从历史有效性看两位译者汉译Uncle Tom's Cabin
|
摘要
本文拟从伽达默尔的哲学阐释学角度对林纾和张培均两位译者所译的两版《黑奴吁天录》进行描述性文本分析,以历史的有效性作为理论依据,从历史有效性的时间延异维度观察意义在空间差异中的流变,考察清末民初和新中国改革开放初期译本文学样式的变化与意义的传达及其历史性原因,同时论证复译的必要性,认可不同历史阶段的各个译者对翻译文学发展和创作,乃至于人文的启蒙所作的卓越贡献。
阐释学滥觞于古希腊,在其发展演变的历史长河中,阐释学与文学的解读逐渐密不可分。文学在审美和感染力层面所蕴含的抽象意义总是不断地被理解为各种与原意义相似又相异的新意义。在哲学阐释学中,伽达默尔将这一现象认定为认知主体间视域的融合。视域的融合从根本上带有时间的属性,因而历史的有效性是视域融合、意义演变的核心规律。
《黑奴吁天录》以政治小说的面貌第一次出现于半殖民地半封建社会的中国,由林纾与人合译。随后一直未有全译本问世。在新中国第二次翻译高潮中再又同时出现了两个全译本。张培均的译本与林译同名,因异化成分较多,长期以来被翻译文学史忽略,但从该译本的篇幅、注释和序言等各个方面看,张培均的译本亦应得到翻译研究者同等的关注。
本文发现,历史有效性能够作为一般性的哲学基础,解释在林译和张译两个版本的对比中呈现出的差异,尤其是两位译者通过各自独特的文艺思想和政治主张在诗学方面作了怎样的翻译选择,继而对体裁、叙事方式、人物对话等等所作的诠释,都可藉由历史的有效性得到合理圆满的解释。通过对翻译活动的产物,即译本的研究,本文旨在使两位译者对翻译文学和中国文学所作的贡献得到更为直接、深刻的认识,并于文学再创造上获得充分认可,从而提升译者在本国文学中的地位。
This dissertation intends to make a descriptive textual analysis of the Chinese translations of Uncle Tom's Cabin rendered by Lin Shu in 1900s and Zhang Peijun in 1980s respectively. Based on the theoretical concept of effective history, changes of meaning will be observed in terms of temporal deferral, with its focus upon differences between the two versions plus the reasons behind in history, so that the necessity of re-translations can be defended and the efforts of the translators at different historical periods will be thus recognized for their each contribution to literary creation and development as well as the enlightenment on humanity in the society of the time.
Hermeneutics emerged from the philosophical discussions in ancient Greek. Along its evolvement in the long history, it has been gradually associated with the interpretation of literature. As the abstract meaning awakening readers'echo on the layer of esthetics can be interpreted as one that is both similar to and different from the original meaning, Gadamer defines the phenomenon in his hermeneutics as fusion of subjects'horizons. The fusion of horizons is essentially a question of time. Therefore, the concept of effective history comes into being as the core in fusions of horizons and meaning changes. Uncle Tom's Cabin was firstly translated into Chinese by Lin Shu and his cooperator as a political novel in the semi-feudal and semi-colonial society of China. After that, there had been no complete versions any more until the second thriving period of literary translation in CHN came forward. As one of the two versions published in the same year, Zhang Peijun's version, which shares the same title with Lin Shu's version, has been neglected by most of the researchers, only because it fails to cater for the public taste with a bunch of foreignization strategies. However, aspects like the number of words, the annotations and the translator's attitude reflected in the preface have implied preliminarily that it deserves much more attention in translation studies.
The thesis has discovered that effective history can be relied on as a general philosophical basis for the hermeneutical interpretation of differences presented in the comparison of the two versions. The choice they made in the translations with their own poetical and political beliefs, together with their selections of genre and narrative mode, handling of characters'dialogues, figures of speech etc., can be sufficiently explained by effective history. Consequently, from this study of the translations, what the two translators have done for the translated literature and Chinese literature as a whole will be revealed in a more direct and insightful sense and their efforts made for literary recreation will be recognized; hence the enhancement of the translators' status in Chinese literary history.
阐释学滥觞于古希腊,在其发展演变的历史长河中,阐释学与文学的解读逐渐密不可分。文学在审美和感染力层面所蕴含的抽象意义总是不断地被理解为各种与原意义相似又相异的新意义。在哲学阐释学中,伽达默尔将这一现象认定为认知主体间视域的融合。视域的融合从根本上带有时间的属性,因而历史的有效性是视域融合、意义演变的核心规律。
《黑奴吁天录》以政治小说的面貌第一次出现于半殖民地半封建社会的中国,由林纾与人合译。随后一直未有全译本问世。在新中国第二次翻译高潮中再又同时出现了两个全译本。张培均的译本与林译同名,因异化成分较多,长期以来被翻译文学史忽略,但从该译本的篇幅、注释和序言等各个方面看,张培均的译本亦应得到翻译研究者同等的关注。
本文发现,历史有效性能够作为一般性的哲学基础,解释在林译和张译两个版本的对比中呈现出的差异,尤其是两位译者通过各自独特的文艺思想和政治主张在诗学方面作了怎样的翻译选择,继而对体裁、叙事方式、人物对话等等所作的诠释,都可藉由历史的有效性得到合理圆满的解释。通过对翻译活动的产物,即译本的研究,本文旨在使两位译者对翻译文学和中国文学所作的贡献得到更为直接、深刻的认识,并于文学再创造上获得充分认可,从而提升译者在本国文学中的地位。
This dissertation intends to make a descriptive textual analysis of the Chinese translations of Uncle Tom's Cabin rendered by Lin Shu in 1900s and Zhang Peijun in 1980s respectively. Based on the theoretical concept of effective history, changes of meaning will be observed in terms of temporal deferral, with its focus upon differences between the two versions plus the reasons behind in history, so that the necessity of re-translations can be defended and the efforts of the translators at different historical periods will be thus recognized for their each contribution to literary creation and development as well as the enlightenment on humanity in the society of the time.
Hermeneutics emerged from the philosophical discussions in ancient Greek. Along its evolvement in the long history, it has been gradually associated with the interpretation of literature. As the abstract meaning awakening readers'echo on the layer of esthetics can be interpreted as one that is both similar to and different from the original meaning, Gadamer defines the phenomenon in his hermeneutics as fusion of subjects'horizons. The fusion of horizons is essentially a question of time. Therefore, the concept of effective history comes into being as the core in fusions of horizons and meaning changes. Uncle Tom's Cabin was firstly translated into Chinese by Lin Shu and his cooperator as a political novel in the semi-feudal and semi-colonial society of China. After that, there had been no complete versions any more until the second thriving period of literary translation in CHN came forward. As one of the two versions published in the same year, Zhang Peijun's version, which shares the same title with Lin Shu's version, has been neglected by most of the researchers, only because it fails to cater for the public taste with a bunch of foreignization strategies. However, aspects like the number of words, the annotations and the translator's attitude reflected in the preface have implied preliminarily that it deserves much more attention in translation studies.
The thesis has discovered that effective history can be relied on as a general philosophical basis for the hermeneutical interpretation of differences presented in the comparison of the two versions. The choice they made in the translations with their own poetical and political beliefs, together with their selections of genre and narrative mode, handling of characters'dialogues, figures of speech etc., can be sufficiently explained by effective history. Consequently, from this study of the translations, what the two translators have done for the translated literature and Chinese literature as a whole will be revealed in a more direct and insightful sense and their efforts made for literary recreation will be recognized; hence the enhancement of the translators' status in Chinese literary history.
引文
Baker, Mona. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies [Z]. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2004.
Chen, Ping. A Study on Lin Shu's Translation of Uncle Tom's Cabin from the Perspectives of Ideology and Culture[D]. Beijing Language and Culture University, 2005.
Gadamer, H. Georg. Truth and Method [M]. Trans. Garrett Barden and John Cummings. Beijing:China Social Sciences Publishing House,1999.
Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time [C]. Trans. John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson. Beijing:China Social Sciences Publishing House,1999.
Munday, Jeremy. Introducing Translation Studies:Theories and Applications [M]. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2010.
Saussure, Ferdinand. Course in General Linguistics [M]. Trans. Roy Harris. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press
Steiner, George. After Babel:Aspects of Language and Translation [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
Stowe, H. Beecher. Uncle Tom's Cabin [M]. New York:Bantam Books,1981.
阿英.小说文学丛钞：小说戏曲研究卷[C].北京：中华书局,1960.
安丽娅.晚清翻译的描述性研究：林纾和他的《黑奴吁天录》[D].四川师范大学,2005.
鲍玉君.从《黑奴吁天录》到《汤姆大伯的小屋》翻译、重译及其社会历史背景的描述性研究[D].广东外语外贸大学,2003.
蔡新乐、郁东占.文学翻译的释义学原理[M].开封：河南大学出版社,1997.
曹文轩.中国八十年代文学现象研究[M].北京：北京大学出版社,1988.
常耀信.美国文学简史[M].天津：南开大学出版社,2003.
查明建、谢天振.中国20世纪外国文学翻译史[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社,2007
陈福康.中国译学理论史稿[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2000.
陈建中.翻译即阐释——《名实论》之名与实[J].外语与外语教学,1997，(6)：87-92.
陈平原.中国小说叙事模式的转变[M].北京北京大学出版社,2010.
陈晓玮.从译语文化介入角度着眼《汤姆叔叔的小屋》在中国的接受[J].安徽理工 大学学报(社会科学版),2008,(4)：70-73.
陈燕.林纾翻译的文化阐释[D].苏州大学,2002.
方平.不存在“理想的范本”——文学翻译工作者的思考[A].翻译思考录[C].许钧编.武汉：湖北教育出版社,1998.124-138.
郭延礼.中国近代翻译文学概论[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社,1998.
何春霞.哲学阐释学视域下的文学重译研究——以Uncle Tom's Cabin的三个中译本为例[D].浙江师范大学,2007.
何卫平.通向解释学辩证法之途：伽达默尔哲学思想研究[M].上海：上海三联书店,2001.
洪汉鼎.理解的真理——解读伽达默尔《真理与方法》[M].济南：山东人民出版社,2001.
黄翠华.从伽达默尔的哲学阐释学看Uncle Tom's Cabin的三种中译本[D].广西师范大学,2008.
伽达默尔.哲学解释学[Z].夏镇平、宋建平译.上海：上海译文出版社,1994.
伽达默尔.真理与方法[Z].洪汉鼎译.上海：上海译文出版社,1999.
焦红波、车玉晓.从翻译系统理论看《汤姆叔叔的小屋》的不同译本[J].华北水利水电学院学报(社科版),2005，(4)：73-75.
赖娟华.译本的主体间性阐释[J].科教文汇,2008,(2)：170.
李磊.从伽达默尔哲学阐释学看Uncle Tom's Cabin的两个中译本[D].上海外国语大学,2009.
林纾、魏易译.黑奴吁天录[Z].斯土活著.北京：商务印书馆,1981.
林钰婷. 《汤姆叔叔的小屋》：翻译、问题、比较[D].福建师范大学,2009.
刘琴.从描述性翻译研究视角比较Uncle Tom's Cabin的两个中译本[D].华中师范大学,2006.
鲁迅.“硬译”与“文学的阶级性”[Z].2006.北京师范大学文艺学研究中心文艺学网2. Nov.2010.
鲁迅、周作人.域外小说集[C].北京：新星出版社,2006.
罗虹.从翻译伦理看林译小说中“误译”的理据——以《黑奴吁天录》为例[D].湖南科技大学,2010.
罗素.西方哲学史[M].张作成译.北京：北京出版社,2007.
苗芬.从操纵理论看《黑奴吁天录》与《汤姆大伯的小屋》[D].南京农业大学,2008.
苗力田主编.古希腊哲学[C].北京：中国人民大学出版社,1989.
钱钟书.管锥编(第一册)[M].北京：中华书局,1979.
钱钟书.林纾的翻译[A].翻译研究论文集：1894-1948[C].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,1984.696-725.
舒畅.《汤姆叔叔的小屋》的译本——意识形态角度分析[D].苏州大学,2008.
谭载喜.西方翻译简史[M].北京：商务印书馆,1991.
屠国元、朱献珑.译者主体性：阐释学的阐释[J].中国翻译,2003,(6)：8-14.
王芳.译者的个人诗学对文学翻译的影响——Uncle Tom's Cabin两个中译本的对比研究[D].江苏大学,2009.
王英鹏.论翻译文学的社会文化功能——以《汤姆叔叔的小屋》为例[J].杭州电子科技大学学报(社会科学版),2010,(2)：50-53.
王铁仙.中国文学的现代转型及其意义[J].中国社会科学,2003,(3)：164-178.
王友贵.意识形态与20世纪中国翻译文学史(1899-1979)[J].中国翻译,2003，(5)：11-15.
王岳川.现象学与解释学文论[M].济南：山东教育出版社,1999.
文月娥.从目的论看林纾与魏易合译的《黑奴吁天录》[D].湖南师范大学,2006.
谢华杰.从解构主义视角看林译《黑奴吁天录》[D].华中师范大学,2006.
徐锡祥.文学的文化政治适应性：《汤姆叔叔的小屋》在中国的接受[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2008,(1)：76-80.
薛绥之、张俊才.林纾研究资料[M].福建：福建人民出版社,1983.
谢天振.文学翻译不可能有定本——兼与罗新璋先生商榷[A].翻译思考录[C].许钧编.武汉：湖北教育出版社,1998.142-144.
谢天振.作者本意与文本本意—解释学理论与翻译研究[J].外国语,2000，(3)：53-60.
许钧.翻译的主体间性与视界融合[J].外语教学与研究,2003,(4)：290-295.
杨春.《汤姆叔叔的小屋》的新历史主义解读[J].湘南学院学报,2006，(1)：59-62.
阳春兰.意识形态对文学翻译的操纵——对林纾和魏易合译《黑奴吁天录》的个案分析[D].广东外语外贸大学,2005.
杨文学.“林译小说”与中国文学的现代转型[D].陕西师范大学,2009.
耀斯.审美经验与文学解释学[M].顾建光et al译.上海：上海译文出版社,2006.
姚艳波.林纾《黑奴吁天录》翻译方法的诗学阐释[J].浙江海洋学院学报(人文科学版),2007,(4)：85-89.
于庆霞.译者在文学翻译操纵中的作用——对林纾译著《黑奴吁天录》的个案分析[D].苏州大学,2007.
袁洪庚.阐释学与翻译[J].外国语,1991,(5)：35-38.
张德让.伽达默尔哲学解释学与翻译研究[J].中国翻译,2001,(4)：23-25.
张隆溪.神·上帝·作者——评传统的阐释学[J].读书,1984,(2)：106-114.
张培均译.黑奴吁天录[Z].斯陀夫人著.桂林：漓江出版社,1982.
张佩瑶.从话语的角度重读魏易与林纾合译的《黑奴吁天录》[J].中国翻译,2003,(2)：15-20.
张曲.从翻译规范理论看Uncle Tom's Cabin的两个汉译本[J].湖南科技学院学报,2010,(9)：204-206.
张汝伦.意义的探究——当代西方释义学[M].沈阳：辽宁人民出版社,1986.
张镟.从解构主义视角看林译《黑奴吁天录》中的译者主体性[D].中南大学,2008.
郑丽.从对黑人无意识的他者化看斯托夫人潜在的殖民意识[J].外国语言文学,2009,(1)：64-70.
郑振铎.林琴南先生[A].翻译论集[C].罗新璋编.北京：商务印书馆,1984.184-192.
郑志光.社会语言学与小说翻译研究[J].上海海运学院学报,1986,(3)：109-122.
周宪.超越文学——文学的文化哲学思考[M].上海：上海三联书店,1997.
周晓瑜.从《黑奴吁天录》看林纾的翻译思想和方法[D].山东大学,2009.
周志光.历史语境下的翻译——对林译《黑奴吁天录》以及两个重译本的对比研究[D].贵州大学,2006.
朱健平.翻译的跨文化解释——哲学诠释学和接受美学模式[D].华东师范大学,2003.
Chen, Ping. A Study on Lin Shu's Translation of Uncle Tom's Cabin from the Perspectives of Ideology and Culture[D]. Beijing Language and Culture University, 2005.
Gadamer, H. Georg. Truth and Method [M]. Trans. Garrett Barden and John Cummings. Beijing:China Social Sciences Publishing House,1999.
Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time [C]. Trans. John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson. Beijing:China Social Sciences Publishing House,1999.
Munday, Jeremy. Introducing Translation Studies:Theories and Applications [M]. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2010.
Saussure, Ferdinand. Course in General Linguistics [M]. Trans. Roy Harris. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press
Steiner, George. After Babel:Aspects of Language and Translation [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
Stowe, H. Beecher. Uncle Tom's Cabin [M]. New York:Bantam Books,1981.
阿英.小说文学丛钞：小说戏曲研究卷[C].北京：中华书局,1960.
安丽娅.晚清翻译的描述性研究：林纾和他的《黑奴吁天录》[D].四川师范大学,2005.
鲍玉君.从《黑奴吁天录》到《汤姆大伯的小屋》翻译、重译及其社会历史背景的描述性研究[D].广东外语外贸大学,2003.
蔡新乐、郁东占.文学翻译的释义学原理[M].开封：河南大学出版社,1997.
曹文轩.中国八十年代文学现象研究[M].北京：北京大学出版社,1988.
常耀信.美国文学简史[M].天津：南开大学出版社,2003.
查明建、谢天振.中国20世纪外国文学翻译史[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社,2007
陈福康.中国译学理论史稿[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2000.
陈建中.翻译即阐释——《名实论》之名与实[J].外语与外语教学,1997，(6)：87-92.
陈平原.中国小说叙事模式的转变[M].北京北京大学出版社,2010.
陈晓玮.从译语文化介入角度着眼《汤姆叔叔的小屋》在中国的接受[J].安徽理工 大学学报(社会科学版),2008,(4)：70-73.
陈燕.林纾翻译的文化阐释[D].苏州大学,2002.
方平.不存在“理想的范本”——文学翻译工作者的思考[A].翻译思考录[C].许钧编.武汉：湖北教育出版社,1998.124-138.
郭延礼.中国近代翻译文学概论[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社,1998.
何春霞.哲学阐释学视域下的文学重译研究——以Uncle Tom's Cabin的三个中译本为例[D].浙江师范大学,2007.
何卫平.通向解释学辩证法之途：伽达默尔哲学思想研究[M].上海：上海三联书店,2001.
洪汉鼎.理解的真理——解读伽达默尔《真理与方法》[M].济南：山东人民出版社,2001.
黄翠华.从伽达默尔的哲学阐释学看Uncle Tom's Cabin的三种中译本[D].广西师范大学,2008.
伽达默尔.哲学解释学[Z].夏镇平、宋建平译.上海：上海译文出版社,1994.
伽达默尔.真理与方法[Z].洪汉鼎译.上海：上海译文出版社,1999.
焦红波、车玉晓.从翻译系统理论看《汤姆叔叔的小屋》的不同译本[J].华北水利水电学院学报(社科版),2005，(4)：73-75.
赖娟华.译本的主体间性阐释[J].科教文汇,2008,(2)：170.
李磊.从伽达默尔哲学阐释学看Uncle Tom's Cabin的两个中译本[D].上海外国语大学,2009.
林纾、魏易译.黑奴吁天录[Z].斯土活著.北京：商务印书馆,1981.
林钰婷. 《汤姆叔叔的小屋》：翻译、问题、比较[D].福建师范大学,2009.
刘琴.从描述性翻译研究视角比较Uncle Tom's Cabin的两个中译本[D].华中师范大学,2006.
鲁迅.“硬译”与“文学的阶级性”[Z].2006.北京师范大学文艺学研究中心文艺学网2. Nov.2010.
鲁迅、周作人.域外小说集[C].北京：新星出版社,2006.
罗虹.从翻译伦理看林译小说中“误译”的理据——以《黑奴吁天录》为例[D].湖南科技大学,2010.
罗素.西方哲学史[M].张作成译.北京：北京出版社,2007.
苗芬.从操纵理论看《黑奴吁天录》与《汤姆大伯的小屋》[D].南京农业大学,2008.
苗力田主编.古希腊哲学[C].北京：中国人民大学出版社,1989.
钱钟书.管锥编(第一册)[M].北京：中华书局,1979.
钱钟书.林纾的翻译[A].翻译研究论文集：1894-1948[C].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,1984.696-725.
舒畅.《汤姆叔叔的小屋》的译本——意识形态角度分析[D].苏州大学,2008.
谭载喜.西方翻译简史[M].北京：商务印书馆,1991.
屠国元、朱献珑.译者主体性：阐释学的阐释[J].中国翻译,2003,(6)：8-14.
王芳.译者的个人诗学对文学翻译的影响——Uncle Tom's Cabin两个中译本的对比研究[D].江苏大学,2009.
王英鹏.论翻译文学的社会文化功能——以《汤姆叔叔的小屋》为例[J].杭州电子科技大学学报(社会科学版),2010,(2)：50-53.
王铁仙.中国文学的现代转型及其意义[J].中国社会科学,2003,(3)：164-178.
王友贵.意识形态与20世纪中国翻译文学史(1899-1979)[J].中国翻译,2003，(5)：11-15.
王岳川.现象学与解释学文论[M].济南：山东教育出版社,1999.
文月娥.从目的论看林纾与魏易合译的《黑奴吁天录》[D].湖南师范大学,2006.
谢华杰.从解构主义视角看林译《黑奴吁天录》[D].华中师范大学,2006.
徐锡祥.文学的文化政治适应性：《汤姆叔叔的小屋》在中国的接受[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2008,(1)：76-80.
薛绥之、张俊才.林纾研究资料[M].福建：福建人民出版社,1983.
谢天振.文学翻译不可能有定本——兼与罗新璋先生商榷[A].翻译思考录[C].许钧编.武汉：湖北教育出版社,1998.142-144.
谢天振.作者本意与文本本意—解释学理论与翻译研究[J].外国语,2000，(3)：53-60.
许钧.翻译的主体间性与视界融合[J].外语教学与研究,2003,(4)：290-295.
杨春.《汤姆叔叔的小屋》的新历史主义解读[J].湘南学院学报,2006，(1)：59-62.
阳春兰.意识形态对文学翻译的操纵——对林纾和魏易合译《黑奴吁天录》的个案分析[D].广东外语外贸大学,2005.
杨文学.“林译小说”与中国文学的现代转型[D].陕西师范大学,2009.
耀斯.审美经验与文学解释学[M].顾建光et al译.上海：上海译文出版社,2006.
姚艳波.林纾《黑奴吁天录》翻译方法的诗学阐释[J].浙江海洋学院学报(人文科学版),2007,(4)：85-89.
于庆霞.译者在文学翻译操纵中的作用——对林纾译著《黑奴吁天录》的个案分析[D].苏州大学,2007.
袁洪庚.阐释学与翻译[J].外国语,1991,(5)：35-38.
张德让.伽达默尔哲学解释学与翻译研究[J].中国翻译,2001,(4)：23-25.
张隆溪.神·上帝·作者——评传统的阐释学[J].读书,1984,(2)：106-114.
张培均译.黑奴吁天录[Z].斯陀夫人著.桂林：漓江出版社,1982.
张佩瑶.从话语的角度重读魏易与林纾合译的《黑奴吁天录》[J].中国翻译,2003,(2)：15-20.
张曲.从翻译规范理论看Uncle Tom's Cabin的两个汉译本[J].湖南科技学院学报,2010,(9)：204-206.
张汝伦.意义的探究——当代西方释义学[M].沈阳：辽宁人民出版社,1986.
张镟.从解构主义视角看林译《黑奴吁天录》中的译者主体性[D].中南大学,2008.
郑丽.从对黑人无意识的他者化看斯托夫人潜在的殖民意识[J].外国语言文学,2009,(1)：64-70.
郑振铎.林琴南先生[A].翻译论集[C].罗新璋编.北京：商务印书馆,1984.184-192.
郑志光.社会语言学与小说翻译研究[J].上海海运学院学报,1986,(3)：109-122.
周宪.超越文学——文学的文化哲学思考[M].上海：上海三联书店,1997.
周晓瑜.从《黑奴吁天录》看林纾的翻译思想和方法[D].山东大学,2009.
周志光.历史语境下的翻译——对林译《黑奴吁天录》以及两个重译本的对比研究[D].贵州大学,2006.
朱健平.翻译的跨文化解释——哲学诠释学和接受美学模式[D].华东师范大学,2003.