误读理论视角下的《孙子兵法》复译研究
|
摘要
名著复译,贵在创新与超越。名著复译中,前驱译者如何对后世施加影响?后世译者如何实现阐释上的创新及对前驱的超越?迄今为止,这些问题尚鲜有人论及。本文基于对《孙子兵法》复译的个案研究,尝试对此进行探讨。
作为最有影响的中国古代军事典籍,《孙子兵法》以其文本的开放性与召唤性邀约众多译者对其进行多元解读与阐释。复译将竞争机制引入同一部作品的翻译,《孙子兵法》译者间亦不可避免地存在着争夺读者、争夺市场、争夺翻译史地位的激烈竞争,其中英文译者间的竞争尤甚。前驱译者由于时间上的先在性几乎将《孙子兵法》阐释空间使用殆尽,其译本为后世译者树立了阐释标准,阻碍着后世的阐释创新,因此在竞争中占据优势地位。后世译者如果接受前驱厘定的阐释标准,其译本将被视作前驱译本的复制品,没有什么独到之外,后世译者也将处于前驱影响的遮护之下,难以获得翻译史地位。为扭转迟到劣势并廓清自己的阐释空间,后世译者需要创造性地误读前驱译本,对前驱译本进行批评和修正,进而突“破”前驱的影响,确“立”自己的强力译者地位。本文将哈罗德·布鲁姆的“误读”理论引入《孙子兵法》复译研究,结合翻译研究主导范式的嬗变,分析后世译者误读前驱译本的各种方式以及这些误读方式的演变轨迹,力图把握《孙子兵法》复译史上不同译者间的影响关系。
在翻译研究语言学范式萌芽及确立时期,译界强调原作与译作之间的语言分析与文本对照,注重原作与译作之间的对等、等值或等效。这种做法直接影响并促成了本时期后世译者误读前驱译本的主要方式一语言学误读,即从语言学角度对前驱译本进行误读,重在突显后世的译本与原作间较前驱译本更为对等、等值或等效,有时后世译者还会基于前驱译本中的表达不当或不妥,从语言层面对前人译文进行批评和修正,以显示后世的译本更胜一筹。就《孙子兵法》翻译而言,强力的后世译者往往选择以语言层面为突破口,对前驱译本进行语言学误读,突显前驱译本中的表达不当或不妥,反衬后世译本的优越。作为首个英文译者,卡尔斯罗普对《孙子兵法》进入英语世界具有开疆拓域的作用,因而可视为《孙子兵法》英译史上的第一个强力译者。贾尔斯从文献学角度入手,对卡尔斯罗普译本中的多处误漏提出尖锐批评并加以修正,消解了卡氏影响,成就了贾尔斯自己的强力译者地位。格里菲斯以军事学角度为切入点,对贾尔斯译本中的误漏提出审慎批评并加以修正,突破了贾尔斯的影响,成为语言学范式时期唯一一位能与贾尔斯相提并论的强力译者。对原作与译作间语言分析与文本对照的过分关注极大地阻碍了后世译者的阐释创新,后世译本中或多或少地带有贾尔斯译本或格里菲斯译本的烙印。在贾氏译本、格氏译本的遮护下,其他译本的生存空间被大幅挤压,新译本推出的数量较为有限,《孙子兵法》英译活动陷入了低潮。
在翻译研究文化学范式主导时期,译界强调将原作置于更加广阔的文化背景之下进行翻译,注重翻译与文学外因素的联系以及翻译在文化系统中发挥作用的方式。这为译者解读原作提供了更为开阔的视野,也为《孙子兵法》之类的名著复译注入了新的动力与活力,间接促成了本时期后世译者误读前驱译本的主要方式—文化学误读,即从文化学角度对前驱译本进行误读,重在强调后世的译本能够塑造出全新的文化形象,突显前驱在文本解读与阐释方面的视域狭隘与拘泥守旧,从而使前驱译本相形见绌,实现后世译本的“逆崇高”。就《孙子兵法》翻译而言,强力的后世译者往往选择从改变译本塑造的文化形象入手,对前驱译本进行文化学误读,以突显前驱在《孙子兵法》解读上的拘谨,反衬后世译者在文化形象塑造上的创新。R.L.翁译本以日历式学习手册的文化形象呈现,梁荣锦译本以通俗连环漫画的文化形象呈现,加葛里亚蒂译本改写系列以实用谋略指南的文化形象呈现,均颠覆了贾尔斯译本与格里菲斯译本塑造的汉学经典与兵学经典形象。R.L.翁、梁荣锦与加葛里亚蒂是文化学范式时期的三位强力译者。
《孙子兵法》英译史中后世译者误读前驱译本以及误读方式与翻译研究主导范式联动的事实表明,前驱译者对后世的促进作用十分有限甚至对后世的成长起着阻碍作用,他们之间的影响关系不是后世译者对前驱的模仿、继承、接受和吸收,而是后世译者对前驱的误读、批评、修正和改写。历史是由强者书就的,一部《孙子兵法》复译史,在很大程度上就是一部强力的后世译者误读前驱的历史。图14幅,表11个,参考文献166篇。
What counts in the retranslation of literary classics is originality and superiority. But how did the precursory translators exert influence over the latecomers? And how could later translators achieve originality in interpretation and superiority over the precursory translators? So far, few people have touched upon these points. This dissertation, based on the case study of English retranslation of The Art of War, makes an attempt to probe into these issues.
As China's foremost ancient military study, The Art of War has appealed to multitudes of translators to interpret the meaning of its text with its openness and response-inviting structure. Retranslation ushers competition into the translation of the same literary works, and a keen competition inevitably exists among different translators for readers, for market and for historical reputation, and the fiercest one is that among English translators. The precursory translators nearly exhausted the interpretation options for The Art of War as a result of their priority, and their translations set criteria for the latecomers whose creative interpretation were therefore hindered, so they enjoyed much favorable positions in the competition. If the later translators followed such criteria, their translations would be considered as reproductions of the precursors'without any originality, and they themselves would be under the cover of the precursors'influence without any hope to gain historical positions. To reverse this disadvantageous belatedness and to clear interpretative space for themselves, the latecomers had to criticize, revise and creatively misread the precursors'translations, through which they could break away from the precursors'influence and establish themselves as strong translators. This dissertation is intended to figure out the approaches that strong later translators adopted to misread the precursors'translations and the evolving track of these approaches, so as to probe into the nature of the inter-translator relationships by introducing Harold Bloom's Misreading theory into the study of retranslation of The Art of War and taking the evolution of the prevailing paradigm of translation studies as background.
During the period when the linguistic paradigm budded and prevailed in the translation studies, emphasis was put on the linguistic analysis and textual comparison between the source text (ST) and the translated text (TT) to weigh whether functional equivalence, equal value or equivalent effect was achieved. This practice directly influenced and gave birth to linguistic misreading, the main approach that strong later translators adopted to misread the precursors' translations in this period. Linguistic misreading refers to misreading the precursors'translations linguistically, i.e. the later translators highlighted the superiority of their own translations over the precursors'in terms of functional equivalence, equal value or equivalent effect in relation to the ST, and sometimes the latecomers even criticized and revised the precursors' translations to demonstrate the superiority of their own translations. As far as the translation of The Art of War was concerned, strong late translators practiced linguistic misreading on the precursors'translations so as to highlight the expressive impropriety and inappropriateness in them. As the first English translator, E. F. Calthrop served as the pioneer to introduce The Art of War into the English world, and could therefore be regarded as the first strong translator in the English translation history of The Art of War. Lionel Giles, based on his philological perspective, sharply criticized and revised the translation errors in Calthrop's translations, cleared up Calthrop's influence, resulting in establishing himself as a much stronger translator. Samuel B. Griffith, based on his intimate knowledge of military science, cautiously criticized and revised the translation errors in Giles'translation, broke away from Giles'influence, and succeeded in making himself the only strong translator that could match Giles in this period. Overemphasis on the linguistic analysis and textual comparison between the ST and the TT greatly restrained latecomers from being creative in interpreting The Art of War, and their translations were more or less branded with Giles'and Griffith's. Under the covering of Giles'and Griffith's translations, the survival space of others'was further reduced and only a few published. The translation of The Art of War was at its low tide.
During the period when the cultural paradigm prevailed in the translation studies, translation was always conducted in a significantly wider culture-based background, with emphasis put on the connection between translation and non-literary factors and on the way translation worked within the whole cultural system. This trend provided translators with wider vision in interpreting STs, provided retranslation of literary classics such as The Art of War with new vigor and energy, and also gave rise to cultural misreading, the main approach that strong later translators adopted to misread the precursors' translations in this period. Cultural misreading refers to misreading the precursors'translations culturally, i.e. the later translators focused on the new cultural images their translations created for the ST, and highlighted the precursors'narrowness and rigidity in the interpretation of The Art of War, so as to outshine the precursors'translations and make their own translations counter-sublime. As far as the translation of The Art of War was concerned, strong later translators practiced cultural misreading on the precursors' translations from the viewpoint of changing the cultural images created by their translations, so as to highlight the precursors'restraint in interpreting The Art of War against latecomers'originality in creating cultural images. R. L Wing's translation appeared as a calendar-workbook, Leong Weng Kam's translation as a comic book, and Gary Gagliardi's rewriting serials as practical strategy guides, all of which overturned the image of Chinese classics created by Giles'translation and the image of military classics created by Griffith's translation, and helped to build these three translators as strong ones in this period.
The fact that later translators misread the precursors'translations and the misreading approaches changed with the prevailing paradigm of translation studies demonstrates that the precursors play a very limited role in forming the latecomers, even hinder their development, and that the inter-translator relationships are not the later translators'imitating, inheriting, accepting or assimilating but misreading, criticizing, revising and rewriting the precursors' translations. Just as history is dominated by the stronger, the English translation history of The Art of War is to a large extent dominated by strong later translators who kept misreading the precursors'translations.
作为最有影响的中国古代军事典籍,《孙子兵法》以其文本的开放性与召唤性邀约众多译者对其进行多元解读与阐释。复译将竞争机制引入同一部作品的翻译,《孙子兵法》译者间亦不可避免地存在着争夺读者、争夺市场、争夺翻译史地位的激烈竞争,其中英文译者间的竞争尤甚。前驱译者由于时间上的先在性几乎将《孙子兵法》阐释空间使用殆尽,其译本为后世译者树立了阐释标准,阻碍着后世的阐释创新,因此在竞争中占据优势地位。后世译者如果接受前驱厘定的阐释标准,其译本将被视作前驱译本的复制品,没有什么独到之外,后世译者也将处于前驱影响的遮护之下,难以获得翻译史地位。为扭转迟到劣势并廓清自己的阐释空间,后世译者需要创造性地误读前驱译本,对前驱译本进行批评和修正,进而突“破”前驱的影响,确“立”自己的强力译者地位。本文将哈罗德·布鲁姆的“误读”理论引入《孙子兵法》复译研究,结合翻译研究主导范式的嬗变,分析后世译者误读前驱译本的各种方式以及这些误读方式的演变轨迹,力图把握《孙子兵法》复译史上不同译者间的影响关系。
在翻译研究语言学范式萌芽及确立时期,译界强调原作与译作之间的语言分析与文本对照,注重原作与译作之间的对等、等值或等效。这种做法直接影响并促成了本时期后世译者误读前驱译本的主要方式一语言学误读,即从语言学角度对前驱译本进行误读,重在突显后世的译本与原作间较前驱译本更为对等、等值或等效,有时后世译者还会基于前驱译本中的表达不当或不妥,从语言层面对前人译文进行批评和修正,以显示后世的译本更胜一筹。就《孙子兵法》翻译而言,强力的后世译者往往选择以语言层面为突破口,对前驱译本进行语言学误读,突显前驱译本中的表达不当或不妥,反衬后世译本的优越。作为首个英文译者,卡尔斯罗普对《孙子兵法》进入英语世界具有开疆拓域的作用,因而可视为《孙子兵法》英译史上的第一个强力译者。贾尔斯从文献学角度入手,对卡尔斯罗普译本中的多处误漏提出尖锐批评并加以修正,消解了卡氏影响,成就了贾尔斯自己的强力译者地位。格里菲斯以军事学角度为切入点,对贾尔斯译本中的误漏提出审慎批评并加以修正,突破了贾尔斯的影响,成为语言学范式时期唯一一位能与贾尔斯相提并论的强力译者。对原作与译作间语言分析与文本对照的过分关注极大地阻碍了后世译者的阐释创新,后世译本中或多或少地带有贾尔斯译本或格里菲斯译本的烙印。在贾氏译本、格氏译本的遮护下,其他译本的生存空间被大幅挤压,新译本推出的数量较为有限,《孙子兵法》英译活动陷入了低潮。
在翻译研究文化学范式主导时期,译界强调将原作置于更加广阔的文化背景之下进行翻译,注重翻译与文学外因素的联系以及翻译在文化系统中发挥作用的方式。这为译者解读原作提供了更为开阔的视野,也为《孙子兵法》之类的名著复译注入了新的动力与活力,间接促成了本时期后世译者误读前驱译本的主要方式—文化学误读,即从文化学角度对前驱译本进行误读,重在强调后世的译本能够塑造出全新的文化形象,突显前驱在文本解读与阐释方面的视域狭隘与拘泥守旧,从而使前驱译本相形见绌,实现后世译本的“逆崇高”。就《孙子兵法》翻译而言,强力的后世译者往往选择从改变译本塑造的文化形象入手,对前驱译本进行文化学误读,以突显前驱在《孙子兵法》解读上的拘谨,反衬后世译者在文化形象塑造上的创新。R.L.翁译本以日历式学习手册的文化形象呈现,梁荣锦译本以通俗连环漫画的文化形象呈现,加葛里亚蒂译本改写系列以实用谋略指南的文化形象呈现,均颠覆了贾尔斯译本与格里菲斯译本塑造的汉学经典与兵学经典形象。R.L.翁、梁荣锦与加葛里亚蒂是文化学范式时期的三位强力译者。
《孙子兵法》英译史中后世译者误读前驱译本以及误读方式与翻译研究主导范式联动的事实表明,前驱译者对后世的促进作用十分有限甚至对后世的成长起着阻碍作用,他们之间的影响关系不是后世译者对前驱的模仿、继承、接受和吸收,而是后世译者对前驱的误读、批评、修正和改写。历史是由强者书就的,一部《孙子兵法》复译史,在很大程度上就是一部强力的后世译者误读前驱的历史。图14幅,表11个,参考文献166篇。
What counts in the retranslation of literary classics is originality and superiority. But how did the precursory translators exert influence over the latecomers? And how could later translators achieve originality in interpretation and superiority over the precursory translators? So far, few people have touched upon these points. This dissertation, based on the case study of English retranslation of The Art of War, makes an attempt to probe into these issues.
As China's foremost ancient military study, The Art of War has appealed to multitudes of translators to interpret the meaning of its text with its openness and response-inviting structure. Retranslation ushers competition into the translation of the same literary works, and a keen competition inevitably exists among different translators for readers, for market and for historical reputation, and the fiercest one is that among English translators. The precursory translators nearly exhausted the interpretation options for The Art of War as a result of their priority, and their translations set criteria for the latecomers whose creative interpretation were therefore hindered, so they enjoyed much favorable positions in the competition. If the later translators followed such criteria, their translations would be considered as reproductions of the precursors'without any originality, and they themselves would be under the cover of the precursors'influence without any hope to gain historical positions. To reverse this disadvantageous belatedness and to clear interpretative space for themselves, the latecomers had to criticize, revise and creatively misread the precursors'translations, through which they could break away from the precursors'influence and establish themselves as strong translators. This dissertation is intended to figure out the approaches that strong later translators adopted to misread the precursors'translations and the evolving track of these approaches, so as to probe into the nature of the inter-translator relationships by introducing Harold Bloom's Misreading theory into the study of retranslation of The Art of War and taking the evolution of the prevailing paradigm of translation studies as background.
During the period when the linguistic paradigm budded and prevailed in the translation studies, emphasis was put on the linguistic analysis and textual comparison between the source text (ST) and the translated text (TT) to weigh whether functional equivalence, equal value or equivalent effect was achieved. This practice directly influenced and gave birth to linguistic misreading, the main approach that strong later translators adopted to misread the precursors' translations in this period. Linguistic misreading refers to misreading the precursors'translations linguistically, i.e. the later translators highlighted the superiority of their own translations over the precursors'in terms of functional equivalence, equal value or equivalent effect in relation to the ST, and sometimes the latecomers even criticized and revised the precursors' translations to demonstrate the superiority of their own translations. As far as the translation of The Art of War was concerned, strong late translators practiced linguistic misreading on the precursors'translations so as to highlight the expressive impropriety and inappropriateness in them. As the first English translator, E. F. Calthrop served as the pioneer to introduce The Art of War into the English world, and could therefore be regarded as the first strong translator in the English translation history of The Art of War. Lionel Giles, based on his philological perspective, sharply criticized and revised the translation errors in Calthrop's translations, cleared up Calthrop's influence, resulting in establishing himself as a much stronger translator. Samuel B. Griffith, based on his intimate knowledge of military science, cautiously criticized and revised the translation errors in Giles'translation, broke away from Giles'influence, and succeeded in making himself the only strong translator that could match Giles in this period. Overemphasis on the linguistic analysis and textual comparison between the ST and the TT greatly restrained latecomers from being creative in interpreting The Art of War, and their translations were more or less branded with Giles'and Griffith's. Under the covering of Giles'and Griffith's translations, the survival space of others'was further reduced and only a few published. The translation of The Art of War was at its low tide.
During the period when the cultural paradigm prevailed in the translation studies, translation was always conducted in a significantly wider culture-based background, with emphasis put on the connection between translation and non-literary factors and on the way translation worked within the whole cultural system. This trend provided translators with wider vision in interpreting STs, provided retranslation of literary classics such as The Art of War with new vigor and energy, and also gave rise to cultural misreading, the main approach that strong later translators adopted to misread the precursors' translations in this period. Cultural misreading refers to misreading the precursors'translations culturally, i.e. the later translators focused on the new cultural images their translations created for the ST, and highlighted the precursors'narrowness and rigidity in the interpretation of The Art of War, so as to outshine the precursors'translations and make their own translations counter-sublime. As far as the translation of The Art of War was concerned, strong later translators practiced cultural misreading on the precursors' translations from the viewpoint of changing the cultural images created by their translations, so as to highlight the precursors'restraint in interpreting The Art of War against latecomers'originality in creating cultural images. R. L Wing's translation appeared as a calendar-workbook, Leong Weng Kam's translation as a comic book, and Gary Gagliardi's rewriting serials as practical strategy guides, all of which overturned the image of Chinese classics created by Giles'translation and the image of military classics created by Griffith's translation, and helped to build these three translators as strong ones in this period.
The fact that later translators misread the precursors'translations and the misreading approaches changed with the prevailing paradigm of translation studies demonstrates that the precursors play a very limited role in forming the latecomers, even hinder their development, and that the inter-translator relationships are not the later translators'imitating, inheriting, accepting or assimilating but misreading, criticizing, revising and rewriting the precursors' translations. Just as history is dominated by the stronger, the English translation history of The Art of War is to a large extent dominated by strong later translators who kept misreading the precursors'translations.
引文
[1]央视网.现身海湾战争的“神秘中国人”[EB/OL].[2008-02-13].http://space.tv.cctv.com/article/ARTI1202890696900417.
[2]常征.兵学圣典《孙子》及孙氏家族[J].北京社会科学,1995(3)：73.
[3]冯梦龙,蔡元放.东周列国志[M].北京：人民文学出版社,1979：694,696,1031.
[4]司马迁.史记[Z].北京：中华书局,1959：2161-2162,2175-2177.
[5]Griffith, Samuel B. Sun Tzu:The Art of War. London/Oxford/New York: Clarendon Press,1963:v, vi, xi, xiv,5,9,12,27,36,37,38,43-55,45,63,67,73, 74,76,77,78,79-80,92,97-98,103,134,138,139,147,176,177-178,181,182, 183,187-191.
[6]钱谷融,印永清.顾颉刚书话[M].杭州：浙江人民出版社,1998：161-165.
[7]李恒昌.《孙子兵法》到底是谁写的?—一段孙武谜案让几多史学家丢了颜面[EB/OL].[2011-10-25].http://www.360doc.com/content/11/1025/10/2699257 158890740.html.
[8]Fung Y-lan(冯友兰).History of Chinese Philosophy. Princeton:Princeton University Press,1952:20.
[9]新华网.《孙子兵法》暗藏2个争论千年的疑点[EB/OL].[2008-04-16].http://news.xinhuanet.com/mil/2008-04/16/content_7987476.html.
[10]孟西安.《孙子兵法》八十二篇在西安发现[N].人民日报,1996-9-18(5).
[11]吴九龙.《孙子兵法》八十二篇考伪[N].光明日报,1996-12-17(5).
[12]于汝波.孙子兵法研究史[M].北京：军事科学出版社,2001：15,215-216,233,240,241,242-243,243,244,245,249,271,281,298.
[13]Tang Zi-chang(唐子长). Principles of conflict:recompilation and New English translation with annotation on Sun Zi's Art of War. San Rafael, California:T.C. Press,1969:175,176,227.
[14]中国百科网.《孙子兵法》[EB/OL].[2007-02-19]. http://www.chinabaike.com/ article/292/305/2007/2007021945466.html.
[15]巴尔塔沙·葛拉西安.最伟大的三大智慧奇书[M].陈收凯编译.哈尔滨： 哈尔滨出版社,2004：2.
[16]王铭.20世纪《孙子兵法》英译本研究—以翟林奈与格里菲斯为中心[D].北京：清华大学,2005：3-4,18.
[17]Giles, Lionel. Sun Tzu on the Art of War:The Oldest Military Treatise in the World. London:Luzac Co.,1910:the opening page, VII, VIII, VIII-IX, IX, X, XVII, XXV, XXVIII, XXXI-XXXII,XXXI-XXXVII, XXXIII-XXXIV, XXXIV, XXXV-XLI, XLII-XLIII, XLIII-XLIX,1,3,6,9-10,11,13-14,14,17,20-21, 25,27,28,31,32,38,41,46,47,51,58,60,73,76,82,83,98,98-99,99,100, 127,141-142,148,149,157,163,170,172,176,181.
[18]Minford, John. The Art of War. New York:Viking Press,2002:xxxviii,11,23.
[19]Lau, D. C. "Some Notes on the Sun tzu", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, Vol.28,1965:317-335.
[20]Bloom, Harold. The Anxiety of Influence:A Theory of Poetry. New York:Oxford University Press,1973:5,5-6,15,24,30,35.
[21]Bloom, Harold. A Map of Misreading. New York:Oxford University Press,1975: 3,4,69.
[22]哈罗德·布鲁姆.影响的焦虑：一种诗歌理论[M].徐文博译.南京：江苏教育出版社,2005：2.
[23]Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory:An Introduction. Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press,1983:66-67,74,183.
[24]刘仲华.莫言领取2012年诺贝尔文学奖 诺贝尔晚宴致辞感谢[EB/OL]. [2012-12-11]. http://culture.people.com.cn/n/2012/1211/c87423-1985 6877.html.
[25]吴秀明,董雪.诺贝尔文学奖与文学语言翻译—兼谈中国文学“走向世界”的文化就对策略[J].文艺理论研究,2009(5)：43,47-48.
[26]朱立元.当代西方文艺理论[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,1999：4.
[27]Juhl, P. D. Interpretation:An essay in the Philosophy of Literary Criticism. Princeton University Press,1980:47-48.
[28]Hirsch, E. D. Validity in Interpretation. New Haven:Yale University Press,1976: 25.
[29]李建盛.理解事件与文本意义—文学诠释学[M].上海：上海译文出版社,2002：64,113.
[30]Wimsatt, W. K.& M. C. Beardsley. "The Intentional Fallacy", "The Affective Fallacy". The Verbal Icon. New York:Columbia University Press,1958.
[31]Beardsley, Monroe C. "The Authority of the Text", in Gary Iseminger (ed.). Intention and Interpretation. Temple University Press,1992:36.
[32]诺思罗普·弗莱.批评的剖析[M].陈慧等译.北京：百花文艺出版社,1998：466.
[33]Ingarden, Roman. The Literary Work of Art, Trans. George G. Grabowicz. Evanston, Illinois:Northwestern University Press,1973:19,21-22,63,336.
[34]Sartre, Jean-Paul. Qu'est-ce que la litterature? Editions Gallimard,1948:95.
[35]Barthes, Roland. "The Death of the Author", in Philip Rice and Patricia Waugh (eds.). Modern Literary Theory:A Reader (2nd edition). London:Edward Amold,1992:118.
[36]汉斯-格奥尔格·加达默尔.真理与方法[M].洪汉鼎译.上海：上海译文出版社,2002：12,211-212,393.
[37]朱立元.接受美学导论[M].合肥：安徽教育出版社,2004：63-64,75,157,158,160,169,176,180,184,188-189,190,193.
[38]罗宾·乔治·科林伍德.艺术原理[M].王至元,陈华中译.北京：中国社会科学院出版社,1985：331.
[39]勒内·韦勒克,奥斯汀·沃伦.文学理论[M].刘象愚译.北京：三联书社,1984：155,165.
[40]安伯托·艾柯等.诠释与过度诠释[C].王宇根译.北京：三联书店,1997：89.
[41]Said, Edward W. "The Text, the World, the Critic". The Bulletin of the Midwest Modern Language Association. Vol.8, No.2 (Autumn),1975:3.
[42]鲁迅.鲁迅全集(第七卷)[M].北京：北京人民出版社,1988：419.
[43]乐黛云.文化差异与文化误读[A].乐黛云,勒·比松.独角兽与龙[C].北京：北京大学出版社,1995：110.
[44]哈罗德·布鲁姆.误读图示[M].朱立元,陈克明译.天津：天津人民出版社,2008：90.
[45]杨武能.阐释、接受与再创造的循环—文学翻译断想之一[J].中国翻译,1987(6)：4.
[46]瓦尔特·F·法伊特.误读作为文化间理解的条件[A].叶爱民译.乐黛云,张辉.文化传递与文学形象[C].北京：北京大学出版社,1999：85.
[47]方梦之.译学辞典[Z].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2004：7,132,132-133.
[48]李新朝,张磷.重译中的误读和误译—基于《哈克贝利·费恩历险记》的研究[J].杨州大学学报,2008(6)：116-121.
[49]罗曼·英伽登.对文学的艺术作品的认识[M].陈燕谷等译.北京：中国文联出版公司,1988：154-155.
[50]Iser, Wolfgang. The Implied Reader. Baltimore:The Johns Hopkins University Press,1978:46.
[51]Iser, Wolfgang. The Act of Reading:A Theory of Aesthetic Response. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press,1980:31,48.
[52]Wellek, Rene & Austin Warren. Theory of Literature (3rd edition). Harmondsworth Middlesex:Penguin Books Ltd.,1970:157.
[53]Jakobson, Roman. "On Linguistic Aspects of Translation", in Reubea A. Brower (ed.). On Translation. New York:Oxford University Press,1966:232-239.
[54]Brooks, Bruce E. "The Present State and Future Prospects of Pre-Han Text Studies", in Sino-Platonic Papers 46,1994:59-62.
[55]张英基.秦汉齐鲁语言简论[EB/OL]. [2009-05-21].http://www.iguoxue.cn/html/75/n-46575.html.
[56]蔡英杰.《孙子兵法》语法研究[D].合肥：安徽大学,2003：6.
[57]Calthrop, E. F. The Book of War:The Military Classic of the Far East. London: John Murray,1908:6,8,9,14,15,16,17,18,25,26,28,29,30,31,33,34,37, 38,39,45,47,48,53,67,69.
[58]Clavell, James. The art of war. New York:Delacorte Press,1983:1-2,21,62.
[59]黄朴民,赵海军.孙子兵法集注[M].长沙：岳麓书社,2002：1,9,29,36,43,45,123,132,182,207,207-208,260,268,278,293.
[60]Cheng Lin(郑麐).The art of war:military manual written cir.510 B.C. /Original Chinese text appended. Shanghai:World Book Co., Ltd.,1946:26.
[61]吴九龙.孙子校释[M].北京：军事科学出版社,1991：234.
[62]于汝波.《孙子兵法》释疑三则[J].济南大学学报,2000(3)：20.
[63]百度文库.历代百家评《孙子》[EB/OL].[2011-04-15].http://news.china.com/zh_cn/history/all/11025807/20050513/12311932.html.
[64]吴如嵩.孙子兵法浅说[M].北京：解放军出版社,1999：22.
[65]Gagliardi, Gary. The Art of War:In Sun Tzu's Own Words. Seattle:Clearbridge Publishing,1999:the opening page, xi,35,64-65.
[66]Cleary, Thomas. The Art of War. Boston/London:Shambhala Publications Inc., 1988:VII,87,163,166.
[67]Ames, Roger T. Sun-tzu:The Art of Warfare:The First English Translation Incorporating the Recently Discovered Yin-ch'ueh-shan Texts. New York: Ballantine Books,1993:103,116,120.
[68]Wing, R. L. The Art of Strategy:A New Translation of Sun Tzu's Classic The Art of War. New York/London/Toronto/Sydney/Auckland:Doubleday,1988: 10,10-11,11,13,14,14-15,15,26-27,49,51,63,83,95,115.
[69]Mair, Victor H. The Art of War/Sun Zi's Military Methods. New York:Columbia University Press,2007:85,92,94.
[70]Denma Translation Group. The Art of War:The Denma Translation. Boston: Shambhala Publications,2001:9,30,30-31.
[71]Leong Weng Kam. The Art of War. Singapore:Asiapac Books,1991:2,28,29, 43,45,59,60.
[72]杨善群.孙子评传[M].南京：南京大学出版社,1995：1.
[73]北京大学哲学系外国哲学史教研室.古希腊罗马哲学[M].北京：三联书店,1957：23.
[74]Zhang Huimin(张惠民).Sunzi:the Art of War with Commentaries. Beijing:Chinese Literature Publishing House,1995:291.
[75]尹振环.《老子》从《孙子兵法》中借鉴了什么—也谈《孙子兵法》早于《老子》[J].学术月刊,2004(11)：80.
[76]中华网.档案解密：是谁把《孙子兵法》推荐到了美国?[EB/OL]. [2005-05-13]. http://news.china.com/zh_cn/history/all/11025807/20 050513/12311932.html.
[77]Lefevere, Andre. Translation/History/Culture:A Sourcebook[C]. New York: Routledge,1992:14.
[78]罗新璋.复译之难[J].中国翻译,1991(5)：29,30.
[79]托马斯·库恩.科学革命的结构[M].金吾伦,胡新和译.北京：北京大学出版社,2003：4,9,34,40,49,62,69,75,100,101,157.
[80]托马斯·库恩.必要的张力—科学的传统和变革论文选[M].范岱年,纪树立等译.北京：北京大学出版社,2004：231,287,288.
[81]蒋新苗.浅析库恩范式的方法论功能[J].东岳论丛,1994(6)：56.
[82]吴国盛.《北京大学科技哲学丛书》总序[A].托马斯·库恩.哥白尼革命西方思想发展中的行星天文学[M].吴国盛,张东林,李立译.北京：北京大学出版社,2003：1.
[83]陈公正.蔓延的“范式”[J].科技中国,2001(1)：111.
[84]马祖毅.中国翻译通史(古代部分全一卷)·总概述[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社,2006：1.
[85]谭载喜.西方翻译简史[M].北京：商务印书馆,1991：4,26,36-37,47.
[86]潘文国.当代西方的翻译学研究—兼谈“翻译学”的学科性问题[J].中国翻译,2002(1)：32.
[87]傅勇林,朱志瑜.西方译学研究—学术范式的变革[J].外语与外语教学,1999(6)：30.
[88]吕俊,侯向群.翻译学：一个建构主义的视角[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2006：55.
[89]朱献珑.译学范式与译者主体[D].中南大学博士论文,2011年6月：5-6.
[90]贺麟.谈谈翻译[J].中国社会科学院研究生院学报,1990(3)：36.
[91]许钧.文学复译是一种文化积累—我译《不能承受的生命之轻》[A].许钧.生命之轻与翻译之重[M].北京：文化艺术出版社,2007：65.
[92]瓦尔特·本雅明.译者的任务[A].陈浪译.谢天振,当代国外翻译理论[C].天津：南开大学出版社,2008：325.
[93]许渊冲.谈重译—兼评许钧[J].外语与外语教学,1996(6)：56.
[94]陆谷孙.英汉大词典[Z].上海：上海译文出版社,1993：1574.
[95]林煌天.中国翻译辞典[Z].武汉：湖北教育出版社,1997：1327.
[96]袁筱一.最难的事[J].读书,1996(4)：75-76.
[97]中国社会科学院外国文学研究所《世界文论》编辑委员会.布拉格学派及其他[C].北京：社会科学文献出版社,1995：57.
[98]安伯托·艾柯.开放的作品[M].刘儒庭译.北京：新星出版社,2010：4.
[99]许钧.翻译不可能有定本[J].博览群书,1996(8)：15.
[100]方平.不存在理想的范本—文学翻译工作者的思考[J].上海文化,1995(5)：18-20.
[101]萧乾.译书并无专利同行也非冤家[N].文汇报,1996-8-17(6).
[102]路文彬.贴近大师—我看“名著重译”[N].中华读书报,1996-6-19(7).
[103]林一安.大势所趋话复译[J].出版广角.1996(5)：26.
[104]袁筱一.一个枝头的累累果实—关于名著复译[A].许 钧.翻译思考录[C].武汉：湖北教育出版社,1998：164.
[105]许渊冲.译学要敢为天下先[J].中国翻译,1999(2)：8-9.
[106]谢天振.文学翻译不可能有定本—兼与罗新璋先生商榷[N].中华读书报,1996-12-4(6).
[107]哈罗德·布鲁姆.西方正典[M].江宁康译.南京：译林出版社,2005：6.
[108]哈罗德·布鲁姆.批评、正典结构与预言[M].吴琼译.北京：中国社会科学出版社,2000：99.
[109]Tytler, A.F. Essay on the Principles of Translation. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2007:9.
[110]钱钟书.管锥编(第三册)[M].北京：中华书局,1979：1101.
[111]谢天振.当代国外翻译理论[M].天津：南开大学出版社,2008：1,198,199.
[112]李延福.国外语言学通观(上)[M].济南：山东教育出版社,1996：304.
[113]Jakobson, Roman. "On Linguistic Aspects of Translation", in Reubea A. Brower (ed.). On Translation. New York:Oxford University Press,1966: 232-239.
[114]Catford, J. C. A Linguistic Theory of Translation:An Essay in Applied Linguistics. London:Oxford University Press,1965:94.
[115]Nida, Eugene A.& Charles R. Taber. The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden:E.J. Brill,1969:12.
[116]Newmark, Peter. Approaches to Translation. Oxford:Pergamon,1981:39.
[117]徐亚楠. 《孙子兵法》西行路[EB/OL]. [2007-04-07].http://www.china.com.cn/zhuanti/2yw/2007-04/07/content_8081008.htm.
[118]苗力田.关于亚里斯多德著作的汉译[A].许钧.翻译思考录[C].武汉：湖北教育出版社,1998：24.
[119]宋成有.新编日本近代史[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2006：75-76.
[120]奚学明,杨宏富等.彩图世界五千年(五)[M].上海：少年儿童出版社,1992：1185-1190.
[121]Lefevere, Andre. "Mother Courage's Cucumbers:Text, System and Refraction in a Theory of Literature", in Lawrence Venuti (ed.). The Translation Studies Reader. London and New York:Routledge,2000:234.
[122]维基百科.孙子兵法·翻译本[EB/OL]. [2012-04-08]. http://zh.wikipedia.org/ wiki/%E5%AD%99%E5%AD%90%E5%85%B5%E6%B3%95.
[123]Hamishion. Something new under the Sun:E.F. Calthrop and the art of war[EB/OL]. [2007-05-02]. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/ 09555809008721376.
[124]王铭.最早的《孙子兵法》英译本及其与日本的关系[J].世界汉学,2006(1)：136.
[125]Bob Sutton. Preface to the Project Gutenburg Etext[EB/OL]. [2007-04-23]. http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=2057619&pageno=2.
[126]中国社会科学院近代史研究所翻译室.近代来华外国人名辞典[Z].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1981：166-167.
[127]中国国家图书馆网.中国学·汉学家·翟理思[EB/OL].[2008-07-18].http://form.nlc.gov.cn/sino/show.php?id=81.
[128]杨丙安.宋本《十一家注孙子》及其流变[A].孙子新探[C].北京：解放军出版社,1990：69,13.
[129]吴春秋.外国军事人物辞典[Z].北京：世界知识出版社,1996：202.
[130]Wikipedia. Samuel B. Griffith[EB/OL].[2012-11-08]. http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Samuel B. Griffith.
[131]罗贯中.三国演义[M].北京：人民文学出版社,1953：186-188.
[132]中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室.现代汉语词典[Z].北京：商务印书馆,1978：937,596.
[133]Onions, C.T. Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press,1966:513,851.
[134]林一安.大势所趋话复译—从西葡语文学翻译谈到新译《堂吉诃德》[J].出版广角,1996(5)：53.
[135]屠国元,章国军.同根相煎急—试析贾尔斯对卡尔斯罗普《孙子》译本的误读[J].中南大学学报(社会科学版),2013(1)：166-169.
[136]Bassnett, Susan & Andre Lefevere (eds.) Translation, History and Culture. London/New York:Pinter Publishers,1990:ix,4.
[137]Gentzler, Edwin. Contemporary Translation Theories. London:Routledge, 1993:2,77,93,187.
[138]Holmes, James. "The Name and Nature of Translation Studies", in Lawrence Venuti (ed.). The Translation Studies Reader. London and New York: Routledge,2000:172-183.
[139]Hermans, Theo. Translation in Systems:Descriptive and System-oriented Approaches Explained. Manchester:St. Jerome Publishing,1999:30,110.
[140]Even-Zohar, Itamar. "The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem" In Holmes, James S. Jose Lambert, and Raymond van den Broeck (eds.). Literature and Translation:New Perspectives in Literary Studies. Leuven:Acco,1978:117-127.
[141]郭建中.当代美国翻译理论[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社,2000：136.
[142]王洪涛.翻译学的学科建构与文化转向[M].上海：上海译文出版社,2008：79,104-124,211,250,255,274-280.
[143]Bassnett, Susan. Translation Studies. London:Methuen & Co., Ltd.,1980:1.
[144]Hermans, Theo (ed.). The Manipulation of Literature:Studies in Literary Translation. London/Sydney:Croom Helm,1985:9.
[145]Snell-Hornby, Mary. Translation Studies:An Integrated Approach. Amsterdam /Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company,1988:3,46.
[146]Toury, Gideon. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company,1995:10.
[147]Levefere, Andre. Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame. London:Routledge,1992:vii,1,4,14-15.
[148]曹明伦.Translation Studies在中国的名与实—兼谈翻译的学科范围和界线问题[J].上海翻译,2006(3)：4.
[149]A. G Smith, Ed., Communication and Culture:Readings in the Codes of Human Interaction. New York:Holt, Rinehart,& Winston,1966:3.
[150]E. T. Hall, Beyond Culture. Garden City, NY:Anchor Doubleday,1977:14.
[151]谭载喜.文化对比与翻译[J].中国翻译,1986(5)：7.
[152]Holmes, James S. Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies. Amsterdam:Rodopi,1988:94.
[153]谢天振.翻译研究“文化转向”之后—翻译研究文化转向的比较文学意义[J].中国比较文学,2006(3)：1-2.
[154]Bassnett, Susan & Andre Lefevere. Constructing Cultures:Essays on Literary Translation. Clevedon:Multilingual Matters Ltd.,1998:136.
[155]李和庆,黄皓,薄振杰.西方翻译研究方法论：70年代以后[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2005：130.
[156]曾文雄.“文化转向”核心问题与出路[J].外语学刊,2006(2)：90.
[157]Steiner, George. After Babel:Aspects of Language and Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1975:49.
[158]吕俊.论翻译研究的本体回归—对翻译研究“文化转向”的反思[J].外国语,2004(4)：56.
[159]Levefere, Andre. "Mother Courage's Cucumbers:Text, System and Refraction in a Theory of Literature", in Lawrence Venuti (ed.). The Translation Studies Reader. London and New York:Routledge,2000:234,235.
[160]陈吉荣.论改写理论在中西文学史与翻译研究中的作用[J].文艺理论研究,2008(5)：60.
[161]达尼埃尔-享利·巴柔.从文化形象到集体想象物[A].孟华译.比较文学形象学[C].孟华.北京：北京大学出版社,2001：120.
[162]达尼埃尔-享利·巴柔.形象学理论研究：从文学史到诗学[A].蒯轶萍译.比较文学形象学[C].孟华.北京：北京大学出版社,2001：202.
[163]达尼埃尔-享利·巴柔.形象[A].孟华译.比较文学形象学[C].孟华.北京：北京大学出版社,2001：157.
[164]让-马克·莫哈.试论文学形象学的研究史及方法论[A].孟华译.比较文学形象学[C].孟华.北京：北京大学出版社,2001：25.
[165]姜智芹.当东方与西方相遇—比较文学专题研究[M].济南：齐鲁书社,2008：273.
[166]Dr._Tzun_Tzu. Book Review:R. L. Wing's "The Art of Strategy" (1988) [EB/OL]. [2005-03-05]. http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php? t=103659&page=1.
[167]中国国防资讯网. 《孙子》在美国[EB/OL]. [2005-11-28].http://info.cndsi.com/html/20051128/1965125114.html.
[168]百度百科.漫画家蔡志忠[EB/OL].[2011-12-27].http://baike.baidu.com/view/20308.htm.
[169]蔡志忠.孙子说：兵学的先知[M].北京：三联书店,2000：28-29.
[170]Science of Strategy Institute. Gary Gagliardi-Author, Speaker, Trainer[EB/OL]. [2011-11-13]. http://www.garygagliardi.com/?q=content/ business-biography.
[171]Gagliardi, Gary. A Brief History of How I Started Teaching of Strategy [EB/OL]. [2009-04-02]. http://www.garygagliardi.com/?q=content/ brief-history-how-i-started-teaching-strategy.
[172]sonshi.com. Interview with Gary Gagliardi [EB/OL]. [2011-11-13] http://www.sonshi.com/gagliardi.html.
[173]The Science of Sun Tzu. The Amazing Secrets of Sun Tzu's The Art of War[EB/OL]. [2011-11-08]. http://www.scienceofstrategy.org/main/content/ amazing-secrets-line-book.
[174]Gagliardi, Gary. The Art of War plus The Art of Marketing. Seattle:Clearbridge Publishing,1999:10,11,11-13,12,13-14,14-16,18-23,19,19-21,26-27,77.
[175]The Science of Sun Tzu. The Amazing Secrets of Sun Tzu's The Art of War[EB/OL]. [2011-11-08]. http://www.scienceofstrategy.org/main/content/ amazing-secrets-line-book.
[176]乐黛云.和实生物,同则不继[A].乐黛云,孟华.多元之美[C].北京：北京大学出版社,2009：3.
[177]胡卫平,章艳.翻译翻“异”乃译者职责[J],山东外语教学.2007(4)：75.
[178]迈考拉·沃夫.翻译的社会维度[A].李瑞林,江莉译.国际翻译学新探[C].辜正坤,史忠义编.天津：百花文艺出版社,2006：127-128.
[179]许钧.翻译价值简论[A].许钧.生命之轻与翻译之重[M].北京：文化艺术出版社,2007：166.
[180]俞佳乐.翻译的社会性研究[M].上海：上海译文出版社,2006：98,100.
[2]常征.兵学圣典《孙子》及孙氏家族[J].北京社会科学,1995(3)：73.
[3]冯梦龙,蔡元放.东周列国志[M].北京：人民文学出版社,1979：694,696,1031.
[4]司马迁.史记[Z].北京：中华书局,1959：2161-2162,2175-2177.
[5]Griffith, Samuel B. Sun Tzu:The Art of War. London/Oxford/New York: Clarendon Press,1963:v, vi, xi, xiv,5,9,12,27,36,37,38,43-55,45,63,67,73, 74,76,77,78,79-80,92,97-98,103,134,138,139,147,176,177-178,181,182, 183,187-191.
[6]钱谷融,印永清.顾颉刚书话[M].杭州：浙江人民出版社,1998：161-165.
[7]李恒昌.《孙子兵法》到底是谁写的?—一段孙武谜案让几多史学家丢了颜面[EB/OL].[2011-10-25].http://www.360doc.com/content/11/1025/10/2699257 158890740.html.
[8]Fung Y-lan(冯友兰).History of Chinese Philosophy. Princeton:Princeton University Press,1952:20.
[9]新华网.《孙子兵法》暗藏2个争论千年的疑点[EB/OL].[2008-04-16].http://news.xinhuanet.com/mil/2008-04/16/content_7987476.html.
[10]孟西安.《孙子兵法》八十二篇在西安发现[N].人民日报,1996-9-18(5).
[11]吴九龙.《孙子兵法》八十二篇考伪[N].光明日报,1996-12-17(5).
[12]于汝波.孙子兵法研究史[M].北京：军事科学出版社,2001：15,215-216,233,240,241,242-243,243,244,245,249,271,281,298.
[13]Tang Zi-chang(唐子长). Principles of conflict:recompilation and New English translation with annotation on Sun Zi's Art of War. San Rafael, California:T.C. Press,1969:175,176,227.
[14]中国百科网.《孙子兵法》[EB/OL].[2007-02-19]. http://www.chinabaike.com/ article/292/305/2007/2007021945466.html.
[15]巴尔塔沙·葛拉西安.最伟大的三大智慧奇书[M].陈收凯编译.哈尔滨： 哈尔滨出版社,2004：2.
[16]王铭.20世纪《孙子兵法》英译本研究—以翟林奈与格里菲斯为中心[D].北京：清华大学,2005：3-4,18.
[17]Giles, Lionel. Sun Tzu on the Art of War:The Oldest Military Treatise in the World. London:Luzac Co.,1910:the opening page, VII, VIII, VIII-IX, IX, X, XVII, XXV, XXVIII, XXXI-XXXII,XXXI-XXXVII, XXXIII-XXXIV, XXXIV, XXXV-XLI, XLII-XLIII, XLIII-XLIX,1,3,6,9-10,11,13-14,14,17,20-21, 25,27,28,31,32,38,41,46,47,51,58,60,73,76,82,83,98,98-99,99,100, 127,141-142,148,149,157,163,170,172,176,181.
[18]Minford, John. The Art of War. New York:Viking Press,2002:xxxviii,11,23.
[19]Lau, D. C. "Some Notes on the Sun tzu", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, Vol.28,1965:317-335.
[20]Bloom, Harold. The Anxiety of Influence:A Theory of Poetry. New York:Oxford University Press,1973:5,5-6,15,24,30,35.
[21]Bloom, Harold. A Map of Misreading. New York:Oxford University Press,1975: 3,4,69.
[22]哈罗德·布鲁姆.影响的焦虑：一种诗歌理论[M].徐文博译.南京：江苏教育出版社,2005：2.
[23]Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory:An Introduction. Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press,1983:66-67,74,183.
[24]刘仲华.莫言领取2012年诺贝尔文学奖 诺贝尔晚宴致辞感谢[EB/OL]. [2012-12-11]. http://culture.people.com.cn/n/2012/1211/c87423-1985 6877.html.
[25]吴秀明,董雪.诺贝尔文学奖与文学语言翻译—兼谈中国文学“走向世界”的文化就对策略[J].文艺理论研究,2009(5)：43,47-48.
[26]朱立元.当代西方文艺理论[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,1999：4.
[27]Juhl, P. D. Interpretation:An essay in the Philosophy of Literary Criticism. Princeton University Press,1980:47-48.
[28]Hirsch, E. D. Validity in Interpretation. New Haven:Yale University Press,1976: 25.
[29]李建盛.理解事件与文本意义—文学诠释学[M].上海：上海译文出版社,2002：64,113.
[30]Wimsatt, W. K.& M. C. Beardsley. "The Intentional Fallacy", "The Affective Fallacy". The Verbal Icon. New York:Columbia University Press,1958.
[31]Beardsley, Monroe C. "The Authority of the Text", in Gary Iseminger (ed.). Intention and Interpretation. Temple University Press,1992:36.
[32]诺思罗普·弗莱.批评的剖析[M].陈慧等译.北京：百花文艺出版社,1998：466.
[33]Ingarden, Roman. The Literary Work of Art, Trans. George G. Grabowicz. Evanston, Illinois:Northwestern University Press,1973:19,21-22,63,336.
[34]Sartre, Jean-Paul. Qu'est-ce que la litterature? Editions Gallimard,1948:95.
[35]Barthes, Roland. "The Death of the Author", in Philip Rice and Patricia Waugh (eds.). Modern Literary Theory:A Reader (2nd edition). London:Edward Amold,1992:118.
[36]汉斯-格奥尔格·加达默尔.真理与方法[M].洪汉鼎译.上海：上海译文出版社,2002：12,211-212,393.
[37]朱立元.接受美学导论[M].合肥：安徽教育出版社,2004：63-64,75,157,158,160,169,176,180,184,188-189,190,193.
[38]罗宾·乔治·科林伍德.艺术原理[M].王至元,陈华中译.北京：中国社会科学院出版社,1985：331.
[39]勒内·韦勒克,奥斯汀·沃伦.文学理论[M].刘象愚译.北京：三联书社,1984：155,165.
[40]安伯托·艾柯等.诠释与过度诠释[C].王宇根译.北京：三联书店,1997：89.
[41]Said, Edward W. "The Text, the World, the Critic". The Bulletin of the Midwest Modern Language Association. Vol.8, No.2 (Autumn),1975:3.
[42]鲁迅.鲁迅全集(第七卷)[M].北京：北京人民出版社,1988：419.
[43]乐黛云.文化差异与文化误读[A].乐黛云,勒·比松.独角兽与龙[C].北京：北京大学出版社,1995：110.
[44]哈罗德·布鲁姆.误读图示[M].朱立元,陈克明译.天津：天津人民出版社,2008：90.
[45]杨武能.阐释、接受与再创造的循环—文学翻译断想之一[J].中国翻译,1987(6)：4.
[46]瓦尔特·F·法伊特.误读作为文化间理解的条件[A].叶爱民译.乐黛云,张辉.文化传递与文学形象[C].北京：北京大学出版社,1999：85.
[47]方梦之.译学辞典[Z].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2004：7,132,132-133.
[48]李新朝,张磷.重译中的误读和误译—基于《哈克贝利·费恩历险记》的研究[J].杨州大学学报,2008(6)：116-121.
[49]罗曼·英伽登.对文学的艺术作品的认识[M].陈燕谷等译.北京：中国文联出版公司,1988：154-155.
[50]Iser, Wolfgang. The Implied Reader. Baltimore:The Johns Hopkins University Press,1978:46.
[51]Iser, Wolfgang. The Act of Reading:A Theory of Aesthetic Response. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press,1980:31,48.
[52]Wellek, Rene & Austin Warren. Theory of Literature (3rd edition). Harmondsworth Middlesex:Penguin Books Ltd.,1970:157.
[53]Jakobson, Roman. "On Linguistic Aspects of Translation", in Reubea A. Brower (ed.). On Translation. New York:Oxford University Press,1966:232-239.
[54]Brooks, Bruce E. "The Present State and Future Prospects of Pre-Han Text Studies", in Sino-Platonic Papers 46,1994:59-62.
[55]张英基.秦汉齐鲁语言简论[EB/OL]. [2009-05-21].http://www.iguoxue.cn/html/75/n-46575.html.
[56]蔡英杰.《孙子兵法》语法研究[D].合肥：安徽大学,2003：6.
[57]Calthrop, E. F. The Book of War:The Military Classic of the Far East. London: John Murray,1908:6,8,9,14,15,16,17,18,25,26,28,29,30,31,33,34,37, 38,39,45,47,48,53,67,69.
[58]Clavell, James. The art of war. New York:Delacorte Press,1983:1-2,21,62.
[59]黄朴民,赵海军.孙子兵法集注[M].长沙：岳麓书社,2002：1,9,29,36,43,45,123,132,182,207,207-208,260,268,278,293.
[60]Cheng Lin(郑麐).The art of war:military manual written cir.510 B.C. /Original Chinese text appended. Shanghai:World Book Co., Ltd.,1946:26.
[61]吴九龙.孙子校释[M].北京：军事科学出版社,1991：234.
[62]于汝波.《孙子兵法》释疑三则[J].济南大学学报,2000(3)：20.
[63]百度文库.历代百家评《孙子》[EB/OL].[2011-04-15].http://news.china.com/zh_cn/history/all/11025807/20050513/12311932.html.
[64]吴如嵩.孙子兵法浅说[M].北京：解放军出版社,1999：22.
[65]Gagliardi, Gary. The Art of War:In Sun Tzu's Own Words. Seattle:Clearbridge Publishing,1999:the opening page, xi,35,64-65.
[66]Cleary, Thomas. The Art of War. Boston/London:Shambhala Publications Inc., 1988:VII,87,163,166.
[67]Ames, Roger T. Sun-tzu:The Art of Warfare:The First English Translation Incorporating the Recently Discovered Yin-ch'ueh-shan Texts. New York: Ballantine Books,1993:103,116,120.
[68]Wing, R. L. The Art of Strategy:A New Translation of Sun Tzu's Classic The Art of War. New York/London/Toronto/Sydney/Auckland:Doubleday,1988: 10,10-11,11,13,14,14-15,15,26-27,49,51,63,83,95,115.
[69]Mair, Victor H. The Art of War/Sun Zi's Military Methods. New York:Columbia University Press,2007:85,92,94.
[70]Denma Translation Group. The Art of War:The Denma Translation. Boston: Shambhala Publications,2001:9,30,30-31.
[71]Leong Weng Kam. The Art of War. Singapore:Asiapac Books,1991:2,28,29, 43,45,59,60.
[72]杨善群.孙子评传[M].南京：南京大学出版社,1995：1.
[73]北京大学哲学系外国哲学史教研室.古希腊罗马哲学[M].北京：三联书店,1957：23.
[74]Zhang Huimin(张惠民).Sunzi:the Art of War with Commentaries. Beijing:Chinese Literature Publishing House,1995:291.
[75]尹振环.《老子》从《孙子兵法》中借鉴了什么—也谈《孙子兵法》早于《老子》[J].学术月刊,2004(11)：80.
[76]中华网.档案解密：是谁把《孙子兵法》推荐到了美国?[EB/OL]. [2005-05-13]. http://news.china.com/zh_cn/history/all/11025807/20 050513/12311932.html.
[77]Lefevere, Andre. Translation/History/Culture:A Sourcebook[C]. New York: Routledge,1992:14.
[78]罗新璋.复译之难[J].中国翻译,1991(5)：29,30.
[79]托马斯·库恩.科学革命的结构[M].金吾伦,胡新和译.北京：北京大学出版社,2003：4,9,34,40,49,62,69,75,100,101,157.
[80]托马斯·库恩.必要的张力—科学的传统和变革论文选[M].范岱年,纪树立等译.北京：北京大学出版社,2004：231,287,288.
[81]蒋新苗.浅析库恩范式的方法论功能[J].东岳论丛,1994(6)：56.
[82]吴国盛.《北京大学科技哲学丛书》总序[A].托马斯·库恩.哥白尼革命西方思想发展中的行星天文学[M].吴国盛,张东林,李立译.北京：北京大学出版社,2003：1.
[83]陈公正.蔓延的“范式”[J].科技中国,2001(1)：111.
[84]马祖毅.中国翻译通史(古代部分全一卷)·总概述[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社,2006：1.
[85]谭载喜.西方翻译简史[M].北京：商务印书馆,1991：4,26,36-37,47.
[86]潘文国.当代西方的翻译学研究—兼谈“翻译学”的学科性问题[J].中国翻译,2002(1)：32.
[87]傅勇林,朱志瑜.西方译学研究—学术范式的变革[J].外语与外语教学,1999(6)：30.
[88]吕俊,侯向群.翻译学：一个建构主义的视角[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2006：55.
[89]朱献珑.译学范式与译者主体[D].中南大学博士论文,2011年6月：5-6.
[90]贺麟.谈谈翻译[J].中国社会科学院研究生院学报,1990(3)：36.
[91]许钧.文学复译是一种文化积累—我译《不能承受的生命之轻》[A].许钧.生命之轻与翻译之重[M].北京：文化艺术出版社,2007：65.
[92]瓦尔特·本雅明.译者的任务[A].陈浪译.谢天振,当代国外翻译理论[C].天津：南开大学出版社,2008：325.
[93]许渊冲.谈重译—兼评许钧[J].外语与外语教学,1996(6)：56.
[94]陆谷孙.英汉大词典[Z].上海：上海译文出版社,1993：1574.
[95]林煌天.中国翻译辞典[Z].武汉：湖北教育出版社,1997：1327.
[96]袁筱一.最难的事[J].读书,1996(4)：75-76.
[97]中国社会科学院外国文学研究所《世界文论》编辑委员会.布拉格学派及其他[C].北京：社会科学文献出版社,1995：57.
[98]安伯托·艾柯.开放的作品[M].刘儒庭译.北京：新星出版社,2010：4.
[99]许钧.翻译不可能有定本[J].博览群书,1996(8)：15.
[100]方平.不存在理想的范本—文学翻译工作者的思考[J].上海文化,1995(5)：18-20.
[101]萧乾.译书并无专利同行也非冤家[N].文汇报,1996-8-17(6).
[102]路文彬.贴近大师—我看“名著重译”[N].中华读书报,1996-6-19(7).
[103]林一安.大势所趋话复译[J].出版广角.1996(5)：26.
[104]袁筱一.一个枝头的累累果实—关于名著复译[A].许 钧.翻译思考录[C].武汉：湖北教育出版社,1998：164.
[105]许渊冲.译学要敢为天下先[J].中国翻译,1999(2)：8-9.
[106]谢天振.文学翻译不可能有定本—兼与罗新璋先生商榷[N].中华读书报,1996-12-4(6).
[107]哈罗德·布鲁姆.西方正典[M].江宁康译.南京：译林出版社,2005：6.
[108]哈罗德·布鲁姆.批评、正典结构与预言[M].吴琼译.北京：中国社会科学出版社,2000：99.
[109]Tytler, A.F. Essay on the Principles of Translation. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2007:9.
[110]钱钟书.管锥编(第三册)[M].北京：中华书局,1979：1101.
[111]谢天振.当代国外翻译理论[M].天津：南开大学出版社,2008：1,198,199.
[112]李延福.国外语言学通观(上)[M].济南：山东教育出版社,1996：304.
[113]Jakobson, Roman. "On Linguistic Aspects of Translation", in Reubea A. Brower (ed.). On Translation. New York:Oxford University Press,1966: 232-239.
[114]Catford, J. C. A Linguistic Theory of Translation:An Essay in Applied Linguistics. London:Oxford University Press,1965:94.
[115]Nida, Eugene A.& Charles R. Taber. The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden:E.J. Brill,1969:12.
[116]Newmark, Peter. Approaches to Translation. Oxford:Pergamon,1981:39.
[117]徐亚楠. 《孙子兵法》西行路[EB/OL]. [2007-04-07].http://www.china.com.cn/zhuanti/2yw/2007-04/07/content_8081008.htm.
[118]苗力田.关于亚里斯多德著作的汉译[A].许钧.翻译思考录[C].武汉：湖北教育出版社,1998：24.
[119]宋成有.新编日本近代史[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2006：75-76.
[120]奚学明,杨宏富等.彩图世界五千年(五)[M].上海：少年儿童出版社,1992：1185-1190.
[121]Lefevere, Andre. "Mother Courage's Cucumbers:Text, System and Refraction in a Theory of Literature", in Lawrence Venuti (ed.). The Translation Studies Reader. London and New York:Routledge,2000:234.
[122]维基百科.孙子兵法·翻译本[EB/OL]. [2012-04-08]. http://zh.wikipedia.org/ wiki/%E5%AD%99%E5%AD%90%E5%85%B5%E6%B3%95.
[123]Hamishion. Something new under the Sun:E.F. Calthrop and the art of war[EB/OL]. [2007-05-02]. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/ 09555809008721376.
[124]王铭.最早的《孙子兵法》英译本及其与日本的关系[J].世界汉学,2006(1)：136.
[125]Bob Sutton. Preface to the Project Gutenburg Etext[EB/OL]. [2007-04-23]. http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=2057619&pageno=2.
[126]中国社会科学院近代史研究所翻译室.近代来华外国人名辞典[Z].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1981：166-167.
[127]中国国家图书馆网.中国学·汉学家·翟理思[EB/OL].[2008-07-18].http://form.nlc.gov.cn/sino/show.php?id=81.
[128]杨丙安.宋本《十一家注孙子》及其流变[A].孙子新探[C].北京：解放军出版社,1990：69,13.
[129]吴春秋.外国军事人物辞典[Z].北京：世界知识出版社,1996：202.
[130]Wikipedia. Samuel B. Griffith[EB/OL].[2012-11-08]. http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Samuel B. Griffith.
[131]罗贯中.三国演义[M].北京：人民文学出版社,1953：186-188.
[132]中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室.现代汉语词典[Z].北京：商务印书馆,1978：937,596.
[133]Onions, C.T. Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press,1966:513,851.
[134]林一安.大势所趋话复译—从西葡语文学翻译谈到新译《堂吉诃德》[J].出版广角,1996(5)：53.
[135]屠国元,章国军.同根相煎急—试析贾尔斯对卡尔斯罗普《孙子》译本的误读[J].中南大学学报(社会科学版),2013(1)：166-169.
[136]Bassnett, Susan & Andre Lefevere (eds.) Translation, History and Culture. London/New York:Pinter Publishers,1990:ix,4.
[137]Gentzler, Edwin. Contemporary Translation Theories. London:Routledge, 1993:2,77,93,187.
[138]Holmes, James. "The Name and Nature of Translation Studies", in Lawrence Venuti (ed.). The Translation Studies Reader. London and New York: Routledge,2000:172-183.
[139]Hermans, Theo. Translation in Systems:Descriptive and System-oriented Approaches Explained. Manchester:St. Jerome Publishing,1999:30,110.
[140]Even-Zohar, Itamar. "The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem" In Holmes, James S. Jose Lambert, and Raymond van den Broeck (eds.). Literature and Translation:New Perspectives in Literary Studies. Leuven:Acco,1978:117-127.
[141]郭建中.当代美国翻译理论[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社,2000：136.
[142]王洪涛.翻译学的学科建构与文化转向[M].上海：上海译文出版社,2008：79,104-124,211,250,255,274-280.
[143]Bassnett, Susan. Translation Studies. London:Methuen & Co., Ltd.,1980:1.
[144]Hermans, Theo (ed.). The Manipulation of Literature:Studies in Literary Translation. London/Sydney:Croom Helm,1985:9.
[145]Snell-Hornby, Mary. Translation Studies:An Integrated Approach. Amsterdam /Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company,1988:3,46.
[146]Toury, Gideon. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company,1995:10.
[147]Levefere, Andre. Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame. London:Routledge,1992:vii,1,4,14-15.
[148]曹明伦.Translation Studies在中国的名与实—兼谈翻译的学科范围和界线问题[J].上海翻译,2006(3)：4.
[149]A. G Smith, Ed., Communication and Culture:Readings in the Codes of Human Interaction. New York:Holt, Rinehart,& Winston,1966:3.
[150]E. T. Hall, Beyond Culture. Garden City, NY:Anchor Doubleday,1977:14.
[151]谭载喜.文化对比与翻译[J].中国翻译,1986(5)：7.
[152]Holmes, James S. Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies. Amsterdam:Rodopi,1988:94.
[153]谢天振.翻译研究“文化转向”之后—翻译研究文化转向的比较文学意义[J].中国比较文学,2006(3)：1-2.
[154]Bassnett, Susan & Andre Lefevere. Constructing Cultures:Essays on Literary Translation. Clevedon:Multilingual Matters Ltd.,1998:136.
[155]李和庆,黄皓,薄振杰.西方翻译研究方法论：70年代以后[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2005：130.
[156]曾文雄.“文化转向”核心问题与出路[J].外语学刊,2006(2)：90.
[157]Steiner, George. After Babel:Aspects of Language and Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1975:49.
[158]吕俊.论翻译研究的本体回归—对翻译研究“文化转向”的反思[J].外国语,2004(4)：56.
[159]Levefere, Andre. "Mother Courage's Cucumbers:Text, System and Refraction in a Theory of Literature", in Lawrence Venuti (ed.). The Translation Studies Reader. London and New York:Routledge,2000:234,235.
[160]陈吉荣.论改写理论在中西文学史与翻译研究中的作用[J].文艺理论研究,2008(5)：60.
[161]达尼埃尔-享利·巴柔.从文化形象到集体想象物[A].孟华译.比较文学形象学[C].孟华.北京：北京大学出版社,2001：120.
[162]达尼埃尔-享利·巴柔.形象学理论研究：从文学史到诗学[A].蒯轶萍译.比较文学形象学[C].孟华.北京：北京大学出版社,2001：202.
[163]达尼埃尔-享利·巴柔.形象[A].孟华译.比较文学形象学[C].孟华.北京：北京大学出版社,2001：157.
[164]让-马克·莫哈.试论文学形象学的研究史及方法论[A].孟华译.比较文学形象学[C].孟华.北京：北京大学出版社,2001：25.
[165]姜智芹.当东方与西方相遇—比较文学专题研究[M].济南：齐鲁书社,2008：273.
[166]Dr._Tzun_Tzu. Book Review:R. L. Wing's "The Art of Strategy" (1988) [EB/OL]. [2005-03-05]. http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php? t=103659&page=1.
[167]中国国防资讯网. 《孙子》在美国[EB/OL]. [2005-11-28].http://info.cndsi.com/html/20051128/1965125114.html.
[168]百度百科.漫画家蔡志忠[EB/OL].[2011-12-27].http://baike.baidu.com/view/20308.htm.
[169]蔡志忠.孙子说：兵学的先知[M].北京：三联书店,2000：28-29.
[170]Science of Strategy Institute. Gary Gagliardi-Author, Speaker, Trainer[EB/OL]. [2011-11-13]. http://www.garygagliardi.com/?q=content/ business-biography.
[171]Gagliardi, Gary. A Brief History of How I Started Teaching of Strategy [EB/OL]. [2009-04-02]. http://www.garygagliardi.com/?q=content/ brief-history-how-i-started-teaching-strategy.
[172]sonshi.com. Interview with Gary Gagliardi [EB/OL]. [2011-11-13] http://www.sonshi.com/gagliardi.html.
[173]The Science of Sun Tzu. The Amazing Secrets of Sun Tzu's The Art of War[EB/OL]. [2011-11-08]. http://www.scienceofstrategy.org/main/content/ amazing-secrets-line-book.
[174]Gagliardi, Gary. The Art of War plus The Art of Marketing. Seattle:Clearbridge Publishing,1999:10,11,11-13,12,13-14,14-16,18-23,19,19-21,26-27,77.
[175]The Science of Sun Tzu. The Amazing Secrets of Sun Tzu's The Art of War[EB/OL]. [2011-11-08]. http://www.scienceofstrategy.org/main/content/ amazing-secrets-line-book.
[176]乐黛云.和实生物,同则不继[A].乐黛云,孟华.多元之美[C].北京：北京大学出版社,2009：3.
[177]胡卫平,章艳.翻译翻“异”乃译者职责[J],山东外语教学.2007(4)：75.
[178]迈考拉·沃夫.翻译的社会维度[A].李瑞林,江莉译.国际翻译学新探[C].辜正坤,史忠义编.天津：百花文艺出版社,2006：127-128.
[179]许钧.翻译价值简论[A].许钧.生命之轻与翻译之重[M].北京：文化艺术出版社,2007：166.
[180]俞佳乐.翻译的社会性研究[M].上海：上海译文出版社,2006：98,100.