能语法等分析手段,对英若诚翻译戏剧在话语标记语、指示系统、话轮转换、言有所为、语气情态系统等方面的适合舞台表演的出色表现,进行了基于语料的统计分析,包括单译本、双译本的平行语料对比分析以及可比语料的比较研究,并对相关的规律性和倾向性进行了戏剧艺术分析。其次,从戏剧的声音效果侧面,在对比分析英汉语言声韵资源的基础上,考察了英若诚翻译戏剧中诗体剧的元明杂剧笔法,并从人物台词与舞台动作的搭配角度,分析了英若诚翻译戏剧的语言节奏特点。研究发现戏剧语言的节奏感不是简单地表现为句子简短(它只为人物台词与动作的配合创造了基本条件),而是与指示系统、人际关系、主位推进、对白衔接等等戏剧语言特性密切相关。同时,从戏剧整体美学角度,进一步借助文本处理软件,对英若诚翻译戏剧中戏剧情境和戏剧意象的翻译情况进行调研,发现英若诚的戏剧翻译在营造戏剧情境、传承和丰富戏剧意象方面表现出超群的功力。这些基于语料的实证研究和数据的系统分析,令我们为自己的发现而欣喜:英若诚在对每一个戏剧性元素的处理中,都是从整体的戏剧观演体系出发,以上下文语境为参照,综合考虑各元素之间的相互关系,并照顾英汉两种语言的差异,在充分发挥译入语优势的基础上,寻找最佳对应物。正是这种戏剧翻译的系统思想指导着英若诚创造出一部部文学性、舞台性兼备的上乘译作,也为戏剧翻译研究走出“迷宫”找到一条“通道”。
在英若诚戏剧翻译策略的宏观考察中,英若诚的戏剧翻译表现出以归化为主、异化为辅的倾向。从戏剧情节的增删、方言土语的选择、元明杂剧笔法的采纳、汉语成语的运用等方面,体验英若诚英汉翻译戏剧的中国观众情结;从母语导演的表演节奏要求以及原语比喻形象的保留,体察英若诚拓展中国观众艺术视野的良苦用心。英若诚及其戏剧翻译的文化价值调查在戏剧艺术创新、中西文化交流和语言的发展完善等方面展开,进一步验证其戏剧翻译在文化构建中的“登场”。
总之,英若诚戏剧翻译的系统研究发现:(1)系统整体观是戏剧翻译研究科学有效的指导思想。戏剧翻译的本质是再现戏剧文学性和舞台性的戏剧性本质。英若诚,作为一个登场的译者,其成功的戏剧翻译是建立在以戏剧整体的观演体系为参照,综合考虑戏剧性各个要素之间的相互关系的基础上。(2)英若诚翻译戏剧的价值取决于译者对其周围环境的适应能力,对于社会时代要求的敏锐的洞察力、翻译文本的艺术鉴赏力以及翻译所涉及的两种戏剧文化传统的领悟力。(3)英若诚在中西戏剧交流和中国文化现代化进程中建立了不可磨灭的历史功勋。
本研究期望在以下几方面有所创新:
(1)戏剧翻译是一项系统工程,它涉及文学、语言学、戏剧学、翻译学、文化学乃至美学等多个学科范畴,系统范式成为揭示戏剧翻译本质的必要且有效的认识论和方法论平台。
(2)选取英若诚------一个集导演、演员、翻译乃至文化名人于一身的理想的戏剧译者身份,其翻译思想和翻译实践具有很好的代表性,对于揭示戏剧翻译的本质规律具有重要的意义。成功的戏剧翻译在很大程度上取决于戏剧翻译的整体观,以及恰当处理戏剧舞台性和文学性、目的语观众的审美习惯和外来戏剧美学因素之间的辩证关系。
(3)通过考察英若诚特殊译者身份背后的历史文化背景、原语戏剧的意识形态和文化诗学及其翻译戏剧的社会反响,分析其戏剧翻译在中西戏剧交流中的价值和中国文化现代化建设中的意义。
(4)译本研究突破文化负载词等词汇层面,自建语料,从指示语、话语标记语、话轮转换、言语行为、语气情态、情境意象、整体风格直到社会背景、历史文化意义等层面进行了基于语料的英若诚戏剧翻译的戏剧文体学分析、戏剧艺术分析、平行语料和可比语料的对比研究等多维度系统分析。
金无足赤,我们的实证研究也发现,英若诚翻译戏剧的语言规范无论在整体的倾向性上,还是在具体的词句使用中,都存在提升的空间。正如他自己意识到的,在突出翻译戏剧舞台性的同时,如何保留原作的文学性和诗情;在照顾目的语观众审美习惯的同时,如何引导观众广泛涉猎人类文化宝库中一切美好的遗产,都是值得进一步探讨的课题。
另外需要指出的是,在基于语料的戏剧文体学分析中,语料的规模和数量都有待进一步扩展。虽然英若诚八部翻译戏剧在不同程度上都有所涉及,或者用于定量的数据统计,或者用于定性的艺术分析,但是,每一个子课题的研究中,我们只选取了一部或两部具备相关典型特征的翻译戏剧或者场次作为考察对象,没有涵盖英若诚八部翻译戏剧的所有内容,有待未来做出更多的研究和探索。同时,我们试图以系统哲学的整体观为指导,研究英若诚集导演、演员、翻译乃至政治家于一体的戏剧翻译,而由于戏剧翻译的复杂性以及研究者知识结构的局限,我们的系统研究还只是一个开端,系统的开放性也决定了研究的深度和广度有待进一步的深化和拓展。在附录中,我们将目前所建立的有关语料进行了文本软件的处理,相信这些数据会给热爱戏剧以及戏剧翻译研究的人们带来更多的启迪,为英若诚戏剧翻译研究乃至中国戏剧翻译研究作出不懈的探索。
The beginning of the 21st century witnesses the prosperity of human civilization both in material and entertainment domain. Drama, as an art of elegance is more and more accessible to ordinary people with its specific beauty and humanistic power. Furthermore, the development of globalization promotes drama translation and reception all over the world, which in turn enhances drama translation studies though still the most problematic and neglected area of translation studies.
The dilemma lies in that drama theorists take little care of translation and translators have little knowledge of dramaturgy, which has left drama translation studies being caught in a‘labyrinth’as Bassnett calls with the contradictions between translating for page and translating for stage, which, as the major obstacle in the development of drama translation studies induces more contradictionary views upon its central issues such as the nature of drama translation studies, performability, subtext, acculturation, audience’s reception and etc.. Take the two most influential drama translation theorists Bassnett and Pavis as an example. For one of the typical characteristics of drama--- gestic text or subtext, both of them believes that it needs excavating by actors or directors. According to Bassnett (1998:92), the translation of the secret gestic text requires the translators not only have to know both the languages and theatrical systems intimately, but also have to have experience of gestic readings and training as a performer or director in those two systems. Such expectations for translators make no sense and it is an impossible task for translators. After years of explorations in the“labyrinth”, she advocates at last that gestic text, as well as performability, acculturation, and etc., should be abandoned in drama translation studies, for they are all unreliable concepts. For drama translation, in her opinion, it should be reduced to a translation of a simple literary form. Pavis (1989:25), though admits all the time the close relationship between drama translation and its theatrical performance with the semiotic ideas in his drama translation studies, also claims that in order to conceptualize the act of theatre translation, we must consult the literary translator and the director and actor; we must incorporate their contribution and integrate the act of translation into the much broader translation (that is the mise en scéne) of a dramatic text. Here the intentions to separate theatrical factors from the translation of dramatic texts remains to be the crux of drama translation and its studies.
Nikolarea (2002), with her years of translation practice and stuides, proves that the enduring polarization of performabiltiy and readability is a reductionist illusion. It is a reflection of the weakness of all prescriptive approaches in translation studies, or a fallacy as it may be called. Initially, therefore, there is the necessity to develop as clearly and precisely as possible the paradigm of drama translation studies. Meanwhile, quite a few scholars are also realizing that what sorely needed in drama translation is not the rejection or the emphasis of the concept of performability, but more empirical researches of the criteria that have made a play performable. The research taking Ying Ruocheng, an actor, director, translator and even politician as the study object, is an ambitious attempt to develop a theoretical platform for drama translation studies and make empirical and systematic studies on successful drama translations.
Drama is a literary composition designed for theatrical presentation. Bearing features of dramatism and theatricality, a theatre text exists in a dialectical relationship with the performance of that text, and it is in this relationship that the paradox for drama translators and drama translation scholars lies. The constraints drama translators being faced with include not only the linguistic barriers but also different theatrical conventions. S/He has to accomplish the task of complexity by recreating typical characters and presenting the underlying theme as well as reserving the orality and getuality of dramatic lines for the conveniences of performers’acting and audience’s reception. The object of drama translation studies, thus, involves such a compounding system that some scholars as mentioned above wish to neglect those factors concerning theatrical performance, for they believe it is impossible for the translator to accomplish all these and it is the responsibilities of directors and actors to interpret those factors to audience.
But preliminary studies of Ying Ruocheng’s drama translation theory and practice with his special identity------ a director, actor and translator confirm that drama translation as a system is an inseparable whole. The drama translator can and should take the responsibility to make the translated dramas both suitable for reading and performance. Accordingly, the research applies systems paradigm as the epistemological and methodological platform, being focused on a systematic study on Ying Ruocheng’s drama translation theory and practice with the considerations of his special identity: a director, actor and translator. It aims to investigate the features of Ying’s successful drama translation and obtain better understanding of the true nature of drama translation so as to explore a feasible way getting through the‘labyrinth’of drama translation studies. The systems ontology is based on the view that things in the world all exist as systems. A system is a dynamic whole and it is made up of interactive parts. It proposes to view systems in a holistic manner concerning an understanding of a system by examining the linkages and interactions between the elements that compose the entirety of the system. One of the significant characteristics of a system of this type is that there are properties of the whole that cannot be found in the elements, with other features such as integrity, openness and orderliness. Thus the only way to fully understand why a problem or element occurs and persists is to understand the part in relation to the whole. With the holistic view, it is confirmed that the nature of drama translation bears both features of dramatism and theatricality, as is illustrated by Ying’s drama translation ideas and strategies. The systems epistemology believes that cognition is jointly determined by both the subject and the object(s). The subjectivity is based on human’s adaptation to their environment, which is instructive for the proper position of subjectivity in translation in general and Ying’s drama translation studies as well. Thus, the environmental factors concerning Ying’s drama translation are investigated, including the Yings’cultural background and their influence upon Chinese modern culture, the social and cultural background of his drama translation and the expectations of the target audience. Through historical, sociological, cultural and daramaturgical approaches, drama translation theory and practice by Ying Ruocheng as a director, actor, translator and even politician are explored systematically. The study establishes the fact that Ying Ruocheng possesses the ideal qualifications of a drama translator able to adapt to the special requirements of successful drama translation, both for page and stage. The axiology of systems philosophy argues that the better the subject can adapt to the environment, the higher value the subject possesses, based on which, the receptions and impacts of Ying’s translated dramas in the target theatre and culture are tracked down to testify their value in the target culture. The methodology of systems philosophy makes it reasonable and feasible to combine descriptive and prescriptive, qualitative and quantitative, macro and micro, comparative and intertextual even intersystemic approaches.
The construction of the platform of systems paradigm in drama translation studies brings forth the systematic studies of Ying Ruocheng’s drama translation theory and practice.
Historical, cultural and dramaturgical analyses of the source texts are made initially. The background of Ying Ruocheng’s drama translation, especially the history of communications between western and Chinese drama, is trailed down. It is made clear that both the commonness and differences of the two traditions make the translation and reception of drama from the two sides possible and remarkable. Drama translation has played a significant role in the progress of the modern art of theatre, both in western world and in China. Then all the eight source texts of Ying’s drama translations are dramaturgically analyzed from the perspectives of ideology and cultural poetics, aiming at retrieving enough information of Ying’s inclination in cultural poetics and theme pattern. His choice of the source texts proves that Ying Ruocheng, as a theatrical artist and a drama translator as well as a politician is mainly concerned with the artistic level and the ideological level of the source drama, with the typical feature of the superb skill of language use. The fact that the great success of all his translated dramas in the target theatre apparently indicates that Ying has made right choices of source texts with his theatrician’s discriminatory eye and his sensitive insight to the aesthetic expectations of the target audience. It can be concluded in this part that the special identity of Ying Ruocheng as a director, actor, translator and cultural celebrity makes it possible for him to achieve a comprehensive understanding of the ideology and poetics of the source texts, which in turn brings about the right choices of the translated texts into the target culture in the right period of time and exert profound influence upon the target theatrical art. Above all, the external social, cultural and historical background explorations and the macro investigations of Ying’s eight source dramas present a solid base as the environment for the internal, micro and quatitative studies on his drama translation and demonstrate his discriminatory insight and his power in modern Chinese drama and culture.
Ying Ruocheng’s drama translation theory is then induced from the Preface to The Series of Ying Ruocheng’s Drama Translation and The Biography of Ying Ruocheng, which collect quite a few articles of his reflections on drama translation by Ying Ruocheng and articles on Ying’s drama translation practice. Ying advocates a holistic view of drama translation, combining both dramatism and theatricality in drama translating. Firstly, bearing acting and directing of the translated dramas in mind, Ying gives special emphasis to orality and gestuality of dramatic lines in drama translation. He puts forward“live language”and“rhythmic language”to refer to orality, while asking drama translator’s attention to the commonly existing illocutionary acts of the dramatic discourses. Secondly, from the perspective of literary features of drama, Ying is well aware of the recreation of typical characters and the reservation of literary asthetic. Thirdly, for audience’s reception, Ying argues that drama translator, first and foremost should take care of the aesthetic expectations of the target audience; meanwhile, the translator is also responsible for introducing to them new and outstanding source cultural elements contained in the source dramas. The dialectic and holistic view of drama translation is well reflected in his drama translation practice.
Micro analyses of Ying’s successfully received translated dramas are to testify his ideas of the nature of drama translation. The features of orality, gestuality and typical characters of his translated dramas are investigated by means of stylistic analysis of drama, using theories in pragmatics and discourse analysis as well as functional grammar. Parameters concerning the success of a drama translation are covered, such as speech act, word/sentence length, high frequency of vocabulary, discourse marker, turn-taking management, deixis, mood and modality. Text processing softwares such as Condordance 3.0, Concapp 4.0, TextPreprocessing and ICTCLAS are used in the corpus-based studies to obtain enough dada, both paralleled and comparative corpora being involved. Dramaturgical analysis is made for the tendency and regularity of Ying’s drama translation shown in the obtained data. Initially, orality in Ying’s translated drama is investigated from the perspectives of average word/sentence length and high frequency of vocabulary. Ying’s C/E translation of The Family and E/C translation of Death of a Salesman are chosen as case studies, for both of them have been proven to be successful in the target theatres. British National Corpus is introduced as a reference frame, while two original dramas are used as crossreferences. The data show that the average word/sentence length and the most frequently used vocabulary in Ying’s above two translated dramas are quite similar to the norms of the target language. Then our journey goes into another parameter---discourse markers. With the frequency list of interjections and discourse particles in British National Corpus as reference, we select two English versions of Teahouse------ Ying’s and Howard’s as the object of investigation. It is clear that not only the number but also the type of the discourse markers in Ying’s translated drama approaches the norm of the native language much more than that of Howard’s. As far as the specific use of discourse markers is concerned, an episode from Amadeus is extracted as a case study. For the same“well”, Ying takes the best advantage of the Chinese language to produce proper translations according to the personal relationship among the characters and the mood of the right character at the right time. The third parameter is turn-taking management. We focus on the two aspects of transition relevance place and turn construction in Ying’s translation. By analyzing some examples from The Family and Uncle Doggie’s Nirvana, we find that Ying’s most noticeable achievement is the skillful choice of the key word(s) in both turn construction and transition relevance place, ensuring the dramatic dialogues natural, smooth, vivid and impressive. The deictic system becomes the fourth parameter. Following the corpus-based statistics, which indicates rich use of deictic devices in Ying’s English translations of The Family and Teahouse, Uncle Doggie’s Nirvana and Amadeus are selected as the representatives of Ying’s C/E and E/C drama translations respectively. The analyses show that Ying is careful about the difference between English and Chinese in the use of deixis and generally takes flexible strategies such as addition and compensation in C/E translation and omission in E/C translation. In dealing with the specific use of deictic devices, he always makes proper choices according to the status of the character and the relationship among the characters. Furthermore, since the use of deixis is heavily dependent upon the context and the situation of the story, the study on the translation of stage directions, a special deictic system in drama, is undertaken, an episode from Ying’s translation of Major Barbara being an example. It is found that Ying, for the conveniences of directing and acting, transfers the internal and external actions in the stage directions in the simple and clear way conforming to the norms of stage directions. Performatives is the fifth parameter. Searl’s division of illocutionary act: assertives, directives, commissives, expressives and declaratives is applied in the inquiry into the relative performances of Ying Ruocheng and Howard in their Teahouse translations. By the contrastive studies of the two versions in the above five aspects, it is once again proved that Ying’s translation is more performable with his better presentations of the illocutionary acts in the dramatic dialogues, which is helpful to push on the development of the the story by creatng typical characters through their peculiar speech acts and guarantee the performability of the translated dramas on the stage. Then mood and modality is taken as the sixth parameter, through which the typical personalities of the characters in Ying’s translated dramas are detected, because from the perspectives of holistic view, the personalities of a role in a play are shown in his or her interactions with other roles. The“Caine”Mutiny Court-Martial is taken as a typical example in this part. We choose the most brilliant part of the court trial------ Defense (Act II) as the case. Based on the corpus statistics, the contrastive personalities of the two major characters---Maryk and Queeg are probed into from the functional linguistic perspective.With the theoretical framework of tenor and interpersonal metafunction, the specific lexis in the two characters’discourses are analysed, such as the properly used punctuate marks: question mark and exclamation mark as well as personal pronouns, Chinese idioms, slangs and etc, which demonstrates impressively the personalities of the two major roles and promotes the performability of the translated drama.
Ying’s drama translation strategies are also analysed in a broad way. First, on the basis of the investigations of the audience of Ying’s translated dramas, we try to approach the acculturation and reception of his translated drama with Jauss and Iser’s views of horizon of expectation and response-inviting structure as theoretical framework. We find that in order to meet target audience’s aesthetic expectations, Ying adopts domestication strategy mainly, such as the intended deletions of some parts of plot, thoughtful adoptions of certain local dialects and style of Chinese traditional drama in Yuan ang Ming Dynasty and etc.. Meanwhile, Ying has taken some foreignization strategies, such as the reservations of the sentence structures, cultural specific images to meet the aesthetic requirements of directors from the source cultures as well as the introductions of something new into the target culture.
One typical factor concerning drama translators is the sound effect of the translated dramas. Based on the comparisons of the resources of rhyme and rhythm between English and Chinese, Ying Ruocheng’s translation of poetic lines in Shakespear’s Measure for Mearsure is taken as a case study. Ying’s unique use of the style of rhyme and rhythm in Chinese traditional opera during Yuan and Ming Dynasty is impressive concerning its correspondence with the original in the humorous, narrative, simple and rhythmic style and hence the reception of the translated dramas in the target theatre. The rhythm of drama is specifically analysed concerning its characteristics of theatricality. In addition to the short sentences used in order to match words with actions, the deictic system, personal relationship, thematic progression and coherence between dramatic dialogues all contribute to ideal rhythmic effect of the translated dramas.
Other two typical aesthetic elements in drama translations are situation of drama and image of drama. Since stage directions are the major carrier of situation, our investigations cover the stage directions from the opening to the ending of Ying’s translated dramas. We select Death of a Salesman as a case study, using Yao Ke’s version as the object of contrastive studies. First, the opening and ending stage directions are analysed. The relative stage directions from the original The family, Uncle Doggie’s Nirvana and Thunderstorm are taken as reference. The systematic analyses indicate that Ying’s style of stage direction translation is closer to the norm of the style of the stage directions in the target language. Second, we select a part from the first act in Death of a Salesman, finding that generally speaking, Ying’s translations of stage directions for characters’physical and mental actions are more distinct and explicit, easier to follow, for Ying, with his thorough understanding of the personalities of the charaters and the context of certain directions, makes proper and flexible use of the target language to accomplish the directive function of stage directions; while Yao’s style of stage direction translation shows more literary aesthetic. As to dramaturgical image translation, we set up a comparative corpus of Chinese translations of Shakespear’s Mearsure for Measure by Ying Ruocheng, Zhu Shenghao and Liang Shiqiu. To make the study more operative, the images contained in lines are classified according to their sources and their translation strategies being marked. With ICTCLAS and Concordance 3.0, the statistical data are obtained. It is clear that all the three versions try to reserve the images in the source language as many as possible, accounting for two-thirds of the total number of the images used. The typical characteristics of Ying’s translation is the large number of recreated images and borrowed images from the target language, which, with those images, makes his translation rich in vivid images and impressive among audience. In addition, Ying’s specific translations of images are discussed too. It is proved again that in translating images, Ying takes care of not only the images themselves, but also the interrelationships of the relative images as well as the performable features of orality and rhythm of the discourses that contain the relative images.
Above all, in the systematic studies of Ying Ruocheng’s translated dramas, we can safely come up with a conclusion that Ying’s successful drama translations are due to his systems thinking of drama translation. Whatever strategies he takes, whether the macro choice of the Chinese traditional opera’s style of the poetic lines, or the specific use of discourse markers, he always bears in mind the true nature of drama--- dramatism and theatricality and takes care of the conveniences of directors, actors and audience, because Ying is heavily influenced by his understanding of the art of drama and his practice as an actor and director. According to him, the first important task of drama translation is to reach a performable drama text, during which orality, gestuality and typical character are of vital importance. Meanwhile, the reception and expectations of the audience in the target culture is also a key factor to determine the choice of certain translation strategies, with the selection of a certain dialect in the target language and culture as a typical example.
Finally, the cultural value and influence of Ying Ruocheng and his drama translations are investigated in the following aspects: his international reputation as a director and actor and translator, his introduction of the western dramaturgical mode and ideas to Chinese audience, his influence upon his colleagues in Beijing People’s Art Theatre and artists in theatrical circles, his ambition to promote Chinese modern drama, language and culture. The systematic studies on Ying Ruocheng’s drama translation theory and practice prove that: (1) Systems paradigm is a scientific and feasible epistemological and methodological platform for drama translation theory and practice. The complexity of drama translation needs a holistic view of the nature of drama, which combines both dramatism and theatricality as a whole, evolving the systems theory of drama translation. (2) Since drama translation concerns not only the two language systems, but also the two theatrical conventions, the translating of a drama, from the macro choice of a local dialect to the special use of an interjection, should be undertaken in a systematic way. That is every choice is made with theatrical performance as reference and the interrelationship among the concerned elements being born in mind in order to obtain the ultimate goal of drama translation’s successful performance by actors and its popularity among the audience in the target theatre. (3) As most dramatists and playwrights are more or less related with theatre performance, Ying Ruocheng, a translator on the stage, sets a good example for drama translators to equip themselves with enough knowledge and experience of theatre performance so as to excavate the factors that make the drama performable and skillfully present them in the translated drama, which guarantees the realization of drama translators’subjectivity. (4) As a high standard genre, drama plays a significant role in the development of human civilization. In the same way, drama translation with the translators’appropriate choice of original dramatic texts and his (her) successful theatre translation may exert a shaping force in the target drama system and culture at a cetain moment of history. Under the context of globalization, drama translation, with its peculiarities, may be more powerful in promoting harmonious dialogues and better understanding among different cultures and peoples.
The study is of significance to drama translation studies in the following four aspects worthy of people’s special attention:
(1) Drama translation is a complex system, which involves knowledge in literature, linguistics, dramaturgy, translation studies, cultural studies, aesthetics and so on. Systems paradigm supplies a feasible epistemological and methodological platform for drama translation studies.
(2) Ying Ruocheng, a Chinese eminent director, actor, translator and even a cultural celebrity is chosen to be the study object. With rich experience of theatrical performance, his ideal identity of“a drama translator on the stage”makes the study on his drama translation theory and practice be of great significance in that it shows the typical characteristics of successful theatre translation, which is achieved with the holistic view of drama and its translation, striking a balance between dramatism and theatricality, the reception of the target audience and the introduction of those remarkable exotic aesthetic elements of theatrical art.
(3) The macro investigations of the Yings’historical and cultural background, the ideology and cultural poetics of Ying’s source dramas and the influence of his translated dramas in the target culture contribute to the better understanding of Ying’s important role in the communication between the Western and Chinese theatrical art and even the construction of modern Chinese culture.
(4) The corpora of Ying’s translated dramas are set up. With the guidance of systems methodology, various approaches are used in the micro analyses of the dramatic discourses in Ying’s translated dramas, such as corpus-based studies, stylistics of drama, dramaturgical analysis, contrastive and comparative studies between paralleled and comparative corpora. In addition to the vocabulary with cultural specific elements, the typical features of dramatic dialogues, such as discourse marker, deixis, turn-taking management, speech act, mood and modality, situation and image are inquired to seek the true nature of drama translation.
Based on the investigations of the studies on Ying Ruocheng and his drama translation in recent years, it is found that the studies upon his acting and the studies upon his translating are merging into comprehensive study of him. This research is also an attempt to it. It is pointed out some areas need more thoughtful and professional researches. First, more corpora can be included in the study of Ying’s drama translation. Second, for the pragmatic analysis of Ying’s translated dramas, more issues can be covered such as locutionary acts, politeness, power and etc. In addition, for the researcher’s lack of knowledge and experience of theatrical performance, the dramaturgical analyses of Ying’s translated dramas need further studies to promote his significant role in the development of Chinese modern theatrical art. In a word, the openness of system and the complexity of drama translation require more efforts and attention in this field.
尼古拉瑞(2002)在多年戏剧翻译研究的基础上,发现戏剧翻译中长期以来的读演纠纷,实际上反映了翻译研究界的一个普遍现象——规定性研究的弊端,也可以说是一种思维方式上的谬误。在翻译实践中,根本没有明确的读演界限,或者说这两条界限很难区分开来。因此,将戏剧翻译进行读、演的两极分化没有根据,只是一种简单化的错觉。可见,戏剧翻译研究亟需一种科学的范式作指导。另外,不少学者意识到,戏剧翻译研究不应该停留在戏剧翻译要不要可表演性上,而是需要大量的实证研究去考察那些使戏剧具有可表演性的因素。这正是本研究着重探讨和分析的问题。
戏剧是一种特殊的文学体裁样式,与诗歌、散文、小说等其他文学体裁不同,戏剧创作在很大程度上受制于舞台表演,具有文学性和舞台性的双重性本质。戏剧翻译同戏剧创作一样,需要综合考虑戏剧性的特质,既要保证翻译戏剧的文学性,在塑造典型形象、传达深刻主题上做文章;又要关照舞台表演的口头性、即时性和大众性特点,语言须干脆利索,富于节奏感,保证文字信号向声音信号转化时上口、顺耳,为特定时空情境下,演员的舞台表演和观众的现场接受创造有利条件。戏剧翻译作为一个复杂的系统,不仅涉及两种语言的交流,还与两种语言背后的戏剧文化和审美传统具有千丝万缕的联系,使得不少戏剧翻译学者大有“望洋兴叹”之嫌。
本研究选取英若诚作为研究对象。英若诚集导演、演员和翻译于一身,具备了理想的戏剧译者身份。作为一个“登场”的戏剧译者,他的戏剧翻译理论与实践的研究具有极强的代表性,对于揭示戏剧翻译本质规律具有重要价值。英若诚独特而具代表性的戏剧译者身份及其戏剧翻译理论和翻译实践启迪我们,戏剧本身是一个庞杂的系统,戏剧翻译涉及两种语言和两种戏剧文化传统,全面系统的研究方法是解决戏剧翻译中一系列复杂问题的关键。正如系统哲学的创始人之一拉兹洛所言:“人类要想了解自己面对的大自然以及人类社会自身,必须发展一种普遍的系统理论。”
系统范式为戏剧翻译研究提供了科学有效的认识论和方法论平台。首先,系统本体论为戏剧翻译研究提供了科学有效的指导思想。研究表明,从整体的、系统的视角认识戏剧翻译是揭示戏剧翻译文学性、舞台性兼备的戏剧性本质特征的有效途径,也是解决长期以来困扰戏剧翻译研究诸多分歧的关键。戏剧不同于其他文学体裁,登场敷演是戏之为戏的根本。英若诚总结的戏剧翻译的口语化、动作性、性格化以及文学性标准正是戏剧翻译系统观的体现,也是对于戏剧翻译文学性、舞台性双重性本质的准确把握。其次,系统认识论强调人类的认识过程是认知主体和周围环境(客体)相互作用的过程,对于科学地界定翻译过程中译者的主体性具有重大意义,也为英若诚戏剧翻译的研究视角提供了参考。通过考察英若诚的文化世家背景、英若诚戏剧翻译所处的历时、共时语境及其观众的审美视阈,从历史学、文化学、文艺学和戏剧文体学等角度探究英若诚戏剧翻译的文本选择、策略运用和文化取向,全面而系统地揭示英若诚集出身名门的导演、演员和翻译于一身的戏剧译者身份背后戏剧翻译的本质特征。再次,系统价值论从价值是主体对其周围环境的一种适应状态出发,认为主体与其周围环境之间适应或匹配得越好,那么主体的价值就越高。据此,通过英若诚翻译戏剧在特定目的语文化背景下的接受和影响的文化价值调查,对其翻译戏剧进行价值判断,挖掘英若诚翻译戏剧在中国文化现代化建设进程中的巨大价值和历史意义。最后,系统方法论为我们在具体研究中宏观、微观研究相互映衬,定性、定量分析互相结合,横向、纵向比较互为补充的系统研究方法提供了有力的方法论支持。
在理论构建的基础上,英若诚戏剧翻译的文本选择、翻译理论和翻译实践以及文化价值依次得到系统的考察、梳理、研究和调查。
从英若诚戏剧翻译的历史文化背景和中西戏剧交流传统着手,通过对其所选择的八部戏剧进行意识形态和戏剧文化诗学特征的考察,探究英若诚戏剧翻译的文化诗学和主题特点,证明其戏剧翻译文本选择背后所折射的译者执着的戏剧艺术追求和崇高精神境界,也为英若诚戏剧翻译的价值判断提供一定的线索和依据。同其导演、演员的译者身份相吻合,这些文本均为中外不同历史时期的名家名作,它们携带着剧作家独具一格的戏剧艺术语言和戏剧表现手段以及他们对人生的深刻感悟和独到见解,为目的语读者/观众带来经典和现代戏剧艺术的精华,给他们带来耳目一新、回味无穷的艺术享受。“父亲翻译的每一部作品的演出都在当时社会中引起巨大反响,不能不说是一个奇迹。这依赖于他超群的艺术鉴赏力和敏锐的洞察力,他精通中英语言和文化,知识渊博,学贯中西,自己本身又是出色的导演和表演艺术家,集这些因素于一身,父亲是独一无二的!”(英若诚名剧译丛序言,1999:7)
通过细读《名剧译丛》的《译者序》以及柯文辉主编的传记《英若诚》,我们梳理出英若诚的戏剧翻译思想。英若诚从可表演性和文学性两方面总结了戏剧翻译的本质特征。出于戏剧表演和导演考虑,英若诚强调翻译戏剧的口语化和动作性;从文学角度提出戏剧翻译的性格化和文学诗情的保留。从戏剧观众的接受来看,他主张戏剧译者应该更多地照顾目的语观众的审美习惯,而同时也要引导观众欣赏异域文化的优秀元素。可见,英若诚是从戏剧性的本质特征入手,综合戏剧的文学性和舞台性,并把现场观众的反应纳入研究视野,充分反映了其戏剧翻译的整体观。
在具体的文本分析中,针对英若诚提出的戏剧翻译思想,以戏剧观演为参照,分别从口语化、动作性、性格化三方面对其翻译戏剧进行实证研究。借助语用学、戏剧文体学、系统功能语法等分析手段,对英若诚翻译戏剧在话语标记语、指示系统、话轮转换、言有所为、语气情态系统等方面的适合舞台表演的出色表现,进行了基于语料的统计分析,包括单译本、双译本的平行语料对比分析以及可比语料的比较研究,并对相关的规律性和倾向性进行了戏剧艺术分析。其次,从戏剧的声音效果侧面,在对比分析英汉语言声韵资源的基础上,考察了英若诚翻译戏剧中诗体剧的元明杂剧笔法,并从人物台词与舞台动作的搭配角度,分析了英若诚翻译戏剧的语言节奏特点。研究发现戏剧语言的节奏感不是简单地表现为句子简短(它只为人物台词与动作的配合创造了基本条件),而是与指示系统、人际关系、主位推进、对白衔接等等戏剧语言特性密切相关。同时,从戏剧整体美学角度,进一步借助文本处理软件,对英若诚翻译戏剧中戏剧情境和戏剧意象的翻译情况进行调研,发现英若诚的戏剧翻译在营造戏剧情境、传承和丰富戏剧意象方面表现出超群的功力。这些基于语料的实证研究和数据的系统分析,令我们为自己的发现而欣喜:英若诚在对每一个戏剧性元素的处理中,都是从整体的戏剧观演体系出发,以上下文语境为参照,综合考虑各元素之间的相互关系,并照顾英汉两种语言的差异,在充分发挥译入语优势的基础上,寻找最佳对应物。正是这种戏剧翻译的系统思想指导着英若诚创造出一部部文学性、舞台性兼备的上乘译作,也为戏剧翻译研究走出“迷宫”找到一条“通道”。
在英若诚戏剧翻译策略的宏观考察中,英若诚的戏剧翻译表现出以归化为主、异化为辅的倾向。从戏剧情节的增删、方言土语的选择、元明杂剧笔法的采纳、汉语成语的运用等方面,体验英若诚英汉翻译戏剧的中国观众情结;从母语导演的表演节奏要求以及原语比喻形象的保留,体察英若诚拓展中国观众艺术视野的良苦用心。英若诚及其戏剧翻译的文化价值调查在戏剧艺术创新、中西文化交流和语言的发展完善等方面展开,进一步验证其戏剧翻译在文化构建中的“登场”。
总之,英若诚戏剧翻译的系统研究发现:(1)系统整体观是戏剧翻译研究科学有效的指导思想。戏剧翻译的本质是再现戏剧文学性和舞台性的戏剧性本质。英若诚,作为一个登场的译者,其成功的戏剧翻译是建立在以戏剧整体的观演体系为参照,综合考虑戏剧性各个要素之间的相互关系的基础上。(2)英若诚翻译戏剧的价值取决于译者对其周围环境的适应能力,对于社会时代要求的敏锐的洞察力、翻译文本的艺术鉴赏力以及翻译所涉及的两种戏剧文化传统的领悟力。(3)英若诚在中西戏剧交流和中国文化现代化进程中建立了不可磨灭的历史功勋。
本研究期望在以下几方面有所创新:
(1)戏剧翻译是一项系统工程,它涉及文学、语言学、戏剧学、翻译学、文化学乃至美学等多个学科范畴,系统范式成为揭示戏剧翻译本质的必要且有效的认识论和方法论平台。
(2)选取英若诚------一个集导演、演员、翻译乃至文化名人于一身的理想的戏剧译者身份,其翻译思想和翻译实践具有很好的代表性,对于揭示戏剧翻译的本质规律具有重要的意义。成功的戏剧翻译在很大程度上取决于戏剧翻译的整体观,以及恰当处理戏剧舞台性和文学性、目的语观众的审美习惯和外来戏剧美学因素之间的辩证关系。
(3)通过考察英若诚特殊译者身份背后的历史文化背景、原语戏剧的意识形态和文化诗学及其翻译戏剧的社会反响,分析其戏剧翻译在中西戏剧交流中的价值和中国文化现代化建设中的意义。
(4)译本研究突破文化负载词等词汇层面,自建语料,从指示语、话语标记语、话轮转换、言语行为、语气情态、情境意象、整体风格直到社会背景、历史文化意义等层面进行了基于语料的英若诚戏剧翻译的戏剧文体学分析、戏剧艺术分析、平行语料和可比语料的对比研究等多维度系统分析。
金无足赤,我们的实证研究也发现,英若诚翻译戏剧的语言规范无论在整体的倾向性上,还是在具体的词句使用中,都存在提升的空间。正如他自己意识到的,在突出翻译戏剧舞台性的同时,如何保留原作的文学性和诗情;在照顾目的语观众审美习惯的同时,如何引导观众广泛涉猎人类文化宝库中一切美好的遗产,都是值得进一步探讨的课题。
另外需要指出的是,在基于语料的戏剧文体学分析中,语料的规模和数量都有待进一步扩展。虽然英若诚八部翻译戏剧在不同程度上都有所涉及,或者用于定量的数据统计,或者用于定性的艺术分析,但是,每一个子课题的研究中,我们只选取了一部或两部具备相关典型特征的翻译戏剧或者场次作为考察对象,没有涵盖英若诚八部翻译戏剧的所有内容,有待未来做出更多的研究和探索。同时,我们试图以系统哲学的整体观为指导,研究英若诚集导演、演员、翻译乃至政治家于一体的戏剧翻译,而由于戏剧翻译的复杂性以及研究者知识结构的局限,我们的系统研究还只是一个开端,系统的开放性也决定了研究的深度和广度有待进一步的深化和拓展。在附录中,我们将目前所建立的有关语料进行了文本软件的处理,相信这些数据会给热爱戏剧以及戏剧翻译研究的人们带来更多的启迪,为英若诚戏剧翻译研究乃至中国戏剧翻译研究作出不懈的探索。
The beginning of the 21st century witnesses the prosperity of human civilization both in material and entertainment domain. Drama, as an art of elegance is more and more accessible to ordinary people with its specific beauty and humanistic power. Furthermore, the development of globalization promotes drama translation and reception all over the world, which in turn enhances drama translation studies though still the most problematic and neglected area of translation studies.
The dilemma lies in that drama theorists take little care of translation and translators have little knowledge of dramaturgy, which has left drama translation studies being caught in a‘labyrinth’as Bassnett calls with the contradictions between translating for page and translating for stage, which, as the major obstacle in the development of drama translation studies induces more contradictionary views upon its central issues such as the nature of drama translation studies, performability, subtext, acculturation, audience’s reception and etc.. Take the two most influential drama translation theorists Bassnett and Pavis as an example. For one of the typical characteristics of drama--- gestic text or subtext, both of them believes that it needs excavating by actors or directors. According to Bassnett (1998:92), the translation of the secret gestic text requires the translators not only have to know both the languages and theatrical systems intimately, but also have to have experience of gestic readings and training as a performer or director in those two systems. Such expectations for translators make no sense and it is an impossible task for translators. After years of explorations in the“labyrinth”, she advocates at last that gestic text, as well as performability, acculturation, and etc., should be abandoned in drama translation studies, for they are all unreliable concepts. For drama translation, in her opinion, it should be reduced to a translation of a simple literary form. Pavis (1989:25), though admits all the time the close relationship between drama translation and its theatrical performance with the semiotic ideas in his drama translation studies, also claims that in order to conceptualize the act of theatre translation, we must consult the literary translator and the director and actor; we must incorporate their contribution and integrate the act of translation into the much broader translation (that is the mise en scéne) of a dramatic text. Here the intentions to separate theatrical factors from the translation of dramatic texts remains to be the crux of drama translation and its studies.
Nikolarea (2002), with her years of translation practice and stuides, proves that the enduring polarization of performabiltiy and readability is a reductionist illusion. It is a reflection of the weakness of all prescriptive approaches in translation studies, or a fallacy as it may be called. Initially, therefore, there is the necessity to develop as clearly and precisely as possible the paradigm of drama translation studies. Meanwhile, quite a few scholars are also realizing that what sorely needed in drama translation is not the rejection or the emphasis of the concept of performability, but more empirical researches of the criteria that have made a play performable. The research taking Ying Ruocheng, an actor, director, translator and even politician as the study object, is an ambitious attempt to develop a theoretical platform for drama translation studies and make empirical and systematic studies on successful drama translations.
Drama is a literary composition designed for theatrical presentation. Bearing features of dramatism and theatricality, a theatre text exists in a dialectical relationship with the performance of that text, and it is in this relationship that the paradox for drama translators and drama translation scholars lies. The constraints drama translators being faced with include not only the linguistic barriers but also different theatrical conventions. S/He has to accomplish the task of complexity by recreating typical characters and presenting the underlying theme as well as reserving the orality and getuality of dramatic lines for the conveniences of performers’acting and audience’s reception. The object of drama translation studies, thus, involves such a compounding system that some scholars as mentioned above wish to neglect those factors concerning theatrical performance, for they believe it is impossible for the translator to accomplish all these and it is the responsibilities of directors and actors to interpret those factors to audience.
But preliminary studies of Ying Ruocheng’s drama translation theory and practice with his special identity------ a director, actor and translator confirm that drama translation as a system is an inseparable whole. The drama translator can and should take the responsibility to make the translated dramas both suitable for reading and performance. Accordingly, the research applies systems paradigm as the epistemological and methodological platform, being focused on a systematic study on Ying Ruocheng’s drama translation theory and practice with the considerations of his special identity: a director, actor and translator. It aims to investigate the features of Ying’s successful drama translation and obtain better understanding of the true nature of drama translation so as to explore a feasible way getting through the‘labyrinth’of drama translation studies. The systems ontology is based on the view that things in the world all exist as systems. A system is a dynamic whole and it is made up of interactive parts. It proposes to view systems in a holistic manner concerning an understanding of a system by examining the linkages and interactions between the elements that compose the entirety of the system. One of the significant characteristics of a system of this type is that there are properties of the whole that cannot be found in the elements, with other features such as integrity, openness and orderliness. Thus the only way to fully understand why a problem or element occurs and persists is to understand the part in relation to the whole. With the holistic view, it is confirmed that the nature of drama translation bears both features of dramatism and theatricality, as is illustrated by Ying’s drama translation ideas and strategies. The systems epistemology believes that cognition is jointly determined by both the subject and the object(s). The subjectivity is based on human’s adaptation to their environment, which is instructive for the proper position of subjectivity in translation in general and Ying’s drama translation studies as well. Thus, the environmental factors concerning Ying’s drama translation are investigated, including the Yings’cultural background and their influence upon Chinese modern culture, the social and cultural background of his drama translation and the expectations of the target audience. Through historical, sociological, cultural and daramaturgical approaches, drama translation theory and practice by Ying Ruocheng as a director, actor, translator and even politician are explored systematically. The study establishes the fact that Ying Ruocheng possesses the ideal qualifications of a drama translator able to adapt to the special requirements of successful drama translation, both for page and stage. The axiology of systems philosophy argues that the better the subject can adapt to the environment, the higher value the subject possesses, based on which, the receptions and impacts of Ying’s translated dramas in the target theatre and culture are tracked down to testify their value in the target culture. The methodology of systems philosophy makes it reasonable and feasible to combine descriptive and prescriptive, qualitative and quantitative, macro and micro, comparative and intertextual even intersystemic approaches.
The construction of the platform of systems paradigm in drama translation studies brings forth the systematic studies of Ying Ruocheng’s drama translation theory and practice.
Historical, cultural and dramaturgical analyses of the source texts are made initially. The background of Ying Ruocheng’s drama translation, especially the history of communications between western and Chinese drama, is trailed down. It is made clear that both the commonness and differences of the two traditions make the translation and reception of drama from the two sides possible and remarkable. Drama translation has played a significant role in the progress of the modern art of theatre, both in western world and in China. Then all the eight source texts of Ying’s drama translations are dramaturgically analyzed from the perspectives of ideology and cultural poetics, aiming at retrieving enough information of Ying’s inclination in cultural poetics and theme pattern. His choice of the source texts proves that Ying Ruocheng, as a theatrical artist and a drama translator as well as a politician is mainly concerned with the artistic level and the ideological level of the source drama, with the typical feature of the superb skill of language use. The fact that the great success of all his translated dramas in the target theatre apparently indicates that Ying has made right choices of source texts with his theatrician’s discriminatory eye and his sensitive insight to the aesthetic expectations of the target audience. It can be concluded in this part that the special identity of Ying Ruocheng as a director, actor, translator and cultural celebrity makes it possible for him to achieve a comprehensive understanding of the ideology and poetics of the source texts, which in turn brings about the right choices of the translated texts into the target culture in the right period of time and exert profound influence upon the target theatrical art. Above all, the external social, cultural and historical background explorations and the macro investigations of Ying’s eight source dramas present a solid base as the environment for the internal, micro and quatitative studies on his drama translation and demonstrate his discriminatory insight and his power in modern Chinese drama and culture.
Ying Ruocheng’s drama translation theory is then induced from the Preface to The Series of Ying Ruocheng’s Drama Translation and The Biography of Ying Ruocheng, which collect quite a few articles of his reflections on drama translation by Ying Ruocheng and articles on Ying’s drama translation practice. Ying advocates a holistic view of drama translation, combining both dramatism and theatricality in drama translating. Firstly, bearing acting and directing of the translated dramas in mind, Ying gives special emphasis to orality and gestuality of dramatic lines in drama translation. He puts forward“live language”and“rhythmic language”to refer to orality, while asking drama translator’s attention to the commonly existing illocutionary acts of the dramatic discourses. Secondly, from the perspective of literary features of drama, Ying is well aware of the recreation of typical characters and the reservation of literary asthetic. Thirdly, for audience’s reception, Ying argues that drama translator, first and foremost should take care of the aesthetic expectations of the target audience; meanwhile, the translator is also responsible for introducing to them new and outstanding source cultural elements contained in the source dramas. The dialectic and holistic view of drama translation is well reflected in his drama translation practice.
Micro analyses of Ying’s successfully received translated dramas are to testify his ideas of the nature of drama translation. The features of orality, gestuality and typical characters of his translated dramas are investigated by means of stylistic analysis of drama, using theories in pragmatics and discourse analysis as well as functional grammar. Parameters concerning the success of a drama translation are covered, such as speech act, word/sentence length, high frequency of vocabulary, discourse marker, turn-taking management, deixis, mood and modality. Text processing softwares such as Condordance 3.0, Concapp 4.0, TextPreprocessing and ICTCLAS are used in the corpus-based studies to obtain enough dada, both paralleled and comparative corpora being involved. Dramaturgical analysis is made for the tendency and regularity of Ying’s drama translation shown in the obtained data. Initially, orality in Ying’s translated drama is investigated from the perspectives of average word/sentence length and high frequency of vocabulary. Ying’s C/E translation of The Family and E/C translation of Death of a Salesman are chosen as case studies, for both of them have been proven to be successful in the target theatres. British National Corpus is introduced as a reference frame, while two original dramas are used as crossreferences. The data show that the average word/sentence length and the most frequently used vocabulary in Ying’s above two translated dramas are quite similar to the norms of the target language. Then our journey goes into another parameter---discourse markers. With the frequency list of interjections and discourse particles in British National Corpus as reference, we select two English versions of Teahouse------ Ying’s and Howard’s as the object of investigation. It is clear that not only the number but also the type of the discourse markers in Ying’s translated drama approaches the norm of the native language much more than that of Howard’s. As far as the specific use of discourse markers is concerned, an episode from Amadeus is extracted as a case study. For the same“well”, Ying takes the best advantage of the Chinese language to produce proper translations according to the personal relationship among the characters and the mood of the right character at the right time. The third parameter is turn-taking management. We focus on the two aspects of transition relevance place and turn construction in Ying’s translation. By analyzing some examples from The Family and Uncle Doggie’s Nirvana, we find that Ying’s most noticeable achievement is the skillful choice of the key word(s) in both turn construction and transition relevance place, ensuring the dramatic dialogues natural, smooth, vivid and impressive. The deictic system becomes the fourth parameter. Following the corpus-based statistics, which indicates rich use of deictic devices in Ying’s English translations of The Family and Teahouse, Uncle Doggie’s Nirvana and Amadeus are selected as the representatives of Ying’s C/E and E/C drama translations respectively. The analyses show that Ying is careful about the difference between English and Chinese in the use of deixis and generally takes flexible strategies such as addition and compensation in C/E translation and omission in E/C translation. In dealing with the specific use of deictic devices, he always makes proper choices according to the status of the character and the relationship among the characters. Furthermore, since the use of deixis is heavily dependent upon the context and the situation of the story, the study on the translation of stage directions, a special deictic system in drama, is undertaken, an episode from Ying’s translation of Major Barbara being an example. It is found that Ying, for the conveniences of directing and acting, transfers the internal and external actions in the stage directions in the simple and clear way conforming to the norms of stage directions. Performatives is the fifth parameter. Searl’s division of illocutionary act: assertives, directives, commissives, expressives and declaratives is applied in the inquiry into the relative performances of Ying Ruocheng and Howard in their Teahouse translations. By the contrastive studies of the two versions in the above five aspects, it is once again proved that Ying’s translation is more performable with his better presentations of the illocutionary acts in the dramatic dialogues, which is helpful to push on the development of the the story by creatng typical characters through their peculiar speech acts and guarantee the performability of the translated dramas on the stage. Then mood and modality is taken as the sixth parameter, through which the typical personalities of the characters in Ying’s translated dramas are detected, because from the perspectives of holistic view, the personalities of a role in a play are shown in his or her interactions with other roles. The“Caine”Mutiny Court-Martial is taken as a typical example in this part. We choose the most brilliant part of the court trial------ Defense (Act II) as the case. Based on the corpus statistics, the contrastive personalities of the two major characters---Maryk and Queeg are probed into from the functional linguistic perspective.With the theoretical framework of tenor and interpersonal metafunction, the specific lexis in the two characters’discourses are analysed, such as the properly used punctuate marks: question mark and exclamation mark as well as personal pronouns, Chinese idioms, slangs and etc, which demonstrates impressively the personalities of the two major roles and promotes the performability of the translated drama.
Ying’s drama translation strategies are also analysed in a broad way. First, on the basis of the investigations of the audience of Ying’s translated dramas, we try to approach the acculturation and reception of his translated drama with Jauss and Iser’s views of horizon of expectation and response-inviting structure as theoretical framework. We find that in order to meet target audience’s aesthetic expectations, Ying adopts domestication strategy mainly, such as the intended deletions of some parts of plot, thoughtful adoptions of certain local dialects and style of Chinese traditional drama in Yuan ang Ming Dynasty and etc.. Meanwhile, Ying has taken some foreignization strategies, such as the reservations of the sentence structures, cultural specific images to meet the aesthetic requirements of directors from the source cultures as well as the introductions of something new into the target culture.
One typical factor concerning drama translators is the sound effect of the translated dramas. Based on the comparisons of the resources of rhyme and rhythm between English and Chinese, Ying Ruocheng’s translation of poetic lines in Shakespear’s Measure for Mearsure is taken as a case study. Ying’s unique use of the style of rhyme and rhythm in Chinese traditional opera during Yuan and Ming Dynasty is impressive concerning its correspondence with the original in the humorous, narrative, simple and rhythmic style and hence the reception of the translated dramas in the target theatre. The rhythm of drama is specifically analysed concerning its characteristics of theatricality. In addition to the short sentences used in order to match words with actions, the deictic system, personal relationship, thematic progression and coherence between dramatic dialogues all contribute to ideal rhythmic effect of the translated dramas.
Other two typical aesthetic elements in drama translations are situation of drama and image of drama. Since stage directions are the major carrier of situation, our investigations cover the stage directions from the opening to the ending of Ying’s translated dramas. We select Death of a Salesman as a case study, using Yao Ke’s version as the object of contrastive studies. First, the opening and ending stage directions are analysed. The relative stage directions from the original The family, Uncle Doggie’s Nirvana and Thunderstorm are taken as reference. The systematic analyses indicate that Ying’s style of stage direction translation is closer to the norm of the style of the stage directions in the target language. Second, we select a part from the first act in Death of a Salesman, finding that generally speaking, Ying’s translations of stage directions for characters’physical and mental actions are more distinct and explicit, easier to follow, for Ying, with his thorough understanding of the personalities of the charaters and the context of certain directions, makes proper and flexible use of the target language to accomplish the directive function of stage directions; while Yao’s style of stage direction translation shows more literary aesthetic. As to dramaturgical image translation, we set up a comparative corpus of Chinese translations of Shakespear’s Mearsure for Measure by Ying Ruocheng, Zhu Shenghao and Liang Shiqiu. To make the study more operative, the images contained in lines are classified according to their sources and their translation strategies being marked. With ICTCLAS and Concordance 3.0, the statistical data are obtained. It is clear that all the three versions try to reserve the images in the source language as many as possible, accounting for two-thirds of the total number of the images used. The typical characteristics of Ying’s translation is the large number of recreated images and borrowed images from the target language, which, with those images, makes his translation rich in vivid images and impressive among audience. In addition, Ying’s specific translations of images are discussed too. It is proved again that in translating images, Ying takes care of not only the images themselves, but also the interrelationships of the relative images as well as the performable features of orality and rhythm of the discourses that contain the relative images.
Above all, in the systematic studies of Ying Ruocheng’s translated dramas, we can safely come up with a conclusion that Ying’s successful drama translations are due to his systems thinking of drama translation. Whatever strategies he takes, whether the macro choice of the Chinese traditional opera’s style of the poetic lines, or the specific use of discourse markers, he always bears in mind the true nature of drama--- dramatism and theatricality and takes care of the conveniences of directors, actors and audience, because Ying is heavily influenced by his understanding of the art of drama and his practice as an actor and director. According to him, the first important task of drama translation is to reach a performable drama text, during which orality, gestuality and typical character are of vital importance. Meanwhile, the reception and expectations of the audience in the target culture is also a key factor to determine the choice of certain translation strategies, with the selection of a certain dialect in the target language and culture as a typical example.
Finally, the cultural value and influence of Ying Ruocheng and his drama translations are investigated in the following aspects: his international reputation as a director and actor and translator, his introduction of the western dramaturgical mode and ideas to Chinese audience, his influence upon his colleagues in Beijing People’s Art Theatre and artists in theatrical circles, his ambition to promote Chinese modern drama, language and culture. The systematic studies on Ying Ruocheng’s drama translation theory and practice prove that: (1) Systems paradigm is a scientific and feasible epistemological and methodological platform for drama translation theory and practice. The complexity of drama translation needs a holistic view of the nature of drama, which combines both dramatism and theatricality as a whole, evolving the systems theory of drama translation. (2) Since drama translation concerns not only the two language systems, but also the two theatrical conventions, the translating of a drama, from the macro choice of a local dialect to the special use of an interjection, should be undertaken in a systematic way. That is every choice is made with theatrical performance as reference and the interrelationship among the concerned elements being born in mind in order to obtain the ultimate goal of drama translation’s successful performance by actors and its popularity among the audience in the target theatre. (3) As most dramatists and playwrights are more or less related with theatre performance, Ying Ruocheng, a translator on the stage, sets a good example for drama translators to equip themselves with enough knowledge and experience of theatre performance so as to excavate the factors that make the drama performable and skillfully present them in the translated drama, which guarantees the realization of drama translators’subjectivity. (4) As a high standard genre, drama plays a significant role in the development of human civilization. In the same way, drama translation with the translators’appropriate choice of original dramatic texts and his (her) successful theatre translation may exert a shaping force in the target drama system and culture at a cetain moment of history. Under the context of globalization, drama translation, with its peculiarities, may be more powerful in promoting harmonious dialogues and better understanding among different cultures and peoples.
The study is of significance to drama translation studies in the following four aspects worthy of people’s special attention:
(1) Drama translation is a complex system, which involves knowledge in literature, linguistics, dramaturgy, translation studies, cultural studies, aesthetics and so on. Systems paradigm supplies a feasible epistemological and methodological platform for drama translation studies.
(2) Ying Ruocheng, a Chinese eminent director, actor, translator and even a cultural celebrity is chosen to be the study object. With rich experience of theatrical performance, his ideal identity of“a drama translator on the stage”makes the study on his drama translation theory and practice be of great significance in that it shows the typical characteristics of successful theatre translation, which is achieved with the holistic view of drama and its translation, striking a balance between dramatism and theatricality, the reception of the target audience and the introduction of those remarkable exotic aesthetic elements of theatrical art.
(3) The macro investigations of the Yings’historical and cultural background, the ideology and cultural poetics of Ying’s source dramas and the influence of his translated dramas in the target culture contribute to the better understanding of Ying’s important role in the communication between the Western and Chinese theatrical art and even the construction of modern Chinese culture.
(4) The corpora of Ying’s translated dramas are set up. With the guidance of systems methodology, various approaches are used in the micro analyses of the dramatic discourses in Ying’s translated dramas, such as corpus-based studies, stylistics of drama, dramaturgical analysis, contrastive and comparative studies between paralleled and comparative corpora. In addition to the vocabulary with cultural specific elements, the typical features of dramatic dialogues, such as discourse marker, deixis, turn-taking management, speech act, mood and modality, situation and image are inquired to seek the true nature of drama translation.
Based on the investigations of the studies on Ying Ruocheng and his drama translation in recent years, it is found that the studies upon his acting and the studies upon his translating are merging into comprehensive study of him. This research is also an attempt to it. It is pointed out some areas need more thoughtful and professional researches. First, more corpora can be included in the study of Ying’s drama translation. Second, for the pragmatic analysis of Ying’s translated dramas, more issues can be covered such as locutionary acts, politeness, power and etc. In addition, for the researcher’s lack of knowledge and experience of theatrical performance, the dramaturgical analyses of Ying’s translated dramas need further studies to promote his significant role in the development of Chinese modern theatrical art. In a word, the openness of system and the complexity of drama translation require more efforts and attention in this field.
引文
Aaltonen, S. (1996) Acculturation of the Other: Irish Milieux in Finnish Drama Translation. Joenssuu, Finland: Joensuu University Press.
(2000) Time-Sharing on Stage: Drama Translation in Theatre and Society. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Baker, M.(2000) In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
(2004)Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
(1995)Corpora in Translation Studies: An overview and some suggestions for future research, Target, 7/2.
(2000)Toward a Methodology for Investigating the Style of a Literary Translator. Target, 12/2.
Bassnett, S. (1990)Translating for the Theatre: Textual Complexities. Essays in Poetics 15(1): 71-83.
(1991)Translating for the Theatre: The Case Against Performability. TTR: Traduction, Terminologie, Redaction: Studies in the Text and its Transformations (Special Issue: Languages and Cultures in Translation Theories) 4(1): 99-111.
(1998) Still Trapped in the Labyrinth: Further Reflections on Translation and Theatre. In: Bassnett, S. & Lefevere, A. (eds) Constructing Cultures: Essays on Literary Translation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 90-108.
(1978)Translating Spatial Poetry: An Examination of Theatre Texts in Performance. In: Holmes, J., Lambert, J. & Van den Broeck, R. Literature and Translation: New Perspectives in Literary Studies. Leuven: Acco, pp. 161-176.
(1980)An Introduction to Theatre Semiotics. Theatre Quarterly 10(38): 47-53. (1985)
Ways Through the Labyrinth: Strategies and Methods for Translating Theatre Texts. In: Hermans, T. (ed.) The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Translation. London: Croom Helm, pp. 87-102.
Bassnett, S. & Levefere, A.(1990)Translation, History and Culture. London & New York: Printer.
(1997). Translation strategies and the reception of drama performance: a mutual influence. In Snell-Hornby, M, Jettrnarova, Z. & Kaindl, K. (Ed.) Translating as Intercultural Communication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Co.
Bell, R.T. (1991) Translation and Tranlating: Theory and Practice. New York & London: Longman Group UK Limited. Amsterdam: Benjamings Publishing Company.
Bertalanffy, L. Von.(1968) General System Theory: Foundation, Development, Applications . New York: George Braziller.
Biber, D等, (2000)Corpus Linguistics,外语教学与研究出版社。
Boulton, M. (1980) The Anatomy of Drama. Routledge & Keganpaul.
Catford, J. (1965) A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay in Applied Linguistics. Oxford and London: Oxford University Press.
Chesterman, A. (1993) From“is”to“Ought”: laws, norms and strategies in translation studies. Target (5).
(1998) Contrastive Functional Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Co.
(1997) Memes of Translation: The Spread of Ideas in Translation Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Co.
Cook, V. & Newson, M. (2000) Chomsky’s Universal Grammar: An Introduction(乔姆斯基的普遍语法教程)外语教学与研究出版社& Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Crystal, D (1997) A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. 4th edition. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Culler, J. (1975) Structuralist Poetics. London and Henley: Routlege & Kegan Paul .
Culpeper, J. (1998)(Im)politeness in Dramatic Dialogue. In: Culpeper, J., Short, M. & Verdonk, P. (eds) Exploring the Language of Drama. London: Routledge, pp. 83-95.
Dobson, M. (2003) Shakespeare on the page and the Stage. In: Margreta De Grazia & Stanley Wells (eds) The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare.上海外语教育出版社,PP235-249。
Elam, K.(1980)The Semiotics of Theatre and Drama. London: Methuen.
Espasa, E. (2000)Performability in Translation: Speakability? Playability? Or just Saleability? In: Upton, C-A. (ed.) Moving Target: Theatre Translation and Cultural Relocation. Manchester: St Jerome, pp. 49-62.
Even-Zohar, I. (1990) Polysystem Studies. Poetics Today 11:1.
Fischer-Lichte, E. (1990) Theatre, Own and Foreign------ The Intercultural Trend in Contemporary Theatre. In Fischer-Lichte, E., Riley, J. and Gissenwehrer, M(eds) The Dramatic Touch of Difference(11-19). Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Fraser, B. (1998) Contrastive Discourse Markers in English. In A. Jucher and Y. Ziv(eds), Discourse Markers: Description and Thoery. Benjamins.
Gentzler, E. (1993) Contemporary Translation Theories. London and New York : Routledge.
Hale, T. and Upton, C-A. (2000)Moving Target: Theatre Translation and Cultural Relocation. Manchester: St Jerome.
Halliday, M. A. K. (2000) An Introduction to Functional Grammar.外语教学与研究出版社。
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. ( 2003) Cohesion in English.外语教学与研究出版社。
Hatim, B. (2001) Communication across Cultures: Translation theory and Contrastive Text Linguistics.上海外语教育出版社。
Herman, V. (1995)Dramatic Dialogue: Dialogue as Interaction in Plays. London: Routledge.
(1998) Turn Management in Drama. In: Culpeper, J., Short, M. & Verdonk, P. (eds) Exploring the Language of Drama. London: Routledge, pp. 19-33.
Hermans, T. (1985) Introduction: Translation Studies and a New Paradigm. Hermans, T. (ed)The Manipulation of Literary Translation. London & Sydney: Croom Helm.
(2004)Translation in Systems--- Descriptive and System-oriented Approaches Explained (《系统中的翻译——描写和系统理论解说》).上海外语教育出版社。
House, J.(1981)A Model for Translation Quality Assessment. Tubingen: Gunter Narr. Thornborrow, J. & Wareing, S.(1998),《语言模式:文体学入门》,外语教学与研究出版社。
Kruger, A. (1996) "Bless Thee, Bottom, Bless Thee! Thou art Translated!" The Shakespeare Phase in South Africa: A Socio-cultural Perspective. Journal of LiteraryStudies 12(4): 408-428.
(1998) Shakespeare Translations in South Africa: A History. In: Beylard-Ozeroff, A., Kralova, J. & Moser-Mercer, B. (eds) Translators' Strategies and Creativity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 107-115.
(2000)Lexical Cohesion and Register Variation in Translation: The Merchant of Venice in Afrikaans. University of South Africa, Pretoria.
(2004)Shakespeare in Afrikaans: A Corpus-based Study of Involvement in Different Registers of Drama Translation. Language Matters 35(1): 282-301.
老舍著,Howard- Gibbon, J.译,(2001)Teahouse.外文出版社。
Laszlo, E. (1978) The Systems View of the World: The Natural Philosophy of the New Developments in the Sciences. New York: George Braziller.
(1996) The System View of the World: A Historic Vision for Our Time. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
(1996)The Whispering Pond--- A Personal Guide to the Emerging Vision of Science,Element Books, Inc.
(2002)Revolutionary Science:The Rise of the Holistic Paradigm,手稿.
Lefevere, A. (2004) Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Levinson, Stephen C.(1983)Pragmatics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Lichte, E. (2004) History of European Drama and Theatre. Routledge.
Link, F. H.(1980)Translation, Adaptation and Interpretation of Dramatic Texts. In: Zuber, O.(Ed.) The Languages of Theatre: Problems in the Translation and Transposition of Drama. Oxford: Pergamon, pp. 24-50.
Lyons, J. ( 1977 ) Semantics. Volumes I and II. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Marco, J. (2003) Teaching Drama Translation,王宁编辑,《视角:翻译学研究(第一卷)》,清华大学出版社。
Martin, J.R. & White P.R.R. (2005) The Language of Evaluation--- Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan.
McCarthy, M. (1991)Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge UniversityPress.
McCarthy, M. & Carter, R. (1994) Language as Discourse: Perspectives for Language Teaching. Longman.
Nebot, M.(2003)Corpus-based Teaching: The Use of Original and Translated Texts in the training of legal translators. Translation Journal, 7/4.
Newmark, P. (2001a) A Textbook of Translation. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
(2001b)Approches to Translation. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Nida,E. A. (1964). Toward a Science of Translating. Leaden:E.J.Brill.
(1964) Language in Culture and Society. Del Hymes, Allied Publishers pvt, Ltd.
(1993). Language, Culture and Translation.上海外语教育出版社。
(1996)The Sociolinguistics of Interlingual Communication .Les Editions du Hazard
Nida, E.A. & Taber, C.R. (1969) The Theory and Practice of Translation. E.J.Brill.
Nikolarea, E. (2002) Performability versus Readability: A Historical Overview of a Theoretical Polarization in Theatre Translation, Translation Journal(6).
Niranjana, T.(1992) Siting Translation: History, Oost-structuralism, and the Colonial Context. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992.
Nord, C. (1997) Translating As A Purposeful Activity—Functionalist Approaches Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
Ooi, V. (1980) Transcending Culture: A Cantonese Translation and Production of O’Neil’s Long Day’s Journey into Night. In Zuber, O (Ed.). The Language of Theatre: Problems in the Translation and Transposition of Drama [C]. (pp51-69). London: Pergamon Press,
Pavis, P. (1989) Problems of Translation for Stage: Intercultural and Post-Modern Theatre. In Scoinicov,H and Holland,P (Ed.)The Play Out of Context: Transferring Plays from Culture to Culture, (Kruger,L, Trans.).(pp25-44). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
(1982) Languages of the Stage: Essays in the Semiology of the Theatre. New York: Performing Arts Journal Publications.
(1997) The state of current theatre research. Applied Semiotics / Sémiotique appliquée . (3) Pavis, P. (ed.) (1996) The Intercultural Performance Reader. Routledge.
Popovic, A. (1976) Dictionary for the Analysis of Literary Translation. Edmonton: University of Alberta.
Pound, E. A. (1913). Few Don’ts by An Imagist. Poetry(1).
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J.(1985)A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
任晓霏,(2008a)Performatives in Teahouse Translation, Translation Journal(2).
Robinson, D. (2006a) The Translator’s Turn (《译者登场》).外语教学与研究出版社。
(2006b)Western Translation Theory——from Herodotus to Nietzsche (《西方翻译理论:从希罗多德到尼采》),外语教学与研究出版社。
Sacks, H., Schegloff, A. & Jefferson, G.A. (1974) A simplest systematic for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 150(4): 596-735
Schiffrin, D.(2003)Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Inc. Publishers Mahwah, New Jersey.
Schulte, R. and Biguenet, J. eds. (1992)Theories of Translation: An Anthology of Essays from Dryden to Derrida. Chicago: the University of Chicago Press.
Short, M(.1996) Exploring the Language of Poems, Plays and Prose. London: Longman. (1998)From Dramatic Text to Dramatic Performance. In: Culpeper, J., Short, M. & Verdonk, P. Exploring the Language of Drama. London: Routledge, pp. 6-18。
Simon, S. ( 1996 ) Gender in Translation: Cultural Identity and the Politics of Transmission. London: Routledge.
Snell-Hornby, M. (1997)"Is this a Dagger Which I See Before Me?": The Non-verbal Language of Drama. In: Poyatos, F. (ed.) Nonverbal Communication and Translation: New Perspectives and Challenges in Literature, Interpretation and the Media. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 187-201.
Steiner, G. (1975) After Babel—Aspects of Language and Translation. Oxford University Press.
Steiner, P. (1984) Russian Normalism. Cornell University Press.
Sutherland,J. (1973) The General Systems Philosophy for the Social and Behavioral Sciences. New York: George Braziller.
The Merriam Webster Dictionary (50th Edition), Merriam Webster, Inc. 1997.
The Oxford Encyclopedia English Dictionary, Oxford University Press. 1991.
Tornqvist, E. (1991) Transposing Drama. London: Macmillan.
Toury, G. (1978)The Nature and Roles of Norms in Literary Translation. in Venuti, L. (ed.)
The Translation Studies Reader, London and New York: Routledge, 2000, pp. 198-211.
(1980) The Adequate Translation as an Intermediating Construct: A Model for the Comparison of a Literary Text and its Translation. In: Toury, G. In Search of a Theory of Translation. Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics, Tel Aviv University, pp. 112-121.
(1985) Translation, literary translation and pseudotranslation. Comparative Criticism, Vol 6 (pp73-85). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(1995) Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Venuti, L. (2004) The Translator’s Invisibility. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Wilss, W. (2001) The Science of Translation—Problems and Methods. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Zuber, O. (ed.) (1980) The Languages of Theatre: Problems in the Translation and Transposition of Drama. Oxford: Pergamon.
阿恩海姆,(1984),《艺术与视知觉》,中国社会科学出版社。
阿瑟·米勒著,姚克译,(1971),《推销员之死》,香港今日世界出版社。
A·拉波波特著,钱兆华译(1993),《一般系统论》,福建人民出版社。
彼得·斯丛荻著,王健译,(2006),《现代戏剧理论(1880-1950)》,北京大学出版社。
伯兰特·罗素,(1983),《人类的知识》,商务印书馆。
《曹禺、王昭君及其他》,(1980),香港良友图书公司出版。
柴梅萍,(2001),电影翻译中文化意象的重构、修润与转换,《苏州大学学报》(4)。
陈白尘、董健,(1989),《中国现代戏剧史稿》,中国戏剧出版社。
陈伟,(2004),《西方人眼中的东方戏剧艺术》,上海教育出版社。
狄德罗,(1979),《关于〈私生子〉的谈话》(第三次谈话),朱光潜译,《西方美学史》上卷,人民文学出版社。
董健、马俊山,(2006),《戏剧艺术十五讲》,北京:北京大学出版社。
冯·贝塔朗菲著,秋同、袁嘉斯译,(1987a),《一般系统论》,社会科学文献出版社。
(1987b),《一般系统论的基础、发展和应用》,清华大学出版社。
冯庆华,(2002),《实用翻译教程》(增订版),上海外语教育出版社。
(2006),《红译艺坛——红楼梦翻译艺术研究》,上海外语教育出版社。
(2008),《母语文化下的译者风格》,上海外语教育出版社。
高启光,(2001),试论戏剧情境的作用,《齐鲁艺苑》(1)。
郭聿楷,(1995),指示语:研究历史、属性、分类及其他,《外语教学》(4)。
何伟、庞云玲,(2008),报忧类商务英语信函的人际功能研究,《广东外贸外语大学学报》(1)。
何兆熊,(2002),《新编语用学概要》,上海外语教育出版社。
何兆熊,(2003),《语用学文献选读》,上海外语教育出版社。
黑格尔,朱光潜译,(1981),《美学》,商务印书馆。
黑格尔著,燕晓冬编译,(2005),《美学——对广大的美的领域的尖端叙述》,人民日报出版社。
胡庚申,(2004),《翻译适应选择论》,湖北教育出版社。
胡显耀,(2008),基于语料库的翻译小说虚词特征研究,《第18届世界翻译大会论文集》,外文出版社。
胡壮麟等,(2005),《系统功能语言学概论》,北京大学出版社。
胡壮麟,(2001),《语言学教程》,北京大学出版社。
黄小寒,(2006),《世界视野中的系统哲学》,商务印书馆。
霍绍周,(1988),《系统论》,科学技术文献出版社。
贾正传,(2001),话语系统观—用系统观考察话语观的尝试,《山东外语教学》(2):31—34。
(2002),用系统科学综合考察翻译学的构想,《外语与外语教学.》(6): 40—43.。
(2002),翻译学系统演化观—用系统观考察翻译学史的尝试,《烟台师范学院学报(哲学社会科学版)》(4):77-83。
(2003),翻译学系统观—用系统观考察元翻译学的尝试,《外语与外语教学》(6): 45—49。
(2007a)辩证系统视野中的翻译本质和特性,《外语研究》(4):90-93。
(2007b),《融合与超越:走向翻译辩证系统论》,上海译文出版社。
姜秋霞、权晓辉,(2000),文学翻译过程与格式塔意象模式,《中国翻译》,2000/1。
《简明不列颠百科全书》(Concise Encyclopadia Britannica),(1986),中国大百科全书出版社。
焦菊隐,(1979),《焦菊隐戏剧论文集》,上海文艺出版社。
柯飞,(2002),双语库:翻译研究新途径,《外语与外语教学》(9)。
柯文辉编,(1992),《英若诚》,北京十月文艺出版社。
拉兹洛,(1998),《系统哲学引论》(钱兆华等译) ,商务印书馆。
(1985),《用系统的观点看世界》,(闵家胤译),中国社会科学出版社。
勒代雷著(法),刘和平译,(2002),释意学派口笔译理论,中国对外翻译出版公司。
李贵森,(2007),《西方戏剧文化艺术论》,中国传媒大学出版社。
李华东,(2001),从话轮转换看权势关系、性格刻画和情节发展,《解放军外国语学院学报》(2):26 -30。
李顺春,(2001),中英诗歌意象分类之研究,《内蒙古大学学报(人文社会科学版)》(1)。
李新魁编著,(2000),《实用诗词曲格律词典》,花城出版社。
李悦娥,范红雅,(2002),《话语分析》,上海外语教育出版社。
廖七一,(2000),语料库与翻译研究,《外语教学与研究》(5)。
林陵、史敏徒译,(1979),《斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基全集》第二卷,中国电影出版社。
刘宓庆,(2001),《翻译与语言哲学》,中国对外翻译出版公司。
刘岩,(1995),论中国古典诗歌对英美意象派诗歌的影响,《中国文化研究》(2)。
吕俊、侯向群,(2001),《英汉翻译教程》,上海外语教育出版社。
玛·阿·弗烈齐阿诺娃编,(1990),《斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基体系精华》,中国电影出版社。
马会娟,(2004),论英若诚译《茶馆》的动态表演性原则,《解放军外国语学院学报》(5)。
曼弗雷德·普菲斯特,(2004),《戏剧理论与戏剧分析》,(周靖波、李安定译),北京广播学院出版社。
闵家胤,(1999),《进化的多元论------系统哲学的新体系》,中国社会科学出版社。
戚世隽,(2007),《明代杂剧研究》,广东高等教育出版社。
戚雨村,(1997),《现代语言学的特点和发展趋势》,上海外语教育出版社。
钱兆华, 2007,拉兹洛系统哲学对发展马克思主义哲学的贡献,《江苏大学学报(社科版)》(1)。
2006(a),拉兹洛系统哲学的认识论探析,《徐州师范大学学报》(4)。
2006(b),系统哲学的双透视论述评,《系统科学学报(社科版)》(4)。
1998,拉兹洛系统哲学述要,《河南师范大学学报》(6)。
秦建华,(2004),《高健翻译研究》,中国社会出版社。
仇蓓玲,(2006),《美的变迁》,上海译文出版社。
冉永平,莫爱屏等,(2006),《认知语用学——言语交际的认知研究》,上海外语教育出版社。
任晓霏,(2001),汉英诗歌翻译的形式对应,《外语与翻译》(4)。
(2008b),后殖民语境下多元对等理论的文化转向,《江苏大学学报(社科版)》(3)。
莎士比亚著,梁实秋译,(1967),《莎士比亚全集》,远东图书公司。
莎士比亚著,朱生豪译,(2007),《莎士比亚著名戏剧六种》,山东文艺出版社。
盛邦和,(2002),《解体与重构——现代中国史学与儒学思想变迁》,华东师范大学出版社。
施旭升,(2006),《戏剧艺术原理》,中国传媒大学出版社。
《斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基全集》第二卷,林陵、史敏徒译,(1979),中国电影出版社。
斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基,郑雪莱等译,(1985),《体验艺术——斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基论文讲演谈话书信集》,中国电影出版社。
孙文辉,(2003),《戏剧哲学——人类的群体艺术》,湖南大学出版社。
索绪尔著,高名凯译,(1982),《普通语言学教程》,商务印书馆。
谭载喜,(2004),《西方翻译简史》(增订版),商务印书馆。
谭霈生,(1985),《戏剧艺术的特征》,上海文艺出版社。
屠国元、朱献珑,(2003)译者主体性:阐释学的阐释,《中国翻译》(6)。
《王国维戏曲论文集》,(1975),中国戏剧出版社。
王克非,(2003),英汉/汉英句对应的语料库考察,《外语教学与研究》(6)。
王友贵,(2004),英若诚和《推销员之死》,《上海戏剧》(Z1)。
王行之编,(1981),《老舍论剧》,中国戏剧出版社。
王运熙、周锋,(1998),《文心雕龙译注》,上海古籍出版社。
文军,(1997),杨宪益先生PYGMALION两译本比较——兼论戏剧翻译,《涪陵师专学报》(1)。
乌苇克劳特编,(1983),《东方舞台上的奇迹——《茶馆》在西欧》,文化艺术出版社。
吴戈,(2001),《戏剧本质新论》,云南大学出版社。
吴其尧,(2006),《庞德与中国文化》,上海外语教育出版社。
吾文泉,(2003),《推销员之死》在中国,《戏剧百家》(3)。
夏之放,(1993),文学意象论,汕头大学出版社。
《现代戏剧家熊佛西》,(1985),中国戏剧出版社。
谢天振,(1999),《译介学》,上海外语教育出版社。
新华通讯社译名室编,(1993),《世界人名翻译大辞典》,中国对外翻译出版公司。
许渊冲,(1997),《中诗英韵探胜》,北京大学出版社。
亚里士多德,陈中梅译,(1996),《诗学》,商务印书馆。
阎德胜,(1994),翻译与系统科学,《中国翻译》(5)。
杨清,(1983),《现代西方心理学主要派别》,辽宁人民出版社。
袁咏,(2008),英语专业学生朗读中话语标记语的韵律模式——一项基于语料库的纵
深研究,《解放军外国语学院学报》(1)。
俞东明,(1996),戏剧文体与戏剧文体学,《浙江大学学报》(1)。
许晓晴,(2007),中古隐逸诗意象分类研究,《晋阳学刊》(4)。
杨景春,(2006),毛泽东诗词意象分类及特点,《井冈山学院学报》(11)。
杨平,(2003),对当前中国翻译研究的思考,《中国翻译》(1)。
姚斯、霍拉勃著,周宁、金元浦译,(1997),《接受美学与接受理论》,辽宁人民出版社。
伊赛尔著,金元浦、周宁译,(1991),《阅读活动——审美反应理论》,中国社会科学出版社。
英若诚译,(1999)/(2007),《英若诚名剧译丛》,中国对外翻译出版公司。
英若诚译,(2002),英若诚译名剧五种,辽宁教育出版社。
游国恩等,(1985),《中国文学史(三)》,人民文学出版社。
张静、徐颖茜,(2007),英氏家族的家学传承,《晚报文萃》(16)。
张德让,(2001),伽达默尔哲学解释学与翻译研究,《中国翻译》(4)。
张帆,(2004),“英大学问”——记北京人民艺术剧院的“文化使者”英若诚,《纵横》(10)。
张美芳,(2002),利用语料库调查译者的文体,《解放军外国语学院学报》(3)。
郑海凌,(2000),《文学翻译学》,文心出版社。
《中国大百科全书·中国文学卷II》,(1986),中国大百科全书出版社。
《中国新文学大系.建设理论集》,(1935),上海良友图书印刷公司。
周安华,(2005),《戏剧艺术通论》,南京大学出版社。
朱光潜,(2001),《西方美学史(下)》,人民文学出版社。
朱立元,(1997),《当代西方文艺理论》,华东师范大学出版社。
邹红,(2003),当代话剧观众构成及对话剧发展的影响,《文艺研究》(6)。
Aaltonen, S. Targeting in Drama Translation: Laura Ruohonen’s Plays in English Translation. University of Vaasa
http://www.google.cn/search?sourceid=navclient&hl=zh-CN&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4SNYM_zh-CNCN265CN266&q=Targeting+in+Drama+Translation%3a+Laura+Ruohonen%e2%80%99s+Plays+in+English+Translation%2e
Assimakopoulos, S. (2002) Drama translation and relevance. MA thesis (ms): University of Surrey. http://www.ling.ed.ac.uk/%7Estavros/Drama%20translation%20and%20relevance.pdf Che Suh, J. (2002) Compunding Issues on the Translation of Drama/Theatre Texts, University of Buea, Buea, Cameroon.
http://www.erudit.org/revue/meta/2002/v47/n1/007991ar.pdf (2005)A Study of Translation Strategies in Guillaume Oyono Mbia’s Plays, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of South Africa.
http://etd.unisa.ac.za/ETD-db/theses/available/etd-06202006-105608/unrestricted/thesis.pdf Concordance3.0 ,
http://www.concordancesoftware.co.uk/concordance_software_download.htm Concapp 4.0 http://www.edict.com.hk/pub/concapp/ ICTCLAS http://ictclas.org/
金坚范、胡志挥,《姚克钩沉》,http://www.zydg.net/magazine/html/407/407807.htm Kruger, A.(2004)The Role of Discourse Markers in Africaans’Stage Translation: Merchant of Venice. Literary Society of South Africa. (http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-8308941_ITM)
Leech, G., Raysonand, P. and Wilson, A. (2001) Word Frequencies in Written and Spoken English: based on the British National Corpus. http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/ucrel/bncfreq
刘净植, (2002) ,电视注定要粗制滥造——英若诚谈影视戏剧,
http://www.people.com.cn/GB/wenyu/64/129/20020602/742631.html。
史仲文,《汉语是这样美丽的》,http://lz.book.sohu.com/chapter-8477-6-11.html。
TextPreProcessing http://hi.baidu.com/lzxiangz/blog/item/5ca5f75ca0047242fbf2c0a9.html
The British National Corpus, version 3 (BNC XML Edition) (2007) Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium. URL:
http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/
吴国斌,(2007),全球化视野下的中国文化现代化
http://eblog.cersp.com/userlog/5662/archives/2007/250605.shtml
宗鹤,《“奇才奇艺”英若诚》,
http://www.dzwww.com/jingjidaobao/renwen/200401010651.htm
http://www.people.com.cn/GB/wenyu/64/129/20020602/742631.html
http://www.cnread.net/cnread1/gdwx/g/guanhanqing/000/001.htm
http://cn.netor.com/m/yuanqu/yq/2005/52655/sys/adlist.asp?joursid=81425)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2004/jan/12/guardianobituaries.china
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb4309/is_200501/ai_n1502296)
http://www.smth.edu.cn/bbsanc.php?path=%2Fgroups%2Fliteral.faq%2FDrama%2Fdrama%2Fdef%2FM.1058717106.e
http://www.piao.com.cn/ticket_2451.html
http://eblog.cersp.com/userlog/5662/archives/2007/250605.shtml
http://www.tianya.cn/techforum/Content/93/533399.shtml
http://www.lifeall.com/mem/1415/article-1785.ahtml
http://www.ce.cn/kjwh/ylmb/ylzl/200709/22/t20070922_13001143.shtml
http://www.lantianyu.net/pdf38/ts008007_4.htm
(2000) Time-Sharing on Stage: Drama Translation in Theatre and Society. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Baker, M.(2000) In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
(2004)Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
(1995)Corpora in Translation Studies: An overview and some suggestions for future research, Target, 7/2.
(2000)Toward a Methodology for Investigating the Style of a Literary Translator. Target, 12/2.
Bassnett, S. (1990)Translating for the Theatre: Textual Complexities. Essays in Poetics 15(1): 71-83.
(1991)Translating for the Theatre: The Case Against Performability. TTR: Traduction, Terminologie, Redaction: Studies in the Text and its Transformations (Special Issue: Languages and Cultures in Translation Theories) 4(1): 99-111.
(1998) Still Trapped in the Labyrinth: Further Reflections on Translation and Theatre. In: Bassnett, S. & Lefevere, A. (eds) Constructing Cultures: Essays on Literary Translation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 90-108.
(1978)Translating Spatial Poetry: An Examination of Theatre Texts in Performance. In: Holmes, J., Lambert, J. & Van den Broeck, R. Literature and Translation: New Perspectives in Literary Studies. Leuven: Acco, pp. 161-176.
(1980)An Introduction to Theatre Semiotics. Theatre Quarterly 10(38): 47-53. (1985)
Ways Through the Labyrinth: Strategies and Methods for Translating Theatre Texts. In: Hermans, T. (ed.) The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Translation. London: Croom Helm, pp. 87-102.
Bassnett, S. & Levefere, A.(1990)Translation, History and Culture. London & New York: Printer.
(1997). Translation strategies and the reception of drama performance: a mutual influence. In Snell-Hornby, M, Jettrnarova, Z. & Kaindl, K. (Ed.) Translating as Intercultural Communication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Co.
Bell, R.T. (1991) Translation and Tranlating: Theory and Practice. New York & London: Longman Group UK Limited. Amsterdam: Benjamings Publishing Company.
Bertalanffy, L. Von.(1968) General System Theory: Foundation, Development, Applications . New York: George Braziller.
Biber, D等, (2000)Corpus Linguistics,外语教学与研究出版社。
Boulton, M. (1980) The Anatomy of Drama. Routledge & Keganpaul.
Catford, J. (1965) A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay in Applied Linguistics. Oxford and London: Oxford University Press.
Chesterman, A. (1993) From“is”to“Ought”: laws, norms and strategies in translation studies. Target (5).
(1998) Contrastive Functional Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Co.
(1997) Memes of Translation: The Spread of Ideas in Translation Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Co.
Cook, V. & Newson, M. (2000) Chomsky’s Universal Grammar: An Introduction(乔姆斯基的普遍语法教程)外语教学与研究出版社& Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Crystal, D (1997) A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. 4th edition. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Culler, J. (1975) Structuralist Poetics. London and Henley: Routlege & Kegan Paul .
Culpeper, J. (1998)(Im)politeness in Dramatic Dialogue. In: Culpeper, J., Short, M. & Verdonk, P. (eds) Exploring the Language of Drama. London: Routledge, pp. 83-95.
Dobson, M. (2003) Shakespeare on the page and the Stage. In: Margreta De Grazia & Stanley Wells (eds) The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare.上海外语教育出版社,PP235-249。
Elam, K.(1980)The Semiotics of Theatre and Drama. London: Methuen.
Espasa, E. (2000)Performability in Translation: Speakability? Playability? Or just Saleability? In: Upton, C-A. (ed.) Moving Target: Theatre Translation and Cultural Relocation. Manchester: St Jerome, pp. 49-62.
Even-Zohar, I. (1990) Polysystem Studies. Poetics Today 11:1.
Fischer-Lichte, E. (1990) Theatre, Own and Foreign------ The Intercultural Trend in Contemporary Theatre. In Fischer-Lichte, E., Riley, J. and Gissenwehrer, M(eds) The Dramatic Touch of Difference(11-19). Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Fraser, B. (1998) Contrastive Discourse Markers in English. In A. Jucher and Y. Ziv(eds), Discourse Markers: Description and Thoery. Benjamins.
Gentzler, E. (1993) Contemporary Translation Theories. London and New York : Routledge.
Hale, T. and Upton, C-A. (2000)Moving Target: Theatre Translation and Cultural Relocation. Manchester: St Jerome.
Halliday, M. A. K. (2000) An Introduction to Functional Grammar.外语教学与研究出版社。
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. ( 2003) Cohesion in English.外语教学与研究出版社。
Hatim, B. (2001) Communication across Cultures: Translation theory and Contrastive Text Linguistics.上海外语教育出版社。
Herman, V. (1995)Dramatic Dialogue: Dialogue as Interaction in Plays. London: Routledge.
(1998) Turn Management in Drama. In: Culpeper, J., Short, M. & Verdonk, P. (eds) Exploring the Language of Drama. London: Routledge, pp. 19-33.
Hermans, T. (1985) Introduction: Translation Studies and a New Paradigm. Hermans, T. (ed)The Manipulation of Literary Translation. London & Sydney: Croom Helm.
(2004)Translation in Systems--- Descriptive and System-oriented Approaches Explained (《系统中的翻译——描写和系统理论解说》).上海外语教育出版社。
House, J.(1981)A Model for Translation Quality Assessment. Tubingen: Gunter Narr. Thornborrow, J. & Wareing, S.(1998),《语言模式:文体学入门》,外语教学与研究出版社。
Kruger, A. (1996) "Bless Thee, Bottom, Bless Thee! Thou art Translated!" The Shakespeare Phase in South Africa: A Socio-cultural Perspective. Journal of LiteraryStudies 12(4): 408-428.
(1998) Shakespeare Translations in South Africa: A History. In: Beylard-Ozeroff, A., Kralova, J. & Moser-Mercer, B. (eds) Translators' Strategies and Creativity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 107-115.
(2000)Lexical Cohesion and Register Variation in Translation: The Merchant of Venice in Afrikaans. University of South Africa, Pretoria.
(2004)Shakespeare in Afrikaans: A Corpus-based Study of Involvement in Different Registers of Drama Translation. Language Matters 35(1): 282-301.
老舍著,Howard- Gibbon, J.译,(2001)Teahouse.外文出版社。
Laszlo, E. (1978) The Systems View of the World: The Natural Philosophy of the New Developments in the Sciences. New York: George Braziller.
(1996) The System View of the World: A Historic Vision for Our Time. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
(1996)The Whispering Pond--- A Personal Guide to the Emerging Vision of Science,Element Books, Inc.
(2002)Revolutionary Science:The Rise of the Holistic Paradigm,手稿.
Lefevere, A. (2004) Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Levinson, Stephen C.(1983)Pragmatics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Lichte, E. (2004) History of European Drama and Theatre. Routledge.
Link, F. H.(1980)Translation, Adaptation and Interpretation of Dramatic Texts. In: Zuber, O.(Ed.) The Languages of Theatre: Problems in the Translation and Transposition of Drama. Oxford: Pergamon, pp. 24-50.
Lyons, J. ( 1977 ) Semantics. Volumes I and II. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Marco, J. (2003) Teaching Drama Translation,王宁编辑,《视角:翻译学研究(第一卷)》,清华大学出版社。
Martin, J.R. & White P.R.R. (2005) The Language of Evaluation--- Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan.
McCarthy, M. (1991)Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge UniversityPress.
McCarthy, M. & Carter, R. (1994) Language as Discourse: Perspectives for Language Teaching. Longman.
Nebot, M.(2003)Corpus-based Teaching: The Use of Original and Translated Texts in the training of legal translators. Translation Journal, 7/4.
Newmark, P. (2001a) A Textbook of Translation. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
(2001b)Approches to Translation. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Nida,E. A. (1964). Toward a Science of Translating. Leaden:E.J.Brill.
(1964) Language in Culture and Society. Del Hymes, Allied Publishers pvt, Ltd.
(1993). Language, Culture and Translation.上海外语教育出版社。
(1996)The Sociolinguistics of Interlingual Communication .Les Editions du Hazard
Nida, E.A. & Taber, C.R. (1969) The Theory and Practice of Translation. E.J.Brill.
Nikolarea, E. (2002) Performability versus Readability: A Historical Overview of a Theoretical Polarization in Theatre Translation, Translation Journal(6).
Niranjana, T.(1992) Siting Translation: History, Oost-structuralism, and the Colonial Context. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992.
Nord, C. (1997) Translating As A Purposeful Activity—Functionalist Approaches Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
Ooi, V. (1980) Transcending Culture: A Cantonese Translation and Production of O’Neil’s Long Day’s Journey into Night. In Zuber, O (Ed.). The Language of Theatre: Problems in the Translation and Transposition of Drama [C]. (pp51-69). London: Pergamon Press,
Pavis, P. (1989) Problems of Translation for Stage: Intercultural and Post-Modern Theatre. In Scoinicov,H and Holland,P (Ed.)The Play Out of Context: Transferring Plays from Culture to Culture, (Kruger,L, Trans.).(pp25-44). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
(1982) Languages of the Stage: Essays in the Semiology of the Theatre. New York: Performing Arts Journal Publications.
(1997) The state of current theatre research. Applied Semiotics / Sémiotique appliquée . (3) Pavis, P. (ed.) (1996) The Intercultural Performance Reader. Routledge.
Popovic, A. (1976) Dictionary for the Analysis of Literary Translation. Edmonton: University of Alberta.
Pound, E. A. (1913). Few Don’ts by An Imagist. Poetry(1).
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J.(1985)A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
任晓霏,(2008a)Performatives in Teahouse Translation, Translation Journal(2).
Robinson, D. (2006a) The Translator’s Turn (《译者登场》).外语教学与研究出版社。
(2006b)Western Translation Theory——from Herodotus to Nietzsche (《西方翻译理论:从希罗多德到尼采》),外语教学与研究出版社。
Sacks, H., Schegloff, A. & Jefferson, G.A. (1974) A simplest systematic for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 150(4): 596-735
Schiffrin, D.(2003)Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Inc. Publishers Mahwah, New Jersey.
Schulte, R. and Biguenet, J. eds. (1992)Theories of Translation: An Anthology of Essays from Dryden to Derrida. Chicago: the University of Chicago Press.
Short, M(.1996) Exploring the Language of Poems, Plays and Prose. London: Longman. (1998)From Dramatic Text to Dramatic Performance. In: Culpeper, J., Short, M. & Verdonk, P. Exploring the Language of Drama. London: Routledge, pp. 6-18。
Simon, S. ( 1996 ) Gender in Translation: Cultural Identity and the Politics of Transmission. London: Routledge.
Snell-Hornby, M. (1997)"Is this a Dagger Which I See Before Me?": The Non-verbal Language of Drama. In: Poyatos, F. (ed.) Nonverbal Communication and Translation: New Perspectives and Challenges in Literature, Interpretation and the Media. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 187-201.
Steiner, G. (1975) After Babel—Aspects of Language and Translation. Oxford University Press.
Steiner, P. (1984) Russian Normalism. Cornell University Press.
Sutherland,J. (1973) The General Systems Philosophy for the Social and Behavioral Sciences. New York: George Braziller.
The Merriam Webster Dictionary (50th Edition), Merriam Webster, Inc. 1997.
The Oxford Encyclopedia English Dictionary, Oxford University Press. 1991.
Tornqvist, E. (1991) Transposing Drama. London: Macmillan.
Toury, G. (1978)The Nature and Roles of Norms in Literary Translation. in Venuti, L. (ed.)
The Translation Studies Reader, London and New York: Routledge, 2000, pp. 198-211.
(1980) The Adequate Translation as an Intermediating Construct: A Model for the Comparison of a Literary Text and its Translation. In: Toury, G. In Search of a Theory of Translation. Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics, Tel Aviv University, pp. 112-121.
(1985) Translation, literary translation and pseudotranslation. Comparative Criticism, Vol 6 (pp73-85). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(1995) Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Venuti, L. (2004) The Translator’s Invisibility. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Wilss, W. (2001) The Science of Translation—Problems and Methods. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Zuber, O. (ed.) (1980) The Languages of Theatre: Problems in the Translation and Transposition of Drama. Oxford: Pergamon.
阿恩海姆,(1984),《艺术与视知觉》,中国社会科学出版社。
阿瑟·米勒著,姚克译,(1971),《推销员之死》,香港今日世界出版社。
A·拉波波特著,钱兆华译(1993),《一般系统论》,福建人民出版社。
彼得·斯丛荻著,王健译,(2006),《现代戏剧理论(1880-1950)》,北京大学出版社。
伯兰特·罗素,(1983),《人类的知识》,商务印书馆。
《曹禺、王昭君及其他》,(1980),香港良友图书公司出版。
柴梅萍,(2001),电影翻译中文化意象的重构、修润与转换,《苏州大学学报》(4)。
陈白尘、董健,(1989),《中国现代戏剧史稿》,中国戏剧出版社。
陈伟,(2004),《西方人眼中的东方戏剧艺术》,上海教育出版社。
狄德罗,(1979),《关于〈私生子〉的谈话》(第三次谈话),朱光潜译,《西方美学史》上卷,人民文学出版社。
董健、马俊山,(2006),《戏剧艺术十五讲》,北京:北京大学出版社。
冯·贝塔朗菲著,秋同、袁嘉斯译,(1987a),《一般系统论》,社会科学文献出版社。
(1987b),《一般系统论的基础、发展和应用》,清华大学出版社。
冯庆华,(2002),《实用翻译教程》(增订版),上海外语教育出版社。
(2006),《红译艺坛——红楼梦翻译艺术研究》,上海外语教育出版社。
(2008),《母语文化下的译者风格》,上海外语教育出版社。
高启光,(2001),试论戏剧情境的作用,《齐鲁艺苑》(1)。
郭聿楷,(1995),指示语:研究历史、属性、分类及其他,《外语教学》(4)。
何伟、庞云玲,(2008),报忧类商务英语信函的人际功能研究,《广东外贸外语大学学报》(1)。
何兆熊,(2002),《新编语用学概要》,上海外语教育出版社。
何兆熊,(2003),《语用学文献选读》,上海外语教育出版社。
黑格尔,朱光潜译,(1981),《美学》,商务印书馆。
黑格尔著,燕晓冬编译,(2005),《美学——对广大的美的领域的尖端叙述》,人民日报出版社。
胡庚申,(2004),《翻译适应选择论》,湖北教育出版社。
胡显耀,(2008),基于语料库的翻译小说虚词特征研究,《第18届世界翻译大会论文集》,外文出版社。
胡壮麟等,(2005),《系统功能语言学概论》,北京大学出版社。
胡壮麟,(2001),《语言学教程》,北京大学出版社。
黄小寒,(2006),《世界视野中的系统哲学》,商务印书馆。
霍绍周,(1988),《系统论》,科学技术文献出版社。
贾正传,(2001),话语系统观—用系统观考察话语观的尝试,《山东外语教学》(2):31—34。
(2002),用系统科学综合考察翻译学的构想,《外语与外语教学.》(6): 40—43.。
(2002),翻译学系统演化观—用系统观考察翻译学史的尝试,《烟台师范学院学报(哲学社会科学版)》(4):77-83。
(2003),翻译学系统观—用系统观考察元翻译学的尝试,《外语与外语教学》(6): 45—49。
(2007a)辩证系统视野中的翻译本质和特性,《外语研究》(4):90-93。
(2007b),《融合与超越:走向翻译辩证系统论》,上海译文出版社。
姜秋霞、权晓辉,(2000),文学翻译过程与格式塔意象模式,《中国翻译》,2000/1。
《简明不列颠百科全书》(Concise Encyclopadia Britannica),(1986),中国大百科全书出版社。
焦菊隐,(1979),《焦菊隐戏剧论文集》,上海文艺出版社。
柯飞,(2002),双语库:翻译研究新途径,《外语与外语教学》(9)。
柯文辉编,(1992),《英若诚》,北京十月文艺出版社。
拉兹洛,(1998),《系统哲学引论》(钱兆华等译) ,商务印书馆。
(1985),《用系统的观点看世界》,(闵家胤译),中国社会科学出版社。
勒代雷著(法),刘和平译,(2002),释意学派口笔译理论,中国对外翻译出版公司。
李贵森,(2007),《西方戏剧文化艺术论》,中国传媒大学出版社。
李华东,(2001),从话轮转换看权势关系、性格刻画和情节发展,《解放军外国语学院学报》(2):26 -30。
李顺春,(2001),中英诗歌意象分类之研究,《内蒙古大学学报(人文社会科学版)》(1)。
李新魁编著,(2000),《实用诗词曲格律词典》,花城出版社。
李悦娥,范红雅,(2002),《话语分析》,上海外语教育出版社。
廖七一,(2000),语料库与翻译研究,《外语教学与研究》(5)。
林陵、史敏徒译,(1979),《斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基全集》第二卷,中国电影出版社。
刘宓庆,(2001),《翻译与语言哲学》,中国对外翻译出版公司。
刘岩,(1995),论中国古典诗歌对英美意象派诗歌的影响,《中国文化研究》(2)。
吕俊、侯向群,(2001),《英汉翻译教程》,上海外语教育出版社。
玛·阿·弗烈齐阿诺娃编,(1990),《斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基体系精华》,中国电影出版社。
马会娟,(2004),论英若诚译《茶馆》的动态表演性原则,《解放军外国语学院学报》(5)。
曼弗雷德·普菲斯特,(2004),《戏剧理论与戏剧分析》,(周靖波、李安定译),北京广播学院出版社。
闵家胤,(1999),《进化的多元论------系统哲学的新体系》,中国社会科学出版社。
戚世隽,(2007),《明代杂剧研究》,广东高等教育出版社。
戚雨村,(1997),《现代语言学的特点和发展趋势》,上海外语教育出版社。
钱兆华, 2007,拉兹洛系统哲学对发展马克思主义哲学的贡献,《江苏大学学报(社科版)》(1)。
2006(a),拉兹洛系统哲学的认识论探析,《徐州师范大学学报》(4)。
2006(b),系统哲学的双透视论述评,《系统科学学报(社科版)》(4)。
1998,拉兹洛系统哲学述要,《河南师范大学学报》(6)。
秦建华,(2004),《高健翻译研究》,中国社会出版社。
仇蓓玲,(2006),《美的变迁》,上海译文出版社。
冉永平,莫爱屏等,(2006),《认知语用学——言语交际的认知研究》,上海外语教育出版社。
任晓霏,(2001),汉英诗歌翻译的形式对应,《外语与翻译》(4)。
(2008b),后殖民语境下多元对等理论的文化转向,《江苏大学学报(社科版)》(3)。
莎士比亚著,梁实秋译,(1967),《莎士比亚全集》,远东图书公司。
莎士比亚著,朱生豪译,(2007),《莎士比亚著名戏剧六种》,山东文艺出版社。
盛邦和,(2002),《解体与重构——现代中国史学与儒学思想变迁》,华东师范大学出版社。
施旭升,(2006),《戏剧艺术原理》,中国传媒大学出版社。
《斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基全集》第二卷,林陵、史敏徒译,(1979),中国电影出版社。
斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基,郑雪莱等译,(1985),《体验艺术——斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基论文讲演谈话书信集》,中国电影出版社。
孙文辉,(2003),《戏剧哲学——人类的群体艺术》,湖南大学出版社。
索绪尔著,高名凯译,(1982),《普通语言学教程》,商务印书馆。
谭载喜,(2004),《西方翻译简史》(增订版),商务印书馆。
谭霈生,(1985),《戏剧艺术的特征》,上海文艺出版社。
屠国元、朱献珑,(2003)译者主体性:阐释学的阐释,《中国翻译》(6)。
《王国维戏曲论文集》,(1975),中国戏剧出版社。
王克非,(2003),英汉/汉英句对应的语料库考察,《外语教学与研究》(6)。
王友贵,(2004),英若诚和《推销员之死》,《上海戏剧》(Z1)。
王行之编,(1981),《老舍论剧》,中国戏剧出版社。
王运熙、周锋,(1998),《文心雕龙译注》,上海古籍出版社。
文军,(1997),杨宪益先生PYGMALION两译本比较——兼论戏剧翻译,《涪陵师专学报》(1)。
乌苇克劳特编,(1983),《东方舞台上的奇迹——《茶馆》在西欧》,文化艺术出版社。
吴戈,(2001),《戏剧本质新论》,云南大学出版社。
吴其尧,(2006),《庞德与中国文化》,上海外语教育出版社。
吾文泉,(2003),《推销员之死》在中国,《戏剧百家》(3)。
夏之放,(1993),文学意象论,汕头大学出版社。
《现代戏剧家熊佛西》,(1985),中国戏剧出版社。
谢天振,(1999),《译介学》,上海外语教育出版社。
新华通讯社译名室编,(1993),《世界人名翻译大辞典》,中国对外翻译出版公司。
许渊冲,(1997),《中诗英韵探胜》,北京大学出版社。
亚里士多德,陈中梅译,(1996),《诗学》,商务印书馆。
阎德胜,(1994),翻译与系统科学,《中国翻译》(5)。
杨清,(1983),《现代西方心理学主要派别》,辽宁人民出版社。
袁咏,(2008),英语专业学生朗读中话语标记语的韵律模式——一项基于语料库的纵
深研究,《解放军外国语学院学报》(1)。
俞东明,(1996),戏剧文体与戏剧文体学,《浙江大学学报》(1)。
许晓晴,(2007),中古隐逸诗意象分类研究,《晋阳学刊》(4)。
杨景春,(2006),毛泽东诗词意象分类及特点,《井冈山学院学报》(11)。
杨平,(2003),对当前中国翻译研究的思考,《中国翻译》(1)。
姚斯、霍拉勃著,周宁、金元浦译,(1997),《接受美学与接受理论》,辽宁人民出版社。
伊赛尔著,金元浦、周宁译,(1991),《阅读活动——审美反应理论》,中国社会科学出版社。
英若诚译,(1999)/(2007),《英若诚名剧译丛》,中国对外翻译出版公司。
英若诚译,(2002),英若诚译名剧五种,辽宁教育出版社。
游国恩等,(1985),《中国文学史(三)》,人民文学出版社。
张静、徐颖茜,(2007),英氏家族的家学传承,《晚报文萃》(16)。
张德让,(2001),伽达默尔哲学解释学与翻译研究,《中国翻译》(4)。
张帆,(2004),“英大学问”——记北京人民艺术剧院的“文化使者”英若诚,《纵横》(10)。
张美芳,(2002),利用语料库调查译者的文体,《解放军外国语学院学报》(3)。
郑海凌,(2000),《文学翻译学》,文心出版社。
《中国大百科全书·中国文学卷II》,(1986),中国大百科全书出版社。
《中国新文学大系.建设理论集》,(1935),上海良友图书印刷公司。
周安华,(2005),《戏剧艺术通论》,南京大学出版社。
朱光潜,(2001),《西方美学史(下)》,人民文学出版社。
朱立元,(1997),《当代西方文艺理论》,华东师范大学出版社。
邹红,(2003),当代话剧观众构成及对话剧发展的影响,《文艺研究》(6)。
Aaltonen, S. Targeting in Drama Translation: Laura Ruohonen’s Plays in English Translation. University of Vaasa
http://www.google.cn/search?sourceid=navclient&hl=zh-CN&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4SNYM_zh-CNCN265CN266&q=Targeting+in+Drama+Translation%3a+Laura+Ruohonen%e2%80%99s+Plays+in+English+Translation%2e
Assimakopoulos, S. (2002) Drama translation and relevance. MA thesis (ms): University of Surrey. http://www.ling.ed.ac.uk/%7Estavros/Drama%20translation%20and%20relevance.pdf Che Suh, J. (2002) Compunding Issues on the Translation of Drama/Theatre Texts, University of Buea, Buea, Cameroon.
http://www.erudit.org/revue/meta/2002/v47/n1/007991ar.pdf (2005)A Study of Translation Strategies in Guillaume Oyono Mbia’s Plays, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of South Africa.
http://etd.unisa.ac.za/ETD-db/theses/available/etd-06202006-105608/unrestricted/thesis.pdf Concordance3.0 ,
http://www.concordancesoftware.co.uk/concordance_software_download.htm Concapp 4.0 http://www.edict.com.hk/pub/concapp/ ICTCLAS http://ictclas.org/
金坚范、胡志挥,《姚克钩沉》,http://www.zydg.net/magazine/html/407/407807.htm Kruger, A.(2004)The Role of Discourse Markers in Africaans’Stage Translation: Merchant of Venice. Literary Society of South Africa. (http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-8308941_ITM)
Leech, G., Raysonand, P. and Wilson, A. (2001) Word Frequencies in Written and Spoken English: based on the British National Corpus. http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/ucrel/bncfreq
刘净植, (2002) ,电视注定要粗制滥造——英若诚谈影视戏剧,
http://www.people.com.cn/GB/wenyu/64/129/20020602/742631.html。
史仲文,《汉语是这样美丽的》,http://lz.book.sohu.com/chapter-8477-6-11.html。
TextPreProcessing http://hi.baidu.com/lzxiangz/blog/item/5ca5f75ca0047242fbf2c0a9.html
The British National Corpus, version 3 (BNC XML Edition) (2007) Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium. URL:
http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/
吴国斌,(2007),全球化视野下的中国文化现代化
http://eblog.cersp.com/userlog/5662/archives/2007/250605.shtml
宗鹤,《“奇才奇艺”英若诚》,
http://www.dzwww.com/jingjidaobao/renwen/200401010651.htm
http://www.people.com.cn/GB/wenyu/64/129/20020602/742631.html
http://www.cnread.net/cnread1/gdwx/g/guanhanqing/000/001.htm
http://cn.netor.com/m/yuanqu/yq/2005/52655/sys/adlist.asp?joursid=81425)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2004/jan/12/guardianobituaries.china
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb4309/is_200501/ai_n1502296)
http://www.smth.edu.cn/bbsanc.php?path=%2Fgroups%2Fliteral.faq%2FDrama%2Fdrama%2Fdef%2FM.1058717106.e
http://www.piao.com.cn/ticket_2451.html
http://eblog.cersp.com/userlog/5662/archives/2007/250605.shtml
http://www.tianya.cn/techforum/Content/93/533399.shtml
http://www.lifeall.com/mem/1415/article-1785.ahtml
http://www.ce.cn/kjwh/ylmb/ylzl/200709/22/t20070922_13001143.shtml
http://www.lantianyu.net/pdf38/ts008007_4.htm