主体间性视角下翻译本体论之重构
|
摘要
从文化视野来观照整个翻译活动是目前翻译研究的倾向之一。然而,随着文化转向的深入,翻译学的研究范围越来越宽,不少关于文化翻译的论述和见解都超越了语言和文本,导致翻译本体论的失落,影响了翻译研究向纵深发展。
在文化转向之后,关于“翻译是什么”这一本体论研究存在着如下问题：(1)自霍姆斯翻译学研究框架开始,学者们过分重视描写性研究,忽略了翻译本体论的探讨；(2)在一种非理性和极端的解构主义思潮影响下,“作者死了”,“译者诞生”,文本意义不再是确定的,译者和读者决定意义,恰好与结构主义强调原作者与文本决定意义的翻译观相反；(3)文化转向后译者的主体性作用被不断夸大,随之,“改写论”与“操纵论”成为所谓的翻译本体论,并成为译者不再遵循“忠实”标准的借口。
鉴于以上问题,本研究尝试在哈贝马斯的主体间性视角下重构翻译本体论,因为该理论(1)强调理性交际和相互理解,而不是片面推崇某一主体对意义的主宰；(2)强调各个主体间的共存与对话,而不是片面夸大某一主体的作用。从主体间性观照翻译,即翻译主体间性,可分为两个方面：一是原文作者和译者的间性,即译者通过原文和原作者对话,完成第一阶段翻译任务。二是译者与读者的间性,即译者与译文读者之间的对话。两种对话都借助文本来实现。
立足于重构翻译本体论,本研究提出如下观点：(1)翻译是各个主体间包括作者、译者、读者在和谐对话中产生意义的过程。(2)翻译的本体论基础是原文作者和原文文本,脱离原文本,宣扬“作者死了”之类的泛文化思想会脱离翻译学的轨道；(3)翻译的本体论因素是：“趋同”和“存异”,即一方面译者要无限追求对原文的忠实,另一方面主体间对话产生多重意义亦有利于多视角、全方位地理解原文。
基于以上对翻译本体论的重构,本研究对本雅明“译者的任务”中、德、英三种文本进行对比,并对其英、汉译本进行了本体论批评,目的是发现,怎样的翻译本体论观点影响了译者的翻译策略,以及他们在“趋同”和“存异”翻译过程中的体现。研究发现,(1)译者在翻译中持有各自不同的翻译本体论,陈永国认为翻译永远存在“不可译因素”,译者也不可能同时达到“信、达、雅”,译者处于要么丢失原文要么改变原文的两难境地；张旭东则认为我们应促进中西文化交流以找到自身的文化价值,因而翻译是为了让国人了解西方思想。(2)在不同的翻译观的指导下,译者采取的翻译策略也不尽相同：陈永国倾向于使用“异化”策略,这使他的译文艰涩难懂,但却最大限度的保留了原文意义的丰富性；而张旭东更倾向于“归化”策略,使读者容易读懂,但我们却发现了他的译文中存在因“改写”而扭曲原文意义的现象。(3)通过翻译本体论的两个因素来考察各个译文,我们发现译者在“趋同”方面译文存在语言不地道、误读原文和缺乏互文知识的问题,这充分说明了在翻译过程中主体间的直接对话,以及充分对话的重要性；而在“存异”方面,译者在意义协商与表达上存在由于译者的表达习惯与认知结构不同而引起的差异,这种差异大体上是客观存在的,因而也是翻译本体论的一部分。
A cultural perspective is currently one main trend in translation studies. However, with its furthering studying, the scope of translation studies has become increasingly wide, and many of the discussions and opinions have gone beyond language and text themselves, and thus affected the further and deeper development of translation study.
The study of translation ontology after cultural turn has the following problems:(1) there has been a neglect on translation ontology study after cultural turn; (2) Affected by an irrational thinking, the meaning which lies in the source text was deconstructed, and therefore meaning becomes infinite, namely, the translator and the target text reader can interpret the text as whatever they want to; (3) there has been an overemphasis on translator's subjectivity, which leads to the abuse of "rewriting" and "manipulation", which even becomes the excuse for "unfaithfulness".
In view of these problems, this paper makes a tentative effort to reconstruct translation ontology from the perspective of Habermas's theory of intersubjectivity. The reason for choosing this theory lies in the concept of intersubjectivity. Intersubjectivity (1) emphasizes the rational communication between subjects and that meaning is the result of mutual negotiation; (2) emphasizes the mutual understanding and coexistence among the subjects. The concept of intersubjectivity believes that the relationship between the subjects is that of an exchange, dialogue, interaction, coexistence and mutual understanding. Accordingly, the intersubjective translating experience has two phrases:the first goes through the dialogue between the original author and the translator; the second phrase goes through the dialogue between the translator and the readers.
From the perspective of intersubjectivity, this paper proposes the following three viewpoints:(1) Translation ontology lies in the fact that translation is always a dialogical process in which meaning is given through a harmonious negotiation between the author, the translator and the reader; (2) the ontological foundation of translation are the source text author and the source text, underestimating, the source text by promoting "the death of author" will be going too far away from the track of translation studies; (3) the ontological factors of translation are "seeking sameness" and "reserving differences", which means that, on the one hand, the translator should take pains to achieve the highest criteria of faithfulness, on the other hand, the multiple meaning produced in the dialogical process can help the readers to get a multi-angular and comprehensive understanding of the original.
Based on the above tentative reconstruction of translation ontology, this paper makes a comparative study of the German, English and Chinese versions of Benjamin's "The Task of the Translator" with an ontological criticism on the English and Chinese versions. The research finds that (1) the translators hold different views of translation ontology. Chen Yongguo believes that the untranslatable factors are always there, and that the translator can not achieve "faithfulness, expressiveness and elegance" at the same time, and that the translator is in a dilemma of either losing or changing the original text. Zhang Xudong pays more attention to the communication between Chinese and Western cultures, and he believes that we should promote the exchange of thought to find our own cultural values, so he considers translation as a means to open the door to Western thought. (2) Guided by the different translation views, the translators also have different translation strategies. Chen Yongguo tends to use "foreinization" strategy which makes translation difficult to understand; however he does maximize the richness of the original meaning. Zhang Xudong is more inclined to use a "domestication" strategy, so that it is easy for the readers to understand. However, some "rewriting" traces in his version have distorted the original meaning. (3) By examining the two ontological factors of translation, we found that in the aspect of "seeking sameness", such problems as lack of idiomaticity, failure in comprehension, and lack of intertextual knowledge exist owing to insufficient dialogue among the subjects. In the aspect of "reserving differences", variable but acceptable translations indicate the translators' different processes of meaning negotiation and meaning conveying, due to their distinction in their language habits and cognitive structures.
在文化转向之后,关于“翻译是什么”这一本体论研究存在着如下问题：(1)自霍姆斯翻译学研究框架开始,学者们过分重视描写性研究,忽略了翻译本体论的探讨；(2)在一种非理性和极端的解构主义思潮影响下,“作者死了”,“译者诞生”,文本意义不再是确定的,译者和读者决定意义,恰好与结构主义强调原作者与文本决定意义的翻译观相反；(3)文化转向后译者的主体性作用被不断夸大,随之,“改写论”与“操纵论”成为所谓的翻译本体论,并成为译者不再遵循“忠实”标准的借口。
鉴于以上问题,本研究尝试在哈贝马斯的主体间性视角下重构翻译本体论,因为该理论(1)强调理性交际和相互理解,而不是片面推崇某一主体对意义的主宰；(2)强调各个主体间的共存与对话,而不是片面夸大某一主体的作用。从主体间性观照翻译,即翻译主体间性,可分为两个方面：一是原文作者和译者的间性,即译者通过原文和原作者对话,完成第一阶段翻译任务。二是译者与读者的间性,即译者与译文读者之间的对话。两种对话都借助文本来实现。
立足于重构翻译本体论,本研究提出如下观点：(1)翻译是各个主体间包括作者、译者、读者在和谐对话中产生意义的过程。(2)翻译的本体论基础是原文作者和原文文本,脱离原文本,宣扬“作者死了”之类的泛文化思想会脱离翻译学的轨道；(3)翻译的本体论因素是：“趋同”和“存异”,即一方面译者要无限追求对原文的忠实,另一方面主体间对话产生多重意义亦有利于多视角、全方位地理解原文。
基于以上对翻译本体论的重构,本研究对本雅明“译者的任务”中、德、英三种文本进行对比,并对其英、汉译本进行了本体论批评,目的是发现,怎样的翻译本体论观点影响了译者的翻译策略,以及他们在“趋同”和“存异”翻译过程中的体现。研究发现,(1)译者在翻译中持有各自不同的翻译本体论,陈永国认为翻译永远存在“不可译因素”,译者也不可能同时达到“信、达、雅”,译者处于要么丢失原文要么改变原文的两难境地；张旭东则认为我们应促进中西文化交流以找到自身的文化价值,因而翻译是为了让国人了解西方思想。(2)在不同的翻译观的指导下,译者采取的翻译策略也不尽相同：陈永国倾向于使用“异化”策略,这使他的译文艰涩难懂,但却最大限度的保留了原文意义的丰富性；而张旭东更倾向于“归化”策略,使读者容易读懂,但我们却发现了他的译文中存在因“改写”而扭曲原文意义的现象。(3)通过翻译本体论的两个因素来考察各个译文,我们发现译者在“趋同”方面译文存在语言不地道、误读原文和缺乏互文知识的问题,这充分说明了在翻译过程中主体间的直接对话,以及充分对话的重要性；而在“存异”方面,译者在意义协商与表达上存在由于译者的表达习惯与认知结构不同而引起的差异,这种差异大体上是客观存在的,因而也是翻译本体论的一部分。
A cultural perspective is currently one main trend in translation studies. However, with its furthering studying, the scope of translation studies has become increasingly wide, and many of the discussions and opinions have gone beyond language and text themselves, and thus affected the further and deeper development of translation study.
The study of translation ontology after cultural turn has the following problems:(1) there has been a neglect on translation ontology study after cultural turn; (2) Affected by an irrational thinking, the meaning which lies in the source text was deconstructed, and therefore meaning becomes infinite, namely, the translator and the target text reader can interpret the text as whatever they want to; (3) there has been an overemphasis on translator's subjectivity, which leads to the abuse of "rewriting" and "manipulation", which even becomes the excuse for "unfaithfulness".
In view of these problems, this paper makes a tentative effort to reconstruct translation ontology from the perspective of Habermas's theory of intersubjectivity. The reason for choosing this theory lies in the concept of intersubjectivity. Intersubjectivity (1) emphasizes the rational communication between subjects and that meaning is the result of mutual negotiation; (2) emphasizes the mutual understanding and coexistence among the subjects. The concept of intersubjectivity believes that the relationship between the subjects is that of an exchange, dialogue, interaction, coexistence and mutual understanding. Accordingly, the intersubjective translating experience has two phrases:the first goes through the dialogue between the original author and the translator; the second phrase goes through the dialogue between the translator and the readers.
From the perspective of intersubjectivity, this paper proposes the following three viewpoints:(1) Translation ontology lies in the fact that translation is always a dialogical process in which meaning is given through a harmonious negotiation between the author, the translator and the reader; (2) the ontological foundation of translation are the source text author and the source text, underestimating, the source text by promoting "the death of author" will be going too far away from the track of translation studies; (3) the ontological factors of translation are "seeking sameness" and "reserving differences", which means that, on the one hand, the translator should take pains to achieve the highest criteria of faithfulness, on the other hand, the multiple meaning produced in the dialogical process can help the readers to get a multi-angular and comprehensive understanding of the original.
Based on the above tentative reconstruction of translation ontology, this paper makes a comparative study of the German, English and Chinese versions of Benjamin's "The Task of the Translator" with an ontological criticism on the English and Chinese versions. The research finds that (1) the translators hold different views of translation ontology. Chen Yongguo believes that the untranslatable factors are always there, and that the translator can not achieve "faithfulness, expressiveness and elegance" at the same time, and that the translator is in a dilemma of either losing or changing the original text. Zhang Xudong pays more attention to the communication between Chinese and Western cultures, and he believes that we should promote the exchange of thought to find our own cultural values, so he considers translation as a means to open the door to Western thought. (2) Guided by the different translation views, the translators also have different translation strategies. Chen Yongguo tends to use "foreinization" strategy which makes translation difficult to understand; however he does maximize the richness of the original meaning. Zhang Xudong is more inclined to use a "domestication" strategy, so that it is easy for the readers to understand. However, some "rewriting" traces in his version have distorted the original meaning. (3) By examining the two ontological factors of translation, we found that in the aspect of "seeking sameness", such problems as lack of idiomaticity, failure in comprehension, and lack of intertextual knowledge exist owing to insufficient dialogue among the subjects. In the aspect of "reserving differences", variable but acceptable translations indicate the translators' different processes of meaning negotiation and meaning conveying, due to their distinction in their language habits and cognitive structures.
引文
[1]Barthes, Roland. "The Death of Author", in Philip Rice &Patricia Waugh (eds). Modern Literature Theory:A Reader [M]. London:Edward Arnold Press,1992
[2]Bassnett, Susan & Lefevere, Andre. "General Editors'Preface to Translation /History/Culture", in Lefevere (ed.) Translation, History, Culture[C]. London& New York:Routledge,1992.
[3]Bassnett, Susan & Lefevere, Andre. Constructing Cultures:Essays on literary Translation [M]. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001
[4]Bassnett, S. Travelling through Translation [M]. Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press,2009.
[5]Benjamin, W. Gesammelte Schriften[M]. Hrsg. Tiedemann and Hermann Schweppenhauser (Ed.). Frankfurt:Suhrkamp Verlag, Ⅳ 9-22.1972
[6]Burke, Sean. The Death and Return of the Author. Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press,1992.
[7]Catford, J.C. A Linguistic Theory of Translation [M]. London:Oxford University Press,1965.
[8]Chesterman, A. Memes of Translation [M]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:Benjamins, 1997.
[9]De Man, Paul "Conclusions":On Walter Benjamin's'The Task of the Translator', Yale French Studies 69,1985:25-46.
[10]Derrida, Jacques. Positions [M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.1981.
[11]Derrida, Jacques.Of Grammatology[M]. Trans. G. Spivak. Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press,1976:158.
[12]Gentzler, E. Contemporary Translation Theories [M]. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2004
[13]Hatim, B.& I. Mason. Discourse and Translator [M] London:Longman,2001
[14]Harry Zohn. Trans. "The Task of the Translator". H. Arendt (Ed.). Illumination [M]. New York:Harcourt, Brace & World.1968:69-82
[15]Harry Zohn. Trans. "The Task of the Translator". M. Bullock & M. W. Jennings (Eds.). Selected Writings [M] (Vol. Ⅰ). Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England: Harvard University Press,1996:253-263
[16]Hermans, T. "Introduction:Translation Studies and a New Paradigm", in Hermans (ed.) The Manipulation of Literature:Studies in Literary Translation[C]. London& Sydney:Croom Helm Ltd,1985.
[17]Hermans, Theo. Translation in Systems-Descriptive and systemic Approaches Explained [M]. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2004.
[18]Hervey, Sandor G. H. "Speech Acts and Illocutionary Function in Translation", in Leo, Hickey (ed.) The Pragmatics of Translation [C]. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
[19]Jin Di& Eugene. A. Nida. On Translation with special reference to Chinese and English [M]. Beijing:China Translation and Publishing Corporation,1984.
[20]Kathleen. Davis.Deconstruction and Translation[M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2004.
[21]Kristeva, Julia.Etrangers a nous-memes[M]. Paris:Seuil,1998.
[22]Kristeva, J. Semiotike Recherches pour une semanalyse [M]. Paris:Seuil,1969.
[23]Lefevere, Andre. "Translation Studies:The Goal of the Discipline", Holmes et al. (eds.) Literature and Translation [C]. Louvain:ACCO,1978.
[24]Lefevere, Andre. Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame, [M].London and New York:Routledge,1992.
[25]Lefevere,'Andre& Bassnett, Susan (ed.) Translation/History/Culture:A Source book [M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2004.
[26]Li Heqing. Methodology of Western Translation Studies:Since the 1970s [M].Beijing:Beijing University Press,2005.
[27]Newmark, Peter. Approaches to Translation [M]. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
[28]Nida, E. A.& Taber, C. R. The Theory and Practice of Translation [M]. Leiden:E. J. Brill,1969.
[29]Robinson, Douglas. The Translator's Turn [M].Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2007.
[30]Robinson, Douglas. Translation and Empire [M]. Manchester:St. Jerome Publishing,1997.
[31]Samuel Weber. "Falling Out of One's Role with Art" Samuel Weber on Benjamin's Abilities. Interview by Arne De Boever and Alex Murray [J]. Parrhesia,2008(4): 11-16.
[32]Steiner, George. After Babel-Aspects of Language and Translation [M].Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
[33]Steven Rendall. "A Note on Harry Zohn's Translation" in The Translation Studies Reader[C]. Edited by Lawrence Venuti. New York and London:Routledge,2000: 23-25.
[34]Shuttleworth, Mark& Cowie, Moira. Dictionary of Translation Studies [M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2004.
[35]Toury, Gideon. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond [M].Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
[36]Venuti, Lawrence.The Translator's Invisibility [M]. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.2006 Rethinking Translator [M]. New York:Routledge, 1992.
[37]Wilss, W. The Science of Translation:Problems and Methods [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
[38]Xudong, Zhang. "Epilogue:Postmodernism and Postsocialist Society Historicising the Present" [J]. Arif Dirlik and Zhang Xudong (eds). Postmodernism and China. Durham and London:Duke University Press,2000:400.
[39]Xudong, Zhang. "The Making of the Post-Tiananmen Intellectual Field:A Critical Overview." In Whither China? Intellectual Politics in Contemporary China[C], ed. Xudong Zhang (1-75). Durham:Duke University Press,2001:16.
[40]蔡新乐.也淡意义不确定问题——与殷企平先生商榷[J]外国文学,1998(4).
[41]蔡毅,段京华.苏联翻译理论[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社,2000.
[42]陈永国.本雅明译波德莱尔译坡：思想在文学翻译中的旅行[J].外国文学研究.2010(1)：141-151.
[43]陈永国,马海良.本雅明文选[C].北京：中国社会科学出版社.1999：279-290.
[44]葛校琴.后现代语境下的译者主体性研究[M].上海：上海译文出版社,2006.
[45](德)海德格尔.路标[M].孙周兴,译.北京：商务印书馆,2000：436.
[46]何中华.试论马克思的本体论思想及其特征[J].学习与探索,2004(1)：1-7.
[47]李建红.作者死亡,译者诞生?——对解构主义意义不确定论的质疑[J].外语教学,2005(6).
[48]李龙泉.“改写论”的缘由及弊端[J].上海翻译,2009(1)
[49]李志萍.回归翻译——兼评文化学派的改写论[J],上海翻译.2009(4).
[50]罗兰·巴特.作者之死.拉曼·赛尔登编.文学批评理论：从柏拉图到现在[C].刘象愚等译.北京：北京大学出版社,2003：321-322.
[51]罗新璋.翻译论集[C].北京：商务印书馆,1984.
[52]廖七一.英国当代翻译理论[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社,2004.
[53]连淑能.英汉对比研究[M].北京：高等教育出版社,1993.
[54]吕俊、侯向群.翻译学——一个建构主义的视角[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2006.
[55]尼古拉斯·布宁.余纪元编著.西方哲学英汉对照词典[M],北京：人民出版社.2001.
[56]谭载喜.西方翻译简史[M].北京：商务印书馆,2004.
[57]王东风.一只看不见的书——论意识形态对翻译的操纵[J].中国翻译,2006(5)：16-23.
[58]王东风.解构忠实—翻译神话的终结[J].中国翻译,2004(6)：3-9.
[59]王宏印.文学翻译批评理论[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2006.
[60]王克非.关于翻译本质的认识[J].外语与外语教学,1997(4)：13-14.
[61]汪晖.“新自由主义”的历史根源——再论当代中国大陆的思想状况与现代性问题.去政治化的政治—短20世纪的终结与90年代[M]北京：生活.读书.新知.三联书店,2008：143-145.
[62]谢天振.译介学[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2003：215.
[63]谢天振.译者的诞生与原作者的“死亡”[J].中国比较文学,2002(4).
[64]谢天振.亚里士多德.形而上学[M].吴寿彭,译.北京：商务印书馆,1997：17.
[65]余宣孟.本体论研究[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1999：11.
[66]张隆溪.二十世纪西方文论述评[M].北京：三联书店,1986：169.
[67]张旭东(译).译者的任务.汉娜·阿伦特(主编),启迪——本雅明文选.香港：牛津大学出版社.1998：63-76.
[68]赵彦春.翻译学归结论[M],上海：上海外语教育出版社,2005.
[69]周仪.罗平.翻译与批评[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社,1999.
[2]Bassnett, Susan & Lefevere, Andre. "General Editors'Preface to Translation /History/Culture", in Lefevere (ed.) Translation, History, Culture[C]. London& New York:Routledge,1992.
[3]Bassnett, Susan & Lefevere, Andre. Constructing Cultures:Essays on literary Translation [M]. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001
[4]Bassnett, S. Travelling through Translation [M]. Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press,2009.
[5]Benjamin, W. Gesammelte Schriften[M]. Hrsg. Tiedemann and Hermann Schweppenhauser (Ed.). Frankfurt:Suhrkamp Verlag, Ⅳ 9-22.1972
[6]Burke, Sean. The Death and Return of the Author. Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press,1992.
[7]Catford, J.C. A Linguistic Theory of Translation [M]. London:Oxford University Press,1965.
[8]Chesterman, A. Memes of Translation [M]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:Benjamins, 1997.
[9]De Man, Paul "Conclusions":On Walter Benjamin's'The Task of the Translator', Yale French Studies 69,1985:25-46.
[10]Derrida, Jacques. Positions [M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.1981.
[11]Derrida, Jacques.Of Grammatology[M]. Trans. G. Spivak. Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press,1976:158.
[12]Gentzler, E. Contemporary Translation Theories [M]. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2004
[13]Hatim, B.& I. Mason. Discourse and Translator [M] London:Longman,2001
[14]Harry Zohn. Trans. "The Task of the Translator". H. Arendt (Ed.). Illumination [M]. New York:Harcourt, Brace & World.1968:69-82
[15]Harry Zohn. Trans. "The Task of the Translator". M. Bullock & M. W. Jennings (Eds.). Selected Writings [M] (Vol. Ⅰ). Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England: Harvard University Press,1996:253-263
[16]Hermans, T. "Introduction:Translation Studies and a New Paradigm", in Hermans (ed.) The Manipulation of Literature:Studies in Literary Translation[C]. London& Sydney:Croom Helm Ltd,1985.
[17]Hermans, Theo. Translation in Systems-Descriptive and systemic Approaches Explained [M]. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2004.
[18]Hervey, Sandor G. H. "Speech Acts and Illocutionary Function in Translation", in Leo, Hickey (ed.) The Pragmatics of Translation [C]. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
[19]Jin Di& Eugene. A. Nida. On Translation with special reference to Chinese and English [M]. Beijing:China Translation and Publishing Corporation,1984.
[20]Kathleen. Davis.Deconstruction and Translation[M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2004.
[21]Kristeva, Julia.Etrangers a nous-memes[M]. Paris:Seuil,1998.
[22]Kristeva, J. Semiotike Recherches pour une semanalyse [M]. Paris:Seuil,1969.
[23]Lefevere, Andre. "Translation Studies:The Goal of the Discipline", Holmes et al. (eds.) Literature and Translation [C]. Louvain:ACCO,1978.
[24]Lefevere, Andre. Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame, [M].London and New York:Routledge,1992.
[25]Lefevere,'Andre& Bassnett, Susan (ed.) Translation/History/Culture:A Source book [M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2004.
[26]Li Heqing. Methodology of Western Translation Studies:Since the 1970s [M].Beijing:Beijing University Press,2005.
[27]Newmark, Peter. Approaches to Translation [M]. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
[28]Nida, E. A.& Taber, C. R. The Theory and Practice of Translation [M]. Leiden:E. J. Brill,1969.
[29]Robinson, Douglas. The Translator's Turn [M].Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2007.
[30]Robinson, Douglas. Translation and Empire [M]. Manchester:St. Jerome Publishing,1997.
[31]Samuel Weber. "Falling Out of One's Role with Art" Samuel Weber on Benjamin's Abilities. Interview by Arne De Boever and Alex Murray [J]. Parrhesia,2008(4): 11-16.
[32]Steiner, George. After Babel-Aspects of Language and Translation [M].Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
[33]Steven Rendall. "A Note on Harry Zohn's Translation" in The Translation Studies Reader[C]. Edited by Lawrence Venuti. New York and London:Routledge,2000: 23-25.
[34]Shuttleworth, Mark& Cowie, Moira. Dictionary of Translation Studies [M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2004.
[35]Toury, Gideon. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond [M].Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
[36]Venuti, Lawrence.The Translator's Invisibility [M]. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.2006 Rethinking Translator [M]. New York:Routledge, 1992.
[37]Wilss, W. The Science of Translation:Problems and Methods [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
[38]Xudong, Zhang. "Epilogue:Postmodernism and Postsocialist Society Historicising the Present" [J]. Arif Dirlik and Zhang Xudong (eds). Postmodernism and China. Durham and London:Duke University Press,2000:400.
[39]Xudong, Zhang. "The Making of the Post-Tiananmen Intellectual Field:A Critical Overview." In Whither China? Intellectual Politics in Contemporary China[C], ed. Xudong Zhang (1-75). Durham:Duke University Press,2001:16.
[40]蔡新乐.也淡意义不确定问题——与殷企平先生商榷[J]外国文学,1998(4).
[41]蔡毅,段京华.苏联翻译理论[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社,2000.
[42]陈永国.本雅明译波德莱尔译坡：思想在文学翻译中的旅行[J].外国文学研究.2010(1)：141-151.
[43]陈永国,马海良.本雅明文选[C].北京：中国社会科学出版社.1999：279-290.
[44]葛校琴.后现代语境下的译者主体性研究[M].上海：上海译文出版社,2006.
[45](德)海德格尔.路标[M].孙周兴,译.北京：商务印书馆,2000：436.
[46]何中华.试论马克思的本体论思想及其特征[J].学习与探索,2004(1)：1-7.
[47]李建红.作者死亡,译者诞生?——对解构主义意义不确定论的质疑[J].外语教学,2005(6).
[48]李龙泉.“改写论”的缘由及弊端[J].上海翻译,2009(1)
[49]李志萍.回归翻译——兼评文化学派的改写论[J],上海翻译.2009(4).
[50]罗兰·巴特.作者之死.拉曼·赛尔登编.文学批评理论：从柏拉图到现在[C].刘象愚等译.北京：北京大学出版社,2003：321-322.
[51]罗新璋.翻译论集[C].北京：商务印书馆,1984.
[52]廖七一.英国当代翻译理论[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社,2004.
[53]连淑能.英汉对比研究[M].北京：高等教育出版社,1993.
[54]吕俊、侯向群.翻译学——一个建构主义的视角[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2006.
[55]尼古拉斯·布宁.余纪元编著.西方哲学英汉对照词典[M],北京：人民出版社.2001.
[56]谭载喜.西方翻译简史[M].北京：商务印书馆,2004.
[57]王东风.一只看不见的书——论意识形态对翻译的操纵[J].中国翻译,2006(5)：16-23.
[58]王东风.解构忠实—翻译神话的终结[J].中国翻译,2004(6)：3-9.
[59]王宏印.文学翻译批评理论[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2006.
[60]王克非.关于翻译本质的认识[J].外语与外语教学,1997(4)：13-14.
[61]汪晖.“新自由主义”的历史根源——再论当代中国大陆的思想状况与现代性问题.去政治化的政治—短20世纪的终结与90年代[M]北京：生活.读书.新知.三联书店,2008：143-145.
[62]谢天振.译介学[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2003：215.
[63]谢天振.译者的诞生与原作者的“死亡”[J].中国比较文学,2002(4).
[64]谢天振.亚里士多德.形而上学[M].吴寿彭,译.北京：商务印书馆,1997：17.
[65]余宣孟.本体论研究[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1999：11.
[66]张隆溪.二十世纪西方文论述评[M].北京：三联书店,1986：169.
[67]张旭东(译).译者的任务.汉娜·阿伦特(主编),启迪——本雅明文选.香港：牛津大学出版社.1998：63-76.
[68]赵彦春.翻译学归结论[M],上海：上海外语教育出版社,2005.
[69]周仪.罗平.翻译与批评[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社,1999.