整体论观照下的《文心雕龙》英译研究
|
摘要
整体论是一个重要的哲学范畴,其理论要旨在于强调事物的整体性及事物内在系统性和协调性。《文心雕龙》的文学批评理论构建渗透了中国古典哲学的精髓,也暗合了西方哲学的整体论精神,其理论属性和理论内核都具有整体论特征。在《文心雕龙》文学批评理论体系中,哲学整体论具体化为对文学作品整体性的强调,以及对文学作品的内容与形式这两大要素相互协调、相互依存关系的彰显。作为中国古典文论的杰出典范,《文心雕龙》文学批评理论的现代阐释及利用却十分少见,而新批评、神话原型、解构主义等许多现当代西方文论却多已成为翻译研究借鉴和利用的理论资源,成为翻译研究拓宽视野、丰富内容的重要途径。因此,梳理《文心雕龙》整体观的理论资源并用之于翻译研究,既是出于《文心雕龙》理论体系现代阐释的必要,也是使这一文论体系的理论价值得以利用的必要。
本论文按照三个主要步骤进行。第一个步骤是“理论解读”。无论是哲学整体论,还是文学批评整体论,其理论形态都十分多样:不同时期、不同流派的西方整体论的理论重点各不相同,中国传统的整体论与西方整体论也略有区别,文学批评整体论则是哲学整体论在文学批评领域中的具体化。本文在系统梳理整体论多种形态的基础上,着力透过整体论的多种形态,挖掘其最具利用价值、最根本的理论精神。
文章首先扼要分析了《文心雕龙》文学批评理论体系的整体论特征,并由这一特征的理论来源入手,系统梳理了中西哲学整体论和文学批评整体论的理论内涵,重点分析了西方哲学整体论所包含的构造论、本原论、预设论、共相论、浑一论、动力论等六种形态、当代整体论对古代整体论的继承与发展,以及中国古代整体论与西方整体论的共性,并结合近代机械论对整体论的批评,从正反两面揭示整体论的理论特征和理论诉求。对于各种形式的整体论而言,对事物整体性及事物内部因素相互依存、相互协调的关系的强调既是贯串始终的理论主张,也是整体论相对于机械论的区别性特征。与此同时,中西文学批评从一开始就受到了哲学整体论的影响。就中国传统文学批评而言,从先秦时期直到近代,对文学作品整体性的关注、对言意协调关系的强调一直都是文学批评的基本原则。就西方文学批评而言,对文学作品内部要素和谐关系的彰显始于亚里士多德的戏剧批评,在贺拉斯、布瓦洛、黑格尔等古典主义批评家那里得到继承,一直延续到新批评、神话原型批评、结构主义批评等当代文学批评理论之中。《文心雕龙》文学批评体系既承袭了中国古典哲学的整体论思维,又在文学批评中将整体论具体化,形成其自成体系的文学批评整体观,主要体现在两个层面:其一,文学作品的艺术价值首先在于文学作品的整体性;其二,文学作品内部的形式与内容两大要素既要以内容为本,又要注重形式与内容的有机配合。
在充分梳理哲学及文学批评整体论以及《文心雕龙》自身的整体观的基础上,论者论证了翻译研究借鉴整体论的可能性及具体途径;这一步骤包含了针对多种翻译研究范式的理论反思和借鉴整体论进行翻译批评的可行性论证。哲学整体论强调事物整体性和事物内部因素之间的协调性,文学批评整体论既体现了哲学整体论的理论精神,又具体强调文学作品的整体价值与文学作品内部因素的协调性;《文心雕龙》整体观在强调文学作品整体价值的基础上,将文学作品内部因素具体化为形式与内容,并进一步彰显形式与内容的协调性。这种对文学作品整体性的肯定,尤其是对文学作品形式与内容两大要素之间协调性的强调,正好契合了形式与内容相互关系这一翻译研究的基本命题。多种翻译研究范式所关注的焦点实际上都是形式与内容的关系:中国传统直译论强调译语文本贴近源语文本的形式因素;意译论将文学作品的“神”作为文学翻译的首要目标,而相对忽略形式因素。在西方译论中,以追求同一性为理论目标的译论或强调译语文本在形式上贴近源语文本,或要求改变源语文本形式,贴近目的语的语言规范;前者带有明显的形式化倾向,后者则更多体现了对源语文本形式因素的忽略。以追求差异性为理论目标的译论强调语言形式与政治和意识形态的紧密联系,将源语文本形式因素标举为种族身份或文化身份的载体,因而带有突出的形式化倾向。在这些翻译研究范式中,形式与内容的关系在很大程度上处于对立状态;这种对立的存在,使意译论导致翻译的“透明化”和译者及源语文化身份的“隐形”,最终使翻译沦为文化殖民和文化霸权的工具,也使直译论难以兼顾译语文化的接受,降低了直译论实现其理论目的的可能性。
在对翻译研究倾向性的整体论反思之后,本文进一步提出了在翻译批评中借鉴整体论的可能途径。整体论对事物整体性及内部要素之间关系的强调,《文心雕龙》文学批评体系对内容与形式协调关系的彰显,至少可以给我们提供两个方面的启示:其一,源语文本总体思想在翻译中具有不容忽视的重要性。形式与内容二元对立的译论对源语文本思想的忽视,是翻译无法实现在目的语中再现源语文化身份的重要原因。只有将源语文本的整体思想作为翻译的目的,才能使翻译真正成为构建源语文化身份的手段。其二,源语文本的语言形式及表现手段具有不可忽视的重要性,但形式的存在需要以内容的传递为前提。形式与内容是彼此联系、相互依存的;内容必须以特定形式来承载,形式的存在必须以与内容的协调性为前提。只有实现源语文本形式因素的有限存在,才能使翻译真正成为源语文化身份构建的手段。
随后,本研究进入第三步,对促成《文心雕龙》英译及其研究现状的文本因素与非文本因素进行了分析,并以翻译目的和译本倾向为主要依据,将现有《文心雕龙》英译分为“现代阐释型”和“研究型”两大类,并以整体论为理论来源,从翻译目的、翻译策略、译本倾向等视角深入分析了现有《文心雕龙》的多种译本。现代阐释型英译倾向于以现代文论术语、叙述体系及风格对源语文本的古典文论体系作出阐释,明确宣称面向汉学研究专业领域之外的普通读者,彰显了译文叙述的现代性、流畅性和可读性,而研究型英译以专业学者为预期读者,着力追索原文的思想内涵及其哲学及文论来源,试图再现源语文本思想的原貌,不追求译文流畅性和可读性。本文分析显示,现代阐释型英译的翻译目的与翻译策略之间存在着突出的矛盾,忽略了源语文本的思想原旨,而研究型英译则停留于对源语文本的研究,忽略了《文心雕龙》思想体系的内在逻辑性,未能真正实现研究的目的。现有《文心雕龙》英译既给后来的典籍英译留下了一些可供借鉴之处,也留下了反思的空间。
将整体论引入翻译研究,并进一步对《文心雕龙》英译进行分析,可以得到两点启发:其一,只有重视源语文本思想整体性,保留源语文本有意义的形式,才足以使翻译传递源语文化的原旨,实现翻译的文化目的,才能使典籍英译实现其文化使命。因此,源语文本的思想整体性和有意义的文本因素的保留是典籍英译不可忽视的要素。其二,翻译研究和典籍翻译研究既要关注翻译的微观语言策略,也要将民族身份和文化态度纳入研究视野,透析微观语言策略与民族身份和文化态度之间的联系,才能构建与源语文化身份塑造相符合的翻译评价体系。
Holism is a primary philosophical conception that foregrounds the integrity and inherent systematicness of the object to be perceived, and emphasizes the mutual compatibility between the constituents of the object, a conception that characterizes the literary theory constructed in Wenxin Diaolong, a monumental literary critic masterpiece created by Liu Xie of China during the 6~(th) century, and is taken as the basic theoretical conception of the work itself. Philosophical holism is crystalized in Wenxin Diaolong as to be accentuating the integrity of a literary piece as an organic whole, as well as the compatibility between literary formal elements and contents. Wenxin Diaolong has long been revered as the apotheosis of the traditional Chinese literary criticism, whereas its theory has scarcely been exploited and absorbed even in the most likely areas, while new criticism, mythological archetype, receptional aethetics, deconstructionism and many other western literary critic theories have been exploited in translation study, and taken as important means to widen the horizon and diversify the methodology of researches in the field. The interpretation of the theory proposed in Wenxin Diaolong and its exploitation in translation study, therefore, is a must of the modern decoding of theory, and a possible approach to utilize it as well.
This dissertation makes a research that consists of three successive phases. The first phase is devoted to "theory decoding", in which a synchronic survey is made on the diversified theoretical statements of holism both in the field of philosophy and of literary criticism, as to the focus of different holistic approaches emerging in the western philosophical history, the divergence between western and Chinese versions of holism, and to the holistic views in the field of literary criticism, on the basis of which a specific analysis is allocated to the search of the basic theoretical concepts from the diversity of holistic statements.
This dissertation starts with analysis of the holistic thinking characterizing the literary critic theory proposed in Wenxin Diaolong, and then of the origin of holism in western and Chinese philosophy, with special focus on the origin theory, constructionism, dynamism, etc. and the succession and development of modern holism on the basis of its traditional antecedents, and then to reveal the essence and basic appeals of different approaches of holism, which is best summarized into emphasis on the integrity and interior compatibility of the components of the object. Meanwhile, literary criticism has from its start been influenced by philosophical holism, which is especially the reality of the traditional Chinese literary criticism, traited by holistic thinking from its earliest stage in Qin Dynasty, with an emphasis on the wholeness and integrity of literary pieces, and the compatibility between literary form and content. The western critic tradition has also been characterized by holistic thinking from Aristotle to some of the contemporary critic theories. The critic theory proposed in Wenxin Diaolong is a succession and a crystalization of philosophical holism, and thus develops its own holistic approach, represented by focus on the wholeness of literary creation as the origin of literary aesthetic value, as well as the compatibility between literary forms and content, with content as the primary element.
The successive phase of the dissertation is devoted to a reflection of a variety of theoretical paradigms in translation study. The emphasis of philosophical holistic approach on the integrity and intrinsic compatibility of the object and focus on the compatibility between literary form and content tallies with the relationship between form and content in translation study, and a variety of translation theoretical paradigms take the relationship as their basic problematic to be discussed: the traditional Chinese literal approach lays stress on maintenance of the formal elements of the source text, while the liberal approach on the transmigration of the "soul" of the source text in the translation process. The western translation approaches can be either identicalness-oriented or discrimination-oriented: the former laying emphasis on the identicalness of the target text to the source text or ad verse, while the latter on the peculiarity of the source text. The literal approach is inclined to the formal elements, while the liberal approach to the content; the identicalness-oriented approach can be either inclined to form or to content, while the discrimination-oriented approach to form. In these two approaches, one polarity is always overvalued while the other always ignored, with or without deliberation, thus the two polarities are held antagonistic, as a result of which the literal approach induces the invisibility of the translator, translation and source culture, and to kidnap translation as a tool of cultural colonization and hegemony, and the liberal approach to reduce the receptibility of translation in the target culture. After the holistic reflection, the dissertation moves into an argument of the feasibility and methodology of the application of holistic approach to the study of translation. The holistic emphasis on the integrity and compatibility of the elements in a literary piece is at least enlightening in two dimensions in translation study concerning the relationship between form and content, the first being that the transmission of integrity of the thought constructed in the source text is to be maximized, otherwise the cultural purpose of the translation could by no means be realized; the second being that the desirable formal elements of the source text have to be reserved in translation, on condition that these elements are beneficial to the maintenance of the integrity of the source-text thought.
The third phase of the research is first allocated to an analysis of the double-fold inadequacy of the English translation of Wenxin Diaoling and of the research of the translation. Here the Wenxin Diaolong translations are categorized into interpretation-oriented and research-oriented translations by their respective translation purposes and stylistic inclination. Holistic approach is applied here to the analysis of the two categories of Wenxin Diaolong translations, concerning the purposes, discursive strategies, text inclinations of the translations. The interpretation-oriented translations are intended to decode the classic critic theory of Wenxin Diaolong into current western literary critic terminologies and discourse for the benefit of readers out of the sinological circle, while the research-oriented translations to represent the quondam of the Wenxin Diaolong critic theory, thus professional scholars are taken as the intended readers. However, the research of this dissertation brings the fact to light that the research-oriented translations are crippled with an omission of the original thought, which in turn induces a contradiction between their discursive strategies and translation purposes, and the research-oriented translations are preoccupied by the search of the original meaning of the quotations pervading the source text from Chinese classics of philosophy, history and literary critic works, and thus flawed with an omission of the intrinsic logic of the thought conceived in Wenxin Diaolong. The two categories of Wenxin Diaolong translations, therefore, are found missing their purposes, thus further intensive researches are much expected, and reflection desired.
After applying holism to translation study and the analysis of the Wenxin Diaolong translation, this dissertation makes two arguments: first, the maintenance of the integrity of the thought and the meaningful formal elements in source texts are essential to the construction of cultural identity of the source text, and thus are of vital importance for translation oriented to the realization of cultural representation, and this is especially true for translation of works with classic eminence; second, the study of translation of classic works is to focus on not only the discursive strategies applied, but their likely cultural effects backgrounded by cultural convection, to unveil the relationship between the discursive strategies and possible cultural effects, thus to formulate a translation critic theory desirable for the construction of genuine cultural identity of the source culture.
本论文按照三个主要步骤进行。第一个步骤是“理论解读”。无论是哲学整体论,还是文学批评整体论,其理论形态都十分多样:不同时期、不同流派的西方整体论的理论重点各不相同,中国传统的整体论与西方整体论也略有区别,文学批评整体论则是哲学整体论在文学批评领域中的具体化。本文在系统梳理整体论多种形态的基础上,着力透过整体论的多种形态,挖掘其最具利用价值、最根本的理论精神。
文章首先扼要分析了《文心雕龙》文学批评理论体系的整体论特征,并由这一特征的理论来源入手,系统梳理了中西哲学整体论和文学批评整体论的理论内涵,重点分析了西方哲学整体论所包含的构造论、本原论、预设论、共相论、浑一论、动力论等六种形态、当代整体论对古代整体论的继承与发展,以及中国古代整体论与西方整体论的共性,并结合近代机械论对整体论的批评,从正反两面揭示整体论的理论特征和理论诉求。对于各种形式的整体论而言,对事物整体性及事物内部因素相互依存、相互协调的关系的强调既是贯串始终的理论主张,也是整体论相对于机械论的区别性特征。与此同时,中西文学批评从一开始就受到了哲学整体论的影响。就中国传统文学批评而言,从先秦时期直到近代,对文学作品整体性的关注、对言意协调关系的强调一直都是文学批评的基本原则。就西方文学批评而言,对文学作品内部要素和谐关系的彰显始于亚里士多德的戏剧批评,在贺拉斯、布瓦洛、黑格尔等古典主义批评家那里得到继承,一直延续到新批评、神话原型批评、结构主义批评等当代文学批评理论之中。《文心雕龙》文学批评体系既承袭了中国古典哲学的整体论思维,又在文学批评中将整体论具体化,形成其自成体系的文学批评整体观,主要体现在两个层面:其一,文学作品的艺术价值首先在于文学作品的整体性;其二,文学作品内部的形式与内容两大要素既要以内容为本,又要注重形式与内容的有机配合。
在充分梳理哲学及文学批评整体论以及《文心雕龙》自身的整体观的基础上,论者论证了翻译研究借鉴整体论的可能性及具体途径;这一步骤包含了针对多种翻译研究范式的理论反思和借鉴整体论进行翻译批评的可行性论证。哲学整体论强调事物整体性和事物内部因素之间的协调性,文学批评整体论既体现了哲学整体论的理论精神,又具体强调文学作品的整体价值与文学作品内部因素的协调性;《文心雕龙》整体观在强调文学作品整体价值的基础上,将文学作品内部因素具体化为形式与内容,并进一步彰显形式与内容的协调性。这种对文学作品整体性的肯定,尤其是对文学作品形式与内容两大要素之间协调性的强调,正好契合了形式与内容相互关系这一翻译研究的基本命题。多种翻译研究范式所关注的焦点实际上都是形式与内容的关系:中国传统直译论强调译语文本贴近源语文本的形式因素;意译论将文学作品的“神”作为文学翻译的首要目标,而相对忽略形式因素。在西方译论中,以追求同一性为理论目标的译论或强调译语文本在形式上贴近源语文本,或要求改变源语文本形式,贴近目的语的语言规范;前者带有明显的形式化倾向,后者则更多体现了对源语文本形式因素的忽略。以追求差异性为理论目标的译论强调语言形式与政治和意识形态的紧密联系,将源语文本形式因素标举为种族身份或文化身份的载体,因而带有突出的形式化倾向。在这些翻译研究范式中,形式与内容的关系在很大程度上处于对立状态;这种对立的存在,使意译论导致翻译的“透明化”和译者及源语文化身份的“隐形”,最终使翻译沦为文化殖民和文化霸权的工具,也使直译论难以兼顾译语文化的接受,降低了直译论实现其理论目的的可能性。
在对翻译研究倾向性的整体论反思之后,本文进一步提出了在翻译批评中借鉴整体论的可能途径。整体论对事物整体性及内部要素之间关系的强调,《文心雕龙》文学批评体系对内容与形式协调关系的彰显,至少可以给我们提供两个方面的启示:其一,源语文本总体思想在翻译中具有不容忽视的重要性。形式与内容二元对立的译论对源语文本思想的忽视,是翻译无法实现在目的语中再现源语文化身份的重要原因。只有将源语文本的整体思想作为翻译的目的,才能使翻译真正成为构建源语文化身份的手段。其二,源语文本的语言形式及表现手段具有不可忽视的重要性,但形式的存在需要以内容的传递为前提。形式与内容是彼此联系、相互依存的;内容必须以特定形式来承载,形式的存在必须以与内容的协调性为前提。只有实现源语文本形式因素的有限存在,才能使翻译真正成为源语文化身份构建的手段。
随后,本研究进入第三步,对促成《文心雕龙》英译及其研究现状的文本因素与非文本因素进行了分析,并以翻译目的和译本倾向为主要依据,将现有《文心雕龙》英译分为“现代阐释型”和“研究型”两大类,并以整体论为理论来源,从翻译目的、翻译策略、译本倾向等视角深入分析了现有《文心雕龙》的多种译本。现代阐释型英译倾向于以现代文论术语、叙述体系及风格对源语文本的古典文论体系作出阐释,明确宣称面向汉学研究专业领域之外的普通读者,彰显了译文叙述的现代性、流畅性和可读性,而研究型英译以专业学者为预期读者,着力追索原文的思想内涵及其哲学及文论来源,试图再现源语文本思想的原貌,不追求译文流畅性和可读性。本文分析显示,现代阐释型英译的翻译目的与翻译策略之间存在着突出的矛盾,忽略了源语文本的思想原旨,而研究型英译则停留于对源语文本的研究,忽略了《文心雕龙》思想体系的内在逻辑性,未能真正实现研究的目的。现有《文心雕龙》英译既给后来的典籍英译留下了一些可供借鉴之处,也留下了反思的空间。
将整体论引入翻译研究,并进一步对《文心雕龙》英译进行分析,可以得到两点启发:其一,只有重视源语文本思想整体性,保留源语文本有意义的形式,才足以使翻译传递源语文化的原旨,实现翻译的文化目的,才能使典籍英译实现其文化使命。因此,源语文本的思想整体性和有意义的文本因素的保留是典籍英译不可忽视的要素。其二,翻译研究和典籍翻译研究既要关注翻译的微观语言策略,也要将民族身份和文化态度纳入研究视野,透析微观语言策略与民族身份和文化态度之间的联系,才能构建与源语文化身份塑造相符合的翻译评价体系。
Holism is a primary philosophical conception that foregrounds the integrity and inherent systematicness of the object to be perceived, and emphasizes the mutual compatibility between the constituents of the object, a conception that characterizes the literary theory constructed in Wenxin Diaolong, a monumental literary critic masterpiece created by Liu Xie of China during the 6~(th) century, and is taken as the basic theoretical conception of the work itself. Philosophical holism is crystalized in Wenxin Diaolong as to be accentuating the integrity of a literary piece as an organic whole, as well as the compatibility between literary formal elements and contents. Wenxin Diaolong has long been revered as the apotheosis of the traditional Chinese literary criticism, whereas its theory has scarcely been exploited and absorbed even in the most likely areas, while new criticism, mythological archetype, receptional aethetics, deconstructionism and many other western literary critic theories have been exploited in translation study, and taken as important means to widen the horizon and diversify the methodology of researches in the field. The interpretation of the theory proposed in Wenxin Diaolong and its exploitation in translation study, therefore, is a must of the modern decoding of theory, and a possible approach to utilize it as well.
This dissertation makes a research that consists of three successive phases. The first phase is devoted to "theory decoding", in which a synchronic survey is made on the diversified theoretical statements of holism both in the field of philosophy and of literary criticism, as to the focus of different holistic approaches emerging in the western philosophical history, the divergence between western and Chinese versions of holism, and to the holistic views in the field of literary criticism, on the basis of which a specific analysis is allocated to the search of the basic theoretical concepts from the diversity of holistic statements.
This dissertation starts with analysis of the holistic thinking characterizing the literary critic theory proposed in Wenxin Diaolong, and then of the origin of holism in western and Chinese philosophy, with special focus on the origin theory, constructionism, dynamism, etc. and the succession and development of modern holism on the basis of its traditional antecedents, and then to reveal the essence and basic appeals of different approaches of holism, which is best summarized into emphasis on the integrity and interior compatibility of the components of the object. Meanwhile, literary criticism has from its start been influenced by philosophical holism, which is especially the reality of the traditional Chinese literary criticism, traited by holistic thinking from its earliest stage in Qin Dynasty, with an emphasis on the wholeness and integrity of literary pieces, and the compatibility between literary form and content. The western critic tradition has also been characterized by holistic thinking from Aristotle to some of the contemporary critic theories. The critic theory proposed in Wenxin Diaolong is a succession and a crystalization of philosophical holism, and thus develops its own holistic approach, represented by focus on the wholeness of literary creation as the origin of literary aesthetic value, as well as the compatibility between literary forms and content, with content as the primary element.
The successive phase of the dissertation is devoted to a reflection of a variety of theoretical paradigms in translation study. The emphasis of philosophical holistic approach on the integrity and intrinsic compatibility of the object and focus on the compatibility between literary form and content tallies with the relationship between form and content in translation study, and a variety of translation theoretical paradigms take the relationship as their basic problematic to be discussed: the traditional Chinese literal approach lays stress on maintenance of the formal elements of the source text, while the liberal approach on the transmigration of the "soul" of the source text in the translation process. The western translation approaches can be either identicalness-oriented or discrimination-oriented: the former laying emphasis on the identicalness of the target text to the source text or ad verse, while the latter on the peculiarity of the source text. The literal approach is inclined to the formal elements, while the liberal approach to the content; the identicalness-oriented approach can be either inclined to form or to content, while the discrimination-oriented approach to form. In these two approaches, one polarity is always overvalued while the other always ignored, with or without deliberation, thus the two polarities are held antagonistic, as a result of which the literal approach induces the invisibility of the translator, translation and source culture, and to kidnap translation as a tool of cultural colonization and hegemony, and the liberal approach to reduce the receptibility of translation in the target culture. After the holistic reflection, the dissertation moves into an argument of the feasibility and methodology of the application of holistic approach to the study of translation. The holistic emphasis on the integrity and compatibility of the elements in a literary piece is at least enlightening in two dimensions in translation study concerning the relationship between form and content, the first being that the transmission of integrity of the thought constructed in the source text is to be maximized, otherwise the cultural purpose of the translation could by no means be realized; the second being that the desirable formal elements of the source text have to be reserved in translation, on condition that these elements are beneficial to the maintenance of the integrity of the source-text thought.
The third phase of the research is first allocated to an analysis of the double-fold inadequacy of the English translation of Wenxin Diaoling and of the research of the translation. Here the Wenxin Diaolong translations are categorized into interpretation-oriented and research-oriented translations by their respective translation purposes and stylistic inclination. Holistic approach is applied here to the analysis of the two categories of Wenxin Diaolong translations, concerning the purposes, discursive strategies, text inclinations of the translations. The interpretation-oriented translations are intended to decode the classic critic theory of Wenxin Diaolong into current western literary critic terminologies and discourse for the benefit of readers out of the sinological circle, while the research-oriented translations to represent the quondam of the Wenxin Diaolong critic theory, thus professional scholars are taken as the intended readers. However, the research of this dissertation brings the fact to light that the research-oriented translations are crippled with an omission of the original thought, which in turn induces a contradiction between their discursive strategies and translation purposes, and the research-oriented translations are preoccupied by the search of the original meaning of the quotations pervading the source text from Chinese classics of philosophy, history and literary critic works, and thus flawed with an omission of the intrinsic logic of the thought conceived in Wenxin Diaolong. The two categories of Wenxin Diaolong translations, therefore, are found missing their purposes, thus further intensive researches are much expected, and reflection desired.
After applying holism to translation study and the analysis of the Wenxin Diaolong translation, this dissertation makes two arguments: first, the maintenance of the integrity of the thought and the meaningful formal elements in source texts are essential to the construction of cultural identity of the source text, and thus are of vital importance for translation oriented to the realization of cultural representation, and this is especially true for translation of works with classic eminence; second, the study of translation of classic works is to focus on not only the discursive strategies applied, but their likely cultural effects backgrounded by cultural convection, to unveil the relationship between the discursive strategies and possible cultural effects, thus to formulate a translation critic theory desirable for the construction of genuine cultural identity of the source culture.
引文
[1]Baker,Mona.In Other Words:a Coursebook of Translation[M].London & New York,Routledge,1992.
[2]Bassnet,Susan.& Harish Trivedi.Postcolonial Translation:Theory and Practice[M].London and New York:Routledge,1999.
[3]Bhabha,Homi.The Location of Culture[M].London and New York:Routledge,1994.
[4]Cai Zong-qi eds.A Chinese Literary Mind:Culture,Creativity,and Rhetoric in Wenxin diaolong[M].Stanford University Press.
[5]Chu,Madeline.Review on Early Chinese Literaary Criticism by Siu-kit Wong[J].Journal of the American Oriental Society,Vol.105,No.4.
[6]Debon,G.Chinesische Dichtung:Geschichte,Struktur,Theorie[M].Leiden,1989.
[7]De Lotbineiere Harwood,S.The Body Bilingual:Translation as a Rewriting in the Feminine[M].Montreal and Toronto:Les Editions du remue-menage and Women's Press,1991.
[8]Flowtow,Luise Von.Translation and Gender---Translating in the “Era of Feminism ”[M].上海外语教育出版社,2004.
[9]Genette,Gerard.热耐特论文集[C].史忠义译.天津:百花文艺出版社,2001.
[10]Gentzler,Edwin.Contemporary Translation Theories[M].London & New York:Routledge:1993.
[11]Gentzler,Edwin.Translation,Postcolonial Studies and Americas[J].Enter Text,2003(2).
[12]Gibbs,D.Literary Theories in the Wen-xin Tiao-lung[M].University of Washington PH.D.1970
[13]Gibbs,D.Liu Hsieh,Author of the Wen-xin Tiao-lung.1970-71.
[14]Godard,Babara.Theorizing Feminist Discourse/Translation[A].in Susan Bassnett & Andre Lefevere eds.Translation,History and Culture[C].London:Cassell,1990.
[15]Hawkes,David.Review on The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons.The Journal of Asian Studies,Vol.19,No.3,pp.331-332,1960.
[16]Hightower,J.R.Review on The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons.The Journal of Asian Studies,Vol.22,pp.280-288,1959.
[17]Hirsch,E.D.Validity in Interpretation[M].New Haven:Yale University Press,1967.
[18]Holzman,Donald.Review on The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons.Artibus Asiae,Vol.23,No.2,pp.36-139,1960.
[19]House,Juliane.A Model for Translation Quality Assessment[M].Tubingen,Gunter Narr,1977.
[20]House,Juliane.A Model for Translation Quality Assessment:A Model Revisited[M].Tubingen,Gunter Narr,1997.
[21]Hughes,E.R.The Literary mind and Its Carving of Dragons by Liu Hsieh:Chaper1,The Basic Dao.in Lu Chi's Wen Fu,A.D.302:A Translation and Comparative Study[M].New York:Pantheon Books,1951.236-40.
[22]Jullien,E Niecriture sainte ni oeuvre classique:du statut du Texte confuceen comme texte fondateur vis-a-vis dela-civilisation chinoise[A].Extr.Orient Extr.Occident,V,Paris,1984.
[23]Koskinen,Kaisa.Beyond Ambivalence:Postmodernity and the Ethics of Translation[D].Tampere,University of Tampere,2000.
[24]Laurent,Jelly.The Strategy of Forms[A].in French Literary Theory Today:a Reader[C].ed.T.Todorov.Cambridge University Press,1982.
[25]Leech,Geoffrey,N.& Michael Short.Style in Fiction:A Linguistic Introduction to English Fictional Prose[M].外语教学与研究出版社,2001.
[26]Lemon,Lee.T.& M.J.Reis eds.Russian Formalist Criticism,Four Essays[C].Lincoln:University of Nebraska P,1965.
[27]Liu,James Yu.Chinese Theories of Literature[M].Chicago and London:Chicago University Press,1975.
[28]Liu,Wu-chi.Review on The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons[J].Journal of American Oriental Society,Vol.80,No.3,pp.275-277,1960.
[29]Newmark,Peter.A Textbook of Translation[M].New York,Prentice Hall:1988.
[30]Nida,Eugene.A.Toward A Science of Translating[M].Leiden:Brill,1969.
[31]Nida,Eugene.Approaches to Translation in the Western World[J].Foreign Language Teaching and Research,1984(2).
[32]Niranjana,Tejaswini.Sitting Translation:History,Post-Structuralism and the Cononial Context[M].University of California Press,1992.
[33]Nord,Christiane.Translating as a Purposeful Activity:Functionalist Approaches Explained[M].Manchester:St.Jerome Publishing Ltd.1997.
[34]Pollard,D.E.Readings in Chinese Literary Thought by Stephen Owen.The China Quarterly, No.137,pp.279-280,1994.
[35]Robson,Douglas.Translation and Empire:Postcolonial Theories Explained[M].Manchester:St.Jerome Publishing Ltd.,1997.
[36]Reiss,Katharine.Translation Criticism--The Potentials and Limitations[M].Manchester:St.Jerome Publishing,2000.
[37]Rickett,A.A.Technical Terms in Chinese Literary Criticism[J].Literary East and West,No.Ⅻ.
[38]Sandra Lavagnino.Liu Xie e i modi della composizionelletterari:le figure bi e xing[M].Annali IUO,Napoli,1984.
[39]Shao,Paul Young-xing.Liu Hsieh as Literary Theorist,Critic and Rhetorician[D].Stanford University,1982.
[40]Shih,Vincent Yu-chung.The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons.Hong Kong:The Chinese University Press,1983.
[41]Shih,Vincent Yu-chong.Liu Hsieh's Concept of Organic Unity[J].Tamkang Review,1973.
[42]Shuttleworth,M.& Moria Cowie ed.Dictionary of Translation Studies[M].Manchester:St.Jerome Publishing Ltd.,1997.
[43]Spivak,G.C.Outside in the Teaching Machine[M].Routledge,1993.
[44]宇文所安.Wenxin Tiaolung In中国文论:英译与评论.王柏华、陶庆梅译.上海社会科学院出版社.2002.
[45]Shih,Vincent Yu- Chung.Liu Hsieh's Conception of Organic Unity[J].Tamkang Review,Vol.1,4,1973.
[46]Steiner,George.After Babel:Aspects of Language and Translation[M].London:Oxford University Press,1975.
[47]Tokei,Ferenc."Universal and Changing"& "The Order of Times",in Genre Theory in China in the 3rd-6th Centuries.1971.145-151;163-76.
[48]Tu,Ching-i.Traditional Chinese Literary Criticism[J].Journal of the CLTA,No.3.
[49]Venuti,Laurence.The Translator's Invisibility[M].London:Routledge,1995.
[50]Venuti,Laurence.Translation and the Formation of Cultural Identities[A].Christina Schaffner and Helen Kelly-Holmes(ed.) Cultural Functions of Translation[C].Clevedon:Multilingual Matters Ltd.,1996.
[51]Venuti,Laurence.The Scandals of Translation[M].London:Routledge,1998.
[52]Wang,C.H.Naming the Reality of Chinese Criticism[J].Journal of Asian Studies,No.38.
[53]Wilss,Wolfram.The Science of Translation:Problems and Methods[M].Tubingen:Gunter Narr,1982.
[54]Wong,Siu-kit eds.and trans.Early Chinese Literary Criticism[M].Hongkong:Joint Publishing Co.1983.
[55]Wong,Siu-kit,etc.Wenxin Diaolong:The Book of Literary Design.Hong Kong University Press,1998.
[56]Wylie,A.Notes on Chinese Literature[M].Shanghai:American Presbyterian Mission Press,1867.
[57]Yuen-wan,Ngan.Some Characteristics of Chinese Literary Criticism[J].East Asian Culture,No.18.
[58]Zhao Heping.Wen-xin Tiao-lung:an Early Chinese Rhetoric of Written Discource[D].Purdue University,1993.
[59]艾布拉姆斯(M.H.Abrams).镜与灯:浪漫主义文论及批评传统[M].北京大学出版社,2004.
[60]巴尔胡达罗夫.语言与翻译[M].蔡毅等译.北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1985.
[61]北京大学哲学系外国哲学史教研室.古希腊罗马哲学[M].商务印书馆,1961.
[62][德]本雅明(Benjamin,W.).译者的任务[A].陈永国编,翻译与后现代性[C].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005.
[63]卞之琳等,1959.艺术性翻译问题和诗歌翻译问题[A].转引自罗新璋编,翻译论集[C],pp.659-666.商务印书馆,1984.
[64]布瓦洛(Nicolas Boileau-Despreaux).诗的艺术[M].任典译,人民文学出版社,1959.
[65]布鲁诺(Bruno,G).论原因,本原和太一[M].商务印书馆,1984.
[66]蔡毅.关于国外翻译理论的三大核心概念[J].中国翻译,1995(6).
[67]蔡钟翔.谈中西文论的比较研究[J].学术研究,1992(6).
[68]蔡宗阳.文心雕龙与经学[M].台北:文史哲出版社,1989.
[69]曹顺庆.从总体文学角度认识《文心雕龙》的民族特色和理论价值[J].文学评论,1989(2).
[70]曹顺庆.二十一世纪中国文化发展战略与重建中国文论话语[J].东方丛刊,1995(3).
[71]常智奇.整体论美学观纲要[M].四川人民出版社,1994.
[72]陈大亮.翻译本质的形而上反思[J].天津外国语学院学报,2007(1).
[73]陈福康.中国译学理论史稿[M].上海外语教育出版社,2000.
[74]陈可培.道安的“直译观”之我见[J].四川外语学院学报,2006(3).
[75]陈世锋.从机械论到圆融境界论[J].云南社会科学,2008(5).
[76]陈顺智.论《文心雕龙》之“道”的本质特征[J].武汉大学学报,1992(2).
[77]陈引驰,李姝.鸟瞰他山之石-英语学界中国文论研究[J].中国比较文学,2005(3).
[78]程葆青.文学翻译中的“译者注”研究[D].上海外国语大学硕士论文,2006.
[79]程工.语言共性论[M].上海外语教育出版社,1999.
[80]陈炎.走出“失范”和“失语”的中国美学和文论[J].文学评论,2004(2).
[81]初凌宇.翻译与注释[J].英语自学,1996(11).
[82]崔永禄.得意不可忘形-试论翻译中形式与内容的辩证关系[J].天津外国语学院学报,2002(2).
[83]邓牛顿.说“神”-中国艺术哲学探讨之一[J].上海大学学报,1989(3).
[84]邓晓凌.文学翻译中的注释问题[D].四川大学硕士学位论文,2004.
[85]丁韪良.花甲记忆-一位传教士眼中的晚清帝国[M].沈弘等译,桂林:广西师范大学出版社,2004.
[86]段伟文.科学方法的整体论嬗变[J].中国人民大学学报,2007(3).
[87]邓肯(Duncan,R.)等.科学的未知世界[M].上海科学技术出版社,1985.
[88]恩格斯(Engels,F).自然辩证法[M].人民教育出版社,1984.
[89]范文澜.文心雕龙注[M].人民文学出版社,1958.
[90]范圣宇.《红楼梦》管窥-英译、语言与文化[M].中国社会科学出版社,2004.
[91]方梦之.翻译中的阐释与注释[J].山东外语教学,1993(1).
[92]方梦之.译学辞典[M].上海外语教育出版社,2004.
[93]菲利普(D·C·Philips).社会科学中的整体论思想[M].吴忠等译,宁夏人民出版社,1988.
[94]冯庆华.《红楼梦》翻译艺术研究[M].上海外语教育出版社,2006.
[95]傅雷.致林以亮论翻译书.转引自罗新璋编《翻译论集》pp.545-549,商务印书馆,1984.
[96]傅雷.《高老头》重译本序.转引自罗新璋编《翻译论集》pp.558-559,商务印书馆,1984.
[97]傅雷.傅雷文集·文艺卷[M].北京:当代世界出版社,2006.
[98]傅雷.傅雷文集·书信卷[M].北京:当代世界出版社,2006.
[99]高伟光.英国浪漫主义的有机论美学观[J].甘肃社会科学,2006(3).
[100]葛校琴.翻译神似论的哲学-美学基础[J].中国翻译,1999(4).
[101]耿延宏,王梦.翻译学视角中形式的表现意义[J].河北大学学报,2005(5).
[102]龚放等编著.南大逸事[M].沈阳:辽海出版社,1999.
[103]郭建中.关于直译与意译的新概念[J].外语研究:1989(1).
[104]郭建中.当代美国翻译理论[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,2001.
[105]郭鹏.《文心雕龙》的文学理论和历史渊源[M].齐鲁书社,2005.
[106]郭昭第.中国20世纪文论话语建构的症结[J].洛阳师范学院学报,2001(6).
[107]郝敏.俄国形式主义批判[D].内蒙古师范大学,2008.
[108]海德格尔(M.Heidger).海德格尔选集[M].孙周兴译,三联书店上海分店,1996.
[109]何刚强.英汉翻译中的得“意”忘“形”[J].中国翻译,1997(5).
[110]黑格尔.自然哲学[M].梁志学等译,商务印书馆,1982.
[111]黑格尔.历史哲学[M].王造时译.上海:上海书店出版社,2001.
[112]黑格尔.美学(第一卷)[M].商务印书馆,1979.
[113]贺拉斯.诗艺[M].杨周翰译,人民文学出版社,1962.
[114]赫施(Hirsch,E.D.).客观阐释[A].西方二十世纪文论选(第三卷)[M].胡经之,张首映编.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1989.
[115]贺显斌.维努蒂翻译理论的局限性[J].外国语,2007(3).
[116]胡疆锋.西风东渐30年-西方文论与新时期中国文论建设[J].当代文坛,2008(3).
[117]胡亚敏.中西文论术语检讨[J].外国文学研究,2003(3).
[118]黄高宪.试论《易传》对《文心雕龙》的影响[J].周易研究,2000(1).
[119]黄鸣奋.英语世界中国古代文论研究[J].文艺理论研究,1994(4).
[120]黄维樑.精雕龙与精制瓮:刘勰与新批评家对结构的看法[J].淡江评论,1984年第16期.
[121]黄维樑.20世纪文学理论:中国与西方[J].北京大学学报,2008(3).
[122]黄忠廉.翻译本质论[M].武汉:华中师范大学出版社,2000.
[123](荷)霍伊卡(Hooykaas,R.).宗教与现代科学的兴起[M].丘仲辉等译,成都:四川人民出版社.1999.
[124](日)户田浩晓.文心雕龙研究[M].曹旭译,上海古籍出版社,1992.
[125]胡志挥.略谈文学翻译的注释[J].外国语,1980(6).
[126]怀特海(Whitehead,A.N.).科学与近代世界[M].商务印书馆,1962.
[127]纪秋郎.作为古典主义者的刘勰与其传统和通变观[J].淡江评论,1973年第4期.
[128]纪秋郎.《文心雕龙》研究的检讨与展望[J].明道文艺,1988(1).
[129]季羡林.门外中外文论絮语[J].文学评论,1996(6).
[130]贾树新.《文心雕龙》数据信息[J].吉林大学学报,1987(1).
[13l](法)克里斯蒂娃(Kristeva).符号学、语义分析研究[M].巴黎,Seuil出版社,1969.
[132]江帆.他乡的石头记-《红楼梦》百年英译史研究[D].复旦大学博士论文,2007.
[133]江枫.”新世纪的新译论”点评[J].中国翻译,2001(5).
[134]蒋骁华.当代西方翻译理论的新发展[J].外国语言文学,2003(2).
[135]江原.中国古典诗论在西方[A].http://www.literature.org.cn/Article.asp?ID=482.引用日期:2008年11月21日.
[136]举人.日本的文心雕龙研究[J].南京理工大学学报,2006(5).
[137]卡普拉(Capra,F.).转折点[M].中国人民大学出版社,1989.
[138](英)卡特福德(Catford,J.C.).翻译的语言学理论[M].穆雷译,旅游教育出版社,1991.
[139](美)库恩(Kuhn,T.).科学革命的结构(M).金吾伦,胡新和译.北京大学出版社,2004.
[140]李传伟.翻译的最高境界-得“意”忘“言”[J].湘潭大学学报,1999(1).
[141]李凯,舒畅.《文心雕龙》中的作品有机论[J].四川师范大学学报,2006(2).
[142]李国.机械论范式的有机论转向:科学知识绿化的起点[J].西南大学学报,2007(4).
[143]李琳,生安锋.后殖民主义的文化身份观[J].国外理论动态,2004(12).
[144]李林波.对赛珍珠《水浒传》译本的再思[J].四川外语学院学报,2004(6).
[145]李露.《红楼梦》英译述要[J].西安教育学院学报,2000(2).
[146]李妙晴.互文性分类与翻译[J].中山大学学报论丛,2007(12).
[147]李庆甲.《文心雕龙》书名发微[M].上海古籍出版社,1989.
[148]李霜.理雅各与辜鸿铭《论语》翻译的比较研究[D].四川大学硕士学位论文,2004.
[149]李莹.论《论语》在英美的翻译与接受[D].四川大学硕士学位论文,2002.
[150]李约瑟.中国科学技术史[M].北京:科学出版社,1975.
[151]李泽厚,刘纲纪.中国美学史[M].北京:中国科学技术出版社,1984.
[152]连淑能.英汉对比研究[M].高等教育出版社,1993.
[153]梁启超.翻译文学与佛典[A].翻译论集[M].罗新璋编.商务印书馆,1984.
[154]廖七一.当代英国翻译理论[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,2001.
[155]廖七一.学科设置与翻译学的发展[J].中国翻译,2004(3).
[156]林本椿.文化全球化和对外翻译[J].福建师范大学学报,1999(2).
[157](日)铃木虎雄.敦煌本文心雕龙校勘记[A].内藤博士还历祝贺支那学论丛[M].京都:宏文堂,1926.
[158]林语堂.论翻译[A].转引自罗新璋编,翻译论集[C],pp.417-433.商务印书馆,1984.
[159]刘福森.从机械论到有机论:文化观念变革与唯物史观研究中的问题[J].人文杂志,1994(3).
[160]刘靖之.重神似不重形似(A),1980.转引自罗新璋编,翻译论集[C],pp.291-292.商务印书馆,1984.
[161]刘昆庸.论《文心雕龙》的文体形式[J].宁德师专学报,1997(2).
[162]刘宓庆.翻译与语言哲学[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2001.
[163]刘士聪编.《红楼梦》翻译研究论文集[C].南开大学出版社,2004.
[164]刘迎春、黄中习.典籍英译任重道远[J].中国外语,Vol.1,No.5,2007.
[165]刘炜.论艾略特的文学作品有机整体观及其在《荒原》中的运用[J].高等函授学报,2003(4).
[166]刘英凯.“形美”、“音美”杂议[J].外语学刊,1982(3).
[167]陆侃如.牟世金.文心雕龙译注[M].齐鲁书社,1995.
[168]鲁迅.集外集拾遗补编:题记一篇[A].鲁迅全集(十六卷本).人民文学出版社,1981.
[169]鲁迅.题未定草·二[A].罗新璋编.翻译论集[M].商务印书馆,1984.
[170]鲁迅.为翻译辩护[A].转引自罗新璋编,翻译论集[C],pp.291-292.商务印书馆,1984.
[171]罗新璋编.翻译论集[C].商务印书馆,1984.
[172]吕斌.《文心雕龙》“道”、“术”论[J].北方论丛,2007(2).
[173]吕俊.能动的形式与形式的能动[J].外语研究,1998(1).
[174]吕俊.结构·解构·建构[J].中国翻译,2001(6).
[175]吕俊.论翻译研究的本体回归[J].外国语,2004(4).
[176]吕俊.二十世纪西方文论与翻译学的构建[J].常熟理工学院学报,2005(5).
[177]吕叔湘.中诗英译比录[M].中华书局,2002.
[178]马红军.为赛珍珠的误译正名[J].四川外语学院学报,2003(3).
[179]马会娟.奈达翻译理论研究[M].外语教学与研究出版社,2003.
[180]马会娟.对Laurence Venuti异化翻译理论的再思考[J].天津外国语学院学报,2006(1).
[181]马祖毅,任荣珍.汉籍外译史[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,2003.
[182]茅盾,1922.译诗的一些意见[A].转引自罗新璋编,翻译论集[C],pp.344-348.商务印书馆,1984.
[183]茅盾.为发展文学翻译事业和提高翻译质量而奋斗[A],1954.转引自罗新璋编,翻译论集[M],p.511.商务印书馆,1984.
[184]毛建儒.论后现代的有机整体观[J].系统辩证学学报,1998(7).
[185]毛宣国.古代文论与当代文学理论的发展建构[J].江海学刊,1997(2).
[186]孟德斯鸠.论法的精神[M].陕西人民出版社,2001.
[187]孟庆丽.试论先秦时期中国古代言意观的建构和“言意之辩”的滥觞[D].苏州大学博士学位论文,2002.
[188]苗菊.形神兼备,意形兼得[J].西安外国语学院学报,2000(4).
[189]缪俊杰.文心雕龙美学[M].文化艺术出版社,1987.
[190]潘文国,2002a.当代西方的翻译学研究[J].中国翻译,2002(2).
[191]潘文国,2002b.当代西方的翻译学研究(续)[J].中国翻译,2002(3).
[192]彭恩华.兴膳宏文心雕龙论文集[M].济南:齐鲁书社,1983.
[193]普罗丁(Plotinos,).论自然、凝思和太一:九章集选译本[M].石敏敏译,中国社会科学出版社,2004.
[194]戚良德.文论巨典---《文心雕龙》与中国文化.开封:湖南大学出版社:2005.
[195]戚良德.文心雕龙文学美学思想研究[M].山东大学博士论文,2007.
[196]钱歌川.翻译的基本知识[M].长沙:湖南科学技术出版社,1981.
[197]钱钟书.林纾的翻译.转引自罗新璋编《翻译论集》[C]pp.696-125,商务印书馆,1984.
[198]秦华.精理为文,秀气成采[J].西安外国语学院学报,2002(1).
[199]饶宗颐.文心雕龙与佛教[J].民主评论,1954(3).
[200]瑞恰兹(Richards,I.A.).文学批评原理[M].杨自伍译,南昌:百花洲文艺出版社,1992.
[201](意)珊德拉(Sandra Lavagnino).《文心雕龙》研究在欧洲[A].杨明照主编,文心雕龙学综览[C].上海书店出版社,1995.
[202]司显柱.译作一定要忠实原作吗?-翻译本质再认识[J].上海科技翻译,2002(4).
[203]宋伟.文学理论话语的独立与自觉[J].中州学刊,2004(3).
[204]孙昌坤.密响旁通,伏采潜发[J].外语与外语教学,2005(2).
[205]孙会军.普遍与差异[M].上海译文出版社,2005.
[206]孙慕天,采赫米斯特罗.新整体论[M].黑龙江教育出版社,1996.
[207]谭好哲.走向文艺理论研究的综合创新[J].文史哲,2003(6).
[208]谭载喜.试论翻译学[J].外国语,1988(3).
[209]谭载喜.西方翻译简史[M].商务印书馆,1991.
[210]谭载喜.新编奈达论翻译[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1999.
[211]汤用彤.魏晋玄学论稿[M].上海古籍出版社,2001.
[212]童鹰.论中国古典自然哲学的有机论范式[J].武汉大学学报,1992(5).
[213]王东波.《论语》英译的缘起与发展[J].孔子研究,2008(4).
[214]王东风.翻译文学的文化地位与译者的文化态度[J].中国翻译,2000(4).
[215]王光林.翻译与华裔作家文化身份的塑造[J].外国文学评论,2002(4).
[216]王更生.文心雕龙研究[M].台湾:文史哲出版社,1976.
[217]王国维(1906,).书辜氏汤生英译《中庸》后.转引自罗新璋编,翻译论集[C].商务印书馆,1984.
[218]王辉.理雅各英译《论语》的特色与得失[J].深圳大学学报,2003(4).
[219]王宏杰等.《文心雕龙》修辞美漫议[J].丽水学院学报,2008(8).
[220]王宏印.《红楼梦》诗词曲赋英译比较研究[M].陕西师范大学出版社,2001.
[221]王宏印.《诗品》注释与司空图诗学研究[M].北京图书馆出版社,2002.
[222]王宏印.文学翻译批评论稿[M].上海外语教育出版社,2005.
[223]王农.简介《红楼梦》的一种译本[J].社会科学战线,1979(1).
[224]王元化选编.日本研究《文心雕龙》论文集[C].济南:齐鲁书社,1983.
[225]王元化.《文心雕龙》讲疏[M].上海古籍出版社,1995.
[226]王岳川.20世纪西方文论研究丛书(总序)[A].山东教育出版社,1998.
[227]王岳川.文心雕龙创作论[M].上海古籍出版社,1979.
[228]汪榕培.加强民族典籍的英译,弘扬民族文化[J].广西民族研究,2008(4).
[229]汪榕培.比较与翻译[M].上海外语教育出版社,1997.
[230]王晓路.术语的困惑-西方汉学界的中国古代文论研究述评[J].文艺理论研究,1999(4).
[231]王晓路.体系的差异-西方汉学界的中国古代文论研究述评[J].文艺理论研究,2000(1).
[232]王晓路.西方汉学界的中国文论研究[M].成都:巴蜀书社,2002.
[233]王以铸.论神韵[A].转引自罗新璋编,翻译论集[C],pp.567-571.商务印书馆,1984.
[234]汪永平.从西方的中国形象看西方的文化心理[J].西安电子科技大学学报(社会科学版),2004(3).
[235]王志琴.关联理论对翻译的诠释及对语言形式翻译的指导[J].上海翻译,2005(2).
[236]魏家海.全球化与民族化:译者的文化身份的定位[J].山东师大外国语学院学报,2001(2).
[237]韦勒克(Wellek,Rene),沃伦().文学理论[M].刘象愚等译,江苏教育出版社,2005.
[238]维姆塞特(Wimsatt,William K.),布鲁克斯(Cleanth Brooks).西洋文学批评史[M].颜元叔译,中国人民大学出版社,1987.
[239]魏望东.跨世纪《论语》三译本的多视角研究-从理雅各到庞德到斯林哲兰德,兼论复译的必要性[J].中国翻译,2005(3).
[240]文军.翻译批评:分类、作用、过程及标准[J].重庆大学学报,2000(6).
[241]伍蠡甫编著.西方文论选下卷[M].上海译文出版社,1979.
[242]许宝强,袁伟选编.语言与翻译的政治[M].中央编译出版社,2001.
[243]夏志厚.《周易》与《文心雕龙》的理论构架[J].文艺理论研究,1990(3).
[244](日)兴膳宏.文心雕龙注[M].筑摩书房,1968.
[245]徐复观.文心雕龙的文体论[J].东海学报第1卷第1期,1959(6).
[246]许均.文学翻译批评研究[M].南京:译林出版社,1992.
[247]许均,袁筱一编著.当代法国翻译理论[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,2001.
[248]许均.译事探索与译学思考[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社 2002.
[249]许均.翻译论[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,2003.
[250]徐珺,霍跃红.典籍英译:文化翻译观下的异化策略与中国英语.外语与外语教学,2008(7).
[251]许渊冲.毛主席诗词译文研究[J].外国语,1979(1).
[252]许渊冲.翻译的艺术[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1984.
[253]许渊冲.新世纪的新译论[J].中国翻译,2000(3).
[254]杨东杰,王冬梅.对语言的形式意义在翻译中的探讨[J].陕西工学院学报,1999(3).
[255]杨国斌.《文心雕龙》英文新译(30篇)与理论探讨[D].北京外国语大学博士学位论文,1992.
[256]杨国斌.Dragon-Carving and the Literary Mind[M].外语教学与研究出版社,2003.
[257]杨明照.社会科学战线,1985(4).
[258]杨宪益.漏船载酒忆当年.薛鸿时译,北京:十月文艺出版社,2001.
[259]杨宪益.Carving a Dragon at the Core of Literature[J].Chinese Literature,1962(8).
[260]叶嘉莹.王国维和他的文学批评[M].石家庄:河北教育出版社,1997.
[261]郁龙余.中国印度诗学比较[M].北京:昆仑出版社,2006.
[262]袁文彬.论西方文论对翻译研究的影响[J].西安联合大学学报,2004(1).
[263]张柏然.翻译本体论断想[J].外语与外语教学,1998(4).
[264]张海明.海外和台港地区的中国古代文论研究[A].
[265]www.studa.net/Present/080731/15030239.html(08/7/31).引用日期:08/11/3.
[266]张皓.中国美学范畴与传统文化[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,1996.
[267]张今.文学翻译原理[M].开封:河南大学出版社,1987.
[268]张经浩.译论[M].长沙:湖南教育出版社,1996.
[269]张经浩,陈可培.名家·名论·名译[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2005.
[270]张景华.翻译伦理:维努蒂翻译理论研究[D].南开大学博士学位论文,2008.
[271]张少康.再论《文心雕龙》和中国文化传统[A].求索,1997(5).
[272]张新民,杨国燕.从《尤利西斯》的语言特点看注释性翻译[J].华中科技大学学报,2004(6).
[273]张秀仿.宇文所安《中国文论选读》的研究型翻译解析[J].新西部,2008(6).
[274]赵彦春.文化派的理论取向与实质[J].四川外语学院学报,2004(6).
[275]赵彦春.翻译学归结论[M].上海外语教育出版社,2005.
[276]郑海凌.谈翻译批评的基本理论问题[J].中国翻译,2000(2).
[277]周波.略谈现代文化语境下的古代文论研究[J].山东师范大学学报,2007(2).
[278]邹广胜.从《文心雕龙》的研究看中西文论对话[J].湖南社会科学,2005(1).
[279]邹霆.永远的求索[M].华东师范大学出版社,2001.
[280]周谨.杨宪益[A].http://www.fane.cn/theory_view.asp?id=116.引用日期:2008年12月4日.
[281]周宁.2000年西方看中国[M].北京:团结出版社,1999.
[282]周扬.关于建设具有中国民族特点的马克思主义文艺理论问题[J].社会科学战线,1983(4).
[283]周振甫.文心雕龙今译[M].中华书局,1986.
[284]周振甫.《文心雕龙》辞典[M].中华书局:1996.
[285]朱凡希.翻译与翻译身份认同:我们将成为谁?[J].中国比较文学,2007(2).
[286]朱刚.二十世纪西方文论[M].北京大学出版社,2006.
[287]朱桂成.文化全球化·文化操守·翻译策略[J].河海大学学报,2002(3).
[288]朱立元.走自己的路-对于迈向21世纪的中国文论建设问题的思考[J].文学评论,2000(3).
[289]朱文林.从东西方文化源头探讨朴素的有机整体论[J].科技咨询导报,2007(22).
[2]Bassnet,Susan.& Harish Trivedi.Postcolonial Translation:Theory and Practice[M].London and New York:Routledge,1999.
[3]Bhabha,Homi.The Location of Culture[M].London and New York:Routledge,1994.
[4]Cai Zong-qi eds.A Chinese Literary Mind:Culture,Creativity,and Rhetoric in Wenxin diaolong[M].Stanford University Press.
[5]Chu,Madeline.Review on Early Chinese Literaary Criticism by Siu-kit Wong[J].Journal of the American Oriental Society,Vol.105,No.4.
[6]Debon,G.Chinesische Dichtung:Geschichte,Struktur,Theorie[M].Leiden,1989.
[7]De Lotbineiere Harwood,S.The Body Bilingual:Translation as a Rewriting in the Feminine[M].Montreal and Toronto:Les Editions du remue-menage and Women's Press,1991.
[8]Flowtow,Luise Von.Translation and Gender---Translating in the “Era of Feminism ”[M].上海外语教育出版社,2004.
[9]Genette,Gerard.热耐特论文集[C].史忠义译.天津:百花文艺出版社,2001.
[10]Gentzler,Edwin.Contemporary Translation Theories[M].London & New York:Routledge:1993.
[11]Gentzler,Edwin.Translation,Postcolonial Studies and Americas[J].Enter Text,2003(2).
[12]Gibbs,D.Literary Theories in the Wen-xin Tiao-lung[M].University of Washington PH.D.1970
[13]Gibbs,D.Liu Hsieh,Author of the Wen-xin Tiao-lung.1970-71.
[14]Godard,Babara.Theorizing Feminist Discourse/Translation[A].in Susan Bassnett & Andre Lefevere eds.Translation,History and Culture[C].London:Cassell,1990.
[15]Hawkes,David.Review on The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons.The Journal of Asian Studies,Vol.19,No.3,pp.331-332,1960.
[16]Hightower,J.R.Review on The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons.The Journal of Asian Studies,Vol.22,pp.280-288,1959.
[17]Hirsch,E.D.Validity in Interpretation[M].New Haven:Yale University Press,1967.
[18]Holzman,Donald.Review on The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons.Artibus Asiae,Vol.23,No.2,pp.36-139,1960.
[19]House,Juliane.A Model for Translation Quality Assessment[M].Tubingen,Gunter Narr,1977.
[20]House,Juliane.A Model for Translation Quality Assessment:A Model Revisited[M].Tubingen,Gunter Narr,1997.
[21]Hughes,E.R.The Literary mind and Its Carving of Dragons by Liu Hsieh:Chaper1,The Basic Dao.in Lu Chi's Wen Fu,A.D.302:A Translation and Comparative Study[M].New York:Pantheon Books,1951.236-40.
[22]Jullien,E Niecriture sainte ni oeuvre classique:du statut du Texte confuceen comme texte fondateur vis-a-vis dela-civilisation chinoise[A].Extr.Orient Extr.Occident,V,Paris,1984.
[23]Koskinen,Kaisa.Beyond Ambivalence:Postmodernity and the Ethics of Translation[D].Tampere,University of Tampere,2000.
[24]Laurent,Jelly.The Strategy of Forms[A].in French Literary Theory Today:a Reader[C].ed.T.Todorov.Cambridge University Press,1982.
[25]Leech,Geoffrey,N.& Michael Short.Style in Fiction:A Linguistic Introduction to English Fictional Prose[M].外语教学与研究出版社,2001.
[26]Lemon,Lee.T.& M.J.Reis eds.Russian Formalist Criticism,Four Essays[C].Lincoln:University of Nebraska P,1965.
[27]Liu,James Yu.Chinese Theories of Literature[M].Chicago and London:Chicago University Press,1975.
[28]Liu,Wu-chi.Review on The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons[J].Journal of American Oriental Society,Vol.80,No.3,pp.275-277,1960.
[29]Newmark,Peter.A Textbook of Translation[M].New York,Prentice Hall:1988.
[30]Nida,Eugene.A.Toward A Science of Translating[M].Leiden:Brill,1969.
[31]Nida,Eugene.Approaches to Translation in the Western World[J].Foreign Language Teaching and Research,1984(2).
[32]Niranjana,Tejaswini.Sitting Translation:History,Post-Structuralism and the Cononial Context[M].University of California Press,1992.
[33]Nord,Christiane.Translating as a Purposeful Activity:Functionalist Approaches Explained[M].Manchester:St.Jerome Publishing Ltd.1997.
[34]Pollard,D.E.Readings in Chinese Literary Thought by Stephen Owen.The China Quarterly, No.137,pp.279-280,1994.
[35]Robson,Douglas.Translation and Empire:Postcolonial Theories Explained[M].Manchester:St.Jerome Publishing Ltd.,1997.
[36]Reiss,Katharine.Translation Criticism--The Potentials and Limitations[M].Manchester:St.Jerome Publishing,2000.
[37]Rickett,A.A.Technical Terms in Chinese Literary Criticism[J].Literary East and West,No.Ⅻ.
[38]Sandra Lavagnino.Liu Xie e i modi della composizionelletterari:le figure bi e xing[M].Annali IUO,Napoli,1984.
[39]Shao,Paul Young-xing.Liu Hsieh as Literary Theorist,Critic and Rhetorician[D].Stanford University,1982.
[40]Shih,Vincent Yu-chung.The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons.Hong Kong:The Chinese University Press,1983.
[41]Shih,Vincent Yu-chong.Liu Hsieh's Concept of Organic Unity[J].Tamkang Review,1973.
[42]Shuttleworth,M.& Moria Cowie ed.Dictionary of Translation Studies[M].Manchester:St.Jerome Publishing Ltd.,1997.
[43]Spivak,G.C.Outside in the Teaching Machine[M].Routledge,1993.
[44]宇文所安.Wenxin Tiaolung In中国文论:英译与评论.王柏华、陶庆梅译.上海社会科学院出版社.2002.
[45]Shih,Vincent Yu- Chung.Liu Hsieh's Conception of Organic Unity[J].Tamkang Review,Vol.1,4,1973.
[46]Steiner,George.After Babel:Aspects of Language and Translation[M].London:Oxford University Press,1975.
[47]Tokei,Ferenc."Universal and Changing"& "The Order of Times",in Genre Theory in China in the 3rd-6th Centuries.1971.145-151;163-76.
[48]Tu,Ching-i.Traditional Chinese Literary Criticism[J].Journal of the CLTA,No.3.
[49]Venuti,Laurence.The Translator's Invisibility[M].London:Routledge,1995.
[50]Venuti,Laurence.Translation and the Formation of Cultural Identities[A].Christina Schaffner and Helen Kelly-Holmes(ed.) Cultural Functions of Translation[C].Clevedon:Multilingual Matters Ltd.,1996.
[51]Venuti,Laurence.The Scandals of Translation[M].London:Routledge,1998.
[52]Wang,C.H.Naming the Reality of Chinese Criticism[J].Journal of Asian Studies,No.38.
[53]Wilss,Wolfram.The Science of Translation:Problems and Methods[M].Tubingen:Gunter Narr,1982.
[54]Wong,Siu-kit eds.and trans.Early Chinese Literary Criticism[M].Hongkong:Joint Publishing Co.1983.
[55]Wong,Siu-kit,etc.Wenxin Diaolong:The Book of Literary Design.Hong Kong University Press,1998.
[56]Wylie,A.Notes on Chinese Literature[M].Shanghai:American Presbyterian Mission Press,1867.
[57]Yuen-wan,Ngan.Some Characteristics of Chinese Literary Criticism[J].East Asian Culture,No.18.
[58]Zhao Heping.Wen-xin Tiao-lung:an Early Chinese Rhetoric of Written Discource[D].Purdue University,1993.
[59]艾布拉姆斯(M.H.Abrams).镜与灯:浪漫主义文论及批评传统[M].北京大学出版社,2004.
[60]巴尔胡达罗夫.语言与翻译[M].蔡毅等译.北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1985.
[61]北京大学哲学系外国哲学史教研室.古希腊罗马哲学[M].商务印书馆,1961.
[62][德]本雅明(Benjamin,W.).译者的任务[A].陈永国编,翻译与后现代性[C].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005.
[63]卞之琳等,1959.艺术性翻译问题和诗歌翻译问题[A].转引自罗新璋编,翻译论集[C],pp.659-666.商务印书馆,1984.
[64]布瓦洛(Nicolas Boileau-Despreaux).诗的艺术[M].任典译,人民文学出版社,1959.
[65]布鲁诺(Bruno,G).论原因,本原和太一[M].商务印书馆,1984.
[66]蔡毅.关于国外翻译理论的三大核心概念[J].中国翻译,1995(6).
[67]蔡钟翔.谈中西文论的比较研究[J].学术研究,1992(6).
[68]蔡宗阳.文心雕龙与经学[M].台北:文史哲出版社,1989.
[69]曹顺庆.从总体文学角度认识《文心雕龙》的民族特色和理论价值[J].文学评论,1989(2).
[70]曹顺庆.二十一世纪中国文化发展战略与重建中国文论话语[J].东方丛刊,1995(3).
[71]常智奇.整体论美学观纲要[M].四川人民出版社,1994.
[72]陈大亮.翻译本质的形而上反思[J].天津外国语学院学报,2007(1).
[73]陈福康.中国译学理论史稿[M].上海外语教育出版社,2000.
[74]陈可培.道安的“直译观”之我见[J].四川外语学院学报,2006(3).
[75]陈世锋.从机械论到圆融境界论[J].云南社会科学,2008(5).
[76]陈顺智.论《文心雕龙》之“道”的本质特征[J].武汉大学学报,1992(2).
[77]陈引驰,李姝.鸟瞰他山之石-英语学界中国文论研究[J].中国比较文学,2005(3).
[78]程葆青.文学翻译中的“译者注”研究[D].上海外国语大学硕士论文,2006.
[79]程工.语言共性论[M].上海外语教育出版社,1999.
[80]陈炎.走出“失范”和“失语”的中国美学和文论[J].文学评论,2004(2).
[81]初凌宇.翻译与注释[J].英语自学,1996(11).
[82]崔永禄.得意不可忘形-试论翻译中形式与内容的辩证关系[J].天津外国语学院学报,2002(2).
[83]邓牛顿.说“神”-中国艺术哲学探讨之一[J].上海大学学报,1989(3).
[84]邓晓凌.文学翻译中的注释问题[D].四川大学硕士学位论文,2004.
[85]丁韪良.花甲记忆-一位传教士眼中的晚清帝国[M].沈弘等译,桂林:广西师范大学出版社,2004.
[86]段伟文.科学方法的整体论嬗变[J].中国人民大学学报,2007(3).
[87]邓肯(Duncan,R.)等.科学的未知世界[M].上海科学技术出版社,1985.
[88]恩格斯(Engels,F).自然辩证法[M].人民教育出版社,1984.
[89]范文澜.文心雕龙注[M].人民文学出版社,1958.
[90]范圣宇.《红楼梦》管窥-英译、语言与文化[M].中国社会科学出版社,2004.
[91]方梦之.翻译中的阐释与注释[J].山东外语教学,1993(1).
[92]方梦之.译学辞典[M].上海外语教育出版社,2004.
[93]菲利普(D·C·Philips).社会科学中的整体论思想[M].吴忠等译,宁夏人民出版社,1988.
[94]冯庆华.《红楼梦》翻译艺术研究[M].上海外语教育出版社,2006.
[95]傅雷.致林以亮论翻译书.转引自罗新璋编《翻译论集》pp.545-549,商务印书馆,1984.
[96]傅雷.《高老头》重译本序.转引自罗新璋编《翻译论集》pp.558-559,商务印书馆,1984.
[97]傅雷.傅雷文集·文艺卷[M].北京:当代世界出版社,2006.
[98]傅雷.傅雷文集·书信卷[M].北京:当代世界出版社,2006.
[99]高伟光.英国浪漫主义的有机论美学观[J].甘肃社会科学,2006(3).
[100]葛校琴.翻译神似论的哲学-美学基础[J].中国翻译,1999(4).
[101]耿延宏,王梦.翻译学视角中形式的表现意义[J].河北大学学报,2005(5).
[102]龚放等编著.南大逸事[M].沈阳:辽海出版社,1999.
[103]郭建中.关于直译与意译的新概念[J].外语研究:1989(1).
[104]郭建中.当代美国翻译理论[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,2001.
[105]郭鹏.《文心雕龙》的文学理论和历史渊源[M].齐鲁书社,2005.
[106]郭昭第.中国20世纪文论话语建构的症结[J].洛阳师范学院学报,2001(6).
[107]郝敏.俄国形式主义批判[D].内蒙古师范大学,2008.
[108]海德格尔(M.Heidger).海德格尔选集[M].孙周兴译,三联书店上海分店,1996.
[109]何刚强.英汉翻译中的得“意”忘“形”[J].中国翻译,1997(5).
[110]黑格尔.自然哲学[M].梁志学等译,商务印书馆,1982.
[111]黑格尔.历史哲学[M].王造时译.上海:上海书店出版社,2001.
[112]黑格尔.美学(第一卷)[M].商务印书馆,1979.
[113]贺拉斯.诗艺[M].杨周翰译,人民文学出版社,1962.
[114]赫施(Hirsch,E.D.).客观阐释[A].西方二十世纪文论选(第三卷)[M].胡经之,张首映编.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1989.
[115]贺显斌.维努蒂翻译理论的局限性[J].外国语,2007(3).
[116]胡疆锋.西风东渐30年-西方文论与新时期中国文论建设[J].当代文坛,2008(3).
[117]胡亚敏.中西文论术语检讨[J].外国文学研究,2003(3).
[118]黄高宪.试论《易传》对《文心雕龙》的影响[J].周易研究,2000(1).
[119]黄鸣奋.英语世界中国古代文论研究[J].文艺理论研究,1994(4).
[120]黄维樑.精雕龙与精制瓮:刘勰与新批评家对结构的看法[J].淡江评论,1984年第16期.
[121]黄维樑.20世纪文学理论:中国与西方[J].北京大学学报,2008(3).
[122]黄忠廉.翻译本质论[M].武汉:华中师范大学出版社,2000.
[123](荷)霍伊卡(Hooykaas,R.).宗教与现代科学的兴起[M].丘仲辉等译,成都:四川人民出版社.1999.
[124](日)户田浩晓.文心雕龙研究[M].曹旭译,上海古籍出版社,1992.
[125]胡志挥.略谈文学翻译的注释[J].外国语,1980(6).
[126]怀特海(Whitehead,A.N.).科学与近代世界[M].商务印书馆,1962.
[127]纪秋郎.作为古典主义者的刘勰与其传统和通变观[J].淡江评论,1973年第4期.
[128]纪秋郎.《文心雕龙》研究的检讨与展望[J].明道文艺,1988(1).
[129]季羡林.门外中外文论絮语[J].文学评论,1996(6).
[130]贾树新.《文心雕龙》数据信息[J].吉林大学学报,1987(1).
[13l](法)克里斯蒂娃(Kristeva).符号学、语义分析研究[M].巴黎,Seuil出版社,1969.
[132]江帆.他乡的石头记-《红楼梦》百年英译史研究[D].复旦大学博士论文,2007.
[133]江枫.”新世纪的新译论”点评[J].中国翻译,2001(5).
[134]蒋骁华.当代西方翻译理论的新发展[J].外国语言文学,2003(2).
[135]江原.中国古典诗论在西方[A].http://www.literature.org.cn/Article.asp?ID=482.引用日期:2008年11月21日.
[136]举人.日本的文心雕龙研究[J].南京理工大学学报,2006(5).
[137]卡普拉(Capra,F.).转折点[M].中国人民大学出版社,1989.
[138](英)卡特福德(Catford,J.C.).翻译的语言学理论[M].穆雷译,旅游教育出版社,1991.
[139](美)库恩(Kuhn,T.).科学革命的结构(M).金吾伦,胡新和译.北京大学出版社,2004.
[140]李传伟.翻译的最高境界-得“意”忘“言”[J].湘潭大学学报,1999(1).
[141]李凯,舒畅.《文心雕龙》中的作品有机论[J].四川师范大学学报,2006(2).
[142]李国.机械论范式的有机论转向:科学知识绿化的起点[J].西南大学学报,2007(4).
[143]李琳,生安锋.后殖民主义的文化身份观[J].国外理论动态,2004(12).
[144]李林波.对赛珍珠《水浒传》译本的再思[J].四川外语学院学报,2004(6).
[145]李露.《红楼梦》英译述要[J].西安教育学院学报,2000(2).
[146]李妙晴.互文性分类与翻译[J].中山大学学报论丛,2007(12).
[147]李庆甲.《文心雕龙》书名发微[M].上海古籍出版社,1989.
[148]李霜.理雅各与辜鸿铭《论语》翻译的比较研究[D].四川大学硕士学位论文,2004.
[149]李莹.论《论语》在英美的翻译与接受[D].四川大学硕士学位论文,2002.
[150]李约瑟.中国科学技术史[M].北京:科学出版社,1975.
[151]李泽厚,刘纲纪.中国美学史[M].北京:中国科学技术出版社,1984.
[152]连淑能.英汉对比研究[M].高等教育出版社,1993.
[153]梁启超.翻译文学与佛典[A].翻译论集[M].罗新璋编.商务印书馆,1984.
[154]廖七一.当代英国翻译理论[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,2001.
[155]廖七一.学科设置与翻译学的发展[J].中国翻译,2004(3).
[156]林本椿.文化全球化和对外翻译[J].福建师范大学学报,1999(2).
[157](日)铃木虎雄.敦煌本文心雕龙校勘记[A].内藤博士还历祝贺支那学论丛[M].京都:宏文堂,1926.
[158]林语堂.论翻译[A].转引自罗新璋编,翻译论集[C],pp.417-433.商务印书馆,1984.
[159]刘福森.从机械论到有机论:文化观念变革与唯物史观研究中的问题[J].人文杂志,1994(3).
[160]刘靖之.重神似不重形似(A),1980.转引自罗新璋编,翻译论集[C],pp.291-292.商务印书馆,1984.
[161]刘昆庸.论《文心雕龙》的文体形式[J].宁德师专学报,1997(2).
[162]刘宓庆.翻译与语言哲学[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2001.
[163]刘士聪编.《红楼梦》翻译研究论文集[C].南开大学出版社,2004.
[164]刘迎春、黄中习.典籍英译任重道远[J].中国外语,Vol.1,No.5,2007.
[165]刘炜.论艾略特的文学作品有机整体观及其在《荒原》中的运用[J].高等函授学报,2003(4).
[166]刘英凯.“形美”、“音美”杂议[J].外语学刊,1982(3).
[167]陆侃如.牟世金.文心雕龙译注[M].齐鲁书社,1995.
[168]鲁迅.集外集拾遗补编:题记一篇[A].鲁迅全集(十六卷本).人民文学出版社,1981.
[169]鲁迅.题未定草·二[A].罗新璋编.翻译论集[M].商务印书馆,1984.
[170]鲁迅.为翻译辩护[A].转引自罗新璋编,翻译论集[C],pp.291-292.商务印书馆,1984.
[171]罗新璋编.翻译论集[C].商务印书馆,1984.
[172]吕斌.《文心雕龙》“道”、“术”论[J].北方论丛,2007(2).
[173]吕俊.能动的形式与形式的能动[J].外语研究,1998(1).
[174]吕俊.结构·解构·建构[J].中国翻译,2001(6).
[175]吕俊.论翻译研究的本体回归[J].外国语,2004(4).
[176]吕俊.二十世纪西方文论与翻译学的构建[J].常熟理工学院学报,2005(5).
[177]吕叔湘.中诗英译比录[M].中华书局,2002.
[178]马红军.为赛珍珠的误译正名[J].四川外语学院学报,2003(3).
[179]马会娟.奈达翻译理论研究[M].外语教学与研究出版社,2003.
[180]马会娟.对Laurence Venuti异化翻译理论的再思考[J].天津外国语学院学报,2006(1).
[181]马祖毅,任荣珍.汉籍外译史[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,2003.
[182]茅盾,1922.译诗的一些意见[A].转引自罗新璋编,翻译论集[C],pp.344-348.商务印书馆,1984.
[183]茅盾.为发展文学翻译事业和提高翻译质量而奋斗[A],1954.转引自罗新璋编,翻译论集[M],p.511.商务印书馆,1984.
[184]毛建儒.论后现代的有机整体观[J].系统辩证学学报,1998(7).
[185]毛宣国.古代文论与当代文学理论的发展建构[J].江海学刊,1997(2).
[186]孟德斯鸠.论法的精神[M].陕西人民出版社,2001.
[187]孟庆丽.试论先秦时期中国古代言意观的建构和“言意之辩”的滥觞[D].苏州大学博士学位论文,2002.
[188]苗菊.形神兼备,意形兼得[J].西安外国语学院学报,2000(4).
[189]缪俊杰.文心雕龙美学[M].文化艺术出版社,1987.
[190]潘文国,2002a.当代西方的翻译学研究[J].中国翻译,2002(2).
[191]潘文国,2002b.当代西方的翻译学研究(续)[J].中国翻译,2002(3).
[192]彭恩华.兴膳宏文心雕龙论文集[M].济南:齐鲁书社,1983.
[193]普罗丁(Plotinos,).论自然、凝思和太一:九章集选译本[M].石敏敏译,中国社会科学出版社,2004.
[194]戚良德.文论巨典---《文心雕龙》与中国文化.开封:湖南大学出版社:2005.
[195]戚良德.文心雕龙文学美学思想研究[M].山东大学博士论文,2007.
[196]钱歌川.翻译的基本知识[M].长沙:湖南科学技术出版社,1981.
[197]钱钟书.林纾的翻译.转引自罗新璋编《翻译论集》[C]pp.696-125,商务印书馆,1984.
[198]秦华.精理为文,秀气成采[J].西安外国语学院学报,2002(1).
[199]饶宗颐.文心雕龙与佛教[J].民主评论,1954(3).
[200]瑞恰兹(Richards,I.A.).文学批评原理[M].杨自伍译,南昌:百花洲文艺出版社,1992.
[201](意)珊德拉(Sandra Lavagnino).《文心雕龙》研究在欧洲[A].杨明照主编,文心雕龙学综览[C].上海书店出版社,1995.
[202]司显柱.译作一定要忠实原作吗?-翻译本质再认识[J].上海科技翻译,2002(4).
[203]宋伟.文学理论话语的独立与自觉[J].中州学刊,2004(3).
[204]孙昌坤.密响旁通,伏采潜发[J].外语与外语教学,2005(2).
[205]孙会军.普遍与差异[M].上海译文出版社,2005.
[206]孙慕天,采赫米斯特罗.新整体论[M].黑龙江教育出版社,1996.
[207]谭好哲.走向文艺理论研究的综合创新[J].文史哲,2003(6).
[208]谭载喜.试论翻译学[J].外国语,1988(3).
[209]谭载喜.西方翻译简史[M].商务印书馆,1991.
[210]谭载喜.新编奈达论翻译[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1999.
[211]汤用彤.魏晋玄学论稿[M].上海古籍出版社,2001.
[212]童鹰.论中国古典自然哲学的有机论范式[J].武汉大学学报,1992(5).
[213]王东波.《论语》英译的缘起与发展[J].孔子研究,2008(4).
[214]王东风.翻译文学的文化地位与译者的文化态度[J].中国翻译,2000(4).
[215]王光林.翻译与华裔作家文化身份的塑造[J].外国文学评论,2002(4).
[216]王更生.文心雕龙研究[M].台湾:文史哲出版社,1976.
[217]王国维(1906,).书辜氏汤生英译《中庸》后.转引自罗新璋编,翻译论集[C].商务印书馆,1984.
[218]王辉.理雅各英译《论语》的特色与得失[J].深圳大学学报,2003(4).
[219]王宏杰等.《文心雕龙》修辞美漫议[J].丽水学院学报,2008(8).
[220]王宏印.《红楼梦》诗词曲赋英译比较研究[M].陕西师范大学出版社,2001.
[221]王宏印.《诗品》注释与司空图诗学研究[M].北京图书馆出版社,2002.
[222]王宏印.文学翻译批评论稿[M].上海外语教育出版社,2005.
[223]王农.简介《红楼梦》的一种译本[J].社会科学战线,1979(1).
[224]王元化选编.日本研究《文心雕龙》论文集[C].济南:齐鲁书社,1983.
[225]王元化.《文心雕龙》讲疏[M].上海古籍出版社,1995.
[226]王岳川.20世纪西方文论研究丛书(总序)[A].山东教育出版社,1998.
[227]王岳川.文心雕龙创作论[M].上海古籍出版社,1979.
[228]汪榕培.加强民族典籍的英译,弘扬民族文化[J].广西民族研究,2008(4).
[229]汪榕培.比较与翻译[M].上海外语教育出版社,1997.
[230]王晓路.术语的困惑-西方汉学界的中国古代文论研究述评[J].文艺理论研究,1999(4).
[231]王晓路.体系的差异-西方汉学界的中国古代文论研究述评[J].文艺理论研究,2000(1).
[232]王晓路.西方汉学界的中国文论研究[M].成都:巴蜀书社,2002.
[233]王以铸.论神韵[A].转引自罗新璋编,翻译论集[C],pp.567-571.商务印书馆,1984.
[234]汪永平.从西方的中国形象看西方的文化心理[J].西安电子科技大学学报(社会科学版),2004(3).
[235]王志琴.关联理论对翻译的诠释及对语言形式翻译的指导[J].上海翻译,2005(2).
[236]魏家海.全球化与民族化:译者的文化身份的定位[J].山东师大外国语学院学报,2001(2).
[237]韦勒克(Wellek,Rene),沃伦().文学理论[M].刘象愚等译,江苏教育出版社,2005.
[238]维姆塞特(Wimsatt,William K.),布鲁克斯(Cleanth Brooks).西洋文学批评史[M].颜元叔译,中国人民大学出版社,1987.
[239]魏望东.跨世纪《论语》三译本的多视角研究-从理雅各到庞德到斯林哲兰德,兼论复译的必要性[J].中国翻译,2005(3).
[240]文军.翻译批评:分类、作用、过程及标准[J].重庆大学学报,2000(6).
[241]伍蠡甫编著.西方文论选下卷[M].上海译文出版社,1979.
[242]许宝强,袁伟选编.语言与翻译的政治[M].中央编译出版社,2001.
[243]夏志厚.《周易》与《文心雕龙》的理论构架[J].文艺理论研究,1990(3).
[244](日)兴膳宏.文心雕龙注[M].筑摩书房,1968.
[245]徐复观.文心雕龙的文体论[J].东海学报第1卷第1期,1959(6).
[246]许均.文学翻译批评研究[M].南京:译林出版社,1992.
[247]许均,袁筱一编著.当代法国翻译理论[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,2001.
[248]许均.译事探索与译学思考[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社 2002.
[249]许均.翻译论[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,2003.
[250]徐珺,霍跃红.典籍英译:文化翻译观下的异化策略与中国英语.外语与外语教学,2008(7).
[251]许渊冲.毛主席诗词译文研究[J].外国语,1979(1).
[252]许渊冲.翻译的艺术[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1984.
[253]许渊冲.新世纪的新译论[J].中国翻译,2000(3).
[254]杨东杰,王冬梅.对语言的形式意义在翻译中的探讨[J].陕西工学院学报,1999(3).
[255]杨国斌.《文心雕龙》英文新译(30篇)与理论探讨[D].北京外国语大学博士学位论文,1992.
[256]杨国斌.Dragon-Carving and the Literary Mind[M].外语教学与研究出版社,2003.
[257]杨明照.社会科学战线,1985(4).
[258]杨宪益.漏船载酒忆当年.薛鸿时译,北京:十月文艺出版社,2001.
[259]杨宪益.Carving a Dragon at the Core of Literature[J].Chinese Literature,1962(8).
[260]叶嘉莹.王国维和他的文学批评[M].石家庄:河北教育出版社,1997.
[261]郁龙余.中国印度诗学比较[M].北京:昆仑出版社,2006.
[262]袁文彬.论西方文论对翻译研究的影响[J].西安联合大学学报,2004(1).
[263]张柏然.翻译本体论断想[J].外语与外语教学,1998(4).
[264]张海明.海外和台港地区的中国古代文论研究[A].
[265]www.studa.net/Present/080731/15030239.html(08/7/31).引用日期:08/11/3.
[266]张皓.中国美学范畴与传统文化[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,1996.
[267]张今.文学翻译原理[M].开封:河南大学出版社,1987.
[268]张经浩.译论[M].长沙:湖南教育出版社,1996.
[269]张经浩,陈可培.名家·名论·名译[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2005.
[270]张景华.翻译伦理:维努蒂翻译理论研究[D].南开大学博士学位论文,2008.
[271]张少康.再论《文心雕龙》和中国文化传统[A].求索,1997(5).
[272]张新民,杨国燕.从《尤利西斯》的语言特点看注释性翻译[J].华中科技大学学报,2004(6).
[273]张秀仿.宇文所安《中国文论选读》的研究型翻译解析[J].新西部,2008(6).
[274]赵彦春.文化派的理论取向与实质[J].四川外语学院学报,2004(6).
[275]赵彦春.翻译学归结论[M].上海外语教育出版社,2005.
[276]郑海凌.谈翻译批评的基本理论问题[J].中国翻译,2000(2).
[277]周波.略谈现代文化语境下的古代文论研究[J].山东师范大学学报,2007(2).
[278]邹广胜.从《文心雕龙》的研究看中西文论对话[J].湖南社会科学,2005(1).
[279]邹霆.永远的求索[M].华东师范大学出版社,2001.
[280]周谨.杨宪益[A].http://www.fane.cn/theory_view.asp?id=116.引用日期:2008年12月4日.
[281]周宁.2000年西方看中国[M].北京:团结出版社,1999.
[282]周扬.关于建设具有中国民族特点的马克思主义文艺理论问题[J].社会科学战线,1983(4).
[283]周振甫.文心雕龙今译[M].中华书局,1986.
[284]周振甫.《文心雕龙》辞典[M].中华书局:1996.
[285]朱凡希.翻译与翻译身份认同:我们将成为谁?[J].中国比较文学,2007(2).
[286]朱刚.二十世纪西方文论[M].北京大学出版社,2006.
[287]朱桂成.文化全球化·文化操守·翻译策略[J].河海大学学报,2002(3).
[288]朱立元.走自己的路-对于迈向21世纪的中国文论建设问题的思考[J].文学评论,2000(3).
[289]朱文林.从东西方文化源头探讨朴素的有机整体论[J].科技咨询导报,2007(22).