-
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
1
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.
2
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
“
p
olysystem
”
. Having
introduced the concept of
“system”
, Tynjanov viewed a
literary work as part of a literary
3
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<
/p>
”
.
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
4
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 theory
3
.
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)
5
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
6
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:
7
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
8
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
9
(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
10
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
11
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
上一篇：常见高级写作词汇
下一篇：8D过程与品保专业术语