《道德经》英译本的哲学阐释学研究
|
摘要
《道德经》是中国最早的一部道教哲学著作,它对中国传统文化和人们的生活具有重要的意义。自1868年第一个英译本诞生以来,它也在世界上受到广泛关注,并产生了广泛的影响。上世纪,《道德经》大量翻译和出版,成为除《圣经》外翻译版本最多的著作。基于上述事实,作者对《道德经》翻译产生了巨大的研究兴趣。在本文中,她试图从哲学阐释学的视角对这一部中国典籍的英译进行比较研究。
现代阐释学认为,翻译就是理解和阐释的过程。伽达默尔指出,译者既是读者也是阐释者,必然有其特有的“前结构”和“前理解”,所以其理解与阐释也不可避免地受到语言和文化的影响。翻译过程中,先有、先见和先设是不同的译者作为不同的社会心理个体所必然具有的,而这些不同的个体因素又构成了不同译者对同一译本的不同阐释。笔者系统梳理了伽达默尔的现代阐释学思想,审视了阐释学与中国典籍翻译的关系,并对其可行性及迫切性进行了分析。笔者认为伽达默尔的阐释学两大原则:理解的历史性和视界融合原则为典籍英译研究提供了新的视角。
目前,在国内外,专门从哲学阐释学角度进行翻译研究的文章数量还十分有限。本文作者试图以哲学阐释学的最基本的概念和伽达默尔的翻译理论为基础,通过对不同历史时期,不同地域的多个《道德经》英译本的研究,论证“理解的历史性”这一命题,并阐述以两次视闽融合为特征的翻译的一般过程。本文进行这一分析的目的不在于评析《道德经》四个英译本孰优孰劣,而在于探讨《道德经》出现众多不同译本的原因,尤其是因时间和文化差异而引起的不同“前结构”和“前理解”是如何影响到译者的视阈,进而产生不同译本的。
最后本文得出结论:《道德经》的翻译其实是一种对源文本的阐释;它在不同的时期对于不同的译者可以有不同的解读,所以不可能存在真正的“定译本”;老子《道德经》的英译则更为典型,《道德经》像一个丰富无比的矿藏,并非通过一次性的阐释就能穷尽对它的发掘。而且,一个译本不可能同时满足不同历史阶段不同读者的需求。只有通过多个译本多次的发掘,我们才不断接近完成对它的认识。这一结论对于我们做典籍英译本的研究颇有借鉴意义,即我们要运用历史的眼光,将研究对象放置到具体的历史社会文化环境中去看待和研究,防止走入机械分析的误区,才能得出科学得结论。
Tao Te Ching, the earliest Taoist philosophical text in China, is of profound significance in Chinese society, both in its philosophical and religious influences and its secular application to everyday life. Since its first English translation by the Englishman John Chalmers in 1868, it has received great attention around the world, especially in Britain and America. In the last century, Tao Te Ching was translated and published successively, which makes it the most widely translated text except the Bible. Because of this, the author of this thesis has developed great interest in the translation of Tao Te Ching. In the thesis, she intends to explore the English translation of this Chinese classic from the perspective of Gadamer’s hermeneutics.
In light of philosophical hermeneutics, translating is a process of understanding and interpreting. According to Gadamer, the translator, first as a reader, then an interpreter, has his/her own“preconstruction”and“fore-understanding”before understanding, what is more, his/her understanding and are active. For Gadamer, fore-having, fore-sight, and fore-conception are different social and psychological unities of different translators, which result from different social and cultural contexts. and it is these different unities that constitute the different interpretations of the same text.
After combining Gadamer’s hermeneutics and the evaluation of the relationship between hermeneutics and translation, the thesis further analyzes the feasibility and desirability of translation study in the scope of hermeneutics in China today. The author thinks that the prime principles of hermeneutics provide a valuable angle for the translation study of Chinese traditional classics. She also points out that it is particularly meaningful to study translation from the ideas of Gadamer, that is, from the historical interpretation and fusion of horizons.
In this thesis, the author mainly chooses four English versions of Tao Te Ching which can represent the lapse of time as well as regional diversity. With the help of the two concepts of“historicity of understanding”and“fusion of horizon”in hermeneutics theory, she analyzes some samples from the four versions. Instead of evaluating the relative gains and losses in these English versions, the thesis only intends to probe how different social and cultural contexts influence the translator’s“fore-understanding”.
The thesis argues that absolute definitive translation of the TTC (hereafter acronymed as TTC) is neither possible nor necessary for the following reasons. Firstly, all the translations feature their strong points, which are, however, accompanied by drawbacks and no translation seems to be the best one. Yet every kind of translation is the product a certain social context, which reflect the translator’s horizon as well as his interpretation of the source text. Therefore it serves a certain group of researchers, regulators and general readers. Secondly, understanding of the TTC can neither be unified, and even Chinese experts on the TTC cannot agree with each other, now and past. Since understanding is a prerequisite of translation, there can never be an absolutely correct translation to fully interpret all the profound meanings implied in the source text.
It concludes that Tao Te Ching, like an abundant mineral resource, can not be fully excavated by a single interpretation. Furthermore, one version of Tao Te Ching can not satisfy the need of every reader in every period. Only through reading many versions of it can we gradually get closer and closer to the original meaning of the work. This conclusion provides a more scientific approach to the study of English versions of TTC.
现代阐释学认为,翻译就是理解和阐释的过程。伽达默尔指出,译者既是读者也是阐释者,必然有其特有的“前结构”和“前理解”,所以其理解与阐释也不可避免地受到语言和文化的影响。翻译过程中,先有、先见和先设是不同的译者作为不同的社会心理个体所必然具有的,而这些不同的个体因素又构成了不同译者对同一译本的不同阐释。笔者系统梳理了伽达默尔的现代阐释学思想,审视了阐释学与中国典籍翻译的关系,并对其可行性及迫切性进行了分析。笔者认为伽达默尔的阐释学两大原则:理解的历史性和视界融合原则为典籍英译研究提供了新的视角。
目前,在国内外,专门从哲学阐释学角度进行翻译研究的文章数量还十分有限。本文作者试图以哲学阐释学的最基本的概念和伽达默尔的翻译理论为基础,通过对不同历史时期,不同地域的多个《道德经》英译本的研究,论证“理解的历史性”这一命题,并阐述以两次视闽融合为特征的翻译的一般过程。本文进行这一分析的目的不在于评析《道德经》四个英译本孰优孰劣,而在于探讨《道德经》出现众多不同译本的原因,尤其是因时间和文化差异而引起的不同“前结构”和“前理解”是如何影响到译者的视阈,进而产生不同译本的。
最后本文得出结论:《道德经》的翻译其实是一种对源文本的阐释;它在不同的时期对于不同的译者可以有不同的解读,所以不可能存在真正的“定译本”;老子《道德经》的英译则更为典型,《道德经》像一个丰富无比的矿藏,并非通过一次性的阐释就能穷尽对它的发掘。而且,一个译本不可能同时满足不同历史阶段不同读者的需求。只有通过多个译本多次的发掘,我们才不断接近完成对它的认识。这一结论对于我们做典籍英译本的研究颇有借鉴意义,即我们要运用历史的眼光,将研究对象放置到具体的历史社会文化环境中去看待和研究,防止走入机械分析的误区,才能得出科学得结论。
Tao Te Ching, the earliest Taoist philosophical text in China, is of profound significance in Chinese society, both in its philosophical and religious influences and its secular application to everyday life. Since its first English translation by the Englishman John Chalmers in 1868, it has received great attention around the world, especially in Britain and America. In the last century, Tao Te Ching was translated and published successively, which makes it the most widely translated text except the Bible. Because of this, the author of this thesis has developed great interest in the translation of Tao Te Ching. In the thesis, she intends to explore the English translation of this Chinese classic from the perspective of Gadamer’s hermeneutics.
In light of philosophical hermeneutics, translating is a process of understanding and interpreting. According to Gadamer, the translator, first as a reader, then an interpreter, has his/her own“preconstruction”and“fore-understanding”before understanding, what is more, his/her understanding and are active. For Gadamer, fore-having, fore-sight, and fore-conception are different social and psychological unities of different translators, which result from different social and cultural contexts. and it is these different unities that constitute the different interpretations of the same text.
After combining Gadamer’s hermeneutics and the evaluation of the relationship between hermeneutics and translation, the thesis further analyzes the feasibility and desirability of translation study in the scope of hermeneutics in China today. The author thinks that the prime principles of hermeneutics provide a valuable angle for the translation study of Chinese traditional classics. She also points out that it is particularly meaningful to study translation from the ideas of Gadamer, that is, from the historical interpretation and fusion of horizons.
In this thesis, the author mainly chooses four English versions of Tao Te Ching which can represent the lapse of time as well as regional diversity. With the help of the two concepts of“historicity of understanding”and“fusion of horizon”in hermeneutics theory, she analyzes some samples from the four versions. Instead of evaluating the relative gains and losses in these English versions, the thesis only intends to probe how different social and cultural contexts influence the translator’s“fore-understanding”.
The thesis argues that absolute definitive translation of the TTC (hereafter acronymed as TTC) is neither possible nor necessary for the following reasons. Firstly, all the translations feature their strong points, which are, however, accompanied by drawbacks and no translation seems to be the best one. Yet every kind of translation is the product a certain social context, which reflect the translator’s horizon as well as his interpretation of the source text. Therefore it serves a certain group of researchers, regulators and general readers. Secondly, understanding of the TTC can neither be unified, and even Chinese experts on the TTC cannot agree with each other, now and past. Since understanding is a prerequisite of translation, there can never be an absolutely correct translation to fully interpret all the profound meanings implied in the source text.
It concludes that Tao Te Ching, like an abundant mineral resource, can not be fully excavated by a single interpretation. Furthermore, one version of Tao Te Ching can not satisfy the need of every reader in every period. Only through reading many versions of it can we gradually get closer and closer to the original meaning of the work. This conclusion provides a more scientific approach to the study of English versions of TTC.
引文
1. Paul R. Goldin, “Those Who Don't Know Speak: Translations of the Daode Jing by People Who Do Not Know Chinese.” Asian Philosophy 3 (2002): 183.
2. ibid. 346.
3. A. C. Graham, “The Origins of the Legend of Lao Tan”. Lao-Tzu and the Tao-Te-Ching. Ed. Livia Kohn and Michael LaFargue. (New York: State University of New York Press, 1998), 23.
4. William G. Boltz, “Lao Tzu Tao Te Ching”. Early Chinese Texts: A Bibliographical Guide. Ed. Michael Loewe. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), 269-92.
5. Wing-tsit Chan. The Way of Laotzu. (New York: The Liberal Arts Press Inc, 1963), 3.
6. 辜正坤(译):《老子道德经》,(北京:北京大学出版社,1995), 26.
7. Julia M. Hardy, “Influential Western Interpretations of the Tao-Te-Ching”. Lao-Tzu and the Tao-Te-Ching. Ed. Livia Kohn and Michael LaFargue. (New York: State University of New York Press, 1998), 165.
8. Wing-tsit Chan. The Way of Lao Tzu. (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1963), 82-83.
9. Michael LaFargue & Julian Pas. “On Translating the Tao Te Ching”. Lao-Tzu and the Tao-Te-Ching. Ed. Livia Kohn and Michael LaFargue. (New York: State University of New York Press, 1998), 277.
10. Here the three processes refer to: the choice of which Chinese text to translate, the understanding of the meaning of the Chinese text, and the transition from Chinese to English.
1. Richard E. Palmer, Hermeneutics: Interpretation Theory in Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Heidegger, and Gadamer. (Fremont: Northwestern University Press, 1969), 13.
2. Grammatical interpretation is advanced by Ast and Wolf, two forerunners ofSchleiermacher. It stresses on the importance of language in the process of understanding and interpreting.
3. Jeremy Munday, Introducing Translation Studies. (London: Routledge, 2001), 28.
4. Gadamer, Hans-George. Truth and Method. trans. Garpett Barden and John Gumming. (Beijing: China Social Sciences Publishing House, 1999), 28.
5. Richard E. Palmer, Hermeneutics: Interpretation Theory in Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Heidegger, and Gadamer. (Fremont: Northwestern University Press, 1969), 107.
6. Hans-George Gadamer, Truth and Method. trans. Garpett Barden and John Gumming. (Beijing: China Social Sciences Publishing House, 1999), 236.
7. Edwin Gentzler, Contemporary Translation Theory. (Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004), 157.
8. Hans-George Gadamer, Truth and Method. trans. Garpett Barden and John Gumming. (Beijing: China Social Sciences Publishing House, 1999), 269.
9. ibid. 346.
10. ibid. 349.
1. Arthur Waley, The Tao and Its Power: A Study of the Tao Te Ching and Its Place in Chinese Thought. (New York: Grove Press, 1958), xvi.
2. ibid. xvii.
3. Michael LaFargue, The Tao of the Tao Te Ching. (Albany: State Univeristy of New York Press, 1992), xvi .
4. ibid. 215.
5. Gu, Zhengkun. Lao Zi: The Book of Tao and Teh. (Beijing: Peking University Press, 1995), 54.
6. ibid. 55.
7. 金元浦,《接受反应文论》,(济南:山东教育出版社,1998),408.
8. James Legge,The Texts of Taoism. (New York: Dover, 1962), xiii. According to Legge, the manuscript version was extant in England when he wrote hispreface to The Texts of Taoism.
9. James Legge, The Sacred Books of the East. (London: Oxford University Press, 1891), 47.
10. “Creationism” refers to the idea that the account of the creation of the universe given at the beginning of the Bible is literally true.
11. Julia M. Hardy, Influential Western Interpretations of the Tao Te Ching. Ed by Livia Kohn & Michael LaFargue. (Albany: State University of NewYork Press. 1998), 166-167.
12. ibid. 172.
13. Julia M. Hardy, Archaic Utopias in the Modern Imagination. (Durharm: Duke University Press, 1990), 30-33.
14. Michael LaFargue & Livia Kohn. Lao Tzu and the Tao Te Ching. (New York: State University of New York Press, 1998), 10.
15. Julia M. Hardy, Influential Western Interpretations of the Tao Te Ching. Ed by Livia Kohn and Michael LaFargue. (Albany: State University of NewYork Press. pp. 1998), 175.
16. Michael Lafargue, Tao and Method. (New York: State University of New York Press, 1994), 47
17. ibid. xiii
18. ibid. xiv.
1. Michael LaFargue & Julian Pas. On Translating the Tao Te Ching. Lao-Tzu and the Tao Te Ching. Ed. Livia Kohn and Michael LaFargue. (New York: State University of New York Press, 1998), 287.
2. Arthur Waley, The Way and its Power. (New York: Grove Press, 1934), 14.
3. Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method. (New York: The Crossroad Publishing Corporation. 1990), 306.
4. Yu-lan Fung, A Short History of Chinese Philosophy. (Toronto: Macmillan,1968), 3.
5. R. B. Blakney, The Way of Life. (New York: New American Library, 1955),11.
6. Michael LaFargue, The Tao of the Tao Te Ching. (New York: State University of New York Press, 1992), 79.
7. ibid. 79.
[1] Blakney, R. B. The Way of Life. New York: New American Library, 1955.
[2] Boltz, William G. Lao tzu Tao Te Ching Early Chinese Texts: A Bibliographical Guide. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993.
[3] Chan, Wing-tsit. 1963. The Way of Lao Tzu. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
[4] Fung, Yu-lan. A Short History of Chinese Philosophy. Toronto: Macmillan, 1948.
[5] Gadamer, Hans-George. Truth and Method. (trans.) Garpett Barden &John Gumming. Beijing: China Social Sciences Publishing House, 1999.
[6] Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Truth and Method. New York: The Crossroad Publishing Corporation, 1990.
[7] Gentzler, Edwin. Contemporary Translation Theory. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004.
[8] Goldin, Paul R. “Those Who Don’t Know Speak: Translations of the Daode Jing by People Who Do Not Know Chinese.” Asian Philosophy 3 (2002): 183.
[9] Graham, A. C. “The Origins of the Legend of Lao Tan”. Lao-Tzu and the Tao Te Ching. Ed. Livia Kohn &Michael LaFargue. New York: State University of New York Press, 1998.
[10] Gu, Zhengkun. Lao Zi: The Book of Tao and Teh. Beijing: Peking University Press, 1995.
[11] Hardy, Julia M. “Influential Western Interpretations of the Tao Te Ching”. Lao-Tzu and the Tao Te Ching. Ed. Livia Kohn and Michael LaFargue. New York: State University of New York Press, 1998.
[12] Hardy, Julia M. Archaic Utopias in the Modern Imagination. Durharm: Duke University Press, 1990.
[13] Robert, Jauss. Toward an Aesthetic of Reception. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1982.
[14] Lelevere, Andre. Translation/History/Culture. London & New York Routledge, 1992.
[15] Legge, James. The Texts of Taoism: The Tao Te Ching of Lao Tzu. New York: Dover, 1962.
[16] Legge, James. The Sacred Books of the East. London: Oxford University Press, 1891.
[17] Michael, LaFargue. The Tao of the Tao Te Ching. Albany: State Univeristy of New York Press, 1992.
[18] Michael, LaFargue ﹠Livia Kohn. Lao Tzu and the Tao Te Ching. New York: State University of New York Press, 1998.
[19] Michael, Lafargue. Tao and Method. New York: State University of New York Press, 1994.
[20] Munday, Jeremy. Introducing Translation Studies— Theories and Applications. London & New York Routledge, 2001.
[21] Palmer, Richard E. Hermeneutics: Interpretation Theory in Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Heidegger, and Gadamer. Fremont: Northwestern University Press, 1969.
[22] Steiner, George. After Babel—Aspects of Language and Translation. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Education Press, 2001.
[23] Venuti, Lawrence. Rethinking Translation Discourse, Subjectivity, Ideology. London & New York Routledge, 1992.
[24] William Jenny & Andrew Chesteman. The Map: A Beginner’s Guide to Doing Research in Translation Studies. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Education Press, 2004.
[25] Waley, Arthur. The Way and its Power. New York: Grove Press, 1958.
[26] Waley, Arthur. Lao Zi. Changsha: Hunan Publishing House, 1992.
[27] 包惠南、包昂,《中国文化与汉英翻译》,北京:外文出版社,2003.
[28] 陈福康,《中国译学理论史稿》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,1996.
[29] 陈德鸿、张南峰,《西方翻译理论精选》, 香港:香港城市大学出版社,2003.
[30] 崔长青,《〈道德经〉英译本初探》,载于《国际关系学院学报》1997(03).
[31] 辜正坤(译),《道德经》,北京:北京大学出版社,1995.
[32] 郭建中,《文化与翻译》,北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2000.
[33] 郭建中,《翻译重的文化因素:异化与归化》,载于《外国语》,1998(02).
[34] 郭世铭,《老子究竟说什么》,北京:华文出版社,2001.
[35] 金元浦,《接受反应文论》,济南:山东教育出版社,1998.
[36] 廖敏,《试析〈道德经〉翻译中的多样性》,载于《西南民族大学学报》, 2004 (09).
[37] 林语堂,《老子的智慧》,西安:陕西师范大学出版社,2004.
[38] 刘必庆,《当代翻译理论》,北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2001.
[39] 刘宓庆,《中西翻译思想比较研究》,北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2005.
[40] 刘重德,《西方译论研究》,北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2003.
[41] 吕俊,《我国翻译理论研究与 20 世纪西方文论学习》,载于《外国语》,1997 (06).
[42] 马会娟,《奈达翻译理论研究》,北京:外语教学与翻译出版社,2003.
[43] 马祖毅、任荣珍,《汉籍外译史》,武汉:湖北教育出版社,1997.
[44] 苗玲玲 《译可译,无常译—谈〈道德经〉翻译中的译者主体性》,载于《学术研究》,2002(08).
[45] 邵汉明,《老子.庄子.四书》,沈阳:辽宁民族出版社,2001.
[46] 申小龙,《当代中国训诂学》,太原:山西教育出版社,1994.
[47] 谭载喜,《西方翻译简史》,北京:商务印书馆,2000.
[48] 汪榕培、李秀英,《典籍英译研究》,大连:大连理工大学出版社,2006.
[49]王瑛,《以目的论为基础对〈道德经〉四个英译本的比较研究》,2003, http://lsg.cnki.net/grid20/detail.aspx?QueryID=35&CurRec=1
[50] 伍凌,《思考与启示——伽达默尔的哲学思想与翻译研究》,载于《外语学刊》,2005(01).
[51] 严平,《走向解释学的真理一伽达默尔哲学评述》,上海:东方出版社,1998. 岳峰 《略论音译与东方传统文化》载于《福州大学学报》,2000 (01).
[52] 张德让,《伽达默尔哲学阐释学与翻译研究》,载于《中国翻译》,2001 (07).
[53] 朱健平,《翻译即解释:对翻译的重新界定》,载于《解放军外国语学院学报》,2006(03)
[54] 张吉良,《从老聃老子到太史儋〈道德经〉》,载于《江西社会科学》,1999(02).
[55] 张今,《文学翻译原理》,北京:清华大学出版社,2005.
2. ibid. 346.
3. A. C. Graham, “The Origins of the Legend of Lao Tan”. Lao-Tzu and the Tao-Te-Ching. Ed. Livia Kohn and Michael LaFargue. (New York: State University of New York Press, 1998), 23.
4. William G. Boltz, “Lao Tzu Tao Te Ching”. Early Chinese Texts: A Bibliographical Guide. Ed. Michael Loewe. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), 269-92.
5. Wing-tsit Chan. The Way of Laotzu. (New York: The Liberal Arts Press Inc, 1963), 3.
6. 辜正坤(译):《老子道德经》,(北京:北京大学出版社,1995), 26.
7. Julia M. Hardy, “Influential Western Interpretations of the Tao-Te-Ching”. Lao-Tzu and the Tao-Te-Ching. Ed. Livia Kohn and Michael LaFargue. (New York: State University of New York Press, 1998), 165.
8. Wing-tsit Chan. The Way of Lao Tzu. (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1963), 82-83.
9. Michael LaFargue & Julian Pas. “On Translating the Tao Te Ching”. Lao-Tzu and the Tao-Te-Ching. Ed. Livia Kohn and Michael LaFargue. (New York: State University of New York Press, 1998), 277.
10. Here the three processes refer to: the choice of which Chinese text to translate, the understanding of the meaning of the Chinese text, and the transition from Chinese to English.
1. Richard E. Palmer, Hermeneutics: Interpretation Theory in Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Heidegger, and Gadamer. (Fremont: Northwestern University Press, 1969), 13.
2. Grammatical interpretation is advanced by Ast and Wolf, two forerunners ofSchleiermacher. It stresses on the importance of language in the process of understanding and interpreting.
3. Jeremy Munday, Introducing Translation Studies. (London: Routledge, 2001), 28.
4. Gadamer, Hans-George. Truth and Method. trans. Garpett Barden and John Gumming. (Beijing: China Social Sciences Publishing House, 1999), 28.
5. Richard E. Palmer, Hermeneutics: Interpretation Theory in Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Heidegger, and Gadamer. (Fremont: Northwestern University Press, 1969), 107.
6. Hans-George Gadamer, Truth and Method. trans. Garpett Barden and John Gumming. (Beijing: China Social Sciences Publishing House, 1999), 236.
7. Edwin Gentzler, Contemporary Translation Theory. (Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004), 157.
8. Hans-George Gadamer, Truth and Method. trans. Garpett Barden and John Gumming. (Beijing: China Social Sciences Publishing House, 1999), 269.
9. ibid. 346.
10. ibid. 349.
1. Arthur Waley, The Tao and Its Power: A Study of the Tao Te Ching and Its Place in Chinese Thought. (New York: Grove Press, 1958), xvi.
2. ibid. xvii.
3. Michael LaFargue, The Tao of the Tao Te Ching. (Albany: State Univeristy of New York Press, 1992), xvi .
4. ibid. 215.
5. Gu, Zhengkun. Lao Zi: The Book of Tao and Teh. (Beijing: Peking University Press, 1995), 54.
6. ibid. 55.
7. 金元浦,《接受反应文论》,(济南:山东教育出版社,1998),408.
8. James Legge,The Texts of Taoism. (New York: Dover, 1962), xiii. According to Legge, the manuscript version was extant in England when he wrote hispreface to The Texts of Taoism.
9. James Legge, The Sacred Books of the East. (London: Oxford University Press, 1891), 47.
10. “Creationism” refers to the idea that the account of the creation of the universe given at the beginning of the Bible is literally true.
11. Julia M. Hardy, Influential Western Interpretations of the Tao Te Ching. Ed by Livia Kohn & Michael LaFargue. (Albany: State University of NewYork Press. 1998), 166-167.
12. ibid. 172.
13. Julia M. Hardy, Archaic Utopias in the Modern Imagination. (Durharm: Duke University Press, 1990), 30-33.
14. Michael LaFargue & Livia Kohn. Lao Tzu and the Tao Te Ching. (New York: State University of New York Press, 1998), 10.
15. Julia M. Hardy, Influential Western Interpretations of the Tao Te Ching. Ed by Livia Kohn and Michael LaFargue. (Albany: State University of NewYork Press. pp. 1998), 175.
16. Michael Lafargue, Tao and Method. (New York: State University of New York Press, 1994), 47
17. ibid. xiii
18. ibid. xiv.
1. Michael LaFargue & Julian Pas. On Translating the Tao Te Ching. Lao-Tzu and the Tao Te Ching. Ed. Livia Kohn and Michael LaFargue. (New York: State University of New York Press, 1998), 287.
2. Arthur Waley, The Way and its Power. (New York: Grove Press, 1934), 14.
3. Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method. (New York: The Crossroad Publishing Corporation. 1990), 306.
4. Yu-lan Fung, A Short History of Chinese Philosophy. (Toronto: Macmillan,1968), 3.
5. R. B. Blakney, The Way of Life. (New York: New American Library, 1955),11.
6. Michael LaFargue, The Tao of the Tao Te Ching. (New York: State University of New York Press, 1992), 79.
7. ibid. 79.
[1] Blakney, R. B. The Way of Life. New York: New American Library, 1955.
[2] Boltz, William G. Lao tzu Tao Te Ching Early Chinese Texts: A Bibliographical Guide. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993.
[3] Chan, Wing-tsit. 1963. The Way of Lao Tzu. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
[4] Fung, Yu-lan. A Short History of Chinese Philosophy. Toronto: Macmillan, 1948.
[5] Gadamer, Hans-George. Truth and Method. (trans.) Garpett Barden &John Gumming. Beijing: China Social Sciences Publishing House, 1999.
[6] Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Truth and Method. New York: The Crossroad Publishing Corporation, 1990.
[7] Gentzler, Edwin. Contemporary Translation Theory. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004.
[8] Goldin, Paul R. “Those Who Don’t Know Speak: Translations of the Daode Jing by People Who Do Not Know Chinese.” Asian Philosophy 3 (2002): 183.
[9] Graham, A. C. “The Origins of the Legend of Lao Tan”. Lao-Tzu and the Tao Te Ching. Ed. Livia Kohn &Michael LaFargue. New York: State University of New York Press, 1998.
[10] Gu, Zhengkun. Lao Zi: The Book of Tao and Teh. Beijing: Peking University Press, 1995.
[11] Hardy, Julia M. “Influential Western Interpretations of the Tao Te Ching”. Lao-Tzu and the Tao Te Ching. Ed. Livia Kohn and Michael LaFargue. New York: State University of New York Press, 1998.
[12] Hardy, Julia M. Archaic Utopias in the Modern Imagination. Durharm: Duke University Press, 1990.
[13] Robert, Jauss. Toward an Aesthetic of Reception. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1982.
[14] Lelevere, Andre. Translation/History/Culture. London & New York Routledge, 1992.
[15] Legge, James. The Texts of Taoism: The Tao Te Ching of Lao Tzu. New York: Dover, 1962.
[16] Legge, James. The Sacred Books of the East. London: Oxford University Press, 1891.
[17] Michael, LaFargue. The Tao of the Tao Te Ching. Albany: State Univeristy of New York Press, 1992.
[18] Michael, LaFargue ﹠Livia Kohn. Lao Tzu and the Tao Te Ching. New York: State University of New York Press, 1998.
[19] Michael, Lafargue. Tao and Method. New York: State University of New York Press, 1994.
[20] Munday, Jeremy. Introducing Translation Studies— Theories and Applications. London & New York Routledge, 2001.
[21] Palmer, Richard E. Hermeneutics: Interpretation Theory in Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Heidegger, and Gadamer. Fremont: Northwestern University Press, 1969.
[22] Steiner, George. After Babel—Aspects of Language and Translation. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Education Press, 2001.
[23] Venuti, Lawrence. Rethinking Translation Discourse, Subjectivity, Ideology. London & New York Routledge, 1992.
[24] William Jenny & Andrew Chesteman. The Map: A Beginner’s Guide to Doing Research in Translation Studies. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Education Press, 2004.
[25] Waley, Arthur. The Way and its Power. New York: Grove Press, 1958.
[26] Waley, Arthur. Lao Zi. Changsha: Hunan Publishing House, 1992.
[27] 包惠南、包昂,《中国文化与汉英翻译》,北京:外文出版社,2003.
[28] 陈福康,《中国译学理论史稿》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,1996.
[29] 陈德鸿、张南峰,《西方翻译理论精选》, 香港:香港城市大学出版社,2003.
[30] 崔长青,《〈道德经〉英译本初探》,载于《国际关系学院学报》1997(03).
[31] 辜正坤(译),《道德经》,北京:北京大学出版社,1995.
[32] 郭建中,《文化与翻译》,北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2000.
[33] 郭建中,《翻译重的文化因素:异化与归化》,载于《外国语》,1998(02).
[34] 郭世铭,《老子究竟说什么》,北京:华文出版社,2001.
[35] 金元浦,《接受反应文论》,济南:山东教育出版社,1998.
[36] 廖敏,《试析〈道德经〉翻译中的多样性》,载于《西南民族大学学报》, 2004 (09).
[37] 林语堂,《老子的智慧》,西安:陕西师范大学出版社,2004.
[38] 刘必庆,《当代翻译理论》,北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2001.
[39] 刘宓庆,《中西翻译思想比较研究》,北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2005.
[40] 刘重德,《西方译论研究》,北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2003.
[41] 吕俊,《我国翻译理论研究与 20 世纪西方文论学习》,载于《外国语》,1997 (06).
[42] 马会娟,《奈达翻译理论研究》,北京:外语教学与翻译出版社,2003.
[43] 马祖毅、任荣珍,《汉籍外译史》,武汉:湖北教育出版社,1997.
[44] 苗玲玲 《译可译,无常译—谈〈道德经〉翻译中的译者主体性》,载于《学术研究》,2002(08).
[45] 邵汉明,《老子.庄子.四书》,沈阳:辽宁民族出版社,2001.
[46] 申小龙,《当代中国训诂学》,太原:山西教育出版社,1994.
[47] 谭载喜,《西方翻译简史》,北京:商务印书馆,2000.
[48] 汪榕培、李秀英,《典籍英译研究》,大连:大连理工大学出版社,2006.
[49]王瑛,《以目的论为基础对〈道德经〉四个英译本的比较研究》,2003, http://lsg.cnki.net/grid20/detail.aspx?QueryID=35&CurRec=1
[50] 伍凌,《思考与启示——伽达默尔的哲学思想与翻译研究》,载于《外语学刊》,2005(01).
[51] 严平,《走向解释学的真理一伽达默尔哲学评述》,上海:东方出版社,1998. 岳峰 《略论音译与东方传统文化》载于《福州大学学报》,2000 (01).
[52] 张德让,《伽达默尔哲学阐释学与翻译研究》,载于《中国翻译》,2001 (07).
[53] 朱健平,《翻译即解释:对翻译的重新界定》,载于《解放军外国语学院学报》,2006(03)
[54] 张吉良,《从老聃老子到太史儋〈道德经〉》,载于《江西社会科学》,1999(02).
[55] 张今,《文学翻译原理》,北京:清华大学出版社,2005.