从阐释学角度论理解及其对翻译的启示
|
摘要
在漫长的翻译史上,国内外翻译界学者对于翻译持有迥然不同的观点,尤其在阐述翻译理论时更是如此。但是,无论他们对翻译理论的看法如何不同,无一例外都要回答这样一个问题:怎样客观有效地理解文本意义。其实,他们的翻译观点和方法,或多或少都会触及下列问题:文本意义是否存在?如果文本意义存在的话,它是否是确定的?怎样准确把握文本意义?从某种意义上讲,正是因为翻译界人士对文本意义本身及把握文本意义的方法的不同理解导致了不同翻译流派的形成。因此,探索文本意义的理解将于翻译研究有本质的意义。
阐释学研究对文本意义的理解和阐释,因此与翻译有天然本质联系。本论文将从阐释学角度分析译者理解原文的过程。阐释学对翻译最有指导意义的是两个阶段,一个是处于传统阐释学时期的一般阐释学,另一个是处于现代阐释学时期的哲学阐释学。本论文将通过介绍这两个阶段对理解的主要看法,论述其对翻译的重要性及对翻译研究和实践的影响。
一般阐释学的主要代表人物,施莱尔马赫和狄尔泰认为理解是主观地重建客观的过程。读者应克服自身主观条件,重建文本作者写作时的历史、社会和个人心理的情景,从而重新体验作者的心理过程,领会他的创作意图,达成对文本意义的理解。将这些关于理解的看法应用于翻译,就意味着译者应该摒弃个人对文本的主观观点和看法,尽力掌握更多更详尽的关于文本和文本作者的背景知识,从而更加准确地把握文本意义。一方面,一般阐释学这些关于理解的思想忽视了译者的历史性和主观性;另一方面,这些思想无形中建议译者改进前理解,使之更加符合原文本对译者背景知识的要求,从而使译者更为客观准确地理解文本意义。
哲学阐释学的主要代表人物,海德格尔和伽达默尔从本体论角度论述理解。他们认为理解不是人类的主观认知活动,而是他们在世的方式。伽达默尔认为理解是历史性的存在,是视域融合的过程。将他们关于理解的主要观点应用于翻译,就意味着译者也是历史性的存在,他们的前理解根据自身所处时代不同也会有很大不同,所以自然对同一文本会有不同甚至迥异的理解。这样,强调译者的历史性,自然使译者的主体性得到重视。另外,译者的视域,文本的视域及目标语文化的视域之间的视域差说明翻译是一个阐释的过程,但并不是自由的阐释。译者的阐释受到源语文本视域和译者公共视域的限制。译者公共视域指译者与源语文化和目标语文化的人群所共享的知识。译者的理解过程就是不断控制自己的独特视域并扩展自己的公共视域使其更好地与源语文本视域和目标语文化视域融合的过程。在这一思想的指导下,翻译标准也发生了变化。翻译不仅要忠实原文更要忠实目标语文化。另外,伽达默尔对阐释学循环、时间距离和视域融合的阐述也很好地证明了复译的合理性。不过,哲学阐释学中的相对主义对翻译产生了消极的影响。
通过从阐释学角度描述翻译中的理解,本论文希望能启发译者更好地理解原文、产出相对忠实的译文。同时,本论文也希望能启发人们更加清楚地认识翻译中的理解过程,特别是更深刻地认识理解的本质,理解的条件和较为客观地理解原文的方法。
Throughout history, scholars in the translation circle at home and abroad have long held various and sometimes opposite views on the subject of translation, particularly when illustrating their translation theories. However, no matter how different their translation theories may be, all of them, without exception, will face the issue of how to validly understand the textual meaning. Further to this, their translation ideas and principles, more or less, have to touch on and even answer the following questions: Does the textual meaning exist? If the textual meaning does exist, can it be determined? Finally, how to properly determine the textual meaning? In fact, it is because of the different understandings of the textual meaning and various approaches to reaching the textual meaning that allow translation theorists and practitioners to form different schools. Hence, a probe into the understanding of textual meaning will be significant to translation studies.
Hermeneutics is a discipline that studies understanding and interpretation of textual meaning, and therefore has intrinsic relations with translation. This thesis will make a study of the translators' understanding from the perspective of hermeneutics. There are two major developing stages of hermeneutics. One is general hermeneutics and the other is philosophical hermeneutics. This thesis will illustrate the significance of the thoughts on understanding from these two stages to translation, and describe both their positive and limiting influences on translation.
In general hermeneutics, the major representatives Schleiermacher and Dilthey think that understanding is a process of subjective reconstruction of the object. The readers should overcome their subjective restrictions to reconstruct the historical, social and personal context of the author and, in this way, to re-experience the author's psychological process and grasp his intention, thus reaching the textual meaning. If those thoughts are applied to translation, it means that the translators should restrict their views and thoughts about the text, and make efforts to expand their background knowledge about the text and the textual author to access the textual meaning. On the one hand, both Schleiermacher and Dilthey ignore translators' historicality and subjectivity. On the other hand, they advise translators, though subconsciously, to modify their fore-understanding and to re-adjust it to the text, thus attaining the textual meaning in a more objective manner.
In philosophical hermeneutics, the major representatives Heidegger and Gadamer illustrate understanding from the perspective of ontology. Heidegger and Gadamer propose that understanding is not a humans' cognitive activity, but merely the mode of their being-in-the-world. Gadamer asserts that understanding is a historical existence, and it is the process of the fusion of the horizons between the text and the reader. If these thoughts are applied to translation, it means that individual translators historically exist; hence it is justified for them to have different understandings of the same text. In this sense, the subjectivity of individual translators is highlighted. Also, the gaps among a translator's horizon, the text's horizon and the target context's horizon entail that translating is interpreting. Yet translating is not free interpreting. It is controlled by the text's horizon and a translator's shared horizon. A translator's shared horizon refers to the knowledge he or she shares with other members in both the source context and the target context. A translator's understanding is the process that he or she constantly controls his or her unique horizon and expands his or her shared horizon to make it fuse with both the text's horizon and the target context's horizon as much as possible. In light of this, translation criteria also undergo some changes. Translation should not only be faithful to the source text but also to the target context. In addition, Gadamer's thoughts on the hermeneutic circle, the temporal distance and the fusion of horizons also justify the existence of re-translation. Despite this, the relativism in philosophical hermeneutics also imposes an unfavorable influence on translation.
By describing the understanding in translation from the perspective of hermeneutics, this thesis aims to inspire translators to better interpret the source texts and to produce relatively faithful translations. It also aims to enlighten translators to be able to have a better understanding of the understanding in translation, including its nature, its conditions, and the methods of validly understanding the source textual meaning.
阐释学研究对文本意义的理解和阐释,因此与翻译有天然本质联系。本论文将从阐释学角度分析译者理解原文的过程。阐释学对翻译最有指导意义的是两个阶段,一个是处于传统阐释学时期的一般阐释学,另一个是处于现代阐释学时期的哲学阐释学。本论文将通过介绍这两个阶段对理解的主要看法,论述其对翻译的重要性及对翻译研究和实践的影响。
一般阐释学的主要代表人物,施莱尔马赫和狄尔泰认为理解是主观地重建客观的过程。读者应克服自身主观条件,重建文本作者写作时的历史、社会和个人心理的情景,从而重新体验作者的心理过程,领会他的创作意图,达成对文本意义的理解。将这些关于理解的看法应用于翻译,就意味着译者应该摒弃个人对文本的主观观点和看法,尽力掌握更多更详尽的关于文本和文本作者的背景知识,从而更加准确地把握文本意义。一方面,一般阐释学这些关于理解的思想忽视了译者的历史性和主观性;另一方面,这些思想无形中建议译者改进前理解,使之更加符合原文本对译者背景知识的要求,从而使译者更为客观准确地理解文本意义。
哲学阐释学的主要代表人物,海德格尔和伽达默尔从本体论角度论述理解。他们认为理解不是人类的主观认知活动,而是他们在世的方式。伽达默尔认为理解是历史性的存在,是视域融合的过程。将他们关于理解的主要观点应用于翻译,就意味着译者也是历史性的存在,他们的前理解根据自身所处时代不同也会有很大不同,所以自然对同一文本会有不同甚至迥异的理解。这样,强调译者的历史性,自然使译者的主体性得到重视。另外,译者的视域,文本的视域及目标语文化的视域之间的视域差说明翻译是一个阐释的过程,但并不是自由的阐释。译者的阐释受到源语文本视域和译者公共视域的限制。译者公共视域指译者与源语文化和目标语文化的人群所共享的知识。译者的理解过程就是不断控制自己的独特视域并扩展自己的公共视域使其更好地与源语文本视域和目标语文化视域融合的过程。在这一思想的指导下,翻译标准也发生了变化。翻译不仅要忠实原文更要忠实目标语文化。另外,伽达默尔对阐释学循环、时间距离和视域融合的阐述也很好地证明了复译的合理性。不过,哲学阐释学中的相对主义对翻译产生了消极的影响。
通过从阐释学角度描述翻译中的理解,本论文希望能启发译者更好地理解原文、产出相对忠实的译文。同时,本论文也希望能启发人们更加清楚地认识翻译中的理解过程,特别是更深刻地认识理解的本质,理解的条件和较为客观地理解原文的方法。
Throughout history, scholars in the translation circle at home and abroad have long held various and sometimes opposite views on the subject of translation, particularly when illustrating their translation theories. However, no matter how different their translation theories may be, all of them, without exception, will face the issue of how to validly understand the textual meaning. Further to this, their translation ideas and principles, more or less, have to touch on and even answer the following questions: Does the textual meaning exist? If the textual meaning does exist, can it be determined? Finally, how to properly determine the textual meaning? In fact, it is because of the different understandings of the textual meaning and various approaches to reaching the textual meaning that allow translation theorists and practitioners to form different schools. Hence, a probe into the understanding of textual meaning will be significant to translation studies.
Hermeneutics is a discipline that studies understanding and interpretation of textual meaning, and therefore has intrinsic relations with translation. This thesis will make a study of the translators' understanding from the perspective of hermeneutics. There are two major developing stages of hermeneutics. One is general hermeneutics and the other is philosophical hermeneutics. This thesis will illustrate the significance of the thoughts on understanding from these two stages to translation, and describe both their positive and limiting influences on translation.
In general hermeneutics, the major representatives Schleiermacher and Dilthey think that understanding is a process of subjective reconstruction of the object. The readers should overcome their subjective restrictions to reconstruct the historical, social and personal context of the author and, in this way, to re-experience the author's psychological process and grasp his intention, thus reaching the textual meaning. If those thoughts are applied to translation, it means that the translators should restrict their views and thoughts about the text, and make efforts to expand their background knowledge about the text and the textual author to access the textual meaning. On the one hand, both Schleiermacher and Dilthey ignore translators' historicality and subjectivity. On the other hand, they advise translators, though subconsciously, to modify their fore-understanding and to re-adjust it to the text, thus attaining the textual meaning in a more objective manner.
In philosophical hermeneutics, the major representatives Heidegger and Gadamer illustrate understanding from the perspective of ontology. Heidegger and Gadamer propose that understanding is not a humans' cognitive activity, but merely the mode of their being-in-the-world. Gadamer asserts that understanding is a historical existence, and it is the process of the fusion of the horizons between the text and the reader. If these thoughts are applied to translation, it means that individual translators historically exist; hence it is justified for them to have different understandings of the same text. In this sense, the subjectivity of individual translators is highlighted. Also, the gaps among a translator's horizon, the text's horizon and the target context's horizon entail that translating is interpreting. Yet translating is not free interpreting. It is controlled by the text's horizon and a translator's shared horizon. A translator's shared horizon refers to the knowledge he or she shares with other members in both the source context and the target context. A translator's understanding is the process that he or she constantly controls his or her unique horizon and expands his or her shared horizon to make it fuse with both the text's horizon and the target context's horizon as much as possible. In light of this, translation criteria also undergo some changes. Translation should not only be faithful to the source text but also to the target context. In addition, Gadamer's thoughts on the hermeneutic circle, the temporal distance and the fusion of horizons also justify the existence of re-translation. Despite this, the relativism in philosophical hermeneutics also imposes an unfavorable influence on translation.
By describing the understanding in translation from the perspective of hermeneutics, this thesis aims to inspire translators to better interpret the source texts and to produce relatively faithful translations. It also aims to enlighten translators to be able to have a better understanding of the understanding in translation, including its nature, its conditions, and the methods of validly understanding the source textual meaning.
引文
[1]Catford,J.C.A linguistics Theory of Translation[M].London:Oxford University Press,1965.
[2]Gadamer,Hans-Georg.Philosophical Hermeneutics[M].(Ed.and trans.David E.Linge) Berkeley:University of California Press,1967.
[3]Gadamer,Hans-Georg.Reason in the Age of Science[M/OL].(Trans.Frederick G.Lawrence) Cambridge,Mass.:MIT Press,1982.http://www.nctlibrary.com/Reader/
[4]Gadamer,Hans-Georg.Truth and Method[M].(Trans.Garpett Barden and John Cumming) Beijing:China Social Sciences Publishing House,1999.
[5]Gentzler,Edwin.Contemporary Translation Theories[M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2004.
[6]Gethin,Amorey.Antilinguistics:A Critical Assessment of Modern Linguistic Theory and Practice[M].London:Intellect,1990.
[7]Heidegger,Martin.Being and Time[M].(Trans.John Macquarrie,Edward Robinson) Oxford:Basil Blackwell,1962.
[8]Hermans,Thee.Translation in Systems:Descriptive and System-oriented Approaches Explained[M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2004.
[9]Hirsch,E.D.Validity in Interpretation[M].New Haven and London:Yale University Press,1967.
[10]Lefevere,Andre.Translation,Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame[M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2004.
[11]Marx,Karl.The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte[A].Marx,Karl.Marx:Later Political Writings[C].(Ed.and Trans.Terreil Carver) Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1996.
[12]Nida,Eugene.C.R.Taber.The Theory and Practice of Translation[M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2004.
[13]Palmer,Richard E.Hermeneutics—Interpretation Theory in Schleiermacher,Dilthey,Heidegger,and Gadamer[M].Evanston:Northwestern University Press,1969.
[14]Ricoeur,Paul.Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences[M].(Ed.and trans,by John B.Thompson) Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1981.
[15]Pisser,James.Hermeneutics and the Voice of the Other—Re-reading Gadamer's Philosophical Hermeneutics[M].Albany:State University of New York Press,1997.
[16]Schleiermacher,Friedrich.General Hermeneutics[A].Bowie,Andrew.Hermeneutics and Criticism and Other writings[C].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1998.
[17]Schleiermacher,Friedrich.Hermeneutics[A].Bowie,Andrew.Hermeneutics and Criticism and Other writings[C].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1998.
[18]Shuttleworth,Mark.Moira,Cowie.Dictionary of Translation Studies[Z].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2004.
[19]Steiner,George.After Babel—Aspects of Language and Translation[M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
[20]安贝托·艾柯.诠释与历史[A].斯特凡·柯里尼.诠释与过度诠释[C].(王宇根译),北京:三联书店,2005.
[21]蔡欢江.文学史视域中的作品意义观[J].江西社会科学,2007,(6):67-73.
[22]曹山柯.翻译:文本意义的实现[J].外国语,1999,(3):68-72.
[23]陈大亮.翻译研究范式的变革:从主体性向主体间性的转向[D].南京:南京师范大学外国语学院,2004.
[24]陈海飞.论理解—马克思主义视野中的解释学重建[D].苏州:苏州大学,2004.
[25]陈海飞.解释学与哲学解释学[J].高校理论战线,2005,(2):54-57.
[26]陈荣东.杨必和她的翻译[J].四川外语学院学报,1997,(1):96-102.
[27]成滢.前理解与文本的解读及翻译[J].社科纵横,2006,(6):156-159.
[28]狄尔泰.历史中的意义[M].(艾彦,逸飞译)北京:中国城市出版社,2002.
[29]狄尔泰.诠释学的起源[A].洪汉鼎.理解与解释—诠释学经典文选[C].北京:东方出版社,2001.
[30]范海祥.实践阐释学视域下文本阐释的客观性对翻译的指导意义[D].南京:南京师范大学,2004.
[31]方梦之.译者的工作心理[A].张柏然,许钧.面向21世纪的译学研究[C].北京:商务印书馆,2002.
[32]傅雷.翻译经验点滴[A].罗新璋.翻译论集[C].北京:商务印书馆,1984.
[33]傅雷.论文学翻译书[A].罗新璋.翻译论集[C].北京:商务印书馆,1984.
[34]伽达默尔.文本与解释[A].严平.伽达默尔集[C].上海:上海远东出版社,1997.
[35]伽达默尔.诠释学[A].伽达默尔.真理与方法[M].(洪汉鼎译),上海:上海译文出版社,2004.
[36]郭建中.当代美国翻译理论[M].汉口:湖北教育出版社,2000.
[37]郭延礼.中国近代翻译文学概论[M].汉口:湖北教育出版社,1998.
[38]郭延礼.中国近代翻译文学史的分期及其主要特点[A].王宏志.翻译与创作—中国近代翻译小说论[C].北京:北京大学出版社,2000.
[39]赫施.解释的有效性[M].(王才勇译)北京:三联书店,1991.
[40]洪汉鼎.理解与解释—诠释学经典文选[M].北京:东方出版社,2001.
[41]黄龙胜.阐释学与文学翻译中译者的主体性[J].东华大学学报,2005,(2):19-23.
[42]孔慧怡.还以背景,还以公道—论清末民初英语侦探小说英译[A].王宏志.翻译与创作—中国近代翻译小说论[C].北京:北京大学出版社,2000.
[43]李超杰.理解生命—狄尔泰哲学引论[M].北京:中央编译出版社,1994.
[44]李德凤,林书武.理解中的原语思维[A].罗选民,屠国元.阐释与解构:翻译研究文集[C].合肥:安徽文艺出版社,2003.
[45]梁晓冬.亲历误读:我是一个九字之谜[J].中国比较文学,2003,(3):148-151.
[46]廖晶,朱献珑.论译者身份—从翻译理念的演变谈起[J].中国翻译,2005,(3):14-19.
[47]廖七一.当代西方翻译理论探索[M].南京:译林出版社,2000.
[48]刘宓庆.翻译与语言哲学[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2001.
[49]刘伟.从哲学诠释学角度看翻译中的文本解读[D].华东师范大学,2004.
[50]鲁迅.《绛洞花主》小引[A].鲁迅.鲁迅全集(第八卷):集外集拾遗补编[C].北京:人民文学出版社,2005.
[51]路文彬.贴近大师—我看名著重译[A].许钧.翻译思考录[C].汉口:湖北教育出版社,1998.
[52]吕俊.理解中的偏见与翻译的再创造[J].外语与外语教学,1999,(6):35-38.
[53]吕俊.哲学的语言论转向对翻译的启示[J].外国语,2000,(5):49-54.
[54]马红军.翻译批评散论[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2000.
[55]潘德荣,彭启福.当代诠释学中的间距概念[J].哲学研究,1994,(8):53-59.
[56]彭启福.理解之思—诠释学初论[M].合肥:安徽人民出版社,2005.
[57]申丹.谈小说翻译中译者的客观性[A].许钧.翻译思考录[C].汉口:湖北教育出版社,1998.
[58]施莱尔马赫.诠释学箴言[A].洪汉鼎.理解与解释—诠释学经典文选[C].北京:东方出版社,2001.
[59]宋志平.论翻译过程中的主体性意识[J].东北师大学报,2000,(6);84-88.
[60]孙致礼.翻译与叛逆[J].中国翻译,2001,(4):18-22.
[61]屠国元,朱献珑.译者主体性:阐释学的阐释[J].中国翻译,2003,(6):8-14.
[62]王海霞.文学翻译理解过程—文本视界与译者视界的融合[D].长沙:湖南师范大学,2004.
[63]王红娟.从哲学阐释学角度论译者的主体性[D].长春:吉林大学,2006.
[64]谢天振.翻译研究新视野[M].青岛:青岛出版社,2003.
[65]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):53-60.
[66]许钧.简论理解和阐释的空间与限度[J].外国语,2004,(1):57-61.
[67]许钧.作者、译者和读者的共鸣与视域融合—文本再创造的个案批评[J].中国翻译,2002,(3):23-27.
[68]杨武能.翻译、接受与再创造的循环—文学翻译断想之一[A].许钧.翻译思考录[C].汉口:湖北教育出版社,1998.
[69]杨晓荣.翻译批评导论[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2005.
[70]杨自俭.关于译学研究的一些想法[A].张柏然,许钧.面向21世纪的译学研究[C].北京:商务印书馆,2002.
[71]叶君健.谈文学作品的翻译[A].金圣华,黄国彬.因难见巧—名家翻译经验谈[C].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1998.
[72]殷鼎.理解的命运[M].北京:三联书店,1988.
[73]俞吾金.实践诠释学—重新解读马克思哲学与一般哲学理论[M].昆明:云南人民出版社,2001.
[74]袁洪庚.阐释学与翻译[A].外国语,1991,(5):35-38.
[75]袁莉.关于翻译主体研究的构想[A].张柏然,许钧.面向二十一世纪的译学研究[C].北京:商务印书馆,2002.
[76]乐黛云.文化差异与文化误读[A].乐黛云,勒·比松.独角兽与龙在寻找东西文化普遍性中的误读[C].北京:北京大学出版社,1995.
[77]张汝伦.意义的探究—当代西方释义学[M].辽宁:辽宁人民出版社,1986.
[78]张艳波.从解释学视角探讨译者在翻译中的理解[D].合肥:国防科学技术大学,2006.
[79]周小玲.论译者对原文文本的解读[D].长沙:湖南师范大学,2002.
[80]周仪,罗平.翻译与批评[M].汉口:湖北教育出版社,2005.
[81]朱健平.翻译的跨文化解释—哲学诠释学和接受美学模式[D].上海:华东师范大学,2003.
[2]Gadamer,Hans-Georg.Philosophical Hermeneutics[M].(Ed.and trans.David E.Linge) Berkeley:University of California Press,1967.
[3]Gadamer,Hans-Georg.Reason in the Age of Science[M/OL].(Trans.Frederick G.Lawrence) Cambridge,Mass.:MIT Press,1982.http://www.nctlibrary.com/Reader/
[4]Gadamer,Hans-Georg.Truth and Method[M].(Trans.Garpett Barden and John Cumming) Beijing:China Social Sciences Publishing House,1999.
[5]Gentzler,Edwin.Contemporary Translation Theories[M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2004.
[6]Gethin,Amorey.Antilinguistics:A Critical Assessment of Modern Linguistic Theory and Practice[M].London:Intellect,1990.
[7]Heidegger,Martin.Being and Time[M].(Trans.John Macquarrie,Edward Robinson) Oxford:Basil Blackwell,1962.
[8]Hermans,Thee.Translation in Systems:Descriptive and System-oriented Approaches Explained[M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2004.
[9]Hirsch,E.D.Validity in Interpretation[M].New Haven and London:Yale University Press,1967.
[10]Lefevere,Andre.Translation,Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame[M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2004.
[11]Marx,Karl.The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte[A].Marx,Karl.Marx:Later Political Writings[C].(Ed.and Trans.Terreil Carver) Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1996.
[12]Nida,Eugene.C.R.Taber.The Theory and Practice of Translation[M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2004.
[13]Palmer,Richard E.Hermeneutics—Interpretation Theory in Schleiermacher,Dilthey,Heidegger,and Gadamer[M].Evanston:Northwestern University Press,1969.
[14]Ricoeur,Paul.Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences[M].(Ed.and trans,by John B.Thompson) Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1981.
[15]Pisser,James.Hermeneutics and the Voice of the Other—Re-reading Gadamer's Philosophical Hermeneutics[M].Albany:State University of New York Press,1997.
[16]Schleiermacher,Friedrich.General Hermeneutics[A].Bowie,Andrew.Hermeneutics and Criticism and Other writings[C].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1998.
[17]Schleiermacher,Friedrich.Hermeneutics[A].Bowie,Andrew.Hermeneutics and Criticism and Other writings[C].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1998.
[18]Shuttleworth,Mark.Moira,Cowie.Dictionary of Translation Studies[Z].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2004.
[19]Steiner,George.After Babel—Aspects of Language and Translation[M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
[20]安贝托·艾柯.诠释与历史[A].斯特凡·柯里尼.诠释与过度诠释[C].(王宇根译),北京:三联书店,2005.
[21]蔡欢江.文学史视域中的作品意义观[J].江西社会科学,2007,(6):67-73.
[22]曹山柯.翻译:文本意义的实现[J].外国语,1999,(3):68-72.
[23]陈大亮.翻译研究范式的变革:从主体性向主体间性的转向[D].南京:南京师范大学外国语学院,2004.
[24]陈海飞.论理解—马克思主义视野中的解释学重建[D].苏州:苏州大学,2004.
[25]陈海飞.解释学与哲学解释学[J].高校理论战线,2005,(2):54-57.
[26]陈荣东.杨必和她的翻译[J].四川外语学院学报,1997,(1):96-102.
[27]成滢.前理解与文本的解读及翻译[J].社科纵横,2006,(6):156-159.
[28]狄尔泰.历史中的意义[M].(艾彦,逸飞译)北京:中国城市出版社,2002.
[29]狄尔泰.诠释学的起源[A].洪汉鼎.理解与解释—诠释学经典文选[C].北京:东方出版社,2001.
[30]范海祥.实践阐释学视域下文本阐释的客观性对翻译的指导意义[D].南京:南京师范大学,2004.
[31]方梦之.译者的工作心理[A].张柏然,许钧.面向21世纪的译学研究[C].北京:商务印书馆,2002.
[32]傅雷.翻译经验点滴[A].罗新璋.翻译论集[C].北京:商务印书馆,1984.
[33]傅雷.论文学翻译书[A].罗新璋.翻译论集[C].北京:商务印书馆,1984.
[34]伽达默尔.文本与解释[A].严平.伽达默尔集[C].上海:上海远东出版社,1997.
[35]伽达默尔.诠释学[A].伽达默尔.真理与方法[M].(洪汉鼎译),上海:上海译文出版社,2004.
[36]郭建中.当代美国翻译理论[M].汉口:湖北教育出版社,2000.
[37]郭延礼.中国近代翻译文学概论[M].汉口:湖北教育出版社,1998.
[38]郭延礼.中国近代翻译文学史的分期及其主要特点[A].王宏志.翻译与创作—中国近代翻译小说论[C].北京:北京大学出版社,2000.
[39]赫施.解释的有效性[M].(王才勇译)北京:三联书店,1991.
[40]洪汉鼎.理解与解释—诠释学经典文选[M].北京:东方出版社,2001.
[41]黄龙胜.阐释学与文学翻译中译者的主体性[J].东华大学学报,2005,(2):19-23.
[42]孔慧怡.还以背景,还以公道—论清末民初英语侦探小说英译[A].王宏志.翻译与创作—中国近代翻译小说论[C].北京:北京大学出版社,2000.
[43]李超杰.理解生命—狄尔泰哲学引论[M].北京:中央编译出版社,1994.
[44]李德凤,林书武.理解中的原语思维[A].罗选民,屠国元.阐释与解构:翻译研究文集[C].合肥:安徽文艺出版社,2003.
[45]梁晓冬.亲历误读:我是一个九字之谜[J].中国比较文学,2003,(3):148-151.
[46]廖晶,朱献珑.论译者身份—从翻译理念的演变谈起[J].中国翻译,2005,(3):14-19.
[47]廖七一.当代西方翻译理论探索[M].南京:译林出版社,2000.
[48]刘宓庆.翻译与语言哲学[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2001.
[49]刘伟.从哲学诠释学角度看翻译中的文本解读[D].华东师范大学,2004.
[50]鲁迅.《绛洞花主》小引[A].鲁迅.鲁迅全集(第八卷):集外集拾遗补编[C].北京:人民文学出版社,2005.
[51]路文彬.贴近大师—我看名著重译[A].许钧.翻译思考录[C].汉口:湖北教育出版社,1998.
[52]吕俊.理解中的偏见与翻译的再创造[J].外语与外语教学,1999,(6):35-38.
[53]吕俊.哲学的语言论转向对翻译的启示[J].外国语,2000,(5):49-54.
[54]马红军.翻译批评散论[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2000.
[55]潘德荣,彭启福.当代诠释学中的间距概念[J].哲学研究,1994,(8):53-59.
[56]彭启福.理解之思—诠释学初论[M].合肥:安徽人民出版社,2005.
[57]申丹.谈小说翻译中译者的客观性[A].许钧.翻译思考录[C].汉口:湖北教育出版社,1998.
[58]施莱尔马赫.诠释学箴言[A].洪汉鼎.理解与解释—诠释学经典文选[C].北京:东方出版社,2001.
[59]宋志平.论翻译过程中的主体性意识[J].东北师大学报,2000,(6);84-88.
[60]孙致礼.翻译与叛逆[J].中国翻译,2001,(4):18-22.
[61]屠国元,朱献珑.译者主体性:阐释学的阐释[J].中国翻译,2003,(6):8-14.
[62]王海霞.文学翻译理解过程—文本视界与译者视界的融合[D].长沙:湖南师范大学,2004.
[63]王红娟.从哲学阐释学角度论译者的主体性[D].长春:吉林大学,2006.
[64]谢天振.翻译研究新视野[M].青岛:青岛出版社,2003.
[65]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):53-60.
[66]许钧.简论理解和阐释的空间与限度[J].外国语,2004,(1):57-61.
[67]许钧.作者、译者和读者的共鸣与视域融合—文本再创造的个案批评[J].中国翻译,2002,(3):23-27.
[68]杨武能.翻译、接受与再创造的循环—文学翻译断想之一[A].许钧.翻译思考录[C].汉口:湖北教育出版社,1998.
[69]杨晓荣.翻译批评导论[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2005.
[70]杨自俭.关于译学研究的一些想法[A].张柏然,许钧.面向21世纪的译学研究[C].北京:商务印书馆,2002.
[71]叶君健.谈文学作品的翻译[A].金圣华,黄国彬.因难见巧—名家翻译经验谈[C].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1998.
[72]殷鼎.理解的命运[M].北京:三联书店,1988.
[73]俞吾金.实践诠释学—重新解读马克思哲学与一般哲学理论[M].昆明:云南人民出版社,2001.
[74]袁洪庚.阐释学与翻译[A].外国语,1991,(5):35-38.
[75]袁莉.关于翻译主体研究的构想[A].张柏然,许钧.面向二十一世纪的译学研究[C].北京:商务印书馆,2002.
[76]乐黛云.文化差异与文化误读[A].乐黛云,勒·比松.独角兽与龙在寻找东西文化普遍性中的误读[C].北京:北京大学出版社,1995.
[77]张汝伦.意义的探究—当代西方释义学[M].辽宁:辽宁人民出版社,1986.
[78]张艳波.从解释学视角探讨译者在翻译中的理解[D].合肥:国防科学技术大学,2006.
[79]周小玲.论译者对原文文本的解读[D].长沙:湖南师范大学,2002.
[80]周仪,罗平.翻译与批评[M].汉口:湖北教育出版社,2005.
[81]朱健平.翻译的跨文化解释—哲学诠释学和接受美学模式[D].上海:华东师范大学,2003.