Polysystem_Theory

Poly system Theory

1. Historical and Theoretical Backdrop of Poly system Theory

Early in 1969, Israeli scholar and professor at Tel Aviv University Itamar Even-Zohar suggested polysystem theory while working on Israeli literature. Later in 1978 he collected his articles and papers written from 1970 till 1977 as Papers in Historical Poetics, covering main ideas of polysystem theory in details. Since then, Even-Zohar has been developing polysystem theory, designed to deal with dynamics and heterogeneity in culture. In his collection of works Polysystem Studies in 1990, he continued to reformulate and improve his ideas of polysystem theory. Since polysystem hypothesis was proposed, a number of Israeli scholars notably Gideon Toury and Lambert had discussed, tested its applicability and developed the theory.

The emergence of polysystem theory was closely associated with the parallel developments in its social and historical situation to a certain extent. First of all, polysystem theory saw the rise of Israeli translation studies, which could be represented by the boom of Tel Aviv School. Even-Zohar and

his colleges especially Gideon Toury are mainly titled the Tel Aviv School of Poetics and Semiotics since their work centered on Tel Aviv University, Israel. In addition, Israel first published international journals TRANSST (The International Newsletter of Translation Studies), and Target (International Journal of Translation Studies) respectively in 1987 and 1989, furthering the development of translation studies.

Contrary to the current rosy scene, before the 1970s, Israel had witnessed its translation theories and practice move rather slowly and its Hebrew culture in an inferior status for thousands of years. However, since the 1970s, Israel has strived for the rejuvenation of Hebrew culture with its scholars endeavoring to bring the Hebrew culture to the sight of people and even to the center of the world. While working on Israeli Hebrew literature, Israeli scholars also developed their own translation theories based on relevant research. In his Contemporary Translation Theories, American translation theorist Edwin Gentzler (2004:107)explained the reasons for the boom of Israeli translation studies：Israeli scholars interacted with German, Russian, and later Anglo-American scholars, and found themselves at a crossroad not only between the Soviet Union and the West, but between Western and “Third World ” countries.

Having few people speaking in “minor” languages, Israeli “national” literature is very much influenced by “major” literature such as German, Russian and Anglo-American literatures. Worse still, Israel, lacking a canon of literary works, was totally dependent upon foreign language texts to provide both diversity and depth. Hence, the survival of the nation became dependent on translation.

Thanks to the importance of translation, translation studies has thereupon gradually come to prominence in Israeli academic circle. There is no doubt that the development of polysystem theory constitutes an integral part of the rise of Israeli translation studies.

Polysystem theory has its origins in comparative literature and the structuralist and semiotic traditions of the Russian Formalists and Czech Structuralists. The general approaches adopted by Even-Zohar and Gideon Toury rely to a great extent on the Russian Formalists in the 1920s---Viktor Shklovskij, Jurij Tynjanov, Roman Jakobson and others, and their successors in the following decade, mainly the Czech Structuralists, among which the ideas of Jurij Tynjanov played a vital role in the formulation of “polysystem”. Having introduced the concept of “system”, Tynjanov viewed a literary work as part of a literary

system, which itself is defined as “a system of functions o f the literary order which are in continual interrelationship with other orders” (Munday 2001:109). Based on this concept, Even-Zohar developed a new term “polysystem”. Apart from this, Even-Zohar and Gideon Toury borrowed from multiple other ideas of Tynjanov, such as his hierarchical structure of differing literary systems, his concept of defamiliarization as the measuring device for historical literary significance, and even his concept of literary mutation and evolution.

Using the work of Tynjanov and other Formalists as his starting point, Even-Zohar took up the systematic approach, aiming initially to resolve certain problems connected with translation theory and the historical structure of Hebrew literature. His application of the Formalists’ ideas in these areas finally resulted in the formulation of polysystem theory.

In conclusion, the favorable socio-historical background of polysystem theory has facilitated its emergence while the ideas of Formalists and Structuralists have laid a solid theoretical foundation for it.

1.2 Development of Polysystem Theory in the West

Ever since it was formulated, polysystem theory has

experienced many a drastic change. A number of scholars in various countries have attempted to improve, advance, enlarge and experiment with the theory, promoting its development.

2 Major Concepts of Polysystem Theory

Polysystem theory is actually not intended for translation studies; instead, it is a theory on culture. Even-Zohar’s essay “Polysystem Theory”, as the core of polysystem theory, boasts three versions. “Polysystem Theory” was first published in 1979 and the second in 1990, both pertaining to the literary study and the translation studies. Subsequently, the 1997 version indicates that polysystem theory has already evolved from a literary theory to an ordinary cultural theory3.

2.1 Even-Zohar’ s Polysystem

The concept of polysystem coined by Even-Zohar constitutes a fundamental idea of polysystem theory. During his research, he adopted one of the currently leading ideas that sign-governed human patterns of communication, also known as semiotic phenomena, including culture, language, literature, and society should be regarded as systems rather than conglomerates of disparate elements. Based on this idea, Zohar (1990:11)

defined “p olysystem” as follows:

Polysyst em is “…a semiotic system…a heterogeneous, open structure. It is, therefore, very

rarely a uni-system but is, necessarily, a polysystem-a

multiple system, a system of various systems which

intersect with each other and partly overlap, using

concurrently different options, yet functioning as one

structured whole, whose members are interdependent.”

Any polysystem, as Even-Zohar(1990:23) argued, is actually part of a larger polysystem, which in turn constitutes part of a “maga-polysystem”, i.e. the “total culture” of the said community organizing and controlling several communities. The borders separating adjacent systems shift all the time, not only within systems, but between them. However, with a polysystem one must not think in terms of one center and one periphery, since several such positions are hypothesized. Thus, instead of analyzing single texts and classifying them, he explored multiple texts and the complex intra- and inter-relations they enter into as they form a highly stratified but unified whole.

The intra-relations of the polysystem tend to be

complicated and changeable. The various strata and subdivisions which comprise a given polysystem are not equal, but hierarchized within the polysystem. They are constantly competing with each other for the dominant position. In particular, in the case of the literary polysystem there is a continuous state of tension between the centre and the periphery, in which different literary genres all vie for domination of the center.

What highlights the polysystem theory should be the heterogeneity of culture, which, for instance, is manifested in a situation where a community possesses two or more literary systems, two “literature” within the realm of literature. A s Even-Zohar(1990:13) claimed, the polysystem hypothesis is designed precisely to deal with such heterogeneity, aiming to investigate the particular conditions under which a certain literature may be interfered with by another literature, as a result of which properties are transferred from one polysystem to another.

Based on Shklovskij’s idea regarding “canonized” and “non-canonized”, Even-Zohar(1990:15) developed those two genres, which are defined explicitly as follows:

B y “canonized” one means those literary norms and

works (i.e., both models and texts) which are accepted

as legitimate by the dominant circles within a culture

and whose conspicuous products are preserved by the

community to become part of its historical heritage.

“Non-canonized” means those norms and texts which

are rejected by these circles as illegitimate and whose

products are often forgotten in the long run by the

community (unless they change their status).

The tensions between “high” or “canonized” genres (e.g. poetry) and “low” or “non-canonized” genres (e.g. popular literat ure, popular art, translated works, “sub-culture” in whatever sense, etc.) are universally present in every human culture. The “low” genres on the periphery constantly compete for the central position, which eventually results in literary evolution. When t here is no “sub-culture” to exert real pressures on canonized culture, a vital canonized culture is very unlikely to exist. In other words, any canonized activity is bound to gradually become petrified without the stimulation of a strong “sub-culture”.

The center of the whole polysystem is identical with the

most prestigious canonized repertoire. Repertoire is conceived of here as the aggregate of laws and elements (single, bound or total models) that govern the production of texts (Even-Zohar 1990: 17). In the repertoire there exists the primary vs. secondary opposition, that is, innovativeness vs. conservatism. In a conservative established repertoire (and system), each individual product will be highly predictable. Products of such state are labeled as “secondary”. Within an innovative repertoire (and system) which reduces the possibility of each product being predictable by the introduction of new elements, it offers models of the “primary” type. The struggle between the primary and secondary options is decisive for the system’s evolution. When a primary form maintains a central position in the literary polysystem, it brings about innovatory forces. But once it achieves the canonized status for some time, it tends to remain conservative, and becomes the secondary form because there are newer models that are pushing it to the peripheral position. However, stability or instability of repertoire do not reflect, or necessarily generate, stability or instability of the system. From the functional point of view, a system incapable of maintaining itself over a period of time is often on the verge of collapse.

As for the principle of polysystem theory, Even-Zohar

(1990:13) stressed that the polysystem hypothesis involves a rejection of value judgments as criteria for an a priori selection of the objects of study. Meanwhile, he explained that excluding the selection of objects to be studied according to taste does not mean that either particular “values” or evaluation in general are excluded by any section of the sciences of man as active factors to be accounted for.

To sum up, polysystem is heterogeneous and dynamic, which gives explanation to how the polysystem processes. Polysystem theory has been a challenge to the homogeneity tradition. By including all of these excluded parameters such as variety, conflict contradiction, change and the time flow, it thereby makes the idea of system fully compatible with heterogeneity and the flow of time.

2. 2 The Position of Translated Literature

As noted above, polysystem theory holds that translated literature previously unnoticed should be connected with original literature. Even-Zohar viewed literature as a polysystem, a system of systems, which can be described by a series of oppositions: between the center and the periphery, between the canonized system (which usually occupies the center of the

polysystem) and the non-canonized system, between translated and non-translated literature. The literary system is defined as the network of relations that is hypothesized to obtain between a number of activities called “literary”, and consequently these activities themselves observed via that network (Even-Zohar 1990:28).

Even-Zohar proposed that translated works correlate and translated literature may possess a repertoire of its own. He conceived of translated literature not only as an integral system within any literary system but also as a most active system within it. Having established its systemtic status, Even-Zohar then proceeded to discuss its role and significance within the literary system in his essay “The position of Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem”. The essay boasted two versions: the first one was presented by Even-Zohar to the Dutch/Belgian group at the historic 1976 Translation Studies Colloquium in Leuven, Belgium; in 1990 Even-Zohar incorporated its revised version in his collection Polysystem Studies.

In the essay mentioned above, Even-Zohar(1990:48) elaborated the position of translated literature within a literary system. When it assumes a central position, it participates

actively in shaping the center of the polysystem. When it maintains a peripheral position, it constitutes a peripheral system within the polysystem, generally employing secondary models.

Even-Zohar (1978) suggested that the relationship between translated works and the literary polysystem cannot be identified as either primary or secondary, but as a variable, depending upon the specific circumstance operating within the literary system. Generally speaking, the “normal” po sition of translated literature tends to be in a peripheral one, yet there exist some exceptions. He (Even-Zohar 1990:47) identified the following three major conditions contributing to the translated literature as a central system in the literary polysystem:

i. when a polysystem has not yet been crystallized,

that is to say, when a literature is “young”, in the

process of being established;

ii.when a literature is either “peripheral”(within a large group of correlated literature) or “weak” or both;

iii.when there are turning points, crises, or literary vacuums in a literature.

He also described the interaction between translation literature and target literature polysystem, and summarized the principle for each situation. The first case was in Israel, and the second in Low Countries and the last could be found in America in the 1960s.

The position taken by translated literature is decisive to translation norms, behaviors, and policies. When it assumes a central position in the literary polysystem and functions as a vehicle for creating new, primary models, the translator is far more likely to strive for such translation which is closer to the original in terms of adequacy. On the contrary, if translation occupies a secondary position within a given polysystem, the chances that the translator will attempt to find ready-made models for translation for the sake of the demand of translation norm “acceptability” are much greater than otherwise.

The analysis of translated literature proves more than marginal, th ough it is one aspect of Zohar’s investigation. As a matter of fact, it has far-reaching consequences for the field of translation studies.

2. 3 Toury’s Translation Norms

Norms, a central concept in the study of translation by the

Tel Aviv School, originated from the idea of the Prague structuralist Jiri Levy, who first applied the concept of norms to translation studies. In his doctoral dissertation (1971)4, Itamar Even-Zohar used this concept, based on which Gideon Toury introduced and developed the notion of Translation Norms. In his book Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond, Toury(1995:55) outlined his definition of translation norms as follows:

The translation of general values or ideas shared by

a community-as to what is right or wrong, adequate or

inadequate-into performance instructions appropriate for

and applicable to particular situations.

A given society always has multiple and conflicting norms, all interconnected with other functioning subsystems, but if situations recur regularly, certain behavioral pattern can be established. The same holds true for translation norms. Thus, Toury (1995:56-61) continued to identify three kinds of translation norms operating at different stages of the translation processes, i.e. initial norms, preliminary norms, and operational norms.

The basic “initial norms” refers to a general choice made

by translators to subject themselves either to original text with its textual relations and norms, or the target culture’s linguistic and literary norms, or some combination thereof.

Under initial norms lie “preliminary norms” and “operational norms”. Preliminary norms involve the existence and nature of a translation policy and the directness of translation, i.e. a particular society’s tolerance or intolerance towards a translation based on a text in an intermediate language rather than on the source language text.

Operational norms concern decisions made during, rather than prior to, the actual act of translation. It is composed of matricial norms and text-linguistic norms. The former concern the completeness of the target text, and have to do with the way textual material is distributed, how much of the text is translated, and any changes in segmentation. Phenomena include omission or relocation of passages, textual segmentation and the addition of passages or footnotes. The latter relate to the selection of target text linguistic material including lexical items, phrases and stylistic features.

Given the fact that translation is a norm-governed activity, to distinguish regular tendencies, it is necessary to study not only single texts, but also different translations of the same

original text and even extratextual sources. Consequently, Toury proposed two major sources investigating translational norms: textual sources, namely the target texts themselves; and extratextual sources, i.e. the theoretical and critical statements made about translation in general or about specific translation in general or about specific translations.

It is believed that translation norms are to a great extent influenced by the position assumed by translated literature within the polysystem. Norms determine the position of translations on an imaginary axis between two extreme possibilities: adequacy and acceptability. Adequacy means a functional equivalence between the source text and target text achieved by reconstructing the original functions of the elements comprising the source text while acceptability demands that the target text should be adjusted to the system receiving it.

Although Toury’s concept of norms focuses mainly on their function as a descriptive category to identify translation patterns, such supposedly non-prescriptive norms have triggered both approval and disapproval within society. Later some translation theorists such as Theo Hermans and Andrew Chesterman further developed translation norms. For instance, Chesterman proposed another set of norms—product or expectancy norms and process

or professional norms, covering the area of Toury’s initial and operational norms.

3. Extension of Polysystem Theory

Ever since 1969 when it was first suggested, polysystem theory has been developed, revised and perfected by a large number of scholars, engendering other systems theories.

Perhaps the most significant extension of the polysystem model should be found in Toury’s work. Having adopted the polysystem theory framework, Gideon Toury consolidated Even-Zohar’s target-oriented approach and conducted his descriptive research, aiming to better detect and describe all those linguistic, literary and sociological laws which govern translation. After his early polysystem work on the sociocultural conditions determining the translation of foreign literature, Toury shifted his focus from theory to descriptive work since 1980 and strived to develop a general theory of translation. To replace the commonplace isolated free-standing studies, he used the abbreviation DTS, introduced by Holmes, to refer to the scientific branch and the longer denomination “descriptive translation studies”, to the activity—any research procedures addressed to translational phenomena. The ultimate aim of DTS

is to identify the patterns of behavior in translation and then to “reconstruct” the norms at work in the translation process.

In his Descriptive Translation Studies-And Beyond, Toury (1995: 36-39 and 102), encompassed a description of the product and the wider role of the sociocultural system and elaborated three-phase methodology for systematic DTS as follows:

1) Situate the text within the target culture system, looking at its significance or acceptability;

2) Compare the source text (ST) and target text (TT) for shifts, identifying relationships between “coupled pairs” of source text (ST) and target text (TT) segments, and attempting generalization about the underlying concept of translation;

3) Draw implications for decision-making in future translating.

Jose Lambert, one of polysystem theory’s strongest advocates during the 1980s, retained a systemic approach while suggesting that the system as conceived may not function as the investigating scholar initially thought. As a result, he was open to the study of “other” patterned behavior which may help explain translated phenomena. Together with Van Gorp, he called for not only a study of the relation between authors, texts,

readers, and norms in the two differing systems, but also for relations between authors’ and the translators’ intentions, between pragmatics and reception in source and target systems, between the differing literary systems, and even between differing sociological aspects including publishing and distribution (Gentzler 2004:132).

With its considerable influence, polysystem theory has inspired another important school: the Manipulation School, which has grown up in Leuven, Belgium, where several meetings and conferences around the theme of translated literature were held by the International Comparative Literature Association. The group of scholars carried on the polysystem theorists’ point of view, and got the name because of their conviction that from the target perspective all translation implies a degree of manipulation of the source text for a certain purpose.

Polysystem theory has also made its mark in the work of Andrew Lefevere. Though he distanced himself from polysystem vocabulary, his work in translation studies actually developed out of his strong links with polysystem theory and the Manipulation School. Moving away from polysystem terminology, he proposed the addition of notions of polarity, periodicity and patronage and considered the role of ideology

and patronage in the system of translated literature. Furthermore, his later work on translation and culture in many ways represents a bridging point to the cultural turn.

In conclusion, polysystem theory has inspired a variety of scholars to study translation in another way and to supplement its model. In other words, polysystem theory has found itself developed in DTS and the ideas of Manipulation School as well as Lefevere’ work.

4. Influence of Polysystem Theory on Translation Studies

The work of Even-Zohar, polysystem theory’s initiator, is highly innovative, presenting multiple significant insights for the field of translation theory. Above all, his polysystem theory proves to be revolutionary because it moves the study of translation out of the static, source-oriented linguistic paradigm and obsession with one-to-one equivalence and forward into a less prescriptive observation of translation within its different contexts.

Polysystem theory advocates a descriptive, systematic, target-oriented approach to translation studies, inspiring a multinational translation studies school. Moreover, its definition of “equivalence” and “adequacy” according to the historical and