Polysystem-Theory多元系统理论

1、wordPolysystem TheoryI.Historical and Theoretical Backdrop of Polysystem TheoryEarly 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 t

2、ill 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

3、 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 paralleldevelopment

4、s 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 an

5、d 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 deve

6、lopment 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

7、 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

8、 Theories, American translation theoristEdwin 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

9、, but between Western and“ Third Woirtdries. Having few people speakingin “ mino rlanguages, Israeli “national literature is very much influenced by “major”1 / 11wordliterature such as German, Russian and Anglo-American literatures. Worse still, Israel, lacking a canon of literary works, was totally

10、 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 e to prominence in Israeli academic circle. There is no doubt that the de

11、velopment of polysystem theory constitutesan integral part of the rise of Israeli translation studies.Polysystem theory has its origins in parative literature and the structuralist and semiotic traditions of the Russian Formalists and Czech Structuralists.The general approaches adopted by Even-Zohar

12、 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

13、of polysystem . Having introduced the concept of “system , Tynjanov viewed a literary work as part of a literary system, which itself is defined as “asystem of functions of the literary order which are in continual interrelationship with other orders (Munday 2001:109). Based on this concept, Even-Zo

14、har 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

15、 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 app

16、lication 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 foundati

17、on for it.1.2 Development of Polysystem Theory in the WestEver 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 / 11word2

18、 Major Concepts of Polysystem TheoryPolysystem theory is actuallynot 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. PolysystemTheory was first published in 1979 and the second in 1

19、990, 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 theory 3.Even-Z ohar s PolysystemThe concept of polysystem coined by Even-Zoharconstitutes a funda

20、mental idea of polysystem theory. During his research, he adopted one of the currently leading ideas that sign-governed human patterns of munication, also known as semiotic phenomena, including culture, language, literature, and society should be regarded as systems rather than conglomerates of disp

21、arate elements. Based on this idea, Zohar (1990:11) defined polysystem as follows:Polysystem is ” asemiotic system aheterogeneous, 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 oth

22、er 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 “ mag-polysystem” , i.e. the a totalcultu

23、re of the said munity organizing and controlling several munities. 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 hypothesiz

24、ed. Thus, instead of analyzing single texts and classifying them, he explored multiple texts and the plex 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 plicated and changeable. The various strata and sub

25、divisions which prise a given polysystem are not equal, but hierarchized within the polysystem. They are constantly peting 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

26、which different literary genres all vie for domination of the center.What highlights the polysystem theory should be the heterogeneity of culture, which, for3 / 11wordinstance, is manifested in a situation where a munity possesses two or more literary systems, two “literature within the realm of lit

27、erature. As 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 fro

28、m one polysystem to another.Based on Shklovskij idea regarding “canoized and noncanonized , Even-Zohar(1990:15) developed those two genres, which are defined explicitly as follows:By “canonized one means those literary norms and works (i.e., both models and texts) which are accepted as legitimate by

29、 the dominant circles within a culture and whose conspicuous products are preserved by the munity to bee part of its historical heritage. ” No-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 munit

30、y (unless they change their status).The tensions between “high or acanonized genres (e.g. poetry) and “low or“noncanonized genres (e.g. popular literature, popular art, translated works, -culture in sub whatever sense, etc.) are universally present in every human culture. The genres on theowperipher

31、y constantly pete for the central position, which eventually results in literary evolution. When there is no-cislitibre to exert real pressures on canonized culture, a vital canonizedculture is very unlikely to exist. In other words, any canonized activity is bound to gradually bee petrified without

32、 the stimulation of a strong -culture . subThe 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). I

33、n 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 . WithiBenoimnaryative repertoire(and system)

34、 which reduces the possibility of each product being predictable by the introduction of new elements, it offers models of thetyp甲rTherytruggle between the primary andsecondary options is decisive for the system s evolution. When a primary form maintains a centralposition in the literary polysystem,

35、it brings about innovatory forces. But once it achieves the4 / 11wordcanonized status for some time, it tends to remain conservative, and bees the secondary form because there are newer models that are pushing it to the peripheral position. However, stability or instability of repertoire do not refl

36、ect, 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 hypot

37、hesis 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 “ value1s or evaluation in general are excluded by any se

38、ction 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 v

39、ariety, conflict contradiction, change and the time flow, it therebymakes the idea of system fully patible with heterogeneity and the flow of time.2. 2 ThePosition of Translated LiteratureAs noted above, polysystem theory holds that translated literature previously unnoticed should be connected with

40、 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 t

41、ranslated 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 a literary , and consequently these activities themselves observed via that network(Even-Zohar 1990:28).Even-Zohar proposed that tr

42、anslated 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 di

43、scuss its role and significance within the literary system in his essay “Theposition of Translated Literature within the Lit erary Polysystem . The essay boasted two versions: the first one was presented by Even-Zohar to the Dutch/Belgian group at the5 / 11wordhistoric 1976 Translation Studies Collo

44、quium 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 literaturewithin a literary system. When it assumes a central position, it participates actively i

45、n 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

46、as either primary or secondary, but as a variable, depending upon the specific circumstance operating within the literary system. Generally speaking, the”position of translated literature tends to be in a peripheral one, yet there exist some exceptions. He (Even-Zohar 1990:47)identified the followin

47、g three major conditions contributing to the translated literature as a central system in the literary polysystem: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 (wpieiripaeaage group of

48、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

49、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 mo

50、dels, 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

51、 for the sake of the demand of translation norm acceptability are much greater than otherwise.The analysis of translated literature proves more than marginal, though it is one aspect of Zohar isivestigation.A s a matter of fact, it has far-reaching consequences for the field of translation studies.6

52、 / 11word. 3Tourys Translation NormsNorms, 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 use

53、d 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 munity-as to what

54、 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 patt

55、ern 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 a initial norms refers

56、 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 bination thereof.Under initial norms lie“ preliminary nanm s “ operational norms. Preliminary normsinvolve the e

57、xistence 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 languagetext.Operational norms concern decisions made during, rather than pr

58、ior to, the actual act of translation. It is posed of matricial norms and text-linguistic norms. The former concern the pleteness 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 om

59、ission 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 r

60、egular tendencies, it7 / 11wordis 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;