规范与创造性叛逆：《双城记》三个译本的对比研究
|
摘要
A Tale of Two Cities是19世纪英国现实主义文学最杰出的代表查尔斯·狄更斯的优秀代表作之一。本研究选取该小说的17个全译本(不包括儿童读本、英汉对照和编译、节译等在内)建立其语料库,并根据现当代中国翻译史,将它们归入四个历史时期。在语料库软件的辅助下,通过对译本所在时期的操作规范进行定量描写和定性分析,首先重构八、九十年代译者翻译过程中所遵循的翻译“规范”,然后以描写重构的“规范”为衡量标准,重点研究《双城记》三个代表性译本译者的创造性叛逆行为。
本研究具体回答以下两个研究问题:1)小说A Tale of Two Cities在二十世纪八十至九十年代的翻译规范是什么?2)在张玲和张扬、宋兆霖和姚暨荣以及孙法理翻译的三个译本中,译者展示了怎样的创造性叛逆行为?
本研究发现:
(1)与第二、第三个时期相比,《双城记》第四个时期(八、九十年代)的汉译本所体现出的翻译规范最接近于译语的语言规范。具体来看,在词汇层面上,第四个时期的译本词汇的变化性最大,翻译语言更加丰富多彩;这个时期的虚词比率最低,实词比率最高,译本所含的信息量最大;在语法层面上,第四个时期译本的平均句长最短,译者倾向于使用简短的句子;定语修饰语以及复合句的数量最少,关联词的种类丰富,变化也最大,总之第四个时期的译本倾向于意合,表现出向目的语语言规范回归的倾向。而第二个时期译本的翻译特点与第四个时期正好相反,译本表现出翻译行为的简略化、明确化和欧化,趋向于形合并遵循源语的语言规范。第三个时期译本的特点介于两者之间。总的来说,三个时期译本的翻译规范由倾向源语语言规范逐渐向译语语言规范转变。
(2)在相同历史时期翻译规范的背景下,研究选取三个著名的译本,从语言和文化方面考察译者的创造性叛逆。每个译者都是以自己对小说的认识去理解原文,并用自己的语言去再现原文的意思。张玲和张扬的创造性叛逆显著。从语言运用的角度说,译者的表达与其它两个译本有很大的区别,译本的语言表现出了对译语文化与传统的创造性叛逆。为了突出强烈的表达效果,译者运用反译法;为了表现语言的流畅与节奏感,译者运用诗歌的形式翻译习语。在语言形式方面,译本主要遵从原文的形式;在文化的传承上,译者保留了源语的文化意象。译本最大的翻译特点是通过创造性叛逆达到交流的目的,用生动的语言,丰富的想象,准确地再现原文的深层含义。
宋兆霖和姚暨荣的译本以不同的表现形式体现译者的主观创造性。译者以自己对小说的认识去理解原文,用自己的语言淋漓尽致地再现了原文的意图。为了突显小说人物的悲惨经历,译者创造性地添加程度副词,以达到增强语气的效果;译者放弃原文的书信格式,以读者熟识的形式翻译小说。本着传达原汁原味异土风情的原则的同时,旨在使读者产生感同身受的共鸣。
与前两个译本相比,孙法理译本中创造性叛逆的表现也颇多。在词汇层面,他多次运用略显过时的词语来表达特定的含义;运用创造性叛逆的语言打破源语语言形式的束缚;通过灵活多变的翻译技巧,减轻读者的阅读负担。译文中最成功的创造性叛逆体现在对谚语“入乡随俗”的翻译上,译者创造了一个全新的文化意象,令人耳目一新。在充分表现原文丰采的同时,兼顾译入语文化读者的可接受性,注重读者的理解。
在此分析与讨论的基础上,回答了两个研究问题。研究通过自建《双城记》汉译本的语料库,利用描写翻译学的理论,描述八、九十年代译本所体现的翻译共性,即翻译规范;再选取其中三个著名译本,在译者自身拥有不同“先知、前有”,产生各具特色译文的基础上,分析译者翻译的创造性叛逆,从而揭示译者的翻译过程中体现的翻译规范,但又不是简单地遵循时代的翻译规范,而是翻译规范与译者的创造性叛逆共存。
A Tale of Two Cities is a masterpiece of Charles Dickens, one of the most outstanding representatives of British Realism Literature in 19th Century. In this research, seventeen full-text Chinese translations are collected (not including the translations for children literature, English language teaching, and those translations from abridged source texts, simplified editions and re-compilations, etc.). A corpus of these translations has been established. According to the division of modern and contemporary Chinese translation history, translations of this novel can be divided into four periods. Assisted by the corpus software, this research first reconstructs and describes the translational norms of these translations in 1980s and 1990s. Then taking the norms reconstructed as criteria, the author focuses the study on the translational behaviors of the creative treason in three representative translations by Zhang Ling and Zhang Yang, Song Zhaolin and Yao Jirong, and Sun Fali.
This research aims to answer the following two research questions. 1) What are the translational norms of the Chinese translations of A Tale of Two Cities during 1980s and 1990s? 2) How is the creative treason reflected in the three Chinese translations of A Tale of Two Cities by Zhang Ling and Zhang Yang, Song Zhaolin and Yao Jirong, and Sun Fali?
The major findings include:
Firstly, the translational norms of the Chinese translations of A Tale of Two Cities during 1980s and 1990s are closest to the linguistic norms of the target text, compared with the previous two periods. At lexical level, the lexical diversity in this period is the largest, which represents the language of translation in this period is rich and colourful. The ratio of function words in this period is the lowest, while the ratio of content words is the highest. The information load of the sentences in this period is also the highest. At syntactic level, translators in this period incline to use shorter and more concise sentences in accordance with the target language linguistic norms, and use the least number of modifiers of attributives and the capacity of compound attributives. The average types of connectives in this period are rich, and the diversity of them is the highest. In short, translations in this period tend to be paratactic and show a return tendency to the linguistic norms of target language.
Secondly, against the translational norms in the same historical period, the creative treason of the translators of three famous translations is studied from the perspectives of language and culture. Each translator tries to understand the text according to his own understanding and uses his own language to reproduce the original meaning. Zhang Ling and Zhang Yang’s translation is characterized by their remarkable creative treason. From the point of language use, their expressions are very different from the other two versions. In order to create a strong effect of the expression, they use the negation translation method and also adopt poetic form to translate idiomatic phrases. In terms of the linguistic forms, however, it mainly obeys the original. In addition, this translation keeps the original culture in the cultural translation. The most outstanding translational feature in this translation is its communicative translation by using creative treason. Its translators try their best to show the meaning of the original text. They use more vivid language to describe and to render the exact contextual meaning.
In Song Zhaolin and Yao Jirong’s translation, we can also find the subjectivity of translators. They manage to express the original meanings. At the same time, they add their own understanding to translate the extended meaning. In linguistic forms, they give up the original form of the letter and use the letter form, which are used by Chinese readers. To emphasize the tragic experience of the character in the novel, they creatively add an adverbial to strengthen the mood when they translate a passive sentence. They aim to introduce different custom to readers and hold the purpose to make readers identify with the writer.
Compared with the previous two translations, there is also a lot of creative treason in Sun Fali’s translation. At lexical level, he uses many outdated expressions. Sometimes he makes great creative treason against the linguistic form of the original, although some treason loses the original meaning. Sometimes he reduces the reading burden for Chinese readers by using different translation strategies. One of the successful creative treason in his version is the translation of an English proverb“When you go to Rome, do as Rome does”. He creates a completely new image by using another popular Chinese proverb. He tries to balance between the original meanings and the acceptability of readers, thus, making his translation filled with creative treason to both the source language norms and the target language norms.
On the basis of the previous analysis and discussion, the two research questions have been answered. This research describes the norms and creative treason by studying the three Chinese translations of A Tale of Two Cities. It reveals the common translational characters reflected in the translation process of the translators, that is, translational norms. However translations do not simply follow the translational norms. Based on the different fore-having, fore-sight and fore-conception of translators, distinctive translations have been produced. The research also reveals the creative treason of translators. In fact, in translations, the coexistence of translational norms and translator’s creative treason can be found.
本研究具体回答以下两个研究问题:1)小说A Tale of Two Cities在二十世纪八十至九十年代的翻译规范是什么?2)在张玲和张扬、宋兆霖和姚暨荣以及孙法理翻译的三个译本中,译者展示了怎样的创造性叛逆行为?
本研究发现:
(1)与第二、第三个时期相比,《双城记》第四个时期(八、九十年代)的汉译本所体现出的翻译规范最接近于译语的语言规范。具体来看,在词汇层面上,第四个时期的译本词汇的变化性最大,翻译语言更加丰富多彩;这个时期的虚词比率最低,实词比率最高,译本所含的信息量最大;在语法层面上,第四个时期译本的平均句长最短,译者倾向于使用简短的句子;定语修饰语以及复合句的数量最少,关联词的种类丰富,变化也最大,总之第四个时期的译本倾向于意合,表现出向目的语语言规范回归的倾向。而第二个时期译本的翻译特点与第四个时期正好相反,译本表现出翻译行为的简略化、明确化和欧化,趋向于形合并遵循源语的语言规范。第三个时期译本的特点介于两者之间。总的来说,三个时期译本的翻译规范由倾向源语语言规范逐渐向译语语言规范转变。
(2)在相同历史时期翻译规范的背景下,研究选取三个著名的译本,从语言和文化方面考察译者的创造性叛逆。每个译者都是以自己对小说的认识去理解原文,并用自己的语言去再现原文的意思。张玲和张扬的创造性叛逆显著。从语言运用的角度说,译者的表达与其它两个译本有很大的区别,译本的语言表现出了对译语文化与传统的创造性叛逆。为了突出强烈的表达效果,译者运用反译法;为了表现语言的流畅与节奏感,译者运用诗歌的形式翻译习语。在语言形式方面,译本主要遵从原文的形式;在文化的传承上,译者保留了源语的文化意象。译本最大的翻译特点是通过创造性叛逆达到交流的目的,用生动的语言,丰富的想象,准确地再现原文的深层含义。
宋兆霖和姚暨荣的译本以不同的表现形式体现译者的主观创造性。译者以自己对小说的认识去理解原文,用自己的语言淋漓尽致地再现了原文的意图。为了突显小说人物的悲惨经历,译者创造性地添加程度副词,以达到增强语气的效果;译者放弃原文的书信格式,以读者熟识的形式翻译小说。本着传达原汁原味异土风情的原则的同时,旨在使读者产生感同身受的共鸣。
与前两个译本相比,孙法理译本中创造性叛逆的表现也颇多。在词汇层面,他多次运用略显过时的词语来表达特定的含义;运用创造性叛逆的语言打破源语语言形式的束缚;通过灵活多变的翻译技巧,减轻读者的阅读负担。译文中最成功的创造性叛逆体现在对谚语“入乡随俗”的翻译上,译者创造了一个全新的文化意象,令人耳目一新。在充分表现原文丰采的同时,兼顾译入语文化读者的可接受性,注重读者的理解。
在此分析与讨论的基础上,回答了两个研究问题。研究通过自建《双城记》汉译本的语料库,利用描写翻译学的理论,描述八、九十年代译本所体现的翻译共性,即翻译规范;再选取其中三个著名译本,在译者自身拥有不同“先知、前有”,产生各具特色译文的基础上,分析译者翻译的创造性叛逆,从而揭示译者的翻译过程中体现的翻译规范,但又不是简单地遵循时代的翻译规范,而是翻译规范与译者的创造性叛逆共存。
A Tale of Two Cities is a masterpiece of Charles Dickens, one of the most outstanding representatives of British Realism Literature in 19th Century. In this research, seventeen full-text Chinese translations are collected (not including the translations for children literature, English language teaching, and those translations from abridged source texts, simplified editions and re-compilations, etc.). A corpus of these translations has been established. According to the division of modern and contemporary Chinese translation history, translations of this novel can be divided into four periods. Assisted by the corpus software, this research first reconstructs and describes the translational norms of these translations in 1980s and 1990s. Then taking the norms reconstructed as criteria, the author focuses the study on the translational behaviors of the creative treason in three representative translations by Zhang Ling and Zhang Yang, Song Zhaolin and Yao Jirong, and Sun Fali.
This research aims to answer the following two research questions. 1) What are the translational norms of the Chinese translations of A Tale of Two Cities during 1980s and 1990s? 2) How is the creative treason reflected in the three Chinese translations of A Tale of Two Cities by Zhang Ling and Zhang Yang, Song Zhaolin and Yao Jirong, and Sun Fali?
The major findings include:
Firstly, the translational norms of the Chinese translations of A Tale of Two Cities during 1980s and 1990s are closest to the linguistic norms of the target text, compared with the previous two periods. At lexical level, the lexical diversity in this period is the largest, which represents the language of translation in this period is rich and colourful. The ratio of function words in this period is the lowest, while the ratio of content words is the highest. The information load of the sentences in this period is also the highest. At syntactic level, translators in this period incline to use shorter and more concise sentences in accordance with the target language linguistic norms, and use the least number of modifiers of attributives and the capacity of compound attributives. The average types of connectives in this period are rich, and the diversity of them is the highest. In short, translations in this period tend to be paratactic and show a return tendency to the linguistic norms of target language.
Secondly, against the translational norms in the same historical period, the creative treason of the translators of three famous translations is studied from the perspectives of language and culture. Each translator tries to understand the text according to his own understanding and uses his own language to reproduce the original meaning. Zhang Ling and Zhang Yang’s translation is characterized by their remarkable creative treason. From the point of language use, their expressions are very different from the other two versions. In order to create a strong effect of the expression, they use the negation translation method and also adopt poetic form to translate idiomatic phrases. In terms of the linguistic forms, however, it mainly obeys the original. In addition, this translation keeps the original culture in the cultural translation. The most outstanding translational feature in this translation is its communicative translation by using creative treason. Its translators try their best to show the meaning of the original text. They use more vivid language to describe and to render the exact contextual meaning.
In Song Zhaolin and Yao Jirong’s translation, we can also find the subjectivity of translators. They manage to express the original meanings. At the same time, they add their own understanding to translate the extended meaning. In linguistic forms, they give up the original form of the letter and use the letter form, which are used by Chinese readers. To emphasize the tragic experience of the character in the novel, they creatively add an adverbial to strengthen the mood when they translate a passive sentence. They aim to introduce different custom to readers and hold the purpose to make readers identify with the writer.
Compared with the previous two translations, there is also a lot of creative treason in Sun Fali’s translation. At lexical level, he uses many outdated expressions. Sometimes he makes great creative treason against the linguistic form of the original, although some treason loses the original meaning. Sometimes he reduces the reading burden for Chinese readers by using different translation strategies. One of the successful creative treason in his version is the translation of an English proverb“When you go to Rome, do as Rome does”. He creates a completely new image by using another popular Chinese proverb. He tries to balance between the original meanings and the acceptability of readers, thus, making his translation filled with creative treason to both the source language norms and the target language norms.
On the basis of the previous analysis and discussion, the two research questions have been answered. This research describes the norms and creative treason by studying the three Chinese translations of A Tale of Two Cities. It reveals the common translational characters reflected in the translation process of the translators, that is, translational norms. However translations do not simply follow the translational norms. Based on the different fore-having, fore-sight and fore-conception of translators, distinctive translations have been produced. The research also reveals the creative treason of translators. In fact, in translations, the coexistence of translational norms and translator’s creative treason can be found.
引文
Baker, M. (1993). Corpus linguistics and translation studies: Implications and applications. In Baker, M., Francis, G. & Tognini-Bonelli, E. (Eds.), Text and technology: In honour of John Sinclair (pp. 233-250). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamin’s Publishing Company.
Baker, M. (1995). Corpora in translation studies: An overview and some suggestions for future research. Target, 7 (2), 223-243.
Baker, M. (1996). Corpus-based translation studies: The challenges that lie ahead. In Harold Somers (Ed.), Terminology, LSP and translation: Studies in language engineering in honour of Juan C. Sager (pp. 175-186). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Baker, M. (2000). Towards a methodology for investigating the style of a literary translator. Target, 12 (2), 241-266.
Chesterman, A. (1997). Memes of translation. Philadelphia and Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Chesterman, A. (1998). Causes, translations, effects. Target, 10(2), 201-230.
Chesterman, A. (1999). The empirical status of prescriptivism. Folia Translatologica.
Cowie, M. (1997). Dictionary of translation studies. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Gadamer, H. G. (1975). Truth and method. London: Sheed and Ward.
Granger, S. (2007). The corpus approach: A common way forward for contrastive linguistic and translation studies. In Granger S., Lerot J., & Petch-Tyson S. (Eds.), Corpus-based approaches to contrastive linguistics and translation studies (p. 20). Shanghai: Foreign Language and Research Press.
Hermans, T. (1996). The translator’s voice in translated narrative. Target, 8 (1), 23-48.
Hermans, T. (1999). Transalation in systems: Descriptive and system-oriented approaches explained. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
Hoey, M. (1991). Patterns of lexis in text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Holmes, J. (1988). The name and nature of translation studies. In Holmes J. (Ed.), Translated! Papers on literary translation and translation studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Klaudy, K. (1998). Explicitation. In Baker M. (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies. London and New York: Routledge.
Laviosa, S. (2007). Corpora and translation studies. In Granger, S. Lerot, J. & Petch-Tyson S. (Eds.), Corpus-based approaches to contrastive linguistics and translation studies (pp. 45-50). Shanghai: Foreign Language and Research Press.
Leech, G. N. & Svartivik, J. (1975). A communicative grammar of English. London: Longman Group.
Levefere, A. (1992). Translating, rewriting and the manipulation of literary fame. London: Routledge.
Louw, B. (1993). Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer? In Baker, M., Francis, G. & Tognini-Bonelli, E. (Eds.), The diagnostic potential of semantic prosodies (p. 157). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Munday, J. (2001). Introducing translation studies. New York: Routledge.
Quirk, R., et al. (1972). A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.
Quirk, R., et al. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman World Publishing Company.
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Toury, G. (1980). In search of a theory of translation. Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics.
Toury, G. (2001). Descriptive translation studies and beyond. Shanghai: Foreign Language and Research Press.
薄冰,赵德鑫.《英语语法手册》(第五版)[M].北京:商务印书馆,2004年.
常宝宝.基于汉英双语语料库的翻译等价单位自动获取研究[J].《术语标准化与信息技术》,2002年第2期,24-29页.
陈木茵.文学翻译中的“创造性叛逆”[J].《安徽工业大学学报》,2004年第1期,97-98页.
董明.《翻译:创造性叛逆》[M].北京:中央编译出版社,2008年.
窦岩,陈华伟.忠实与创造:论翻译中的矛盾与统一[J].《语言与翻译》,2008年第4期,60-63页.
范仲英.《实用翻译教程》[M] .北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1994年.
伽达默尔.《哲学解释学》[M].上海:上海译文出版社,1994年.
顾曰国.语料库与语言研究——兼编者的话[J].《当代语言学》(试刊),1998年第1期,1-3页.
韩江洪,张柏然.国外翻译规范研究评述[J].《解放军外国语学院学报》,2004年第2期,53-56页.
胡显耀.翻译规范的语料库研究[D].华东师范大学,2006年.
胡壮麟.《语言学教程》[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2001年.
黄伟芳.翻译规范与严复的翻译[J].《湖北教育学院学报》,2006年第3期,127-129页.
金立鑫.试论“了”的时体特征[J].《语言教学与研究》,1998年第1期,105-119页.
《柯林斯Cobuild英语词典》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000年.
《朗文当代高级英语辞典》,北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2004年.
李立茹.小说风格形式标记的传译——《双城记》两个中译本研究[D].山西师范大学,2005年.
李晓琪.现代汉语复句中关联词的位置[J].《语言教学与研究》,1991年第2期,79-91页.
李阳.从《道连·格雷的画像》三个译本的比较谈文学翻译的忠实与创造性叛逆[D].北京外国语大学,2007年.
连淑能.《英汉对比研究》[M].北京:高等教育出版社,1993年.
梁海霞.论文学翻译的创造性叛逆[J].《翻译研究》,2009年第2期,90-91页.
廖七一.语料库与翻译研究[J].《外语教学与研究》,2000年第5期,380-384页.
廖七一.《当代英国翻译理论》[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,2001年.
刘重德.文化·语言·翻译[J].《外国语》,1992年第4期,49-53页.
刘宓庆.《新编当代翻译理论》[M].中国对外翻译出版公司,2005年.
刘艳.许渊冲宋词翻译的语料库辅助研究[D].大连海事大学,2008年.
罗选民,刘彬.关于开放型语料库翻译教学的思考[J].《外语教学》,2009年第6期,45-48页.
吕俊.理解中的偏见与翻译的再创造[J].《外语与外语教学》,1999年第6期,35-38页.
吕勤勤.从翻译规范看《围城》的翻译[D].广东外语外贸大学,2006年.
孟伟根,毛荣贵.对《双城记》中译本的若干意见[J].《绍兴师专学报》,1992年第2期,112-118页.
《牛津现代英汉双解词典》,北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2003年.
潘文国.当代西方的翻译学研究——兼谈“翻译学”的学科性问题[J].《中国翻译》,2002年第1期,31-34页.
钱钟书.《林纾的翻译》,翻译研究论文集[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版杜,1984年.
秦洪武,王克非.基于对应语料库的英译汉语言特征分析[J].《外语教学与研究》,2009年第2期,131-136页.
邵志洪.《英汉对比翻译导论》[M].上海:华东理工大学出版社,2005年.
谭载喜.《西方翻译简史》[M].北京:商务印书馆,1991年.
佟晓辉.唐诗英译的语料库辅助研究[D].大连海事大学,2007年.
王安,邱惠林.从仆人到创造性叛逆者——论译者的主体地位[J].《四川大学学报》,2004年(增刊),301-303页.
王克非.双语平行语料库在翻译教学上的用途[J].《外语电话教学》,2004年第6期,27-32页.
王力.《中国现代语法》[M].北京:商务印书馆,1985年.
王美华,于沛译.《罗贝尔·埃斯卡皮文学社会学》[M].合肥:安徽文艺出版社,1987年.
王宁.《文化翻译与经典阐释》[M].中华书局,2006年.
王世民.对罗译《双城记》的几点浅见[J].《陕西师范大学学报》,1985年第2期,70-75页.
相龙慧.谈翻译过程中的文化移植[J].《科技信息》,2007年第11期,114-115页.
肖忠华,戴光荣.寻求“第三语码”——基于汉语译文语料库的翻译共性研究[J].《外语教学与研究》,2010年第1期,52-58页.
谢世坚.从翻译规范论看清末民初小说翻译[J].《山东师大外国语学院学报》,2002年第2期,9-13页.
谢天振.论文学翻译的创造性叛逆[J].《外国语》,1992年第1期,30-37页.
谢天振.面对西方比较文学界的大争论[J].《社会科学战线》,1997年第1期,144-147页.
谢天振.《译介学》[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999年.
谢耀基.汉语语法欧化综述[J].《语文研究》,2001年第1期,17-22页.
许钧.关于《红与黑》汉译的通信[J].《文汇读书周报》,1995年第5期,6页.
许钧.“创造性叛逆”和翻译主体性的确立[J].《中国翻译》,2003年第1期, 6-11页.
杨硕.基于语料库的狄更斯四部小说汉译本研究[D].首都师范大学,2009年.
杨武能.尴尬与自如,傲慢与自卑——文学翻译家人格心理漫说[A].《许钧·翻译思考录》[C].武汉:湖北教育出版社,1998年.
余光中.《余光中谈翻译》[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2000年.
曾克明.逻辑分析在翻译中的作用[J].《中国翻译》,1997年第3期,19-21页. 查明建,谢天振.《中国20世纪外国文学翻译史》[M].武汉:湖北长江出版社,2007年.
张斌,张谊生.《现代汉语虚词》[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社,2000年.
张今.《文学翻译原理》[M].开封:河南大学出版社,1987年.
张美芳.利用语料库调查译者的文体——贝克研究新法评介[J].《解放军外国语学院学报》,2002年第3期,54-57页.
张蓊荟.《认知视阈下英文小说汉译中隐喻翻译的模式及评估》[M].北京:中国文联出版社,2009年.
章艳.清末民初小说翻译规范与译者的应对[D].上海外国语大学,2006年.
赵宁. Gideon Toury翻译规范论介绍[J].《外语教学与研究》,2001年第3期,216-219页.
郑海凌.《文学翻译学》[M].郑州:文心出版社,2000年.
仲伟合,周静.译者的极限与底线——试论译者主体性与译者的天职[J].《外语与外语教学》,2006年第7期,42-46页.
周小兵.介词的语法性质和介词研究的系统方法[J].《中山大学学报》,1997年第3期,109-115页.
周迎春.从社会文化角度对《双城记》三个中译本的比较研究[D].上海外国语大学硕士学位论文,2008年.
《中西比较文学手册》,四川人民出版社,1978年.
Baker, M. (1995). Corpora in translation studies: An overview and some suggestions for future research. Target, 7 (2), 223-243.
Baker, M. (1996). Corpus-based translation studies: The challenges that lie ahead. In Harold Somers (Ed.), Terminology, LSP and translation: Studies in language engineering in honour of Juan C. Sager (pp. 175-186). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Baker, M. (2000). Towards a methodology for investigating the style of a literary translator. Target, 12 (2), 241-266.
Chesterman, A. (1997). Memes of translation. Philadelphia and Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Chesterman, A. (1998). Causes, translations, effects. Target, 10(2), 201-230.
Chesterman, A. (1999). The empirical status of prescriptivism. Folia Translatologica.
Cowie, M. (1997). Dictionary of translation studies. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Gadamer, H. G. (1975). Truth and method. London: Sheed and Ward.
Granger, S. (2007). The corpus approach: A common way forward for contrastive linguistic and translation studies. In Granger S., Lerot J., & Petch-Tyson S. (Eds.), Corpus-based approaches to contrastive linguistics and translation studies (p. 20). Shanghai: Foreign Language and Research Press.
Hermans, T. (1996). The translator’s voice in translated narrative. Target, 8 (1), 23-48.
Hermans, T. (1999). Transalation in systems: Descriptive and system-oriented approaches explained. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
Hoey, M. (1991). Patterns of lexis in text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Holmes, J. (1988). The name and nature of translation studies. In Holmes J. (Ed.), Translated! Papers on literary translation and translation studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Klaudy, K. (1998). Explicitation. In Baker M. (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies. London and New York: Routledge.
Laviosa, S. (2007). Corpora and translation studies. In Granger, S. Lerot, J. & Petch-Tyson S. (Eds.), Corpus-based approaches to contrastive linguistics and translation studies (pp. 45-50). Shanghai: Foreign Language and Research Press.
Leech, G. N. & Svartivik, J. (1975). A communicative grammar of English. London: Longman Group.
Levefere, A. (1992). Translating, rewriting and the manipulation of literary fame. London: Routledge.
Louw, B. (1993). Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer? In Baker, M., Francis, G. & Tognini-Bonelli, E. (Eds.), The diagnostic potential of semantic prosodies (p. 157). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Munday, J. (2001). Introducing translation studies. New York: Routledge.
Quirk, R., et al. (1972). A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.
Quirk, R., et al. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman World Publishing Company.
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Toury, G. (1980). In search of a theory of translation. Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics.
Toury, G. (2001). Descriptive translation studies and beyond. Shanghai: Foreign Language and Research Press.
薄冰,赵德鑫.《英语语法手册》(第五版)[M].北京:商务印书馆,2004年.
常宝宝.基于汉英双语语料库的翻译等价单位自动获取研究[J].《术语标准化与信息技术》,2002年第2期,24-29页.
陈木茵.文学翻译中的“创造性叛逆”[J].《安徽工业大学学报》,2004年第1期,97-98页.
董明.《翻译:创造性叛逆》[M].北京:中央编译出版社,2008年.
窦岩,陈华伟.忠实与创造:论翻译中的矛盾与统一[J].《语言与翻译》,2008年第4期,60-63页.
范仲英.《实用翻译教程》[M] .北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1994年.
伽达默尔.《哲学解释学》[M].上海:上海译文出版社,1994年.
顾曰国.语料库与语言研究——兼编者的话[J].《当代语言学》(试刊),1998年第1期,1-3页.
韩江洪,张柏然.国外翻译规范研究评述[J].《解放军外国语学院学报》,2004年第2期,53-56页.
胡显耀.翻译规范的语料库研究[D].华东师范大学,2006年.
胡壮麟.《语言学教程》[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2001年.
黄伟芳.翻译规范与严复的翻译[J].《湖北教育学院学报》,2006年第3期,127-129页.
金立鑫.试论“了”的时体特征[J].《语言教学与研究》,1998年第1期,105-119页.
《柯林斯Cobuild英语词典》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000年.
《朗文当代高级英语辞典》,北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2004年.
李立茹.小说风格形式标记的传译——《双城记》两个中译本研究[D].山西师范大学,2005年.
李晓琪.现代汉语复句中关联词的位置[J].《语言教学与研究》,1991年第2期,79-91页.
李阳.从《道连·格雷的画像》三个译本的比较谈文学翻译的忠实与创造性叛逆[D].北京外国语大学,2007年.
连淑能.《英汉对比研究》[M].北京:高等教育出版社,1993年.
梁海霞.论文学翻译的创造性叛逆[J].《翻译研究》,2009年第2期,90-91页.
廖七一.语料库与翻译研究[J].《外语教学与研究》,2000年第5期,380-384页.
廖七一.《当代英国翻译理论》[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,2001年.
刘重德.文化·语言·翻译[J].《外国语》,1992年第4期,49-53页.
刘宓庆.《新编当代翻译理论》[M].中国对外翻译出版公司,2005年.
刘艳.许渊冲宋词翻译的语料库辅助研究[D].大连海事大学,2008年.
罗选民,刘彬.关于开放型语料库翻译教学的思考[J].《外语教学》,2009年第6期,45-48页.
吕俊.理解中的偏见与翻译的再创造[J].《外语与外语教学》,1999年第6期,35-38页.
吕勤勤.从翻译规范看《围城》的翻译[D].广东外语外贸大学,2006年.
孟伟根,毛荣贵.对《双城记》中译本的若干意见[J].《绍兴师专学报》,1992年第2期,112-118页.
《牛津现代英汉双解词典》,北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2003年.
潘文国.当代西方的翻译学研究——兼谈“翻译学”的学科性问题[J].《中国翻译》,2002年第1期,31-34页.
钱钟书.《林纾的翻译》,翻译研究论文集[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版杜,1984年.
秦洪武,王克非.基于对应语料库的英译汉语言特征分析[J].《外语教学与研究》,2009年第2期,131-136页.
邵志洪.《英汉对比翻译导论》[M].上海:华东理工大学出版社,2005年.
谭载喜.《西方翻译简史》[M].北京:商务印书馆,1991年.
佟晓辉.唐诗英译的语料库辅助研究[D].大连海事大学,2007年.
王安,邱惠林.从仆人到创造性叛逆者——论译者的主体地位[J].《四川大学学报》,2004年(增刊),301-303页.
王克非.双语平行语料库在翻译教学上的用途[J].《外语电话教学》,2004年第6期,27-32页.
王力.《中国现代语法》[M].北京:商务印书馆,1985年.
王美华,于沛译.《罗贝尔·埃斯卡皮文学社会学》[M].合肥:安徽文艺出版社,1987年.
王宁.《文化翻译与经典阐释》[M].中华书局,2006年.
王世民.对罗译《双城记》的几点浅见[J].《陕西师范大学学报》,1985年第2期,70-75页.
相龙慧.谈翻译过程中的文化移植[J].《科技信息》,2007年第11期,114-115页.
肖忠华,戴光荣.寻求“第三语码”——基于汉语译文语料库的翻译共性研究[J].《外语教学与研究》,2010年第1期,52-58页.
谢世坚.从翻译规范论看清末民初小说翻译[J].《山东师大外国语学院学报》,2002年第2期,9-13页.
谢天振.论文学翻译的创造性叛逆[J].《外国语》,1992年第1期,30-37页.
谢天振.面对西方比较文学界的大争论[J].《社会科学战线》,1997年第1期,144-147页.
谢天振.《译介学》[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999年.
谢耀基.汉语语法欧化综述[J].《语文研究》,2001年第1期,17-22页.
许钧.关于《红与黑》汉译的通信[J].《文汇读书周报》,1995年第5期,6页.
许钧.“创造性叛逆”和翻译主体性的确立[J].《中国翻译》,2003年第1期, 6-11页.
杨硕.基于语料库的狄更斯四部小说汉译本研究[D].首都师范大学,2009年.
杨武能.尴尬与自如,傲慢与自卑——文学翻译家人格心理漫说[A].《许钧·翻译思考录》[C].武汉:湖北教育出版社,1998年.
余光中.《余光中谈翻译》[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2000年.
曾克明.逻辑分析在翻译中的作用[J].《中国翻译》,1997年第3期,19-21页. 查明建,谢天振.《中国20世纪外国文学翻译史》[M].武汉:湖北长江出版社,2007年.
张斌,张谊生.《现代汉语虚词》[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社,2000年.
张今.《文学翻译原理》[M].开封:河南大学出版社,1987年.
张美芳.利用语料库调查译者的文体——贝克研究新法评介[J].《解放军外国语学院学报》,2002年第3期,54-57页.
张蓊荟.《认知视阈下英文小说汉译中隐喻翻译的模式及评估》[M].北京:中国文联出版社,2009年.
章艳.清末民初小说翻译规范与译者的应对[D].上海外国语大学,2006年.
赵宁. Gideon Toury翻译规范论介绍[J].《外语教学与研究》,2001年第3期,216-219页.
郑海凌.《文学翻译学》[M].郑州:文心出版社,2000年.
仲伟合,周静.译者的极限与底线——试论译者主体性与译者的天职[J].《外语与外语教学》,2006年第7期,42-46页.
周小兵.介词的语法性质和介词研究的系统方法[J].《中山大学学报》,1997年第3期,109-115页.
周迎春.从社会文化角度对《双城记》三个中译本的比较研究[D].上海外国语大学硕士学位论文,2008年.
《中西比较文学手册》,四川人民出版社,1978年.