翻译伦理观照下的诗歌翻译允准条件
|
摘要
翻译伦理将研究重心从源语文本、目的语文本及翻译活动主体扩展到翻译的道德规范及行为准则上,使得翻译研究更具包容性。诗歌翻译的允准条件牵涉到译者在具体翻译过程中采取的态度及做出的各种选择,这与翻译伦理所关注的译者个人的素质修养及翻译活动中各行为主体之间的伦理关系密不可分。有鉴于此,本研究尝试从翻译伦理视角对诗歌翻译允准条件进行剖析,将诗歌翻译研究的视野拓展到伦理层面,旨在在方法论上做出新的尝试,为译者的译事活动提供一定参照。
本文根据已有诗歌翻译相关研究,将其允准条件归纳为三个：1)忠实原则的恪守；2)目的语文化语境的顺应；3)目的语读者审美期待的满足。在此基础上,论文基于翻译伦理视角,以更具包容性的眼光辨证地对上述允准条件分别进行分析,从而指出：诗歌翻译存在语言,文化等不可译障碍,为了完成翻译任务,有效促进交流,丰富各族文化,需要对原文进行创造性叛逆。同时译者作为翻译活动主体,既有职业伦理,也有个人伦理。这也使得创造性叛逆客观存在于诗歌翻译活动中；其次,翻译的化同伦理强调在翻译过程中求同,这为源语与目的语文化语境中共性的翻译提供了参考,而存异伦理则强调以平等交际为原则,保留各族文化的差异性,这为特定文化意象的翻译提供了依据；再次,目的语读者的价值观存在共性,因此可以强调译本对读者审美期待的满足。但是,不同范畴的读者对同一个诗歌译本的审美阅读与接受存在不同的伦理道德向度和视角反映,伦理价值观差异性的存在使得译本对目的语读者审美需求的满足造成一定的偏离。
论文指出,为了全面反映诗歌翻译这一极其复杂的人类活动的客观规律和本质属性,其允准条件不能过于理想化和抽象化。诗歌翻译活动涉及各种不同影响因素,不同主体需求,它们彼此之间有很大差异,因此要提出一个具体可行的普适性的允准条件必须放弃最高的和理想式的标准。以伦理价值观为导向,我们认为译者在诗歌翻译中应以不违背各民族伦理规范为底线条件,综合考虑各种伦理因素,协调好各因素之间的关系。在此基础上各种具体允准条件可以参考,诗歌翻译可以有很大的开放空间。
The study of translation ethics extends the focus of translation research from the source text, target text and translation subjects to the ethical norms and codes of translation, thus it makes translation study more inclusive. The licensing conditions of poetry translation are related with translators'attitudes and all the choices they make during translation process, which are inseparable from the focuses of translation ethics, namely, translators'quality and accomplishment, the ethical relations among the subjects of translation activity. Therefore, this thesis intends to apply the theory of translation ethics to the analysis of licensing conditions of poetry translation. It extends the vision of poetry translation study to ethical layer, with the purpose of providing a new methodology for the study of poetry translation and giving some references to poetry translators.
Based on some previous translation theories, this thesis generalizes the licensing conditions of poetry translation into three, namely, faithfulness to the original poem, adaptation to the target cultural context, and conformance to target readers'aesthetic expectations. Then, from the perspective of translation ethics, it further analyzes the above licensing conditions in a more inclusive and dialectical way, and points out that: due to the cultural, linguistic and some other untranslatable elements of poetry, it is necessary for translators to do some "creative treason" so as to accomplish the translation task, promote effective communication and enrich cultures of each country. Moreover, as the subject of poetry translation, translators have personal ethics as well as professional ethics which also makes "creative treason" inevitable; secondly, translation ethics of sameness emphasizes assimilation in translation process and this provides basis for translation of commonness between the original and the target cultural contexts, while translation ethics of difference stresses on keeping the differences among different cultures under the principle of equal communication. This provides basis for translation of particular cultural images; lastly, target readers own some common ethical values, thus, it is reasonable to demand translators to conform to target readers'aesthetic expectations. However, different target readers have different ethical values and different perspective reflection about the same translated version. Thus, the diversified ethical values of them make the deviation of their aesthetic expectations inevitable.
This thesis points out that in order to fully reflect the objective rules and essential properties of poetry translation, its licensing conditions couldn't be too ideal and abstract. Poetry translation is related with various influencing factors and diversified demands of different subjects, and there are big differences among these factors and demands. If a universal licensing condition is needed, it shouldn't be an ideal one. Oriented by ethical values, we hold that in poetry translation translators should take all ethical elements into consideration, coordinate the relations among them, and not violate the ethical codes of other nations. This can be regarded as the basic licensing condition, based on this, other concrete licensing conditions could be followed and thus, poetry translation can have an immense open space.
本文根据已有诗歌翻译相关研究,将其允准条件归纳为三个：1)忠实原则的恪守；2)目的语文化语境的顺应；3)目的语读者审美期待的满足。在此基础上,论文基于翻译伦理视角,以更具包容性的眼光辨证地对上述允准条件分别进行分析,从而指出：诗歌翻译存在语言,文化等不可译障碍,为了完成翻译任务,有效促进交流,丰富各族文化,需要对原文进行创造性叛逆。同时译者作为翻译活动主体,既有职业伦理,也有个人伦理。这也使得创造性叛逆客观存在于诗歌翻译活动中；其次,翻译的化同伦理强调在翻译过程中求同,这为源语与目的语文化语境中共性的翻译提供了参考,而存异伦理则强调以平等交际为原则,保留各族文化的差异性,这为特定文化意象的翻译提供了依据；再次,目的语读者的价值观存在共性,因此可以强调译本对读者审美期待的满足。但是,不同范畴的读者对同一个诗歌译本的审美阅读与接受存在不同的伦理道德向度和视角反映,伦理价值观差异性的存在使得译本对目的语读者审美需求的满足造成一定的偏离。
论文指出,为了全面反映诗歌翻译这一极其复杂的人类活动的客观规律和本质属性,其允准条件不能过于理想化和抽象化。诗歌翻译活动涉及各种不同影响因素,不同主体需求,它们彼此之间有很大差异,因此要提出一个具体可行的普适性的允准条件必须放弃最高的和理想式的标准。以伦理价值观为导向,我们认为译者在诗歌翻译中应以不违背各民族伦理规范为底线条件,综合考虑各种伦理因素,协调好各因素之间的关系。在此基础上各种具体允准条件可以参考,诗歌翻译可以有很大的开放空间。
The study of translation ethics extends the focus of translation research from the source text, target text and translation subjects to the ethical norms and codes of translation, thus it makes translation study more inclusive. The licensing conditions of poetry translation are related with translators'attitudes and all the choices they make during translation process, which are inseparable from the focuses of translation ethics, namely, translators'quality and accomplishment, the ethical relations among the subjects of translation activity. Therefore, this thesis intends to apply the theory of translation ethics to the analysis of licensing conditions of poetry translation. It extends the vision of poetry translation study to ethical layer, with the purpose of providing a new methodology for the study of poetry translation and giving some references to poetry translators.
Based on some previous translation theories, this thesis generalizes the licensing conditions of poetry translation into three, namely, faithfulness to the original poem, adaptation to the target cultural context, and conformance to target readers'aesthetic expectations. Then, from the perspective of translation ethics, it further analyzes the above licensing conditions in a more inclusive and dialectical way, and points out that: due to the cultural, linguistic and some other untranslatable elements of poetry, it is necessary for translators to do some "creative treason" so as to accomplish the translation task, promote effective communication and enrich cultures of each country. Moreover, as the subject of poetry translation, translators have personal ethics as well as professional ethics which also makes "creative treason" inevitable; secondly, translation ethics of sameness emphasizes assimilation in translation process and this provides basis for translation of commonness between the original and the target cultural contexts, while translation ethics of difference stresses on keeping the differences among different cultures under the principle of equal communication. This provides basis for translation of particular cultural images; lastly, target readers own some common ethical values, thus, it is reasonable to demand translators to conform to target readers'aesthetic expectations. However, different target readers have different ethical values and different perspective reflection about the same translated version. Thus, the diversified ethical values of them make the deviation of their aesthetic expectations inevitable.
This thesis points out that in order to fully reflect the objective rules and essential properties of poetry translation, its licensing conditions couldn't be too ideal and abstract. Poetry translation is related with various influencing factors and diversified demands of different subjects, and there are big differences among these factors and demands. If a universal licensing condition is needed, it shouldn't be an ideal one. Oriented by ethical values, we hold that in poetry translation translators should take all ethical elements into consideration, coordinate the relations among them, and not violate the ethical codes of other nations. This can be regarded as the basic licensing condition, based on this, other concrete licensing conditions could be followed and thus, poetry translation can have an immense open space.
引文
[1]Berman, A.1984.The Experience of the Foreign:Culture and Translation in Romantic German [M]. trans. S. Heyvaert. Albany:State University of New York Press.
[2]Berman, A.2000. Translation and the trials of the foreign [A]. In L.Venuti (ed.). The Translation Studies Reader [C]. London:Routledge.276-289.
[3]Bassnett, S.& A. Lefevere.2001. Constructing Culture:Essays on Literary Translation [M]. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[4]Chesterman, A.1997. Memes of Translation:the Spread of Ideas in Translation History [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
[5]Chesterman, A.2001. Proposal for a hieronymic oath [J]. The Translator 7(2):139-154.
[6]Gentzler, E.2001. Contemporary Translation Theories (Revised Second Version). Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[7]Kung, H.1993. The parliament of the world's religious declaration toward a global ethic [OL]. http://astro.temple.edu/～dialogue/Antho/kung.htm (accessed 03/03/2010).
[8]Ke Ping.1999. Cultural presuppositions and misreadings [J]. Meta 44 (1):133-143.
[9]Kramsch, C.2000. Language and Culture [M]. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[10]Liu Zhongde.1991. Ten Lectures on Literary Translation [M]. Beijing:China Translation and Publishing Corporation.
[11]Newmark, P.1993. Paragraphs on Translation [M]. Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.
[12]Nord, C.1991. Text Analysis in Translation [M]. Amsterdam:Atlanta.
[13]Nord, C.2001.Translating as a Purposeful Activity:Functionalist Approaches Explained [M]. Manchester:St. Jerome Publishing.
[14]Pym, A.1992.Translation and Text Transfer [M]. Frankfurtam Main:Lang.
[15]Pym, A.1997. Pour une ethique du traducteur [M]. Arrsaet Ottawa:Artois Presses Universit eet Presses de lUniversit ed'Ottawa.
[16]Pym, A.2001.The return to ethics in translation studies [J]. The Translator 7(2):129-138.
[17]Pym, A.2007. Philosophy and Translation [A]. In Kuhiwczak, P.& K. Littau. (eds.).A Companion to Translation Studies [C]. Clevedon:Multilingual Matters Limited.24-44.
[18]Qouanvic, J.2001. Ethos, ethics and translation:Toward a community of destinies [J].The Translator 7(2):203-212.
[19]Shaw, R.D.1998. Translation:The Cultural Factors in Translation and Other Communication Tasks [M]. Pasadena/California:William Carvey Library.
[20]Schaffner, C.1999. Translation and Norms [M]. Clevedon/Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
[21]Hornby, S. M.2001. Translation Studies:an Integrated Approach [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[22]Toury, G.1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
[23]Venuti, L.1998. The Scandals of Translation:Towards an Ethics of Difference [M]. New York:Routledge.
[24]Venuti, L.2004.The Translator's Invisibility:A History of Translation [M]. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[25]Vermeer, J.2000. Skopos and commission in translational action [A]. In L. Venuti (ed.). The Translation Studies Reader [C]. London & New York:Routledge. 221-232.
[26]http://www.bilinguist.com/data/hy00/messages/17003.html[OL].(accessed 03/03/2010).
[27]http://www.cy90.com/htmlcont/7322431.html[OL]. (accessed 15/02/2010).
[28]http://hi.baidu.com/env_econ/blog/item/7dd2681fl5fdf866f724e4eb.html[OL]. (accessed10/02/2010).
[29]蔡新乐.2005.翻译的本体论研究[M].上海：上海译文出版社.
[30]丛滋杭.2007.中国古典诗歌英译理论研究[M].北京：国防工业出版社.
[31]郭建中,陈刚.1996.西湖诗赞[M].浙江：浙江摄影.
[32]顾彬.2007.翻译好比摆渡[A].海岸(ed.),中西诗歌翻译百年论集[C].上海：海外语教育出版社.622-630.
[33]辜正坤.2003.中西诗比较鉴赏与翻译理论[M].北京：清华大学出版社.
[34]黄杲炘.1999.从柔巴依到坎特伯雷——英语诗汉译研究[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社.
[35]韩子满.2005.文学翻译杂合研究[M].上海：上海译文出版社.
[36]江枫,许钧.2007.形神兼备：诗歌翻译的一种追求[A].海岸(ed.),中西诗歌翻译百年论集[C].上海：上海外语教育出版社.377-388.
[37]吕叔湘.1980.中诗英译笔录[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
[38]罗新璋.1984.翻译论集[C].北京：商务印书馆.
[39]刘英凯.1994.关于“音美”理论的再商榷[A].杨自俭&刘学云(eds.),翻译新论[C].武汉：湖北教育出版社.57-76.
[40]吕俊.2001.跨越文化障碍—巴别塔的重建[M].南京：东南大学出版社.
[41]李正栓.2004.忠实对等：汉诗英译的一条重要原则[J].外语与外语教学(8)：36-40.
[42]廖七一.2006.胡适诗歌翻译研究[M].北京：清华大学出版社.
[43]吕俊.2007.翻译标准的多元性与评价的客观性[J].外国语(2)：67-73.
[44]李占喜.2009.顺应论：文学翻译的一个新视角[J].华南农业大学学报(3)：90-97.
[45]穆雷.2003.接受理论与翻译[A].杨自俭&刘学云(eds.),翻译新论[C].武汉：湖北教育出版社.752-767.
[46]倪愫襄.2002.伦理学导论[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社.
[47]孙宁宁.2003.交往伦理学对翻译研究的启示[J].外交学院学报(3)：90-96.
[48]宋安妮.2005.从接受美学看文学翻译的创造性叛逆[J].重庆科技学院学报(3)：74-76.
[49]谭载喜.2000.西方翻译简史[M].北京：商务印书馆.
[50]屠国元,朱献珑.2003.译者主体性：阐释学的阐释[J].中国翻译(6)：8-14.
[51]唐培.2006.从翻译伦理透视文学翻译中的文化误读[J].解放军外国语学院学报(1)：64-68.
[52]汤君.2007.翻译伦理的理论审视[J].外国语(4)：57-64.
[53]王佐良.1984.严复的用心[A].中国翻译工作者协会《翻译通讯》编辑部(ed.),翻译研究论文集：1949-1983[C].北京：外语教学与研究出版社.479-484.
[54]翁显良.1985.古诗英译[M].北京：北京出版社.
[55]王大智.2005.关于展开翻译伦理研究的思考[J].外语与外语教学(12)：44-47.
[56]王寅.2008.认知语言学的“体验性概念化”对翻译主客观性的解释力[J].外语教学与研究(5)：211-217.
[57]吴建国,魏清光.2006.翻译与伦理规范[J].上海翻译(1)：1-6.
[58]吴莉.2007.英语爱情诗歌认知情景研究[J].黑龙江社会科学(6)：89-91.
[59]许渊冲.1984.文学翻译等于创作[A].许渊冲(ed.),翻译的艺术[C].北京：中国对外翻译出版公司.202-223.
[60]许渊冲.2000.唐诗三百首(汉英对照)[M].北京：高等教育出版社.
[61]许钧.2002.论翻译活动的三个层面[A].张柏然&许钧(eds.),面向21世纪的译学研究[C].北京：商务印书馆.219-230.
[62]杨武能.1998.翻译、接受与再创造的循环—文学翻译断想之一[A].许钧(ed.),翻译思考录[C].武汉：湖北教育出版社.227-235.
[63]杨晓荣.1999.二元对立与第三种状态—对翻译标准问题的哲学思考[J].外国语(3)：57-62.
[64]严绍璗.2000.“文化语境”与“变异体”以及文学的发生学[J].中国比较文学(3)：1-14.
[65]杨武能.2002.圆梦初记[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社.
[66]余光中.2002.余光中谈翻译[M].北京：中国对外翻译出版公司.
[67]张今.1987.文学翻译原理[M].开封：河南大学出版社.
[68]郑海凌.1999.翻译标准新说：和谐说[J].中国翻译(4)：2-6.
[69]张首映.1999.西方二十世纪文论史[M].北京：北京大学出版社.
[70]朱贻庭主编.2002.伦理学大辞典[Z].上海：上海辞书出版社.
[71]朱健平.2007.翻译：跨文化解释[M].长沙：湖南人民出版社.
[72]张廷琛,魏博思.2007.唐诗一百首[M].北京：中国对外翻译出版公司.
[2]Berman, A.2000. Translation and the trials of the foreign [A]. In L.Venuti (ed.). The Translation Studies Reader [C]. London:Routledge.276-289.
[3]Bassnett, S.& A. Lefevere.2001. Constructing Culture:Essays on Literary Translation [M]. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[4]Chesterman, A.1997. Memes of Translation:the Spread of Ideas in Translation History [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
[5]Chesterman, A.2001. Proposal for a hieronymic oath [J]. The Translator 7(2):139-154.
[6]Gentzler, E.2001. Contemporary Translation Theories (Revised Second Version). Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[7]Kung, H.1993. The parliament of the world's religious declaration toward a global ethic [OL]. http://astro.temple.edu/～dialogue/Antho/kung.htm (accessed 03/03/2010).
[8]Ke Ping.1999. Cultural presuppositions and misreadings [J]. Meta 44 (1):133-143.
[9]Kramsch, C.2000. Language and Culture [M]. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[10]Liu Zhongde.1991. Ten Lectures on Literary Translation [M]. Beijing:China Translation and Publishing Corporation.
[11]Newmark, P.1993. Paragraphs on Translation [M]. Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.
[12]Nord, C.1991. Text Analysis in Translation [M]. Amsterdam:Atlanta.
[13]Nord, C.2001.Translating as a Purposeful Activity:Functionalist Approaches Explained [M]. Manchester:St. Jerome Publishing.
[14]Pym, A.1992.Translation and Text Transfer [M]. Frankfurtam Main:Lang.
[15]Pym, A.1997. Pour une ethique du traducteur [M]. Arrsaet Ottawa:Artois Presses Universit eet Presses de lUniversit ed'Ottawa.
[16]Pym, A.2001.The return to ethics in translation studies [J]. The Translator 7(2):129-138.
[17]Pym, A.2007. Philosophy and Translation [A]. In Kuhiwczak, P.& K. Littau. (eds.).A Companion to Translation Studies [C]. Clevedon:Multilingual Matters Limited.24-44.
[18]Qouanvic, J.2001. Ethos, ethics and translation:Toward a community of destinies [J].The Translator 7(2):203-212.
[19]Shaw, R.D.1998. Translation:The Cultural Factors in Translation and Other Communication Tasks [M]. Pasadena/California:William Carvey Library.
[20]Schaffner, C.1999. Translation and Norms [M]. Clevedon/Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
[21]Hornby, S. M.2001. Translation Studies:an Integrated Approach [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[22]Toury, G.1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
[23]Venuti, L.1998. The Scandals of Translation:Towards an Ethics of Difference [M]. New York:Routledge.
[24]Venuti, L.2004.The Translator's Invisibility:A History of Translation [M]. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[25]Vermeer, J.2000. Skopos and commission in translational action [A]. In L. Venuti (ed.). The Translation Studies Reader [C]. London & New York:Routledge. 221-232.
[26]http://www.bilinguist.com/data/hy00/messages/17003.html[OL].(accessed 03/03/2010).
[27]http://www.cy90.com/htmlcont/7322431.html[OL]. (accessed 15/02/2010).
[28]http://hi.baidu.com/env_econ/blog/item/7dd2681fl5fdf866f724e4eb.html[OL]. (accessed10/02/2010).
[29]蔡新乐.2005.翻译的本体论研究[M].上海：上海译文出版社.
[30]丛滋杭.2007.中国古典诗歌英译理论研究[M].北京：国防工业出版社.
[31]郭建中,陈刚.1996.西湖诗赞[M].浙江：浙江摄影.
[32]顾彬.2007.翻译好比摆渡[A].海岸(ed.),中西诗歌翻译百年论集[C].上海：海外语教育出版社.622-630.
[33]辜正坤.2003.中西诗比较鉴赏与翻译理论[M].北京：清华大学出版社.
[34]黄杲炘.1999.从柔巴依到坎特伯雷——英语诗汉译研究[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社.
[35]韩子满.2005.文学翻译杂合研究[M].上海：上海译文出版社.
[36]江枫,许钧.2007.形神兼备：诗歌翻译的一种追求[A].海岸(ed.),中西诗歌翻译百年论集[C].上海：上海外语教育出版社.377-388.
[37]吕叔湘.1980.中诗英译笔录[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
[38]罗新璋.1984.翻译论集[C].北京：商务印书馆.
[39]刘英凯.1994.关于“音美”理论的再商榷[A].杨自俭&刘学云(eds.),翻译新论[C].武汉：湖北教育出版社.57-76.
[40]吕俊.2001.跨越文化障碍—巴别塔的重建[M].南京：东南大学出版社.
[41]李正栓.2004.忠实对等：汉诗英译的一条重要原则[J].外语与外语教学(8)：36-40.
[42]廖七一.2006.胡适诗歌翻译研究[M].北京：清华大学出版社.
[43]吕俊.2007.翻译标准的多元性与评价的客观性[J].外国语(2)：67-73.
[44]李占喜.2009.顺应论：文学翻译的一个新视角[J].华南农业大学学报(3)：90-97.
[45]穆雷.2003.接受理论与翻译[A].杨自俭&刘学云(eds.),翻译新论[C].武汉：湖北教育出版社.752-767.
[46]倪愫襄.2002.伦理学导论[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社.
[47]孙宁宁.2003.交往伦理学对翻译研究的启示[J].外交学院学报(3)：90-96.
[48]宋安妮.2005.从接受美学看文学翻译的创造性叛逆[J].重庆科技学院学报(3)：74-76.
[49]谭载喜.2000.西方翻译简史[M].北京：商务印书馆.
[50]屠国元,朱献珑.2003.译者主体性：阐释学的阐释[J].中国翻译(6)：8-14.
[51]唐培.2006.从翻译伦理透视文学翻译中的文化误读[J].解放军外国语学院学报(1)：64-68.
[52]汤君.2007.翻译伦理的理论审视[J].外国语(4)：57-64.
[53]王佐良.1984.严复的用心[A].中国翻译工作者协会《翻译通讯》编辑部(ed.),翻译研究论文集：1949-1983[C].北京：外语教学与研究出版社.479-484.
[54]翁显良.1985.古诗英译[M].北京：北京出版社.
[55]王大智.2005.关于展开翻译伦理研究的思考[J].外语与外语教学(12)：44-47.
[56]王寅.2008.认知语言学的“体验性概念化”对翻译主客观性的解释力[J].外语教学与研究(5)：211-217.
[57]吴建国,魏清光.2006.翻译与伦理规范[J].上海翻译(1)：1-6.
[58]吴莉.2007.英语爱情诗歌认知情景研究[J].黑龙江社会科学(6)：89-91.
[59]许渊冲.1984.文学翻译等于创作[A].许渊冲(ed.),翻译的艺术[C].北京：中国对外翻译出版公司.202-223.
[60]许渊冲.2000.唐诗三百首(汉英对照)[M].北京：高等教育出版社.
[61]许钧.2002.论翻译活动的三个层面[A].张柏然&许钧(eds.),面向21世纪的译学研究[C].北京：商务印书馆.219-230.
[62]杨武能.1998.翻译、接受与再创造的循环—文学翻译断想之一[A].许钧(ed.),翻译思考录[C].武汉：湖北教育出版社.227-235.
[63]杨晓荣.1999.二元对立与第三种状态—对翻译标准问题的哲学思考[J].外国语(3)：57-62.
[64]严绍璗.2000.“文化语境”与“变异体”以及文学的发生学[J].中国比较文学(3)：1-14.
[65]杨武能.2002.圆梦初记[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社.
[66]余光中.2002.余光中谈翻译[M].北京：中国对外翻译出版公司.
[67]张今.1987.文学翻译原理[M].开封：河南大学出版社.
[68]郑海凌.1999.翻译标准新说：和谐说[J].中国翻译(4)：2-6.
[69]张首映.1999.西方二十世纪文论史[M].北京：北京大学出版社.
[70]朱贻庭主编.2002.伦理学大辞典[Z].上海：上海辞书出版社.
[71]朱健平.2007.翻译：跨文化解释[M].长沙：湖南人民出版社.
[72]张廷琛,魏博思.2007.唐诗一百首[M].北京：中国对外翻译出版公司.