布尔迪厄社会学视角下的译者葛浩文翻译惯习研究
摘要
随着翻译学研究的文化转向,译者在翻译活动中所采取的策略和发挥的作用受到愈来愈多的关注,同时译者在翻译史上的隐身也得到了反思。在中国现当代小说六十多年的英译进程中,美国译者葛浩文翻译中国现当代小说近五十部,其中还成功地推介了莫言系列小说。尽管近年来研究译者葛浩文的论文日渐增多,但相关研究尚比较重复零散、缺乏深入,通过文献综述可以发现存在以下问题：
第一,从译者研究整体方面看,尚存在术语交叉和缺乏历时研究的现象。译者的主体性、译者行为及译者作用三个概念均交叉涉及了译者的主观性和译者的社会性,但对译者主观性和社会性关系方面尚缺乏历时研究和论述。译者葛浩文研究也存在类似问题。第二,对译者葛浩文的研究多集中于其翻译思想、某部译作的语言特色和译者在诗学、意识形态、赞助人的操纵下对译作的改写方面。对译者的译本选择、翻译思想的形成、不同时期译作特色的变化、在实际翻译活动中影响译者的因素分析尚不具体。第三,对译者在翻译活动中对原作者和译作的积极推动性方面研究尚不足。另外,译者个人在整个中国当代小说译介的进程中所起的作用尚未得到明确考量。
基于以上问题,本研究首先引入布尔迪厄社会学场域和惯习的理论工具,突出两者的历时性和互动关系,将场域界定为中国当代小说英译,葛浩文的翻译惯习则体现为译本选择、译者思想和翻译风格。其次,根据场域内主导力量的变化,把译者翻译活动分为三个时期,并采用译者问卷调查和多部译著对比研究的方式,对葛浩文的译本选择标准、翻译特色及翻译思想进行分析。再次,通过数据统计和文献梳理的方法,分析三个时期研究翻译场域内主导力量的变化,以及翻译过程和传播过程中合译者、编辑、原作者、读者和评论家对译者的影响。最后,通过分析译者在译本选择上的自主性和对莫言小说英译的推广,探索译者独特的翻译惯习对中国当代小说英译场域的可能影响。
通过以上分析,本文得出的研究结论主要包括以下几个方面：
第一,译者葛浩文翻译惯习方面。译者的家庭背景、战争经历和学术生涯促使译者偏好严肃文学作品。在1976-1990年,译者是基于学术兴趣和政治因素进行译本选择,1991-2000年则基于文学偏好和市场因素,而2001-2010年市场影响要多于其文学偏好。另外,通过对三个时期翻译特色的分析发现,1990年前译者非常忠实原著,1990年之后译者对原著的改写明显增多,但对文化特色词的异化还是多于归化。除此之外,译者对原著节奏、景色描写和生动语言的再现始终是吸引读者的重要方面。同时,译者的翻译观可以归纳为：读者原则、目的语原则和改写原则。
第二,翻译场域对葛浩文翻译惯习的影响。中国当代小说翻译场域中的主导力量经历了由1976年前的中国政府主导,1978-1990年的半中国官方主导,到1991年后的国外商业出版社主导的变化。可以看出,主导力量的变化直接影响了译者的译本选择和翻译策略的形成。场域中的文学代理人对葛浩文获得译本、争取翻译酬金、提高声望起着推动作用。在翻译过程中合译者林丽君的影响,使葛浩文减少了一些不必要的文化特色词异化。原作者通过对译者授权的不同,也会影响译者在翻译过程中翻译策略的选择。从读者评论看,国外读者对译作中的大部分改写持赞同态度。国外学术领域的评论家倾向于对葛浩文译著和原作者持赞扬态度,而国外主流媒体的评论家倾向于持批评态度。另外,其它语种的译介、电影媒体及文学思潮也会对译本选择产生影响。
第三,译者翻译惯习对场域的可能影响。译者根据自己的学术兴趣、文学偏好选择译本,促进了中国当代严肃小说的译介。由于译者在翻译过程和翻译特色方面具有相对的独立性,葛浩文对莫言小说《红高粱》采取易化策略,渲染《天堂蒜薹之歌》的政治讽刺力度,高度忠实《酒国》的文体风格,突出《丰乳肥臀》小说的叙事线索,重视《生死疲劳》的艺术创新,最后运用自己在文学领域的影响提名莫言为诺贝尔文学奖候选人,这一系列活动最终扩大了莫言的国际影响,促进了莫言小说经典化的进程。同时,莫言获奖必将对整个中国当代小说英译的场域带来一定的积极影响。
第四,研究发现葛浩文和莫言在文学场域内的象征资本不断彼此强化,莫言的红高粱建立了葛浩文在翻译界的声望,葛浩文在文学和翻译界的地位反过来也加强了莫言的国际文学声望。另外,在全球文化传播语境下,由于国外出版商的经济利益建立在译作畅销的基础上,因此客观上促进了译本的传播和文学声望的建立,使更多中国当代小说走进世界读者的视野。
以上研究验证了惯习和场域理论对于译者研究的适用性。译者翻译惯习的形成和场域密不可分,同时场域也由于新的惯习的参与,而不断变化。场域和惯习在内化与外化,结构与被结构的关系中确立了译者翻译活动的历时性。其次,虽然中国当代小说在美国文学体系中处于非常边缘的地位,但在葛浩文的个案研究中,出现了译者、原作者、赞助人声望互相提升的现象,反思了操纵理论中目的语意识形态、诗学、赞助人对翻译文学绝对控制的观点。另外,本研究比较系统客观地描述了葛浩文三十多年的翻译活动、翻译思想、译本选择和不同时期译作的翻译特色,可作为译者翻译史料研究的一部分。当然,本研究在归纳译本特色的历时变化方面还存在欠缺,该理论对其它译者研究的有效性还需在今后研究中继续验证。此研究仅为社会学和译者研究相结合的初步尝试,希望其适用性和不足可以为类似研究提供一点借鉴。
With the cultural turn in translation studies, the strategies adopted and roles played by a translator in the translation activities have been attracting more theoretical concern. Meanwhile, a translator's invisibility in the history of translation began to be reflected upon. Throughout the sixty years' translation of Chinese contemporary novels, the American translator, Howard Goldblatt has rendered nearly fifty Chinese modern and contemporary novels into English, amidst which Mo Yan's series are promoted successfully. Although studies on Howard Goldblatt have increased in recent years, most of them are sporadic rather than systematic and in-depth. Literature review of the related studies shows the following deficiencies:
In the first place, some terms are still confusing and there is a lack of diachronic dimension in the studies of translators on the whole. The three terms, namely, a translator's subjectivity, behavior and role, are overlapping in a translator's subjectivity and social functions. The diachronic study of interaction between one's subjectivity and the objective social field is sorely lacking. It poses a problem in the study of Howard Goldblatt as well. In the second place, the studies on Howard Godlblatt center more on his translation thoughts, linguistic features of certain novels, and the rewritings that he made under the manipulation of poetics, ideology and patronage. The less researched areas are the translator's choice of novels, translation thoughts, changing features of translation over different periods, and the influence he received from other agents. Lastly, Howard Goldblatt's active part taken in the translation activities to promote the original authors and novels has been less highlighted, and his role is seldom reflected on in the progression of the Chinese contemporary novels translation.
In view of the above problems, this study first introduces Bourdieusian sociological tools of field and habitus, indicating the diachronic and interactive relations. Then it delimits the field as the translation of Chinese contemporary novels, and the translator's habitus as the choice of texts, translation features and thoughts. Next, it divides Howard Goldblatt's career into three stages according to the changing dominant sponsors. The questionnaire survey on Howard Goldblatt and the comparison of sample novels have been carried on to solicit his choice of novels, translation features and thoughts. Then the data is calculated and literature raked to find the changes of dominating sponsors in the three periods and the influence of co-translators, editors, authors, readers, and critics exerting on the translator in the translation and transmission of the novels. Finally, by analyzing the autonomy he enjoys in choosing novels and the efforts he has made to promote Mo Yan's novels, it identifies Howard Goldblatt's possible influence on the field of translation of Chinese contemporary novels.
From the above analysis, the following findings have been gained:
Firstly, Howard Goldblatt's translation habitus is thoroughly investigated. His family, war experience and academic career nurtured his inclination for serious literature. His choice of novels to translate was based on his academic interest and political factors from1976to1990, on literary preference as equally as market influence from1991to2000, and more on market consideration than literary preference from2000to2010. In addition, after the comparison of characteristics in the three periods, it is found that he was very faithful to the original before1990, while made more changes to the original after1990. Nevertheless, the foreignization of cultural elements overrode the domestication. His recreation of the original novels' rhythms, scenic descriptions and lively language in translation remains magnetic to readers throughout the three periods. Meanwhile, Howard Goldblatt has adopted reader principle, target language principle and rewriting strategy.
Secondly, the field's influence on Howard Goldblatt's translation habitus has been identified. The dominating sponsors in the translation of Chinese contemporary novels have changed from the Chinese government before1976, the Chinese semi-official publishers from1978to1990, to the foreign commercial presses since1991. These changes directly influenced the formation of Howard Goldblatt's habitual choice of novels and translation strategies. Besides, Howard Goldblatt literary agent Sandy Dijkstra helped him secure certain novels, increase his royalties and promote his reputation. Moreover, in the translation process, his co-translator Sylvia Lin reduced some foreignization of Chinese cultural words. The authors affected the translator in the freedom of choosing translation strategies. In the receiving end, the common readers welcomed the changes in the translation. The literary critics in foreign academic circle tended to applaud and mainstream foreign critics tended to be critical about Howard Goldblatt's translation and the Chinese authors. Likewise, the translation of the same novels in other languages, the media of film, and literary trend had effect on the choice of novels to be translated.
Thirdly, the translator's translation habitus has possibly affected the field. Howard Goldblatt selected novels according to his own academic interest and literary preference, which accelerated the translation of Chinese contemporary serious novels. As a translator who enjoys relative freedom in the actual translation process and shows his own idiosyncrasies, Howard Goldblatt has adopted a series of effort to expand Mo Yan's global reach, such as the simplification of Red Sorghum, the strengthening of critical power in The Garlic Ballads, keeping high fidelity to the style of The Republic of Wine, the clarifying the storyline in Big Breast and Wide Hips, and eulogizing the artistic creation of Life and Death are Wearing me Out. With his influence in literature, he went further to nominate Mo Yan as the candidate for Nobel Prize for literature. These efforts contributed to the fact that Mo Yan won the Nobel Prize for literature and accelerated the canonization of Mo Yan's novels, which may in turn bring positive implication to the field of contemporary novels translation.
Fourthly, this study finds that the symbolic capital of Howard Goldblatt and Mo Yan has been constantly building each other up in the literary field. The popularity of Mo Yan's Red Sorghum laid the foundation for Goldblatt's translated version to be successful, and Howard Goldblatt's reputation in literary and translation field in turn lifted the fame of Mo Yan. Furthermore, in a global context, due to the fact that the profit of the publishers is generated from the sales of the translated novels, the publishers have actually brought more Chinese contemporary novels into the horizon of English readers worldwide.
These findings prove the use of conceptual tools of habitus and field is productive in translator studies. The formation of a translator's habitus has been found to be closely related to the given field, which has been ever changing by the participation of newcomers with different habituses. Translation activities remain diachronic and changing because of the internalization and externalization, structuring and structured relationship of field and habitus. Additionally, this study has carried out a relatively systematic and objective analysis of Howard Goldblatt's translation activities, thoughts and features spanning over thirty years. Moreover, although the translated Chinese literature occupies a rather peripheral position in the target literary system, the case study of Howard Goldblatt shows the translator, authors and sponsors are enhancing one another's fame reciprocally, which falsifies the idea that the translated literature is under the strict control of ideology, poetic and patronage in target literature system suggested by manipulation school. In addition, the findings of this study can be counted as a literature on studies of Howard Goldblatt. However, this research shows some limitations, for example, in generalizing Howard Goldbatt's changing translation features across years. Besides, the theory's suitability still needs more verification from the studies on other translators.
To conclude, the present study is a tentative attempt to incorporate sociology into translator study, and hence it is hoped that the strength and weakness of this dissertation can be taken as a reference for future studies in this domain.
第一,从译者研究整体方面看,尚存在术语交叉和缺乏历时研究的现象。译者的主体性、译者行为及译者作用三个概念均交叉涉及了译者的主观性和译者的社会性,但对译者主观性和社会性关系方面尚缺乏历时研究和论述。译者葛浩文研究也存在类似问题。第二,对译者葛浩文的研究多集中于其翻译思想、某部译作的语言特色和译者在诗学、意识形态、赞助人的操纵下对译作的改写方面。对译者的译本选择、翻译思想的形成、不同时期译作特色的变化、在实际翻译活动中影响译者的因素分析尚不具体。第三,对译者在翻译活动中对原作者和译作的积极推动性方面研究尚不足。另外,译者个人在整个中国当代小说译介的进程中所起的作用尚未得到明确考量。
基于以上问题,本研究首先引入布尔迪厄社会学场域和惯习的理论工具,突出两者的历时性和互动关系,将场域界定为中国当代小说英译,葛浩文的翻译惯习则体现为译本选择、译者思想和翻译风格。其次,根据场域内主导力量的变化,把译者翻译活动分为三个时期,并采用译者问卷调查和多部译著对比研究的方式,对葛浩文的译本选择标准、翻译特色及翻译思想进行分析。再次,通过数据统计和文献梳理的方法,分析三个时期研究翻译场域内主导力量的变化,以及翻译过程和传播过程中合译者、编辑、原作者、读者和评论家对译者的影响。最后,通过分析译者在译本选择上的自主性和对莫言小说英译的推广,探索译者独特的翻译惯习对中国当代小说英译场域的可能影响。
通过以上分析,本文得出的研究结论主要包括以下几个方面：
第一,译者葛浩文翻译惯习方面。译者的家庭背景、战争经历和学术生涯促使译者偏好严肃文学作品。在1976-1990年,译者是基于学术兴趣和政治因素进行译本选择,1991-2000年则基于文学偏好和市场因素,而2001-2010年市场影响要多于其文学偏好。另外,通过对三个时期翻译特色的分析发现,1990年前译者非常忠实原著,1990年之后译者对原著的改写明显增多,但对文化特色词的异化还是多于归化。除此之外,译者对原著节奏、景色描写和生动语言的再现始终是吸引读者的重要方面。同时,译者的翻译观可以归纳为：读者原则、目的语原则和改写原则。
第二,翻译场域对葛浩文翻译惯习的影响。中国当代小说翻译场域中的主导力量经历了由1976年前的中国政府主导,1978-1990年的半中国官方主导,到1991年后的国外商业出版社主导的变化。可以看出,主导力量的变化直接影响了译者的译本选择和翻译策略的形成。场域中的文学代理人对葛浩文获得译本、争取翻译酬金、提高声望起着推动作用。在翻译过程中合译者林丽君的影响,使葛浩文减少了一些不必要的文化特色词异化。原作者通过对译者授权的不同,也会影响译者在翻译过程中翻译策略的选择。从读者评论看,国外读者对译作中的大部分改写持赞同态度。国外学术领域的评论家倾向于对葛浩文译著和原作者持赞扬态度,而国外主流媒体的评论家倾向于持批评态度。另外,其它语种的译介、电影媒体及文学思潮也会对译本选择产生影响。
第三,译者翻译惯习对场域的可能影响。译者根据自己的学术兴趣、文学偏好选择译本,促进了中国当代严肃小说的译介。由于译者在翻译过程和翻译特色方面具有相对的独立性,葛浩文对莫言小说《红高粱》采取易化策略,渲染《天堂蒜薹之歌》的政治讽刺力度,高度忠实《酒国》的文体风格,突出《丰乳肥臀》小说的叙事线索,重视《生死疲劳》的艺术创新,最后运用自己在文学领域的影响提名莫言为诺贝尔文学奖候选人,这一系列活动最终扩大了莫言的国际影响,促进了莫言小说经典化的进程。同时,莫言获奖必将对整个中国当代小说英译的场域带来一定的积极影响。
第四,研究发现葛浩文和莫言在文学场域内的象征资本不断彼此强化,莫言的红高粱建立了葛浩文在翻译界的声望,葛浩文在文学和翻译界的地位反过来也加强了莫言的国际文学声望。另外,在全球文化传播语境下,由于国外出版商的经济利益建立在译作畅销的基础上,因此客观上促进了译本的传播和文学声望的建立,使更多中国当代小说走进世界读者的视野。
以上研究验证了惯习和场域理论对于译者研究的适用性。译者翻译惯习的形成和场域密不可分,同时场域也由于新的惯习的参与,而不断变化。场域和惯习在内化与外化,结构与被结构的关系中确立了译者翻译活动的历时性。其次,虽然中国当代小说在美国文学体系中处于非常边缘的地位,但在葛浩文的个案研究中,出现了译者、原作者、赞助人声望互相提升的现象,反思了操纵理论中目的语意识形态、诗学、赞助人对翻译文学绝对控制的观点。另外,本研究比较系统客观地描述了葛浩文三十多年的翻译活动、翻译思想、译本选择和不同时期译作的翻译特色,可作为译者翻译史料研究的一部分。当然,本研究在归纳译本特色的历时变化方面还存在欠缺,该理论对其它译者研究的有效性还需在今后研究中继续验证。此研究仅为社会学和译者研究相结合的初步尝试,希望其适用性和不足可以为类似研究提供一点借鉴。
With the cultural turn in translation studies, the strategies adopted and roles played by a translator in the translation activities have been attracting more theoretical concern. Meanwhile, a translator's invisibility in the history of translation began to be reflected upon. Throughout the sixty years' translation of Chinese contemporary novels, the American translator, Howard Goldblatt has rendered nearly fifty Chinese modern and contemporary novels into English, amidst which Mo Yan's series are promoted successfully. Although studies on Howard Goldblatt have increased in recent years, most of them are sporadic rather than systematic and in-depth. Literature review of the related studies shows the following deficiencies:
In the first place, some terms are still confusing and there is a lack of diachronic dimension in the studies of translators on the whole. The three terms, namely, a translator's subjectivity, behavior and role, are overlapping in a translator's subjectivity and social functions. The diachronic study of interaction between one's subjectivity and the objective social field is sorely lacking. It poses a problem in the study of Howard Goldblatt as well. In the second place, the studies on Howard Godlblatt center more on his translation thoughts, linguistic features of certain novels, and the rewritings that he made under the manipulation of poetics, ideology and patronage. The less researched areas are the translator's choice of novels, translation thoughts, changing features of translation over different periods, and the influence he received from other agents. Lastly, Howard Goldblatt's active part taken in the translation activities to promote the original authors and novels has been less highlighted, and his role is seldom reflected on in the progression of the Chinese contemporary novels translation.
In view of the above problems, this study first introduces Bourdieusian sociological tools of field and habitus, indicating the diachronic and interactive relations. Then it delimits the field as the translation of Chinese contemporary novels, and the translator's habitus as the choice of texts, translation features and thoughts. Next, it divides Howard Goldblatt's career into three stages according to the changing dominant sponsors. The questionnaire survey on Howard Goldblatt and the comparison of sample novels have been carried on to solicit his choice of novels, translation features and thoughts. Then the data is calculated and literature raked to find the changes of dominating sponsors in the three periods and the influence of co-translators, editors, authors, readers, and critics exerting on the translator in the translation and transmission of the novels. Finally, by analyzing the autonomy he enjoys in choosing novels and the efforts he has made to promote Mo Yan's novels, it identifies Howard Goldblatt's possible influence on the field of translation of Chinese contemporary novels.
From the above analysis, the following findings have been gained:
Firstly, Howard Goldblatt's translation habitus is thoroughly investigated. His family, war experience and academic career nurtured his inclination for serious literature. His choice of novels to translate was based on his academic interest and political factors from1976to1990, on literary preference as equally as market influence from1991to2000, and more on market consideration than literary preference from2000to2010. In addition, after the comparison of characteristics in the three periods, it is found that he was very faithful to the original before1990, while made more changes to the original after1990. Nevertheless, the foreignization of cultural elements overrode the domestication. His recreation of the original novels' rhythms, scenic descriptions and lively language in translation remains magnetic to readers throughout the three periods. Meanwhile, Howard Goldblatt has adopted reader principle, target language principle and rewriting strategy.
Secondly, the field's influence on Howard Goldblatt's translation habitus has been identified. The dominating sponsors in the translation of Chinese contemporary novels have changed from the Chinese government before1976, the Chinese semi-official publishers from1978to1990, to the foreign commercial presses since1991. These changes directly influenced the formation of Howard Goldblatt's habitual choice of novels and translation strategies. Besides, Howard Goldblatt literary agent Sandy Dijkstra helped him secure certain novels, increase his royalties and promote his reputation. Moreover, in the translation process, his co-translator Sylvia Lin reduced some foreignization of Chinese cultural words. The authors affected the translator in the freedom of choosing translation strategies. In the receiving end, the common readers welcomed the changes in the translation. The literary critics in foreign academic circle tended to applaud and mainstream foreign critics tended to be critical about Howard Goldblatt's translation and the Chinese authors. Likewise, the translation of the same novels in other languages, the media of film, and literary trend had effect on the choice of novels to be translated.
Thirdly, the translator's translation habitus has possibly affected the field. Howard Goldblatt selected novels according to his own academic interest and literary preference, which accelerated the translation of Chinese contemporary serious novels. As a translator who enjoys relative freedom in the actual translation process and shows his own idiosyncrasies, Howard Goldblatt has adopted a series of effort to expand Mo Yan's global reach, such as the simplification of Red Sorghum, the strengthening of critical power in The Garlic Ballads, keeping high fidelity to the style of The Republic of Wine, the clarifying the storyline in Big Breast and Wide Hips, and eulogizing the artistic creation of Life and Death are Wearing me Out. With his influence in literature, he went further to nominate Mo Yan as the candidate for Nobel Prize for literature. These efforts contributed to the fact that Mo Yan won the Nobel Prize for literature and accelerated the canonization of Mo Yan's novels, which may in turn bring positive implication to the field of contemporary novels translation.
Fourthly, this study finds that the symbolic capital of Howard Goldblatt and Mo Yan has been constantly building each other up in the literary field. The popularity of Mo Yan's Red Sorghum laid the foundation for Goldblatt's translated version to be successful, and Howard Goldblatt's reputation in literary and translation field in turn lifted the fame of Mo Yan. Furthermore, in a global context, due to the fact that the profit of the publishers is generated from the sales of the translated novels, the publishers have actually brought more Chinese contemporary novels into the horizon of English readers worldwide.
These findings prove the use of conceptual tools of habitus and field is productive in translator studies. The formation of a translator's habitus has been found to be closely related to the given field, which has been ever changing by the participation of newcomers with different habituses. Translation activities remain diachronic and changing because of the internalization and externalization, structuring and structured relationship of field and habitus. Additionally, this study has carried out a relatively systematic and objective analysis of Howard Goldblatt's translation activities, thoughts and features spanning over thirty years. Moreover, although the translated Chinese literature occupies a rather peripheral position in the target literary system, the case study of Howard Goldblatt shows the translator, authors and sponsors are enhancing one another's fame reciprocally, which falsifies the idea that the translated literature is under the strict control of ideology, poetic and patronage in target literature system suggested by manipulation school. In addition, the findings of this study can be counted as a literature on studies of Howard Goldblatt. However, this research shows some limitations, for example, in generalizing Howard Goldbatt's changing translation features across years. Besides, the theory's suitability still needs more verification from the studies on other translators.
To conclude, the present study is a tentative attempt to incorporate sociology into translator study, and hence it is hoped that the strength and weakness of this dissertation can be taken as a reference for future studies in this domain.
引文
Baker, M. The Role of Corpora in Investigating the Linguistic Behaviour of Professional Translators[J]. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics,1999 (2):281-298.
——. Toward a Methodology for Investigating the Style of a Literary Translator [J]. Target,2000 (12):241-266.
Bassnett S, Andre L. Translation, History and Culture:A Sourcebook [C]. London:Cassell, 1990.
——. Constructing Cultures:Essays on Literary Translation [C]. Clevedon/Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters Ltd.,1998.
Benjamin, Walter. The Task of the Translator [M]. Illuminations,1968.
Bourdieu, P. Language and Symbolic Power [M]. Trans. Gino Raymond and Matthew Admson. Cambridge, Mass:Harvard University Press,1991.
——. The Field of Cultural Production, or:The Economic World Reversed [J]. Poetics 1983,12(4):311-356.
——. The Forms of Capital [A]. In J. Richardson (Ed.). Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education [C]. New York:Greenwood,1986:241-258.
——. The Rules of Art:Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field [M]. Chicago: Stanford University Press,1996.
——. The Struggle for Symbolic Order[J]. Theory, Culture and Society,1986 (3): 35-51.
——. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology [M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1992.
Delisle, Jean & Judith Woodsworth (Eds). Translators through History [M]. Philadelphia: John Benjamins,1995.
Gouanvic, J. A. Bourdieusian Theory of Translation, or the Coincidence of Practical Instances:Field, Habitus, Capital and Illusio[J]. The Translator,2005, (11):147.
Guillory, John, Cultural Capital:The Problem of Literary Canon Formation [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1993.
Hanna, S. Hamlet Lives Happily Ever After in Arabic:The Genesis of the Field of Drama Translation in Egypt [J]. The Translator,2005, (2):167-192.
Heilbron, J. Towards a Sociology of Translation:Translations as a Cultural World-System [M]. European Journal of Social Theory.1999,2 (4):429-444.
Helene B. Bourdieusian Analyses in Translation Studies[J]. The Translator,2005, (2):193-218.
Hermans, T. Crosscultural Transgressions:Research Models in Translation Studies-Historical and Ideological Issues [C]. Manchester:St. Jerome,2002:93-102.
——. Translation in Systems:Descriptive and System-oriented Approaches Explained [M]. Manchester:St. Jerome Publishing,1999.
Hockx, M. (Ed) The Literary Field of Twentieth-Century China [M]. Honolulu:University of Hawaii Press,1999:9.
Holmes, J.S. The Name and Nature of Translation Studies[A]. in Hohnes, James S. Translated Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies [C],1988. Amsterdam-Atlanta:Rodopi,1988/1972:67-80.
Inghilleri, M. Habitus, Field and Discourse:Interpreting as a Socially Situated Activity [J].Target,2003:(2):243-268.
——. The Sociology of Bourdieu and the Construction of the "Object" in Translation and Interpreting Studies [J]. The Translator,2005 (2):125-145.
——. Habitus, Field and Discourse:Interpreting as a Socially Situated Activity [J]. Target,2003,15 (2):243-268.
Jensen L.M.& Weston T. B. China's Transformations:The Stories beyond the Headlines [M], Rowman & Littlefield Pub Incorporated,2007.
Kinkley, J. C. A Bibliographic Survey of Publications on Chinese Literature in Translation [sic] from 1949 to 1999. In Chinese Literature in the Second Half of a Modern Century:A Critical Survey [M]. Pang-yuan Chi and David Der-wei Wang, eds. Bloomington:Indiana UP,2000:239-86.
Lefevere, A. Translation Practice(s) and the Circulation of Cultural Capital:Some Aeneids in English [A]. In Constructing Cultures. Essays on Literary Translation, S. Bassnett and A. Lefevere [C]. Clevedon and Philadelphia etc.:Multilingual Matters,1998: 41-56.
——. Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame [M] Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2004.
Leo, O. Contemporary Chinese Literature in Translation-A Review Article [J]. The Journal of Asian Studies,1985,144(3):561-567.
Lingenfelter A. Howard Goldblatt on How the Navy Saved His Life and Why Literary Translation Matters [J]. Full Tilt,2007 (2).
Luhmann, N. Social Systems (trans. John Bednarz, Jr. with Dirk Baecker) [M]. Standford: Stanford University Press,1995.
Malikail, J. Moral Character:Hexis, Habitus and Habit [J]. An Internet Journal of Philosophy,2003 (7):1-22.
Mauss, M. Les techniques du corps [J]. Journal de psychologie,1936 (32):365-86.
Munday, J. Introducing Translation Studies:Theories and Applications [M], Taylor & Francis,2001.
Newmark, P. Paragraphs on Translation [M]. Clevedon & Philadelphia, etc.:Multilingual Matters,1993.
Parks, G. Towards a Sociology of Translation [J]. Rivista internazionale di tecnica della traduzione. International Journal of Translation,1998 (3):25-35.
Pym, A. Sociocultural Aspects of Translating and Interpreting [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamin Publishing Company,2006.
——. Method in Translation History [M]. Manchester:St. Jerome,1998.
Sheffy, R. Models and Habitues:Problems in the Idea of Cultural Repertoires [J]. Canadian Review of Comparative Literature,1997 (1):35-47.
——. How to be a (Recognized) Translator:Rethinking Habitus, Norms, and the Field of Translation [J]. Target,2005 (1):1-26.
Shuttleworth, M.& Cowie, M. Dictionary of Translation Studies [M]. Manchester:St. Jerome,1997.
Simeoni, D. Translating and Studying Translation:The View from the Agent [J]. Meta, 1995 (3):446-460.
——. The Pivotal Status of the Translator's Habitus[J]. Target,1998,10 (1):1-39.
Tymoczko, M. Connecting the Two Infinite Orders:Research Methods in Translation Studies[A]. In Hermans, T, Crosscultural Transgressions:Research Models in Translation Studies II [C]. Manchester:St Jerome,2002:9-25.
Van R K & Jeroen V. Event History Analysis of Authors' Reputation:Effects of Critics Attention on Debutante'Careers [J]. Poetics,1996 (23):317-33
Venuti, L. The Translator's Invisibility:A History of Translation [M]. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2004.
Venuti, L. (Eds). Rethinking Translation:Discourse, Subjectivity, Ideology [C]. London and New York:Routledge,1992.
WANG, Y. Narrating China:Jia Pingwa and his Fictional World [M], London and New York:Routledge,2005.
Wilss, W. Knowledge and Skills in Translator Behavior [M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company,1996.
Wolf, M.& Alexandra, F. Constructing a Sociology of Translation [C]. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia:John Benjamin Publishing Company,2007.
查明建,田雨.论译者主体性-从译者文化地位的边缘化谈起[J].中国翻译,2003(1)：22-24.
陈建生,伊丽,林婷婷.《狼图腾》英文译本翻译特征之考察——一项基于可比语料库的研究[J].内蒙古师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2010(1)：97-101.
陈思和.中国当代文学史教程[M].复旦大学出版社,2008.
董晶晶.论译者文化身份对葛浩文翻译的影响[D].中南大学,2008.
冯庆华.文体翻译论[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2002b.
耿强.文学译介与中国文学“走向世界”——“熊猫图书”英译中国文学研究[D].上海海事大学,2010.
郭建辉.翻译的社会学研究：问题及定位[J].湘潭大学学报(哲社版),2009(5)：158-160.
郭淑贤.场域和惯习视角下的译者翻译选择研究[D].四川外语学院,2012.
韩亚琼.《孽子》英译本的文体研究[D].华中师范大学,2007.
郝广丽.从惯习与场域的角度探究[D].苏州大学,2005.
何明星.莫言作品的世界影响地图[J].中国出版,2012(21)：13-17.
贺娜.论《尘埃落定》英译本中藏族文化信息的翻译[D].中央民族大学,2010.
侯林平 & 姜泗平.我国近十年来译者主体性研究的回顾与反思[J].山东科技大学学报(社会科学版),2006(3)：100-104.
侯羽,朱虹.葛浩文为读者负责的翻译思想探究——以《骆驼祥子》英译为例[J].燕山大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2013(2)：93-96.
胡德香.中英风格的翻译及评价标准[J].天津外国语学院学报,2004(5)：29-34.
胡牧.译本世界与现实世界的交锋—翻译的社会学视角[D].南京师范大学博士学位文,2007.
黄立波,朱志瑜.译者风格的语料库考察——以葛浩文英译现当代中国小说为例[J].外语研究,2012(5)：64-71.
姜秋霞,权晓辉.翻译能力与翻译行为关系的理论假设[J].中国翻译,2002(6)：13-17.
姜智芹.他者的眼光：莫言极其作品在海外[J].中国海洋大学学报(社会科学版),2006(2)：76-78.
李红满.布厄迪与翻译社会学的理论构建[J].中国翻译,2007(5)：6-9.
——.探索翻译学研究的社会途径[J].中国翻译,2008(6)：30-33.
李全生.布迪厄场域理论简析[J].烟台大学学报,2002(2)：146-150.
李文静.中国文学英译的合作.协商和文化传播-汉英翻译家葛浩文与林丽君访谈录[J].中国翻译,2012(1)：57-60.
刘少勤.盗火者的足迹与心迹——论鲁迅与翻译[D].福建师范大学,2003.
刘绍铭.葛浩文与萧红,《情到浓时》[M].上海：三联书局,2000.
刘泽权,田璐,刘超朋.《红楼梦》中英文平行语料库的创建[J].当代语言学,2008(4)：329-339+379-380.
刘重德.文学翻译十讲[M].北京：中国对外翻译出版公司,1991.
罗列.论译者“创造性叛逆”的主体间性特征[J].成都理工大学学报(社会科学版),2007(3)：65-69.
骆萍.翻译规范与译者惯习——以胡适译诗为例[J].西安外国语大学学报,2010(2)：75-78.
吕俊.论翻译研究中的本体回归——对翻译研究“文化转向”的反思[J].外国语,2004(4)：53-59.
吕敏宏.葛浩文小说翻译叙事研究[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2011.
潘文国.译入与译出-谈中国译者从事汉籍英译的意义[J].中国翻译,2004(2)：40-43.
邱肖.葛浩文英译本《米》中的译者主体性研究[D].华中师范大学,2012.
裘姬新.论译者的文化取向及其翻译策略[J].语言与翻译(汉文),2004(3)：48-51.
邵璐.翻译社会学的迷思——布迪厄场域理论释解[J].暨南学报(哲学社会科学版),2011(3)：124-130+209-210.
——.翻译与转叙—《生死疲劳》葛浩文译本叙事性阐释[J].山东外语教学,2012(6)：96-101.
施佳能.葛浩文夫妇《玉米》英译本研究[D].上海外国语大学,2012.
斯沃茨,戴维(陶东风译).文化与权利：布尔迪厄的社会学[M].上海：上海译文出版社,2006.
宋延辉.场域—惯习理论观照下徐志摩对英语诗歌的翻译[D].河南师范大学,2011.
孙一博,崔雅萍.文学翻译的文化误读——对葛浩文的英译本《浮躁》的分析[J].西安文理学院学报(社会科学版),2011(4)：31-33.
孙艺风,欧阳之英.翻译研究与文化身份[J].广东外语外贸大学学报,2007(2)：22-27.
孙迎春.文学翻译意境问题刍议[J].山东外语教学,2000(3)：33-38.
——.论翻译家研究-兼论张谷若翻译艺术[M].翻译与跨文化交流：转向与拓展.首届海峡两岸翻译与跨文化交流研讨会论文集,上海：上海外语教育出版社,2007.
唐芳.翻译社会研究新发展——Sela-Sheffy的惯习观探索[J].外语研究,2012(5)：82-86+91.
陶惟.论《丰乳肥臀》翻译中的译者主体性[D].南京大学,2013.
田德蓓.论译者的身份[J].中国翻译,2000(6)：20-24.
田玲.布尔迪厄生存心态理论中的互动关系及特征[J].北京大学学报,2006(3)122-130.
王军.翻译的社会学研究[J].湖南财经高等专科学报,2007(6)：140-142.
王璐.忠实与叛逆：葛浩文文学翻译研究[D].上海外国语大学,2012.
王宁.全球化时代的文化研究和翻译研究[J].中国翻译,2000(1)：10-15.
王晓军.论译者风格与原作风格的统一[J].宁夏大学学报,2002(4)：115-117.
魏格林.沟通和对话——德国作家马丁·瓦尔泽与莫言在慕尼黑的一次面谈[J].上海文学,2012(3)：78-81.
文军,王小川,赖甜.葛浩文翻译研究观探究[J].外语教学,2007(6)：78-70.
沃夫,迈考拉(李瑞林,江莉译).翻译的社会维度[A].辜正坤,史忠义.国际翻译学新[C].天津：百花文艺出版社,2006：125-138.
武光军.翻译社会学研究的现状与问题[J].外国语,2008(1)：75-82.
夏志清.中国现代小说史[M].香港中文大学出版社,2001.
谢(王莹).葛浩文英译《丰乳肥臀》研究[D].上海外国语大学,2012.
谢天振.译介学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,1999.
邢杰..翻译行为合理性研究[D].华东师范大学,2007.
许钧.“创造性叛逆”和翻译主体性的确立[J].《中国翻译》,2003(1)：34-38.
薛涵之.从语言与文化角度分析贾平凹作品《浮躁》[D].西北大学,2007.
杨军梅.狼图腾英译本中文化负载词汇翻译研究[D].硕士论文,2010.
杨延.谈谈译文风格[J].中国翻译,1982(2)：9-12.
余梅.论葛浩文的翻译思想[D].天津理工大学,2011.
袁斌业.翻译报国,译随境变：马君武的翻译思想和实践研究[D].华东师范大学,2009.
张景华.全球化语境下的译者文化身份和汉英翻译[J].四川外语学院学报,2003(4)：126-147.
张学军.中国当代小说流派史[M].山东大学出版社,2007.
张耀平.拿汉语读,用英文写-说说葛浩文的翻译[J].中国翻译,2005(2)：75-77.
张意.文化与符号权利：布尔迪厄的文化社会学导论[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2005.
赵巍,孙迎春.个人方言与文学翻译中的译者风格[J].外语教学,2004(3)：64-68.
赵志华.“生存心态”：译者主体性研究的理据[J].外语与外语教学,2011(2)：79-82.
朱滕滕.改写理论视角下葛浩文《狼图腾》的翻译研究[D].华中师范大学,2009.
朱怡华.翻译家葛浩文研究[D].华东师范大学,2012.
——. Toward a Methodology for Investigating the Style of a Literary Translator [J]. Target,2000 (12):241-266.
Bassnett S, Andre L. Translation, History and Culture:A Sourcebook [C]. London:Cassell, 1990.
——. Constructing Cultures:Essays on Literary Translation [C]. Clevedon/Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters Ltd.,1998.
Benjamin, Walter. The Task of the Translator [M]. Illuminations,1968.
Bourdieu, P. Language and Symbolic Power [M]. Trans. Gino Raymond and Matthew Admson. Cambridge, Mass:Harvard University Press,1991.
——. The Field of Cultural Production, or:The Economic World Reversed [J]. Poetics 1983,12(4):311-356.
——. The Forms of Capital [A]. In J. Richardson (Ed.). Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education [C]. New York:Greenwood,1986:241-258.
——. The Rules of Art:Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field [M]. Chicago: Stanford University Press,1996.
——. The Struggle for Symbolic Order[J]. Theory, Culture and Society,1986 (3): 35-51.
——. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology [M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1992.
Delisle, Jean & Judith Woodsworth (Eds). Translators through History [M]. Philadelphia: John Benjamins,1995.
Gouanvic, J. A. Bourdieusian Theory of Translation, or the Coincidence of Practical Instances:Field, Habitus, Capital and Illusio[J]. The Translator,2005, (11):147.
Guillory, John, Cultural Capital:The Problem of Literary Canon Formation [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1993.
Hanna, S. Hamlet Lives Happily Ever After in Arabic:The Genesis of the Field of Drama Translation in Egypt [J]. The Translator,2005, (2):167-192.
Heilbron, J. Towards a Sociology of Translation:Translations as a Cultural World-System [M]. European Journal of Social Theory.1999,2 (4):429-444.
Helene B. Bourdieusian Analyses in Translation Studies[J]. The Translator,2005, (2):193-218.
Hermans, T. Crosscultural Transgressions:Research Models in Translation Studies-Historical and Ideological Issues [C]. Manchester:St. Jerome,2002:93-102.
——. Translation in Systems:Descriptive and System-oriented Approaches Explained [M]. Manchester:St. Jerome Publishing,1999.
Hockx, M. (Ed) The Literary Field of Twentieth-Century China [M]. Honolulu:University of Hawaii Press,1999:9.
Holmes, J.S. The Name and Nature of Translation Studies[A]. in Hohnes, James S. Translated Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies [C],1988. Amsterdam-Atlanta:Rodopi,1988/1972:67-80.
Inghilleri, M. Habitus, Field and Discourse:Interpreting as a Socially Situated Activity [J].Target,2003:(2):243-268.
——. The Sociology of Bourdieu and the Construction of the "Object" in Translation and Interpreting Studies [J]. The Translator,2005 (2):125-145.
——. Habitus, Field and Discourse:Interpreting as a Socially Situated Activity [J]. Target,2003,15 (2):243-268.
Jensen L.M.& Weston T. B. China's Transformations:The Stories beyond the Headlines [M], Rowman & Littlefield Pub Incorporated,2007.
Kinkley, J. C. A Bibliographic Survey of Publications on Chinese Literature in Translation [sic] from 1949 to 1999. In Chinese Literature in the Second Half of a Modern Century:A Critical Survey [M]. Pang-yuan Chi and David Der-wei Wang, eds. Bloomington:Indiana UP,2000:239-86.
Lefevere, A. Translation Practice(s) and the Circulation of Cultural Capital:Some Aeneids in English [A]. In Constructing Cultures. Essays on Literary Translation, S. Bassnett and A. Lefevere [C]. Clevedon and Philadelphia etc.:Multilingual Matters,1998: 41-56.
——. Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame [M] Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2004.
Leo, O. Contemporary Chinese Literature in Translation-A Review Article [J]. The Journal of Asian Studies,1985,144(3):561-567.
Lingenfelter A. Howard Goldblatt on How the Navy Saved His Life and Why Literary Translation Matters [J]. Full Tilt,2007 (2).
Luhmann, N. Social Systems (trans. John Bednarz, Jr. with Dirk Baecker) [M]. Standford: Stanford University Press,1995.
Malikail, J. Moral Character:Hexis, Habitus and Habit [J]. An Internet Journal of Philosophy,2003 (7):1-22.
Mauss, M. Les techniques du corps [J]. Journal de psychologie,1936 (32):365-86.
Munday, J. Introducing Translation Studies:Theories and Applications [M], Taylor & Francis,2001.
Newmark, P. Paragraphs on Translation [M]. Clevedon & Philadelphia, etc.:Multilingual Matters,1993.
Parks, G. Towards a Sociology of Translation [J]. Rivista internazionale di tecnica della traduzione. International Journal of Translation,1998 (3):25-35.
Pym, A. Sociocultural Aspects of Translating and Interpreting [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamin Publishing Company,2006.
——. Method in Translation History [M]. Manchester:St. Jerome,1998.
Sheffy, R. Models and Habitues:Problems in the Idea of Cultural Repertoires [J]. Canadian Review of Comparative Literature,1997 (1):35-47.
——. How to be a (Recognized) Translator:Rethinking Habitus, Norms, and the Field of Translation [J]. Target,2005 (1):1-26.
Shuttleworth, M.& Cowie, M. Dictionary of Translation Studies [M]. Manchester:St. Jerome,1997.
Simeoni, D. Translating and Studying Translation:The View from the Agent [J]. Meta, 1995 (3):446-460.
——. The Pivotal Status of the Translator's Habitus[J]. Target,1998,10 (1):1-39.
Tymoczko, M. Connecting the Two Infinite Orders:Research Methods in Translation Studies[A]. In Hermans, T, Crosscultural Transgressions:Research Models in Translation Studies II [C]. Manchester:St Jerome,2002:9-25.
Van R K & Jeroen V. Event History Analysis of Authors' Reputation:Effects of Critics Attention on Debutante'Careers [J]. Poetics,1996 (23):317-33
Venuti, L. The Translator's Invisibility:A History of Translation [M]. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2004.
Venuti, L. (Eds). Rethinking Translation:Discourse, Subjectivity, Ideology [C]. London and New York:Routledge,1992.
WANG, Y. Narrating China:Jia Pingwa and his Fictional World [M], London and New York:Routledge,2005.
Wilss, W. Knowledge and Skills in Translator Behavior [M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company,1996.
Wolf, M.& Alexandra, F. Constructing a Sociology of Translation [C]. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia:John Benjamin Publishing Company,2007.
查明建,田雨.论译者主体性-从译者文化地位的边缘化谈起[J].中国翻译,2003(1)：22-24.
陈建生,伊丽,林婷婷.《狼图腾》英文译本翻译特征之考察——一项基于可比语料库的研究[J].内蒙古师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2010(1)：97-101.
陈思和.中国当代文学史教程[M].复旦大学出版社,2008.
董晶晶.论译者文化身份对葛浩文翻译的影响[D].中南大学,2008.
冯庆华.文体翻译论[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2002b.
耿强.文学译介与中国文学“走向世界”——“熊猫图书”英译中国文学研究[D].上海海事大学,2010.
郭建辉.翻译的社会学研究：问题及定位[J].湘潭大学学报(哲社版),2009(5)：158-160.
郭淑贤.场域和惯习视角下的译者翻译选择研究[D].四川外语学院,2012.
韩亚琼.《孽子》英译本的文体研究[D].华中师范大学,2007.
郝广丽.从惯习与场域的角度探究[D].苏州大学,2005.
何明星.莫言作品的世界影响地图[J].中国出版,2012(21)：13-17.
贺娜.论《尘埃落定》英译本中藏族文化信息的翻译[D].中央民族大学,2010.
侯林平 & 姜泗平.我国近十年来译者主体性研究的回顾与反思[J].山东科技大学学报(社会科学版),2006(3)：100-104.
侯羽,朱虹.葛浩文为读者负责的翻译思想探究——以《骆驼祥子》英译为例[J].燕山大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2013(2)：93-96.
胡德香.中英风格的翻译及评价标准[J].天津外国语学院学报,2004(5)：29-34.
胡牧.译本世界与现实世界的交锋—翻译的社会学视角[D].南京师范大学博士学位文,2007.
黄立波,朱志瑜.译者风格的语料库考察——以葛浩文英译现当代中国小说为例[J].外语研究,2012(5)：64-71.
姜秋霞,权晓辉.翻译能力与翻译行为关系的理论假设[J].中国翻译,2002(6)：13-17.
姜智芹.他者的眼光：莫言极其作品在海外[J].中国海洋大学学报(社会科学版),2006(2)：76-78.
李红满.布厄迪与翻译社会学的理论构建[J].中国翻译,2007(5)：6-9.
——.探索翻译学研究的社会途径[J].中国翻译,2008(6)：30-33.
李全生.布迪厄场域理论简析[J].烟台大学学报,2002(2)：146-150.
李文静.中国文学英译的合作.协商和文化传播-汉英翻译家葛浩文与林丽君访谈录[J].中国翻译,2012(1)：57-60.
刘少勤.盗火者的足迹与心迹——论鲁迅与翻译[D].福建师范大学,2003.
刘绍铭.葛浩文与萧红,《情到浓时》[M].上海：三联书局,2000.
刘泽权,田璐,刘超朋.《红楼梦》中英文平行语料库的创建[J].当代语言学,2008(4)：329-339+379-380.
刘重德.文学翻译十讲[M].北京：中国对外翻译出版公司,1991.
罗列.论译者“创造性叛逆”的主体间性特征[J].成都理工大学学报(社会科学版),2007(3)：65-69.
骆萍.翻译规范与译者惯习——以胡适译诗为例[J].西安外国语大学学报,2010(2)：75-78.
吕俊.论翻译研究中的本体回归——对翻译研究“文化转向”的反思[J].外国语,2004(4)：53-59.
吕敏宏.葛浩文小说翻译叙事研究[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2011.
潘文国.译入与译出-谈中国译者从事汉籍英译的意义[J].中国翻译,2004(2)：40-43.
邱肖.葛浩文英译本《米》中的译者主体性研究[D].华中师范大学,2012.
裘姬新.论译者的文化取向及其翻译策略[J].语言与翻译(汉文),2004(3)：48-51.
邵璐.翻译社会学的迷思——布迪厄场域理论释解[J].暨南学报(哲学社会科学版),2011(3)：124-130+209-210.
——.翻译与转叙—《生死疲劳》葛浩文译本叙事性阐释[J].山东外语教学,2012(6)：96-101.
施佳能.葛浩文夫妇《玉米》英译本研究[D].上海外国语大学,2012.
斯沃茨,戴维(陶东风译).文化与权利：布尔迪厄的社会学[M].上海：上海译文出版社,2006.
宋延辉.场域—惯习理论观照下徐志摩对英语诗歌的翻译[D].河南师范大学,2011.
孙一博,崔雅萍.文学翻译的文化误读——对葛浩文的英译本《浮躁》的分析[J].西安文理学院学报(社会科学版),2011(4)：31-33.
孙艺风,欧阳之英.翻译研究与文化身份[J].广东外语外贸大学学报,2007(2)：22-27.
孙迎春.文学翻译意境问题刍议[J].山东外语教学,2000(3)：33-38.
——.论翻译家研究-兼论张谷若翻译艺术[M].翻译与跨文化交流：转向与拓展.首届海峡两岸翻译与跨文化交流研讨会论文集,上海：上海外语教育出版社,2007.
唐芳.翻译社会研究新发展——Sela-Sheffy的惯习观探索[J].外语研究,2012(5)：82-86+91.
陶惟.论《丰乳肥臀》翻译中的译者主体性[D].南京大学,2013.
田德蓓.论译者的身份[J].中国翻译,2000(6)：20-24.
田玲.布尔迪厄生存心态理论中的互动关系及特征[J].北京大学学报,2006(3)122-130.
王军.翻译的社会学研究[J].湖南财经高等专科学报,2007(6)：140-142.
王璐.忠实与叛逆：葛浩文文学翻译研究[D].上海外国语大学,2012.
王宁.全球化时代的文化研究和翻译研究[J].中国翻译,2000(1)：10-15.
王晓军.论译者风格与原作风格的统一[J].宁夏大学学报,2002(4)：115-117.
魏格林.沟通和对话——德国作家马丁·瓦尔泽与莫言在慕尼黑的一次面谈[J].上海文学,2012(3)：78-81.
文军,王小川,赖甜.葛浩文翻译研究观探究[J].外语教学,2007(6)：78-70.
沃夫,迈考拉(李瑞林,江莉译).翻译的社会维度[A].辜正坤,史忠义.国际翻译学新[C].天津：百花文艺出版社,2006：125-138.
武光军.翻译社会学研究的现状与问题[J].外国语,2008(1)：75-82.
夏志清.中国现代小说史[M].香港中文大学出版社,2001.
谢(王莹).葛浩文英译《丰乳肥臀》研究[D].上海外国语大学,2012.
谢天振.译介学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,1999.
邢杰..翻译行为合理性研究[D].华东师范大学,2007.
许钧.“创造性叛逆”和翻译主体性的确立[J].《中国翻译》,2003(1)：34-38.
薛涵之.从语言与文化角度分析贾平凹作品《浮躁》[D].西北大学,2007.
杨军梅.狼图腾英译本中文化负载词汇翻译研究[D].硕士论文,2010.
杨延.谈谈译文风格[J].中国翻译,1982(2)：9-12.
余梅.论葛浩文的翻译思想[D].天津理工大学,2011.
袁斌业.翻译报国,译随境变：马君武的翻译思想和实践研究[D].华东师范大学,2009.
张景华.全球化语境下的译者文化身份和汉英翻译[J].四川外语学院学报,2003(4)：126-147.
张学军.中国当代小说流派史[M].山东大学出版社,2007.
张耀平.拿汉语读,用英文写-说说葛浩文的翻译[J].中国翻译,2005(2)：75-77.
张意.文化与符号权利：布尔迪厄的文化社会学导论[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2005.
赵巍,孙迎春.个人方言与文学翻译中的译者风格[J].外语教学,2004(3)：64-68.
赵志华.“生存心态”：译者主体性研究的理据[J].外语与外语教学,2011(2)：79-82.
朱滕滕.改写理论视角下葛浩文《狼图腾》的翻译研究[D].华中师范大学,2009.
朱怡华.翻译家葛浩文研究[D].华东师范大学,2012.