诗学视域下《洛丽塔》中陌生化手法在汉译中的再现研究
|
摘要
从历史的角度看，重内容轻形式是中西翻译界的主流倾向，此种导向的翻译造成的直接后果就是文学作品中许多具有诗学价值的表达方式被消解。针对这种现象，梅肖尼克着重批判了奈达关于形式与内涵的二元论，指出形式和内容的划分是毫无效用的，并藉此基础引申出自己的诗学理论，提出翻译是再现原作文本的节奏，即原作的特殊性，这种特殊性是意义和形式的结合。
《洛丽塔》（Lolita）是著名俄裔美国作家弗拉基米尔〃纳博科夫的代表作，也是其最为有名、最富争议的小说，在现代文学史上具有重要的地位。自1955年问世以来，《洛丽塔》在国内共有18个译本，20位译者。虽然译本众多，但学界对其译本的研究较为薄弱，对其语言特色进行的翻译研究相对较少，还存在不少空白。而《洛丽塔》突出的语言特色在于其陌生化手法：即故意违反语言运用的常规，造成形式上的变异，增加理解和感知的难度和时间，从而让读者产生新鲜独特的审美享受，重新唤起人们对语言本身的注意。
本文拟运用法国著名翻译家亨利〃梅肖尼克的翻译诗学理论，以于晓丹和主万的译本为研究对象，分别从微观和宏观两个层面（语言层面和叙事层面）六个维度（多语文本、冗长表述、新词杜撰、材料拼贴、叙事视角、叙事时间）对比原文和译文，在说明陌生化手法对彰显原文的主题意义和艺术价值的作用与影响的基础上，对小说陌生化特色的翻译展开讨论，以探索如何在翻译诗学理论的观照下再现原文的陌生化效果，旨在彰显翻译诗学理论对文学翻译实践及其批评的借鉴指导作用。
通过对原文、译文以及所选译本之间的对比分析得出：1）语言层面，多语文本增添了小说的异域性和晦涩感，也同时增加了小说的难度，延长了读者的感知时间，因而达到了陌生化效果。作为一种特殊的语言现象，多语文本的形式和内容在译文中的统一再现是无法实现的，其陌生化效果在翻译过程中不可避免地会有所损失。冗长表述则可以激发读者的情感，突出氛围，从而达到前景化的效果；材料拼贴指文学作品中嵌入其他文学体裁，使小说产生一种文体揉杂的叠合感，因而产生语言的陌生化效果。以上两种陌生化手法，只要译者给予足够的重视，其?节奏?（形式和意义的统一）以及由此产生的陌生化效果在翻译诗学理论的观照下是可以在译文中完美再现的。新词杜撰则视情况而定，在某些情况下，由于英汉两种语言之间不可逾越的差异性，其所蕴含的陌生化效果会因此被抹煞。2）叙事层面,第一人称内聚焦的叙事手法赋予了主人公逃脱罪行、赢得读者同情的优势地位，而外聚焦的运用则增加了故事的真实性和客观性，不同叙事视角的相互转换则给整部小说营造了一种陌生化的氛围；叙述时间的交错（后述与预述的相互交织）摆脱了使叙事成为流水账式的记录，突出事件之间的因果关系，产生线性叙述所缺少的审美效果。从翻译诗学的角度看，两个v译本都较为成功地传译了原文的陌生化叙事特色，实现了与原作在主题意义和审美价值层面的对等。
对《洛丽塔》两个译本的研究表明：翻译诗学可以作为有效的理论依据结束长久以来学术界关于"形式'和"内容"，译坛关于?直译?与?意译?的争论，为文学翻译实践及其批评提供了一种可资借鉴的理论模式。
From a historical perspective, the leading translation theories either abroad or at home tend to attach great importance to content rather than form, which directly results in the loss of literariness . In view of this phenomenon, Meschonnic emphatically criticizes Nida s dualism of content and form , pointing out that it is useless to distinguish content from form . Then he advances his own poetics of translation theory, holding that translation is the reconstruction of the original rhythm , namely the particularity, which is a harmonious blend of meaning and form.
Lolita, as a masterpiece of Vladimir Nabokov, the famous Russian American writer, plays an important role in the history of modern literature. First published in 1955, Lolita has 18 Chinese versions by 20 translators, but studies on its translations seem to be rare, and even less ones on its language characteristics. And the most remarkable language feature of Lolita lies in its defamiliarization devices, which means intentionally violating the linguistic norm and making forms difficult, with a view to increasing the difficulty and length of perception and endowing readers with fresh aesthetic enjoyment.
The thesis is to take the famous French translator Henri Meschonnic s poetics of translation theory as a tool, the two versions translated by Yu Xiaodan and Zhu Wan respectively as the subject, to analyze and compare the source text and the target texts in terms of multilingualism, wordy expressions, new coinages, collage, narrative point of view, and narrative time. After illustrating the influence of the defamiliarization devices for producing the thematic significance and artistic values, the thesis discusses whether and how the defamiliarization devices are properly represented in the two Chinese versions in light of the poetics of translation theory so as to manifest the instructive role of the theory in literary translation practice and criticism.
Through the comparative analysis of the source and the target texts, the following conclusions are drawn: 1) On the linguistic level, multilingualism adds exoticness and obscurity to the novel and prolongs readers perception, thus, the defamiliarization effect is achieved. However, as a special language phenomenon, multilingual text will inevitably incur some loss in literary translation. Wordy expressions serve to evoke certain feelings or emotions in the readers and heighten the atmosphere to achieve the effect of foregrounding; collage refers to the mixture of different literary genres, which generates not only new meaning in the overlapping parts, but also the defamiliariztion effect on the whole. As long as adequate attention is paid, the aforementioned defamiliarization devices can be perfectly reconstructed in the target texts by applying the poetics of translation theory. As for neologisms, it all depends due to the insurmountable differences between English and Chinese. 2) On the narrative level, the first person focalization grant the protagonist an advantageous position to exonerate himself from his sins so as to gain readers compassion, while the external focalization adds a sense of truthfulness and objectivity to the narrative. And the shift of point of view gives rise to the defamiliarized flavor and artistic appeal.; the disordered narrative time (anaplesis intermingles with prolepsis) exempts the narration from being a dull day-to-day account and produces an aesthetic effect which is absent in the linear narrative, giving more prominence to the causal relationship between events. Seen from the poetics of translation theory, the two Chinese versions have successfully reproduced the defamiliarized narrative techniques. 3)The poetics of translation theory serves as a useful tool to offer a more scientific and objective investigation into the long-lasting controversy over content and form , literal translation and free translation , and will shed some light upon literary translation practice and criticism.
《洛丽塔》（Lolita）是著名俄裔美国作家弗拉基米尔〃纳博科夫的代表作，也是其最为有名、最富争议的小说，在现代文学史上具有重要的地位。自1955年问世以来，《洛丽塔》在国内共有18个译本，20位译者。虽然译本众多，但学界对其译本的研究较为薄弱，对其语言特色进行的翻译研究相对较少，还存在不少空白。而《洛丽塔》突出的语言特色在于其陌生化手法：即故意违反语言运用的常规，造成形式上的变异，增加理解和感知的难度和时间，从而让读者产生新鲜独特的审美享受，重新唤起人们对语言本身的注意。
本文拟运用法国著名翻译家亨利〃梅肖尼克的翻译诗学理论，以于晓丹和主万的译本为研究对象，分别从微观和宏观两个层面（语言层面和叙事层面）六个维度（多语文本、冗长表述、新词杜撰、材料拼贴、叙事视角、叙事时间）对比原文和译文，在说明陌生化手法对彰显原文的主题意义和艺术价值的作用与影响的基础上，对小说陌生化特色的翻译展开讨论，以探索如何在翻译诗学理论的观照下再现原文的陌生化效果，旨在彰显翻译诗学理论对文学翻译实践及其批评的借鉴指导作用。
通过对原文、译文以及所选译本之间的对比分析得出：1）语言层面，多语文本增添了小说的异域性和晦涩感，也同时增加了小说的难度，延长了读者的感知时间，因而达到了陌生化效果。作为一种特殊的语言现象，多语文本的形式和内容在译文中的统一再现是无法实现的，其陌生化效果在翻译过程中不可避免地会有所损失。冗长表述则可以激发读者的情感，突出氛围，从而达到前景化的效果；材料拼贴指文学作品中嵌入其他文学体裁，使小说产生一种文体揉杂的叠合感，因而产生语言的陌生化效果。以上两种陌生化手法，只要译者给予足够的重视，其?节奏?（形式和意义的统一）以及由此产生的陌生化效果在翻译诗学理论的观照下是可以在译文中完美再现的。新词杜撰则视情况而定，在某些情况下，由于英汉两种语言之间不可逾越的差异性，其所蕴含的陌生化效果会因此被抹煞。2）叙事层面,第一人称内聚焦的叙事手法赋予了主人公逃脱罪行、赢得读者同情的优势地位，而外聚焦的运用则增加了故事的真实性和客观性，不同叙事视角的相互转换则给整部小说营造了一种陌生化的氛围；叙述时间的交错（后述与预述的相互交织）摆脱了使叙事成为流水账式的记录，突出事件之间的因果关系，产生线性叙述所缺少的审美效果。从翻译诗学的角度看，两个v译本都较为成功地传译了原文的陌生化叙事特色，实现了与原作在主题意义和审美价值层面的对等。
对《洛丽塔》两个译本的研究表明：翻译诗学可以作为有效的理论依据结束长久以来学术界关于"形式'和"内容"，译坛关于?直译?与?意译?的争论，为文学翻译实践及其批评提供了一种可资借鉴的理论模式。
From a historical perspective, the leading translation theories either abroad or at home tend to attach great importance to content rather than form, which directly results in the loss of literariness . In view of this phenomenon, Meschonnic emphatically criticizes Nida s dualism of content and form , pointing out that it is useless to distinguish content from form . Then he advances his own poetics of translation theory, holding that translation is the reconstruction of the original rhythm , namely the particularity, which is a harmonious blend of meaning and form.
Lolita, as a masterpiece of Vladimir Nabokov, the famous Russian American writer, plays an important role in the history of modern literature. First published in 1955, Lolita has 18 Chinese versions by 20 translators, but studies on its translations seem to be rare, and even less ones on its language characteristics. And the most remarkable language feature of Lolita lies in its defamiliarization devices, which means intentionally violating the linguistic norm and making forms difficult, with a view to increasing the difficulty and length of perception and endowing readers with fresh aesthetic enjoyment.
The thesis is to take the famous French translator Henri Meschonnic s poetics of translation theory as a tool, the two versions translated by Yu Xiaodan and Zhu Wan respectively as the subject, to analyze and compare the source text and the target texts in terms of multilingualism, wordy expressions, new coinages, collage, narrative point of view, and narrative time. After illustrating the influence of the defamiliarization devices for producing the thematic significance and artistic values, the thesis discusses whether and how the defamiliarization devices are properly represented in the two Chinese versions in light of the poetics of translation theory so as to manifest the instructive role of the theory in literary translation practice and criticism.
Through the comparative analysis of the source and the target texts, the following conclusions are drawn: 1) On the linguistic level, multilingualism adds exoticness and obscurity to the novel and prolongs readers perception, thus, the defamiliarization effect is achieved. However, as a special language phenomenon, multilingual text will inevitably incur some loss in literary translation. Wordy expressions serve to evoke certain feelings or emotions in the readers and heighten the atmosphere to achieve the effect of foregrounding; collage refers to the mixture of different literary genres, which generates not only new meaning in the overlapping parts, but also the defamiliariztion effect on the whole. As long as adequate attention is paid, the aforementioned defamiliarization devices can be perfectly reconstructed in the target texts by applying the poetics of translation theory. As for neologisms, it all depends due to the insurmountable differences between English and Chinese. 2) On the narrative level, the first person focalization grant the protagonist an advantageous position to exonerate himself from his sins so as to gain readers compassion, while the external focalization adds a sense of truthfulness and objectivity to the narrative. And the shift of point of view gives rise to the defamiliarized flavor and artistic appeal.; the disordered narrative time (anaplesis intermingles with prolepsis) exempts the narration from being a dull day-to-day account and produces an aesthetic effect which is absent in the linear narrative, giving more prominence to the causal relationship between events. Seen from the poetics of translation theory, the two Chinese versions have successfully reproduced the defamiliarized narrative techniques. 3)The poetics of translation theory serves as a useful tool to offer a more scientific and objective investigation into the long-lasting controversy over content and form , literal translation and free translation , and will shed some light upon literary translation practice and criticism.
引文
Albert, Sandor. (2002). Reviews. Perspectives: Studies in Tranlatology [J], 4, 302.
Appel, Alfred, Jr., ed. (1991). The Annotated Lolita [M]. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Appel, Alfred, Jr., ed. (1993). The Annotated Lolita (Revised & Updated) [M]. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Aristotle. (1961). Aristotle’s Poetics [M]. Translated by S. H. Butcher. Introduction by Francis Fergusson. New York: Hill and Wang.
Bader, Julia. (1972). Crystal Land: Artifice in Nabokov’s English Novels. London: University of California Press, Ltd.
Bassnett, Susan & Lefevere, André. (2001). Constructing Cultures Essays on Literary Translation [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Bassnett, Susan. (2004). Translation Studies (Third Edition) [M].Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. Berman, Antoine. (1985b). La traduction commeépreuve de Létranger , Text 4: 67-81.
Chen, Lin. (2007). Alienizing Translation: Xu Zhimo’s Translation [D]. East China Normal University.
Cheyfitz, Eric. (1991). The Poetics of Imperialism: Translation and Colonization from the Tempest to Tarzan [M]. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crane, R.S. (1953). The Languages of Criticism and the Structure of Poetry [M]. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Dessons, Gérard. (2005). Introductionàla poétique [M]. Paris: Armand Colin.
Eoyang, Eugene Chen. (1993). The Transparent Eye: Reflections on Translation, Chinese Literature, and Comparative Poetics [M]. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Erich, Victor. (1981). Russian Formalism: History---Doctrine [M]. New Haven: Yale University Press. Genette, G. (1980). Narrative Discourse [M]. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Gentzler, Edwin. (2004). Contemporary Translation Theories (Revised Second Edition)[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Harris, Wendell V. (1992). Dictionary of Concepts in Literary Criticism and Theory [M]. Westport: Greenwood Press. Hazard, Adams & Leroy, Searle. (2006). Critical Theory Since Plato [M]. Peking: Peking University Press.
Henderson, Greig. & Christopher, Brown. (1997). Glossary of Literary Theory [W]. February 11, 2009. http://www.library.utoronto.ca/utel/glossary/Defamiliarization.html
Hermans, Theo. (2004). Translation in Systems---Descriptive and System-Oriented Approaches Explained [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Jahn, Manfred. (2005). Narratology: A Guide to the Theory of Narrative [M]. Retrieved October 17, 2010, fromhttp://www.uni-koeln.de/~ame02/pppn.htm
Jakobson, Roman. (1963). Essais de Linguistique Generale[M]. Paris: Editions de Minuit.
Larbaud, Valéry. (1971). Analyse d un article de Lénine. La Nouvelle Critique[J], 40, 55-60. Leech, G. N. & Short M. H., (2001). Style in Fiction: A Linguistic Introduction to English Fictional Prose [M]. Beijing:
Foreign Language and Research Press.
Lefevere, André. (1982/2000). Mother Courage s Cucumber: Text, System and Refraction in a Theory of Literature [A]. In
Laurence Venuti (ed.). 2000. The Translation Studies Reader [C].London: Routledge: 233-249.
Lefevere, André. (1985). Why Waste Our Time on Rewriting?-The Trouble with Interpretation and the Role of Rewriting in an Alternative Paradigm [A]. In Theo Hermans (ed.). (1985). The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Translation[C]. London and Sydney: Croom Helm: 215-243.
Lefevere, André. (2004a).Translation, Rewriting, and the Manipulation of Literary Fame [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Lefevere, André. (2004b).Translation/History/Culture: A Sourcebook[C]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Maddox, Lucy. (1983). Nabokov’s Novels in English [M]. London: .Croom Helm.
Meschonnic, Henri. (1973). Pour la poétique, Epistémologie de l’écriture, Poétique de la traduction [M]. Paris: Gallimard. Meschonnic, Henri. (1999). Poétique du Traduire [M]. Lagrasse: Verdier.
Michael, Wood. (1995). The Magician’s Doubts-Nabokov and the Risks of Fiction [M]. Princeton & New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Nabokov, Dmitri & Matthew, J. Bruccoli. (1989). Vladimir Nabokov: Selected Letters 1940-1977. Florida: Horcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Nabokov, Vladimir. (2005). Lolita [M]. Beijng: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Newmark, Peter. (2001). A Textbook of Translation [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Nida, Eugene, A. (2001). Language and Culture Contests in Translating [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Nida, Eugene, A. (1964). Toward a Science of Translating: with special reference to principles and procedures involved in Bible Translating [M]. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Parker, Patricia. (1987). Literary Fat Ladies: Rhetoric, Gender, Property [M]. London and New York: Methuen.
Qin, Hua. (2001). A Study on the Translation of Hong Lou Meng Based on the Narrative Mood [D]. Shanxi NormalUniversity.
Rampton, David. (1984). Vladimir Nabokov—A Critical Study of the Novels [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ric?ur, Paul. (1978). La Métaphore vive [M]. Paris: Seuil, 1975; trans. Robert Czerny as The Rule of Metaphor [M], 1978, London and Henley: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Sally, Wehmeier. (2004). Oxford Advanced Learner’s English-Chinese Dictionary [Z]. Beijing: The Commercial Press. Scholes, Robert. (1975). Structuralism in Literature [M]. New York: New Haven Yale University.
Shelley, P. B. (1819). Defense of Poetry [W].Retrieved June 30, 2010, from http://0-www.netlibrary.com.libecnu.lib.ecnu.edu.cn/Reader/
Shen, Dan. (1995). Literary Stylistics and Fictional Translation [M].Beijing: Peking University Press. Shklovsky, Victor. (1917). The Resurrection of the World [W]. Retrieved February 17, 2009, from http://courses.essex.ac.uk/It/It204/WORD.HTM
Shklovsky, Victor. (1923). Form and Material in Art [W]. Retrieved June 30, 2009, from http://www.centerforbookculture,org/context/no2/shklovsky/html
Shklovsky, Victor. (1970). The Novel as Parody [M]. Moscow: Central Press.
Simon, Sherry. (1994). Le trafic des langues: traduction et culture dans la littérature québécoise [M]. Montreal: Boréal. Todorov, Tzvetan. (2001). Definition of Poetics. In Zhu Gang. Twentieth Century Western Critical Theories [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Tomas, Molnar. Matter-of-Fact Confession of a Non-Penitent, CLC, Vol.64. P. 336.
Venuti, Lawrence. (2000). Translation Studies Reader [Z]. London & New York: Routledge.
Victor, Erlich. (1955). Russian Formalism: History and Doctrine [M]. The Hague: Mouton and Co.
北京大学哲学系美学考研室编,1980,《西方美学家论美和美感》[M],北京:商务印书馆。
毕其玉,2005,对汉译本《洛丽塔》的多角度评述[MA],武汉理工大学。
曹丹红,2007,两种翻译诗学观之比较及其启示[J],《外语研究》第1期,44-47。
曹丹红,2010,西方诗学视野中的节奏与翻译[J],《中国翻译》第4期,51-55。
陈琳,2010,论陌生化翻译[J],《中国翻译》第1期,13-20。
陈琳,张春柏,2006,文学翻译审美的陌生化性[J],《清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》第6期,91-99。
范守义,2004,《翻译研究:另类视野》[M],北京:外语教学与研究出版社。
弗拉基米尔·纳博科夫, 1988,潘小松译,《固执己见》[M],长春:时代文艺出版社。
于晓丹,2000,《洛丽塔》[M],南京:译林出版社。
主万,2005,《洛丽塔》[M],上海:上海译文出版社。
金兵,2007,文学翻译中原作陌生化手法的再现研究[D],解放军外国语学院。
韩子满,2005,《文学翻译杂合研究》[M],上海:上海译文出版社。
贺丹,2008,《洛丽塔》语言三重审美效果的翻译研究[MA],华东师范大学。
胡全生,2002,《英美后现代主义小说叙述结构研究》[M],上海:复旦大学出版社。
江枫,2001,新世纪的新译论点评[J],《中国翻译》第3期,21-26。
朗晓玲,2004,黑暗中的笑声—论纳博科夫小说中的反讽[J],《理论学刊》第6期,115-117。
廖七一,2002,《当代西方翻译理论探索》[M],南京:译林出版社。
刘晓娅,2006,论《洛丽塔》的后现代主义特征[MA],重庆师范大学。
刘英凯,1999,信息时代翻译中“陌生化”的必要性和不可避免性[J],《外语研究》第3期,54。
罗念生,2005,译者导言。亚利斯多德著罗念生译《诗学》[M],上海:上海人民出版社。
罗新璋,1984,《翻译论集》[C],北京:商务印书馆。
潘利锋,2004,人性之谜的追寻—对纳博科夫和《洛丽塔》两个谜的解释[J],《湖南师范大学社会科学学报》第33
卷第4期,115-118。
尚必武,2005,“洛丽塔的欲望解读”[J],《广东外语外贸大学学报》第16卷第4期,38-40。
申雨平,2002,《西方翻译理论精选》[M],北京:外语教学与研究出版社。
什克洛夫斯基,1989,方珊等译《作为手法的艺术》[M],北京:生活读书新知三联书店。
孙会军,2005,《普遍与差异》[M],上海:上海译文出版社。
汤水辉,2005,文学作品的“陌生化”与翻译[J],《湖南大学学报(社会科学版)》第3期,92-95。
王东风,2004,变异还是差异-文学翻译中文体转换失误分析[J],《外国语》第1期,63。
王东风,2010,形式的复活:从诗学的角度反思文学翻译[J],《中国翻译》第1期,6-12。
王东亮,王晨阳译, 2002,《批评的批评—教育小说》[M],茨维坦·托多洛夫著,北京:三联书店。
王如屏,2007,读《洛丽塔》看移植文学陌生化效应张力美的可应用性[MA],上海外国语大学。
汪艳华,2007,文学语言的“陌生化”取向和翻译策略[J],《中南民族大学学报(人文社会科学版)》第2期,182-184。
王之望,1987,《文学风格论》[M],长沙:湖南教育出版社。
杨向荣,熊沐清,2003,取消‘前在性’:‘陌生化’命义解读[J],《外国文学研究》第2期,44-50。
杨向荣,2005,陌生化[J],《外国文学》第1期,61-66。
游丽,2007,从文本语言学视角(衔接与连贯)对《洛丽塔》三个中译本的比较研究[MA],外交学院。
袁筱一,许钧,1995,“翻译诗学”辨[J],《外语研究》第3期,28,60-64。
袁筱一,许钧,1995,“翻译诗学”辨(续)[J],《外语研究》第4期,45-50。
张冰,2000,《陌生化诗学:俄国形式主义研究》[M],北京:北京师范大学出版社。
张今,1998,《文学翻译原理》[M],北京:清华大学出版社。
张黎,1984,《布莱希特研究》[M],北京:中国社会科学出版社。
张巍,2004,洛丽塔的叙事奥妙[J],《当代外国文学》第1期,164-166。
赵一凡,张中载,李德恩等,2006,西方文论关键词[C],北京:外语教育与研究出版社。
郑海凌,2002,文学翻译过程中的“距离”问题[J],《中国翻译》第5期,48-49。
郑海凌,2003,陌生化与文学翻译[J],《中国俄语教学》第2期,45-46。
郑海凌,2003,“陌生化”与文学翻译[J],《中国翻译》第5期,43-46。
郑敏宇,2001,小说翻译研究的叙事学视角[J],《外语研究》第3期,65-72。
宗白华,2004,《美学散步》[M],上海:上海人民出版社。
Appel, Alfred, Jr., ed. (1991). The Annotated Lolita [M]. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Appel, Alfred, Jr., ed. (1993). The Annotated Lolita (Revised & Updated) [M]. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Aristotle. (1961). Aristotle’s Poetics [M]. Translated by S. H. Butcher. Introduction by Francis Fergusson. New York: Hill and Wang.
Bader, Julia. (1972). Crystal Land: Artifice in Nabokov’s English Novels. London: University of California Press, Ltd.
Bassnett, Susan & Lefevere, André. (2001). Constructing Cultures Essays on Literary Translation [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Bassnett, Susan. (2004). Translation Studies (Third Edition) [M].Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. Berman, Antoine. (1985b). La traduction commeépreuve de Létranger , Text 4: 67-81.
Chen, Lin. (2007). Alienizing Translation: Xu Zhimo’s Translation [D]. East China Normal University.
Cheyfitz, Eric. (1991). The Poetics of Imperialism: Translation and Colonization from the Tempest to Tarzan [M]. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crane, R.S. (1953). The Languages of Criticism and the Structure of Poetry [M]. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Dessons, Gérard. (2005). Introductionàla poétique [M]. Paris: Armand Colin.
Eoyang, Eugene Chen. (1993). The Transparent Eye: Reflections on Translation, Chinese Literature, and Comparative Poetics [M]. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Erich, Victor. (1981). Russian Formalism: History---Doctrine [M]. New Haven: Yale University Press. Genette, G. (1980). Narrative Discourse [M]. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Gentzler, Edwin. (2004). Contemporary Translation Theories (Revised Second Edition)[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Harris, Wendell V. (1992). Dictionary of Concepts in Literary Criticism and Theory [M]. Westport: Greenwood Press. Hazard, Adams & Leroy, Searle. (2006). Critical Theory Since Plato [M]. Peking: Peking University Press.
Henderson, Greig. & Christopher, Brown. (1997). Glossary of Literary Theory [W]. February 11, 2009. http://www.library.utoronto.ca/utel/glossary/Defamiliarization.html
Hermans, Theo. (2004). Translation in Systems---Descriptive and System-Oriented Approaches Explained [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Jahn, Manfred. (2005). Narratology: A Guide to the Theory of Narrative [M]. Retrieved October 17, 2010, fromhttp://www.uni-koeln.de/~ame02/pppn.htm
Jakobson, Roman. (1963). Essais de Linguistique Generale[M]. Paris: Editions de Minuit.
Larbaud, Valéry. (1971). Analyse d un article de Lénine. La Nouvelle Critique[J], 40, 55-60. Leech, G. N. & Short M. H., (2001). Style in Fiction: A Linguistic Introduction to English Fictional Prose [M]. Beijing:
Foreign Language and Research Press.
Lefevere, André. (1982/2000). Mother Courage s Cucumber: Text, System and Refraction in a Theory of Literature [A]. In
Laurence Venuti (ed.). 2000. The Translation Studies Reader [C].London: Routledge: 233-249.
Lefevere, André. (1985). Why Waste Our Time on Rewriting?-The Trouble with Interpretation and the Role of Rewriting in an Alternative Paradigm [A]. In Theo Hermans (ed.). (1985). The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Translation[C]. London and Sydney: Croom Helm: 215-243.
Lefevere, André. (2004a).Translation, Rewriting, and the Manipulation of Literary Fame [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Lefevere, André. (2004b).Translation/History/Culture: A Sourcebook[C]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Maddox, Lucy. (1983). Nabokov’s Novels in English [M]. London: .Croom Helm.
Meschonnic, Henri. (1973). Pour la poétique, Epistémologie de l’écriture, Poétique de la traduction [M]. Paris: Gallimard. Meschonnic, Henri. (1999). Poétique du Traduire [M]. Lagrasse: Verdier.
Michael, Wood. (1995). The Magician’s Doubts-Nabokov and the Risks of Fiction [M]. Princeton & New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Nabokov, Dmitri & Matthew, J. Bruccoli. (1989). Vladimir Nabokov: Selected Letters 1940-1977. Florida: Horcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Nabokov, Vladimir. (2005). Lolita [M]. Beijng: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Newmark, Peter. (2001). A Textbook of Translation [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Nida, Eugene, A. (2001). Language and Culture Contests in Translating [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Nida, Eugene, A. (1964). Toward a Science of Translating: with special reference to principles and procedures involved in Bible Translating [M]. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Parker, Patricia. (1987). Literary Fat Ladies: Rhetoric, Gender, Property [M]. London and New York: Methuen.
Qin, Hua. (2001). A Study on the Translation of Hong Lou Meng Based on the Narrative Mood [D]. Shanxi NormalUniversity.
Rampton, David. (1984). Vladimir Nabokov—A Critical Study of the Novels [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ric?ur, Paul. (1978). La Métaphore vive [M]. Paris: Seuil, 1975; trans. Robert Czerny as The Rule of Metaphor [M], 1978, London and Henley: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Sally, Wehmeier. (2004). Oxford Advanced Learner’s English-Chinese Dictionary [Z]. Beijing: The Commercial Press. Scholes, Robert. (1975). Structuralism in Literature [M]. New York: New Haven Yale University.
Shelley, P. B. (1819). Defense of Poetry [W].Retrieved June 30, 2010, from http://0-www.netlibrary.com.libecnu.lib.ecnu.edu.cn/Reader/
Shen, Dan. (1995). Literary Stylistics and Fictional Translation [M].Beijing: Peking University Press. Shklovsky, Victor. (1917). The Resurrection of the World [W]. Retrieved February 17, 2009, from http://courses.essex.ac.uk/It/It204/WORD.HTM
Shklovsky, Victor. (1923). Form and Material in Art [W]. Retrieved June 30, 2009, from http://www.centerforbookculture,org/context/no2/shklovsky/html
Shklovsky, Victor. (1970). The Novel as Parody [M]. Moscow: Central Press.
Simon, Sherry. (1994). Le trafic des langues: traduction et culture dans la littérature québécoise [M]. Montreal: Boréal. Todorov, Tzvetan. (2001). Definition of Poetics. In Zhu Gang. Twentieth Century Western Critical Theories [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Tomas, Molnar. Matter-of-Fact Confession of a Non-Penitent, CLC, Vol.64. P. 336.
Venuti, Lawrence. (2000). Translation Studies Reader [Z]. London & New York: Routledge.
Victor, Erlich. (1955). Russian Formalism: History and Doctrine [M]. The Hague: Mouton and Co.
北京大学哲学系美学考研室编,1980,《西方美学家论美和美感》[M],北京:商务印书馆。
毕其玉,2005,对汉译本《洛丽塔》的多角度评述[MA],武汉理工大学。
曹丹红,2007,两种翻译诗学观之比较及其启示[J],《外语研究》第1期,44-47。
曹丹红,2010,西方诗学视野中的节奏与翻译[J],《中国翻译》第4期,51-55。
陈琳,2010,论陌生化翻译[J],《中国翻译》第1期,13-20。
陈琳,张春柏,2006,文学翻译审美的陌生化性[J],《清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》第6期,91-99。
范守义,2004,《翻译研究:另类视野》[M],北京:外语教学与研究出版社。
弗拉基米尔·纳博科夫, 1988,潘小松译,《固执己见》[M],长春:时代文艺出版社。
于晓丹,2000,《洛丽塔》[M],南京:译林出版社。
主万,2005,《洛丽塔》[M],上海:上海译文出版社。
金兵,2007,文学翻译中原作陌生化手法的再现研究[D],解放军外国语学院。
韩子满,2005,《文学翻译杂合研究》[M],上海:上海译文出版社。
贺丹,2008,《洛丽塔》语言三重审美效果的翻译研究[MA],华东师范大学。
胡全生,2002,《英美后现代主义小说叙述结构研究》[M],上海:复旦大学出版社。
江枫,2001,新世纪的新译论点评[J],《中国翻译》第3期,21-26。
朗晓玲,2004,黑暗中的笑声—论纳博科夫小说中的反讽[J],《理论学刊》第6期,115-117。
廖七一,2002,《当代西方翻译理论探索》[M],南京:译林出版社。
刘晓娅,2006,论《洛丽塔》的后现代主义特征[MA],重庆师范大学。
刘英凯,1999,信息时代翻译中“陌生化”的必要性和不可避免性[J],《外语研究》第3期,54。
罗念生,2005,译者导言。亚利斯多德著罗念生译《诗学》[M],上海:上海人民出版社。
罗新璋,1984,《翻译论集》[C],北京:商务印书馆。
潘利锋,2004,人性之谜的追寻—对纳博科夫和《洛丽塔》两个谜的解释[J],《湖南师范大学社会科学学报》第33
卷第4期,115-118。
尚必武,2005,“洛丽塔的欲望解读”[J],《广东外语外贸大学学报》第16卷第4期,38-40。
申雨平,2002,《西方翻译理论精选》[M],北京:外语教学与研究出版社。
什克洛夫斯基,1989,方珊等译《作为手法的艺术》[M],北京:生活读书新知三联书店。
孙会军,2005,《普遍与差异》[M],上海:上海译文出版社。
汤水辉,2005,文学作品的“陌生化”与翻译[J],《湖南大学学报(社会科学版)》第3期,92-95。
王东风,2004,变异还是差异-文学翻译中文体转换失误分析[J],《外国语》第1期,63。
王东风,2010,形式的复活:从诗学的角度反思文学翻译[J],《中国翻译》第1期,6-12。
王东亮,王晨阳译, 2002,《批评的批评—教育小说》[M],茨维坦·托多洛夫著,北京:三联书店。
王如屏,2007,读《洛丽塔》看移植文学陌生化效应张力美的可应用性[MA],上海外国语大学。
汪艳华,2007,文学语言的“陌生化”取向和翻译策略[J],《中南民族大学学报(人文社会科学版)》第2期,182-184。
王之望,1987,《文学风格论》[M],长沙:湖南教育出版社。
杨向荣,熊沐清,2003,取消‘前在性’:‘陌生化’命义解读[J],《外国文学研究》第2期,44-50。
杨向荣,2005,陌生化[J],《外国文学》第1期,61-66。
游丽,2007,从文本语言学视角(衔接与连贯)对《洛丽塔》三个中译本的比较研究[MA],外交学院。
袁筱一,许钧,1995,“翻译诗学”辨[J],《外语研究》第3期,28,60-64。
袁筱一,许钧,1995,“翻译诗学”辨(续)[J],《外语研究》第4期,45-50。
张冰,2000,《陌生化诗学:俄国形式主义研究》[M],北京:北京师范大学出版社。
张今,1998,《文学翻译原理》[M],北京:清华大学出版社。
张黎,1984,《布莱希特研究》[M],北京:中国社会科学出版社。
张巍,2004,洛丽塔的叙事奥妙[J],《当代外国文学》第1期,164-166。
赵一凡,张中载,李德恩等,2006,西方文论关键词[C],北京:外语教育与研究出版社。
郑海凌,2002,文学翻译过程中的“距离”问题[J],《中国翻译》第5期,48-49。
郑海凌,2003,陌生化与文学翻译[J],《中国俄语教学》第2期,45-46。
郑海凌,2003,“陌生化”与文学翻译[J],《中国翻译》第5期,43-46。
郑敏宇,2001,小说翻译研究的叙事学视角[J],《外语研究》第3期,65-72。
宗白华,2004,《美学散步》[M],上海:上海人民出版社。