Hist Trans Theo EN 2

Chapter 2: History of Translation Theories of Russia after the collapse of Soviet Union

苏联解体后的俄罗斯翻译理论史

陈心怡 Chen Xinyi, Hunan Normal University, China

Abstract

In the history of translation, Russian and Soviet translation theories have played a pivotal role in the world translation scene, and Russian and Soviet translation theorists have made great contributions to the development of world translation literature. Although it has only been thirty years since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the study of Russian translation theory has been receiving a lot of attention from scholars in China. This paper focuses on the history of the development of translation theory in Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union, firstly stating the current situation of translation in Russia after the collapse, then outlining inheritance and development of Russian translation theory after the collapse, and finally introducing new perspectives and main trends of Russian translation theory.

Key words

History of Translation, Translation theories, Translation theorists, Translation ideas

摘要

在翻译史上，俄苏翻译理论在世界翻译界发挥了举足轻重的作用，俄苏翻译理论家对世界翻译文学的发展做出了巨大贡献。虽然苏联解体才三十年，但俄罗斯翻译理论的研究一直受到国内学者的关注。本文主要介绍苏联解体后俄罗斯翻译理论的发展历程，首先陈述了苏联解体后俄罗斯的翻译现状，其次是苏联解体后俄罗斯对于翻译理论的继承与发展，最后概述了新世纪俄罗斯翻译理论研究的新视角和发展趋势。

关键词

翻译史，翻译理论，翻译理论家，翻译思想

Introduction

It is obvious from the history of Soviet translation theory that, like other countries, Soviet translation theory has also gone through a process from scratch, from fragmentary views to systematic theoretical discussions. From a global perspective, Russian translation theory is one of the important branches of translation theory in the world. Russian translation studies began in the Kievan Rus' era, and from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries until the beginning of the twentieth century, Russian translation studies developed along their own trajectory. Prior to the 1950s, literary translation theory had dominated Soviet translation theory, and from the 1950s onward, the linguistic school of translation began to rise and engage in a lively academic debate with the literary school, which subsided in the 1980s, with the linguistic school of translation thought gradually taking the lead. The process of translation was briefly suspended by the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, but soon thereafter, the translation business was relaunched and translation theory developed significantly. This paper provides a brief introduction to the history of translation theory in Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union, based on the translation ideas of two famous Russian translation theorists, V.V.Stobnikov and G.Р.Garbovsky, as well as a number of translation theory monographs that have been published in Russia in the past thirty years.

1.The State of Translation in Russia After The Collapse of The Soviet Union

In 1991, the Soviet Union was dissolved and the the Russian Federation was born. This major regime change briefly halted the process of translation. Shortly thereafter, the translation business was relaunched and developed rapidly, although there were significant changes in the practice of translation.

On the eve of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the commercialization of the translation circle was already visible, and in order to increase sales, publishers no longer had rules and restrictions on the selection of titles. Not only popular literature of low quality, but also pornography was published. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, publishing houses were privatized and some were profit-oriented. The selection of titles was so unrestricted that some works that were controversial in the West were translated and published in Russia without fail. As the number of translators increased dramatically with the infinite expansion of translated subjects, the publishers did not care to select translators and adopted a "matchmaking" approach. The quality of translations, especially of literary works, further declined. The excellent tradition of translation, editing and publishing, which was established by Gorky, Chukovsky and other previous translators in the early years of the Soviet Union, has disappeared.(Wu 2006:168)

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russian government adopted a very liberal policy both for the entry and exit of ordinary people, for international cultural and scientific and technological exchanges, and for the export and import of trade. As a result the need for interpreters and translators increased greatly, and enlightening translation textbooks [e.g., "How to Become a Translator? («Как стать переводчиком?») Miniar- Beloruchev, Moscow, 1999] came out one after another. Theoretical research in the translation circle was not interrupted by the collapse of the Soviet Union. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, a group of theoreticians active in the 1970s and 1980s continued to work in the field of translation. A number of monographs are still being published. It is worth mentioning: Minyar Beloruchev, "Theory and Method of Translation" (Moscow. 1996), Gak and Grigoriev, "Theory and Practice of Translation Theory" (reprint, Moscow, 1997), Obolenskaya (Ю.Л. Оболенская), "Dialogue of Cultures and Dialectics of Translation" ("Диалог культур и диалектика перевода", Moscow, 1998), Komissarov, “General Theory of Translation” (Moscow, 1999) and “Modern Translation” (Moscow, 2001), Topel, “Translation in the System of Comparative Literature” (Moscow, 2000), Alekseyeva ( И.С. Алексеева) "Professional training of translators" ("Профессиональное обучение переводчика", St. Petersburg, 2000; Moscow, 2001), Bransted and Provotorov (М.П. Брандес, В.И. Провоторов) "Pre-translational analysis of the text" ("Предпереводческий анализ текста", Moscow, 2001), Ratyshev "Translation techniques" (Moscow, 2001), Kazakova (Т.А. Казакова) "Literary Translation" ("Художественный перевод", St. Petersburg, 2002), Komissarov's "Translation Linguistics in Russia" (2002), Nelyubin's "Detailed Dictionary of Translation" (Moscow, 2003) Garbovsky (Н.К. Гарбовский) "Theory of Translation" ("Теория перевода", Moscow University Press, 2004, for details see chapter devoted to Garbovsky). In addition, there are collections of essays "Translation and communication" ("Перевод и коммуникация", Moscow 1997), "Problems of French language and translation theory" ("Вопросы французского языка и теории п еревода", Moscow, 1999), "University Translation Studies" ("Университетское переводоведние", St. Petersburg, 2000), "Language and Culture. Linguistics, Poetics, Comparative Culture, Theory of Translation" ("Язык и культура. Лингвистика, поэтика, сравнительная культурология. теория перевода", Moscow, 2001 ), etc. In this period, there is a noteworthy phenomenon: the expansion of translation teaching and research beyond the traditional "frontiers" of cosmopolitan cities (Moscow and St. Petersburg) into the Russian hinterland. Among the representative textbooks are В.В. Сдобников and О.В. Петрова's "Theory of Translation" (Nizhny Novgorod, 2001, see the chapter devoted to Stobnikov) and И.Э. Мохова's "Theory and Practice of Translation" (Novosibirsk, 2002). These textbooks are mainly for the use of university students of translation-related specialties, and they sort out, summarize and conclude various views in the Russian translation scene, expressing their opinions on different points of view, but without any significant theoretical breakthroughs. Not enough this work will develop in depth with time, and in time quantitative changes may cause qualitative changes.(Wu 2006:169)

Following a ten-year hiatus in 1999, the academic-theoretical anthology "Notes of a Translator" was relaunched. The Russian Association of Translators (Союз переводчиков России) started publishing a regular journal of theoretical and practical nature "Translation World" ("Мир перевода").

At the end of the 1990s, Shvetsel changed his view from the 1970s - that translation theory should belong to applied linguistics - and proposed that translation theory is an interdisciplinary science (Междисциплинарная наука), which It is possible to overcome the "isolationism" between linguistics and literature, and the tendency to develop an integrated and multidimensional approach to the analysis of translation in the discipline will develop. He points out that this methodological orientation is prompted by the fact that "linguistics itself has expanded its boundaries, abandoned the 'discrete' tradition, established close ties with other disciplines, and emerged as a science capable of promoting the mutual enrichment of linguistics and a range of marginal disciplines. The new direction of 'conjunctive' ('дефисный')". (The interdisciplinary status of translation theory "Междисциплинарный статус теориии перевода", in "Journal of translators", Moscow, 1999, 21 p.) On the idea of interdisciplinary study of translation theory Fyodorov, "General theory of translation (Fundamentals of Translation, Higher School Publishing House, 1983, p. 119) was already proposed in the 80's and was already reflected in practice. For example, in the work on simultaneous translation the author used linguistics, psycholinguistics and psychology. Again, for example, Komissarov's ideas in the first part of Modern Translation (see the chapter devoted to Komissarov for details). However, turning this interdisciplinary study into an interdisciplinary discipline is not acceptable to some scholars. For example, Galbovsky in Theory of Translation (Moscow University Press, 2004) states: "The theory of translation goes far beyond the framework of linguistics, because the characteristics of the object under study require the absorption of knowledge and methods from other disciplines such as logic, culture, anthropology, ethnography, psychology, sociology, etc. Does this prove the interdisciplinary status of translation theory? Does it prove that it is a so-called 'hyphenated' scientific orientation? I am afraid, not so. It proves that translation as an object can be studied from different aspects and by different disciplines. ...... The object of translation research requires an interdisciplinary approach, but an interdisciplinary approach to its object and its interdisciplinary status are two different things when the disciplinary orientation is the same." (Wu 2006:170)

After Fyodorov, Komissarov is active in the Russian translation scene. He accomplished a historic task by introducing the concept of "modern translation studies" and advocating an interdisciplinary approach to translation studies, thus pushing Russian translation studies to a new stage.

2.Inheritance and Development of Russian Translation Theory

Compared with the glory of Soviet translation theory in the 20th century, Russian translation theory, in terms of research fields, on the one hand, inherits the original research traditions and provides new interpretations of traditional issues; on the other hand, it explores issues that were not covered by the predecessors, or were rarely covered. Many traditional problems of translation theory have been newly interpreted after the collapse of the Soviet Union, such as the problem of equivalence and the problem of translation shifts.

2.1 Reinterpretation of the Equivalence Problem

The problem of equivalence received a lot of attention for along time in the Russian-Soviet translation theory. "In 1950, the first creator of translation linguistics, Letsker, published a paper "On regular correspondence in translation". The paper distinguished the following kinds of correspondences: equivalents (эквиваленты), analogues (аналоги), which were changed to (вариантные соответствия) and reciprocal alternatives (адекватные замены) in the author's later discourse." (Yang Shizhang, 2001) After Рецкер, the idea of equivalence was established in the studies of translators such as А.В.Фёдоров, З.Д.Львовская, etc. In the 1980s, as the concept of equivalence in translation was proposed and established by В.Н.Комиссаров and А.Д.Швейцер, the idea of equivalence in Russian translation theory also gradually matured.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, translators continued to further explore the essence of equivalence from new perspectives and depths on the basis of the original equivalence ideas. The representative study of this problem is the equivalence view of Г.Р.Гарбовский.

In the mature period of equivalence thought, А.Д.Швейцер once discussed equivalence from the viewpoint of semiotics, and he believed that equivalence could be divided into semantic, pragmatic and syntactic equivalence. Among them, semantic equivalence is an indispensable aspect of equivalence. Semantic equivalence mainly examines the extent to which the translated text is equivalent to or deviates from the original text in terms of meaning. Within the meaning, we are more likely to examine the relationship between the objective world and the original text, the objective world and the translated text, the original text and the translated text. The relationship between these three is precisely based on philosophical semantics thinking about the authenticity of symbols. Based on linguistics and philosophy of language, Garbovsky proposes the relationship between equivalence and truth, equivalence and meaning. He further point out the connotation of equivalence and the important role of the translator's understanding for equivalence through the similarities and differences of several pairs of concepts such as the terms "meaning" (смысл) and "connotation" (значение), the "concept" (понятие) and "understanding" (концепт), "signifier" (денотат) and "signified”(референт)"референт", thus enriching and developing the idea of equivalence in Russian linguistic translation. (Yang 2003:2)

According to Гарбовский, "the concept of 'truth-lies' can be introduced from logic as a criterion of equivalence evaluation." Translation equivalence means that the equivalence of the translated text and the original text (ИТ-ПТ) has truth value, if and only if the translated text is equally true as the original text. The truth-value of the original text corresponding to the objective reality is not involved here. The text is true because it has a certain correspondence with the objective reality.

Гарбовский also points out the relationship between meaning and connotation in accordance with Frege's view. Symbols refer to objects and express meaning. Connotation is directly connected with the denomination of the representational object (i.e. signified), while meaning is connected with the information carried by the object. That is, connotation is related to the scope of the concept, while meaning is related to the content of the concept. The relationship between "meaning" and "connotation" suggests that the same object can be expressed by different symbols, and the same original text can be interpreted by different translations. Each translator tries to decode the objective meaning of the original text based on the objective meaning of the symbols.

According to the relationship between the signified and congruent reference of philosophical semantics, the referent indicates the object class of real behavior, which is determined according to the понятие, that is, according to the content; while the congruent reference refers to the concrete thing, which necessarily adds the individual understanding, so it is determined according to the референт. What the congruent reference is converted into through translation may depend more on the perception of the translator, or even the perception of the reader of the target language. Thus Гарбовский suggests that the real meaning of the source language text and the real meaning of the translated text do not coincide exactly. After the author constructs a specific speech system, the translator who cannot understand this speech system well, has to reach the signified(денотат) from the concept (понятие), and then he will choose some from a lot of possible objects for categorical description and treat them as congruent reference. In this way, the mechanism of semantic transformation in translation is constructed from individual, specific to general, and then to new individual.(Yang 2004:3)

Another translation theorist В.В. Сдобников also has his own understanding of equivalence, which he prepared in cooperation with О.В. Петрова. The Theory of Translation ("Теория перевода") was published in 2001. From the point of view of the general theory of communication he distinguishes the criteria of evaluation of translation quality as equivalence (эквивалентность) and adequacy (адекватность).Сдобкников believes that these are two different concepts. Adequacy is the first level of evaluating the quality of translation, it is only suitable for evaluating the overall text of the translation, so adequacy does not have the problem of levels, the relationship between the translation of a work and the original text is either equivalent or not. Unlike equivalence, which depends not only on the translator's analysis and understanding of the extra-linguistic factors of the generated utterance. Сдобников's distinction between equivalence and adequacy is to a certain extent inherited from Смирнов's idea. The discussion of the level of equivalence should be said to be Сдобников's contribution to this important concept of linguistic translation. According to him, there are four kinds of equivalence according to the degree of correspondence between the translated text and the original text: the translation is equivalent to the original text as a whole, and the equivalence is realized at all levels of the text; the translation is equivalent to the original text as a whole, but the translated text is not equivalent to the original text only at individual levels; the translated text is equivalent in some aspects, but not equivalent to the original text as a whole; the translation may be neither equivalent nor equivalent to the original text.

In addition to the two aforementioned translation theorists, in the 21st century, the authors of the traditional problem of equivalence can be found in a number of academic monographs. For example, В.Н.Крупнов discusses the relationship between equivalence and lexical application from the point of view of translation practice. According to him, the translator's task is to select the equivalent specific linguistic units from a wide range of dictionary meanings for the translation of the original text based on the analysis of the text and full consideration of the hyperlinguistic information.

З.Д. Львовская discusses equivalence from the point of view of communication theory. She argues that "any bilingual activity that does not take equivalence as the purpose of communication is not translation and cannot be explained scientifically in a particular theory, because the type of behavior always changes with its purpose." Львовская discusses textuality and its relation to translation equivalence based on a cross-cultural perspective and analyzes the similarities and differences between equivalence and adequacy. She suggests that both equivalence and adequacy are concepts with an evaluative and relative character. The difference between the two is that equivalence evaluates the bilingual communicative process of translation not only in terms of the fidelity of the source language text but also in terms of the accuracy of the language use of the imported language text and derives an overall result; whereas adequacy evaluates only the correspondence of the translated text in the new communicative scene, i.e., the cultural context of the target language. (З.Д. Львовская 2007:75)

2.2 Reinterpretation of Translation Shifts Problem

Like the problem of equivalence, the problem of translation shift was also one of the main concerns of Russian-Soviet translation theory in the last century. In the Russian-Soviet translation theory, Я.I.Рецкер (1950) has discussed the problem of translation shift in more details. He divided translation shift into lexical shift and grammatical shift, while lexical shift can be divided into seven forms; grammatical shift is also associated with lexical shift, and grammatical shift refers to changing the structure of sentences in translation according to the norms of the target language. After that, А.Д.Швейцер (1988) discussed translation shift from the level of sense-value equivalence. Л.С.Бархударов (1975) classified the shift in the translation process.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russian translation theory continued to pay attention to the problem of translation shift, and a representative viewpoint belongs to the discussion of shift by Г.Р.Гарбовский. Г.Р.Гарбовский puts forward the discourse shift (прагматические преобразовния) and discourse-determined shift (прагмат ически обусловленные преобразования). Гарбовский considers discourse conversion and discourse-determined conversion as different concepts. Pragmatic transformation means that the translator consciously changes the communicative effect and aesthetic function sought by the author of the original text. For example, translating poetry into prose and prose into poetry. When the translator believes that it is more important for the reader to understand the content of the original text as exhaustively as possible rather than the form, he often chooses a pragmatic conversion. And the pragmatically determined conversion is aimed at reproducing the communicative effect of the original text in the translated text in equivalent value. Therefore, the translated text often retains the pragmatic meaning of the original, while the syntactic and semantic meaning of the original may be partially or even completely changed. Thus, it can be seen that a pragmatic shift often changes the text as a whole, while a pragmatically determined shift changes only the components of the text. However, whether it is a pragmatic shift or a pragma-determined shift, it is a matter of the translator trying to realize the interpretation of the meaning of one conforming system in another conforming system.(Yang 2005:4)

3.Criticism of The Major Translation Theorists After The Collapse of The Soviet Union

3.1 Criticism of Сдобников (Sdobnikov)

Stobnikov and Petrova's Theory of Translation is a relatively comprehensive textbook on translation and can also be considered a theoretical work. It covers numerous aspects of the history of translation, general theory of translation and monographs on translation. At present, translation studies have developed to a certain level, and there are more materials and predecessors' theories to draw on, summarize and apply, so these two authors are able to examine translation issues from a new height and breadth. The book provides a comprehensive and detailed introduction to the development of Russian translation theory in recent decades, and lists the views of various schools of thought and makes a more incisive analysis and evaluation in the elaboration of some theoretical issues. It can be said that the author has a deep understanding of the development of translation theory as a whole. At the same time, the analysis of various schools of thought is very objective, pointing out the progress of a certain view compared with the previous ones, but also pointing out the shortcomings openly and honestly, and being comprehensive as a textbook. In addition, the views of some famous translation theorists from other countries (such as Nida) are also introduced according to the needs of the text, and even the research results of Chinese scholar Shen Dan are quoted. The book devotes a large amount of space to discussing translation monographs, summarizing and concluding the research on interpretation and literary translation, which is uncommon for translation linguistics works. The two authors have their own unique insights on some theoretical issues, such as the discussion of the concepts of equivalence and equivalence, and they have achieved the inclusion of the views of linguistic and literary schools.

It can be concluded from the book that the two authors hold a functional communicative view of translation, such as they regard the text as a unit of translation and the function of the text as a translation invariant.

Since the book is a textbook for translation majors in Russian universities, the whole book is mainly an introduction and evaluation of views, and the authors themselves do not have many theoretical views and no significant breakthrough insights, which is also the shortcoming of the book. However, the flaws do not cover up the defects, and the book expresses their own views on the various schools of thought presented (e.g., the authors distinguish between the two concepts of translation studies and translation theory, and also they disagree with Komissarov's classification of detective novels as a type of information translation, etc.), which makes a certain contribution to the development of translation theory research and indicates that translation theory, practice and teaching in translation departments in foreign provinces are in the process of accumulation, and breakthrough results may appear.(Wu 2006:617)

3.2 Criticism of Гарбовский (Garbovsky)

In 1953, Fyodorov's book "Outline of Translation Theory" was published, which gave a more systematic and comprehensive discussion of translation theory from the perspective of linguistics. In this book, Fyodorov proposed that the theory of translation should be composed of "general theory of translation" and "sub-theory of translation". This view was later carried on in the works of other translation theorists. Along with the rapid development of scientific knowledge, the study of the general theory of translation has been deepened. Galbovsky's book "Translation Theory" focuses on the study of the general problems of translation, which is a study of the main problems of translation theory, based on the studies of his predecessors and contemporaries on these problems. However, Galbovsky does not simply list the views of others, but analyzes and comments on them, identifying the connections and differences between them. This kind of study helps us to grasp the translation linguistics school's research on the general issues of translation as a whole, and at the same time deepens our knowledge and understanding of these views. Galbovsky's discussion of some major issues in translation theory can be described as exhaustive and detailed. For example, the study of the problem of translation equivalence involves the definition of equivalence, equivalence in mathematics and logic, equivalence and meaning, signified and congruent reference, objectivity and subjectivity in translation, equivalence and adequacy, fidelity and exactness, multilevel theory of equivalence, formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence theory, translation equivalence as a normative category, adequacy, equivalence and translation evaluation, regular correspondence of equivalence, etc.(Wu 2006:648)

4.Overview of Russian Translation Theory Research in The New Century

4.1New Perspectives in Russian translation theory research

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russian translation theory has not only focused on traditional translation problems, but has also continued to launch new perspectives in translation studies.

И.С.Алексеева, based on years of experience and study of translation teaching, proposed the chapter transformation theory of translation. At the beginning of her monograph she points out that "today translation cannot be studied from any perspective without the concept of "text"." This monograph can be said to be a complete construction of the theory of textual or chapter translation. The monograph not only analyzes the status of chapter theory in modern translation theory and the types of chapter transformation from a macro perspective, but also subdivides chapters into twenty-four types and studies the translation transformation of each type of chapter. In addition, Алексеева also researches the problem of chapter shift in translation and interpretation and provides guidance for each of them. Translation criticism is also a part of translation studies, and a complete theory of chapter translation certainly includes the problem of translation criticism in the framework of chapters, therefore, in the last chapter the author examines the mode of original text-translation text conversion as the basis of scientific translation criticism. (И.С.Алексеева 2008:6)

The findings of frame semantics and cognitive linguistics provide another new perspective for the study of translation after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.В.I.Хайруллин (2009) argues that different pictures of the linguistic world do not create insurmountable barriers to interlingual communication, because the influence of cultural factors on translation can be included in the study of frame theory. It is generally accepted that framing is a key concept of cognitive science, referring to the process of mastering, accumulating and using information by a person and the method of conceptual organization of knowledge. And when Хайруллин applies this concept to translation studies, it expands it so that it is not limited to the concept of cognition, but extends to the perspective of language and culture. From this broad perspective, the author believes that translation is a complex phenomenon involving historical, cultural and social relations of linguistic communities, and the definition of translation must be considered in three dimensions, namely, language, information and culture. Хайрулин analyzes and studies these three factors embodied in translation in four specific dimensions: subject, space, time and behavior, with an overview perspective. These three factors and four dimensions form the network of translation, into which the main factors affecting translation can be included for an overview and study.

Although chapter translation perspective and frame translation research have been mentioned by previous authors, the macroscopic grasp and comprehensive study of these two research paths by the two authors mentioned above should be of great value to the development of Russian translation theory. In addition, translators have also put forward their translation claims from new perspectives such as lexicography and ethics, and all these studies have pushed Russian translation theory to new heights. (И.С.Алексеева 2008:43)

4.2 The Main Trends of Russian Translation Theory Research

Since entering the 21st century, Russian translation theory has further explored traditional translation issues in depth on the one hand, and explored new perspectives and fields of translation research on the other. Although the achievements of Russian translation theory in the new century are not yet comparable to those of the last century, the development of only thirty years has already enabled Russian translation theory to present its own development direction and trends. Looking at the results of the last thirty years, the Russian translation theory in the 21st century mainly presents the following trends:

First, the linguistic and literary research paths of translation are further integrated and unified in the construction and reflection of the ontology of translation.

Second, multi-perspective studies on traditional translation, such as the problem of equivalence and translation transformation. Scholars have explored these issues more deeply from a new perspective. These reflections and interpretations have undoubtedly developed and deepened the Russian translation theory.

Third, the combination of translation studies with several disciplines of linguistics, such as chapter linguistics, sociolinguistics, communicative theory, frame theory, etc., has enriched the research horizon of translation. The combination of translation studies with other linguistic disciplines has also become a major feature of Russian translation theory in the 21st century.(Yang 2006:3)

Conclusion

In a word, to study Russian translation theory, it is necessary to understand its history first. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, although there was a brief low period in the translation business in Russia, Russian translation theory has shown a more active development after entering the new century. The contributions of Stobnikov and Garbovsky to the study of Russian translation theory are particularly outstanding. In the last thirty years, both the reinterpretation of traditional problems and the discovery of new perspectives in translation studies have led to a new development of Russian translation theory research in the new century.

References

Wu Keli 吴克礼 (2006). 俄苏翻译理论流派评述 Review of Russian and Soviet Translation Theory Schools [M]. 上海外语教育出版社 Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.

Yang Shizhang 杨仕章 (2003). 科米萨罗夫翻译思想管窥A Glimpse into Komissarov's Thought on Translation[J]. 中国俄语教学(3) Teaching Russian in China (3).

Yang Shizhang 杨仕章 (2004). 科米萨罗夫的翻译语用学思想Komissarov's idea of translation pragmatics[J]. 中国俄语教学(4))Teaching Russian in China(4).

Yang Shizhang 杨仕章 (2005). 俄罗斯语言翻译学研究Translation Studies in Russian Language[J]. 外语与外语教学(5) Foreign Languages and Foreign Language Studie(5).

Yang Shizhang 杨仕章 (2006). 俄罗斯语言翻译研究的八大领域Eight areas of Russian language translation research[J]. 外语研究(5) Foreign Language Studie(5).

Alexeeva I.S. Алексеева И.С. (2008). Текст и перевод вопросы теории Text and translation issues of theory[M]. М.Международные отношения M.International relations.

Barkhudarov L.S. Бархударов Л.С. (1975). Язык и перевод. Вопросы общей и частной теории перевода Language and translation. Problems of the general and private theory of translation[M]. М.Международные отношения M.International relations.

Garbovsky N.K. Гарбовский Н.К. (2004). Теория перевода Translation Theory[M]. М.Издательство Московского университета M. Publishing house of Moscow University.

Komissarov V.N. Комиссаров В.Н. (1980). Лингвистика перевода Linguistics of translation[M]. М. Международные M. International.

Komissarov V.N. Комиссаров В.Н. (1999). Современное переводоведение. Курслекций Modern Translation Studies. Coursework[M]. М. ЭТС. M. ETS.

Schweitzer A.D. Швейцер А.Д. (1988). Теория перевода:статус, проблемы, аспекты Theory of translation:status, problems, aspects[М]. М. :Наука. М. :Science.

Huirullin V.I. Хуйруллин В.И. (2009). Перевод и фреймы Translation and Frames[M]. М. Издательство«Книжный дом ЛИБРОКОМ»M. Publishing house LIBROKOM.