多声部的和谐：解构主义翻译观研究
|
摘要
解构主义翻译观是源于解构主义哲学思想的翻译理论,自问世以来就充满了争议。本着正本清源的精神,本论文以解构主义翻译观最重要的两个代表人物本雅明和德里达为研究对象,从它的哲学渊源开始,对它的主要内容和精神内涵进行了全面、系统的梳理,探讨了该理论从本雅明到德里达的发展轨迹,指出它对文学翻译深刻的启示意义,最终阐明了解构主义翻译观借助哲学、语言、文学、翻译等多种渠道传递出的一种多声部的和谐精神,展示了蕴含在它精神深处的和谐主题。
全文共分七章。
第一章是导言。概述了解构主义翻译观的和谐主题以及解构主义翻译观对于翻译研究的深远意义,同时也对德里达和本雅明在解构主义翻译观上的亲缘性进行了阐述。笔者认为,解构主义翻译观对于翻译研究的意义除了表现在它对翻译的根本问题所提出的一整套系统看法之上,更着重表现在它对文学翻译的启示意义之上。因为,解构主义翻译观关于意义永远无法确定、文本无定解、翻译不是为了传递内容,而是为了释放真理等思想与文学作品的语言的无限创造性、文本的高度虚构性以及随后衍生的文本解读的开放性等突出特征共同构成的文学作品的文学性的精神高度契合。源于解构哲学的解构主义翻译观虽然带有破坏性的表象,然而它实际上传递的是一种语言和谐的精神以及超越语言的人文意义上的和谐主题,这一点在它从本雅明到德里达的翻译思想的发展中得到了充分的体现。虽然本雅明并未给自己的翻译思想贴上解构主义的标签,然而他的翻译思想以其与德里达翻译观在解构思想上的高度亲缘性而成为事实上的解构主义翻译观的源头。
第二章阐述了解构主义翻译观从哲学思想到翻译思想的发展轨迹,追溯了解构主义翻译观的哲学渊源,对解构哲学进行了理论综述,并对解构主义及其翻译观进行了文献综述。本章指出,解构主义的形成是建立在对传统哲学的解构的基础之上,海德格尔的此在思想和索绪尔的结构主义对于德里达反传统的解构思想的形成是影响最大的一对组合。然而究其本质,这两种思想都是形而上学的另一种形式的复活,甚至连解构思想本身也依然没有逃脱柏拉图的日全食式的影响。不过,解构主义借助延异、痕迹、涂抹、播撒等概念割断了能指与所指间的对应关系,让意义流动起来,凸显语言的相关性,展示了语言在动态关联中表现出的生命力及其所营造的和谐景象。这又使得解构主义明显地有别于传统哲学,也成为它为哲学的发展做出的重大贡献。解构主义哲学中的延异、痕迹、涂抹、播撒等主要概念在解构主义翻译观中得到了充分的体现,表现为对翻译中的根本问题所提出的一整套看法,如,它否定了原作的绝对权威地位,认为译作和原作同为意义的能指链上的一分子,翻译并非意义的输送、而是一种有规律的转化,翻译的目的是要实现语言王国的和谐,等等。
本章同时指出,解构主义及其翻译观在西方和中国都长期遭遇了对它的普遍误读,究其原因有四：1.解构主义论著自身文字的晦涩难懂；2.受新批评传统长期熏陶的学者对文字游戏的过分迷恋所导致的解构思想中最为精髓的人文思想的旁落；3.解构主义长期以来只被当作一种方法论来看待而导致的其哲学内涵的流失；4.解构思想中“禅宗”的东方元素与德里达的西方式讲解的中西结合给读者带来的阅读困难。为了准确把握解构主义翻译观的精神内涵,目前译界应加大对它的文本细读的力度,并要将其置于它的哲学背景之下去理解和探讨。
第三章在对本雅明阐述其语言观和翻译观的主要著作“译者的任务”和“论语言本身和人的语言”进行细读的基础上,从翻译的本质和目的、(不)可译性、原作/译作关系、纯语言、译者的任务、以及翻译的标准及方法这六个方面阐明了本雅明的解构主义翻译观的主要内容,说明虽然本雅明的翻译观中已露出和谐精神的端倪,但由于神学对他的过度影响使得这种和谐始终戴着镣铐跳舞,变得和而不谐。
第四章对德里达的“巴别塔”一文进行了详细的文本分析,阐述了德里达和本雅明之间在解构主义翻译观上的内在亲缘性。之所以选择它是因为该文的后半部分完全就是德里达对本雅明的“译者的任务”所做的解读,这种结构本身就昭示着二者之间的内在亲缘性,充分体现了德里达对本雅明的继承和发展,就像格拉海姆所指出的那样：“在精心构思的术语和主题中,不仅缺失的东西得以补充,含蓄的东西也被清晰地表达出来,不重要的变成重要的了,边缘的变成核心的了。这样的补充可被正确地看作赞扬。”(78)在德里达对本雅明所做的补充和完善的阐述当中,尤以他对“纯语言”这一核心概念的发展最为突出。本雅明在这个概念中倾注了深厚的神学思想,将其看成能够表达神启的上帝的语言。德里达在保留其源初的宗教性的基础上,借助巴别塔的隐喻从“谈论语言的起源和分散”(ibid)开始,将纯语言进而阐释为表达了人间真意的“真理”,让它从神界走进人间,将神性进一步融入人性,赋予纯语言更多的人文情怀。德里达指出,翻译的任务是让且仅让我们与真理的语言变得相关,我们永远看不到那个遥远的终点,只能在翻译的过程中去体验(感觉)它。所以德里达说,翻译即体验,体验即翻译。我们通过体验那段遥远的距离从而体验到真理语言的存在。真理本身对于人类而言也是如此。我们永远无法穷尽它,但我们会在追寻它的过程中感觉到它的力量。德里达的思想有效地削弱了本雅明翻译观中过重的神学影响,将其转化为对人类具有普遍意义的哲学思想。故而,德里达的翻译观不仅让语言和谐的精神得以全面呈现,而且还表达了建立一个和谐世界的人文精神。
第五章对德里达体现在“相关的翻译”中的翻译观进行了详尽的阐释,对其中的重要概念进行了较为彻底的梳理,指出“相关的翻译”指的是能够升华、净化、调节、内化、救赎语言的翻译,澄清了译界对它的严重误读,突出表现在将德里达自己所说的：“因此,适当的翻译简单说就是‘好的’翻译,与人们的期待相符合的翻译,简言之,履行了使命、偿付了债务、完成了任务或职责的一种表达(version),同时又在接收语言中抄写了对原文最适当的(relevant)等同物,最正确的、合适的、相关的、充分的、诗意的、明确的、单声的、惯用的语言”(150)误解为是德里达对于翻译的本质的看法。德里达的“相关的翻译”的翻译观进一步体现了他对本雅明的继承,同时更为充分地体现了他对本雅明的发展和超越。如,在继承了本雅明对语言差异性的尊重的基础之上指出语言的相关性；在继承了本雅明关于翻译的任务是释放真理、救赎语言的基础之上提出翻译对于语言还有升华、净化、调节、内化的功能；在继承了本雅明通过陶罐的碎片、后世之生命、果皮／果肉之于皇袍／身体、切线与圆等一系列隐喻所阐述的关于原作／译作关系的思想的基础之上,利用莎士比亚的《威尼斯商人》作为人类思想经典所特有的寓言性的隐喻功能,通过对可译性的阐述,将原作和译作由于翻译而建立的语言层面上的关系升华到超越了语言的人文意义上的关系。更重要的是,德里达在继承本雅明的基础上提出系统的“相关的”翻译的翻译观,笔者认为这是对本雅明的重大超越,也是说明解构主义翻译观日臻成熟的具有里程碑意义的重要标志。它将和谐的精神在语言以及所有事物的相关性中演绎得入木三分,使其达到“风触及风琴一样”那般深邃,充分彰显了解构精神的精髓。
第六章以对文学作品的文学性的阐释为前提,回归文本,探讨解构主义翻译观在其宏大的哲学背景下对于文学翻译的微观应用。通过将解构主义翻译观与文学作品的文学性相融合后笔者发现,前者对后者至少有着以下几点启示意义：第一,文学翻译应忠实于意指；第二,文学翻译应体现语言的亲缘性；第三,解构式解读是文学翻译的前提条件；第四,文学翻译应采用拱廊直译。拱廊直译指的就是本雅明在“译者的任务”中所倡议的那种能够让原作的光芒照进译作的直译,笔者认为它是一种既译词、又译味的直译,在根本上有别于传统译论中寻求字当句对的直译。本章的论述表明,文学翻译应当寻找语言间意指方式的和谐,而后在语言和谐的颤音中释放出那个失落的纯语言(真理)。
第七章是结论,主要是对以上章节的讨论进行总结和概括,同时指出本论文的主要特色和贡献。笔者认为,解构主义翻译观从其哲学渊源到它的主要思想直至它对文学翻译的启示都蕴含着深刻的和谐主题。具体地说,这种和谐包含两层含义：其一,解构主义翻译观在哲学、语言、文学与翻译中穿行时利用这些领域间内在的相关性让它们相互阐释,互为补充,展现出秘响旁通的和谐景象；其二,解构主义翻译观本身表达了实现语言王国的和谐的愿望,解构主义哲学本身更表达了实现全世界和谐的宏大愿望。故而,解构主义翻译观所体现的和谐精神是一种多声部的和谐交响曲,它用翻译象征着一个万事万物在互补中共生的理想世界。
Deconstruction translation theory, with its root in deconstruction philosophy, has been a topic of heated debate, especially regarding its rationality, ever since its conception. Taking this status quo into consideration, this dissertation undertakes a fundamental and comprehensive critique of the philosophy of deconstruction and its expression in the translation field in light of its progress from Benjamin to Derrida, two of the most outstanding scholars of this theory, in the hope of clarifying some of its key concepts. Hence, the dissertation goes further to explore the value of this translation theory for literary translation by scrutinizing the kinship between the theory and the literariness of literary works. Finally, it is argued that deconstruction translation theory strikes a multi-layer note of harmony through the channels of philosophy, language and literature, and thus distinguishes harmony as a major theme of the theory.
The dissertation falls into seven chapters.
Chapter One serves as an introduction of this study. It makes a brief investigation of the theme of harmony embedded in deconstruction theory, the significance of this theory for translation studies as a whole, and the genetic relationship between Derrida's thought about translation and Benjamin's as well. The author argues that the value of deconstruction as a translation theory is not only reflected in its profound insights about all the key issues of translation, but specifically in its enlightenment for literary translation, because all the major concepts of deconstruction translation theory, such as its negation of the fixed meaning and fixed interpretation of a text, its viewpoint about the task of translation/the translator as a pursuer of truth rather than a porter of meaning, and so on, are in perfect harmony with the literariness of literary works. Despite the literal meaning of destruction conveyed by its name, the deconstruction theory of translation actually strikes a forte note of harmony in language and highlights the theme of harmony in humanity thereafter, which is eloquently proved by its progress from Benjamin to Derrida. Though Benjamin did not label his thought with "deconstruction", the high level of genetic similarity between his thought about translation and Derrida's actually identifies him as the origin of this school of thought of translation.
Chapter Two is an in-depth theoretical review of the evolution of deconstruction translation theory from its philosophical origin, including a literature review of deconstruction as a school of philosophy and a theory of translation. The author argues that Heidegger's idea of Dasein and Saussure's thought of structuralism contribute most to the conception of deconstruction. Although deconstruction intends to distinguish itself from the other thoughts with its rebellious characteristics, it ends up in failure in its wrestling with traditional philosophy and Plato. Nevertheless, it does make itself stand out differently with a series of creative concepts such as differance, trace and dissemination because they reshuffle the traditional relationship between the signifier and the signified, restore the innate relevance of languages, refill languages with proactive vigor and hence retrieve an initial harmony in the language and the universe. Furthermore, these concepts all find powerful expression in translation via their interpretations about the fundamental issues of translation and bring to light the deconstruction theory of translation. To name some, deconstruction translation theory argues that the original does not enjoy the privilege of authority any longer; translation is not meant to transport meaning, but a regulated transformation of language; the goal of translation is to construct a harmonious world of language, and so on.
In the meanwhile, the author points out that deconstruction as both a philosophy and a translation theory have encountered frequent misinterpretation both in China and the West due to the following four reasons:first, the obscurity of its prime writings is challenging for most readers; second, the loss of humanist spirit in this theory is traumatizing for appropriate interpretation of it, because scholars growing up in the tradition of new criticism are so addicted to wordplay that they tend to neglect the humanist spirit of the theory while applying it to the interpretation of literary works; third, most scholars' view of its role as merely a methodology causes the loss of its philosophical significance; fourth, the combination of the oriental flavor of Zen and Derrida's western style of argument causes great difficulty with reading comprehension. Therefore, it is of great necessity for scholars to make a close reading of all its major writings and interpret it in light of its philosophical origin so as to have a real grasp of its significance.
Chapter Three consists of a close reading of two of Benjamin's major works of translation and language:"The Task of the Translator" and "On Language as Such and On the Language of Man", which serves as a foundation for the interpretation of the major issues in Benjamin's translation theory, including the nature and goal of translation,(un)translatability, the origin/the translation relationship, pure language, the task of the translator and the standard of translation. It is argued that on the one hand, the theme of harmony already makes its debut in Benjamin's thought of translation; on the other hand, the harmony ends up dancing in fetters because of the overwhelming impact of religion upon Benjamin.
Chapter Four is an exploration of the relationship between Benjamin and Derrida via an examination of Derrida's writing of "Babel", half of which is Derrida's interpretation of Benjamin. Just like what Joseph F. Graham points out in his article "Around and About Babel" that most of Benjamin's thought is improved in Derrida's theory, and "Babel" is a perfect evidence of this inheritance. Among other things, Derrida interprets Benjamin's concept of pure language as truth while somehow reasonably maintaining its original religious stance and thus achieves a better balance between religion and humanity and brings this concept much closer to the human world. Like pure language, truth never really shows up physically to human beings, but we can become relevant to it via translation. Therefore, as Derrida says, translation is a kind of experience, and vice versa. In a word, Derrida's thought of translation demonstrated in "Babel" brings to full play the harmony of language, and promotes the spirit of harmony in humanity sense.
Chapter Five addresses Derrida's translation theory specifically by making an analysis of his paper "What's Relevant Translation?", which has triggered a great deal of misreadings. With a careful interpretation, it is argued that "relevant translation" is the translation that is meant to sublime, purify, regulate, internalize and redeem language. It is a milestone evidence of the internalization and sublimation of Benjamin's translation theory by Derrida, in which the theme of harmony is interpreted via the relevance of language and things in general in such a profound manner that it is just like "the way an aeolian harp is touched by the wind". It is a vivid demonstration of the quintessential spirit of deconstruction.
Chapter Six studies the application of deconstruction translation theory in literary translation with an interpretation of the literariness of literary works as the foundation. The result of the study shows that there are four enlightening tips for literary translation by deconstruction: first, literary translation should be faithful to the intention of the original text; second, literary translation should demonstrate the kinship among mundane languages; third, a deconstructive way of textual analysis is the prerequisite for literary translation; fourth, an "arcade" type of literal translation can be applied to literary translation. It is argued that the arcade literal translation is neither the literal nor the free translation in traditional sense, but a translation strategy meant to release the truth in the original text literally. In a word, the task of literary translation is to seek harmony in modes of intention between worldly languages, and thus retrieve the long lost pure language in the harmonious echo of languages.
Chapter Seven is the conclusion. It makes a brief summary of the findings of the research as well as its theoretical significance. It is pointed out that harmony is a profound theme of deconstruction both as a philosophy and a translation theory. The connotation of harmony can be understood in the following two aspects:first, when deconstruction travels between the fields of philosophy, language, literature and translation, it demonstrates and makes full use of the relevance between them and creates a harmonious environment; second, the theory of deconstruction highlights the initial harmony in language and in universe respectively. As a result, the theme of harmony in deconstruction demonstrates itself as a multi-part symphony, symbolizing an ideal world in which things all enrich each other and grow up together.
全文共分七章。
第一章是导言。概述了解构主义翻译观的和谐主题以及解构主义翻译观对于翻译研究的深远意义,同时也对德里达和本雅明在解构主义翻译观上的亲缘性进行了阐述。笔者认为,解构主义翻译观对于翻译研究的意义除了表现在它对翻译的根本问题所提出的一整套系统看法之上,更着重表现在它对文学翻译的启示意义之上。因为,解构主义翻译观关于意义永远无法确定、文本无定解、翻译不是为了传递内容,而是为了释放真理等思想与文学作品的语言的无限创造性、文本的高度虚构性以及随后衍生的文本解读的开放性等突出特征共同构成的文学作品的文学性的精神高度契合。源于解构哲学的解构主义翻译观虽然带有破坏性的表象,然而它实际上传递的是一种语言和谐的精神以及超越语言的人文意义上的和谐主题,这一点在它从本雅明到德里达的翻译思想的发展中得到了充分的体现。虽然本雅明并未给自己的翻译思想贴上解构主义的标签,然而他的翻译思想以其与德里达翻译观在解构思想上的高度亲缘性而成为事实上的解构主义翻译观的源头。
第二章阐述了解构主义翻译观从哲学思想到翻译思想的发展轨迹,追溯了解构主义翻译观的哲学渊源,对解构哲学进行了理论综述,并对解构主义及其翻译观进行了文献综述。本章指出,解构主义的形成是建立在对传统哲学的解构的基础之上,海德格尔的此在思想和索绪尔的结构主义对于德里达反传统的解构思想的形成是影响最大的一对组合。然而究其本质,这两种思想都是形而上学的另一种形式的复活,甚至连解构思想本身也依然没有逃脱柏拉图的日全食式的影响。不过,解构主义借助延异、痕迹、涂抹、播撒等概念割断了能指与所指间的对应关系,让意义流动起来,凸显语言的相关性,展示了语言在动态关联中表现出的生命力及其所营造的和谐景象。这又使得解构主义明显地有别于传统哲学,也成为它为哲学的发展做出的重大贡献。解构主义哲学中的延异、痕迹、涂抹、播撒等主要概念在解构主义翻译观中得到了充分的体现,表现为对翻译中的根本问题所提出的一整套看法,如,它否定了原作的绝对权威地位,认为译作和原作同为意义的能指链上的一分子,翻译并非意义的输送、而是一种有规律的转化,翻译的目的是要实现语言王国的和谐,等等。
本章同时指出,解构主义及其翻译观在西方和中国都长期遭遇了对它的普遍误读,究其原因有四：1.解构主义论著自身文字的晦涩难懂；2.受新批评传统长期熏陶的学者对文字游戏的过分迷恋所导致的解构思想中最为精髓的人文思想的旁落；3.解构主义长期以来只被当作一种方法论来看待而导致的其哲学内涵的流失；4.解构思想中“禅宗”的东方元素与德里达的西方式讲解的中西结合给读者带来的阅读困难。为了准确把握解构主义翻译观的精神内涵,目前译界应加大对它的文本细读的力度,并要将其置于它的哲学背景之下去理解和探讨。
第三章在对本雅明阐述其语言观和翻译观的主要著作“译者的任务”和“论语言本身和人的语言”进行细读的基础上,从翻译的本质和目的、(不)可译性、原作/译作关系、纯语言、译者的任务、以及翻译的标准及方法这六个方面阐明了本雅明的解构主义翻译观的主要内容,说明虽然本雅明的翻译观中已露出和谐精神的端倪,但由于神学对他的过度影响使得这种和谐始终戴着镣铐跳舞,变得和而不谐。
第四章对德里达的“巴别塔”一文进行了详细的文本分析,阐述了德里达和本雅明之间在解构主义翻译观上的内在亲缘性。之所以选择它是因为该文的后半部分完全就是德里达对本雅明的“译者的任务”所做的解读,这种结构本身就昭示着二者之间的内在亲缘性,充分体现了德里达对本雅明的继承和发展,就像格拉海姆所指出的那样：“在精心构思的术语和主题中,不仅缺失的东西得以补充,含蓄的东西也被清晰地表达出来,不重要的变成重要的了,边缘的变成核心的了。这样的补充可被正确地看作赞扬。”(78)在德里达对本雅明所做的补充和完善的阐述当中,尤以他对“纯语言”这一核心概念的发展最为突出。本雅明在这个概念中倾注了深厚的神学思想,将其看成能够表达神启的上帝的语言。德里达在保留其源初的宗教性的基础上,借助巴别塔的隐喻从“谈论语言的起源和分散”(ibid)开始,将纯语言进而阐释为表达了人间真意的“真理”,让它从神界走进人间,将神性进一步融入人性,赋予纯语言更多的人文情怀。德里达指出,翻译的任务是让且仅让我们与真理的语言变得相关,我们永远看不到那个遥远的终点,只能在翻译的过程中去体验(感觉)它。所以德里达说,翻译即体验,体验即翻译。我们通过体验那段遥远的距离从而体验到真理语言的存在。真理本身对于人类而言也是如此。我们永远无法穷尽它,但我们会在追寻它的过程中感觉到它的力量。德里达的思想有效地削弱了本雅明翻译观中过重的神学影响,将其转化为对人类具有普遍意义的哲学思想。故而,德里达的翻译观不仅让语言和谐的精神得以全面呈现,而且还表达了建立一个和谐世界的人文精神。
第五章对德里达体现在“相关的翻译”中的翻译观进行了详尽的阐释,对其中的重要概念进行了较为彻底的梳理,指出“相关的翻译”指的是能够升华、净化、调节、内化、救赎语言的翻译,澄清了译界对它的严重误读,突出表现在将德里达自己所说的：“因此,适当的翻译简单说就是‘好的’翻译,与人们的期待相符合的翻译,简言之,履行了使命、偿付了债务、完成了任务或职责的一种表达(version),同时又在接收语言中抄写了对原文最适当的(relevant)等同物,最正确的、合适的、相关的、充分的、诗意的、明确的、单声的、惯用的语言”(150)误解为是德里达对于翻译的本质的看法。德里达的“相关的翻译”的翻译观进一步体现了他对本雅明的继承,同时更为充分地体现了他对本雅明的发展和超越。如,在继承了本雅明对语言差异性的尊重的基础之上指出语言的相关性；在继承了本雅明关于翻译的任务是释放真理、救赎语言的基础之上提出翻译对于语言还有升华、净化、调节、内化的功能；在继承了本雅明通过陶罐的碎片、后世之生命、果皮／果肉之于皇袍／身体、切线与圆等一系列隐喻所阐述的关于原作／译作关系的思想的基础之上,利用莎士比亚的《威尼斯商人》作为人类思想经典所特有的寓言性的隐喻功能,通过对可译性的阐述,将原作和译作由于翻译而建立的语言层面上的关系升华到超越了语言的人文意义上的关系。更重要的是,德里达在继承本雅明的基础上提出系统的“相关的”翻译的翻译观,笔者认为这是对本雅明的重大超越,也是说明解构主义翻译观日臻成熟的具有里程碑意义的重要标志。它将和谐的精神在语言以及所有事物的相关性中演绎得入木三分,使其达到“风触及风琴一样”那般深邃,充分彰显了解构精神的精髓。
第六章以对文学作品的文学性的阐释为前提,回归文本,探讨解构主义翻译观在其宏大的哲学背景下对于文学翻译的微观应用。通过将解构主义翻译观与文学作品的文学性相融合后笔者发现,前者对后者至少有着以下几点启示意义：第一,文学翻译应忠实于意指；第二,文学翻译应体现语言的亲缘性；第三,解构式解读是文学翻译的前提条件；第四,文学翻译应采用拱廊直译。拱廊直译指的就是本雅明在“译者的任务”中所倡议的那种能够让原作的光芒照进译作的直译,笔者认为它是一种既译词、又译味的直译,在根本上有别于传统译论中寻求字当句对的直译。本章的论述表明,文学翻译应当寻找语言间意指方式的和谐,而后在语言和谐的颤音中释放出那个失落的纯语言(真理)。
第七章是结论,主要是对以上章节的讨论进行总结和概括,同时指出本论文的主要特色和贡献。笔者认为,解构主义翻译观从其哲学渊源到它的主要思想直至它对文学翻译的启示都蕴含着深刻的和谐主题。具体地说,这种和谐包含两层含义：其一,解构主义翻译观在哲学、语言、文学与翻译中穿行时利用这些领域间内在的相关性让它们相互阐释,互为补充,展现出秘响旁通的和谐景象；其二,解构主义翻译观本身表达了实现语言王国的和谐的愿望,解构主义哲学本身更表达了实现全世界和谐的宏大愿望。故而,解构主义翻译观所体现的和谐精神是一种多声部的和谐交响曲,它用翻译象征着一个万事万物在互补中共生的理想世界。
Deconstruction translation theory, with its root in deconstruction philosophy, has been a topic of heated debate, especially regarding its rationality, ever since its conception. Taking this status quo into consideration, this dissertation undertakes a fundamental and comprehensive critique of the philosophy of deconstruction and its expression in the translation field in light of its progress from Benjamin to Derrida, two of the most outstanding scholars of this theory, in the hope of clarifying some of its key concepts. Hence, the dissertation goes further to explore the value of this translation theory for literary translation by scrutinizing the kinship between the theory and the literariness of literary works. Finally, it is argued that deconstruction translation theory strikes a multi-layer note of harmony through the channels of philosophy, language and literature, and thus distinguishes harmony as a major theme of the theory.
The dissertation falls into seven chapters.
Chapter One serves as an introduction of this study. It makes a brief investigation of the theme of harmony embedded in deconstruction theory, the significance of this theory for translation studies as a whole, and the genetic relationship between Derrida's thought about translation and Benjamin's as well. The author argues that the value of deconstruction as a translation theory is not only reflected in its profound insights about all the key issues of translation, but specifically in its enlightenment for literary translation, because all the major concepts of deconstruction translation theory, such as its negation of the fixed meaning and fixed interpretation of a text, its viewpoint about the task of translation/the translator as a pursuer of truth rather than a porter of meaning, and so on, are in perfect harmony with the literariness of literary works. Despite the literal meaning of destruction conveyed by its name, the deconstruction theory of translation actually strikes a forte note of harmony in language and highlights the theme of harmony in humanity thereafter, which is eloquently proved by its progress from Benjamin to Derrida. Though Benjamin did not label his thought with "deconstruction", the high level of genetic similarity between his thought about translation and Derrida's actually identifies him as the origin of this school of thought of translation.
Chapter Two is an in-depth theoretical review of the evolution of deconstruction translation theory from its philosophical origin, including a literature review of deconstruction as a school of philosophy and a theory of translation. The author argues that Heidegger's idea of Dasein and Saussure's thought of structuralism contribute most to the conception of deconstruction. Although deconstruction intends to distinguish itself from the other thoughts with its rebellious characteristics, it ends up in failure in its wrestling with traditional philosophy and Plato. Nevertheless, it does make itself stand out differently with a series of creative concepts such as differance, trace and dissemination because they reshuffle the traditional relationship between the signifier and the signified, restore the innate relevance of languages, refill languages with proactive vigor and hence retrieve an initial harmony in the language and the universe. Furthermore, these concepts all find powerful expression in translation via their interpretations about the fundamental issues of translation and bring to light the deconstruction theory of translation. To name some, deconstruction translation theory argues that the original does not enjoy the privilege of authority any longer; translation is not meant to transport meaning, but a regulated transformation of language; the goal of translation is to construct a harmonious world of language, and so on.
In the meanwhile, the author points out that deconstruction as both a philosophy and a translation theory have encountered frequent misinterpretation both in China and the West due to the following four reasons:first, the obscurity of its prime writings is challenging for most readers; second, the loss of humanist spirit in this theory is traumatizing for appropriate interpretation of it, because scholars growing up in the tradition of new criticism are so addicted to wordplay that they tend to neglect the humanist spirit of the theory while applying it to the interpretation of literary works; third, most scholars' view of its role as merely a methodology causes the loss of its philosophical significance; fourth, the combination of the oriental flavor of Zen and Derrida's western style of argument causes great difficulty with reading comprehension. Therefore, it is of great necessity for scholars to make a close reading of all its major writings and interpret it in light of its philosophical origin so as to have a real grasp of its significance.
Chapter Three consists of a close reading of two of Benjamin's major works of translation and language:"The Task of the Translator" and "On Language as Such and On the Language of Man", which serves as a foundation for the interpretation of the major issues in Benjamin's translation theory, including the nature and goal of translation,(un)translatability, the origin/the translation relationship, pure language, the task of the translator and the standard of translation. It is argued that on the one hand, the theme of harmony already makes its debut in Benjamin's thought of translation; on the other hand, the harmony ends up dancing in fetters because of the overwhelming impact of religion upon Benjamin.
Chapter Four is an exploration of the relationship between Benjamin and Derrida via an examination of Derrida's writing of "Babel", half of which is Derrida's interpretation of Benjamin. Just like what Joseph F. Graham points out in his article "Around and About Babel" that most of Benjamin's thought is improved in Derrida's theory, and "Babel" is a perfect evidence of this inheritance. Among other things, Derrida interprets Benjamin's concept of pure language as truth while somehow reasonably maintaining its original religious stance and thus achieves a better balance between religion and humanity and brings this concept much closer to the human world. Like pure language, truth never really shows up physically to human beings, but we can become relevant to it via translation. Therefore, as Derrida says, translation is a kind of experience, and vice versa. In a word, Derrida's thought of translation demonstrated in "Babel" brings to full play the harmony of language, and promotes the spirit of harmony in humanity sense.
Chapter Five addresses Derrida's translation theory specifically by making an analysis of his paper "What's Relevant Translation?", which has triggered a great deal of misreadings. With a careful interpretation, it is argued that "relevant translation" is the translation that is meant to sublime, purify, regulate, internalize and redeem language. It is a milestone evidence of the internalization and sublimation of Benjamin's translation theory by Derrida, in which the theme of harmony is interpreted via the relevance of language and things in general in such a profound manner that it is just like "the way an aeolian harp is touched by the wind". It is a vivid demonstration of the quintessential spirit of deconstruction.
Chapter Six studies the application of deconstruction translation theory in literary translation with an interpretation of the literariness of literary works as the foundation. The result of the study shows that there are four enlightening tips for literary translation by deconstruction: first, literary translation should be faithful to the intention of the original text; second, literary translation should demonstrate the kinship among mundane languages; third, a deconstructive way of textual analysis is the prerequisite for literary translation; fourth, an "arcade" type of literal translation can be applied to literary translation. It is argued that the arcade literal translation is neither the literal nor the free translation in traditional sense, but a translation strategy meant to release the truth in the original text literally. In a word, the task of literary translation is to seek harmony in modes of intention between worldly languages, and thus retrieve the long lost pure language in the harmonious echo of languages.
Chapter Seven is the conclusion. It makes a brief summary of the findings of the research as well as its theoretical significance. It is pointed out that harmony is a profound theme of deconstruction both as a philosophy and a translation theory. The connotation of harmony can be understood in the following two aspects:first, when deconstruction travels between the fields of philosophy, language, literature and translation, it demonstrates and makes full use of the relevance between them and creates a harmonious environment; second, the theory of deconstruction highlights the initial harmony in language and in universe respectively. As a result, the theme of harmony in deconstruction demonstrates itself as a multi-part symphony, symbolizing an ideal world in which things all enrich each other and grow up together.
引文
1 胡适在“什么是文学——答钱玄同”一文中说：“文学的基本作用(职务)是‘达意表情’。”
1 翻译理论家John Biguenet和Rainer Schulte说：“我始终认为翻译是人们能够对一个文本所做的最细致的阅读。”(Ihave always maintained that translation is essentially the closest reading one can possibly give a text.) (John Biguenet and Rainer Schulte,1989:6)
1 德里达说,他对翻译所进行的解读是在“步瓦尔特·本雅明、詹姆斯·乔伊斯的后尘”(陈永国,2005：151)。
1 卡勒的原话是：‘Here there is a basic distinction, too often neglected in literary studies, between two kinds of projects:one, which follows the model of linguistics (though it has a longer history), takes meanings as what have to be accounted for and tries to work out how they are possible. The other, by contrast, starts with forms and seeks to interpret them, to tell us what they really mean. In literary studies, this is a contrast between poetics and hermeneutics." (Culler,2011:62)
1 参阅朱立元主编的《当代西方文艺理论》,华东师范大学出版社,1997,第6-7页。
1 海德格尔说：“哲学即形而上学。形而上学着眼于存在,着眼于存在中的存在者之共属一体,来思考存在者整体——世界、人类和上帝。形而上学以论证性表象的思维方式来思考存在者之为存在者。因为从哲学开端以来,并且凭借于这一开端,存在者之存在就把自身显示为根据。”(陈小文,孙周兴,1999：68-69)
1 参阅原文："One of the first attempts to break the stranglehold of metaphysical conceptual approaches to translation was Heidegger's Sein and Zeit (Being and time)."该译文为笔者译。
2 关于海德格尔的思想参阅俞吾金的文章“形而上学发展史上的三次翻转”,发表在《哲学基础理论研究》,2010,(0)。
1 参阅原文:"...at the foundation of Derrida's thought is the assumption that there is no kernel or deep structure or invariant of comparison, nothing that we may ever discern-let alone represent, translate, or found a theory on. Rather, Derrida "bases" his "theory" of deconstruction on non-identity, on non-presence, on unrepresentability." (Gentzler,2004:147)该译文为笔者所译。
1 参见《柏拉图全集》,王晓朝译,人民出版社,2003.
2 德里达的论著“柏拉图的药”最早于1968年发表在法国《批评》期刊的第32、33期上,1972年收入他的论文集《播撒》。
1 参阅收录在《哲学的边缘》一书中的德里达的"Differance"一文。
1 Derrida, "Differance", in Critical Theory Since 1965, Hazard Adams and Leroy Seale, University of Florida,1986, pp 120-136.这篇论文于1972年收录在《哲学的边缘》一书中。
1 参阅由陈嘉映和王庆节合译的海德格尔的《存在与时间》,由生活·读书·新知三联书店2006年出版。
1 该引文是罗兰·巴特说的话,转引自谭德生,2011。
1 德里达最早是在Positions (Derrida,1981b)一书中提出“有调节的转化”这一概念。
2 参阅原文：‘'Difference is never pure, no more so is translation, and for the notion of translation we would have to substitute a notion of transformation:a regulated transformation of one language by another, of one text by another. We will never have, and in fact have never had, to do with some "transport" of pure signifieds from one language to another, or within one and the same language, that the signifying instrument would leave virgin and untouched(转引自Gentzler,2004:166-7)该译文为笔者所译。
1 参阅原文：Derrida adds that translation behaves like a "child" which is not just a "product" subject to the law of "reproduction", but has, in addition, "the power of speak on its own" in a new and different fashion, supplementing language, sounding the "Babelian note" which causes languages to grow. The translation process ensures the rebirth, the regeneration, the emergence, "the holy growth" of languages in general, and, for Derrida, the means by which we understand ourselves. (Gentzler, 2004:164)
1 “互文性”这个术语最早是由法国女性主义批评家朱丽娅·克里斯蒂娃(Julia Kristeva)在其于1969年发表的一篇题为“词语、对话与小说”的文章中首次使用,后在法国的后解构主义者中广泛使用,继而在世界范围内被广泛使用。有关翻译与互文性的研究可参阅罗选民的《互文性与翻译》(2006)一书以及他的“耶鲁解构学派的互文性研究及其对翻译的启示”(2012)一文和秦文华的《翻译研究的互文性视角》(2006)。
1 参阅盛宁为卡勒的《论解构》所写的导读,第四页。外语教学与研究出版社和康奈尔大学出版社联合出版,2004。
1 M.H.阿伯拉姆称德里达为西方哲学的“禅宗”。(大维·莱门.《时代之符号》,转引自郑敏,2000)
1 参阅原文1 For Derrida, God is seen as a deconstructionist, for He interrupts the construction of the Tower of Babel. " (Gentzler,2004:162)译文为笔者所译。
1 Willis Barnstone认为：“文章(“译者的任务”)篇幅不长,却具有《圣经》的性质。因为作者文笔犀利,显现出敏锐的洞察力；尽管文章意义晦涩、令人费解,但极富启发性。”(乔颖,2006)
1 语言有还乡的命运,翻译有寻根的天职。引申自徐朝友,2008。
1 陈译此处为“语言自由流动”。(ibid)
1 出自鲁迅的《教授杂咏四首》(1932)
1 参阅英文Where a text is identical with truth or dogma, where it is supposed to be "the true language" in all its literalness and without the mediation of meaning, this text is unconditionally translatable... Just as, in the original, language and revelation are one without any tension, so the translation must be one with the original in the form of the interlinear version, in which literalness and freedom are united. For to some degree all great texts contain their potential translation between the lines; this is true to the highest degree of sacred writings. The interlinear version of the Scriptures is the prototype or ideal of all translation. (Venuti. 2004:83)
1 参阅Critical Inquiry. Winter,2001, pp.175-200.
1 笔者认为陈译丢失了英文版中的一些重要意义,因此在论述时将在中译本的基础之上加进一些笔者对英文版原文的个人理解,特此加注,以下不做一一说明。
2 德里达从此处开始正式用relevant代替relevante进行论述,这也是笔者此前一直保留relevante这一拼写的原因。
3 此处的“适当的”就是笔者所说的“相关的”,因中译本用的是前者,在此暂且予以保留,特此澄清。
1 文学作品所包含的相关性不仅仅只有词语间的相关性,而是包含了与语境有关的所有事物之间的相关性。因此处重点讨论词语的相关性,故将其他因素撇开不谈。
1 黑体为笔者所加。为更好地理解德里达的意思,可参阅英文原文：The English word-let us start at the end-can be found in The Merchant of Venice. The privilege that I assign here to Shakespeare's play does not only depend on the presence of this word to be translated. In addition, by virtue of connotation, everything in the play can be retranslated into the code of translation and as a problem of translation; and this can be done according to the three senses that Jakobson distinguishes: interlinguistic, intralinguistic, intersemiotic - as, for example, between a pound of flesh and a sum of money. At every moment, translation is necessary as it is impossible. It is the law; it even speaks the language of the law beyond the law, the language of the impossible law, represented by a woman who is disguised, transfigured, converted, travestied, read translated, into a man of law. As if the subject of this play were, in short, the task of the translator, his impossible task, his duty, his debt, as inflexible as it is unpayable. (Venuti,2004:430)
1 德里达说：“动词relever又使我回到适度但却有效的翻译实验上来,我发现我投身于这个实验已经有三十年的光景了。”(150)
1 参阅英文原文Then (hence, consequently, igitur) the Jew must be merciful...Obviously, this means here:therefore, igitur, then, since you acknowledge the debt or the fault, the Jew (this Jew, Shylock, in this precise context) must free you from it...while rereading this extraordinary verdict whose ruse we shall analyze in a moment-namely, the phrase that says "then the Jew must forgive," implying that "it is the Jew who must forgive," "it is up to the Jew in general to forgive." (Venuti,2004:433)黑体为笔者所加。
51 参阅Ulysses. New York:Vintage International,1934,第12章。
1 为了尽可能体现卡勒的意思,笔者在此引用英文原作来体系语言所制造出来的混乱。卡勒此书的中文译本对这句话的表述是：“伊恩斯在一个空间里,它是一个大得令人盛宴的空间,他一个人居住。”(卡勒,2008：44)
1. Baer, Brain James, and Geoffrey S. Koby, eds. Beyond the Ivory Tower:Rethinking Translation Pedagogy[C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company,2003.
2. Barnstone, Willis. The Poetics of Translation:History, Theory, Practice [M]. New Haven: Yale UP,1993.
3. Bassnett, Susan. Comparative Literature [M]. Oxford:Blackwell,1993.
4.---, ed. Essays and Studies 1997:Translating Literature[C]. Cambridge:D. S. Brewer, 1997.
5. Bassnett, Susan, and Andre Lefevere, eds. Translation, History and Culture[C]. London: Printer Publishers Limited,1990.
6. Bassnett, Susan, and Peter Bush, eds. The Translator as Writer[C]. London:Continuum, 2006.
7. Bassnett, Susan, and Harish Trivedi, eds. Post-Colonial Translation:Theory and Practice[C]. New York:Routledge,1999.
8. Bassnett-McGuire, Susan. Translation Studies (Revised edition) [M]. New York: Routledge,1991.
9. Bathes, Roland, trans. The Death of the Author:Image, Music, Text [M]. By Stephen Heath. New York:The Nooday Press,1977.
10. Beebe, Maurice. "Ulysses and the Age of Modernism" [J]. James Joyce Quarterly 10. Tulsa:U of Tulsa P,1972.
11. Benjamin, Walter. "The Arcades Project" [A]. Trans. Howard Eiland and Kevin McLaughlin. Boston:The Belknap Press of Harvard UP,1999.
12.---. "The Task of the Translator" [A]. The Translation Studies Reader [C]. Ed. Lawrence Venuti. New York:Routledge,2004.
13. Biguenet, John, and Rainer Schulte, eds. The Craft of Translation[C]. Chicago:The U of Chicago Press,1989.
14. Bower, Reuben A. On Translation [M]. Cambridge:Harvard UP,1959.
15. Catford, J. C. A Linguistic Theory of Translation [M]. London:Oxford UP,1965.
16. Culler, Jonathan. Literary Theory:A Very Short Introduction [M]. New York:Oxford UP, 2011.
17.---. On Deconstruction [M]. Ithaca:Cornell UP,1982.
18. Davis, Kathleen. Deconstruction and Translation [M]. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education P,2004.
19. Derrida, Jacques. "Des tours de Babel" [A]. Difference and Translation[C]. Ed. Joseph F. Graham. Ithaca:Cornell UP,1985.
20.---. Dissemination [C]. Trans. Ed. Introd. Barbara Johnson. London:Athlone P,1981a.
21.---. Margins of Philosophy [M]. Trans. Alan Bass. Chicago:The U of Chicago P,1982.
22. ---. Of Grammatology [M]. Baltimore:John Hopkins UP,1976.
23.---. Positions [M]. Trans. Alan Bass. Chicago:U of Chicago P,1981b.
24.---. Psyche:inventions of the other[C]. Ed. Peggy Kamuf and Elizabeth Rottenberg. Stanford:Stanford UP,2007.
25.---. Speech and Phenomena [M]. Trans. David B. Allison. Chicago:Northwest UP,1973.
26.---. "Ulysses Gramophone:Hear Say Yes in Joyce" [A]. Acts of Literature[C]. Ed. Derek Attridge. New York:Routledge,1992.
27. Eliot, T. S., ed. Literary Essays of Ezra Pound[C]. New York:New Directions Books, 1968.
28. France, Peter, and Stuart Gillespie, eds. The Oxford History of Literary[C]. New York: Oxford UP Inc.,2005.
29. Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Truth and Method [M]. New York:Continuum,1975.
30. Gentzler, Edwin. Contemporary Translation Theories (Revised Edition) [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education P,2004.
31. Grossman, Edith. Why Translation Matters[M]. New Haven:Yale UP,2010.
32. Hartman, Geoffrey. Criticism in the Wilderness-the Study of Literature Today [C]. New Haven:Yale UP,1980.
33. Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time [M]. Trans. John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson. London:SCM P Ltd,1962.
34. Hermans, Theo, ed. The Manipulation of Literature:Studies in Literary Translation[C]. London:Croom Helm,1985.
35. Holmes, James S., ed. The Nature of Translation:Essays on the Theory and Practice of Literary Translation[C]. Paris:Publishing House of the Slovak Academy of Sciences Bratislava,1970.
36. Holmes, James S. Literature and Translation:New Perspectives in Literary Studies with a Basic Bibliography of Books on Translation Studies[C]. Leuven:Acco,1978.
37. Johnson, Barbara. The Critical Difference:Essays in the Contemporary Rhetoric of Reading [M]. Baltimore:The Johns Hopkins UP,1985.
38.---. A World of Difference [M]. Baltimore:The Johns Hopkins UP,1987.
39. Joyce, James. Ulysses [M]. New York:Vintage International,1934.
40. Landers, Clifford E. Literary Translation:A Practical Guide [M]. Cleveland: Multilingual Matters Ltd.,2001.
41. Landrv, D, and G. MacLean, eds. The Spivak Reader[C]. New York:Routledge,1996.
42. Lefevere, Andre. Translating Literature:Practice and Theory in a Comparative Literature Context [M]. New York:The Modern Language Association of America,1992.
43. Leighton, Lauren G., trans, ed. The Art of Translation[C]. Knoxville:The U of Tennessee P,1984.
44. McDonald, Christie, ed. The Ear of the Other:Texts and Discussions with Jacques Derrida[C]. Lincoln:U of Nebraska P,1985.
45. Mueller-Vollmer, Kurt, and Michael Irmscher, eds. Translating Literatures Translating Cultures:New Vistas and Approaches in Literary Studies[C]. Stanford:Stanford UP, 1998.
46. Norris, Margot. A Companion to James Joyce's Ulysses:Biographical and Historical Contexts, Critical History, and Essays from Five Contemporary Critical Perspectives [M]. Boston:Bedford Books,1998.
47. Robinson, Douglas:Who Translates? Translator Subjectivities Beyond Reason [M]. Albany:State U of New York P,2001.
48. Schulte, Rainer. The Geography of Translation and Interpretation:Traveling Between Languages [M]. Lewiston:The Edwin Mellen Press,2001.
49. Schulte, Rainer, and John Biguenet, eds. Theories of Translation:An Anthology of Essays from Dryden to Derrida[C]. Chicago:The U of Chicago P,1992.
50. Shaffer, E. S., ed. Comparative Criticism [M].6 vols. Cambridge:Cambridge UP,1984.
51. Snell-Hornby, Mary. Translation Studies:An Integrated Approach [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company,1988.
52. Spivak, Gayatri C. A Critique of Postcolonial Reason:Toward a History of the Vanishing Present [M]. Harvard UP,1999.
53.---. In Other Worlds:Essays in Cultural Politics [C]. London:Methuen,1987.
54. Steiner, George. After Babel:Aspects of Language and Translation [M]. Oxford:Oxford UP,1975.
55. Stewart, Frank, ed. The Poem Behind The Poem[C]. Washington:Copper Canyon Press, 2004.
56. Streep, Peg, ed. Tao Te Ching [M]. Bulfinch Press Book,1994.
57. Venuti, L. Rethinking Translation:Discourse, Subjectivity, Ideology[C]. New York: Routledge,1992.
58. ---. The Translator's Invisibility:A History of Translation [M]. New York:Routledge, 1995.
59. ---. The Scandals of Translation:Towards an Ethics of Difference [M]. Manchester:St. Jerome Publishing,1998.
60.本雅明.陈永国,马海良编.本雅明文学[C].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1999.
61.布卢姆.江宁康译.西方正典[M].译林出版社,2005.
62.蔡新乐,郁东占.文学翻译的释义学原理[M].开封：河南大学出版社,1997.
63.蔡新乐.从德里达的翻译思想看理性主义的翻译理论建构[J].中国翻译,2001,(4)：58-61.
64.蔡新乐.让诗意进入翻译理论研究——从海德格尔的非对象性的“思”看钱钟书的不隔说[J].中南大学学报(社会科学版),2005,(10)：563-571.
65.蔡新乐.翻译与汉语——解构主义视角下的译学研究[M].北京：中央编译出版社,2006.
66.蔡新乐.彼此彼此：翻译研究中必然遭遇的第三项[J].外语与外语研究,2007a,(6)：53-59.
67.蔡新乐.翻译：在海德格尔与钱钟书之外[J].四川外语学院学报,2007b, (4)：78-84.
68.蔡新乐.相关的相关：德里达“相关的”翻译思想及其他[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2007c.
69.蔡新乐.海德格尔的“你是谁”翻译观初探[J].外语与外语教学,2008, (9)：37-43.
70.蔡新乐.海德格尔《荷尔德林的赞美诗<伊斯特>》中的本体论的翻译思想[J].外国语文,2010,(2)：94-99.
71.蔡新乐.本雅明：翻译的终结与灵韵的在场[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2011,(3)：64-68.
72.曹雷雨.本雅明的寓言理论[J].外国文学,2004,(1)：45-50.
73.曹明伦.论以忠实为取向的翻译标准——兼论严复的“信达雅”[J].中国翻译,2006,(4)：12-19.
74.曹明伦.揭开“纯语言”的神学面纱——重读本雅明的《译者的任务》[J].四川大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2007,(6)：79-86.
75.曹明伦.巴斯内特《翻译研究》(第三版)导读[J].西南民族大学学报(人文社会科学版),2010,(5)：198-203.
76.曹威.儒家经典翻译的诠释学理论前提——以英译《论语》为例[J].外语学刊,2010,(6)：109-113.
77.陈本益.释德里达的“原初书写”概念[J].外国文学,2006, (5)：68-72.
78.陈大亮.“译味”的审美内涵[J].北京第二外国语学院学报,2011,(2)：1-6.
79.陈国兴.从伽达默尔的诠释学角度看翻译的忠实性[J].外国语文,2011,(5)
80.陈涛,徐选国.试论德里达解构理论思想脉络及其内在关系[J].理论界,2011,(10)：95-98.
81.陈晓明.“药”的文字游戏与解构的修辞学——论德里达的《柏拉图的药》[J].文艺理论研究,2007,(3)：50-61.
82.陈晓明.美国解构主义在中国的传播与接收分析[J].文艺理论研究,2012, (6)：44-52.
83.陈永国.翻译的不确定性问题[J].中国翻译,2003, (4)：9-14.
84.陈永国.从解构到翻译：斯皮瓦克的属下研究[J].外国文学,2005,(9)：37-43.
85.陈永国主编.翻译与后现代性[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005.
86.陈永国.理论的逃逸[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2008.
87.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.
88.崔少元.双蕾绽放,交相辉映——《尤利西斯》两个中译本学习札记[J].当代外国文学,1997,(2)
89.德里达.何佩群译.一种疯狂守护着思想——德里达访谈录[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1997.
90.德里达.赵兴国等译.文学行动[C].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1998.
91.德里达.汪家堂译.论文字学[M].上海：上海译文出版社,1999a.
92.德里达.蒋梓骅译.多义的记忆——为保罗·德曼而作[C].北京：中央编译社,1999b.
93.德里达.汪民安译.延异[J].外国文学,2000,(1)
94.德里达.张宁译.书写与差异[M].上海：生活·读书·新知三联书店,2001.
95.德里达.苏旭译.明天会怎样：雅克·德里达与伊丽莎白·卢迪内斯库对话录[M].北京：中信出版社,2002.
96.德里达.佘碧平译.多重立场[C].上海：生活·读书·新知三联书店,2004.
97.德曼.李自修等译.解构之图[C].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1998.
98.丁振祺.谙练精湛,各有千秋——试评《尤利西斯》两个中译本的第一章[J].当代外国文学,1997,(2)
99.董金玉,李健.解构主义视角解读庞德英译汉诗[J].大庆师范学院学报,2009,(4)
100.董迎春.德里达文学批评思想在中国的研究[J].高校社科信息,2004, (5)：19-23.
101.方灿.走出封闭迈向多元——谈解构主义及其对翻译研究的影响[J].重庆：重庆三峡学院学报,2002,(5)：37-40.
102.方向红.德里达：他者的耳朵.[J]江苏社会科学,2004,(3)：11-13.
103.冯立新.钱钟书翻译思想探微——以解构主义为视角[J].社会科学家,2012,(4)：130-133.
104.冯文坤.论本雅明的“可译性”及关于翻译的哲学思考[J].四川师范大学学报(社会科学版),2006,(3)：110-115.
105.付冬.论西方翻译史上译者地位的变迁[J].学术交流,2009,(8)：154-156.
106.葛校琴.“作者死了”吗?——论文学翻译中原作者之地位[J].外语研究,2001,(2)
107.郭建中.论解构主义翻译思想[J].上海科技翻译,1999, (4)：4-9.
108.郭建中.韦努蒂及其解构主义的翻译策略[J].中国翻译,2000,(1)：49-52.
109.郭军.本雅明的“两面神”精神之价值与意义[J].外国文学,2012, (3)：116-122.
110.哈贝马斯.曹卫东等译.现代性的哲学话语[M].南京：译林出版社,2004.
111.哈特曼.张德兴译.荒野中的批评——关于当代文学的研究[M].天津人民出版社,2008.
112.海德格尔.陈小文,孙周兴译.面向思的事情[M].北京：商务印书馆,1999.
113.海德格尔.陈嘉映、王庆节译.存在与时间[M].上海：生活、读书、新知三联书店,2006.
114.韩佳霖,夏廷德.基于语料库的《尤利西斯》意识流语言特点翻译[J].大连海事大学学报(社会科学版),2010,(6)
115.韩子满.过犹不及-浅论译文的归化问题[J].外语教学,2000,(2).
116.韩子满.当代美学思潮与翻译理论研究[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2004,(3)：57-63.
117.韩子满.解构主义翻译理论与解构主义理论的翻译——以本雅明《译者的任务》中译为例[J].外语研究,2008,(1)：73-77.
118.何芳.由“纯语言”看解构主义翻译观——读本雅明《译者的任务》[J].长沙航空技术学院学报,2008,(2)：83-86.
119.何玉国.德里达及其解构主义理论在中国的研究现状分析——以博士论文为研究范围[J].商丘师范学院学报,2012,(8)：31-39.
120.侯向群,吕俊.让翻译研究回归生活世界——一个翻译研究的现象学批评[J].中国翻译,2008,(3)
121.黄必康.作者何以死去?——论当代西方文论中的作者主体性问题[J].外国语,1997,(2)
122.黄海容.本雅明翻译观述评[J].中国翻译,2007, (4)
123.黄汉平.德里达的解构翻译理论初探[J].学术研究,2004,(6)：115-118.
124.黄振定.解构主义的翻译创造性与主体性[J].中国翻译,2005,(1)：19-22.
125.何玉国.德里达及其解构主义理论在中国的研究现状分析——以博士论文为研究范围[J].商丘师范学院学报,2012, (8)
126.季羡林.季羡林谈翻译[C].季羡林研究所编.北京：当代中国出版社,2007.
127.蒋继华.本雅明美学思想的内在张力[J].东北师大学报,2012,(1)：134-137.
128.蒋骁华.解构主义翻译观探析[J].外语教学与研究,1995,(4)：64-67.
129.蒋骁华.近十年来西方翻译理论研究[J].外语教学与研究,1998,(2)：29-34.
130.蒋骁华.互文性与文学翻译[J].中国翻译,1998, (2)：20-25.
131.蒋骁华.异化翻译与文化传播[J].深圳大学学报,2003,(3)：104-108.
132.蒋骁华.《圣经》汉译及其对汉语的影响[J].外语教学与研究,2003,(4)：301-305.
133.蒋骁华.重新解读韦努蒂的异化翻译理论——兼与郭建中教授商榷[J].中国翻译,2007,(3)：39-44.
134.蒋骁华.译者的选择性适应与适应性选择：评《牡丹亭》的三个英译本[J].上海翻译,2009, (4)：11-15.
135.蒋骁华.典籍英译中的“东方情调化翻译倾向”研究——以英美翻译家的汉籍英译为例[J].中国翻译,2010,(4)：40-45.
136.蒋跃.解构主义的翻译观与语言的模糊性[J].外语教学,2007,(3)：83-86.
137.焦明甲.从“本体诠释学”到“解构的实践批评”[J].社会科学战线,2011, (11)：14-18.
138.金兵.论德里达的“确当的翻译”[J].解放军外国语学院学报.2006, (2)：75-79.
139.金隄.《尤利西斯》译后三题[J].天津外国语学院学报,1995,(3)
140.金惠敏.自然与文化的解构限度[J].外国文学评论,2008, (4)：25-34.
141.卡勒.陆扬译.论解构：结构主义之后的理论和批评[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1998.北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2004.
142.卡勒.李平译.文学理论入门[M].南京：译林出版社,2008.
143.孔豪杰.《尤利西斯》——一部难译的“天书”[J].外国文学研究,2010, (4)
144.李红满.解构主义翻译理论的发轫——读沃尔特·本雅明的“译者的任务”[J].山东外语教学,2001a,(1)：36-39.
145.李红满.解构主义对传统翻译理论的冲击[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2001b,(3)：76-79.
146.李红满.从功能语言学的视角论《尤利西斯》中语码转换的翻译[J].中山大学研究生学刊(社会科学版),2007,(3)
147.李婧劫.从本雅明翻译思想看译作与原作的关系[J].外国语言文学,2010,(2)：108-113.
148.李维屏.评《尤利西斯》的意识流技巧[J].解放军外国语学院学报,1995, (3)
149.李文革,王瑞芳.中国式的“解构”翻译思想——重释钱钟书的“化境说”[J].海南大学学报人文社会科学版,2010,(4)：101-104.
150.李晓惠,谷童宇,孙孝文.解构主义翻译观的进步性与局限性[J].武汉理工大学学报,2008,(8)：597-600.
151.李应志.内在的批判：在否定和肯定之间——斯皮瓦克论解构的“政治”[J].文艺理论研究,2011,(6)
152.李永毅.德里达与乔伊斯.外国文学评论,2007, (2)：16-26.
153.刘北成.本雅明著作的风格与翻译[J].清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2006,(6)
154.刘宓庆.论中国翻译理论基本模式[J].中国翻译,1989b,(1)
155.刘军平.解构主义的翻译观[J].外国语,1997, (2)：51-54.
156.刘军平.《尤利西斯》两种译本的比较研究[J].中国翻译,1997, (3)
157.刘军平.翻译经典与文学翻译[J].中国翻译,2002, (4)
158.刘军平.互文性与诗歌翻译[J].外语与外语教学,2003,(1)
159.刘萍.纯语言翻译观对传统的颠覆及其对文学翻译的启示[J].重庆大学学报(社会科学版),2012,(5)：148-152.
160.刘全福.当“信”与“化境”被消解时——解构主义翻译观质疑[J].中国翻译,2005,(4)：16-20.
161.刘全福.解构主义翻译观的非文化取向及其他——兼评“国内翻译研究的一大突破”一文[J].外语研究,2006,(6)：59-61.
162.刘全福.诗意的畅想：在可译性与不可译性之间——德里达关联翻译概念考辨及误读分析[J].外语教学,2009,(6)：100-104.
163.刘全福.批评视角：我国解构主义翻译研究的本土化进程[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2010,(1)：51-56.
164.刘燕.《尤利西斯》中的东方想象与身份建构[J].外国文学,2009, (5)
165.鲁苓.解释学的路径——从海德格尔到德里达[J].外语学刊,2009,(3)：27-30.
166.陆扬,论德里达解构理论[D].复旦大学1988年文艺学专业西方文艺批评方向博士论文,指导教师：蒋孔阳.
167.陆扬.德里达的幽灵[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社,2008a.
168.陆扬.德里达：翻译巴别塔[J].文艺争鸣,2008b, (3)：97-101.
169.罗丹.《尤利西斯》三个译本的比较研究[J].湖南农业大学学报(社会科学版),2008,(1)
170.罗丽文,汪军.中西文学翻译中的创造性叛逆[J].外语教学,2012,(1)
171.罗新璋.序沈苏儒著《论“信、达、雅”——严复翻译理论研究》[J].中国翻译,1998,(2)
172.罗新璋.非新无以为进[J].上海翻译,2009, (2)
173.罗选民.谈我国翻译理论研究的几个基本问题[J].中国外语,2009, (6)
174.罗选民.耶鲁解构学派的互文性研究及其对翻译的启示[J].外国文学研究,2012,(5)：150-157.
175.吕姣荣.纯粹的诗意和哲学[J].外国语言文学研究,2011,(10)：242-243.
176.吕俊.双峰并峙各炳千秋——学习《尤利西斯》的两个汉译本[J].山东外语教学,1995,(1)
177.吕俊.哲学的语言论转向对翻译研究的启示[J].外国语,2000,(5)：49-54.
178.吕俊.我国传统翻译研究中的盲点与误区[J].外国语,2001a, (5).
179.吕俊.对翻译学构建中几个问题的思考[J].中国翻译,2001b, (4)：6-9.
180.吕俊.结构,解构,建构—我国翻译研究的回顾与展望[J].中国翻译,2001c,(6)：8-11.
181.吕俊.文学翻译：一种特殊的交往形式——交往行为理论的文学翻译观[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2002a,(1)：63-66.
182.吕俊.翻译学：解构与重建——论哈贝马斯交往行动理论对翻译学的建构性意义[J].外语学刊,2002b,(1)
183.吕俊.翻译学应从解构主义那里学些什么——对九十年代中期以来我国译学研究的反思[J].外国语,2002c,(5)：48-54.
184.吕俊,侯向群.元翻译学的思考与翻译的多元性研究[J].外国语,1999,(5)
185.吕俊,侯向群.翻译研究与文化批评[J].外国语文.2009, (2)
186.马可云.论本雅明的解构主义文学翻译观[J].绍兴文理学院学报,2010,(9)：56-61.
187.马祖毅.中国翻译简史[M].北京：中国对外翻译出版公司,2007.
188.米勒.郭英剑等译.重申解构主义[C].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1998.
189.倪钢.本雅明哲学思想探微[J].自然辩证法研究,2010,(12)：62-68.
190.怒安.傅雷谈翻译[C].沈阳：辽宁教育出版社,2005.
191.潘道正.翻译之不可能——评德里达对翻译的解构[J].华北水利水电学院学报(社科版),2007, (2)：7-9.
192.庞学峰.发挥与控制的统一——德里达解构主义视角下的译者主体性研究[J].外语与外语教学,2010, (3)：59-62.
193.庞月慧,朱健平.功能学派翻译理论的解构主义印记[J].中国外语,2009,(1)：95-99.
194.彭桂芝.德里达“异延”解构主义翻译观及其理论启示[J].湖北大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2008,(6)：116-119.
195.齐智英.从目的论看萧译《尤利西斯》中的创造性叛逆[J].南都学坛(人文社会科学学报),2009,(6)
196.乔书静.译者的选择——从解构主义视角看翻译[J].太原理工大学学报(社会科学版),2010,(6)：73-82.
197.乔颖.“以后生存”还是“继续生存”——本雅明译论中译文与原文及其相关关系中的断裂性初探[J].四川外语学院学报,2006,(6)：121-125.
198.乔颖.简析德里达翻译思想的“前起源”特征[J].时代文学,2009,(1)：23-24.
199.任东升.翻译研究的神学之维[J].外语研究,2010,(4)：68-74.
200.申丹.解构主义在美国——评J·希利·斯米勒的“线条意象”[J].外国文学评论,2001,(2)：5-13.
201.申迎丽,孙致礼.由《尤利西斯》中译本看小说翻译中叙事视角的传译[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2004, (5)
202.申富英,王湘云.论《尤利西斯》中的中国形象[J].兰州大学学报,2008, (4)
203.沈苏儒.论信达雅——严复翻译理论研究[M].北京：商务印书馆,1998.
204.斯皮瓦克.陈永国,赖立里,郭英剑主编.从解构到全球化批判：斯皮瓦克读本[C].北京：北京大学出版社,2007.
205.宋瑾.解构主义音乐美学思想[J].音乐探索,2011,(3)：37-48.
206.孙会军.归化与异化——两个动态的概念[J].外语研究,2003,(4)
207.孙建光.论《尤利西斯》译者对原著的认同和转化[J].长城,2010, (2)
208.孙士聪.本雅明：重建现代世界的可经验性[J].文艺研究,2011,(12)
209.孙伟民.解构主义的后现代哲学观及文学批评意义[J].群文天地,2011,(10)
210.索绪尔.高明凯译.普通语言学教程[M].北京：商务印书馆,1999.
211.谭载喜.翻译学必须重视中西译论比较研究[J].中国翻译,1998, (2)
212.谭载喜.中西译论的相异性[J].中国翻译,2000,(1)：15-21.
213.谭德生.所指／能指的符号学批判：从索绪尔到解构主义[J].社会科学家,2011,(9)：149-153.
214.唐国全,何小玲.解构主义与翻译的忠实标准[J].外国语言文学研究,2005,(2)：53-60.
215.唐述宗,康顺理.解构主义视阈下《老人与海》四个译本的评析[J].合肥工业大学学报(社会科学版),2009,(1)：99-102.
216.仝亚辉.《尤利西斯》的意识流语言变异与翻译[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2004,(5)：59-64.
217.王宾.“不可译性”面面观[J].现代哲学,2004,(1)：81-87.
218.王大来.解构主义语境下文学翻译的美学价值取向[J].外国语文,2011,(5)
219.王东风.变异还是差异——文学翻译中文体转换失误分析[J].外国语,2004a,(1)
220.王东风.解构忠实——翻译神话的终结[J].中国翻译,2004b,(6).
221.王东风.小说翻译的语义连贯重构[J].中国翻译,2005, (5)
222.王东风.译学关键词：abusive fidelity[J].外国语,2008, (4)
223.王广州.美国解构主义理论家保罗·德曼研究述评[J].国外理论动态,2006,(3)：52-55.
224.王宏印.中国传统译论经典诠释：从道安到傅雷[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社,2003.
225.王宁.德里达与翻译理论的解构——悼念一代翻译理论宗师德里达[J].中国翻译,2005a,(1),45-47.
226.王宁.德里达与解构批评的启示：重新思考[J].清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2005b,(2)：23-28.
227.王宁.文化翻译与经典阐释[M].北京：中华书局,2006.
228.王宁.翻译研究的文化转向：解构主义的推进[J].清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2009,(6)：127-139.
229.王泉,朱岩岩.解构主义[J].外国文学,2004,(5)
230.王守仁.谈翻译的忠实——读本雅明《译者的任务》[J].山东外语教学,1996,(2)：36-38.
231.王淑芹.走向中心的边缘诗学——解构主义语境下的美国文学批评[J].甘肃社会科学,2006,(3)：152-154.
232.王颖冲.再论德里达的"relevant" translation[J].中国翻译,2011,(5)：11-19.
233.王友贵.杂沓的现代音响：乔伊斯的《尤利西斯》[J].外国文学,2003a,(3).
234.王友贵.翻译《尤利西斯》：东方与西方——金隄译学新著《三叶草与筷子》[J].中国翻译,2003,(7)
235.王振平.论翻译之道说《尤利西斯》——金隄教授访谈录[J].中国翻译,2000,(1).
236.王振平,任东升.目的与方法——对《尤利西斯》两个中译本的再思考[J].外语研究,2006, (1)
237.卫茂平,1998.海德格尔翻译思想试论[A].谢天振,翻译的理论建构与文化透视[C].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2000.
238.吴庆军.论《尤利西斯》语言的陌生化[J].外国文学研究,2005,(6)
239.吴庆军.论《尤利西斯》的互文性艺术[J].天津外国语学院学报,2006, (9)
240.吴显友.《尤利西斯》的多视角叙述及其他[J].四川外语学院学报.2004,(7)
241.奚永吉.文学翻译比较美学[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社,2001.
242.谢天振.作者本意和本文本意——解释学理论与翻译研究[J].外国语,2000,(3)
243.徐朝友.斯坦纳译学的本雅明渊源——对斯坦纳《通天塔之后》的一种解读[J].外语研究,2008,(4)：71-76.
244.徐朝友.焦灼而失落的“洞见”——评保罗·德曼《“结论”：瓦尔特·本雅明“译者的任务”》[J].外语学刊,2011,(4)：105-109.
245.徐文培,李增.互文性理论与文学批评解析[J].外语学刊,2011,(6)
246.许钧.试论译作与原作的关系[J].外语教学与研究,,2002b,(1).
247.许心宏.论解构主义视角下的小说结尾结构[J].武汉科技大学学报(社会科学版),2010,(6)：97-101.
248.严蓓雯.晚期的德里达[J].外国文学评论,2008,(1)：156-157.
249.杨柳.解构主义翻译观在中国的理论“旅行”[J].外国语,2007, (3)：60-66.
250.杨镇源.论德里达“延异”概念对文学翻译批评“忠实”伦理观之消解[J].当代文坛,2010,(1)：66-69.
251.杨镇源.论本雅明哲学思想对语言建构的现世意义[J].求索,2010, (2)：108-110.
252.杨志文.讲故事的天使——本雅明美学思想初探[J].语言文学研究,2011,(5)：20-21.
253.伊格尔顿.郭国良,陆汉臻译.沃尔特·本雅明或走向革命批评[M].南京：译林出版社,2005.
254.易晓明.《尤利西斯》的粗俗性及其功能[J].译林,2010, (5)
255.由元.《尤利西斯》汉译本的选词——兼论文学翻译策略[J].沈阳师范大学学报(社会科学版),2010,(3)
256.于洪英.关于金陡教授翻译新著《尤利西斯》[J].天津外国语学院学报(综合版),1994,(1)
257.俞吾金.形而上学发展史上的三次翻转[J].哲学基础理论研究,2010,(0)：145-167.
258.虞又铭.文学告别存在——德里达对海德格尔的推进[J].重庆社会科学,2006,(5)：42-45.
259.喻锋平.从“理念”到“纯语言”：论本雅明的语言哲学观[J].求索,2009,(11)：109-111.
260.喻锋平.论本雅明翻译思想的哲学基础[J].江西社会科学,2010,(3)：218-222.
261.袁丽梅.纵横古今跨越中西——《跨越边界：从比较文学到翻译研究》评介[J].中国翻译,2010,(6)：43-45.
262.袁伟.本雅明说的是啥?[J].国外文学,2007,(4)：47-58.
263.袁文彬.本雅明的语言观[J].外语学刊,2006,(1)：12-22.
264.袁筱一.从翻译的时代到直译的时代——基于贝尔曼视阈之上的本雅明[J].外语教学理论与实践,2011,(1)：89-95.
265.岳梁.解构：德里达的一种“形而上学”[J].西安外事学院学报,2006,(4)：1-8.
266.张德让.伽达默尔哲学解释学与翻译研究[J].中国翻译,2001a,(4).
267.张德让.论译语文化与文本选择[J].外语教学,2001b, (3)
268.张德让.“不忠的美人”——论翻译中的文化过滤现象[J].山东外语教学,2001c,(3).
269.张德让.重构体验融合——文学翻译的诠释学视界[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2005,(3)：68-70.
270.张涵.解构主义政治哲学的语言特色——解读德里达《马克思的幽灵》[J].同济大学学报(社会科学版),2011,(6)
271.张霄军.德里达翻译思想：回归、转变还是其他?[J].外语研究,2010, (2)：77-81.
272.张旭：跨越边界：从比较文学到翻译研究[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2010.
273.赵萝蕤.中译《尤利西斯》读后[J].国外文学,1995,(2)
274.郑敏.解构主义在今天[J].文学评论,2000,(4)：106-114.
275.周晓梅.翻译研究的“解构”之后[J].外语研究,2006, (6)：62-65.
276.周晓梅,吕俊.翻译批评的叙事学视角[J].外语与外语教学,2009, (2)
277.周晔,孙致礼.以残传残,以缺译缺——从《尤利西斯》看“残缺“艺术手法及传译手段[J].外语与外语研究,2009,(6).
278.朱健平.翻译的跨文化解释——哲学诠释学和接受美学模式[M].长沙：湖南人民出版社,2007.
279.庄昆良.《乔伊斯季刊》书评：金隄的汉译《尤利西斯》[J].天津外国语学院学报,1997,(1)
1 翻译理论家John Biguenet和Rainer Schulte说：“我始终认为翻译是人们能够对一个文本所做的最细致的阅读。”(Ihave always maintained that translation is essentially the closest reading one can possibly give a text.) (John Biguenet and Rainer Schulte,1989:6)
1 德里达说,他对翻译所进行的解读是在“步瓦尔特·本雅明、詹姆斯·乔伊斯的后尘”(陈永国,2005：151)。
1 卡勒的原话是：‘Here there is a basic distinction, too often neglected in literary studies, between two kinds of projects:one, which follows the model of linguistics (though it has a longer history), takes meanings as what have to be accounted for and tries to work out how they are possible. The other, by contrast, starts with forms and seeks to interpret them, to tell us what they really mean. In literary studies, this is a contrast between poetics and hermeneutics." (Culler,2011:62)
1 参阅朱立元主编的《当代西方文艺理论》,华东师范大学出版社,1997,第6-7页。
1 海德格尔说：“哲学即形而上学。形而上学着眼于存在,着眼于存在中的存在者之共属一体,来思考存在者整体——世界、人类和上帝。形而上学以论证性表象的思维方式来思考存在者之为存在者。因为从哲学开端以来,并且凭借于这一开端,存在者之存在就把自身显示为根据。”(陈小文,孙周兴,1999：68-69)
1 参阅原文："One of the first attempts to break the stranglehold of metaphysical conceptual approaches to translation was Heidegger's Sein and Zeit (Being and time)."该译文为笔者译。
2 关于海德格尔的思想参阅俞吾金的文章“形而上学发展史上的三次翻转”,发表在《哲学基础理论研究》,2010,(0)。
1 参阅原文:"...at the foundation of Derrida's thought is the assumption that there is no kernel or deep structure or invariant of comparison, nothing that we may ever discern-let alone represent, translate, or found a theory on. Rather, Derrida "bases" his "theory" of deconstruction on non-identity, on non-presence, on unrepresentability." (Gentzler,2004:147)该译文为笔者所译。
1 参见《柏拉图全集》,王晓朝译,人民出版社,2003.
2 德里达的论著“柏拉图的药”最早于1968年发表在法国《批评》期刊的第32、33期上,1972年收入他的论文集《播撒》。
1 参阅收录在《哲学的边缘》一书中的德里达的"Differance"一文。
1 Derrida, "Differance", in Critical Theory Since 1965, Hazard Adams and Leroy Seale, University of Florida,1986, pp 120-136.这篇论文于1972年收录在《哲学的边缘》一书中。
1 参阅由陈嘉映和王庆节合译的海德格尔的《存在与时间》,由生活·读书·新知三联书店2006年出版。
1 该引文是罗兰·巴特说的话,转引自谭德生,2011。
1 德里达最早是在Positions (Derrida,1981b)一书中提出“有调节的转化”这一概念。
2 参阅原文：‘'Difference is never pure, no more so is translation, and for the notion of translation we would have to substitute a notion of transformation:a regulated transformation of one language by another, of one text by another. We will never have, and in fact have never had, to do with some "transport" of pure signifieds from one language to another, or within one and the same language, that the signifying instrument would leave virgin and untouched(转引自Gentzler,2004:166-7)该译文为笔者所译。
1 参阅原文：Derrida adds that translation behaves like a "child" which is not just a "product" subject to the law of "reproduction", but has, in addition, "the power of speak on its own" in a new and different fashion, supplementing language, sounding the "Babelian note" which causes languages to grow. The translation process ensures the rebirth, the regeneration, the emergence, "the holy growth" of languages in general, and, for Derrida, the means by which we understand ourselves. (Gentzler, 2004:164)
1 “互文性”这个术语最早是由法国女性主义批评家朱丽娅·克里斯蒂娃(Julia Kristeva)在其于1969年发表的一篇题为“词语、对话与小说”的文章中首次使用,后在法国的后解构主义者中广泛使用,继而在世界范围内被广泛使用。有关翻译与互文性的研究可参阅罗选民的《互文性与翻译》(2006)一书以及他的“耶鲁解构学派的互文性研究及其对翻译的启示”(2012)一文和秦文华的《翻译研究的互文性视角》(2006)。
1 参阅盛宁为卡勒的《论解构》所写的导读,第四页。外语教学与研究出版社和康奈尔大学出版社联合出版,2004。
1 M.H.阿伯拉姆称德里达为西方哲学的“禅宗”。(大维·莱门.《时代之符号》,转引自郑敏,2000)
1 参阅原文1 For Derrida, God is seen as a deconstructionist, for He interrupts the construction of the Tower of Babel. " (Gentzler,2004:162)译文为笔者所译。
1 Willis Barnstone认为：“文章(“译者的任务”)篇幅不长,却具有《圣经》的性质。因为作者文笔犀利,显现出敏锐的洞察力；尽管文章意义晦涩、令人费解,但极富启发性。”(乔颖,2006)
1 语言有还乡的命运,翻译有寻根的天职。引申自徐朝友,2008。
1 陈译此处为“语言自由流动”。(ibid)
1 出自鲁迅的《教授杂咏四首》(1932)
1 参阅英文Where a text is identical with truth or dogma, where it is supposed to be "the true language" in all its literalness and without the mediation of meaning, this text is unconditionally translatable... Just as, in the original, language and revelation are one without any tension, so the translation must be one with the original in the form of the interlinear version, in which literalness and freedom are united. For to some degree all great texts contain their potential translation between the lines; this is true to the highest degree of sacred writings. The interlinear version of the Scriptures is the prototype or ideal of all translation. (Venuti. 2004:83)
1 参阅Critical Inquiry. Winter,2001, pp.175-200.
1 笔者认为陈译丢失了英文版中的一些重要意义,因此在论述时将在中译本的基础之上加进一些笔者对英文版原文的个人理解,特此加注,以下不做一一说明。
2 德里达从此处开始正式用relevant代替relevante进行论述,这也是笔者此前一直保留relevante这一拼写的原因。
3 此处的“适当的”就是笔者所说的“相关的”,因中译本用的是前者,在此暂且予以保留,特此澄清。
1 文学作品所包含的相关性不仅仅只有词语间的相关性,而是包含了与语境有关的所有事物之间的相关性。因此处重点讨论词语的相关性,故将其他因素撇开不谈。
1 黑体为笔者所加。为更好地理解德里达的意思,可参阅英文原文：The English word-let us start at the end-can be found in The Merchant of Venice. The privilege that I assign here to Shakespeare's play does not only depend on the presence of this word to be translated. In addition, by virtue of connotation, everything in the play can be retranslated into the code of translation and as a problem of translation; and this can be done according to the three senses that Jakobson distinguishes: interlinguistic, intralinguistic, intersemiotic - as, for example, between a pound of flesh and a sum of money. At every moment, translation is necessary as it is impossible. It is the law; it even speaks the language of the law beyond the law, the language of the impossible law, represented by a woman who is disguised, transfigured, converted, travestied, read translated, into a man of law. As if the subject of this play were, in short, the task of the translator, his impossible task, his duty, his debt, as inflexible as it is unpayable. (Venuti,2004:430)
1 德里达说：“动词relever又使我回到适度但却有效的翻译实验上来,我发现我投身于这个实验已经有三十年的光景了。”(150)
1 参阅英文原文Then (hence, consequently, igitur) the Jew must be merciful...Obviously, this means here:therefore, igitur, then, since you acknowledge the debt or the fault, the Jew (this Jew, Shylock, in this precise context) must free you from it...while rereading this extraordinary verdict whose ruse we shall analyze in a moment-namely, the phrase that says "then the Jew must forgive," implying that "it is the Jew who must forgive," "it is up to the Jew in general to forgive." (Venuti,2004:433)黑体为笔者所加。
51 参阅Ulysses. New York:Vintage International,1934,第12章。
1 为了尽可能体现卡勒的意思,笔者在此引用英文原作来体系语言所制造出来的混乱。卡勒此书的中文译本对这句话的表述是：“伊恩斯在一个空间里,它是一个大得令人盛宴的空间,他一个人居住。”(卡勒,2008：44)
1. Baer, Brain James, and Geoffrey S. Koby, eds. Beyond the Ivory Tower:Rethinking Translation Pedagogy[C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company,2003.
2. Barnstone, Willis. The Poetics of Translation:History, Theory, Practice [M]. New Haven: Yale UP,1993.
3. Bassnett, Susan. Comparative Literature [M]. Oxford:Blackwell,1993.
4.---, ed. Essays and Studies 1997:Translating Literature[C]. Cambridge:D. S. Brewer, 1997.
5. Bassnett, Susan, and Andre Lefevere, eds. Translation, History and Culture[C]. London: Printer Publishers Limited,1990.
6. Bassnett, Susan, and Peter Bush, eds. The Translator as Writer[C]. London:Continuum, 2006.
7. Bassnett, Susan, and Harish Trivedi, eds. Post-Colonial Translation:Theory and Practice[C]. New York:Routledge,1999.
8. Bassnett-McGuire, Susan. Translation Studies (Revised edition) [M]. New York: Routledge,1991.
9. Bathes, Roland, trans. The Death of the Author:Image, Music, Text [M]. By Stephen Heath. New York:The Nooday Press,1977.
10. Beebe, Maurice. "Ulysses and the Age of Modernism" [J]. James Joyce Quarterly 10. Tulsa:U of Tulsa P,1972.
11. Benjamin, Walter. "The Arcades Project" [A]. Trans. Howard Eiland and Kevin McLaughlin. Boston:The Belknap Press of Harvard UP,1999.
12.---. "The Task of the Translator" [A]. The Translation Studies Reader [C]. Ed. Lawrence Venuti. New York:Routledge,2004.
13. Biguenet, John, and Rainer Schulte, eds. The Craft of Translation[C]. Chicago:The U of Chicago Press,1989.
14. Bower, Reuben A. On Translation [M]. Cambridge:Harvard UP,1959.
15. Catford, J. C. A Linguistic Theory of Translation [M]. London:Oxford UP,1965.
16. Culler, Jonathan. Literary Theory:A Very Short Introduction [M]. New York:Oxford UP, 2011.
17.---. On Deconstruction [M]. Ithaca:Cornell UP,1982.
18. Davis, Kathleen. Deconstruction and Translation [M]. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education P,2004.
19. Derrida, Jacques. "Des tours de Babel" [A]. Difference and Translation[C]. Ed. Joseph F. Graham. Ithaca:Cornell UP,1985.
20.---. Dissemination [C]. Trans. Ed. Introd. Barbara Johnson. London:Athlone P,1981a.
21.---. Margins of Philosophy [M]. Trans. Alan Bass. Chicago:The U of Chicago P,1982.
22. ---. Of Grammatology [M]. Baltimore:John Hopkins UP,1976.
23.---. Positions [M]. Trans. Alan Bass. Chicago:U of Chicago P,1981b.
24.---. Psyche:inventions of the other[C]. Ed. Peggy Kamuf and Elizabeth Rottenberg. Stanford:Stanford UP,2007.
25.---. Speech and Phenomena [M]. Trans. David B. Allison. Chicago:Northwest UP,1973.
26.---. "Ulysses Gramophone:Hear Say Yes in Joyce" [A]. Acts of Literature[C]. Ed. Derek Attridge. New York:Routledge,1992.
27. Eliot, T. S., ed. Literary Essays of Ezra Pound[C]. New York:New Directions Books, 1968.
28. France, Peter, and Stuart Gillespie, eds. The Oxford History of Literary[C]. New York: Oxford UP Inc.,2005.
29. Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Truth and Method [M]. New York:Continuum,1975.
30. Gentzler, Edwin. Contemporary Translation Theories (Revised Edition) [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education P,2004.
31. Grossman, Edith. Why Translation Matters[M]. New Haven:Yale UP,2010.
32. Hartman, Geoffrey. Criticism in the Wilderness-the Study of Literature Today [C]. New Haven:Yale UP,1980.
33. Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time [M]. Trans. John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson. London:SCM P Ltd,1962.
34. Hermans, Theo, ed. The Manipulation of Literature:Studies in Literary Translation[C]. London:Croom Helm,1985.
35. Holmes, James S., ed. The Nature of Translation:Essays on the Theory and Practice of Literary Translation[C]. Paris:Publishing House of the Slovak Academy of Sciences Bratislava,1970.
36. Holmes, James S. Literature and Translation:New Perspectives in Literary Studies with a Basic Bibliography of Books on Translation Studies[C]. Leuven:Acco,1978.
37. Johnson, Barbara. The Critical Difference:Essays in the Contemporary Rhetoric of Reading [M]. Baltimore:The Johns Hopkins UP,1985.
38.---. A World of Difference [M]. Baltimore:The Johns Hopkins UP,1987.
39. Joyce, James. Ulysses [M]. New York:Vintage International,1934.
40. Landers, Clifford E. Literary Translation:A Practical Guide [M]. Cleveland: Multilingual Matters Ltd.,2001.
41. Landrv, D, and G. MacLean, eds. The Spivak Reader[C]. New York:Routledge,1996.
42. Lefevere, Andre. Translating Literature:Practice and Theory in a Comparative Literature Context [M]. New York:The Modern Language Association of America,1992.
43. Leighton, Lauren G., trans, ed. The Art of Translation[C]. Knoxville:The U of Tennessee P,1984.
44. McDonald, Christie, ed. The Ear of the Other:Texts and Discussions with Jacques Derrida[C]. Lincoln:U of Nebraska P,1985.
45. Mueller-Vollmer, Kurt, and Michael Irmscher, eds. Translating Literatures Translating Cultures:New Vistas and Approaches in Literary Studies[C]. Stanford:Stanford UP, 1998.
46. Norris, Margot. A Companion to James Joyce's Ulysses:Biographical and Historical Contexts, Critical History, and Essays from Five Contemporary Critical Perspectives [M]. Boston:Bedford Books,1998.
47. Robinson, Douglas:Who Translates? Translator Subjectivities Beyond Reason [M]. Albany:State U of New York P,2001.
48. Schulte, Rainer. The Geography of Translation and Interpretation:Traveling Between Languages [M]. Lewiston:The Edwin Mellen Press,2001.
49. Schulte, Rainer, and John Biguenet, eds. Theories of Translation:An Anthology of Essays from Dryden to Derrida[C]. Chicago:The U of Chicago P,1992.
50. Shaffer, E. S., ed. Comparative Criticism [M].6 vols. Cambridge:Cambridge UP,1984.
51. Snell-Hornby, Mary. Translation Studies:An Integrated Approach [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company,1988.
52. Spivak, Gayatri C. A Critique of Postcolonial Reason:Toward a History of the Vanishing Present [M]. Harvard UP,1999.
53.---. In Other Worlds:Essays in Cultural Politics [C]. London:Methuen,1987.
54. Steiner, George. After Babel:Aspects of Language and Translation [M]. Oxford:Oxford UP,1975.
55. Stewart, Frank, ed. The Poem Behind The Poem[C]. Washington:Copper Canyon Press, 2004.
56. Streep, Peg, ed. Tao Te Ching [M]. Bulfinch Press Book,1994.
57. Venuti, L. Rethinking Translation:Discourse, Subjectivity, Ideology[C]. New York: Routledge,1992.
58. ---. The Translator's Invisibility:A History of Translation [M]. New York:Routledge, 1995.
59. ---. The Scandals of Translation:Towards an Ethics of Difference [M]. Manchester:St. Jerome Publishing,1998.
60.本雅明.陈永国,马海良编.本雅明文学[C].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1999.
61.布卢姆.江宁康译.西方正典[M].译林出版社,2005.
62.蔡新乐,郁东占.文学翻译的释义学原理[M].开封：河南大学出版社,1997.
63.蔡新乐.从德里达的翻译思想看理性主义的翻译理论建构[J].中国翻译,2001,(4)：58-61.
64.蔡新乐.让诗意进入翻译理论研究——从海德格尔的非对象性的“思”看钱钟书的不隔说[J].中南大学学报(社会科学版),2005,(10)：563-571.
65.蔡新乐.翻译与汉语——解构主义视角下的译学研究[M].北京：中央编译出版社,2006.
66.蔡新乐.彼此彼此：翻译研究中必然遭遇的第三项[J].外语与外语研究,2007a,(6)：53-59.
67.蔡新乐.翻译：在海德格尔与钱钟书之外[J].四川外语学院学报,2007b, (4)：78-84.
68.蔡新乐.相关的相关：德里达“相关的”翻译思想及其他[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2007c.
69.蔡新乐.海德格尔的“你是谁”翻译观初探[J].外语与外语教学,2008, (9)：37-43.
70.蔡新乐.海德格尔《荷尔德林的赞美诗<伊斯特>》中的本体论的翻译思想[J].外国语文,2010,(2)：94-99.
71.蔡新乐.本雅明：翻译的终结与灵韵的在场[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2011,(3)：64-68.
72.曹雷雨.本雅明的寓言理论[J].外国文学,2004,(1)：45-50.
73.曹明伦.论以忠实为取向的翻译标准——兼论严复的“信达雅”[J].中国翻译,2006,(4)：12-19.
74.曹明伦.揭开“纯语言”的神学面纱——重读本雅明的《译者的任务》[J].四川大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2007,(6)：79-86.
75.曹明伦.巴斯内特《翻译研究》(第三版)导读[J].西南民族大学学报(人文社会科学版),2010,(5)：198-203.
76.曹威.儒家经典翻译的诠释学理论前提——以英译《论语》为例[J].外语学刊,2010,(6)：109-113.
77.陈本益.释德里达的“原初书写”概念[J].外国文学,2006, (5)：68-72.
78.陈大亮.“译味”的审美内涵[J].北京第二外国语学院学报,2011,(2)：1-6.
79.陈国兴.从伽达默尔的诠释学角度看翻译的忠实性[J].外国语文,2011,(5)
80.陈涛,徐选国.试论德里达解构理论思想脉络及其内在关系[J].理论界,2011,(10)：95-98.
81.陈晓明.“药”的文字游戏与解构的修辞学——论德里达的《柏拉图的药》[J].文艺理论研究,2007,(3)：50-61.
82.陈晓明.美国解构主义在中国的传播与接收分析[J].文艺理论研究,2012, (6)：44-52.
83.陈永国.翻译的不确定性问题[J].中国翻译,2003, (4)：9-14.
84.陈永国.从解构到翻译：斯皮瓦克的属下研究[J].外国文学,2005,(9)：37-43.
85.陈永国主编.翻译与后现代性[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005.
86.陈永国.理论的逃逸[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2008.
87.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.
88.崔少元.双蕾绽放,交相辉映——《尤利西斯》两个中译本学习札记[J].当代外国文学,1997,(2)
89.德里达.何佩群译.一种疯狂守护着思想——德里达访谈录[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1997.
90.德里达.赵兴国等译.文学行动[C].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1998.
91.德里达.汪家堂译.论文字学[M].上海：上海译文出版社,1999a.
92.德里达.蒋梓骅译.多义的记忆——为保罗·德曼而作[C].北京：中央编译社,1999b.
93.德里达.汪民安译.延异[J].外国文学,2000,(1)
94.德里达.张宁译.书写与差异[M].上海：生活·读书·新知三联书店,2001.
95.德里达.苏旭译.明天会怎样：雅克·德里达与伊丽莎白·卢迪内斯库对话录[M].北京：中信出版社,2002.
96.德里达.佘碧平译.多重立场[C].上海：生活·读书·新知三联书店,2004.
97.德曼.李自修等译.解构之图[C].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1998.
98.丁振祺.谙练精湛,各有千秋——试评《尤利西斯》两个中译本的第一章[J].当代外国文学,1997,(2)
99.董金玉,李健.解构主义视角解读庞德英译汉诗[J].大庆师范学院学报,2009,(4)
100.董迎春.德里达文学批评思想在中国的研究[J].高校社科信息,2004, (5)：19-23.
101.方灿.走出封闭迈向多元——谈解构主义及其对翻译研究的影响[J].重庆：重庆三峡学院学报,2002,(5)：37-40.
102.方向红.德里达：他者的耳朵.[J]江苏社会科学,2004,(3)：11-13.
103.冯立新.钱钟书翻译思想探微——以解构主义为视角[J].社会科学家,2012,(4)：130-133.
104.冯文坤.论本雅明的“可译性”及关于翻译的哲学思考[J].四川师范大学学报(社会科学版),2006,(3)：110-115.
105.付冬.论西方翻译史上译者地位的变迁[J].学术交流,2009,(8)：154-156.
106.葛校琴.“作者死了”吗?——论文学翻译中原作者之地位[J].外语研究,2001,(2)
107.郭建中.论解构主义翻译思想[J].上海科技翻译,1999, (4)：4-9.
108.郭建中.韦努蒂及其解构主义的翻译策略[J].中国翻译,2000,(1)：49-52.
109.郭军.本雅明的“两面神”精神之价值与意义[J].外国文学,2012, (3)：116-122.
110.哈贝马斯.曹卫东等译.现代性的哲学话语[M].南京：译林出版社,2004.
111.哈特曼.张德兴译.荒野中的批评——关于当代文学的研究[M].天津人民出版社,2008.
112.海德格尔.陈小文,孙周兴译.面向思的事情[M].北京：商务印书馆,1999.
113.海德格尔.陈嘉映、王庆节译.存在与时间[M].上海：生活、读书、新知三联书店,2006.
114.韩佳霖,夏廷德.基于语料库的《尤利西斯》意识流语言特点翻译[J].大连海事大学学报(社会科学版),2010,(6)
115.韩子满.过犹不及-浅论译文的归化问题[J].外语教学,2000,(2).
116.韩子满.当代美学思潮与翻译理论研究[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2004,(3)：57-63.
117.韩子满.解构主义翻译理论与解构主义理论的翻译——以本雅明《译者的任务》中译为例[J].外语研究,2008,(1)：73-77.
118.何芳.由“纯语言”看解构主义翻译观——读本雅明《译者的任务》[J].长沙航空技术学院学报,2008,(2)：83-86.
119.何玉国.德里达及其解构主义理论在中国的研究现状分析——以博士论文为研究范围[J].商丘师范学院学报,2012,(8)：31-39.
120.侯向群,吕俊.让翻译研究回归生活世界——一个翻译研究的现象学批评[J].中国翻译,2008,(3)
121.黄必康.作者何以死去?——论当代西方文论中的作者主体性问题[J].外国语,1997,(2)
122.黄海容.本雅明翻译观述评[J].中国翻译,2007, (4)
123.黄汉平.德里达的解构翻译理论初探[J].学术研究,2004,(6)：115-118.
124.黄振定.解构主义的翻译创造性与主体性[J].中国翻译,2005,(1)：19-22.
125.何玉国.德里达及其解构主义理论在中国的研究现状分析——以博士论文为研究范围[J].商丘师范学院学报,2012, (8)
126.季羡林.季羡林谈翻译[C].季羡林研究所编.北京：当代中国出版社,2007.
127.蒋继华.本雅明美学思想的内在张力[J].东北师大学报,2012,(1)：134-137.
128.蒋骁华.解构主义翻译观探析[J].外语教学与研究,1995,(4)：64-67.
129.蒋骁华.近十年来西方翻译理论研究[J].外语教学与研究,1998,(2)：29-34.
130.蒋骁华.互文性与文学翻译[J].中国翻译,1998, (2)：20-25.
131.蒋骁华.异化翻译与文化传播[J].深圳大学学报,2003,(3)：104-108.
132.蒋骁华.《圣经》汉译及其对汉语的影响[J].外语教学与研究,2003,(4)：301-305.
133.蒋骁华.重新解读韦努蒂的异化翻译理论——兼与郭建中教授商榷[J].中国翻译,2007,(3)：39-44.
134.蒋骁华.译者的选择性适应与适应性选择：评《牡丹亭》的三个英译本[J].上海翻译,2009, (4)：11-15.
135.蒋骁华.典籍英译中的“东方情调化翻译倾向”研究——以英美翻译家的汉籍英译为例[J].中国翻译,2010,(4)：40-45.
136.蒋跃.解构主义的翻译观与语言的模糊性[J].外语教学,2007,(3)：83-86.
137.焦明甲.从“本体诠释学”到“解构的实践批评”[J].社会科学战线,2011, (11)：14-18.
138.金兵.论德里达的“确当的翻译”[J].解放军外国语学院学报.2006, (2)：75-79.
139.金隄.《尤利西斯》译后三题[J].天津外国语学院学报,1995,(3)
140.金惠敏.自然与文化的解构限度[J].外国文学评论,2008, (4)：25-34.
141.卡勒.陆扬译.论解构：结构主义之后的理论和批评[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1998.北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2004.
142.卡勒.李平译.文学理论入门[M].南京：译林出版社,2008.
143.孔豪杰.《尤利西斯》——一部难译的“天书”[J].外国文学研究,2010, (4)
144.李红满.解构主义翻译理论的发轫——读沃尔特·本雅明的“译者的任务”[J].山东外语教学,2001a,(1)：36-39.
145.李红满.解构主义对传统翻译理论的冲击[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2001b,(3)：76-79.
146.李红满.从功能语言学的视角论《尤利西斯》中语码转换的翻译[J].中山大学研究生学刊(社会科学版),2007,(3)
147.李婧劫.从本雅明翻译思想看译作与原作的关系[J].外国语言文学,2010,(2)：108-113.
148.李维屏.评《尤利西斯》的意识流技巧[J].解放军外国语学院学报,1995, (3)
149.李文革,王瑞芳.中国式的“解构”翻译思想——重释钱钟书的“化境说”[J].海南大学学报人文社会科学版,2010,(4)：101-104.
150.李晓惠,谷童宇,孙孝文.解构主义翻译观的进步性与局限性[J].武汉理工大学学报,2008,(8)：597-600.
151.李应志.内在的批判：在否定和肯定之间——斯皮瓦克论解构的“政治”[J].文艺理论研究,2011,(6)
152.李永毅.德里达与乔伊斯.外国文学评论,2007, (2)：16-26.
153.刘北成.本雅明著作的风格与翻译[J].清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2006,(6)
154.刘宓庆.论中国翻译理论基本模式[J].中国翻译,1989b,(1)
155.刘军平.解构主义的翻译观[J].外国语,1997, (2)：51-54.
156.刘军平.《尤利西斯》两种译本的比较研究[J].中国翻译,1997, (3)
157.刘军平.翻译经典与文学翻译[J].中国翻译,2002, (4)
158.刘军平.互文性与诗歌翻译[J].外语与外语教学,2003,(1)
159.刘萍.纯语言翻译观对传统的颠覆及其对文学翻译的启示[J].重庆大学学报(社会科学版),2012,(5)：148-152.
160.刘全福.当“信”与“化境”被消解时——解构主义翻译观质疑[J].中国翻译,2005,(4)：16-20.
161.刘全福.解构主义翻译观的非文化取向及其他——兼评“国内翻译研究的一大突破”一文[J].外语研究,2006,(6)：59-61.
162.刘全福.诗意的畅想：在可译性与不可译性之间——德里达关联翻译概念考辨及误读分析[J].外语教学,2009,(6)：100-104.
163.刘全福.批评视角：我国解构主义翻译研究的本土化进程[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2010,(1)：51-56.
164.刘燕.《尤利西斯》中的东方想象与身份建构[J].外国文学,2009, (5)
165.鲁苓.解释学的路径——从海德格尔到德里达[J].外语学刊,2009,(3)：27-30.
166.陆扬,论德里达解构理论[D].复旦大学1988年文艺学专业西方文艺批评方向博士论文,指导教师：蒋孔阳.
167.陆扬.德里达的幽灵[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社,2008a.
168.陆扬.德里达：翻译巴别塔[J].文艺争鸣,2008b, (3)：97-101.
169.罗丹.《尤利西斯》三个译本的比较研究[J].湖南农业大学学报(社会科学版),2008,(1)
170.罗丽文,汪军.中西文学翻译中的创造性叛逆[J].外语教学,2012,(1)
171.罗新璋.序沈苏儒著《论“信、达、雅”——严复翻译理论研究》[J].中国翻译,1998,(2)
172.罗新璋.非新无以为进[J].上海翻译,2009, (2)
173.罗选民.谈我国翻译理论研究的几个基本问题[J].中国外语,2009, (6)
174.罗选民.耶鲁解构学派的互文性研究及其对翻译的启示[J].外国文学研究,2012,(5)：150-157.
175.吕姣荣.纯粹的诗意和哲学[J].外国语言文学研究,2011,(10)：242-243.
176.吕俊.双峰并峙各炳千秋——学习《尤利西斯》的两个汉译本[J].山东外语教学,1995,(1)
177.吕俊.哲学的语言论转向对翻译研究的启示[J].外国语,2000,(5)：49-54.
178.吕俊.我国传统翻译研究中的盲点与误区[J].外国语,2001a, (5).
179.吕俊.对翻译学构建中几个问题的思考[J].中国翻译,2001b, (4)：6-9.
180.吕俊.结构,解构,建构—我国翻译研究的回顾与展望[J].中国翻译,2001c,(6)：8-11.
181.吕俊.文学翻译：一种特殊的交往形式——交往行为理论的文学翻译观[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2002a,(1)：63-66.
182.吕俊.翻译学：解构与重建——论哈贝马斯交往行动理论对翻译学的建构性意义[J].外语学刊,2002b,(1)
183.吕俊.翻译学应从解构主义那里学些什么——对九十年代中期以来我国译学研究的反思[J].外国语,2002c,(5)：48-54.
184.吕俊,侯向群.元翻译学的思考与翻译的多元性研究[J].外国语,1999,(5)
185.吕俊,侯向群.翻译研究与文化批评[J].外国语文.2009, (2)
186.马可云.论本雅明的解构主义文学翻译观[J].绍兴文理学院学报,2010,(9)：56-61.
187.马祖毅.中国翻译简史[M].北京：中国对外翻译出版公司,2007.
188.米勒.郭英剑等译.重申解构主义[C].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1998.
189.倪钢.本雅明哲学思想探微[J].自然辩证法研究,2010,(12)：62-68.
190.怒安.傅雷谈翻译[C].沈阳：辽宁教育出版社,2005.
191.潘道正.翻译之不可能——评德里达对翻译的解构[J].华北水利水电学院学报(社科版),2007, (2)：7-9.
192.庞学峰.发挥与控制的统一——德里达解构主义视角下的译者主体性研究[J].外语与外语教学,2010, (3)：59-62.
193.庞月慧,朱健平.功能学派翻译理论的解构主义印记[J].中国外语,2009,(1)：95-99.
194.彭桂芝.德里达“异延”解构主义翻译观及其理论启示[J].湖北大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2008,(6)：116-119.
195.齐智英.从目的论看萧译《尤利西斯》中的创造性叛逆[J].南都学坛(人文社会科学学报),2009,(6)
196.乔书静.译者的选择——从解构主义视角看翻译[J].太原理工大学学报(社会科学版),2010,(6)：73-82.
197.乔颖.“以后生存”还是“继续生存”——本雅明译论中译文与原文及其相关关系中的断裂性初探[J].四川外语学院学报,2006,(6)：121-125.
198.乔颖.简析德里达翻译思想的“前起源”特征[J].时代文学,2009,(1)：23-24.
199.任东升.翻译研究的神学之维[J].外语研究,2010,(4)：68-74.
200.申丹.解构主义在美国——评J·希利·斯米勒的“线条意象”[J].外国文学评论,2001,(2)：5-13.
201.申迎丽,孙致礼.由《尤利西斯》中译本看小说翻译中叙事视角的传译[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2004, (5)
202.申富英,王湘云.论《尤利西斯》中的中国形象[J].兰州大学学报,2008, (4)
203.沈苏儒.论信达雅——严复翻译理论研究[M].北京：商务印书馆,1998.
204.斯皮瓦克.陈永国,赖立里,郭英剑主编.从解构到全球化批判：斯皮瓦克读本[C].北京：北京大学出版社,2007.
205.宋瑾.解构主义音乐美学思想[J].音乐探索,2011,(3)：37-48.
206.孙会军.归化与异化——两个动态的概念[J].外语研究,2003,(4)
207.孙建光.论《尤利西斯》译者对原著的认同和转化[J].长城,2010, (2)
208.孙士聪.本雅明：重建现代世界的可经验性[J].文艺研究,2011,(12)
209.孙伟民.解构主义的后现代哲学观及文学批评意义[J].群文天地,2011,(10)
210.索绪尔.高明凯译.普通语言学教程[M].北京：商务印书馆,1999.
211.谭载喜.翻译学必须重视中西译论比较研究[J].中国翻译,1998, (2)
212.谭载喜.中西译论的相异性[J].中国翻译,2000,(1)：15-21.
213.谭德生.所指／能指的符号学批判：从索绪尔到解构主义[J].社会科学家,2011,(9)：149-153.
214.唐国全,何小玲.解构主义与翻译的忠实标准[J].外国语言文学研究,2005,(2)：53-60.
215.唐述宗,康顺理.解构主义视阈下《老人与海》四个译本的评析[J].合肥工业大学学报(社会科学版),2009,(1)：99-102.
216.仝亚辉.《尤利西斯》的意识流语言变异与翻译[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2004,(5)：59-64.
217.王宾.“不可译性”面面观[J].现代哲学,2004,(1)：81-87.
218.王大来.解构主义语境下文学翻译的美学价值取向[J].外国语文,2011,(5)
219.王东风.变异还是差异——文学翻译中文体转换失误分析[J].外国语,2004a,(1)
220.王东风.解构忠实——翻译神话的终结[J].中国翻译,2004b,(6).
221.王东风.小说翻译的语义连贯重构[J].中国翻译,2005, (5)
222.王东风.译学关键词：abusive fidelity[J].外国语,2008, (4)
223.王广州.美国解构主义理论家保罗·德曼研究述评[J].国外理论动态,2006,(3)：52-55.
224.王宏印.中国传统译论经典诠释：从道安到傅雷[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社,2003.
225.王宁.德里达与翻译理论的解构——悼念一代翻译理论宗师德里达[J].中国翻译,2005a,(1),45-47.
226.王宁.德里达与解构批评的启示：重新思考[J].清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2005b,(2)：23-28.
227.王宁.文化翻译与经典阐释[M].北京：中华书局,2006.
228.王宁.翻译研究的文化转向：解构主义的推进[J].清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2009,(6)：127-139.
229.王泉,朱岩岩.解构主义[J].外国文学,2004,(5)
230.王守仁.谈翻译的忠实——读本雅明《译者的任务》[J].山东外语教学,1996,(2)：36-38.
231.王淑芹.走向中心的边缘诗学——解构主义语境下的美国文学批评[J].甘肃社会科学,2006,(3)：152-154.
232.王颖冲.再论德里达的"relevant" translation[J].中国翻译,2011,(5)：11-19.
233.王友贵.杂沓的现代音响：乔伊斯的《尤利西斯》[J].外国文学,2003a,(3).
234.王友贵.翻译《尤利西斯》：东方与西方——金隄译学新著《三叶草与筷子》[J].中国翻译,2003,(7)
235.王振平.论翻译之道说《尤利西斯》——金隄教授访谈录[J].中国翻译,2000,(1).
236.王振平,任东升.目的与方法——对《尤利西斯》两个中译本的再思考[J].外语研究,2006, (1)
237.卫茂平,1998.海德格尔翻译思想试论[A].谢天振,翻译的理论建构与文化透视[C].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2000.
238.吴庆军.论《尤利西斯》语言的陌生化[J].外国文学研究,2005,(6)
239.吴庆军.论《尤利西斯》的互文性艺术[J].天津外国语学院学报,2006, (9)
240.吴显友.《尤利西斯》的多视角叙述及其他[J].四川外语学院学报.2004,(7)
241.奚永吉.文学翻译比较美学[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社,2001.
242.谢天振.作者本意和本文本意——解释学理论与翻译研究[J].外国语,2000,(3)
243.徐朝友.斯坦纳译学的本雅明渊源——对斯坦纳《通天塔之后》的一种解读[J].外语研究,2008,(4)：71-76.
244.徐朝友.焦灼而失落的“洞见”——评保罗·德曼《“结论”：瓦尔特·本雅明“译者的任务”》[J].外语学刊,2011,(4)：105-109.
245.徐文培,李增.互文性理论与文学批评解析[J].外语学刊,2011,(6)
246.许钧.试论译作与原作的关系[J].外语教学与研究,,2002b,(1).
247.许心宏.论解构主义视角下的小说结尾结构[J].武汉科技大学学报(社会科学版),2010,(6)：97-101.
248.严蓓雯.晚期的德里达[J].外国文学评论,2008,(1)：156-157.
249.杨柳.解构主义翻译观在中国的理论“旅行”[J].外国语,2007, (3)：60-66.
250.杨镇源.论德里达“延异”概念对文学翻译批评“忠实”伦理观之消解[J].当代文坛,2010,(1)：66-69.
251.杨镇源.论本雅明哲学思想对语言建构的现世意义[J].求索,2010, (2)：108-110.
252.杨志文.讲故事的天使——本雅明美学思想初探[J].语言文学研究,2011,(5)：20-21.
253.伊格尔顿.郭国良,陆汉臻译.沃尔特·本雅明或走向革命批评[M].南京：译林出版社,2005.
254.易晓明.《尤利西斯》的粗俗性及其功能[J].译林,2010, (5)
255.由元.《尤利西斯》汉译本的选词——兼论文学翻译策略[J].沈阳师范大学学报(社会科学版),2010,(3)
256.于洪英.关于金陡教授翻译新著《尤利西斯》[J].天津外国语学院学报(综合版),1994,(1)
257.俞吾金.形而上学发展史上的三次翻转[J].哲学基础理论研究,2010,(0)：145-167.
258.虞又铭.文学告别存在——德里达对海德格尔的推进[J].重庆社会科学,2006,(5)：42-45.
259.喻锋平.从“理念”到“纯语言”：论本雅明的语言哲学观[J].求索,2009,(11)：109-111.
260.喻锋平.论本雅明翻译思想的哲学基础[J].江西社会科学,2010,(3)：218-222.
261.袁丽梅.纵横古今跨越中西——《跨越边界：从比较文学到翻译研究》评介[J].中国翻译,2010,(6)：43-45.
262.袁伟.本雅明说的是啥?[J].国外文学,2007,(4)：47-58.
263.袁文彬.本雅明的语言观[J].外语学刊,2006,(1)：12-22.
264.袁筱一.从翻译的时代到直译的时代——基于贝尔曼视阈之上的本雅明[J].外语教学理论与实践,2011,(1)：89-95.
265.岳梁.解构：德里达的一种“形而上学”[J].西安外事学院学报,2006,(4)：1-8.
266.张德让.伽达默尔哲学解释学与翻译研究[J].中国翻译,2001a,(4).
267.张德让.论译语文化与文本选择[J].外语教学,2001b, (3)
268.张德让.“不忠的美人”——论翻译中的文化过滤现象[J].山东外语教学,2001c,(3).
269.张德让.重构体验融合——文学翻译的诠释学视界[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2005,(3)：68-70.
270.张涵.解构主义政治哲学的语言特色——解读德里达《马克思的幽灵》[J].同济大学学报(社会科学版),2011,(6)
271.张霄军.德里达翻译思想：回归、转变还是其他?[J].外语研究,2010, (2)：77-81.
272.张旭：跨越边界：从比较文学到翻译研究[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2010.
273.赵萝蕤.中译《尤利西斯》读后[J].国外文学,1995,(2)
274.郑敏.解构主义在今天[J].文学评论,2000,(4)：106-114.
275.周晓梅.翻译研究的“解构”之后[J].外语研究,2006, (6)：62-65.
276.周晓梅,吕俊.翻译批评的叙事学视角[J].外语与外语教学,2009, (2)
277.周晔,孙致礼.以残传残,以缺译缺——从《尤利西斯》看“残缺“艺术手法及传译手段[J].外语与外语研究,2009,(6).
278.朱健平.翻译的跨文化解释——哲学诠释学和接受美学模式[M].长沙：湖南人民出版社,2007.
279.庄昆良.《乔伊斯季刊》书评：金隄的汉译《尤利西斯》[J].天津外国语学院学报,1997,(1)
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |