从异化翻译的确立到存异伦理的解构：劳伦斯·韦努蒂翻译理论研究
|
摘要
本文研究翻译研究派的集大成者、美籍意大利学者劳伦斯·韦努蒂(Lawrence Venuti,1953- )的翻译思想。本文认为韦努蒂从德国重异质的思想传统以及德里达的解构哲学(延异策略)中汲取养分,并在此基础上构筑了自己独特的翻译研究及翻译体系。本文认为韦努蒂翻译研究系统分为内部系统与外部系统。由于韦努蒂使用的是解构主义的“延异”策略,因而其内部系统的翻译理论话语互相关联,并在内部产生出强大的张力。这种张力向外蔓延,从而生成韦努蒂解构主义翻译理论的外部系统。这就是韦努蒂用来考察翻译所产生社会效果的理论话语。本文从韦努蒂的理论论著中提取最具代表性的理论话语作为脉络,力图揭示其话语系统生成的过程以及韦努蒂的翻译理论对翻译研究从边缘走向中心的重大推动意义。
本文从以下几个方面展开对韦努蒂翻译思想的研究:
引言部分概要论述韦努蒂其人其学,以及梳理韦努蒂研究的现状及本文的研究目的。
第一章论述韦努蒂翻译理论产生的背景,论及翻译语言学派的翻译研究以及翻译研究派的翻译研究。
第二章解释韦努蒂翻译思想的资源及其翻译思想之根。在考察韦努蒂翻译思想资源之后,本文提出“归化中心主义”的概念。认为韦努蒂的“一异贯之”之“道”,就是对归化中心主义的解构,并将其运用在翻译所产生的语言、文化以及社会的变革上,以翻译伦理来进行衡量,成就了其翻译研究派集大成者的地位。
第三章研究韦努蒂的解构主义翻译理论话语的内部系统,以揭示对“归化中心主义”的解构。基于对“译者的隐身”、“症候式阅读”的认识,韦努蒂从施莱尔马赫那里借来“异化归化”,并将二者放在二元对立的两极。其后韦努蒂通过梳理英美翻译史上典型的例子展开对“归化”翻译的批评,从而提倡异化翻译,并提出实施异化翻译的具体策略,即妄用式忠实与对抗式翻译。
第四章研究韦努蒂解构主义翻译理论话语的外部系统,也即韦努蒂以更大的视角考察翻译所起到的社会作用时构筑的一系列话语。韦努蒂在认识到翻译遭受到种种来自社会的耻辱之后,推出抵抗译入语文化的“小民族语言的翻译”,主张在译文中释放“语言剩余”。实行这种策略的翻译产生塑形“文化身份”的作用。翻译起到巨大的社会效应。应该怎样衡量这种社会效果呢?韦努蒂继而构筑新的二元对立:存异伦理与化同伦理。并通过解构法将这一对二元对立解构,推出定于一尊的“因地制宜”伦理,即一种促进文化变化与更新的因地制宜的伦理。
本文认为,韦努蒂不仅以“异化”翻译这种独特的视角为翻译鸣不平,而且也以他独特的方式促进学术界正视并重视翻译理论研究与翻译实践所具有的重大的理论价值,并加速了翻译研究由学术的边缘向中心移动的步伐。这就是异化翻译以及翻译伦理转向所烛照的神韵。
It is without doubt that Lawrence Venuti, professor of English at Temple University as well as a professional translator for the past fifteen years, is one of the most significant deconstructionist translation theorists as well as postcolonialist translation theorists. He constructs an ambitious system, an disseminative and differing structure whose inner part is full of oppositions and tensions. The extension of these oppositions and tensions to the outer part of the system generates the discourse which Venuti employs to investigate the social effects of translation.
This dissertation collects representative concepts from Venuti’s works as its focus, aiming both at uncovering the process of genesis of the oppositions and tensions and at motive force for which Venuti’s translation theories move translation studies from periphery to the centre. This is the panorama of Venuti’s translation theories.
Lawrence Venuti employes poststructuralism, esp. deconstructionism, postcolonialism and cultural studies as his source of theories. He provides a thorough and critical examination of translation from the seventeenth century to the present day. This shows how fluency prevailed over other translation strategies to shape the canon of foreign literatures in English, and it interrogates the ethnocentric and imperialist cultural consequences of the domestic values that were simultaneously inscribed and masked in foreign texts during this period. In tracing the history of translation, Lawrence Venuti locates alternative translation theories and practices which make it possible to counter the strategy of fluency, aiming to communicate linguistic and cultural differences instead of removing them. He picks up domestication translation, a concept resembling logos, and sets up foreignization translation as it opposition. Venuti resorts to Derrida’s deconstruction to argue for foreignization by deconstructing domestication. Then Venuti constructs his chain of foreignization by appropriating concepts from other theorists and by reconstructing and integrating them. In such a chain, foreignization translation changes accordingly into abusive fidelity, resistancy, remainder, minoritizing translation, ethics of difference and samesness, and ethics of location. Venuti is frank to say his knowledge about the ultimate concern of translation going like this: for a translation ethics grounded in such difference, the key issue is not simply a discursive strategy (fluent or resistant), but always its intention and effect as well -i.e., whether the translating realizes an aim to promote cultural innovation and change.
To better understand the genesis of Venuti’s discursive system, the present dissertation focuses on his deconstructionist strategy and its inner and outer system.
The first chapter looks back into the trends of western translation studies, mainly focusing on two parts, i.e., linguistic-oriented approaches to translation and cultural turn and postcolonial turn in translation studies, on which a better understanding of Venuti’s theoretical background can be based.
The second chapter portraits who and what Lawrence Venuti is, aiming at tracing the theoretical sources he employs.
The third chapter mainly studies the inner part of Venuti’s deconstructionist translation discourse, trying to uncover how he put to work Derrida’s deconstruction, namely, placing concepts of binary opposition in a self-contradictory dilemma. Based on introducing the translator’s invisibility and symptomatic reading, Venuti begins to construct binary opposition by appropriating“foreignizing and domesticating”from Schleiermacher. Thereafter, he advocates foreignizing by resorting to abusive fidelity and resistancy. This is the inner part of Venuti’s theory, which is full of tensions.
The fourth chapter studies the outer part of Venuti’s theory by analyzing the discursive strategies he uses to investigate the social effect translation can have. Translation remains on the margins of society. Stigmatized as a form of authorship, discouraged by copyright law, depreciated by the academy, exploited by publishers and corporations, governments and religious organizations. Venuti names these as the“scandals of translation”. Then he resorts to minoritizing translation, argues for releasing“remainder”of language. To put to work these strategies could form cultural identities both for source-language culture and target-language culture. If translation has such far-reaching social effects, if in forming cultural identities it contributes to social reproduction and change, it seems important to evaluate these effects, to ask whether they are good or bad, or whether the resulting identities are ethical. Venuti builds anther pair of binary opposition: ethics of difference and ethics of sameness. The outer part of Venuti’s discourse system ends with“ethics of location”by resorting again to Derrida’s deconstruction.
The approach of the present dissertation is in coincidence with“deconstruction”, holding that Venuti advances current thinking about inequalities of translation and promotes the progress translation studies moves from the periphery to the centre of academy.
本文从以下几个方面展开对韦努蒂翻译思想的研究:
引言部分概要论述韦努蒂其人其学,以及梳理韦努蒂研究的现状及本文的研究目的。
第一章论述韦努蒂翻译理论产生的背景,论及翻译语言学派的翻译研究以及翻译研究派的翻译研究。
第二章解释韦努蒂翻译思想的资源及其翻译思想之根。在考察韦努蒂翻译思想资源之后,本文提出“归化中心主义”的概念。认为韦努蒂的“一异贯之”之“道”,就是对归化中心主义的解构,并将其运用在翻译所产生的语言、文化以及社会的变革上,以翻译伦理来进行衡量,成就了其翻译研究派集大成者的地位。
第三章研究韦努蒂的解构主义翻译理论话语的内部系统,以揭示对“归化中心主义”的解构。基于对“译者的隐身”、“症候式阅读”的认识,韦努蒂从施莱尔马赫那里借来“异化归化”,并将二者放在二元对立的两极。其后韦努蒂通过梳理英美翻译史上典型的例子展开对“归化”翻译的批评,从而提倡异化翻译,并提出实施异化翻译的具体策略,即妄用式忠实与对抗式翻译。
第四章研究韦努蒂解构主义翻译理论话语的外部系统,也即韦努蒂以更大的视角考察翻译所起到的社会作用时构筑的一系列话语。韦努蒂在认识到翻译遭受到种种来自社会的耻辱之后,推出抵抗译入语文化的“小民族语言的翻译”,主张在译文中释放“语言剩余”。实行这种策略的翻译产生塑形“文化身份”的作用。翻译起到巨大的社会效应。应该怎样衡量这种社会效果呢?韦努蒂继而构筑新的二元对立:存异伦理与化同伦理。并通过解构法将这一对二元对立解构,推出定于一尊的“因地制宜”伦理,即一种促进文化变化与更新的因地制宜的伦理。
本文认为,韦努蒂不仅以“异化”翻译这种独特的视角为翻译鸣不平,而且也以他独特的方式促进学术界正视并重视翻译理论研究与翻译实践所具有的重大的理论价值,并加速了翻译研究由学术的边缘向中心移动的步伐。这就是异化翻译以及翻译伦理转向所烛照的神韵。
It is without doubt that Lawrence Venuti, professor of English at Temple University as well as a professional translator for the past fifteen years, is one of the most significant deconstructionist translation theorists as well as postcolonialist translation theorists. He constructs an ambitious system, an disseminative and differing structure whose inner part is full of oppositions and tensions. The extension of these oppositions and tensions to the outer part of the system generates the discourse which Venuti employs to investigate the social effects of translation.
This dissertation collects representative concepts from Venuti’s works as its focus, aiming both at uncovering the process of genesis of the oppositions and tensions and at motive force for which Venuti’s translation theories move translation studies from periphery to the centre. This is the panorama of Venuti’s translation theories.
Lawrence Venuti employes poststructuralism, esp. deconstructionism, postcolonialism and cultural studies as his source of theories. He provides a thorough and critical examination of translation from the seventeenth century to the present day. This shows how fluency prevailed over other translation strategies to shape the canon of foreign literatures in English, and it interrogates the ethnocentric and imperialist cultural consequences of the domestic values that were simultaneously inscribed and masked in foreign texts during this period. In tracing the history of translation, Lawrence Venuti locates alternative translation theories and practices which make it possible to counter the strategy of fluency, aiming to communicate linguistic and cultural differences instead of removing them. He picks up domestication translation, a concept resembling logos, and sets up foreignization translation as it opposition. Venuti resorts to Derrida’s deconstruction to argue for foreignization by deconstructing domestication. Then Venuti constructs his chain of foreignization by appropriating concepts from other theorists and by reconstructing and integrating them. In such a chain, foreignization translation changes accordingly into abusive fidelity, resistancy, remainder, minoritizing translation, ethics of difference and samesness, and ethics of location. Venuti is frank to say his knowledge about the ultimate concern of translation going like this: for a translation ethics grounded in such difference, the key issue is not simply a discursive strategy (fluent or resistant), but always its intention and effect as well -i.e., whether the translating realizes an aim to promote cultural innovation and change.
To better understand the genesis of Venuti’s discursive system, the present dissertation focuses on his deconstructionist strategy and its inner and outer system.
The first chapter looks back into the trends of western translation studies, mainly focusing on two parts, i.e., linguistic-oriented approaches to translation and cultural turn and postcolonial turn in translation studies, on which a better understanding of Venuti’s theoretical background can be based.
The second chapter portraits who and what Lawrence Venuti is, aiming at tracing the theoretical sources he employs.
The third chapter mainly studies the inner part of Venuti’s deconstructionist translation discourse, trying to uncover how he put to work Derrida’s deconstruction, namely, placing concepts of binary opposition in a self-contradictory dilemma. Based on introducing the translator’s invisibility and symptomatic reading, Venuti begins to construct binary opposition by appropriating“foreignizing and domesticating”from Schleiermacher. Thereafter, he advocates foreignizing by resorting to abusive fidelity and resistancy. This is the inner part of Venuti’s theory, which is full of tensions.
The fourth chapter studies the outer part of Venuti’s theory by analyzing the discursive strategies he uses to investigate the social effect translation can have. Translation remains on the margins of society. Stigmatized as a form of authorship, discouraged by copyright law, depreciated by the academy, exploited by publishers and corporations, governments and religious organizations. Venuti names these as the“scandals of translation”. Then he resorts to minoritizing translation, argues for releasing“remainder”of language. To put to work these strategies could form cultural identities both for source-language culture and target-language culture. If translation has such far-reaching social effects, if in forming cultural identities it contributes to social reproduction and change, it seems important to evaluate these effects, to ask whether they are good or bad, or whether the resulting identities are ethical. Venuti builds anther pair of binary opposition: ethics of difference and ethics of sameness. The outer part of Venuti’s discourse system ends with“ethics of location”by resorting again to Derrida’s deconstruction.
The approach of the present dissertation is in coincidence with“deconstruction”, holding that Venuti advances current thinking about inequalities of translation and promotes the progress translation studies moves from the periphery to the centre of academy.
引文
①谭载喜《西方翻译简史》,北京:商务印书馆,2000年4月,第9至10页。
②李文革《西方翻译理论流派研究·代序》,北京:中国社会科学出版社,2004年8月,第1至2页。
③孙会军《普遍与差异》,上海:上海译文出版社,2005. 10《总序》,第1页至第2页。
④转引自孙会军《普遍与差异·总序》,上海:上海译文出版社,2005年10月,第3页。
①[美]埃德温·根茨勒《西方翻译理论》(Gentzler, Edwin. Contemporary Translation Theories, London and New York: Routledge. 1993)
②陈德鸿、张南峰《西方翻译理论精选》,香港:香港城市大学出版社,2000。
③谭载喜《西方翻译简史》,北京:商务印书馆,2000年4月。廖七一《当代翻译理论探索》,南京:译林出版社,2000。李文革《西方翻译理论流派研究》将西方翻译理论分为七个流派:翻译的文艺学派、翻译的语言学派、翻译研究学派、翻译的阐释学派、翻译的解构主义流派、美国翻译培训班学派及法国释意理论派等。见李文革《西方翻译理论流派研究》,北京:中国社会科学出版社,2004年8月。
①按:国际翻译理论界表现出鲜明的学科意识,始于詹姆斯·霍姆斯(James Holmes)于1972年发表的题为《翻译研究的名称与本质》(The Name and Nature of Translation Studies),该文探讨了翻译作为一个学科的名称、性质和范围的问题。1978年,勒菲维尔(Lefevere)建议将Translation Studies作为翻译学科的正式名称,为后来的翻译理论研究发展准备了条件。我国学者王东风也曾追溯过翻译学科的名称。他追溯了Science of Translation(翻译学、翻译科学),Translation Studies(翻译研究、译本研究派),translatology(翻译学)以及translation theory(翻译理论)的源头,对于翻译作为学科的认识给人以启发。见王东风、钟钰《译学学科名称溯源》,《中国翻译》,2002(3),第12到13页。
②蒋骁华《近十年来西方翻译理论研究》,《外语教学与研究》,1998(2),第29页。
①[以]伊塔马·埃文-佐哈尔《多元系统论》(Even-Zohar,Itamar. Polysystem Studies, Poetics Today, 1990. pp.9--26.)
②杨自俭《英汉语比较与翻译》第4集,上海:上海外语教育出版社,2002,第393页。
③杨自俭《英汉语比较与翻译》第4集,上海:上海外语教育出版社,2002,第393页。
①孙会军《普遍与差异》,上海:上海译文出版社,2005年10月版,第22页。
②王宁《文化翻译与经典诠释》,北京:中华书局,2006年4月,第5页。
③[德]玛丽·斯奈尔-霍恩比《是语言转换还是文化转换?德国翻译理论批评》(Mary Snell-Hornby. (ed.) Linguistic Transcoding or Cultural Transfer? A Critique of Translation Theory in German,in Translation, History and Culture. Bassnett and Lefevere. 1990. pp.79--86.)
①李文革《西方翻译理论流派研究》,北京:中国社会科学出版社,2004. 8,第210页。
②[英]苏珊·巴斯奈特、安德列·勒菲维尔编《文化建构》(Bassnett, Susan and Lefevere, Andre (eds). Constructing Cultures: Essays on Literary Translation. Clevedon et al. Multilingual Matters. 1998. xi)
③[加]谢莉·西蒙《翻译理论中的性别》(Sherry Simon. Gender in Translation: Cultural Identity and the Politics of Transmission. London: Routledge. 1996. p.7.)此处译文参考了吴晓黎对该文的汉译《翻译理论中的性别》,见许宝强、袁伟《语言与翻译的政治》,北京:中央编译出版社,2001年1月,第317页。
④[英]苏珊·巴斯奈特、安德列·勒菲维尔编《文化建构》(Susan Bassnett and Andre Lefevere (eds). ConstructingCultures: Essays on Literary Translation. Clevedon et al. Multilingual Matters. 1998.)
①谢天振《序二》,见费小平《翻译的政治》,北京:中国社会科学出版社,2005年3月,第8页。
②王宁《文化翻译与经典诠释》,北京:中华书局,2006年4月,第4页。关于文化研究的“翻译学转向”,还可参见该书的第12页至17页。
③王宁《文化翻译与经典诠释》,北京:中华书局,2006年4月,第95页。
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译德里达论翻译》(Venuti, Lawrence (2003) Translating Derrida on Translation: Relevance and Disciplinary Resistance, The Yale Journal of Criticism, Volume 16, number 2 (2003): 237-262.)
②[英]苏珊·巴斯奈特、哈里斯·特维迪《后殖民翻译:理论与实践》(Bassnett, Susan and Harish Trivedi. Post-Colonial Translation: Theory and Practice. London and New York: Routledge. 1999.)
③孙会军《普遍与差异》,上海:上海译文出版社,2005年10月版,第32页。
④李文革《西方翻译理论流派研究》,北京:中国社会科学出版社,2004年8月,第242至243页。
①甘阳《古今中西之争》,北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,2006年12月,第12页。
②[加]道格拉斯·罗宾逊《翻译与帝国》(Robinson, Douglas. Translation and Empire. Manchester: St. Jerome. 1997, p.5.)
③[加]道格拉斯·罗宾逊《翻译与帝国》(Robinson, Douglas. Translation and Empire. Manchester: St. Jerome. 1997,p104.)道格拉斯·罗宾逊的原文为:Certainly from a postcolonial viewpoint, polysystem theory seems bland and abstract, very lightly grounded in actual political engagements.
④按:葛兰西(Antonio Gramsci)将这一概念运用到考察翻译上,认为霸权(hegemony)也渗透到了社会中的政治、文化、意识形态和学术等各个方面。
①王宁《文化翻译与经典诠释》,北京:中华书局,2006年4月,第58页。
②王东风《翻译研究的后殖民视角》,《中国翻译》,2003(4),第4页。
③[美]提莫志克、根茨勒《翻译与权力》(Tymoczko and Genzler, Translation and Power),北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2007年9月版。
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,pp. 21--23.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,p 22.)
③[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,p 23.)
①[美]舒尔特、彼根特《翻译理论文集:从德莱顿到德里达》(Schulte, Rainer & Biguente, John (ed.) The Theories of Translation: An Anthology from Dryden to Derrida. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. 1992, Introduction: p3.)
②[加]道格拉斯·罗宾逊《翻译与帝国》(Robinson, Douglas. Translation and Empire. Manchester: St. Jerome. 1997, p.185.)
③转引自许钧、袁筱一编著《当代法国翻译理论》,南京:南京大学出版社,2001年,p120。
④[美]舒尔特、彼根特《翻译理论文集:从德莱顿到德里达》(Schulte, Rainer & Biguente, John (ed.) The Theories of Translation: An Anthology from Dryden to Derrida. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. 1992, Introduction: p4)
①[美]舒尔特、彼根特《翻译理论文集:从德莱顿到德里达》(Schulte, Rainer & Biguente, John (ed.) The Theories of Translation: An Anthology from Dryden to Derrida. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. 1992, Introduction: p6.)
①按:德里达在1985年所作《巴别塔》(Des Tour de Babel)一文中评述了本雅明的翻译思想。见[美]舒尔特、彼根特《翻译理论文集:从德莱顿到德里达》(Schulte, Rainer & Biguente, John (ed.) The Theories of Translation: An Anthology from Dryden to Derrida. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.)另:陈永国《翻译与后现代性》第13页至41页刊出该文的汉译本,见陈永国《翻译与后现代性》,北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005年9月版;保罗·德·曼《“结论”:瓦尔特·本雅明的“译者的任务”》(de Man, Paul. Conclusions: Walter Benjamin’s“The Task of the Translator”, Yale French Studies 69: 25--46. 1985。再:陈永国《翻译与后现代性》第42页至65页刊出该文的汉译本,见陈永国《翻译与后现代性》,北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005年9月版;安德鲁·本雅明《翻译与哲学的本质》(Benjamin, Andrew. Translation and the Nature of Philosophy: A New Theory of Words. London & New York, 1989.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译再思》(Venuti, Lawrence. Rethinking Translation: Discourse, Subjectivity, Ideology . New York: Routledge 1992, pp.7--13.)
③[英]乔治·斯坦纳《巴别塔之后》(Steiner, George. After Babel. London & New York, Oxford University Press, 1975. pp.63--64.)
④按:本雅明是这样解释纯语言的:A suprahistorical kinship of languages which rests in the intention underlying each language as a whole --- an intention, however, which no single language can attain by itself but which is realized only by the totality of their intentions supplementing each other: pure language.见[德]瓦尔特·本雅明《译者的任务》(Benjamin,Walter. The Task of Translator. In Schulte, Rainer & Biguente, John (ed.) The Theories of Translation: An Anthology from Dryden to Derrida. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.)在这
①[德]瓦尔特·本雅明《译者的任务》(Benjamin,Walter. The Task of Translator. In Schulte, Rainer & Biguente, John (ed.) The Theories of Translation: An Anthology from Dryden to Derrida. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.)
②按:《国语·周语》中还记载口译员被称作“舌人”,意为“动动口舌之人”。见陈福康《中国译学理论史稿》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,1996年10月版,第11页。
③[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译再思》(Venuti, Lawrence. Rethinking Translation: Discourse, Subjectivity, Ideology . New York: Routledge 1992, p.7.)
①[美]约瑟夫·格雷厄姆《翻译中的差异》(Graham, Joseph. Difference in Translation. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 1986, p.19, p.146, p.165)
①黄汉平《德里达的解构翻译理论初探》,《学术研究》,2004(6)
②按:《圣经·创世记》记载挪亚(Noah)的后代古巴比伦人为了进入天堂而建造巴别塔(又译为巴比塔),这一大胆行为触怒了上帝耶和华(Jehavoh)。上帝让参与建塔的人突然间使用不同的语言,建塔人彼此不能沟通,进而出现混乱,巴别塔由此最终没有建成,并导致巴别塔的倒塌。该文的英译者格雷厄姆(Joseph Graham)因考虑到这一题目在语义上具有复杂性,因而在英语里保留了原来的题目。因为tours在法语里是tower(塔)之意,但兼有twists(手法)、tricks(窍门)、tropes(喻说)之意。法文的des tours还可读成détours,有“迂回”之意。
③蔡新乐《从德里达的翻译思想看理性主义的翻译理论建构》,《中国翻译》,2001(4),第58页。
④[美]约瑟夫·格雷厄姆《翻译中的差异》(Graham, Joseph. Difference in Translation. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 1986, p.165.)
①蔡新乐《从德里达的翻译思想看理性主义的翻译理论建构》,《中国翻译》,2001(4),第59页。
②[法]雅克·德里达《什么是“确当的”翻译》(Jacques Derrida,“What is a‘Relevant’Translation?”Critical Inquiry 27, trans. by Lawrence Venuti, No. 2 (Winter 2001): p177.)另:陈永国《翻译与后现代性》第147页至170页刊出该文的汉译本,见陈永国《翻译与后现代性》,北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005年9月版。
③王宁《文化翻译与经典诠释》,北京:中华书局,2006,第35页。
④[法]雅克·德里达《什么是“确当的”翻译》(Jacques Derrida,“What is a‘Relevant’Translation?”Critical Inquiry 27, trans. by Lawrence Venuti, No. 2 (Winter 2001): p. 177.)
⑤[法]雅克·德里达《什么是“确当的”翻译》(Jacques Derrida,“What is a‘Relevant’Translation?”Critical Inquiry 27, No. 2 (Winter 2001): p. 177.)
①[法]雅克·德里达《什么是“确当的”翻译》(Jacques Derrida,“What is a‘Relevant’Translation?”Critical Inquiry 27, No. 2 (Winter 2001): p. 177.),另:陈永国《翻译与后现代性》第147页至170页刊出该文的汉译本,见陈永国《翻译与后现代性》,北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005年9月版。
②按:我国学者王宁就此也有论述,他说:“尽管德里达试图给确当的翻译或者最好的翻译提出一个标准,但是实际上,他最终还是暗示了这样的标准是不确定的,甚至是一个永远没有答案的讨论。”(王宁《文化翻译与经典诠释》,北京:中华书局,2006,第36页。)
③按:关于第一点,翻译不能放弃忠实。自从解构主义引进中国的那一天起,就没有人敢提“尊重原文”、“翻译的原则首先该是忠实”,因为“忠实”早已被解构掉了。金兵认为这是对解构主义的误解:解构就意味着拆解,甚至摧毁。金兵援引德里达解构这个词deconstruction,指出该词的意思是“把整体的各部分拆开”,同destruction消灭、摧毁有实质的差别。关于第二点,原文意义并非完全不确定。德里达的“延异”、“踪迹”所强调的是对待意义要具体情况具体分析,意义并非虚无。这也是德里达“文本之外别无意义”的意思。所以,意义不确定论要求译者付出更多的时间和精力仔细阅读原文,追寻意义的踪迹。在这个意义上,确当的翻译是防止译者权力过分膨胀的一剂良药。关于第三点,译学建设需要“解构精神”。金兵认为解构精神是一种永远不满足于现状、锐意创新的求索精神。当今的译学建设也惟有求新求异,才能更加繁荣。见金兵《论德里达的“确当的翻译”》,《解放军外国语学院学报》,2006(2),第78页。
④按:关于这一点,乔治·斯坦纳说过,“除了同声传译,所有的翻译都是把过去转换为当下。”见[英]乔治斯坦纳《巴别塔之后》(Steiner George. After Babel: Aspects of language and translation. New York and London: Oxford University Press, 1975, p.334.)韦努蒂对此也有论述:要是原作者在世,并且用译文语言写作,我们就可以看出,译者是不可能表达出作者所要表达的思想的。见[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995. p.6.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译再思》(Venuti, Lawrence. Rethinking Translation: Discourse, Subjectivity, Ideology. New York: Routledge 1992, p.7.)
②[德]图尔克《可译性问题:本雅明,奎因,德里达》(Turk, Horst. The Question of Translatability: Benjamin, Quine, Derrida. in Harald Kitted et al (ed.) Interculturality and the Historical Study of Literary Translation. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag. 1991, pp.124-126.)
③[美]埃德温·根茨勒《当代翻译理论》(Gentzler, Edwin. Contemporary Translation Theories. London & New York: Routledge, 1993, p.162.)
①王宁《德里达与翻译理论的解构》,《中国翻译》,2005(1),第45至47页。
②金兵《论德里达的“确当的翻译”》,《解放军外国语学院学报》,2006(2),第78页。
③黄振定《解构主义的翻译创造性与主体性》,《中国翻译》,2005(1),第19至21页。
④[美]埃德温·根茨勒《西方翻译理论》(Gentzler, Edwin. Contemporary Translation Theories, London and New York: Routledge. 1993, p.163.)
①转引自李文革《西方翻译理论流派研究》,北京:中国社会科学出版社,2004年8月版,第17页。
①按:韦努蒂也谈及德南姆、德莱顿、多雷等,详见后文的论述。
②按:泰特勒在1790年发表《论翻译的原则》(Essay on the principles of Translation),提出翻译必须遵循的三大原则:1、译作应完全复写出原作的思想;2、译作的风格和手法应和原作属于统一性质;3、译作应具备原作所具有的通顺。谭载喜认为“泰特勒的理论标志着西方翻译史上一个时期的结束和另一个时期的
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《翻译之耻》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. p.188.)人民文学出版社,2002年。
①刘亚猛《韦努蒂的“翻译伦理”及其自我解构》,《中国翻译》,2005年第5期,第40页。蒋骁华、张景华《重新解读韦努蒂的异化翻译理论――兼于郭建中教授商榷》,《中国翻译》,2007年第3期,第39到44页。
①蒋骁华、张景华《重新解读韦努蒂的异化翻译理论――兼与郭建中教授商榷》,《中国翻译》,2007年第3期,第39到44页。
②凯瑟琳·戴维斯《解构与翻译》(Davis, Kathleen. Deconstruction and Translation, Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004. 1.)
①《德里达访谈录:一种疯狂守候着思想》,何佩群译,p154,注1。
①余光中《余光中谈翻译》,北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2002. 11,扉页。
②按:此处原文为:My project is to trace the origins of the situation in which every English-language translator works today, although from an opposing standpoint, with the explicit aim of locating alternatives, of changing the situation. [美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,《序言及致谢》,Ⅸ页。)
①按:此处原文为:The more fluent the translation, the more visible the translator, and, presumably, the more visible the writer or meaning of the foreign text. [美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, p.2.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, pp.2--16.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, p.8.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, p.16.)
③韩江洪《严复话语系统与近代中国文化转型》,上海:上海译文出版社,2006年10月。
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,p.17.)
②按:此处原文为:Translation is a process by which the chain of signifiers that constitutes the source-language text is replaced by a chain of signifiers in the target language which the translator provides on the strength of an interpretation. [美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, p.17.)
①[英]安德列·勒菲维尔(Lefevere, André. Translation/History/Culture. London: Routledge. 1992)
②孙会军《普遍与差异》,上海:上海译文出版社,2005年10月,第56页。
①葛校琴《后现代语境下的译者主体性研究》,上海:上海译文出版社,2006年10月,第14页,第17页,第154至154页。
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, p.31.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, p.31.)
③[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, p.32.)
④[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, p.34.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, p.34.)
②按:此处韦努蒂的原文是:This does not mean that translation is forever banished to the realm of freedom or error, but that canons of accuracy are culturally specific and historically variable.)[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, p.37.)
③按:此处韦努蒂的原文是:Critical categories like“fluency”and“resistancy,”“domesticating”and“foreignizing,”can only be defined by referring to the formation of cultural discourses in which the translation is produced, and in which certain translation theories and practices are valued over others.)[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, p.38.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, p.39.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, p.18.)
②王宁《文化翻译与经典诠释》,北京:中华书局,2006,第35页。
③[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge, 1995, p.19.)
④韦努蒂转引自勒菲维尔的英语译文为:Schleiermacher argued that“there are only two. Either the translator leaves the author in peace, as much as possible, and moves the reader towards him; or he leaves the reader in peace, as much as possible, and moves the author towards him.”[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence.
The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge, 1995. pp.19--20.)
①[美]舒尔特、彼根特《翻译理论文集:从德莱顿到德里达》(Schulte, Rainer & Biguente, John (ed.) The Theories of Translation: An Anthology from Dryden to Derrida. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. p.6.)
②[美]舒尔特、彼根特《翻译理论文集:从德莱顿到德里达》(Schulte, Rainer & Biguente, John (ed.) The Theories of Translation: An Anthology from Dryden to Derrida. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995. p.20.)
②按:韦努蒂对奈达的译论主张的评论和批判可参见[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,pp21--23.)。也可参见孙会军《普遍与差异》,上海:上海译文出版社,2005. 10,第88至92页或197页。
①按:韦努蒂在《译者的隐身》第一章第23至39中只是引出这几个概念,在第二章到第七章还有更详细的解释。本论文对这几个概念也将在下文辟专章论述。
②按:从18世纪中叶开始,西方的翻译家和作家们开始把其他的语言放到一个平等的位置上来看待,对外国的尊重已经成为了一种指导原则。随着这一视角的转换,人们开始调整自己以便适应外国文本中异质的东西。在19世纪和20世纪,这种对原文中异质因素的关注成为翻译理论研究和翻译技术中的一种潜流。参见[美]舒尔特、彼根特《翻译理论文集:从德莱顿到德里达》(Schulte, Rainer & Biguente, John (ed.) The Theories of Translation: An Anthology from Dryden to Derrida. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. p.3.)孙会军在梳理的基础上也说,“在这个时期,人们大多接受这样一个基本前提:即引导译文去接近原文。直译的方法并没有销声匿迹,而是以另外一种形式呈现了出来。”她还引用贝尔曼的说法:“正是浪漫主义时期德国的翻译理论构成了现代西方翻译主要流派的基础”,总领有关德国异化说的历史。她梳理了赫尔德、洪堡特、施莱尔马赫、本雅明以及贝尔曼的有关“异化”的说法。参见孙会军《普遍与差异》,上海:上海译文出版社,2005年10月,第202至209页。
③[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,pp.40--42.)
④[英]沙特尔沃斯、考利《翻译研究辞典》(Shuttleworth, M. & Cowie, M. Dictionary of Translation Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome, 1997. p.59.)
①[英]沙特尔沃斯、考利《翻译研究辞典》(Shuttleworth, M. & Cowie, M. Dictionary of Translation Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome, 1997. pp.43--44.)
②[英]莫娜·贝克尔主编《鲁特里奇翻译研究百科全书》(Baker, Mona. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge. 2001, p240.)
③[英]莫娜·贝克尔主编《鲁特里奇翻译研究百科全书》(Baker, Mona. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge. 2001, p240.)
④按:此处韦努蒂的原文为:The more fluent the translation, the more visible the translator, and, presumably, the more visible the writer or meaning of the foreign text. [美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, p.2.)
①按:鲁迅早在1935年《“题未定”草》一文中不就认同归化式的翻译。鲁迅说:“我是不主张削鼻剜眼的,所以有些地方,仍然宁可译的不顺口。”王东风在研究了鲁迅这一主张后,将这种归化定义为“削鼻剜眼”式的暴力整容。这一提法非常形象。见王东风《解构“忠实”――翻译神话的终结》,《中国翻译》,2004(6),第8页。笔者对此深为赞赏。
②孙会军《普遍与差异》,上海:上海译文出版社,2005年10月,第46页。
①孙会军《普遍与差异》,上海:上海译文出版社,2005年10月,第214到215页。
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation,New York: Routledge 1995,p.15.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,p.15.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,pp.16--17.)
③孙会军《普遍与差异》,上海:上海译文出版社,2005年10月,第200页。
④孙会军《普遍与差异》,上海:上海译文出版社,2005年10月,第221至222页。
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,p.43.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,p.58.)
①按:此处韦努蒂的原文为:to generate a certain characteristic mode of expression, developing a national language, influencing the whole evolution of a culture. [美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,p.102.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,p.109.)
③[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,p.109.)
④按:此处英文为:Translation strategies can be defined as“foreignizing”or“domesticating”only in relation to specific cultural situations, specific moments in the changing reception of a foreign literature, or in the changing hierarchy of domestic values. [美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge, 1995,p.272.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,p.291.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge, 1995,pp.310--313.)
①王东风《归化与异化:矛与盾的交锋?》,《中国翻译》,2002(9),第24页。
②见www.temple.edu./English/People/VenutiL.asp
③见www.temple.edu./English/People/VenutiL.asp
①王东风:《异化归化:矛与盾的交锋?》,《中国翻译》,2002(5),第25页。
②此处罗宾逊的原文为: A term used by foreignist translation theorists to describe what they consider the worst kind of translation, translation that domesticates the foreign text by assimilating it to target-cultural and target-linguistic values. More traditionally called“sense-for-sense translation; also called“assimilative”translation. [加]道格拉斯·罗宾逊《翻译与帝国》(Robinson, Douglas. Translation and Empire: Postcolonial Theory Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome, 1997,p.116.)
③罗宾逊的原文为:A view of translation grounded in the work of German thinkers such as A.W. von Schlegel, Friedrich Schleiermacher, and Walter Benjamin, and most powerfully argued today by Antoine Berman and Lawrence Venuti, according to which a“good”translation always retains some significant trace of the original “foreign”text. Historically related to literalism or word-for-word translation, it is less radical than literalism in insisting not on close adherence to the meanings of individual words in the original syntactic sequence, but rather on the survival of a flavour of the original in translation. [加]道格拉斯·罗宾逊《翻译与帝国》(Robinson, Douglas. Translation and Empire: Postcolonial Theory Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome, 1997,p.117.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge, 1995,pp.12--16.)
②[加]道格拉斯·罗宾逊《翻译与帝国》(Robinson, Douglas. Translation and Empire: Postcolonial Theory Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome, 1997,p.33.)
③[加]道格拉斯·罗宾逊《翻译与帝国》(Robinson, Douglas. Translation and Empire: Postcolonial Theory Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome, 1997, p.109.)此处原文为:The driving idea behind this set of assumptions is that assimilative or domesticating translation, is a primary tool of empire insofar as it encourages colonial powers (or more generally the‘the stronger’or‘hegemonic’cultures) to translate foreign texts into their own terms, thus eradicating cultural differences and creating a buffer zone of assimilated‘sameness’around them. Members of hegemonic cultures are therefore never exposed to true difference, for they are strategically protected from the disturbing experience of the foreign……In this way, diversity is gradually leached out of the world…….
④[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge, 1995. pp.67--68.)
①孙会军《普遍与差异》,上海:上海译文出版社,2005年10月,第221至222页。
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge, 1995. p.306.)
③[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge, 1995. p.34.)
④[加]道格拉斯·罗宾逊《翻译与帝国》(Robinson, Douglas. Translation and Empire: Postcolonial Theory Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome, 1997,p.109.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, p.214.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, p.23.)
②按:国内有学者将这一术语翻译成“随意的忠实”,见任淑坤《解构主义翻译观刍议》,《外语与外语教学》,2004年(11),第57页。
③[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, p.23.)
④按:1980年在法国Cerisy-la-Salle举行了名为“人的终结”的学术研讨会。刘易斯为该研讨会提交的论文题为《走向妄用式忠实》(英文为Toward Abusive Translation,法文原文为Vers la traduction abusive),后来此篇文章于1985年收录在格雷厄姆所编的论文集《翻译中的差异》(Difference in Translation)中,题目改为《翻译效果的衡量》(The Measure of Translation Effects)。该文是刘易斯有关翻译理论的代表作。见[法]菲利普·刘易斯《翻译效果的衡量》(Philip Lewis. (1985)“The Measure of Translation Effects”, in Difference in Translation. Joseph Graham (ed.) Ithaca: Cornell University Press。后来韦努蒂编辑的《翻译研究读本》(The Translation Studies Reader)也收录了该文。见劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译研究读本》(Venuti, Lawrence.(2000) (ed.)The Translation Studies Reader, Routledge: New York and London. pp.256--275.)
①[法]菲利普·刘易斯《翻译效果的衡量》(Philip Lewis.“The Measure of Translation Effects”, in The Translation Studies Reader, Venuti, Lawrence. (2004) (ed.) Routledge: New York and London. p.261.)
②[法]菲利普·刘易斯《翻译效果的衡量》(Lewis, Philip.“The Measure of Translation Effects”, in The Translation Studies Reader, Venuti, Lawrence. (2004) (ed.) Routledge: New York and London. p.261.)
③[美]埃德温·根茨勒《当代翻译理论》(Genztler, Edwin. Contemporary Translation Theories, Clevedon, Buffalo, Toraonto, Sydney: Multilingual Matters. Ltd., 2001. p.39.)
④[加]道格拉斯·罗宾逊《翻译是什么?》(Robinson, Douglas. What is Translation? Centrifugal Theories, Critical Interventions. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press. 1997, p132.)
⑤按:韦努蒂在《翻译再思》的《导言》中确实不止一次地引用了菲利普·刘易斯的“妄用式忠实”。由于该《导言》提升为1995年出版的《译者的隐身》的第一章,因而《导言》中韦努蒂所论问题均在第一章中做了更详细的阐述。见[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译再思》(Venuti, Lawrence (ed.) (1992) Rethinking Translation: Discourse, Subjectivity, Ideology, London and New York: Routledge, p.12.),另见[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995. pp.23--24.)
①按:多价性:化学及药学用语。用于化学表示物质有多种价态的,用于药学表示能够与一种以上的毒药、抗原或微生物作用或消解一种以上的毒药、抗原或微生物。刘易斯在此用多价这一概念隐喻一词多义现象。
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译德里达论翻译》(Venuti, Lawrence (2003) Translating Derrida on Translation: Relevance and Disciplinary Resistance, The Yale Journal of Criticism, Volume 16, number 2 (2003): pp.237-262.)
③按:韦努蒂在此引用的观点实际上是刘易斯论妄用的两种功能的观点。见[法]菲利普·刘易斯《翻译效果的衡量》(Philip Lewis. (1985)“The Measure of Translation Effects”, in The Translation Studies Reader, Venuti, Lawrence. (2004) (ed.) Routledge: New York and London. pp.263.)另见[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译德里达论翻译》(Venuti, Lawrence (2003) Translating Derrida on Translation: Relevance and Disciplinary Resistance, The Yale Journal of Criticism, Volume 16, number 2 (2003): pp.237--262.)
④按:此处原文为:If my translation abuses the English language and an English style manual, it also has aninterrogative impact on Derrida’s text. [美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译德里达论翻译》(Venuti, Lawrence (2003) Translating Derrida on Translation: Relevance and Disciplinary Resistance, The Yale Journal of Criticism, Volume 16, number 2 (2003): 237-262.第255页。)
①按:国内的学者有把此术语翻译成抵抗式翻译的,见任淑坤《解构主义翻译观刍议》,《外语与外语教学》,2004年(11),第57页;还有学者将其翻译为抵抗性的翻译策略。见刘亚猛《韦努蒂的“翻译伦理”及其自我解构》,《中国翻译》,2005(5),第42页。笔者认为对抗式翻译更能凸显出韦努蒂的原意,以彰显翻译活动中对本族文化的对抗,抵制本土中心的暴力。故选择对抗式翻译的译法。
②按:此段文字见[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995.p.1.)夏皮罗的原文为: I see translation as the attempt to produce a text so transparent that it does not seem to be translated. A good translation is like a pane of glass. You only notice that it’s there when there are little imperfections --- scratches, bubbles. Ideally, there shouldn’t be any. It should never call attention to itself.夏皮罗是卫斯理安大学(Wesleyan University)传奇语言及文学(romance)教授,翻译家。曾翻译过波德莱尔的《恶之花》(Les Fleurs du mal)等多部作品。
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, p.149.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, p.290.)
③按:韦努蒂在文中详细论述自己翻译德·安吉里斯作品时的种种做法。他将这种做法归结为“对抗”。具体例子可见[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995. pp.287--302.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, p.302.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, pp.291--293.)
③[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, p.292.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, pp.305--306.)
②王宁《文化翻译与经典诠释》,北京:中华书局,2006年4月,第111页。
③[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, p291.)
④王东风《翻译研究的后殖民视角》,《中国翻译》,2003(4),第5页。
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation,New York: Routledge 1995,p.188.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,p.188.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, p309.)
①伊兹拉·庞德《伊兹拉·庞德文学散文集》(Pound, Ezra. Literary Essays of Ezra Pound. Edited with an Introductory by T.S. Eliot, New York: New Directions Publishing Corporation, 1968, p.200)
②苏珊·巴斯耐特《翻译研究》(Bassnet, Susan. Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge, 1991, p.97.)
③[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,pp.195--196.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,pp.195--196.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,p.197.)
①转引自[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,p204.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,p.215.)
③[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,p.215.)
①转引自[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,p.215.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,p.216.)
③[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,p.219.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,p.225.)
②按:中世纪骑士抒情诗最早兴起源于法国南部的普罗旺斯(Provance),被称为“普罗旺斯抒情诗”,这种抒情诗骑士抒情诗对欧洲抒情诗的发展有相当的影响。它的中心主题是骑士与贵妇人的爱情与幽会,经典作品《破晓歌》写的是一对热恋中的情人幽会之后在黎明前依依惜别的情景,生活气息浓郁,突破了宗教的禁欲主义桎梏。普罗旺斯作为法国骑士抒情诗的发源地,许多人因为其美丽的风光及古典艺术的气息而慕名前往。
③[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,p.225.)
④[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,p.229.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,p.236.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,p.253.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,p.271.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. p.1.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. p.9.)
③黄振定《解构主义的翻译创造性与主体性》,《中国翻译》,2005(1),第19至22页。)
④[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. pp.8--38.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. pp.31--46.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. pp.47--65.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. pp. 67--68.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998.pp. 88--105.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. pp.106--123.)
③[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. pp.124--157.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. pp.158--189.)
②按:莱瑟科尔,法国语言哲学家,著有《语言的暴力》(The Violence of Language)、《无意义哲学》(Philosophy of Nonsense)。韦努蒂就是从《语言的暴力》中选取“语言剩余”这一概念的。见[法]莱瑟科尔《语言的暴力》(Lecercle, J.-J. The Violence of Language, London and New York: Routledge. 1990)
③[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. pp.9--10.)
①[法]德勒兹与加塔利《卡夫卡:走向少数族文学》(Deleuze, Gilles & Guattari, Felix, Kafka: Toward a Minor Literature, University of Minnesota, 1986)
②按:少数族文学的三个特点:一,少数族文学的语言具有解辖域化;二,少数族文学中的一切都是政治性,与权力之间关系尤为密切;三,少数族文学所蕴涵的一切都具有集体价值或具有集体的曲折形式。见[法]德勒兹与加塔利《卡夫卡:走向少数族文学》(Deleuze, Gilles & Guattari, Felix, Kafka: Toward a Minor Literature, University of Minnesota, 1986),汉语译文见陈永国编译《游牧思想:吉尔·德勒兹、费利克斯·瓜塔里读本》,长春:吉林人民出版社,2003年11月,第111至128页。
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. pp.10--11.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. p.11.)
②按:此处原文为: My preference for minoritizing translation also issues from an ethical stance that recognizes the asymmetrical relation in any translation project.)[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. p.11.)
③[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. pp.14---17.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. p.15.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. pp.14---16.)
③[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. p.17.)
④[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. p.18.)
①按:此处原文为:But, finally, my aim was cultural, not commercial, to create a work of minor literature within the major language. And this, I believe, was accomplished.)[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge. 1998. p.20.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. p.21.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998.p.29.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998.pp.29--30.)
①阎嘉《文学研究中的文化身份与文化认同问题》,《江西社会科学》,2006(9),第65页。
②转引自王宁《文化翻译与经典诠释》,北京:中华书局,2006年4月,第38至39页。
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998.pp.67--68.)按:此处汉语部分参考了查正贤所译《翻译与文化身份的塑造》一文。见许宝强、袁伟选编《语言与翻译的政治》,北京:中央编译出版社,2001年,第358至382页。)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998.pp.69--71.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998.p.72.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998.pp.71--75.)
②[英]乔治·斯坦纳《巴别塔之后》(Steiner, George. After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation. London: Oxford University Press, 1973. pp.360--361.)
③按:此处引自韦努蒂援引庞德的说法,原文为:Translation is good training, if you find that your original matter‘wobbles’when you try to rewrite it. The meaning of the poem to be translated can not‘wobble.’[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. p.76.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998.p.78.)
①胡继华《后现代语境中伦理文化转向:论列维纳斯、德里达和南希》,北京:京华出版社,2005年11月,第33页。
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, p.20.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, pp.21--33.)
②孙会军《普遍与差异》,上海:上海译文出版社,2005,第88至第92页。
①[法]毛利思·布朗肖(Blanchot, Maurice,参见陈德鸿、张南峰主编《西方翻译理论精选》,香港:香港城市大学出版社,2000年,第250页。)
②孙会军《普遍与差异》,上海:上海译文出版社,2005,第71页,转引自韦努蒂《再思翻译》,第139至158页。
①王东风《解构“忠实”――翻译神话的终结》,《中国翻译》,2004(6),第3页。
②王东风《解构“忠实”――翻译神话的终结》,《中国翻译》,2004(6),第4页。
③[法]菲利普·刘易斯《翻译效果的衡量》(Lewis, Philip. The Measure of Translation Effects. Venuti, Lawrence. (Ed.) The Translation Studies Reader. London & New York: Routledge, 2000,第250页。)
④法国谚语,由法国修辞学加梅纳日(Menage 1613-1692)所说。这一谚语宣称,像女人一样,翻译要么必须漂亮,要么必须忠实于原文。还可参见谢莉·西蒙《翻译中的性别》(Gender in Translation),汉语译文见许宝强袁伟选编《语言与翻译的政治》,北京:中央编译出版社,2001年1月,第320页。
⑤按:意大利谚语,原文为Traduttore, traditore。
⑥按:东晋·前秦高僧道安(314-385)的翻译理论。此论见序文《摩诃钵罗若波罗蜜经钞序》。钱钟书以为,“吾国翻译术开宗明义,首推此序。”道安在该序中总结了翻译佛经在五种情况下会失去本来面目,有三件事决定了译事的不易,因而必须谨慎。这种宗教翻译背后体现的是高度“忠实”于原文。
⑦[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译再思》(Rethinking Translation: Discourse, Subjectivity, Ideology, New York: Routledge. 1992,p.8.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998.pp.81--82.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998.p.82.)
①按:此处原文为: Jones’s translations of Aristotle truly decentered the reigning academic versions because his project was open to foreign cultural values that were not located in the English-language academy: the features of the archaic Greek text that were repressed by the modern Anglo-American ideology of individualism became visible.)[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998.p.82.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998.p.83.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. p.84.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《翻译和文化身份的形成》(Venuti, Lawrence.“Translation and the formation of cultural identities”. in Christina Schaffner & Helen Kelly-Homles (Ed.) The Cultural Functions of Translation. Clevendon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. p.23.)按:此处译文参照了查正贤的译文。见许宝强、袁伟选编《语言与翻译的政治》,北京:中央编译出版社,2001年,第358至380页。
①[英]安东尼·皮姆《翻译方法史》(Pym, Anthony. Method in Translation History. Manchester. St. Jerome Publishers, 1997,p12.)
②[英]安东尼·皮姆《回归伦理》(Anthony Pym (ed). The Return to Ethics, Special Issue of the Translator 7 (2). Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 2001)
①按:此处原文为: Translating can never simply be communication between equals because it is fundamentally ethnocentric…And the very function of translating is assimilation, the inscription of a foreign text with domestic intelligibilities and interests)[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998, p.11.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, p.15.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《翻译之耻》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998, p.189.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《翻译之耻》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. pp.34.)
②孙会军《普遍与差异》,上海:上海译文出版社,2005年10月,第16页。
③[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《翻译之耻》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. pp.1--4.)
①刘亚猛《韦努蒂的“翻译伦理”及其自我解构》,《中国翻译》,2005(5),第42页。
②刘亚猛《韦努蒂的“翻译伦理”及其自我解构》,《中国翻译》,2005(5),第41页。
③刘亚猛《韦努蒂的“翻译伦理”及其自我解构》,《中国翻译》,2005(5),第44页。
④[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《翻译之耻》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. pp.81--82.)
⑤刘亚猛《韦努蒂的“翻译伦理”及其自我解构》,《中国翻译》,2005(5),第41页。
①按:关于全球化的背景及翻译与全球化的关系问题,王宁曾做过仔细的梳理。见王宁《文化翻译与经典诠释》,北京:中华书局,2006,第18至30页,第37至40页,第58至71页。有关全球化理论,还可参看胡继华《后现代语境中伦理文化转向·引言》,第11页,注12。
①按:转引自王宁《文化翻译与经典诠释》,北京:中华书局,2006,第19至20页。
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《翻译之耻》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. p.158.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《翻译之耻》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. pp.160--162.)
②王宁《文化翻译与经典诠释》,北京:中华书局,2006,第204页。
③[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《翻译之耻》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. p.170.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《翻译之耻》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. p.178--186.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《翻译之耻》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. p.178.)
③按:韦努蒂有关Translating modernity一节可参见王宁《文化翻译与经典诠释》,北京:中华书局,2006,第129-138页,《现代性文化在中国:翻译和混杂的结果》)有关现代性(modernity)的论述。王宁《文化翻译与经典诠释》,北京:中华书局,2006,第124页。现代性据詹明信(Jameson)看来,有四种论点,第182页。另:134页有有关林纾的论述。
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《翻译之耻》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. pp.179--181.)按:严复将穆勒的《论自由》译为《群己权界论》。
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《翻译之耻》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. p.182.)
③杨联芬《晚清至五四:中国文学现代性的发生》,北京:北京大学出版社,2003年,11月,第86到87页。
①杨联芬《晚清至五四:中国文学现代性的发生》,北京:北京大学出版社,2003年,11月,第1026到103页。
①韩江红《严复话语系统与近代中国文化转型》,上海:上海译文出版社,2006年10月,第99页到101页。
②按:1902年3月,鲁迅留学日本,1903年开始翻译活动。最初从日文转译雨果的随笔《哀尘》、儒勒·凡尔纳(Jules Verne)的科技小说《月界旅行》。周作人于1906年夏秋之交留日,周氏兄弟合译活动当始于1907年。最早合译的是托尔斯泰的《劲草》,但未出版。见陈福康《中国译学理论史稿》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,1996年10月,第170页。
③鲁迅:《鲁迅全集》第四集,北京:人民文学出版社1981年版,第382页。
④鲁迅:《鲁迅全集》第十卷,北京:人民文学出版社1981年,第155页。
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《翻译之耻》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. p.185.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《翻译之耻》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. p.188.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《翻译之耻》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. p.188.)按:此处原文为:For a translation ethics grounded in such differences, the key issue is not simply a discursive strategy (fluent or resistant), but always its intention and effect as well– i.e., whether the translating realized an aim to promote cultural innovation and change.
①卡西尔《人论》,上海:上海译文出版社,1992年。
①王东风《翻译与权力·导读》,北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2007年9月。
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. p.81.)
②刘亚猛《韦努蒂的“翻译伦理”及其自我解构》,《中国翻译》,2005(5),第41页。
③[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. p.82.)
④[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. p.81.)
Venuti, Lawrence (1989) Our Halycon Dayes: English Prerevolutionary Texts and Postmodern Culture
------. (1992) Rethinking Translation: Discourse, Subjectivity, Ideology, New York: Routledge.
------. (1995) The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge.
------. (1998) The Scandals of Translation: Towards an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge.
------. (1998) Translation and Minority, Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
------. (2000) The translation studies reader. London: Routledge.
Venuti, Lawrence (1996) Translation and the Formation of Cultural Identities, in
Christina Schaffner and Helen Kelly-Holmes (eds). Cultural Functions of Translation, Clevendon: Multilingual Matters Ltd., pp.9-25.
------. ( 1997 ) Unequal Developments: Current Trends in Translation Studies, Comparative Literature, Vol. 49, No.4. (Autumn, 1997), pp.360-368.
------.(2000) Translation, Community, Utopia. in The Translation Studies Reader. (ed.) by Lawrence Venuti, New York: Routledge.
------(.2001)Strategies of Translation. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. Baker, Mona. London and New York: Routledge.
------. (2003) Translating Derrida on Translation: Relevance and Disciplinary Resistance, The Yale Journal of Criticism, Volume 16, number 2 (2003)
Abrams, M.H. (1953) The Mirror and the Lamp: Romantic Theory and the Critical Tradition, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Amos, F. R. (1920) Early Theories of Translation, New York: Columbia University Press.
Anthony Pym (2001) (ed). The Return to Ethics, Special Issue of the Translator 7 (2). Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
Baker, M. (1992) In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation, London and New York: Routledge.
------.(1998)Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge.
Barnstone, Willis. (1993) The Poetics of Translation: History, Theory, Practice. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Bassnett, Susan. Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge, 1991
Bassnett, Susan and Lefevere, Andre (1998) (eds.) Constructing Cultures: Essays on Literary Translation. Clevedon et al. Multilingual Matters.
Bassnett, Susan and Harish Trivedi. (1999) (eds.) Post-Colonial Translation: Theory and Practice. London and New York: Routledge.
Berman, Antoine. (1992) The Experience of the Foreign. trans. By S. Heyvaert. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Benjamin, A. (1989) Translation and the Nature of Philosophy: A New Theory of Words, London and New York: Routledge.
Bhabha, H. (1994) The Location of Culture, London and New York: Routledge.
Cohen, J.M. (1962) English Translators and Translations, London: Longmans, Green & Co.
Culler, Johnathan. (2004) On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism after Structuralism. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Davis, Kathleen. (2004) Deconstruction and Translation. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Deleuze, Gilles & Guattari, Felix, Kafka: Toward a Minor Literature, University of Minnesota, 1986
Even-Zohar, Itamar.“The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem.”Holmes, Lambert and Broeck ed. Literature and Translation: New Perspectives in Literary Studies. Leuven: Academic Publishing Company, 1978
------. Polysystem Studies. Tel Aviv: Porter Institute for Poetic and semiotics, 1990 Gentzler, Edwin. (1993) Contemporary Translation Theories, London and New York: Routledge.
------. (2001) Contemporary Translation Theories, Clevedon, Buffalo, Toronto, Sydney: Multilingual Matters. Ltd.
Giddens, A. (1979) Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure, and Contradiction in Social Analysis, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Graham, J. (1985) (ed.) Difference in Translation, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
Green, J. M. (2001) Thinking Through Translation, Athens and London: the University of Georgia Press.
Gutt, E. (1991) Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context, Oxford: Blackwell.
Hatim, B., and I. Mason (1990) Discourse and the Translator, London: Longman.
Jakobson, Roman. (1959) On Linguistic Aspects of Translation. Reuben A. Brower (ed.)On Translation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press
Lecercle, J.-J. (1990) The Violence of Language, London and New York: Routledge.
Lefevere, A. (ed. and trans.) (1977) Translating Literature: The German Tradition from Luther to Rosenzweig, Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum.
------. (1992a) Translation, Rewriting, and the Manipulation of Literary Fame, London and New York: Routledge.
------. (ed. and trans.) (1992b) Translation/History/Culture: A Sourcebook, London and New York: Routledge.
Neubert & Shreve. (1992) Translation as Text. Kent: The Kent University Press.
Mounin, George. (1963)Theoretical Problems of Translation. Paris: Gallimard.
Newmark, Peter. (1998)A Textbook of Translation. Prentice Hall International Ltd.
Nida E.A., (1964)Toward a Science of Translation. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
------. (1975)Language Structure and Translation: Essays. Stanedford and California: Stanford University Press.
------.(1981)Meaning across Culture. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis.
------. (1982)Translating meaning. San Dimas and California: English language Institute.
------.(1993)Language, Culture and Translating,Shanghai, Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Niranjana, T. (1992) Siting Translation: History, Poststructuralism, and the Colonial Context, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Nord, Christiane.(1997)Translation as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalists Approaches Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Palmer, R.E. (1969) Hermeneutics: Interpretation Theory in Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Heidegger, and Gadamar, Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press.
Pym, Anthony. Method in Translation History. Manchester. St. Jerome Publishers, 1998
Robinson, Douglas. (1991) The Translator’s Turn. Baltimore and London: John Hopkins University Press.
------. (1996) Translation and Taboo. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press.
------. (1997a.) Western Translation Theory from Herodotus to Nietzsche. Manchester, UK: St. Jerome Publishing.
------. (1997b.) Translation and Empire: Postcolonial Theory Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Rainer Schulte and John Biguenet (1992) (eds.) Theories of Translation: An Anthology of Essays from Dryden to Derrida, London: The University of Chicago Press, Ltd.
Said, E. (1978) Orientalism, New York: Pantheon.
Simon, Shelley. (1996) Gender in Translation: Cultural Identity and the Politics of Transmission, London and New York: Routledge.
Snell-Hornby, Mary et al. ed. (1994)Translation Studies: An Inter-discipline. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Spivak, Gayatri C. (1993)“Politics of Translation”, Outside in the Teaching Machine, Routledge
------. (1999) A Critique of Postcolonial Reason: Toward a History of the VanishingPresent. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.
Steiner, G. (1974) After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation, London, Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Toury, Gideon. (1981)Translated Literature: System, Norm, Performance: Toward a TT-oriented Approach to Literary Translation. Poetics today.
Tytler, A. F. (1978) Essay on the Principles of Translation, ed. J. F. Huntsman, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Benjamin, Walter. (2001) The Task of Translator. The translation studies reader. London: Routledge.
Benjamin,Walter. The Task of Translator. In Schulte, Rainer & Biguente, John (ed.) The Theories of Translation: An Anthology from Dryden to Derrida. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.
Derrida (1982) in Margins of Philosophy, trans. A. Bass, Chicago: London: Johns Hopkins University Press.
------. (1985)“Des Tours de Babel,”in J. Graham (ed.) Difference in Translation, Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
------. (2001)“What is a‘Relevant’Translation?”, Translated by Lawrence Venuti, Critical Inquiry, Vol. 27, No.2. (Winter 2001), pp.174-200. and its“Introduction.”
Foucault, Michael, The Order of Things: An Archaeology of Human Sciences, Vintage: 1994.
Fredric Jameson, (1998)“Notes on Globalization as a Philosophical Issue”, in the Cultures of Globalization, Fredric Jameson and Masao Miyoshi eds. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Graham, Joseph. (1985) Difference in Translation. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Mary Snell-Hornby. (1990) Linguistic Transcoding or Cultural Transfer? A Critique of Translation Theory in German,in Translation, History and Culture(ed). Bassnett and Lefevere.
Mason, I. (1994)“Discourse, Ideology and Translation,”in R. de Beaugrande, A. Shunnaq, and M. Helmy Heliel (eds.) Language, Discourse and Translation in the West and Middle East, Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Philip Lewis. (1985)“The Measure of Translation Effects”, in The Translation Studies Reader, Venuti, Lawrence. (2004) (ed.) Routledge: New York and London.
Turk, Horst. (1991) The Question of Tranlatability: Benjamin, Quine, Derrida. in Harald Kitted et al (ed.) Interculturality and the Historical Study of Literary Translation. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.
蔡新乐《翻译与汉语:解构主义视角下的译学研究》,北京:中央编译出版社,2006. 12
陈德鸿、张南峰《西方翻译理论精选》,香港:香港城市大学出版社,2000
陈福康《中国译学理论史稿》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,96.10
陈平原《中国现代小说的起点――清末民初小说研究》,北京:北京大学出版社,2005.9
费小平《翻译的政治》,北京:中国社会科学出版社,2005. 3
甘阳《古今中西之争》,北京:生活读书新知三联书店,2006. 12
葛校琴《后现代语境下的译者主体性研究》,上海:上海译文出版社,2006. 10
耿龙明《翻译论从》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,98.5
辜正坤《中西诗比较鉴赏与翻译理论》,北京:清华大学出版社,2003. 7
郭建中《当代美国翻译理论》,武汉:湖北教育出版社,2000. 4
韩江洪《严复话语系统与近代中国文化转型》,上海:上海译文出版社,2006.10
韩子满《文学翻译杂合研究》,上海:上海译文出版社,2005. 10
胡继华《后现代语境中的伦理文化转向:论列维纳斯、德里达和南希》,北京:京华出版社,2005.11
李和庆、黄皓、薄振杰《西方翻译研究方法:70年代以后》,北京:北京大学出版社,2005. 11
李文革《西方翻译理论流派研究》,北京:中国社会科学出版社,2004. 8
廖七一《当代翻译理论探索》,南京:译林出版社,2000
廖七一《当代英国翻译理论》,武汉:湖北教育出版社,2001. 3
刘宓庆《中西翻译思想比较研究》,北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2005. 11
刘润清《西方语言学流派》,北京:外语教学与研究出版社,97.4
陆扬《德里达·解构之维》,武汉:华中师范大学出版社,1996. 7
罗选民《文学翻译与文学批评》,北京:人民文学出版社,2005. 12
秦文华《翻译研究的互文性视角》,上海:上海译文出版社,2006. 10
沈苏儒《论信达雅》,北京:商务印书馆,98.12
孙会军《普遍与差异》,上海:上海译文出版社,2005. 10
谭载喜《西方翻译简史》,北京:商务印书馆,2000. 4
谭载喜《翻译学》,武汉:湖北教育出版社,2000. 9
田启波《吉登斯现代社会变迁思想研究》,北京:人民出版社,2007年9月
王宁《文化翻译与经典诠释》,北京:中华书局,2006. 4
王宪明《语言、翻译与政治》,北京:北京大学出版社,2005.5
王岳川《中国后现代话语》,广州:中山大学出版社,2004. 5
肖锦龙《德里达的解构理论思想性质论》,北京:中国社会科学出版社,2004. 5
谢天振《译介学》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000
谢天振《翻译研究新视野》,青岛:青岛出版社,2003.7
许宝强、袁伟《语言与翻译的政治》,北京:中央编译出版社,2001. 1
许钧《文字·文学·文化――<红与黑>汉译研究》,南京:南京大学出版社,1996年。
许钧主编《当代法国翻译理论》,武汉:湖北教育出版社,2001
杨自检、刘学云编《翻译新论》,武汉:湖北教育出版社,1999.7
杨自俭《英汉与比较与翻译》第4集,上海:上海外语教育出版社,2002
余光中《余光中谈翻译》,北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2002. 11
张南峰《中西译学批评》,北京:清华大学出版社,2004. 10
张京媛《后殖民理论与文化批评》,北京:北京大学出版社,1999
郑海凌《文学翻译学》,郑州:文心出版社,2000. 9
周荣胜《文字场景》,重庆:西南师范大学出版社,2005. 5
朱立元主编《当代西方文艺理论》,上海:华东师范大学出版社,1999. 11
蔡毅、虞杰、段京华编译《语言与翻译》,[苏联]巴尔胡达罗夫著,北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1985. 3
冯川译《道与逻各斯》,张隆溪著,南京:江苏教育出版社,2006. 5
郭国良、陆汉臻译《沃尔特·本雅明或走向革命批评》,[英]特里·伊格尔顿著,南京:译林出版社,2005. 10
靳西平译,《海德格尔传》,吕迪格尔·萨弗兰斯基著,北京:商务印书馆,1999年
卡西尔《人论》,上海:上海译文出版社,1992年
刘象愚、陈永国等译《文学批评理论:从柏拉图到现在》,[英]拉曼·赛尔登著,北京:北京大学出版社,2003. 10
郦稚牛、张照进、童庆生译《镜与灯:浪漫主义文论及批评传统》,[美]艾布拉
姆斯著,北京:北京大学出版社,2004. 1
李流等译《翻译理论概要》,[苏联]费道罗夫著,北京:中华书局,1955
穆雷译《翻译的语言学理论》,[英]卡特福德著,西安:旅游出版社,1991
蔡平《翻译方法应以归化为主》,《中国翻译》,2002(5)
蔡新乐《从德里达的翻译思想看理性主义的翻译理论建构》,《中国翻译》,2001(4)
陈永国《从解构到翻译:斯皮瓦克的属下研究》,《外国文学》,2005(5)
邓红风、王莉莉《翻译的窘境还是文化的窘境》,《中国翻译》,2003(7)
郭建中《韦努蒂及其解构主义的翻译策略》,《中国翻译》,2000(1)
董务刚《德里达解构主义理论中的建构思想对翻译研究的意义》,《四川外语学院学报》,2006(2)
封一函《论劳伦斯·韦努蒂的解构主义翻译策略》,《文艺研究》,2006(3)
郭建中《论解构主义翻译思想》,《上海科技翻译》,1999(4)
葛校琴《当前归化/异化策略讨论的后殖民视域》,《中国翻译》,2002(5)
郭建中《翻译中的文化因素:异化归化》,《外国语》,1998(2)
何绍斌、曹莉琼《翻译研究的范式变革与观念更新》,《天津外国语学院学报》,2005(1)
黄汉平《德里达的解构翻译理论初探》,《学术研究》,2004(6)
黄振定《解构主义的翻译创造性与主体性》,《中国翻译》,2005(1)
蒋骁华《近十年来西方翻译理论研究》,《外语教学与研究》,1998(2)
蒋骁华《解构主义翻译观探析》,《外语教学与研究》,
金兵《论德里达的“确当的翻译”》,《解放军外国语学院学报》,2006(2)
李红满《解构主义对传统翻译理论的冲击》,《解放军外国语学院学报》,2001(3)
李红满《回眸西方翻译理论发展的百年历程――评韦努蒂的<翻译研究读本>》,《中国翻译》,2001(5)
李小均《翻译暴力与属下研究》,《天津外国语学院学报》,2006(6)
刘军平《超越后现代的“他者”:翻译研究的张力与活力》,《中国翻译》,2004(1)
刘亚猛《韦努蒂的“翻译伦理”及其自我解构,《中国翻译》,2005(5)
刘艳丽、杨自俭《也谈“归化”与“异化”》,《中国翻译》,2002(6)
刘英凯《归化--翻译的歧路》,《现代外语》,1987(2)
马会娟《对Lawrence Venuti异化翻译理论的再思考》,《天津外国语学院学报》,2006(1)
莫逊男《从归化到异化――鲁迅翻译策略探索》,华南师范大学学报,2005(1)
任淑坤《解构主义翻译观刍议》,《外语与外语教学》,2004年(11)
孙致礼《翻译的异化与归化》,《山东外语教学》,2001(1)
孙致礼《中国的文学翻译:从归化趋向异化》,《中国翻译》,2002(1)
王大智《关于展开翻译伦理研究的思考》,《外语与外语教学》,2005(12)
王东风《译学学科名称溯源》,《中国翻译》,2002(3)
王东风《翻译研究的后殖民视角》,《中国翻译》,2003(4)
王东风《异化归化:矛与盾的交锋?》,《中国翻译》,2002(5)
王东风《解构“忠实”――翻译神话的终结》,《中国翻译》,2004(6)
王洪涛《从此岸到彼岸的反拨与超越》,《四川外语学院学报》,2006(9)
王宁《德里达与翻译理论的解构――怀念一代翻译理论宗师德里达》,《中国翻译》,2005(1)
王玉扩《译者的身份构建》,《天津外国语学院学报》,2005(5)
吴建国、魏清光《翻译与伦理规范》,《上海翻译》,2006(2)
谢天振《当代西方翻译研究的三大突破和两大转向》,《四川外语学院学报》,2003(5)
许宝强、袁伟选编《语言与翻译的政治》,北京:中央编译出版社,2001
许建平、张荣曦《跨文化翻译中的异化与归化问题》(《中国翻译》,2002(5)
阎嘉《文学研究中的文化身份与文化认同问题》,《江西社会科学》,2006(9)
杨金才《后殖民理论的激进与缺失》,《当代外国文学研究》,1999(4)
张柏然、秦文华《后殖民之后:翻译研究再思》,《南京大学学报》,2004(1)
赵宁《论充分翻译》,《外语教学》,2003(5)
朱健平《归化与异化:研究视点的转移》,《解放军外国语学研学报》,2002(2)
②李文革《西方翻译理论流派研究·代序》,北京:中国社会科学出版社,2004年8月,第1至2页。
③孙会军《普遍与差异》,上海:上海译文出版社,2005. 10《总序》,第1页至第2页。
④转引自孙会军《普遍与差异·总序》,上海:上海译文出版社,2005年10月,第3页。
①[美]埃德温·根茨勒《西方翻译理论》(Gentzler, Edwin. Contemporary Translation Theories, London and New York: Routledge. 1993)
②陈德鸿、张南峰《西方翻译理论精选》,香港:香港城市大学出版社,2000。
③谭载喜《西方翻译简史》,北京:商务印书馆,2000年4月。廖七一《当代翻译理论探索》,南京:译林出版社,2000。李文革《西方翻译理论流派研究》将西方翻译理论分为七个流派:翻译的文艺学派、翻译的语言学派、翻译研究学派、翻译的阐释学派、翻译的解构主义流派、美国翻译培训班学派及法国释意理论派等。见李文革《西方翻译理论流派研究》,北京:中国社会科学出版社,2004年8月。
①按:国际翻译理论界表现出鲜明的学科意识,始于詹姆斯·霍姆斯(James Holmes)于1972年发表的题为《翻译研究的名称与本质》(The Name and Nature of Translation Studies),该文探讨了翻译作为一个学科的名称、性质和范围的问题。1978年,勒菲维尔(Lefevere)建议将Translation Studies作为翻译学科的正式名称,为后来的翻译理论研究发展准备了条件。我国学者王东风也曾追溯过翻译学科的名称。他追溯了Science of Translation(翻译学、翻译科学),Translation Studies(翻译研究、译本研究派),translatology(翻译学)以及translation theory(翻译理论)的源头,对于翻译作为学科的认识给人以启发。见王东风、钟钰《译学学科名称溯源》,《中国翻译》,2002(3),第12到13页。
②蒋骁华《近十年来西方翻译理论研究》,《外语教学与研究》,1998(2),第29页。
①[以]伊塔马·埃文-佐哈尔《多元系统论》(Even-Zohar,Itamar. Polysystem Studies, Poetics Today, 1990. pp.9--26.)
②杨自俭《英汉语比较与翻译》第4集,上海:上海外语教育出版社,2002,第393页。
③杨自俭《英汉语比较与翻译》第4集,上海:上海外语教育出版社,2002,第393页。
①孙会军《普遍与差异》,上海:上海译文出版社,2005年10月版,第22页。
②王宁《文化翻译与经典诠释》,北京:中华书局,2006年4月,第5页。
③[德]玛丽·斯奈尔-霍恩比《是语言转换还是文化转换?德国翻译理论批评》(Mary Snell-Hornby. (ed.) Linguistic Transcoding or Cultural Transfer? A Critique of Translation Theory in German,in Translation, History and Culture. Bassnett and Lefevere. 1990. pp.79--86.)
①李文革《西方翻译理论流派研究》,北京:中国社会科学出版社,2004. 8,第210页。
②[英]苏珊·巴斯奈特、安德列·勒菲维尔编《文化建构》(Bassnett, Susan and Lefevere, Andre (eds). Constructing Cultures: Essays on Literary Translation. Clevedon et al. Multilingual Matters. 1998. xi)
③[加]谢莉·西蒙《翻译理论中的性别》(Sherry Simon. Gender in Translation: Cultural Identity and the Politics of Transmission. London: Routledge. 1996. p.7.)此处译文参考了吴晓黎对该文的汉译《翻译理论中的性别》,见许宝强、袁伟《语言与翻译的政治》,北京:中央编译出版社,2001年1月,第317页。
④[英]苏珊·巴斯奈特、安德列·勒菲维尔编《文化建构》(Susan Bassnett and Andre Lefevere (eds). ConstructingCultures: Essays on Literary Translation. Clevedon et al. Multilingual Matters. 1998.)
①谢天振《序二》,见费小平《翻译的政治》,北京:中国社会科学出版社,2005年3月,第8页。
②王宁《文化翻译与经典诠释》,北京:中华书局,2006年4月,第4页。关于文化研究的“翻译学转向”,还可参见该书的第12页至17页。
③王宁《文化翻译与经典诠释》,北京:中华书局,2006年4月,第95页。
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译德里达论翻译》(Venuti, Lawrence (2003) Translating Derrida on Translation: Relevance and Disciplinary Resistance, The Yale Journal of Criticism, Volume 16, number 2 (2003): 237-262.)
②[英]苏珊·巴斯奈特、哈里斯·特维迪《后殖民翻译:理论与实践》(Bassnett, Susan and Harish Trivedi. Post-Colonial Translation: Theory and Practice. London and New York: Routledge. 1999.)
③孙会军《普遍与差异》,上海:上海译文出版社,2005年10月版,第32页。
④李文革《西方翻译理论流派研究》,北京:中国社会科学出版社,2004年8月,第242至243页。
①甘阳《古今中西之争》,北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,2006年12月,第12页。
②[加]道格拉斯·罗宾逊《翻译与帝国》(Robinson, Douglas. Translation and Empire. Manchester: St. Jerome. 1997, p.5.)
③[加]道格拉斯·罗宾逊《翻译与帝国》(Robinson, Douglas. Translation and Empire. Manchester: St. Jerome. 1997,p104.)道格拉斯·罗宾逊的原文为:Certainly from a postcolonial viewpoint, polysystem theory seems bland and abstract, very lightly grounded in actual political engagements.
④按:葛兰西(Antonio Gramsci)将这一概念运用到考察翻译上,认为霸权(hegemony)也渗透到了社会中的政治、文化、意识形态和学术等各个方面。
①王宁《文化翻译与经典诠释》,北京:中华书局,2006年4月,第58页。
②王东风《翻译研究的后殖民视角》,《中国翻译》,2003(4),第4页。
③[美]提莫志克、根茨勒《翻译与权力》(Tymoczko and Genzler, Translation and Power),北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2007年9月版。
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,pp. 21--23.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,p 22.)
③[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,p 23.)
①[美]舒尔特、彼根特《翻译理论文集:从德莱顿到德里达》(Schulte, Rainer & Biguente, John (ed.) The Theories of Translation: An Anthology from Dryden to Derrida. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. 1992, Introduction: p3.)
②[加]道格拉斯·罗宾逊《翻译与帝国》(Robinson, Douglas. Translation and Empire. Manchester: St. Jerome. 1997, p.185.)
③转引自许钧、袁筱一编著《当代法国翻译理论》,南京:南京大学出版社,2001年,p120。
④[美]舒尔特、彼根特《翻译理论文集:从德莱顿到德里达》(Schulte, Rainer & Biguente, John (ed.) The Theories of Translation: An Anthology from Dryden to Derrida. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. 1992, Introduction: p4)
①[美]舒尔特、彼根特《翻译理论文集:从德莱顿到德里达》(Schulte, Rainer & Biguente, John (ed.) The Theories of Translation: An Anthology from Dryden to Derrida. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. 1992, Introduction: p6.)
①按:德里达在1985年所作《巴别塔》(Des Tour de Babel)一文中评述了本雅明的翻译思想。见[美]舒尔特、彼根特《翻译理论文集:从德莱顿到德里达》(Schulte, Rainer & Biguente, John (ed.) The Theories of Translation: An Anthology from Dryden to Derrida. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.)另:陈永国《翻译与后现代性》第13页至41页刊出该文的汉译本,见陈永国《翻译与后现代性》,北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005年9月版;保罗·德·曼《“结论”:瓦尔特·本雅明的“译者的任务”》(de Man, Paul. Conclusions: Walter Benjamin’s“The Task of the Translator”, Yale French Studies 69: 25--46. 1985。再:陈永国《翻译与后现代性》第42页至65页刊出该文的汉译本,见陈永国《翻译与后现代性》,北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005年9月版;安德鲁·本雅明《翻译与哲学的本质》(Benjamin, Andrew. Translation and the Nature of Philosophy: A New Theory of Words. London & New York, 1989.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译再思》(Venuti, Lawrence. Rethinking Translation: Discourse, Subjectivity, Ideology . New York: Routledge 1992, pp.7--13.)
③[英]乔治·斯坦纳《巴别塔之后》(Steiner, George. After Babel. London & New York, Oxford University Press, 1975. pp.63--64.)
④按:本雅明是这样解释纯语言的:A suprahistorical kinship of languages which rests in the intention underlying each language as a whole --- an intention, however, which no single language can attain by itself but which is realized only by the totality of their intentions supplementing each other: pure language.见[德]瓦尔特·本雅明《译者的任务》(Benjamin,Walter. The Task of Translator. In Schulte, Rainer & Biguente, John (ed.) The Theories of Translation: An Anthology from Dryden to Derrida. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.)在这
①[德]瓦尔特·本雅明《译者的任务》(Benjamin,Walter. The Task of Translator. In Schulte, Rainer & Biguente, John (ed.) The Theories of Translation: An Anthology from Dryden to Derrida. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.)
②按:《国语·周语》中还记载口译员被称作“舌人”,意为“动动口舌之人”。见陈福康《中国译学理论史稿》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,1996年10月版,第11页。
③[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译再思》(Venuti, Lawrence. Rethinking Translation: Discourse, Subjectivity, Ideology . New York: Routledge 1992, p.7.)
①[美]约瑟夫·格雷厄姆《翻译中的差异》(Graham, Joseph. Difference in Translation. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 1986, p.19, p.146, p.165)
①黄汉平《德里达的解构翻译理论初探》,《学术研究》,2004(6)
②按:《圣经·创世记》记载挪亚(Noah)的后代古巴比伦人为了进入天堂而建造巴别塔(又译为巴比塔),这一大胆行为触怒了上帝耶和华(Jehavoh)。上帝让参与建塔的人突然间使用不同的语言,建塔人彼此不能沟通,进而出现混乱,巴别塔由此最终没有建成,并导致巴别塔的倒塌。该文的英译者格雷厄姆(Joseph Graham)因考虑到这一题目在语义上具有复杂性,因而在英语里保留了原来的题目。因为tours在法语里是tower(塔)之意,但兼有twists(手法)、tricks(窍门)、tropes(喻说)之意。法文的des tours还可读成détours,有“迂回”之意。
③蔡新乐《从德里达的翻译思想看理性主义的翻译理论建构》,《中国翻译》,2001(4),第58页。
④[美]约瑟夫·格雷厄姆《翻译中的差异》(Graham, Joseph. Difference in Translation. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 1986, p.165.)
①蔡新乐《从德里达的翻译思想看理性主义的翻译理论建构》,《中国翻译》,2001(4),第59页。
②[法]雅克·德里达《什么是“确当的”翻译》(Jacques Derrida,“What is a‘Relevant’Translation?”Critical Inquiry 27, trans. by Lawrence Venuti, No. 2 (Winter 2001): p177.)另:陈永国《翻译与后现代性》第147页至170页刊出该文的汉译本,见陈永国《翻译与后现代性》,北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005年9月版。
③王宁《文化翻译与经典诠释》,北京:中华书局,2006,第35页。
④[法]雅克·德里达《什么是“确当的”翻译》(Jacques Derrida,“What is a‘Relevant’Translation?”Critical Inquiry 27, trans. by Lawrence Venuti, No. 2 (Winter 2001): p. 177.)
⑤[法]雅克·德里达《什么是“确当的”翻译》(Jacques Derrida,“What is a‘Relevant’Translation?”Critical Inquiry 27, No. 2 (Winter 2001): p. 177.)
①[法]雅克·德里达《什么是“确当的”翻译》(Jacques Derrida,“What is a‘Relevant’Translation?”Critical Inquiry 27, No. 2 (Winter 2001): p. 177.),另:陈永国《翻译与后现代性》第147页至170页刊出该文的汉译本,见陈永国《翻译与后现代性》,北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005年9月版。
②按:我国学者王宁就此也有论述,他说:“尽管德里达试图给确当的翻译或者最好的翻译提出一个标准,但是实际上,他最终还是暗示了这样的标准是不确定的,甚至是一个永远没有答案的讨论。”(王宁《文化翻译与经典诠释》,北京:中华书局,2006,第36页。)
③按:关于第一点,翻译不能放弃忠实。自从解构主义引进中国的那一天起,就没有人敢提“尊重原文”、“翻译的原则首先该是忠实”,因为“忠实”早已被解构掉了。金兵认为这是对解构主义的误解:解构就意味着拆解,甚至摧毁。金兵援引德里达解构这个词deconstruction,指出该词的意思是“把整体的各部分拆开”,同destruction消灭、摧毁有实质的差别。关于第二点,原文意义并非完全不确定。德里达的“延异”、“踪迹”所强调的是对待意义要具体情况具体分析,意义并非虚无。这也是德里达“文本之外别无意义”的意思。所以,意义不确定论要求译者付出更多的时间和精力仔细阅读原文,追寻意义的踪迹。在这个意义上,确当的翻译是防止译者权力过分膨胀的一剂良药。关于第三点,译学建设需要“解构精神”。金兵认为解构精神是一种永远不满足于现状、锐意创新的求索精神。当今的译学建设也惟有求新求异,才能更加繁荣。见金兵《论德里达的“确当的翻译”》,《解放军外国语学院学报》,2006(2),第78页。
④按:关于这一点,乔治·斯坦纳说过,“除了同声传译,所有的翻译都是把过去转换为当下。”见[英]乔治斯坦纳《巴别塔之后》(Steiner George. After Babel: Aspects of language and translation. New York and London: Oxford University Press, 1975, p.334.)韦努蒂对此也有论述:要是原作者在世,并且用译文语言写作,我们就可以看出,译者是不可能表达出作者所要表达的思想的。见[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995. p.6.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译再思》(Venuti, Lawrence. Rethinking Translation: Discourse, Subjectivity, Ideology. New York: Routledge 1992, p.7.)
②[德]图尔克《可译性问题:本雅明,奎因,德里达》(Turk, Horst. The Question of Translatability: Benjamin, Quine, Derrida. in Harald Kitted et al (ed.) Interculturality and the Historical Study of Literary Translation. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag. 1991, pp.124-126.)
③[美]埃德温·根茨勒《当代翻译理论》(Gentzler, Edwin. Contemporary Translation Theories. London & New York: Routledge, 1993, p.162.)
①王宁《德里达与翻译理论的解构》,《中国翻译》,2005(1),第45至47页。
②金兵《论德里达的“确当的翻译”》,《解放军外国语学院学报》,2006(2),第78页。
③黄振定《解构主义的翻译创造性与主体性》,《中国翻译》,2005(1),第19至21页。
④[美]埃德温·根茨勒《西方翻译理论》(Gentzler, Edwin. Contemporary Translation Theories, London and New York: Routledge. 1993, p.163.)
①转引自李文革《西方翻译理论流派研究》,北京:中国社会科学出版社,2004年8月版,第17页。
①按:韦努蒂也谈及德南姆、德莱顿、多雷等,详见后文的论述。
②按:泰特勒在1790年发表《论翻译的原则》(Essay on the principles of Translation),提出翻译必须遵循的三大原则:1、译作应完全复写出原作的思想;2、译作的风格和手法应和原作属于统一性质;3、译作应具备原作所具有的通顺。谭载喜认为“泰特勒的理论标志着西方翻译史上一个时期的结束和另一个时期的
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《翻译之耻》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. p.188.)人民文学出版社,2002年。
①刘亚猛《韦努蒂的“翻译伦理”及其自我解构》,《中国翻译》,2005年第5期,第40页。蒋骁华、张景华《重新解读韦努蒂的异化翻译理论――兼于郭建中教授商榷》,《中国翻译》,2007年第3期,第39到44页。
①蒋骁华、张景华《重新解读韦努蒂的异化翻译理论――兼与郭建中教授商榷》,《中国翻译》,2007年第3期,第39到44页。
②凯瑟琳·戴维斯《解构与翻译》(Davis, Kathleen. Deconstruction and Translation, Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004. 1.)
①《德里达访谈录:一种疯狂守候着思想》,何佩群译,p154,注1。
①余光中《余光中谈翻译》,北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2002. 11,扉页。
②按:此处原文为:My project is to trace the origins of the situation in which every English-language translator works today, although from an opposing standpoint, with the explicit aim of locating alternatives, of changing the situation. [美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,《序言及致谢》,Ⅸ页。)
①按:此处原文为:The more fluent the translation, the more visible the translator, and, presumably, the more visible the writer or meaning of the foreign text. [美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, p.2.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, pp.2--16.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, p.8.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, p.16.)
③韩江洪《严复话语系统与近代中国文化转型》,上海:上海译文出版社,2006年10月。
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,p.17.)
②按:此处原文为:Translation is a process by which the chain of signifiers that constitutes the source-language text is replaced by a chain of signifiers in the target language which the translator provides on the strength of an interpretation. [美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, p.17.)
①[英]安德列·勒菲维尔(Lefevere, André. Translation/History/Culture. London: Routledge. 1992)
②孙会军《普遍与差异》,上海:上海译文出版社,2005年10月,第56页。
①葛校琴《后现代语境下的译者主体性研究》,上海:上海译文出版社,2006年10月,第14页,第17页,第154至154页。
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, p.31.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, p.31.)
③[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, p.32.)
④[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, p.34.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, p.34.)
②按:此处韦努蒂的原文是:This does not mean that translation is forever banished to the realm of freedom or error, but that canons of accuracy are culturally specific and historically variable.)[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, p.37.)
③按:此处韦努蒂的原文是:Critical categories like“fluency”and“resistancy,”“domesticating”and“foreignizing,”can only be defined by referring to the formation of cultural discourses in which the translation is produced, and in which certain translation theories and practices are valued over others.)[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, p.38.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, p.39.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, p.18.)
②王宁《文化翻译与经典诠释》,北京:中华书局,2006,第35页。
③[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge, 1995, p.19.)
④韦努蒂转引自勒菲维尔的英语译文为:Schleiermacher argued that“there are only two. Either the translator leaves the author in peace, as much as possible, and moves the reader towards him; or he leaves the reader in peace, as much as possible, and moves the author towards him.”[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence.
The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge, 1995. pp.19--20.)
①[美]舒尔特、彼根特《翻译理论文集:从德莱顿到德里达》(Schulte, Rainer & Biguente, John (ed.) The Theories of Translation: An Anthology from Dryden to Derrida. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. p.6.)
②[美]舒尔特、彼根特《翻译理论文集:从德莱顿到德里达》(Schulte, Rainer & Biguente, John (ed.) The Theories of Translation: An Anthology from Dryden to Derrida. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995. p.20.)
②按:韦努蒂对奈达的译论主张的评论和批判可参见[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,pp21--23.)。也可参见孙会军《普遍与差异》,上海:上海译文出版社,2005. 10,第88至92页或197页。
①按:韦努蒂在《译者的隐身》第一章第23至39中只是引出这几个概念,在第二章到第七章还有更详细的解释。本论文对这几个概念也将在下文辟专章论述。
②按:从18世纪中叶开始,西方的翻译家和作家们开始把其他的语言放到一个平等的位置上来看待,对外国的尊重已经成为了一种指导原则。随着这一视角的转换,人们开始调整自己以便适应外国文本中异质的东西。在19世纪和20世纪,这种对原文中异质因素的关注成为翻译理论研究和翻译技术中的一种潜流。参见[美]舒尔特、彼根特《翻译理论文集:从德莱顿到德里达》(Schulte, Rainer & Biguente, John (ed.) The Theories of Translation: An Anthology from Dryden to Derrida. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. p.3.)孙会军在梳理的基础上也说,“在这个时期,人们大多接受这样一个基本前提:即引导译文去接近原文。直译的方法并没有销声匿迹,而是以另外一种形式呈现了出来。”她还引用贝尔曼的说法:“正是浪漫主义时期德国的翻译理论构成了现代西方翻译主要流派的基础”,总领有关德国异化说的历史。她梳理了赫尔德、洪堡特、施莱尔马赫、本雅明以及贝尔曼的有关“异化”的说法。参见孙会军《普遍与差异》,上海:上海译文出版社,2005年10月,第202至209页。
③[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,pp.40--42.)
④[英]沙特尔沃斯、考利《翻译研究辞典》(Shuttleworth, M. & Cowie, M. Dictionary of Translation Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome, 1997. p.59.)
①[英]沙特尔沃斯、考利《翻译研究辞典》(Shuttleworth, M. & Cowie, M. Dictionary of Translation Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome, 1997. pp.43--44.)
②[英]莫娜·贝克尔主编《鲁特里奇翻译研究百科全书》(Baker, Mona. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge. 2001, p240.)
③[英]莫娜·贝克尔主编《鲁特里奇翻译研究百科全书》(Baker, Mona. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge. 2001, p240.)
④按:此处韦努蒂的原文为:The more fluent the translation, the more visible the translator, and, presumably, the more visible the writer or meaning of the foreign text. [美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, p.2.)
①按:鲁迅早在1935年《“题未定”草》一文中不就认同归化式的翻译。鲁迅说:“我是不主张削鼻剜眼的,所以有些地方,仍然宁可译的不顺口。”王东风在研究了鲁迅这一主张后,将这种归化定义为“削鼻剜眼”式的暴力整容。这一提法非常形象。见王东风《解构“忠实”――翻译神话的终结》,《中国翻译》,2004(6),第8页。笔者对此深为赞赏。
②孙会军《普遍与差异》,上海:上海译文出版社,2005年10月,第46页。
①孙会军《普遍与差异》,上海:上海译文出版社,2005年10月,第214到215页。
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation,New York: Routledge 1995,p.15.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,p.15.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,pp.16--17.)
③孙会军《普遍与差异》,上海:上海译文出版社,2005年10月,第200页。
④孙会军《普遍与差异》,上海:上海译文出版社,2005年10月,第221至222页。
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,p.43.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,p.58.)
①按:此处韦努蒂的原文为:to generate a certain characteristic mode of expression, developing a national language, influencing the whole evolution of a culture. [美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,p.102.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,p.109.)
③[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,p.109.)
④按:此处英文为:Translation strategies can be defined as“foreignizing”or“domesticating”only in relation to specific cultural situations, specific moments in the changing reception of a foreign literature, or in the changing hierarchy of domestic values. [美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge, 1995,p.272.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,p.291.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge, 1995,pp.310--313.)
①王东风《归化与异化:矛与盾的交锋?》,《中国翻译》,2002(9),第24页。
②见www.temple.edu./English/People/VenutiL.asp
③见www.temple.edu./English/People/VenutiL.asp
①王东风:《异化归化:矛与盾的交锋?》,《中国翻译》,2002(5),第25页。
②此处罗宾逊的原文为: A term used by foreignist translation theorists to describe what they consider the worst kind of translation, translation that domesticates the foreign text by assimilating it to target-cultural and target-linguistic values. More traditionally called“sense-for-sense translation; also called“assimilative”translation. [加]道格拉斯·罗宾逊《翻译与帝国》(Robinson, Douglas. Translation and Empire: Postcolonial Theory Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome, 1997,p.116.)
③罗宾逊的原文为:A view of translation grounded in the work of German thinkers such as A.W. von Schlegel, Friedrich Schleiermacher, and Walter Benjamin, and most powerfully argued today by Antoine Berman and Lawrence Venuti, according to which a“good”translation always retains some significant trace of the original “foreign”text. Historically related to literalism or word-for-word translation, it is less radical than literalism in insisting not on close adherence to the meanings of individual words in the original syntactic sequence, but rather on the survival of a flavour of the original in translation. [加]道格拉斯·罗宾逊《翻译与帝国》(Robinson, Douglas. Translation and Empire: Postcolonial Theory Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome, 1997,p.117.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge, 1995,pp.12--16.)
②[加]道格拉斯·罗宾逊《翻译与帝国》(Robinson, Douglas. Translation and Empire: Postcolonial Theory Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome, 1997,p.33.)
③[加]道格拉斯·罗宾逊《翻译与帝国》(Robinson, Douglas. Translation and Empire: Postcolonial Theory Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome, 1997, p.109.)此处原文为:The driving idea behind this set of assumptions is that assimilative or domesticating translation, is a primary tool of empire insofar as it encourages colonial powers (or more generally the‘the stronger’or‘hegemonic’cultures) to translate foreign texts into their own terms, thus eradicating cultural differences and creating a buffer zone of assimilated‘sameness’around them. Members of hegemonic cultures are therefore never exposed to true difference, for they are strategically protected from the disturbing experience of the foreign……In this way, diversity is gradually leached out of the world…….
④[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge, 1995. pp.67--68.)
①孙会军《普遍与差异》,上海:上海译文出版社,2005年10月,第221至222页。
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge, 1995. p.306.)
③[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge, 1995. p.34.)
④[加]道格拉斯·罗宾逊《翻译与帝国》(Robinson, Douglas. Translation and Empire: Postcolonial Theory Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome, 1997,p.109.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, p.214.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, p.23.)
②按:国内有学者将这一术语翻译成“随意的忠实”,见任淑坤《解构主义翻译观刍议》,《外语与外语教学》,2004年(11),第57页。
③[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, p.23.)
④按:1980年在法国Cerisy-la-Salle举行了名为“人的终结”的学术研讨会。刘易斯为该研讨会提交的论文题为《走向妄用式忠实》(英文为Toward Abusive Translation,法文原文为Vers la traduction abusive),后来此篇文章于1985年收录在格雷厄姆所编的论文集《翻译中的差异》(Difference in Translation)中,题目改为《翻译效果的衡量》(The Measure of Translation Effects)。该文是刘易斯有关翻译理论的代表作。见[法]菲利普·刘易斯《翻译效果的衡量》(Philip Lewis. (1985)“The Measure of Translation Effects”, in Difference in Translation. Joseph Graham (ed.) Ithaca: Cornell University Press。后来韦努蒂编辑的《翻译研究读本》(The Translation Studies Reader)也收录了该文。见劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译研究读本》(Venuti, Lawrence.(2000) (ed.)The Translation Studies Reader, Routledge: New York and London. pp.256--275.)
①[法]菲利普·刘易斯《翻译效果的衡量》(Philip Lewis.“The Measure of Translation Effects”, in The Translation Studies Reader, Venuti, Lawrence. (2004) (ed.) Routledge: New York and London. p.261.)
②[法]菲利普·刘易斯《翻译效果的衡量》(Lewis, Philip.“The Measure of Translation Effects”, in The Translation Studies Reader, Venuti, Lawrence. (2004) (ed.) Routledge: New York and London. p.261.)
③[美]埃德温·根茨勒《当代翻译理论》(Genztler, Edwin. Contemporary Translation Theories, Clevedon, Buffalo, Toraonto, Sydney: Multilingual Matters. Ltd., 2001. p.39.)
④[加]道格拉斯·罗宾逊《翻译是什么?》(Robinson, Douglas. What is Translation? Centrifugal Theories, Critical Interventions. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press. 1997, p132.)
⑤按:韦努蒂在《翻译再思》的《导言》中确实不止一次地引用了菲利普·刘易斯的“妄用式忠实”。由于该《导言》提升为1995年出版的《译者的隐身》的第一章,因而《导言》中韦努蒂所论问题均在第一章中做了更详细的阐述。见[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译再思》(Venuti, Lawrence (ed.) (1992) Rethinking Translation: Discourse, Subjectivity, Ideology, London and New York: Routledge, p.12.),另见[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995. pp.23--24.)
①按:多价性:化学及药学用语。用于化学表示物质有多种价态的,用于药学表示能够与一种以上的毒药、抗原或微生物作用或消解一种以上的毒药、抗原或微生物。刘易斯在此用多价这一概念隐喻一词多义现象。
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译德里达论翻译》(Venuti, Lawrence (2003) Translating Derrida on Translation: Relevance and Disciplinary Resistance, The Yale Journal of Criticism, Volume 16, number 2 (2003): pp.237-262.)
③按:韦努蒂在此引用的观点实际上是刘易斯论妄用的两种功能的观点。见[法]菲利普·刘易斯《翻译效果的衡量》(Philip Lewis. (1985)“The Measure of Translation Effects”, in The Translation Studies Reader, Venuti, Lawrence. (2004) (ed.) Routledge: New York and London. pp.263.)另见[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译德里达论翻译》(Venuti, Lawrence (2003) Translating Derrida on Translation: Relevance and Disciplinary Resistance, The Yale Journal of Criticism, Volume 16, number 2 (2003): pp.237--262.)
④按:此处原文为:If my translation abuses the English language and an English style manual, it also has aninterrogative impact on Derrida’s text. [美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译德里达论翻译》(Venuti, Lawrence (2003) Translating Derrida on Translation: Relevance and Disciplinary Resistance, The Yale Journal of Criticism, Volume 16, number 2 (2003): 237-262.第255页。)
①按:国内的学者有把此术语翻译成抵抗式翻译的,见任淑坤《解构主义翻译观刍议》,《外语与外语教学》,2004年(11),第57页;还有学者将其翻译为抵抗性的翻译策略。见刘亚猛《韦努蒂的“翻译伦理”及其自我解构》,《中国翻译》,2005(5),第42页。笔者认为对抗式翻译更能凸显出韦努蒂的原意,以彰显翻译活动中对本族文化的对抗,抵制本土中心的暴力。故选择对抗式翻译的译法。
②按:此段文字见[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995.p.1.)夏皮罗的原文为: I see translation as the attempt to produce a text so transparent that it does not seem to be translated. A good translation is like a pane of glass. You only notice that it’s there when there are little imperfections --- scratches, bubbles. Ideally, there shouldn’t be any. It should never call attention to itself.夏皮罗是卫斯理安大学(Wesleyan University)传奇语言及文学(romance)教授,翻译家。曾翻译过波德莱尔的《恶之花》(Les Fleurs du mal)等多部作品。
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, p.149.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, p.290.)
③按:韦努蒂在文中详细论述自己翻译德·安吉里斯作品时的种种做法。他将这种做法归结为“对抗”。具体例子可见[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995. pp.287--302.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, p.302.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, pp.291--293.)
③[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, p.292.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, pp.305--306.)
②王宁《文化翻译与经典诠释》,北京:中华书局,2006年4月,第111页。
③[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, p291.)
④王东风《翻译研究的后殖民视角》,《中国翻译》,2003(4),第5页。
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation,New York: Routledge 1995,p.188.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,p.188.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, p309.)
①伊兹拉·庞德《伊兹拉·庞德文学散文集》(Pound, Ezra. Literary Essays of Ezra Pound. Edited with an Introductory by T.S. Eliot, New York: New Directions Publishing Corporation, 1968, p.200)
②苏珊·巴斯耐特《翻译研究》(Bassnet, Susan. Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge, 1991, p.97.)
③[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,pp.195--196.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,pp.195--196.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,p.197.)
①转引自[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,p204.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,p.215.)
③[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,p.215.)
①转引自[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,p.215.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,p.216.)
③[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,p.219.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,p.225.)
②按:中世纪骑士抒情诗最早兴起源于法国南部的普罗旺斯(Provance),被称为“普罗旺斯抒情诗”,这种抒情诗骑士抒情诗对欧洲抒情诗的发展有相当的影响。它的中心主题是骑士与贵妇人的爱情与幽会,经典作品《破晓歌》写的是一对热恋中的情人幽会之后在黎明前依依惜别的情景,生活气息浓郁,突破了宗教的禁欲主义桎梏。普罗旺斯作为法国骑士抒情诗的发源地,许多人因为其美丽的风光及古典艺术的气息而慕名前往。
③[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,p.225.)
④[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,p.229.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,p.236.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,p.253.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995,p.271.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. p.1.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. p.9.)
③黄振定《解构主义的翻译创造性与主体性》,《中国翻译》,2005(1),第19至22页。)
④[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. pp.8--38.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. pp.31--46.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. pp.47--65.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. pp. 67--68.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998.pp. 88--105.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. pp.106--123.)
③[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. pp.124--157.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. pp.158--189.)
②按:莱瑟科尔,法国语言哲学家,著有《语言的暴力》(The Violence of Language)、《无意义哲学》(Philosophy of Nonsense)。韦努蒂就是从《语言的暴力》中选取“语言剩余”这一概念的。见[法]莱瑟科尔《语言的暴力》(Lecercle, J.-J. The Violence of Language, London and New York: Routledge. 1990)
③[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. pp.9--10.)
①[法]德勒兹与加塔利《卡夫卡:走向少数族文学》(Deleuze, Gilles & Guattari, Felix, Kafka: Toward a Minor Literature, University of Minnesota, 1986)
②按:少数族文学的三个特点:一,少数族文学的语言具有解辖域化;二,少数族文学中的一切都是政治性,与权力之间关系尤为密切;三,少数族文学所蕴涵的一切都具有集体价值或具有集体的曲折形式。见[法]德勒兹与加塔利《卡夫卡:走向少数族文学》(Deleuze, Gilles & Guattari, Felix, Kafka: Toward a Minor Literature, University of Minnesota, 1986),汉语译文见陈永国编译《游牧思想:吉尔·德勒兹、费利克斯·瓜塔里读本》,长春:吉林人民出版社,2003年11月,第111至128页。
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. pp.10--11.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. p.11.)
②按:此处原文为: My preference for minoritizing translation also issues from an ethical stance that recognizes the asymmetrical relation in any translation project.)[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. p.11.)
③[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. pp.14---17.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. p.15.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. pp.14---16.)
③[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. p.17.)
④[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. p.18.)
①按:此处原文为:But, finally, my aim was cultural, not commercial, to create a work of minor literature within the major language. And this, I believe, was accomplished.)[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge. 1998. p.20.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. p.21.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998.p.29.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998.pp.29--30.)
①阎嘉《文学研究中的文化身份与文化认同问题》,《江西社会科学》,2006(9),第65页。
②转引自王宁《文化翻译与经典诠释》,北京:中华书局,2006年4月,第38至39页。
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998.pp.67--68.)按:此处汉语部分参考了查正贤所译《翻译与文化身份的塑造》一文。见许宝强、袁伟选编《语言与翻译的政治》,北京:中央编译出版社,2001年,第358至382页。)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998.pp.69--71.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998.p.72.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998.pp.71--75.)
②[英]乔治·斯坦纳《巴别塔之后》(Steiner, George. After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation. London: Oxford University Press, 1973. pp.360--361.)
③按:此处引自韦努蒂援引庞德的说法,原文为:Translation is good training, if you find that your original matter‘wobbles’when you try to rewrite it. The meaning of the poem to be translated can not‘wobble.’[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. p.76.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998.p.78.)
①胡继华《后现代语境中伦理文化转向:论列维纳斯、德里达和南希》,北京:京华出版社,2005年11月,第33页。
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, p.20.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, pp.21--33.)
②孙会军《普遍与差异》,上海:上海译文出版社,2005,第88至第92页。
①[法]毛利思·布朗肖(Blanchot, Maurice,参见陈德鸿、张南峰主编《西方翻译理论精选》,香港:香港城市大学出版社,2000年,第250页。)
②孙会军《普遍与差异》,上海:上海译文出版社,2005,第71页,转引自韦努蒂《再思翻译》,第139至158页。
①王东风《解构“忠实”――翻译神话的终结》,《中国翻译》,2004(6),第3页。
②王东风《解构“忠实”――翻译神话的终结》,《中国翻译》,2004(6),第4页。
③[法]菲利普·刘易斯《翻译效果的衡量》(Lewis, Philip. The Measure of Translation Effects. Venuti, Lawrence. (Ed.) The Translation Studies Reader. London & New York: Routledge, 2000,第250页。)
④法国谚语,由法国修辞学加梅纳日(Menage 1613-1692)所说。这一谚语宣称,像女人一样,翻译要么必须漂亮,要么必须忠实于原文。还可参见谢莉·西蒙《翻译中的性别》(Gender in Translation),汉语译文见许宝强袁伟选编《语言与翻译的政治》,北京:中央编译出版社,2001年1月,第320页。
⑤按:意大利谚语,原文为Traduttore, traditore。
⑥按:东晋·前秦高僧道安(314-385)的翻译理论。此论见序文《摩诃钵罗若波罗蜜经钞序》。钱钟书以为,“吾国翻译术开宗明义,首推此序。”道安在该序中总结了翻译佛经在五种情况下会失去本来面目,有三件事决定了译事的不易,因而必须谨慎。这种宗教翻译背后体现的是高度“忠实”于原文。
⑦[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译再思》(Rethinking Translation: Discourse, Subjectivity, Ideology, New York: Routledge. 1992,p.8.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998.pp.81--82.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998.p.82.)
①按:此处原文为: Jones’s translations of Aristotle truly decentered the reigning academic versions because his project was open to foreign cultural values that were not located in the English-language academy: the features of the archaic Greek text that were repressed by the modern Anglo-American ideology of individualism became visible.)[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998.p.82.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998.p.83.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. p.84.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《翻译和文化身份的形成》(Venuti, Lawrence.“Translation and the formation of cultural identities”. in Christina Schaffner & Helen Kelly-Homles (Ed.) The Cultural Functions of Translation. Clevendon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. p.23.)按:此处译文参照了查正贤的译文。见许宝强、袁伟选编《语言与翻译的政治》,北京:中央编译出版社,2001年,第358至380页。
①[英]安东尼·皮姆《翻译方法史》(Pym, Anthony. Method in Translation History. Manchester. St. Jerome Publishers, 1997,p12.)
②[英]安东尼·皮姆《回归伦理》(Anthony Pym (ed). The Return to Ethics, Special Issue of the Translator 7 (2). Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 2001)
①按:此处原文为: Translating can never simply be communication between equals because it is fundamentally ethnocentric…And the very function of translating is assimilation, the inscription of a foreign text with domestic intelligibilities and interests)[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998, p.11.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《译者的隐身》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge 1995, p.15.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《翻译之耻》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998, p.189.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《翻译之耻》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. pp.34.)
②孙会军《普遍与差异》,上海:上海译文出版社,2005年10月,第16页。
③[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《翻译之耻》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. pp.1--4.)
①刘亚猛《韦努蒂的“翻译伦理”及其自我解构》,《中国翻译》,2005(5),第42页。
②刘亚猛《韦努蒂的“翻译伦理”及其自我解构》,《中国翻译》,2005(5),第41页。
③刘亚猛《韦努蒂的“翻译伦理”及其自我解构》,《中国翻译》,2005(5),第44页。
④[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《翻译之耻》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. pp.81--82.)
⑤刘亚猛《韦努蒂的“翻译伦理”及其自我解构》,《中国翻译》,2005(5),第41页。
①按:关于全球化的背景及翻译与全球化的关系问题,王宁曾做过仔细的梳理。见王宁《文化翻译与经典诠释》,北京:中华书局,2006,第18至30页,第37至40页,第58至71页。有关全球化理论,还可参看胡继华《后现代语境中伦理文化转向·引言》,第11页,注12。
①按:转引自王宁《文化翻译与经典诠释》,北京:中华书局,2006,第19至20页。
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《翻译之耻》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. p.158.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《翻译之耻》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. pp.160--162.)
②王宁《文化翻译与经典诠释》,北京:中华书局,2006,第204页。
③[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《翻译之耻》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. p.170.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《翻译之耻》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. p.178--186.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《翻译之耻》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. p.178.)
③按:韦努蒂有关Translating modernity一节可参见王宁《文化翻译与经典诠释》,北京:中华书局,2006,第129-138页,《现代性文化在中国:翻译和混杂的结果》)有关现代性(modernity)的论述。王宁《文化翻译与经典诠释》,北京:中华书局,2006,第124页。现代性据詹明信(Jameson)看来,有四种论点,第182页。另:134页有有关林纾的论述。
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《翻译之耻》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. pp.179--181.)按:严复将穆勒的《论自由》译为《群己权界论》。
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《翻译之耻》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. p.182.)
③杨联芬《晚清至五四:中国文学现代性的发生》,北京:北京大学出版社,2003年,11月,第86到87页。
①杨联芬《晚清至五四:中国文学现代性的发生》,北京:北京大学出版社,2003年,11月,第1026到103页。
①韩江红《严复话语系统与近代中国文化转型》,上海:上海译文出版社,2006年10月,第99页到101页。
②按:1902年3月,鲁迅留学日本,1903年开始翻译活动。最初从日文转译雨果的随笔《哀尘》、儒勒·凡尔纳(Jules Verne)的科技小说《月界旅行》。周作人于1906年夏秋之交留日,周氏兄弟合译活动当始于1907年。最早合译的是托尔斯泰的《劲草》,但未出版。见陈福康《中国译学理论史稿》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,1996年10月,第170页。
③鲁迅:《鲁迅全集》第四集,北京:人民文学出版社1981年版,第382页。
④鲁迅:《鲁迅全集》第十卷,北京:人民文学出版社1981年,第155页。
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《翻译之耻》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. p.185.)
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《翻译之耻》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. p.188.)
②[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂:《翻译之耻》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. p.188.)按:此处原文为:For a translation ethics grounded in such differences, the key issue is not simply a discursive strategy (fluent or resistant), but always its intention and effect as well– i.e., whether the translating realized an aim to promote cultural innovation and change.
①卡西尔《人论》,上海:上海译文出版社,1992年。
①王东风《翻译与权力·导读》,北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2007年9月。
①[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. p.81.)
②刘亚猛《韦努蒂的“翻译伦理”及其自我解构》,《中国翻译》,2005(5),第41页。
③[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻:走向存异伦理》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. p.82.)
④[美]劳伦斯·韦努蒂《翻译之耻》(Venuti, Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation: Toward an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge 1998. p.81.)
Venuti, Lawrence (1989) Our Halycon Dayes: English Prerevolutionary Texts and Postmodern Culture
------. (1992) Rethinking Translation: Discourse, Subjectivity, Ideology, New York: Routledge.
------. (1995) The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, New York: Routledge.
------. (1998) The Scandals of Translation: Towards an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge.
------. (1998) Translation and Minority, Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
------. (2000) The translation studies reader. London: Routledge.
Venuti, Lawrence (1996) Translation and the Formation of Cultural Identities, in
Christina Schaffner and Helen Kelly-Holmes (eds). Cultural Functions of Translation, Clevendon: Multilingual Matters Ltd., pp.9-25.
------. ( 1997 ) Unequal Developments: Current Trends in Translation Studies, Comparative Literature, Vol. 49, No.4. (Autumn, 1997), pp.360-368.
------.(2000) Translation, Community, Utopia. in The Translation Studies Reader. (ed.) by Lawrence Venuti, New York: Routledge.
------(.2001)Strategies of Translation. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. Baker, Mona. London and New York: Routledge.
------. (2003) Translating Derrida on Translation: Relevance and Disciplinary Resistance, The Yale Journal of Criticism, Volume 16, number 2 (2003)
Abrams, M.H. (1953) The Mirror and the Lamp: Romantic Theory and the Critical Tradition, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Amos, F. R. (1920) Early Theories of Translation, New York: Columbia University Press.
Anthony Pym (2001) (ed). The Return to Ethics, Special Issue of the Translator 7 (2). Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
Baker, M. (1992) In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation, London and New York: Routledge.
------.(1998)Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge.
Barnstone, Willis. (1993) The Poetics of Translation: History, Theory, Practice. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Bassnett, Susan. Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge, 1991
Bassnett, Susan and Lefevere, Andre (1998) (eds.) Constructing Cultures: Essays on Literary Translation. Clevedon et al. Multilingual Matters.
Bassnett, Susan and Harish Trivedi. (1999) (eds.) Post-Colonial Translation: Theory and Practice. London and New York: Routledge.
Berman, Antoine. (1992) The Experience of the Foreign. trans. By S. Heyvaert. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Benjamin, A. (1989) Translation and the Nature of Philosophy: A New Theory of Words, London and New York: Routledge.
Bhabha, H. (1994) The Location of Culture, London and New York: Routledge.
Cohen, J.M. (1962) English Translators and Translations, London: Longmans, Green & Co.
Culler, Johnathan. (2004) On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism after Structuralism. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Davis, Kathleen. (2004) Deconstruction and Translation. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Deleuze, Gilles & Guattari, Felix, Kafka: Toward a Minor Literature, University of Minnesota, 1986
Even-Zohar, Itamar.“The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem.”Holmes, Lambert and Broeck ed. Literature and Translation: New Perspectives in Literary Studies. Leuven: Academic Publishing Company, 1978
------. Polysystem Studies. Tel Aviv: Porter Institute for Poetic and semiotics, 1990 Gentzler, Edwin. (1993) Contemporary Translation Theories, London and New York: Routledge.
------. (2001) Contemporary Translation Theories, Clevedon, Buffalo, Toronto, Sydney: Multilingual Matters. Ltd.
Giddens, A. (1979) Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure, and Contradiction in Social Analysis, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Graham, J. (1985) (ed.) Difference in Translation, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
Green, J. M. (2001) Thinking Through Translation, Athens and London: the University of Georgia Press.
Gutt, E. (1991) Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context, Oxford: Blackwell.
Hatim, B., and I. Mason (1990) Discourse and the Translator, London: Longman.
Jakobson, Roman. (1959) On Linguistic Aspects of Translation. Reuben A. Brower (ed.)On Translation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press
Lecercle, J.-J. (1990) The Violence of Language, London and New York: Routledge.
Lefevere, A. (ed. and trans.) (1977) Translating Literature: The German Tradition from Luther to Rosenzweig, Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum.
------. (1992a) Translation, Rewriting, and the Manipulation of Literary Fame, London and New York: Routledge.
------. (ed. and trans.) (1992b) Translation/History/Culture: A Sourcebook, London and New York: Routledge.
Neubert & Shreve. (1992) Translation as Text. Kent: The Kent University Press.
Mounin, George. (1963)Theoretical Problems of Translation. Paris: Gallimard.
Newmark, Peter. (1998)A Textbook of Translation. Prentice Hall International Ltd.
Nida E.A., (1964)Toward a Science of Translation. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
------. (1975)Language Structure and Translation: Essays. Stanedford and California: Stanford University Press.
------.(1981)Meaning across Culture. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis.
------. (1982)Translating meaning. San Dimas and California: English language Institute.
------.(1993)Language, Culture and Translating,Shanghai, Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Niranjana, T. (1992) Siting Translation: History, Poststructuralism, and the Colonial Context, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Nord, Christiane.(1997)Translation as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalists Approaches Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Palmer, R.E. (1969) Hermeneutics: Interpretation Theory in Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Heidegger, and Gadamar, Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press.
Pym, Anthony. Method in Translation History. Manchester. St. Jerome Publishers, 1998
Robinson, Douglas. (1991) The Translator’s Turn. Baltimore and London: John Hopkins University Press.
------. (1996) Translation and Taboo. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press.
------. (1997a.) Western Translation Theory from Herodotus to Nietzsche. Manchester, UK: St. Jerome Publishing.
------. (1997b.) Translation and Empire: Postcolonial Theory Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Rainer Schulte and John Biguenet (1992) (eds.) Theories of Translation: An Anthology of Essays from Dryden to Derrida, London: The University of Chicago Press, Ltd.
Said, E. (1978) Orientalism, New York: Pantheon.
Simon, Shelley. (1996) Gender in Translation: Cultural Identity and the Politics of Transmission, London and New York: Routledge.
Snell-Hornby, Mary et al. ed. (1994)Translation Studies: An Inter-discipline. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Spivak, Gayatri C. (1993)“Politics of Translation”, Outside in the Teaching Machine, Routledge
------. (1999) A Critique of Postcolonial Reason: Toward a History of the VanishingPresent. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.
Steiner, G. (1974) After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation, London, Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Toury, Gideon. (1981)Translated Literature: System, Norm, Performance: Toward a TT-oriented Approach to Literary Translation. Poetics today.
Tytler, A. F. (1978) Essay on the Principles of Translation, ed. J. F. Huntsman, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Benjamin, Walter. (2001) The Task of Translator. The translation studies reader. London: Routledge.
Benjamin,Walter. The Task of Translator. In Schulte, Rainer & Biguente, John (ed.) The Theories of Translation: An Anthology from Dryden to Derrida. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.
Derrida (1982) in Margins of Philosophy, trans. A. Bass, Chicago: London: Johns Hopkins University Press.
------. (1985)“Des Tours de Babel,”in J. Graham (ed.) Difference in Translation, Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
------. (2001)“What is a‘Relevant’Translation?”, Translated by Lawrence Venuti, Critical Inquiry, Vol. 27, No.2. (Winter 2001), pp.174-200. and its“Introduction.”
Foucault, Michael, The Order of Things: An Archaeology of Human Sciences, Vintage: 1994.
Fredric Jameson, (1998)“Notes on Globalization as a Philosophical Issue”, in the Cultures of Globalization, Fredric Jameson and Masao Miyoshi eds. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Graham, Joseph. (1985) Difference in Translation. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Mary Snell-Hornby. (1990) Linguistic Transcoding or Cultural Transfer? A Critique of Translation Theory in German,in Translation, History and Culture(ed). Bassnett and Lefevere.
Mason, I. (1994)“Discourse, Ideology and Translation,”in R. de Beaugrande, A. Shunnaq, and M. Helmy Heliel (eds.) Language, Discourse and Translation in the West and Middle East, Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Philip Lewis. (1985)“The Measure of Translation Effects”, in The Translation Studies Reader, Venuti, Lawrence. (2004) (ed.) Routledge: New York and London.
Turk, Horst. (1991) The Question of Tranlatability: Benjamin, Quine, Derrida. in Harald Kitted et al (ed.) Interculturality and the Historical Study of Literary Translation. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.
蔡新乐《翻译与汉语:解构主义视角下的译学研究》,北京:中央编译出版社,2006. 12
陈德鸿、张南峰《西方翻译理论精选》,香港:香港城市大学出版社,2000
陈福康《中国译学理论史稿》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,96.10
陈平原《中国现代小说的起点――清末民初小说研究》,北京:北京大学出版社,2005.9
费小平《翻译的政治》,北京:中国社会科学出版社,2005. 3
甘阳《古今中西之争》,北京:生活读书新知三联书店,2006. 12
葛校琴《后现代语境下的译者主体性研究》,上海:上海译文出版社,2006. 10
耿龙明《翻译论从》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,98.5
辜正坤《中西诗比较鉴赏与翻译理论》,北京:清华大学出版社,2003. 7
郭建中《当代美国翻译理论》,武汉:湖北教育出版社,2000. 4
韩江洪《严复话语系统与近代中国文化转型》,上海:上海译文出版社,2006.10
韩子满《文学翻译杂合研究》,上海:上海译文出版社,2005. 10
胡继华《后现代语境中的伦理文化转向:论列维纳斯、德里达和南希》,北京:京华出版社,2005.11
李和庆、黄皓、薄振杰《西方翻译研究方法:70年代以后》,北京:北京大学出版社,2005. 11
李文革《西方翻译理论流派研究》,北京:中国社会科学出版社,2004. 8
廖七一《当代翻译理论探索》,南京:译林出版社,2000
廖七一《当代英国翻译理论》,武汉:湖北教育出版社,2001. 3
刘宓庆《中西翻译思想比较研究》,北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2005. 11
刘润清《西方语言学流派》,北京:外语教学与研究出版社,97.4
陆扬《德里达·解构之维》,武汉:华中师范大学出版社,1996. 7
罗选民《文学翻译与文学批评》,北京:人民文学出版社,2005. 12
秦文华《翻译研究的互文性视角》,上海:上海译文出版社,2006. 10
沈苏儒《论信达雅》,北京:商务印书馆,98.12
孙会军《普遍与差异》,上海:上海译文出版社,2005. 10
谭载喜《西方翻译简史》,北京:商务印书馆,2000. 4
谭载喜《翻译学》,武汉:湖北教育出版社,2000. 9
田启波《吉登斯现代社会变迁思想研究》,北京:人民出版社,2007年9月
王宁《文化翻译与经典诠释》,北京:中华书局,2006. 4
王宪明《语言、翻译与政治》,北京:北京大学出版社,2005.5
王岳川《中国后现代话语》,广州:中山大学出版社,2004. 5
肖锦龙《德里达的解构理论思想性质论》,北京:中国社会科学出版社,2004. 5
谢天振《译介学》,上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000
谢天振《翻译研究新视野》,青岛:青岛出版社,2003.7
许宝强、袁伟《语言与翻译的政治》,北京:中央编译出版社,2001. 1
许钧《文字·文学·文化――<红与黑>汉译研究》,南京:南京大学出版社,1996年。
许钧主编《当代法国翻译理论》,武汉:湖北教育出版社,2001
杨自检、刘学云编《翻译新论》,武汉:湖北教育出版社,1999.7
杨自俭《英汉与比较与翻译》第4集,上海:上海外语教育出版社,2002
余光中《余光中谈翻译》,北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2002. 11
张南峰《中西译学批评》,北京:清华大学出版社,2004. 10
张京媛《后殖民理论与文化批评》,北京:北京大学出版社,1999
郑海凌《文学翻译学》,郑州:文心出版社,2000. 9
周荣胜《文字场景》,重庆:西南师范大学出版社,2005. 5
朱立元主编《当代西方文艺理论》,上海:华东师范大学出版社,1999. 11
蔡毅、虞杰、段京华编译《语言与翻译》,[苏联]巴尔胡达罗夫著,北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1985. 3
冯川译《道与逻各斯》,张隆溪著,南京:江苏教育出版社,2006. 5
郭国良、陆汉臻译《沃尔特·本雅明或走向革命批评》,[英]特里·伊格尔顿著,南京:译林出版社,2005. 10
靳西平译,《海德格尔传》,吕迪格尔·萨弗兰斯基著,北京:商务印书馆,1999年
卡西尔《人论》,上海:上海译文出版社,1992年
刘象愚、陈永国等译《文学批评理论:从柏拉图到现在》,[英]拉曼·赛尔登著,北京:北京大学出版社,2003. 10
郦稚牛、张照进、童庆生译《镜与灯:浪漫主义文论及批评传统》,[美]艾布拉
姆斯著,北京:北京大学出版社,2004. 1
李流等译《翻译理论概要》,[苏联]费道罗夫著,北京:中华书局,1955
穆雷译《翻译的语言学理论》,[英]卡特福德著,西安:旅游出版社,1991
蔡平《翻译方法应以归化为主》,《中国翻译》,2002(5)
蔡新乐《从德里达的翻译思想看理性主义的翻译理论建构》,《中国翻译》,2001(4)
陈永国《从解构到翻译:斯皮瓦克的属下研究》,《外国文学》,2005(5)
邓红风、王莉莉《翻译的窘境还是文化的窘境》,《中国翻译》,2003(7)
郭建中《韦努蒂及其解构主义的翻译策略》,《中国翻译》,2000(1)
董务刚《德里达解构主义理论中的建构思想对翻译研究的意义》,《四川外语学院学报》,2006(2)
封一函《论劳伦斯·韦努蒂的解构主义翻译策略》,《文艺研究》,2006(3)
郭建中《论解构主义翻译思想》,《上海科技翻译》,1999(4)
葛校琴《当前归化/异化策略讨论的后殖民视域》,《中国翻译》,2002(5)
郭建中《翻译中的文化因素:异化归化》,《外国语》,1998(2)
何绍斌、曹莉琼《翻译研究的范式变革与观念更新》,《天津外国语学院学报》,2005(1)
黄汉平《德里达的解构翻译理论初探》,《学术研究》,2004(6)
黄振定《解构主义的翻译创造性与主体性》,《中国翻译》,2005(1)
蒋骁华《近十年来西方翻译理论研究》,《外语教学与研究》,1998(2)
蒋骁华《解构主义翻译观探析》,《外语教学与研究》,
金兵《论德里达的“确当的翻译”》,《解放军外国语学院学报》,2006(2)
李红满《解构主义对传统翻译理论的冲击》,《解放军外国语学院学报》,2001(3)
李红满《回眸西方翻译理论发展的百年历程――评韦努蒂的<翻译研究读本>》,《中国翻译》,2001(5)
李小均《翻译暴力与属下研究》,《天津外国语学院学报》,2006(6)
刘军平《超越后现代的“他者”:翻译研究的张力与活力》,《中国翻译》,2004(1)
刘亚猛《韦努蒂的“翻译伦理”及其自我解构,《中国翻译》,2005(5)
刘艳丽、杨自俭《也谈“归化”与“异化”》,《中国翻译》,2002(6)
刘英凯《归化--翻译的歧路》,《现代外语》,1987(2)
马会娟《对Lawrence Venuti异化翻译理论的再思考》,《天津外国语学院学报》,2006(1)
莫逊男《从归化到异化――鲁迅翻译策略探索》,华南师范大学学报,2005(1)
任淑坤《解构主义翻译观刍议》,《外语与外语教学》,2004年(11)
孙致礼《翻译的异化与归化》,《山东外语教学》,2001(1)
孙致礼《中国的文学翻译:从归化趋向异化》,《中国翻译》,2002(1)
王大智《关于展开翻译伦理研究的思考》,《外语与外语教学》,2005(12)
王东风《译学学科名称溯源》,《中国翻译》,2002(3)
王东风《翻译研究的后殖民视角》,《中国翻译》,2003(4)
王东风《异化归化:矛与盾的交锋?》,《中国翻译》,2002(5)
王东风《解构“忠实”――翻译神话的终结》,《中国翻译》,2004(6)
王洪涛《从此岸到彼岸的反拨与超越》,《四川外语学院学报》,2006(9)
王宁《德里达与翻译理论的解构――怀念一代翻译理论宗师德里达》,《中国翻译》,2005(1)
王玉扩《译者的身份构建》,《天津外国语学院学报》,2005(5)
吴建国、魏清光《翻译与伦理规范》,《上海翻译》,2006(2)
谢天振《当代西方翻译研究的三大突破和两大转向》,《四川外语学院学报》,2003(5)
许宝强、袁伟选编《语言与翻译的政治》,北京:中央编译出版社,2001
许建平、张荣曦《跨文化翻译中的异化与归化问题》(《中国翻译》,2002(5)
阎嘉《文学研究中的文化身份与文化认同问题》,《江西社会科学》,2006(9)
杨金才《后殖民理论的激进与缺失》,《当代外国文学研究》,1999(4)
张柏然、秦文华《后殖民之后:翻译研究再思》,《南京大学学报》,2004(1)
赵宁《论充分翻译》,《外语教学》,2003(5)
朱健平《归化与异化:研究视点的转移》,《解放军外国语学研学报》,2002(2)
© 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 |