翻译美学的文化考量
|
摘要
翻译,从广义的角度来说是一种哲学活动,哲学从某种意义上说是全部科学之母;哲学活动的本质就是精神还乡,凡是怀着乡愁的冲动,到处寻找精神家园的行为,皆可称之为哲学活动。翻译,尤其是文学翻译,是一种创造活动,因而也可以看作是一种哲学活动。和其他文学创作活动一样,翻译是对真、善、美的追求。哲学活动渗透于整个翻译的过程。
美学是研究人的感性的科学,是研究美的科学。文学与美学有着不解之缘,而中国的美学对中国翻译理论的影响尤甚。一部中国的翻译史堪比一部翻译美学史。翻译美学是美学与翻译的结合,是用美学的基本原理,剖析、阐释和探究语际转换中的美学问题,包涵审美客体(原作品,译文作品)的审美构成、主体(译者和读者)的能动作用、审美主体和客体与接受者之间的关系、翻译中审美再现的手段和类型、翻译美学的标准等。语言历史与文化的历史相辅而行,语言翻译的过程也是文化翻译的过程,文化翻译的辩证法就是从文化客体的翻译到文化自我的构建。
中国传统的译论映射出哲学、美学与翻译学有着密切的关系。论文综观中国翻译美学与语用学翻译美学的哲学—美学思想,探索语用学翻译美学的审美主体和客体、审美的认知图式与审美再现原则、文化美学与文化传真、灵感翻译美学、语用学翻译美学综观,提出中国语用学翻译美学正走向动态的理性的语用意义、语用价值与语用美学的高度统一。
在美学的熏陶下,中国优秀的翻译家们不遗余力地译介外国优秀作品,同时也把中国的文化文学作品推向世界,形成了具有中国特色的翻译美学理论。本论文讨论了历代译者对中国美学的传承与开拓,从中提炼出中国翻译美学的精华,即要保持译作之美应达到务忠实,求畅达,重神韵,创意境,并以此作为本论文的理论基础,在此基础上进行译例分析。许渊冲、郑振铎、冰心译的诗词力图保持原文语言之美,尤其是意美,音美,形美,接近其神韵,重构其意境,取得了极高的成就。本文作者欲借助总结的中国翻译美学理论精华,以许译诗词为例,分析翻译中的美学特质,研究赏析翻译之美,并在此基础上提出在翻译中重构语言神韵。根据翻译美学的原理,从美学视角分析杨宪益、霍克思的《红楼梦》英译本,比较郑振铎和冰心的泰戈尔诗歌译本,探索译者如何在文学翻译中再现原文的艺术美,即文学美、音乐美。文学语用翻译的过程就是一个完整的特殊的审美过程,在这个审美过程中,译者要想把原文的审美价值转化到译文中去,应站在读者的审美立场,认真考虑文化传统、语言表达和灵感创新这三个方面,从而让读者真正地体会到原文的审美价值和语用价值。
人的审美属性使人的审美体验无处不在,然而,人的审美体验又各有差异。文学作品具有很高的审美价值,这种审美价值不仅表现在形式上也表现在内容上。不同的审美取向产生不同的审美结果,针对文学作品的两个关键属性——语言和文学的审美视角,从理论和实践上论证了译者的审美取向对其风格的影响。译者是翻译过程中的一个重要因素。从哲学和文化视角来看,译者作为一个具有独立思维,文化立场和价值观的个体,其主体性和主观能动性会在从选择原语文本、制定翻译策略、解决翻译困难、到追求翻译目的的整个过程中得到体现。译者作为个体在某些时候对翻译过程和翻译结果的影响是决定性的,而译者作为一个群体在译介原语文化和丰富译语文化,从而推进人类文化的整体历史进程上发挥着重大作用。然而迄今为止在翻译理论中有关于译者的研究还没有形成一个较为深厚的体系。译者的语言能力和翻译技巧还是翻译评论中较为关注的话题,而较深入的探讨则停留在译者在文化交流中的作用及其建构和颠覆文化的作用这一层面。本论文就译者的主体性因素如态度、动机、文化价值观念、偏见、目的和其本身的历史性等对翻译过程、译文和译语文化的影响进行全面的研究,希望能够较为深入地描述译者及其主体性的工作机制,从而推动对翻译活动本质的进一步理解。从哲学与文化视角探讨译者的制约因素是本论文的最大论域,近几年来,随着翻译主体性、主体间性以及与译者风格批评相关的学科理论的迅速发展、风格批评手段的先进化、科学化,使译者风格批评理论体系的建构水到渠成。
论文第一章探讨了中西方翻译美学的渊源与发展历程;第二章从语用学视角探索翻译美学再现和转换过程,对翻译过程中的文化创造、文化转译、文化信息熵化和文化补偿作了深入研究;第三章从文学翻译审美意识形态生产、转换与超越层面对文学翻译与接受进行考证,笔者还尝试搭建了一个译者风格批评的理论框架。包括:翻译目的与译者风格、译学意识形态与译者风格、风格可译性与信达雅的再认识、译文的接受者与译者风格、译者的审美取向与译者风格。在译学意识形态与译者风格中,首先探讨了译学意识形态与意识形态的关系,以此明确译学意识形态的内涵以及与译者风格的关系,从理论和实践两个层面论证了译学意识形态中的主流文化认同和主流审美取向对译者风格和译文接受的制约与影响作用。从理论上厘清了翻译思想与翻译策略、翻译方法的关系,探究了翻译策略、翻译方法对译者风格的直接制约作用,最后以著名翻译家严复、林纾、傅雷、朱生豪、鲁迅、余光中为例,从实践上进一步阐释了翻译目的对译者风格制约作用,译者的翻译思想与译者风格的关系,本章还梳理了翻译目的论的代表性观点,列举了翻译史上翻译目的左右翻译实践的事实,旨在从理论和实践上论证翻译目的对翻译活动的影响;论文还讨论了几组核心的人际关系,即译者和赞助人,译者和作者,译者和接受者以及译者和译者自身之间的关系。译者在处理这些关系中所表现出来的文化立场、视界、态度、目的、能力、经验和历史局限性都是译者主体性的重要表现。笔者发现,翻译是译者有意识地实现完善自身和完成身份认同的一种手段。译者通过翻译实现情感、文化和自身追求的实现。第四章从语言哲学观层面对翻译审美批评、审美批评标准、审美批评共识、翻译批评思潮转向进行了更为广泛深入的研究,指出了中西语境下中国翻译批评发展策略。
文章最后是结论部分。中国现代美学迄今为止已有百年历史,先贤们对美学学科建设和美学理论建构做了多方面的尝试和探讨,留下了丰富遗产。但我们要根据西方文化和中国传统文化两者的特征、价值取向等特点,结合自己的传统文化,不断融合与创新,使翻译美学的研究富有生命力。我们认为,中西译论主要可以分成以语言学、语用学为基础的科学论和以文艺学、接受美学为基础的艺术论两大取向,今后译论的研究方向应当是科学论与艺术论相融合,既关注双语内容与形式间的语言分析,也关注人在翻译过程中的能动作用。由此,科学论者也无法排除语言的主观艺术创造性,以及对它的艺术观。笔者认为,构建译论纯粹客观外在的规律是个美丽的神话,译论的科学性无处不涉及艺术再现和主观创造性。未来译学理论指向的是一种科学的语言艺术观,而艺术观其实也是诠释语言艺术的科学观。语言翻译的科学性是以其艺术性为本质和内涵的,科学性又是艺术性的升华与提高。中国的翻译美学发展正是在这种张力当中不断取得平衡与发展的。中国当代翻译美学立足于中国传统译论,并对之进行现代转换,吸收西方译论的研究和论证方法,借鉴现代美学的基本理论和结构框架来阐释翻译的机制和功能。经过十几年的发展,它已经成为一个具有中国特色的、具有跨学科特点的、有别于西方翻译理论模式的翻译研究学派,使中国的翻译理论带上了鲜明的民族特色。翻译美学还有待进一步发展和完善,它体现着中国译学的发展和创新,有利于中国翻译理论在世界翻译理论界占有一席之地。
Translation, from a broad perspective, is a philosophical activity. Philosophy is the mother of all sciences. The nature of philosophical activity is spiritual home-return, thus those spiritual activities with nostalgic impulses, may be called philosophical activities. In a sense, both science and art creation activities can be viewed as philosophical. Translation, especially literary translation, as a creative activity in nature, can be seen as a philosophical activity. Translation is the pursuit of beauty and truth, and it involves philosophical concerns.
Aesthetics, the study of beauty, is an eternal theme of Chinese literature. Ever since the emergence of translation, aesthetics and translation have been closely bonded together. Chinese aesthetics has exerted an even greater influence on the formation of Chinese translation theories compared with its counterparts in other countries. The history of
Chinese translation history is comparable to one of translation aesthetics, the combination of aesthetics and translation, which borrows the basic principles of aesthetics to analyze, explain and solve the aesthetic problems emerging in interlingual conversion. Its main contents are aesthetic subjects, i. e. the translator and the reader, and aesthetic objects, i.e. the original work and the translated work, the aesthetic subject’s experience of aesthetic objects, the methods of representing beauty in translating process, the criteria of translation aesthetics and etc.
Chinese traditional translation theory reflects that philosophy and aesthetics are closely related to translation. With a comprehensive survey of the Chinese translation Aesthetics and Pragmatic Philosophy, by exploring the aesthetic subject and object, the aesthetics of cognitive schemata and principles of aesthetic representation, and cultural aesthetics, this dissertation proposes a pragmatic, dynamic and rational approach to the study of translation theory.
The process of literary pragmatic translation is a complete and special aesthetic process. During this process, if the translator wants to transfer the aesthetic value of the original text into the target text, he must take the reader's aesthetic position and carefully consider the three aspects, namely, the cultural traditions, the linguistic expressions and the inspirational innovation, in order to let the readers truly appreciate the aesthetic value and pragmatic value of the original text.
Translation theories at home or abroad both have a deep-rooted relation with aesthetics. After the cultural turn in translation study, many translators turn to translation aesthetics. Under the aesthetic edification, many excellent Chinese translators spare no pains to introduce outstanding foreign works into Chinese and popularize eminent Chinese works in the world around. In their practice, they have concluded a succession of translation aesthetic theories with Chinese characteristics. In ancient times, influenced by Confucius and other philosophers, many translators, such as Zhi Qian, Xuan Zang, sought to preserve the flavors of original works. In recent times, translation aesthetics has been put forward and it is on its way of development and advancement. Many translators, such as Yan Fu, Linshu, Fu Lei,Qian Zhongshu and Fu Zhongxuan, Xu Yuanchong, and Liu Miqing, are adherent in going on pursuing beauty yet are more innovative and insightful in presenting their views. This dissertation extracts and absorbs the quintessence of Chinese translation aesthetics, which includes four aspects: persistence in faithfulness, pursuit of expressiveness, emphasis on resemblance of spirit and creation of ideorealm, and uses them as the theoretic principles.
The author of this dissertation strives to analyze the aesthetics temperaments in translation and appreciate the beauty of translation within the outline of Chinese translation aesthetics based on the case study of Zhengzhengduo and Bingxin’s translated works of poems. Consequently, the author provides a tentative conclusion of the strategies for reconstructing the charm of work and language in translation.
The first chapter mainly discusses the aesthetics of Chinese and Western translation concerning originality and development process; the writer briefly introduces aesthetics and translation aesthetics, including definitions, contents and research on translation aesthetics. Moreover, the development of Chinese translation aesthetics has been elaborately explored. At the end of introduction, with a thorough analysis of the previous theories, the writer concludes that there are four eminent characteristics in Chinese translation aesthetics, namely, persistence in faithfulness, pursuit of expressiveness, emphasis on resemblance of spirit and creation of ideorealm, all of which serve as the theoretic guidance in the analysis of the text.
From the perspective of pragmatic translation aesthetics, the second chapter briefs the conversion process of translation, process of cultural creation, cultural translation, cultural information and cultural compensation for the entropy. The process of literary pragmatic translation is a complete and special aesthetic process. If the translator wants to transfer the aesthetic value of the original text into the target text, he must take the reader’s aesthetic position and carefully consider the three aspects, namely, the cultural traditions, the linguistic expressions and the inspirational innovation, in order to let the readers truly appreciate the aesthetic value and pragmatic value of the original text. The dissertation analyzes Zhengzhengduo and Bingxin’s translation of poems, David Hawkes and Yangxianyi’s translation of The Story of the Stone based on the principle of translation aesthetics.Aesthetics is the study of beauty, an eternal theme of Chinese literature. In his original, as well as translated works, Xu has put forward his unique aesthetic views, such as the theory of“three beauties”, and tries to guide his translation with these principles.
This dissertation takes a perspective of culture and philosophy on aesthetic translation studies, probing a series of theoretical issues regarding translation theory and the aesthetics of translation criticism. The translator is the most dynamic factor in translation. As an independent thinking entity, the translator unavoidably displays his subjectivities in the translation process. The motivation, purpose, strategies, methods and competence greatly influence the formation of the target text. The translator, as an individual, decides how a specific translation assignment is to be carried out; and translators, as a whole, plays an important role in intercultural communication and facilitating the development of human culture. However, so far most researches on the translator have only focused on human culture, his linguistic competence, translation skill and functions in cultural communication, and scarce attention has been paid to how the translator, as a crucial human factor, influences the translation process with motivation, attitude, cultural orientation, value, prejudice, historicity and translation purpose, etc. In view of all these, the research has made an attempt to probe into the issue of how the translator involves him/herself in translation process and thus influences translation results. The main objective of this research is to provide an overall description of the working mechanism of the translator in the translation process with a view to facilitating the understanding of the nature of translation.
The translator with his subjectivities is the core of my discussion. I explore the translator’s involvement in translator from the perspectives of his selection of translator in both Chinese and Western translation theories.
In the third chapter, the author tries to build a theoretical framework for translator’s style of criticism, which includes: the purpose and the translator style, ideology and the translator style, translation style of the recipient and the translator, the translator's aesthetic orientation and translator’s style, literary translation and acceptance, cultural identity and aesthetic style, aesthetic criticism of standards, consensus of aesthetic criticism. Chapter four takes a perspective of philosophy on translation aesthetic criticism, aesthetic criticism of standards, consensus of aesthetic criticism, translation criticism thoughts to a more extensive study. Chapter three and chapter four probing a series of theoretical issues regarding the translator’s aesthetic bent, as one of the constraints, is also discussed in this chapter. It is found that the translator’s style has much to do with his aesthetic bent. Literary works can be called an art rich with the aesthetic value expressed both through the form and the content. The translator’s preferences in dealing with the form and the content lead to a special way of expressing. I expound on the way the translator’s subjectivities work in the interpersonal relationships in translation. In my view, translation is also an interpersonal activity which involves many participants, including writer, translator, reader, translation commissioner, patron, translation distributor, publisher, reviewer, editor and source cultural expert, and so on forth. The patron, the author, the translator and the reader form the core interpersonal network in the translation process, and the translator is the center of this network because he needs to coordinate the interpersonal relationships in order to achieve the desired translation effects, which, as a result, mirrors the translator’s subjectivities. In this chapter, I focus on the relationships between the translator and the patron, the translator and the author, the translator and the reader, and the translator, which also shed some light on how the translator’s subjectivities work in the translation process.
The conclusion is a summary of my findings in the above discussion, including the features and the contributions of the current research, as well as the problems awaiting further research. The conclusion reiterates the impact of Chinese translation aesthetics on Chinese translation. The expectation is that, with the perfect combination of aesthetics, works of better quality will be produced. The author intends to explore the relationships between translation and aesthetics. Through the analysis of the definitions of translation and aesthetics, the author believes that translation and aesthetics can be linked with each other by language, and translation aesthetics involves studies of the original text, the translated text, and the translation process. This dissertation also illustrates that the application of aesthetic analysis in translation contributes to the equivalence of the original text and the translated text, and aesthetic analysis in literal translation has certain advantages. There exist the aesthetic formations of symmetry, sublimity, and etc, in the translation process.
The contemporary Chinese translation aesthetics establishes itself on the traditional Chinese translation theories, and endeavors to transform them into modernized translation theories. Absorbing the methodology from western translation studies, and borrowing the fundamental theories and structure from Aesthetics, it studies translation mechanisms and functions from its distinctive perspective. After several years of development, it has become a school of translation study in China, with interdisciplinary feature and typical Chinese characteristics, different from the western translation theories. It makes China’s translation study take on distinctive national features. Although it is not very mature and needs further improvement, it reflects the development and innovation of Chinese translation studies and helps us to give forth the Chinese voice in the arena of world translation theories.
美学是研究人的感性的科学,是研究美的科学。文学与美学有着不解之缘,而中国的美学对中国翻译理论的影响尤甚。一部中国的翻译史堪比一部翻译美学史。翻译美学是美学与翻译的结合,是用美学的基本原理,剖析、阐释和探究语际转换中的美学问题,包涵审美客体(原作品,译文作品)的审美构成、主体(译者和读者)的能动作用、审美主体和客体与接受者之间的关系、翻译中审美再现的手段和类型、翻译美学的标准等。语言历史与文化的历史相辅而行,语言翻译的过程也是文化翻译的过程,文化翻译的辩证法就是从文化客体的翻译到文化自我的构建。
中国传统的译论映射出哲学、美学与翻译学有着密切的关系。论文综观中国翻译美学与语用学翻译美学的哲学—美学思想,探索语用学翻译美学的审美主体和客体、审美的认知图式与审美再现原则、文化美学与文化传真、灵感翻译美学、语用学翻译美学综观,提出中国语用学翻译美学正走向动态的理性的语用意义、语用价值与语用美学的高度统一。
在美学的熏陶下,中国优秀的翻译家们不遗余力地译介外国优秀作品,同时也把中国的文化文学作品推向世界,形成了具有中国特色的翻译美学理论。本论文讨论了历代译者对中国美学的传承与开拓,从中提炼出中国翻译美学的精华,即要保持译作之美应达到务忠实,求畅达,重神韵,创意境,并以此作为本论文的理论基础,在此基础上进行译例分析。许渊冲、郑振铎、冰心译的诗词力图保持原文语言之美,尤其是意美,音美,形美,接近其神韵,重构其意境,取得了极高的成就。本文作者欲借助总结的中国翻译美学理论精华,以许译诗词为例,分析翻译中的美学特质,研究赏析翻译之美,并在此基础上提出在翻译中重构语言神韵。根据翻译美学的原理,从美学视角分析杨宪益、霍克思的《红楼梦》英译本,比较郑振铎和冰心的泰戈尔诗歌译本,探索译者如何在文学翻译中再现原文的艺术美,即文学美、音乐美。文学语用翻译的过程就是一个完整的特殊的审美过程,在这个审美过程中,译者要想把原文的审美价值转化到译文中去,应站在读者的审美立场,认真考虑文化传统、语言表达和灵感创新这三个方面,从而让读者真正地体会到原文的审美价值和语用价值。
人的审美属性使人的审美体验无处不在,然而,人的审美体验又各有差异。文学作品具有很高的审美价值,这种审美价值不仅表现在形式上也表现在内容上。不同的审美取向产生不同的审美结果,针对文学作品的两个关键属性——语言和文学的审美视角,从理论和实践上论证了译者的审美取向对其风格的影响。译者是翻译过程中的一个重要因素。从哲学和文化视角来看,译者作为一个具有独立思维,文化立场和价值观的个体,其主体性和主观能动性会在从选择原语文本、制定翻译策略、解决翻译困难、到追求翻译目的的整个过程中得到体现。译者作为个体在某些时候对翻译过程和翻译结果的影响是决定性的,而译者作为一个群体在译介原语文化和丰富译语文化,从而推进人类文化的整体历史进程上发挥着重大作用。然而迄今为止在翻译理论中有关于译者的研究还没有形成一个较为深厚的体系。译者的语言能力和翻译技巧还是翻译评论中较为关注的话题,而较深入的探讨则停留在译者在文化交流中的作用及其建构和颠覆文化的作用这一层面。本论文就译者的主体性因素如态度、动机、文化价值观念、偏见、目的和其本身的历史性等对翻译过程、译文和译语文化的影响进行全面的研究,希望能够较为深入地描述译者及其主体性的工作机制,从而推动对翻译活动本质的进一步理解。从哲学与文化视角探讨译者的制约因素是本论文的最大论域,近几年来,随着翻译主体性、主体间性以及与译者风格批评相关的学科理论的迅速发展、风格批评手段的先进化、科学化,使译者风格批评理论体系的建构水到渠成。
论文第一章探讨了中西方翻译美学的渊源与发展历程;第二章从语用学视角探索翻译美学再现和转换过程,对翻译过程中的文化创造、文化转译、文化信息熵化和文化补偿作了深入研究;第三章从文学翻译审美意识形态生产、转换与超越层面对文学翻译与接受进行考证,笔者还尝试搭建了一个译者风格批评的理论框架。包括:翻译目的与译者风格、译学意识形态与译者风格、风格可译性与信达雅的再认识、译文的接受者与译者风格、译者的审美取向与译者风格。在译学意识形态与译者风格中,首先探讨了译学意识形态与意识形态的关系,以此明确译学意识形态的内涵以及与译者风格的关系,从理论和实践两个层面论证了译学意识形态中的主流文化认同和主流审美取向对译者风格和译文接受的制约与影响作用。从理论上厘清了翻译思想与翻译策略、翻译方法的关系,探究了翻译策略、翻译方法对译者风格的直接制约作用,最后以著名翻译家严复、林纾、傅雷、朱生豪、鲁迅、余光中为例,从实践上进一步阐释了翻译目的对译者风格制约作用,译者的翻译思想与译者风格的关系,本章还梳理了翻译目的论的代表性观点,列举了翻译史上翻译目的左右翻译实践的事实,旨在从理论和实践上论证翻译目的对翻译活动的影响;论文还讨论了几组核心的人际关系,即译者和赞助人,译者和作者,译者和接受者以及译者和译者自身之间的关系。译者在处理这些关系中所表现出来的文化立场、视界、态度、目的、能力、经验和历史局限性都是译者主体性的重要表现。笔者发现,翻译是译者有意识地实现完善自身和完成身份认同的一种手段。译者通过翻译实现情感、文化和自身追求的实现。第四章从语言哲学观层面对翻译审美批评、审美批评标准、审美批评共识、翻译批评思潮转向进行了更为广泛深入的研究,指出了中西语境下中国翻译批评发展策略。
文章最后是结论部分。中国现代美学迄今为止已有百年历史,先贤们对美学学科建设和美学理论建构做了多方面的尝试和探讨,留下了丰富遗产。但我们要根据西方文化和中国传统文化两者的特征、价值取向等特点,结合自己的传统文化,不断融合与创新,使翻译美学的研究富有生命力。我们认为,中西译论主要可以分成以语言学、语用学为基础的科学论和以文艺学、接受美学为基础的艺术论两大取向,今后译论的研究方向应当是科学论与艺术论相融合,既关注双语内容与形式间的语言分析,也关注人在翻译过程中的能动作用。由此,科学论者也无法排除语言的主观艺术创造性,以及对它的艺术观。笔者认为,构建译论纯粹客观外在的规律是个美丽的神话,译论的科学性无处不涉及艺术再现和主观创造性。未来译学理论指向的是一种科学的语言艺术观,而艺术观其实也是诠释语言艺术的科学观。语言翻译的科学性是以其艺术性为本质和内涵的,科学性又是艺术性的升华与提高。中国的翻译美学发展正是在这种张力当中不断取得平衡与发展的。中国当代翻译美学立足于中国传统译论,并对之进行现代转换,吸收西方译论的研究和论证方法,借鉴现代美学的基本理论和结构框架来阐释翻译的机制和功能。经过十几年的发展,它已经成为一个具有中国特色的、具有跨学科特点的、有别于西方翻译理论模式的翻译研究学派,使中国的翻译理论带上了鲜明的民族特色。翻译美学还有待进一步发展和完善,它体现着中国译学的发展和创新,有利于中国翻译理论在世界翻译理论界占有一席之地。
Translation, from a broad perspective, is a philosophical activity. Philosophy is the mother of all sciences. The nature of philosophical activity is spiritual home-return, thus those spiritual activities with nostalgic impulses, may be called philosophical activities. In a sense, both science and art creation activities can be viewed as philosophical. Translation, especially literary translation, as a creative activity in nature, can be seen as a philosophical activity. Translation is the pursuit of beauty and truth, and it involves philosophical concerns.
Aesthetics, the study of beauty, is an eternal theme of Chinese literature. Ever since the emergence of translation, aesthetics and translation have been closely bonded together. Chinese aesthetics has exerted an even greater influence on the formation of Chinese translation theories compared with its counterparts in other countries. The history of
Chinese translation history is comparable to one of translation aesthetics, the combination of aesthetics and translation, which borrows the basic principles of aesthetics to analyze, explain and solve the aesthetic problems emerging in interlingual conversion. Its main contents are aesthetic subjects, i. e. the translator and the reader, and aesthetic objects, i.e. the original work and the translated work, the aesthetic subject’s experience of aesthetic objects, the methods of representing beauty in translating process, the criteria of translation aesthetics and etc.
Chinese traditional translation theory reflects that philosophy and aesthetics are closely related to translation. With a comprehensive survey of the Chinese translation Aesthetics and Pragmatic Philosophy, by exploring the aesthetic subject and object, the aesthetics of cognitive schemata and principles of aesthetic representation, and cultural aesthetics, this dissertation proposes a pragmatic, dynamic and rational approach to the study of translation theory.
The process of literary pragmatic translation is a complete and special aesthetic process. During this process, if the translator wants to transfer the aesthetic value of the original text into the target text, he must take the reader's aesthetic position and carefully consider the three aspects, namely, the cultural traditions, the linguistic expressions and the inspirational innovation, in order to let the readers truly appreciate the aesthetic value and pragmatic value of the original text.
Translation theories at home or abroad both have a deep-rooted relation with aesthetics. After the cultural turn in translation study, many translators turn to translation aesthetics. Under the aesthetic edification, many excellent Chinese translators spare no pains to introduce outstanding foreign works into Chinese and popularize eminent Chinese works in the world around. In their practice, they have concluded a succession of translation aesthetic theories with Chinese characteristics. In ancient times, influenced by Confucius and other philosophers, many translators, such as Zhi Qian, Xuan Zang, sought to preserve the flavors of original works. In recent times, translation aesthetics has been put forward and it is on its way of development and advancement. Many translators, such as Yan Fu, Linshu, Fu Lei,Qian Zhongshu and Fu Zhongxuan, Xu Yuanchong, and Liu Miqing, are adherent in going on pursuing beauty yet are more innovative and insightful in presenting their views. This dissertation extracts and absorbs the quintessence of Chinese translation aesthetics, which includes four aspects: persistence in faithfulness, pursuit of expressiveness, emphasis on resemblance of spirit and creation of ideorealm, and uses them as the theoretic principles.
The author of this dissertation strives to analyze the aesthetics temperaments in translation and appreciate the beauty of translation within the outline of Chinese translation aesthetics based on the case study of Zhengzhengduo and Bingxin’s translated works of poems. Consequently, the author provides a tentative conclusion of the strategies for reconstructing the charm of work and language in translation.
The first chapter mainly discusses the aesthetics of Chinese and Western translation concerning originality and development process; the writer briefly introduces aesthetics and translation aesthetics, including definitions, contents and research on translation aesthetics. Moreover, the development of Chinese translation aesthetics has been elaborately explored. At the end of introduction, with a thorough analysis of the previous theories, the writer concludes that there are four eminent characteristics in Chinese translation aesthetics, namely, persistence in faithfulness, pursuit of expressiveness, emphasis on resemblance of spirit and creation of ideorealm, all of which serve as the theoretic guidance in the analysis of the text.
From the perspective of pragmatic translation aesthetics, the second chapter briefs the conversion process of translation, process of cultural creation, cultural translation, cultural information and cultural compensation for the entropy. The process of literary pragmatic translation is a complete and special aesthetic process. If the translator wants to transfer the aesthetic value of the original text into the target text, he must take the reader’s aesthetic position and carefully consider the three aspects, namely, the cultural traditions, the linguistic expressions and the inspirational innovation, in order to let the readers truly appreciate the aesthetic value and pragmatic value of the original text. The dissertation analyzes Zhengzhengduo and Bingxin’s translation of poems, David Hawkes and Yangxianyi’s translation of The Story of the Stone based on the principle of translation aesthetics.Aesthetics is the study of beauty, an eternal theme of Chinese literature. In his original, as well as translated works, Xu has put forward his unique aesthetic views, such as the theory of“three beauties”, and tries to guide his translation with these principles.
This dissertation takes a perspective of culture and philosophy on aesthetic translation studies, probing a series of theoretical issues regarding translation theory and the aesthetics of translation criticism. The translator is the most dynamic factor in translation. As an independent thinking entity, the translator unavoidably displays his subjectivities in the translation process. The motivation, purpose, strategies, methods and competence greatly influence the formation of the target text. The translator, as an individual, decides how a specific translation assignment is to be carried out; and translators, as a whole, plays an important role in intercultural communication and facilitating the development of human culture. However, so far most researches on the translator have only focused on human culture, his linguistic competence, translation skill and functions in cultural communication, and scarce attention has been paid to how the translator, as a crucial human factor, influences the translation process with motivation, attitude, cultural orientation, value, prejudice, historicity and translation purpose, etc. In view of all these, the research has made an attempt to probe into the issue of how the translator involves him/herself in translation process and thus influences translation results. The main objective of this research is to provide an overall description of the working mechanism of the translator in the translation process with a view to facilitating the understanding of the nature of translation.
The translator with his subjectivities is the core of my discussion. I explore the translator’s involvement in translator from the perspectives of his selection of translator in both Chinese and Western translation theories.
In the third chapter, the author tries to build a theoretical framework for translator’s style of criticism, which includes: the purpose and the translator style, ideology and the translator style, translation style of the recipient and the translator, the translator's aesthetic orientation and translator’s style, literary translation and acceptance, cultural identity and aesthetic style, aesthetic criticism of standards, consensus of aesthetic criticism. Chapter four takes a perspective of philosophy on translation aesthetic criticism, aesthetic criticism of standards, consensus of aesthetic criticism, translation criticism thoughts to a more extensive study. Chapter three and chapter four probing a series of theoretical issues regarding the translator’s aesthetic bent, as one of the constraints, is also discussed in this chapter. It is found that the translator’s style has much to do with his aesthetic bent. Literary works can be called an art rich with the aesthetic value expressed both through the form and the content. The translator’s preferences in dealing with the form and the content lead to a special way of expressing. I expound on the way the translator’s subjectivities work in the interpersonal relationships in translation. In my view, translation is also an interpersonal activity which involves many participants, including writer, translator, reader, translation commissioner, patron, translation distributor, publisher, reviewer, editor and source cultural expert, and so on forth. The patron, the author, the translator and the reader form the core interpersonal network in the translation process, and the translator is the center of this network because he needs to coordinate the interpersonal relationships in order to achieve the desired translation effects, which, as a result, mirrors the translator’s subjectivities. In this chapter, I focus on the relationships between the translator and the patron, the translator and the author, the translator and the reader, and the translator, which also shed some light on how the translator’s subjectivities work in the translation process.
The conclusion is a summary of my findings in the above discussion, including the features and the contributions of the current research, as well as the problems awaiting further research. The conclusion reiterates the impact of Chinese translation aesthetics on Chinese translation. The expectation is that, with the perfect combination of aesthetics, works of better quality will be produced. The author intends to explore the relationships between translation and aesthetics. Through the analysis of the definitions of translation and aesthetics, the author believes that translation and aesthetics can be linked with each other by language, and translation aesthetics involves studies of the original text, the translated text, and the translation process. This dissertation also illustrates that the application of aesthetic analysis in translation contributes to the equivalence of the original text and the translated text, and aesthetic analysis in literal translation has certain advantages. There exist the aesthetic formations of symmetry, sublimity, and etc, in the translation process.
The contemporary Chinese translation aesthetics establishes itself on the traditional Chinese translation theories, and endeavors to transform them into modernized translation theories. Absorbing the methodology from western translation studies, and borrowing the fundamental theories and structure from Aesthetics, it studies translation mechanisms and functions from its distinctive perspective. After several years of development, it has become a school of translation study in China, with interdisciplinary feature and typical Chinese characteristics, different from the western translation theories. It makes China’s translation study take on distinctive national features. Although it is not very mature and needs further improvement, it reflects the development and innovation of Chinese translation studies and helps us to give forth the Chinese voice in the arena of world translation theories.
引文
[1]谭载喜.奈达论翻译[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1984:10.
[2]方梦之主编.译学辞典[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2004:296.
[3]王宏印.中国传统译论经典诠释[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社.2003:220-221.
[4]刘宓庆.翻译美学导论[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2005:29.
[5]同【3】:6
[6]王秉钦.20世纪中国翻译思想史[M].天津:南开大学出版社,2005:4.
[7]同【4】:77
[8]同【3】:228
[9]同【3】:230
[10]王宏印.文学翻译批评论稿[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2006:34.
[11]吕俊.跨越文化障碍——巴比塔的重建[M].南京:东南大学出版社,2001:2.
[12]黄维樑,曹顺庆编.中国比较文学学科理论的垦拓[M]北京:北京大学出版社,1998:199.
[13]同【11】:6
[14]黄龙.翻译艺术教程[M].南京:南京大学出版社,1988:84.
[15]同【3】:230-232.
[16]冯毓云,北方论丛[J].黑龙江:哈尔滨:21-26
[17]王秉钦.20世纪中国翻译思想史[M].天津:南开大学出版社,2005:4.
[18]吕叔湘,许渊冲.中诗英译比录·序言[M].香港:三联书店,1988
[19]吕俊.谈诗词翻译中的意美原则[J].上海外国语学院学报,1995.
[20]朱光潜.诗论[M].北京:三联书店,1984:94.
[21] Newmark, P. Approaches to Translation[M]. Pergamon, 2001:94-103
[22]林语堂,诗词翻译的艺术[M]中国对外翻译出版公司1987,53.
[23]谢天振.译介学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999.
[24]李龙泉,明清翻译理论之经典--以徐光启与《几何原本》为例2009:12-17
[25]王宏志. 2007.重释“信、达、雅”——20世纪中国翻译研究[M].北京:清华大学出版社
[26] Chang, Nam Fung. 2001.“Polysystem theory: Its prospect as a framework for translation research”. Target 13:2, 317–332.
[27] Hermans, T.Translation in systems: descriptive and systemic approache[M]. St Jerome Publishing, 1999.
[28] Bassnetl, Susan & Andre, Lefevere. Constructing Culture : Essays on Literary Translation [M]. Clevendon:Multilingual Matters. 1998.
[29] Translation Studies: An Interdiscipline (Benjamins Translation Library), John Benjamins Publishing Co (April 1994)
[30]许钧.翻译学概论.译林出版社; 2009 :157-158
[31]曾文雄.语用学翻译研究.武汉大学出版社; 2007:45-47
[32] Lefevere,Andre, Bassnett S.Translation, History and Culture [M].London:Pinter,1990:7-9.
[33]查明建.论译者主体性——从译者文化地位的边缘化谈起[J].田雨:中国翻译,2003:22.
[34]郭延礼.中国近代翻译文学概论[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,1998:306.
[35]同【34】
[36] Venuti Lawrence.The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation[M].London and New York :Routledge,1998:43.
[37]杨绛.失败的经验,杨绛文集[M].第三卷.人民文学出版社; 2004:243
[38]刘宓庆.翻译美学导论[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2005:29.
[39]马新国.西方文论史.高等教育出版社.2002:582-583
[40]同【39】
[41]茅盾.简爱的两个译本[J].译文1937年新2卷第5期。)
[42]李季.鲁迅对于翻译工作的贡献人[J].翻译通报1952年1月
[43] Bassnett, Susan & Andre, Lefevere. Translation, History and Culture[M]. London and New York: Prinler Publishers. 1990.
[44] Hermans, T.Translation in systems: descriptive and systemic approache[M]. St Jerome Publishing, 1999.
[45]钱之德译. 1983.王尔德戏剧选[M].广州:花城出版社.
[46]余光中. 1994.戏剧的翻译:以《不可儿戏》为例[C]// Translation and Interpreting: Bridging East and West. Selected Conference Papers. College of Languages, Linguistics and Literature University of Hawaii and East-West Center: 160.
[47]余光中.理想丈夫与不可儿戏:王尔德的两出喜剧. [M].辽宁:辽宁教育出版社.1998
[48]同【46】
[49]王东风. 2003.一只看不见的手——论意识形态对翻译实践的操纵[J].中国翻译(5):17, 18
[50]同【32】
[51]梁启超,论译书[A].翻译通讯编辑部.翻译研究论文集(1894-1948)[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984:8-9.
[52]阿英.阿英全集[M].第十一、十二卷.合肥:安徽教育出版社.1999
[53]冯至.中国新诗和外国的影响,[M].冯至全集第5卷。石家庄:河北教育出版社,1999:174-184
[54]吕俊.对翻译批评标准的价值学思考[J].上海翻译, 2007
[55]刘宓庆.翻译美学导论[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2005:86.
[56]谭容培.论审美价值与审美评价[J].湖南师范大学社会科学学报, 1994:53.
[57]李连科.世界的意义:价值论[M].人民出版社,1985:106.
[58]谭容培.审美价值新论[J].湖南师范大学社会科学学报, 2001:36.
[59] Reiss, Katharina. Translation Criticism——The Potentials and Limitations [M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
[60]辜正坤.翻译标准多元互补论[J ].中国翻译, 1989 ,
[61]转引自董玉整.试论真理符合论是一切真理论的基础.中山大学学报论丛2004(5):227.
[62]同【61】
[63]李德顺,孙伟平.道德价值论[M].昆明:云南人民出版社,2005:43-47.
[64]童世骏.论真理的认可问题[J].学术月刊,2000(2):20-21.
[65]同【64】
[66]同【64】
[67]同【64】
[68]吕俊,侯向群.英汉翻译教程[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2005:62.
[69]同【64】
[70]吕俊.价值哲学与翻译批评学[J].上海外国语大学学报, 2006:58.
[71]刘悦笛.美的真理观:“共识观”与“解释学”的统一[J].哲学动态.2006(8):55.
[72]同【71】
[73]同【71】
[74]同【64】
[75]杨晓荣.翻译批评标准的传统思路和现代视野[J].中国翻译, 2001(6).
[76]同【3】
[77]毛荣贵.翻译美学[M].上海:上海交通大学出版社, 2005:345.
[78]钱钟书.谈艺录[M ].北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店, 2001.
[79]叶维廉.比较诗学[M].台北:台湾东大图书公司,1983:11.
[80]冰心.冰心译文集[M].南京:译林出版社,1998:672、129-130、298-299.
[81]谢华,胡妮关于文学本体论若干问题思考[J].江西社会科学, 2009,(7):123
[82]同【3】
[83]谭载喜,西方翻译简史[M].北京:商务印书馆,2004:29.
[84]张南峰.中西译学批评[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2004:235.
[85]同【83】
[86]王宁.全球化时代的文化研究和翻译[J].中国翻译,2000(1).
[87]同【3】
[88]刘宓庆.当代翻译理论[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1999:47.
[1] An Interview with Dr. Eugene Nida. [J]外国语,1997,vol2.
[2] Austin, J. L. How to Do Things with Words [M].Oxford : The Clarendon Press. 1962
[3] Bachman, L. Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing[M]. Oxford OUP. 1990
[4] Bacon, F. Essays[M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 1997.
[5] Baker M. Narratives in and of Translation[J]. Journal of Translation and Interpretation. SKASE. 2005.
[6] Baker, M. In Other Words: A Course Book on Translation[M]. FLRP. 2000
[7] Barthes , Roland. Style and its image , in Chatman , S (ed1)Literary Style : A Symposium[M]. New York : Routledge , 1971.
[8] Bassnetl, Susan & Andre, Lefevere. Constructing Culture : Essays on Literary Translation [M]. Clevendon:Multilingual Matters. 1998.
[9] Bassnett S, Grundy P, Language through literature[M].Longman,1993.
[10] Bassnett, Susan & Andre, Lefevere. Translation, History and Culture[M]. London and New York: Prinler Publishers. 1990.
[11] Bassnett, Susan & AndréLefevere. 1992. General editors’preface. In Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame [M]. London & New York: Routledge.
[12] Bell, R. T. Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice[M]. London: Longman. 1991.
[13] Blackmore, D. Understanding Utterances[M]. Oxford:Blackwell. 1992.
[14] Blackmore. S. The Meme Machine[M]. Oxford:OUP. 1999.
[15] Blum-Kulka, S. House, J. & Kasper, G. Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies[M]. Norwood:Alex. 1989.
[16] Blutner, R. Lexical Pragmatics[J]. Journal of Semantics. 1988
[17] Chang, Nam Fung. Polysystem theory—Its prospect as a framework for translation research [J]. Target 13 (2) 2001: 329.
[18] Cao Xueqin & Gao E. A Dream of Red Mansions [M] . Trans.Yang Hsien and Gladys Yang. Beijing : Foreign Languages Press , 1994.
[19] Cao Xueqin & Gao E. The Story of the Stone [M] . Trans.David Hawkes. New York : Penguin Group , 1973.
[20] Chesterman, A. Contrastive Functional Analysis, Amsterdam[M]. John Benjamins Publishing Company. 1998.
[21] Chesterman, A. Memes of Translation: The Spread of Ideas in Translation Theory[M]. Amsterdam : John Benjamins. 1997.
[22] Dawkins, R. The Selfish Gene[M]. Oxford : OUP. 1976/1989
[23] Delisle,Jean,and Judith Woodsworth,eds.Translators Through History [M].Amsterdam:John Benjamins,1995.
[24] Gentzler , Edwin. Contemporary Translation Theories[M]. London&New York : Routledge , 1993 .
[25] Hatim,Basil and Ian Mason .The Translator as communicator [M].London and New York: Routledge,1997.
[26] Hawkes, David. The Story of the Stone [M].Vol.1, Vol.2, New York: Penguin Group, 1973.
[27] Hermans, T.Translation in systems: descriptive and systemic approache[M]. St Jerome Publishing, 1999.
[28] Hermans, Theo. Introduction: translation studies and a new paradigm. In Hermans, Theo (ed). The Manipulation of Literary Translation [M]. London & Sydney: Croom Helm. 1985.
[29] Huxley, T.H., Julian Huxley.Evolution and Ethics[M].London:The Pilot Press LTD, 1893-1943.
[30] Lefevere,Andre, Bassnett S.Translation, History and Culture [M].London:Pinter,1990.
[31] Liu, James J. Y. Chinese Theories of L iterature[M ]. Chicago: The University of Chicago, 1975.
[32] Newmark, P. Approaches to Translation[M]. Pergamon, 2001.
[33] Nida, E. A. Translating Meaning[M]. San Dimas:English Language Institute, 1982.
[34] Nord,C. ranslating as a purposeful activity[M]. stjerome.co.uk. 1997.
[35] Reiss, Katharina. Translation Criticism——The Potentials and Limitations [M].Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.
[36] Schwartz, Benjamin. In Search of Wealth and Power: Yen Fu and the West [M]. London: Harvard University Press,1964.
[37] Steiner, G. After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2006,
[38] Venuti Lawrence.The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation[M].London and New York :Routledge,1998.
[39] Wilss, W. The science of translation: problems and methods[M].John Benjamins Pub Co, 1982.
[40] Yu, P. The Interpretations of Traditional Sym bols in Chinese Poetics[M ]. Princeton: The Press of Princeton University, 1987.
[41] <翻译通讯>编辑部.翻译研究论文集(1894 - 1948)[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984.
[42]艾田伯.比较不是理由[A ].干永昌等编译.比较文学研究论文集[C].上海:上海译文出版社, 1985.
[43]安德烈.想象的共同体[M].上海:上海人民出版社,2003.
[44]包惠南,包昂.中国文化与汉英翻译[M].北京:外文出版社, 2004.
[45]曹顺庆.比较文学教程[M].北京:高等教育出版社, 2006.
[46]曹顺庆.中西比较诗学[M].北京:北京出版社, 1988.
[47]曹雪芹,高鹗著.A Dream of Red Mansions[M].杨宪益,戴乃迭译.Vol.1,外文出版社,1994.
[48]曹雪芹.红楼梦[M].北京:人民文学出版社, 1982.
[49]查明建.论译者主体性——从译者文化地位的边缘化谈起[J].田雨:中国翻译,2003,
[50]查明建.论译文之外的文化操纵[C]//国际译联第四届亚洲翻译家论坛文集. 2005.
[51]陈金美.主体性基本问题辨析[J].湖南师范大学社会科学学报,1996(2).
[52]陈全明.严复——我国译界倡导系统而完整翻译标准的先驱[J].中国翻译,1997,(3).
[53]陈宪章.关注经济全球化背景下我国主导价值观的建设[J].思想理论教育导刊,2004(2).
[54]陈忠华.论翻译标准的模糊测度[J].中国翻译,1990,(1).
[55]陈钟凡.中国文学批评史[M].上海:上海中华书局, 1927.
[56]崔永禄.文学翻译佳作对比赏析[M].天津:南开大学出版社,2006.
[57]泰戈尔著,周策纵译失群的鸟[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司1994.
[58]泰戈尔著,郑振铎译飞鸟集[M].上海:上海译文出版社1981.
[59]狄兆俊.一部比较诗学的新作[J].中国比较文学, 1989 (2) .
[60]狄兆俊.中英比较诗学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 1992.
[61]董玉整.试论真理符合论是一切真理论的基础[J].中山大学学报论丛, 2004
[62]方梦之.译学辞典[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2004.
[63]方文.学科制度和社会认同[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2008.
[64]方孝岳.中国文学批评[M].北京:三联书店, 1986.
[65]费晓平.翻译的政治[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2005.
[66]冯庆华.红译艺坛——《红楼梦》翻译艺术研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2006,
[67]佛克马,D.,蚁布思,E.文学研究与文化参与[M].俞国强.北京:北京大学出版社,1996.
[68]弗兰西斯·培根.培根论说文集[M] .何新译.北京:中国友谊出版公司, 2001.
[69]傅杰.王国维论学集[C].昆明:云南人民出版社,2008.
[70]傅瑾. 20世纪中国戏剧发展论纲(上)[J].学术界(2) 2000.: 123.
[71]傅仲选.实用翻译美学[M].上海:上海教育出版社. 1993.
[72]戈宝权.重读王尔德的戏剧作品.王尔德戏剧选[M].广州:花城出版社. 1983.
[73]葛校琴.翻译“神似”论的哲学—美学基础[J].中国翻译,1999.
[74]辜正坤.翻译标准多元互补论[J ].中国翻译, 1989 ,
[75]辜正坤.国际翻译学新探[A].天津:百花文艺出版社, 2006.
[76]辜正坤.术语翻译与学术问题[N].中华读书报, 1998-10-14.
[77]辜正坤.致切斯菲尔德伯爵书[J]中国翻译,2000,(3).
[78]辜正坤.中西诗比较鉴赏与翻译理论[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2003.
[79]郭建中.韦努蒂及其解构主义的翻译策略[J].中国翻译,2000,(1).
[80]郭延礼.中国近代翻译文学概论[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,1998.
[81]郭湛.生活离不开哲学的智慧[N].光明日报,1998-3-26.
[82]韩江洪.严复华语系统与近代中国文化转型[M].上海:上海译文出版社,2006.
[83]韩琳,周泉华.译林奇才许渊冲[J].今日中国(中文版),1998(9).
[84]贺麟.〈译名论集〉序,载张岂之,周祖达,译名论集[M].西安:西北大学出版社,1990.
[85]贺麟.论翻译,载翻译研究文集[A].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984,
[86]侯向群.翻译学的学科定位与逻辑起点--几种不同翻译观的比较研究[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2003.
[87]胡经之.中国古典美学丛编[M] .北京:中华书局,1988.
[88]黄龙.翻译学[M].南京:江苏教育出版社, 1988.
[89]黄龙.翻译艺术教程[M].南京:南京大学出版社,1988.
[90]黄维樑,曹顺庆编.中国比较文学学科理论的垦拓[M]北京:北京大学出版社,1998.
[91]黄药眠,童庆炳.中西比较诗学体系[M ].北京:人民文学出版社, 1991.
[92]计永佑.语言学趣谈[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1984.
[93]季广茂.意识形态视域中的现代话语转型与文学观念嬗变[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[94]姜秋霞.文学翻译中的审美过程:格式塔意象再造[M].北京:商务印书馆. 2002.
[95]蒋骁华.意识形态对翻译的影响:阐发与新思考[J].中国翻译2003 (24) .
[96]蒋骁华.解构主义翻译观探析[J].外语教学与研究, 1995.
[97]乐黛云.中西诗学对话的必要性与可能性[ J ].中国比较文学,1993 (1) .
[98]李德顺,孙伟平.道德价值论[M].昆明:云南人民出版社,2005.
[99]李晶.贯穿二十世纪中国翻译史的意识形态操控行为[C]//国际译联第四届亚洲翻译家论坛文集2005.
[100]李辉,杨宪益,戴乃迭.一同走过[M].郑州:大象出版社, 2001.
[101]李连科.世界的意义:价值论[M].人民出版社.1985.
[102]李泽厚.意境杂谈[A ].美学论集[ C ].上海:上海文艺出版社,1980.
[103]梁启超,论译书[A].翻译通讯编辑部.翻译研究论文集(1894-1948)[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984.
[104]梁真惠,陈卫国.严复译本“天演论”的变异现象———以功能翻译理论为视角的研究[J].北京第二外国语学院学报(外语版),2007,(6).
[105]梁宗岱.诗与真[A].梁宗岱选集[C].北京:中央编译出版社,2006.
[106]廖七一.当代西方翻译理论探索[M].南京:译林出版社, 2000.
[107]刘季春.扬起创造的风帆—许渊冲学术思想研究[J].山东外语教学,2003,(1).
[108]刘靖之.翻译论集[C].香港:三联出版社有限公司,1990.
[109]刘宓庆.当代翻译理论[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司, 1999.
[110]刘宓庆.翻译美学导论[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司. 1995,2005.
[111]刘宓庆.翻译与语言哲学[M].北京:中国対外翻译出版,2001.
[112]刘叔成,夏之放,楼昔勇.美学基本原理[M].上海:上海人民出版社, 2001.
[113]刘悦笛.美的真理观:“共识观”与“解释学”的统一[J].哲学动态. 2006(8).
[114]刘重德.翻译漫谈[M].西安:陕西人民出版社,1984.
[115]刘重德.文学翻译十讲[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1991.
[116]刘靖之编. 21世纪的翻译:香港的角色与作用.翻译新焦点[M].香港:商务印书馆. 2003.
[117]刘平.中国戏剧在现代化进程中的变化与发展[J].学术研究2007(3).
[118]卢玉玲.翻译的幽灵——评道格拉斯?罗宾逊的<谁在翻译——超越理性论译者的主体性>[J]中国翻译,2004(2).
[119]鲁迅.关于翻译:给瞿秋白的回信[A] .翻译通讯编辑部.翻译研究论文集(1894-1948)[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984.
[120]陆耀东编.清代诗学/中国诗学丛书[M ].长沙:湖南人民出版社,1996.
[121]吕俊,侯向群.英汉翻译教程[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2005.
[122]吕俊.对翻译批评标准的价值学思考[J].上海翻译, 2007
[123]吕俊.翻译标准的多元性与评价的客观性——价值学视域下翻译批评标准问题探讨[J].上海外国语大学学报,2007.
[124]吕俊.价值哲学与翻译批评学[J].外国语:上海外国语大学学报, 2006
[125]吕俊.跨越文化障碍——巴比塔的重建[M].南京:东南大学出版社,2001
[126]吕俊.论翻译研究的本体回归——对翻译研究“文化转向”的反思[J].上海外国语大学学报,2004.
[127]吕俊.谈翻译批评标准的体系[J].外语与外语教学,2007.
[128]吕俊.谈诗词翻译中的意美原则[J].上海外国语学院学报,1995.
[129]吕叔湘.中诗英译比录[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1980.
[130]罗贝尔·埃斯卡皮,王美华,于沛译.文学社会学[M].合肥:安徽文艺出版社,1987.
[131]罗新璋.翻译论集[M].北京:商务印书馆. 1984.
[132]马红军.翻译比较散论[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版社,2000.
[133]马建忠,拟设翻译书院[A] .翻译通讯编辑部.翻译研究论文集(1894-1948)[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 1984.
[134]马奇.中西美学思想比较研究[M ].北京:中国人民大学出版社, 1994.
[135]马新国.西方文学史[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2002.
[136]马祖毅.中国翻译史[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,1999.
[137]毛荣贵.翻译美学[M].上海:上海交通大学出版社,2005
[138]毛泽东.在延安文艺座谈会上的讲话?结论.毛泽东选集(第三卷)[M].北京:人民出版社. 1991
[139]沐泽.回望台湾话剧[J].台声2007. (7)
[140]诺瓦利斯. Auswah lausden Schriften (Selections from the Writings), 1956,德文版,P153,转引自赵鑫珊.科学、艺术、哲学断想[M].生活?读书?新知三联书店,1985.
[141]彭启良.翻译与比较[M].北京:商务印书馆,1980.
[142]钱之德译.王尔德戏剧选[M].广州:花城出版社. 1983.
[143]钱中文.对话的理论———误差、激活、融化与创新[ J ].中国社会科学院研究生院学报, 1993 (5) .
[144]钱钟书.管锥篇[M ].北京:生活·读书·新知三联出版社,2005.
[145]钱钟书.林纾的翻译[A]《,翻译通讯》编辑部编.翻译研究论文集(1949 - 1983) [ C] .北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 1979.
[146]钱钟书.谈艺录[M ].北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店, 2001.
[147]秦越存.对价值评价过程的阐释[J].哈尔滨学院学报,2002(7).
[148]秦越存.价值评价的本质[J].学术交流, 2002(2).
[149]沈苏儒.论信达雅———严复翻译理论研究[M].北京:商务印书馆,1998.
[150]孙会军.归化与异化:两个动态的概念[J].外语研究,2003.
[151]孙艺风.翻译研究与意识形态:拓展跨文化对话的空间[J].中国翻译,2003.
[152]孙艺风.视角阐释文化:文学翻译与翻译理论[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2004.
[153]谭容培.论审美价值与审美评价[J].湖南师范大学社会科学学报, 1994.
[154]谭容培.审美价值新论[J].湖南师范大学社会科学学报, 2001.
[155]谭载喜,西方翻译简史[M].北京:商务印书馆,2004.
[156]谭载喜.奈达论翻译[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1984.
[157]唐人.翻译是艺术,1950,载翻译研究论文集(1949- 1983)[A].北京:外语教学与研究出版社1984.
[158]田本相,宋宝珍.八十年代以来的香港话剧概观[J].剧本1997. (8)
[159]童世骏.论真理的认可问题[J].学术月刊,2000(2).
[160]王秉钦.中国翻译思想史[M].天津:南开大学出版社. 2003.
[161]王秉钦.20世纪中国翻译思想史[M].天津:南开大学出版社,2005
[162]王大来.从翻译的文化功能看翻译中文化缺省补偿的原则[J].外语研究,2004,(6).
[163]王东风.一双看不见的手———论意识形态对翻译实践的操纵[J].,2003,(5).
[164]王东风.文化缺省与翻译补偿[A].郭建中.文化与翻译[C].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司.1999.
[165]王东风.功能语言学与后解构主义时代的翻译研究[J].中国翻译, 2007.
[166]王东风.论翻译过程中的文化介入[J].中国翻译,1998.
[167]王东风.一只看不见的手——论意识形态对翻译实践的操纵[J].中国翻译2003.(5).
[168]王宏印.文学翻译批评论稿[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2006
[169]王宏印.中国传统译论经典诠释[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社.2003
[170]王宏志.重释“信、达、雅”——20世纪中国翻译研究[M].北京:清华大学出版社2007..
[171]王克菲.翻译文化史论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1997.
[172]王良铭.价值评价探析[J].东南大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2002(1).
[173]王宁.全球化时代的文化研究和翻译[J].中国翻译,2000(1).
[174]王树人.关于主体,主体性与主体间性的思考[J].上海师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2002.
[175]王文铃,年晓萍.《英汉习语翻译中美的丢落与补偿》[J]合肥工业大学学报(社会科学版),2004,(6).
[176]王晓元.意识形态与文学翻译的互动关系[J].中国翻译,1999.
[177]王一川.文学理论讲演录[M ].桂林:广西师范大学出版社,2004.
[178]王玉樑.价值哲学新探[M].西安:陕西人民教育出版社,1993.
[179]王元化.刘勰的譬喻说与歌德的意蕴说[A ].文心雕龙讲疏[M ].上海:上海古籍出版社, 1988.
[180]王岳川.二十世纪西方哲性诗学[M].北京:北京大学出版社, 1999.
[181]王佐良.论新开端[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1991.
[182]王佐良.谈读书[A].杨平编.名作精译[C].青岛:青岛出版社, 1998.
[183]王佐良.翻译:思考与试笔[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1989.
[184]王佐良.王佐良文集[M].北京:外语教育与研究出版社.1997
[185]王佐良.严复的用心[A] .翻译通讯编辑部.翻译研究论文集(1894-1948)[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984.
[186]王佐良.严复的用心———论严复与严译名著[M].北京:商务印书馆,1982.
[187]温秀颖.翻译批评——从理论到实践[M].天津:南开大学出版社,2007.
[188]文军.中国翻译批评百年回眸[M].北京:北京航空航天大学出版社,2006.
[189]吴南松.翻译:寻求文化的共生与融合——也谈翻译中对原文差异性的保持问题[J].中国翻译, 2003.
[190]吴义诚.模糊:文学翻译研究的一种取向[J].外国语,1996,(5).
[191]奚永吉.文学翻译比较美学[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社. 2002.
[192]夏廷德.翻译补偿研究[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社.2006.
[193]谢天振.翻译研究新视野[M].青岛:青岛出版社,2003.
[194]谢天振.译介学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999.
[195]谢天振.多元系统理论:翻译研究领域的拓展[J].外国语2003. (4)
[196]徐通锵.基础语言学教程[M] .北京:北京大学出版社,2001.
[197]许均.译者的追求与读者的审美期待及其它[J].解放军外语学院学报,1996,(5).
[198]许钧.翻译论[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社, 2003.
[199]许钧.文学翻译批评研究[M].南京:译林出版社, 1992
[200]许渊冲.翻译的艺术[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1984.
[201]许渊冲.文学与翻译[M].北京大学出版社,2003.
[202]严复.天演论[A].王栻.严复集(第五卷)[C].北京:中华书局,1986.
[203]杨春时.美学[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2004.
[204]杨鸿烈.中国诗学大纲[M].上海:商务印书馆, 1928.
[205]杨柳.论原作之原型[J].中国翻译,2001,(2).
[206]杨乃乔.比较文学概论[M ].北京:北京大学出版社, 2006.
[207]杨晓荣.翻译批评标准的传统思路和现代视野[J].中国翻译, 2001(6).
[208]杨晓荣.翻译批评导论[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司, 2005.
[209]杨筱.认同与国际关系:一种文化理论[D],博士学位论文,中国社科院,2000.
[210]杨辛,甘霖.美学原理新编[M] .北京:北京大学出版社, 1996.
[211]杨正典.严复评传[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1997.
[212]叶维廉.比较诗学[M].台北:台湾东大图书公司,1983.
[213]叶维廉.共同规律——叶维廉比较论文选[C].北京:北京大学出版社, 1986.
[214]余光中.戏剧的翻译:以《不可儿戏》为例[C]// Translation and Interpreting: Bridging East and West. Selected Conference Papers. College of Languages, Linguistics and Literature University of Hawaii and East-West Center1994.
[215]余光中.一跤绊到逻辑外——谈王尔德的《不可儿戏》.理想丈夫与不可儿戏——王尔德的两出喜剧[M].沈阳:辽宁教育出版社. 1998.
[216]余光中.与王尔德拔河记——《不可儿戏》译后.理想丈夫与不可儿戏——王尔德的两出喜剧[M].沈阳:辽宁教育出版社. 1998.
[217]俞真.翻译的动态标准[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2000.
[218]袁锦翔.寻找译品中的真善美.转引自杨自检,刘学云.翻译新论[C].武汉:湖北教育出版社,1994.
[219]张保红.文学翻译的多角度及其美学效果[J].外语与外语教学,2001.
[220]张春兴.青年的认同与过失[M].台北:台湾东华书局,世界图书出版社,1993.
[221]张法.中西美学与文化精神[M].北京:北京大学出版社, 1994.
[222]张经浩,陈可培.名家名论名译[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2005.
[223]张隆溪.道与逻各斯:东西方的文学阐释学[M ].南京:江苏教育出版社, 2006.
[224]张隆溪.钱钟书谈比较文学和“文学比较”[J].读书, 1981(10) .
[225]张南峰.中西译学批评[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2004.
[226]张乔.模糊语言学论集[M].大连:大连出版社,1998.
[227]张思洁,张柏然.形合与意合的哲学思维反思[J].中国翻译,2001.
[228]赵鑫珊.科学、艺术、哲学断想.[M].生活?读书?新知三联书店,1985
[229]赵秀明.中国翻译美学初探[J].福建外语,1998.
[230]赵彦春.翻译学归结论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2005.
[231]赵彦春.语言模糊性与翻译的模糊对等[J].天津外国语学院学报,2001,(4).
[232]赵彦春.语言学的哲学批判[M].重庆:重庆出版社,2004.
[233]郑板桥.题画[A].叶朗著.中国美学史大纲[M].上海:上海人民出版社, 1985.
[234]郑海凌,辜正坤.文学翻译学基本范畴新论.国际翻译学新探[M].天津:百花文艺出版社, 2006
[235]郑海凌.翻译标准新说:和谐说[J].中国翻译,1999,(4)
[236]郑海凌.解读“优势竞赛论”[J].外语与外语教学,2002(8).
[237]郑海凌.文学翻译学[M].北京:文心出版社, 2000,P379.
[238]郑奕,郑应杰.论美学研究的三个面向[M].学术交流,2004.
[239]周来祥.东方与西方古典美学理论的比较[J].江汉论坛, 1981(2) .
[240]周仪,罗平.翻译与批评[M]武汉:湖北教育出版社,1999,P146.
[241]朱光潜.诗论[M].桂林:广西师范大学出版社, 2005.
[242]朱徽.中英比较诗艺[M ].成都:四川大学出版社, 1996.
[243]朱立元.美学[M].北京:高等教育出版社, 2001.
[244]宗白华.美学散步[M].合肥:安徽教育出版社, 1981.
[245] (美)阿恩海姆.艺术与视知觉.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1985.
[246]鲁枢元.文艺心理阐释.上海:上海文艺出版社,1989
[247]阿恩海姆.视觉思维—审美直觉心理学.北京:光明日报出版社,1986.
[248]王夫之.姜斋诗话。
[249]韦特默,格式塔理论.现代心理学史.北京:人民教育出版社,1981.
[250] (美)阿恩海姆.艺术与视知觉.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1985
[251]周宪.中国当代审美文化研究.北京:北京大学出版社,1997.
[252]童庆炳.中国古代心理诗学与美学.北京:中华书局,1990汉英对照《唐诗一百首》,中国对外翻译出版公司,商务印书馆香港有限公司,《唐诗二百首英译》,北京语言学院出版社,1990-2010外语类期刊:《中国翻译》、《中国科技翻译》,《外国语》,《外语教学与研究》,《外语学刊》,《外语与外语教学》,《外语研究》,《外语教学》,《解放军外国语学院学报》,《四川外语学院学报》,《天津外语学院学报》,《山东外语教学》,《外语与翻译》等学报。
[2]方梦之主编.译学辞典[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2004:296.
[3]王宏印.中国传统译论经典诠释[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社.2003:220-221.
[4]刘宓庆.翻译美学导论[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2005:29.
[5]同【3】:6
[6]王秉钦.20世纪中国翻译思想史[M].天津:南开大学出版社,2005:4.
[7]同【4】:77
[8]同【3】:228
[9]同【3】:230
[10]王宏印.文学翻译批评论稿[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2006:34.
[11]吕俊.跨越文化障碍——巴比塔的重建[M].南京:东南大学出版社,2001:2.
[12]黄维樑,曹顺庆编.中国比较文学学科理论的垦拓[M]北京:北京大学出版社,1998:199.
[13]同【11】:6
[14]黄龙.翻译艺术教程[M].南京:南京大学出版社,1988:84.
[15]同【3】:230-232.
[16]冯毓云,北方论丛[J].黑龙江:哈尔滨:21-26
[17]王秉钦.20世纪中国翻译思想史[M].天津:南开大学出版社,2005:4.
[18]吕叔湘,许渊冲.中诗英译比录·序言[M].香港:三联书店,1988
[19]吕俊.谈诗词翻译中的意美原则[J].上海外国语学院学报,1995.
[20]朱光潜.诗论[M].北京:三联书店,1984:94.
[21] Newmark, P. Approaches to Translation[M]. Pergamon, 2001:94-103
[22]林语堂,诗词翻译的艺术[M]中国对外翻译出版公司1987,53.
[23]谢天振.译介学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999.
[24]李龙泉,明清翻译理论之经典--以徐光启与《几何原本》为例2009:12-17
[25]王宏志. 2007.重释“信、达、雅”——20世纪中国翻译研究[M].北京:清华大学出版社
[26] Chang, Nam Fung. 2001.“Polysystem theory: Its prospect as a framework for translation research”. Target 13:2, 317–332.
[27] Hermans, T.Translation in systems: descriptive and systemic approache[M]. St Jerome Publishing, 1999.
[28] Bassnetl, Susan & Andre, Lefevere. Constructing Culture : Essays on Literary Translation [M]. Clevendon:Multilingual Matters. 1998.
[29] Translation Studies: An Interdiscipline (Benjamins Translation Library), John Benjamins Publishing Co (April 1994)
[30]许钧.翻译学概论.译林出版社; 2009 :157-158
[31]曾文雄.语用学翻译研究.武汉大学出版社; 2007:45-47
[32] Lefevere,Andre, Bassnett S.Translation, History and Culture [M].London:Pinter,1990:7-9.
[33]查明建.论译者主体性——从译者文化地位的边缘化谈起[J].田雨:中国翻译,2003:22.
[34]郭延礼.中国近代翻译文学概论[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,1998:306.
[35]同【34】
[36] Venuti Lawrence.The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation[M].London and New York :Routledge,1998:43.
[37]杨绛.失败的经验,杨绛文集[M].第三卷.人民文学出版社; 2004:243
[38]刘宓庆.翻译美学导论[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2005:29.
[39]马新国.西方文论史.高等教育出版社.2002:582-583
[40]同【39】
[41]茅盾.简爱的两个译本[J].译文1937年新2卷第5期。)
[42]李季.鲁迅对于翻译工作的贡献人[J].翻译通报1952年1月
[43] Bassnett, Susan & Andre, Lefevere. Translation, History and Culture[M]. London and New York: Prinler Publishers. 1990.
[44] Hermans, T.Translation in systems: descriptive and systemic approache[M]. St Jerome Publishing, 1999.
[45]钱之德译. 1983.王尔德戏剧选[M].广州:花城出版社.
[46]余光中. 1994.戏剧的翻译:以《不可儿戏》为例[C]// Translation and Interpreting: Bridging East and West. Selected Conference Papers. College of Languages, Linguistics and Literature University of Hawaii and East-West Center: 160.
[47]余光中.理想丈夫与不可儿戏:王尔德的两出喜剧. [M].辽宁:辽宁教育出版社.1998
[48]同【46】
[49]王东风. 2003.一只看不见的手——论意识形态对翻译实践的操纵[J].中国翻译(5):17, 18
[50]同【32】
[51]梁启超,论译书[A].翻译通讯编辑部.翻译研究论文集(1894-1948)[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984:8-9.
[52]阿英.阿英全集[M].第十一、十二卷.合肥:安徽教育出版社.1999
[53]冯至.中国新诗和外国的影响,[M].冯至全集第5卷。石家庄:河北教育出版社,1999:174-184
[54]吕俊.对翻译批评标准的价值学思考[J].上海翻译, 2007
[55]刘宓庆.翻译美学导论[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2005:86.
[56]谭容培.论审美价值与审美评价[J].湖南师范大学社会科学学报, 1994:53.
[57]李连科.世界的意义:价值论[M].人民出版社,1985:106.
[58]谭容培.审美价值新论[J].湖南师范大学社会科学学报, 2001:36.
[59] Reiss, Katharina. Translation Criticism——The Potentials and Limitations [M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
[60]辜正坤.翻译标准多元互补论[J ].中国翻译, 1989 ,
[61]转引自董玉整.试论真理符合论是一切真理论的基础.中山大学学报论丛2004(5):227.
[62]同【61】
[63]李德顺,孙伟平.道德价值论[M].昆明:云南人民出版社,2005:43-47.
[64]童世骏.论真理的认可问题[J].学术月刊,2000(2):20-21.
[65]同【64】
[66]同【64】
[67]同【64】
[68]吕俊,侯向群.英汉翻译教程[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2005:62.
[69]同【64】
[70]吕俊.价值哲学与翻译批评学[J].上海外国语大学学报, 2006:58.
[71]刘悦笛.美的真理观:“共识观”与“解释学”的统一[J].哲学动态.2006(8):55.
[72]同【71】
[73]同【71】
[74]同【64】
[75]杨晓荣.翻译批评标准的传统思路和现代视野[J].中国翻译, 2001(6).
[76]同【3】
[77]毛荣贵.翻译美学[M].上海:上海交通大学出版社, 2005:345.
[78]钱钟书.谈艺录[M ].北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店, 2001.
[79]叶维廉.比较诗学[M].台北:台湾东大图书公司,1983:11.
[80]冰心.冰心译文集[M].南京:译林出版社,1998:672、129-130、298-299.
[81]谢华,胡妮关于文学本体论若干问题思考[J].江西社会科学, 2009,(7):123
[82]同【3】
[83]谭载喜,西方翻译简史[M].北京:商务印书馆,2004:29.
[84]张南峰.中西译学批评[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2004:235.
[85]同【83】
[86]王宁.全球化时代的文化研究和翻译[J].中国翻译,2000(1).
[87]同【3】
[88]刘宓庆.当代翻译理论[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1999:47.
[1] An Interview with Dr. Eugene Nida. [J]外国语,1997,vol2.
[2] Austin, J. L. How to Do Things with Words [M].Oxford : The Clarendon Press. 1962
[3] Bachman, L. Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing[M]. Oxford OUP. 1990
[4] Bacon, F. Essays[M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 1997.
[5] Baker M. Narratives in and of Translation[J]. Journal of Translation and Interpretation. SKASE. 2005.
[6] Baker, M. In Other Words: A Course Book on Translation[M]. FLRP. 2000
[7] Barthes , Roland. Style and its image , in Chatman , S (ed1)Literary Style : A Symposium[M]. New York : Routledge , 1971.
[8] Bassnetl, Susan & Andre, Lefevere. Constructing Culture : Essays on Literary Translation [M]. Clevendon:Multilingual Matters. 1998.
[9] Bassnett S, Grundy P, Language through literature[M].Longman,1993.
[10] Bassnett, Susan & Andre, Lefevere. Translation, History and Culture[M]. London and New York: Prinler Publishers. 1990.
[11] Bassnett, Susan & AndréLefevere. 1992. General editors’preface. In Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame [M]. London & New York: Routledge.
[12] Bell, R. T. Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice[M]. London: Longman. 1991.
[13] Blackmore, D. Understanding Utterances[M]. Oxford:Blackwell. 1992.
[14] Blackmore. S. The Meme Machine[M]. Oxford:OUP. 1999.
[15] Blum-Kulka, S. House, J. & Kasper, G. Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies[M]. Norwood:Alex. 1989.
[16] Blutner, R. Lexical Pragmatics[J]. Journal of Semantics. 1988
[17] Chang, Nam Fung. Polysystem theory—Its prospect as a framework for translation research [J]. Target 13 (2) 2001: 329.
[18] Cao Xueqin & Gao E. A Dream of Red Mansions [M] . Trans.Yang Hsien and Gladys Yang. Beijing : Foreign Languages Press , 1994.
[19] Cao Xueqin & Gao E. The Story of the Stone [M] . Trans.David Hawkes. New York : Penguin Group , 1973.
[20] Chesterman, A. Contrastive Functional Analysis, Amsterdam[M]. John Benjamins Publishing Company. 1998.
[21] Chesterman, A. Memes of Translation: The Spread of Ideas in Translation Theory[M]. Amsterdam : John Benjamins. 1997.
[22] Dawkins, R. The Selfish Gene[M]. Oxford : OUP. 1976/1989
[23] Delisle,Jean,and Judith Woodsworth,eds.Translators Through History [M].Amsterdam:John Benjamins,1995.
[24] Gentzler , Edwin. Contemporary Translation Theories[M]. London&New York : Routledge , 1993 .
[25] Hatim,Basil and Ian Mason .The Translator as communicator [M].London and New York: Routledge,1997.
[26] Hawkes, David. The Story of the Stone [M].Vol.1, Vol.2, New York: Penguin Group, 1973.
[27] Hermans, T.Translation in systems: descriptive and systemic approache[M]. St Jerome Publishing, 1999.
[28] Hermans, Theo. Introduction: translation studies and a new paradigm. In Hermans, Theo (ed). The Manipulation of Literary Translation [M]. London & Sydney: Croom Helm. 1985.
[29] Huxley, T.H., Julian Huxley.Evolution and Ethics[M].London:The Pilot Press LTD, 1893-1943.
[30] Lefevere,Andre, Bassnett S.Translation, History and Culture [M].London:Pinter,1990.
[31] Liu, James J. Y. Chinese Theories of L iterature[M ]. Chicago: The University of Chicago, 1975.
[32] Newmark, P. Approaches to Translation[M]. Pergamon, 2001.
[33] Nida, E. A. Translating Meaning[M]. San Dimas:English Language Institute, 1982.
[34] Nord,C. ranslating as a purposeful activity[M]. stjerome.co.uk. 1997.
[35] Reiss, Katharina. Translation Criticism——The Potentials and Limitations [M].Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.
[36] Schwartz, Benjamin. In Search of Wealth and Power: Yen Fu and the West [M]. London: Harvard University Press,1964.
[37] Steiner, G. After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2006,
[38] Venuti Lawrence.The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation[M].London and New York :Routledge,1998.
[39] Wilss, W. The science of translation: problems and methods[M].John Benjamins Pub Co, 1982.
[40] Yu, P. The Interpretations of Traditional Sym bols in Chinese Poetics[M ]. Princeton: The Press of Princeton University, 1987.
[41] <翻译通讯>编辑部.翻译研究论文集(1894 - 1948)[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984.
[42]艾田伯.比较不是理由[A ].干永昌等编译.比较文学研究论文集[C].上海:上海译文出版社, 1985.
[43]安德烈.想象的共同体[M].上海:上海人民出版社,2003.
[44]包惠南,包昂.中国文化与汉英翻译[M].北京:外文出版社, 2004.
[45]曹顺庆.比较文学教程[M].北京:高等教育出版社, 2006.
[46]曹顺庆.中西比较诗学[M].北京:北京出版社, 1988.
[47]曹雪芹,高鹗著.A Dream of Red Mansions[M].杨宪益,戴乃迭译.Vol.1,外文出版社,1994.
[48]曹雪芹.红楼梦[M].北京:人民文学出版社, 1982.
[49]查明建.论译者主体性——从译者文化地位的边缘化谈起[J].田雨:中国翻译,2003,
[50]查明建.论译文之外的文化操纵[C]//国际译联第四届亚洲翻译家论坛文集. 2005.
[51]陈金美.主体性基本问题辨析[J].湖南师范大学社会科学学报,1996(2).
[52]陈全明.严复——我国译界倡导系统而完整翻译标准的先驱[J].中国翻译,1997,(3).
[53]陈宪章.关注经济全球化背景下我国主导价值观的建设[J].思想理论教育导刊,2004(2).
[54]陈忠华.论翻译标准的模糊测度[J].中国翻译,1990,(1).
[55]陈钟凡.中国文学批评史[M].上海:上海中华书局, 1927.
[56]崔永禄.文学翻译佳作对比赏析[M].天津:南开大学出版社,2006.
[57]泰戈尔著,周策纵译失群的鸟[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司1994.
[58]泰戈尔著,郑振铎译飞鸟集[M].上海:上海译文出版社1981.
[59]狄兆俊.一部比较诗学的新作[J].中国比较文学, 1989 (2) .
[60]狄兆俊.中英比较诗学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 1992.
[61]董玉整.试论真理符合论是一切真理论的基础[J].中山大学学报论丛, 2004
[62]方梦之.译学辞典[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2004.
[63]方文.学科制度和社会认同[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2008.
[64]方孝岳.中国文学批评[M].北京:三联书店, 1986.
[65]费晓平.翻译的政治[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2005.
[66]冯庆华.红译艺坛——《红楼梦》翻译艺术研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2006,
[67]佛克马,D.,蚁布思,E.文学研究与文化参与[M].俞国强.北京:北京大学出版社,1996.
[68]弗兰西斯·培根.培根论说文集[M] .何新译.北京:中国友谊出版公司, 2001.
[69]傅杰.王国维论学集[C].昆明:云南人民出版社,2008.
[70]傅瑾. 20世纪中国戏剧发展论纲(上)[J].学术界(2) 2000.: 123.
[71]傅仲选.实用翻译美学[M].上海:上海教育出版社. 1993.
[72]戈宝权.重读王尔德的戏剧作品.王尔德戏剧选[M].广州:花城出版社. 1983.
[73]葛校琴.翻译“神似”论的哲学—美学基础[J].中国翻译,1999.
[74]辜正坤.翻译标准多元互补论[J ].中国翻译, 1989 ,
[75]辜正坤.国际翻译学新探[A].天津:百花文艺出版社, 2006.
[76]辜正坤.术语翻译与学术问题[N].中华读书报, 1998-10-14.
[77]辜正坤.致切斯菲尔德伯爵书[J]中国翻译,2000,(3).
[78]辜正坤.中西诗比较鉴赏与翻译理论[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2003.
[79]郭建中.韦努蒂及其解构主义的翻译策略[J].中国翻译,2000,(1).
[80]郭延礼.中国近代翻译文学概论[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,1998.
[81]郭湛.生活离不开哲学的智慧[N].光明日报,1998-3-26.
[82]韩江洪.严复华语系统与近代中国文化转型[M].上海:上海译文出版社,2006.
[83]韩琳,周泉华.译林奇才许渊冲[J].今日中国(中文版),1998(9).
[84]贺麟.〈译名论集〉序,载张岂之,周祖达,译名论集[M].西安:西北大学出版社,1990.
[85]贺麟.论翻译,载翻译研究文集[A].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984,
[86]侯向群.翻译学的学科定位与逻辑起点--几种不同翻译观的比较研究[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2003.
[87]胡经之.中国古典美学丛编[M] .北京:中华书局,1988.
[88]黄龙.翻译学[M].南京:江苏教育出版社, 1988.
[89]黄龙.翻译艺术教程[M].南京:南京大学出版社,1988.
[90]黄维樑,曹顺庆编.中国比较文学学科理论的垦拓[M]北京:北京大学出版社,1998.
[91]黄药眠,童庆炳.中西比较诗学体系[M ].北京:人民文学出版社, 1991.
[92]计永佑.语言学趣谈[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1984.
[93]季广茂.意识形态视域中的现代话语转型与文学观念嬗变[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[94]姜秋霞.文学翻译中的审美过程:格式塔意象再造[M].北京:商务印书馆. 2002.
[95]蒋骁华.意识形态对翻译的影响:阐发与新思考[J].中国翻译2003 (24) .
[96]蒋骁华.解构主义翻译观探析[J].外语教学与研究, 1995.
[97]乐黛云.中西诗学对话的必要性与可能性[ J ].中国比较文学,1993 (1) .
[98]李德顺,孙伟平.道德价值论[M].昆明:云南人民出版社,2005.
[99]李晶.贯穿二十世纪中国翻译史的意识形态操控行为[C]//国际译联第四届亚洲翻译家论坛文集2005.
[100]李辉,杨宪益,戴乃迭.一同走过[M].郑州:大象出版社, 2001.
[101]李连科.世界的意义:价值论[M].人民出版社.1985.
[102]李泽厚.意境杂谈[A ].美学论集[ C ].上海:上海文艺出版社,1980.
[103]梁启超,论译书[A].翻译通讯编辑部.翻译研究论文集(1894-1948)[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984.
[104]梁真惠,陈卫国.严复译本“天演论”的变异现象———以功能翻译理论为视角的研究[J].北京第二外国语学院学报(外语版),2007,(6).
[105]梁宗岱.诗与真[A].梁宗岱选集[C].北京:中央编译出版社,2006.
[106]廖七一.当代西方翻译理论探索[M].南京:译林出版社, 2000.
[107]刘季春.扬起创造的风帆—许渊冲学术思想研究[J].山东外语教学,2003,(1).
[108]刘靖之.翻译论集[C].香港:三联出版社有限公司,1990.
[109]刘宓庆.当代翻译理论[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司, 1999.
[110]刘宓庆.翻译美学导论[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司. 1995,2005.
[111]刘宓庆.翻译与语言哲学[M].北京:中国対外翻译出版,2001.
[112]刘叔成,夏之放,楼昔勇.美学基本原理[M].上海:上海人民出版社, 2001.
[113]刘悦笛.美的真理观:“共识观”与“解释学”的统一[J].哲学动态. 2006(8).
[114]刘重德.翻译漫谈[M].西安:陕西人民出版社,1984.
[115]刘重德.文学翻译十讲[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1991.
[116]刘靖之编. 21世纪的翻译:香港的角色与作用.翻译新焦点[M].香港:商务印书馆. 2003.
[117]刘平.中国戏剧在现代化进程中的变化与发展[J].学术研究2007(3).
[118]卢玉玲.翻译的幽灵——评道格拉斯?罗宾逊的<谁在翻译——超越理性论译者的主体性>[J]中国翻译,2004(2).
[119]鲁迅.关于翻译:给瞿秋白的回信[A] .翻译通讯编辑部.翻译研究论文集(1894-1948)[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984.
[120]陆耀东编.清代诗学/中国诗学丛书[M ].长沙:湖南人民出版社,1996.
[121]吕俊,侯向群.英汉翻译教程[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2005.
[122]吕俊.对翻译批评标准的价值学思考[J].上海翻译, 2007
[123]吕俊.翻译标准的多元性与评价的客观性——价值学视域下翻译批评标准问题探讨[J].上海外国语大学学报,2007.
[124]吕俊.价值哲学与翻译批评学[J].外国语:上海外国语大学学报, 2006
[125]吕俊.跨越文化障碍——巴比塔的重建[M].南京:东南大学出版社,2001
[126]吕俊.论翻译研究的本体回归——对翻译研究“文化转向”的反思[J].上海外国语大学学报,2004.
[127]吕俊.谈翻译批评标准的体系[J].外语与外语教学,2007.
[128]吕俊.谈诗词翻译中的意美原则[J].上海外国语学院学报,1995.
[129]吕叔湘.中诗英译比录[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1980.
[130]罗贝尔·埃斯卡皮,王美华,于沛译.文学社会学[M].合肥:安徽文艺出版社,1987.
[131]罗新璋.翻译论集[M].北京:商务印书馆. 1984.
[132]马红军.翻译比较散论[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版社,2000.
[133]马建忠,拟设翻译书院[A] .翻译通讯编辑部.翻译研究论文集(1894-1948)[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 1984.
[134]马奇.中西美学思想比较研究[M ].北京:中国人民大学出版社, 1994.
[135]马新国.西方文学史[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2002.
[136]马祖毅.中国翻译史[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,1999.
[137]毛荣贵.翻译美学[M].上海:上海交通大学出版社,2005
[138]毛泽东.在延安文艺座谈会上的讲话?结论.毛泽东选集(第三卷)[M].北京:人民出版社. 1991
[139]沐泽.回望台湾话剧[J].台声2007. (7)
[140]诺瓦利斯. Auswah lausden Schriften (Selections from the Writings), 1956,德文版,P153,转引自赵鑫珊.科学、艺术、哲学断想[M].生活?读书?新知三联书店,1985.
[141]彭启良.翻译与比较[M].北京:商务印书馆,1980.
[142]钱之德译.王尔德戏剧选[M].广州:花城出版社. 1983.
[143]钱中文.对话的理论———误差、激活、融化与创新[ J ].中国社会科学院研究生院学报, 1993 (5) .
[144]钱钟书.管锥篇[M ].北京:生活·读书·新知三联出版社,2005.
[145]钱钟书.林纾的翻译[A]《,翻译通讯》编辑部编.翻译研究论文集(1949 - 1983) [ C] .北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 1979.
[146]钱钟书.谈艺录[M ].北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店, 2001.
[147]秦越存.对价值评价过程的阐释[J].哈尔滨学院学报,2002(7).
[148]秦越存.价值评价的本质[J].学术交流, 2002(2).
[149]沈苏儒.论信达雅———严复翻译理论研究[M].北京:商务印书馆,1998.
[150]孙会军.归化与异化:两个动态的概念[J].外语研究,2003.
[151]孙艺风.翻译研究与意识形态:拓展跨文化对话的空间[J].中国翻译,2003.
[152]孙艺风.视角阐释文化:文学翻译与翻译理论[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2004.
[153]谭容培.论审美价值与审美评价[J].湖南师范大学社会科学学报, 1994.
[154]谭容培.审美价值新论[J].湖南师范大学社会科学学报, 2001.
[155]谭载喜,西方翻译简史[M].北京:商务印书馆,2004.
[156]谭载喜.奈达论翻译[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1984.
[157]唐人.翻译是艺术,1950,载翻译研究论文集(1949- 1983)[A].北京:外语教学与研究出版社1984.
[158]田本相,宋宝珍.八十年代以来的香港话剧概观[J].剧本1997. (8)
[159]童世骏.论真理的认可问题[J].学术月刊,2000(2).
[160]王秉钦.中国翻译思想史[M].天津:南开大学出版社. 2003.
[161]王秉钦.20世纪中国翻译思想史[M].天津:南开大学出版社,2005
[162]王大来.从翻译的文化功能看翻译中文化缺省补偿的原则[J].外语研究,2004,(6).
[163]王东风.一双看不见的手———论意识形态对翻译实践的操纵[J].,2003,(5).
[164]王东风.文化缺省与翻译补偿[A].郭建中.文化与翻译[C].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司.1999.
[165]王东风.功能语言学与后解构主义时代的翻译研究[J].中国翻译, 2007.
[166]王东风.论翻译过程中的文化介入[J].中国翻译,1998.
[167]王东风.一只看不见的手——论意识形态对翻译实践的操纵[J].中国翻译2003.(5).
[168]王宏印.文学翻译批评论稿[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2006
[169]王宏印.中国传统译论经典诠释[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社.2003
[170]王宏志.重释“信、达、雅”——20世纪中国翻译研究[M].北京:清华大学出版社2007..
[171]王克菲.翻译文化史论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1997.
[172]王良铭.价值评价探析[J].东南大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2002(1).
[173]王宁.全球化时代的文化研究和翻译[J].中国翻译,2000(1).
[174]王树人.关于主体,主体性与主体间性的思考[J].上海师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2002.
[175]王文铃,年晓萍.《英汉习语翻译中美的丢落与补偿》[J]合肥工业大学学报(社会科学版),2004,(6).
[176]王晓元.意识形态与文学翻译的互动关系[J].中国翻译,1999.
[177]王一川.文学理论讲演录[M ].桂林:广西师范大学出版社,2004.
[178]王玉樑.价值哲学新探[M].西安:陕西人民教育出版社,1993.
[179]王元化.刘勰的譬喻说与歌德的意蕴说[A ].文心雕龙讲疏[M ].上海:上海古籍出版社, 1988.
[180]王岳川.二十世纪西方哲性诗学[M].北京:北京大学出版社, 1999.
[181]王佐良.论新开端[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1991.
[182]王佐良.谈读书[A].杨平编.名作精译[C].青岛:青岛出版社, 1998.
[183]王佐良.翻译:思考与试笔[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1989.
[184]王佐良.王佐良文集[M].北京:外语教育与研究出版社.1997
[185]王佐良.严复的用心[A] .翻译通讯编辑部.翻译研究论文集(1894-1948)[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984.
[186]王佐良.严复的用心———论严复与严译名著[M].北京:商务印书馆,1982.
[187]温秀颖.翻译批评——从理论到实践[M].天津:南开大学出版社,2007.
[188]文军.中国翻译批评百年回眸[M].北京:北京航空航天大学出版社,2006.
[189]吴南松.翻译:寻求文化的共生与融合——也谈翻译中对原文差异性的保持问题[J].中国翻译, 2003.
[190]吴义诚.模糊:文学翻译研究的一种取向[J].外国语,1996,(5).
[191]奚永吉.文学翻译比较美学[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社. 2002.
[192]夏廷德.翻译补偿研究[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社.2006.
[193]谢天振.翻译研究新视野[M].青岛:青岛出版社,2003.
[194]谢天振.译介学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999.
[195]谢天振.多元系统理论:翻译研究领域的拓展[J].外国语2003. (4)
[196]徐通锵.基础语言学教程[M] .北京:北京大学出版社,2001.
[197]许均.译者的追求与读者的审美期待及其它[J].解放军外语学院学报,1996,(5).
[198]许钧.翻译论[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社, 2003.
[199]许钧.文学翻译批评研究[M].南京:译林出版社, 1992
[200]许渊冲.翻译的艺术[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1984.
[201]许渊冲.文学与翻译[M].北京大学出版社,2003.
[202]严复.天演论[A].王栻.严复集(第五卷)[C].北京:中华书局,1986.
[203]杨春时.美学[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2004.
[204]杨鸿烈.中国诗学大纲[M].上海:商务印书馆, 1928.
[205]杨柳.论原作之原型[J].中国翻译,2001,(2).
[206]杨乃乔.比较文学概论[M ].北京:北京大学出版社, 2006.
[207]杨晓荣.翻译批评标准的传统思路和现代视野[J].中国翻译, 2001(6).
[208]杨晓荣.翻译批评导论[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司, 2005.
[209]杨筱.认同与国际关系:一种文化理论[D],博士学位论文,中国社科院,2000.
[210]杨辛,甘霖.美学原理新编[M] .北京:北京大学出版社, 1996.
[211]杨正典.严复评传[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1997.
[212]叶维廉.比较诗学[M].台北:台湾东大图书公司,1983.
[213]叶维廉.共同规律——叶维廉比较论文选[C].北京:北京大学出版社, 1986.
[214]余光中.戏剧的翻译:以《不可儿戏》为例[C]// Translation and Interpreting: Bridging East and West. Selected Conference Papers. College of Languages, Linguistics and Literature University of Hawaii and East-West Center1994.
[215]余光中.一跤绊到逻辑外——谈王尔德的《不可儿戏》.理想丈夫与不可儿戏——王尔德的两出喜剧[M].沈阳:辽宁教育出版社. 1998.
[216]余光中.与王尔德拔河记——《不可儿戏》译后.理想丈夫与不可儿戏——王尔德的两出喜剧[M].沈阳:辽宁教育出版社. 1998.
[217]俞真.翻译的动态标准[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2000.
[218]袁锦翔.寻找译品中的真善美.转引自杨自检,刘学云.翻译新论[C].武汉:湖北教育出版社,1994.
[219]张保红.文学翻译的多角度及其美学效果[J].外语与外语教学,2001.
[220]张春兴.青年的认同与过失[M].台北:台湾东华书局,世界图书出版社,1993.
[221]张法.中西美学与文化精神[M].北京:北京大学出版社, 1994.
[222]张经浩,陈可培.名家名论名译[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2005.
[223]张隆溪.道与逻各斯:东西方的文学阐释学[M ].南京:江苏教育出版社, 2006.
[224]张隆溪.钱钟书谈比较文学和“文学比较”[J].读书, 1981(10) .
[225]张南峰.中西译学批评[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2004.
[226]张乔.模糊语言学论集[M].大连:大连出版社,1998.
[227]张思洁,张柏然.形合与意合的哲学思维反思[J].中国翻译,2001.
[228]赵鑫珊.科学、艺术、哲学断想.[M].生活?读书?新知三联书店,1985
[229]赵秀明.中国翻译美学初探[J].福建外语,1998.
[230]赵彦春.翻译学归结论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2005.
[231]赵彦春.语言模糊性与翻译的模糊对等[J].天津外国语学院学报,2001,(4).
[232]赵彦春.语言学的哲学批判[M].重庆:重庆出版社,2004.
[233]郑板桥.题画[A].叶朗著.中国美学史大纲[M].上海:上海人民出版社, 1985.
[234]郑海凌,辜正坤.文学翻译学基本范畴新论.国际翻译学新探[M].天津:百花文艺出版社, 2006
[235]郑海凌.翻译标准新说:和谐说[J].中国翻译,1999,(4)
[236]郑海凌.解读“优势竞赛论”[J].外语与外语教学,2002(8).
[237]郑海凌.文学翻译学[M].北京:文心出版社, 2000,P379.
[238]郑奕,郑应杰.论美学研究的三个面向[M].学术交流,2004.
[239]周来祥.东方与西方古典美学理论的比较[J].江汉论坛, 1981(2) .
[240]周仪,罗平.翻译与批评[M]武汉:湖北教育出版社,1999,P146.
[241]朱光潜.诗论[M].桂林:广西师范大学出版社, 2005.
[242]朱徽.中英比较诗艺[M ].成都:四川大学出版社, 1996.
[243]朱立元.美学[M].北京:高等教育出版社, 2001.
[244]宗白华.美学散步[M].合肥:安徽教育出版社, 1981.
[245] (美)阿恩海姆.艺术与视知觉.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1985.
[246]鲁枢元.文艺心理阐释.上海:上海文艺出版社,1989
[247]阿恩海姆.视觉思维—审美直觉心理学.北京:光明日报出版社,1986.
[248]王夫之.姜斋诗话。
[249]韦特默,格式塔理论.现代心理学史.北京:人民教育出版社,1981.
[250] (美)阿恩海姆.艺术与视知觉.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1985
[251]周宪.中国当代审美文化研究.北京:北京大学出版社,1997.
[252]童庆炳.中国古代心理诗学与美学.北京:中华书局,1990汉英对照《唐诗一百首》,中国对外翻译出版公司,商务印书馆香港有限公司,《唐诗二百首英译》,北京语言学院出版社,1990-2010外语类期刊:《中国翻译》、《中国科技翻译》,《外国语》,《外语教学与研究》,《外语学刊》,《外语与外语教学》,《外语研究》,《外语教学》,《解放军外国语学院学报》,《四川外语学院学报》,《天津外语学院学报》,《山东外语教学》,《外语与翻译》等学报。