论文部分内容阅读
Polysytem theory was established by Even - Zoharin 1970s. This new perspective of translation studies in-volves new focuses and methodology, which has broad-ened the view on tranalation studies.
The central idea of polysystem theory is relational.All the elements are viewed in relation to other ale-ments, and these elements derive their value from theirposition in a network. The relations which and elemententertains with other elements are what composes its val-ue or function. Even - Zober describes a system as thenetwork of relations that can be hypothesized for a certainset of assumed observables. A literary system can be de-fined as the network of relations that is hypothesized toobtain between a number of activities called "literary",and consequently these activities themselves observed viathat network. Through these definitions, it' s easy to findout that the idea of relational is very important in Even -Zohar's polysystem theory.
There are three important binary oppositions inpolysystem theory. They are: the opposition betweencanonized and non - canonized products or models; theopposition between ' primary ' and ' secondary ' activi-ties; the opposition between the system's centre and itsperiphery. In the first opposition, ' canonized' means "those literary norms and works (i. e. both models andtexts) which are accepted as legitimate by the dominantcireles within a culture and conspicuous products are preserved by the community to become part of its histori-cal heritage". ' Noncanonized' means "those norms of-ten forgotten in the long run by the community". There are two different uses of the term "canonicity", one referring to the level of texts, the other referring tothe level of models. In the first case, which may becalled static canonicity, it introduces a text into the lit-erary canon, and this certain text is accepted as a finialproduct and may be preserved in the target literature cul-tare. In the second case, which may be called dynamiccanonicity, it introduces a text through its model intosome repertoire, and this literary model manages to es-tablish itself as a productive principle in the system. Sothe second kind of canonicity is the most important forthe system' s dynamics.
The opposition between primary and secondaryrefers to innovativeness and conservatism in the reper-toire. Individual translations or certain modes of transla-tion may play a primary or a secondary role in a polysys-tern. "Primary type" refers to the restructure of a reper-toire by the introduction of new elements, so the result ofeach product is less predictab.le. "Secondary type" refersto a state of products produce from a conservative reper-toire. In this type, "all of the derivative models are can-strocted in full accordance with what the repertoire al-lows. Every product of it will be highly predictable, andany deviation will be considered outrageous". In his essay The Position of Translated Fiction with-in the Literary Polysystem, Even - Zohar suggested thatthe relationship between translatod works and the literarypolysystem can be regarded as variable, depending uponthe specific circumstance operating within the literarysystem. There are three social circumstances underwhich the translated literature could be in the primaryposition:
1. When a literature is "young" or in the process ofbeing established;
2.When a literature is "peripheral" or "weak" orboth ;
3.When a literature is experiencing a "crisis" orturning point.
In the first case, the "young" literature cannot cre-ate all forms and genres, so translated texts may serve asthe most important for a certain amount of time, andtranslation fulfills the need of a young literature to use itsnew language for as many different kinds of writing aspoesible. In the second case, when a literature cannotproduce all the kinds of writing a stronger and larger sys-tem can, translated texts serve not ouly as a mediumthrough which new ideas ban be imported, but also asthe form of writing usually imitated by "creative" writersin the native language. In the third case, the establishedliterary models turn somewhere for ideas and forms, andnew elements are introduced into this literary systemthrough the translated text.
As Even - Zohar suggested, when translated litera-ture occupies a primary position, the borders betweentranslated texts and origins] texts "diffuse" (definitionsof translation become liberalized). Translated texts tendto more closely reproduce the original text's forms andtextual relatious (adequate to the source language).When translated literature occupies a secondary position,the translators attempt to find ready - made models fortrauslation result in translation that conform to preestab-lisbed aesthetic norms in the target culture at the expenseof the text' s original form.
The opposition between the system's centre and pe-riphery, as Even - Zohar sees it, the most prestigiouscanonized repertoire occupies the centre of the wholepolyzyztern. The centre of the system can be regarded asthe centre of power. It is much stronger and more orga-nized than the periphery. But the position is not stable,phenomena are often driven from the center to the pe-riphery, and conversely, phenomena may push their wayinto the center and occupy it.
When it occupies a central position, in the processof creating new, primary models, translators will nottend to look for ready - made models in the target litera-ture, but to violate the home conventions. Thus transla-tion will be close to the original in terms of adequacy. Sothe adopted translation norms might for a while be tooforeign and revolutionary to the target fiction. If the newtrend is victorious in the literary struggle, the repertoireof translated literature may be enriched and become more flexible. When translated literature occupies a peripheralposition, translators tend to find the best ready - madesecondary models for a foreign text, thus the translationwill be non - adequate. There will have great discrepan-cy between the seuree text and the target text. From thispoint of view, we can find that translation is an activitydependent on the relations within a certain cultural sys-tem.
Even - Zohar' s polysystem theory integrates thestudy of literature with the study of seeial, economic andhistorical forces. His theory is not text - oriented anddoes not divorce individual texts from their cultural con-text. His outstanding contribution to translation studylies in analyzing translation according to the historicalsituation and embedding translated literature into a largercultural oontext instead of having a static and prescriptivestudy of what a translation should be unlike those lin-guistics- based approaches, it is a descriptive, func-tional and systematic tranalation approach. So many con-troversial issues in translation, which were hard to de-cide with linguistic methods, can be solved with consultof this theory.
The central idea of polysystem theory is relational.All the elements are viewed in relation to other ale-ments, and these elements derive their value from theirposition in a network. The relations which and elemententertains with other elements are what composes its val-ue or function. Even - Zober describes a system as thenetwork of relations that can be hypothesized for a certainset of assumed observables. A literary system can be de-fined as the network of relations that is hypothesized toobtain between a number of activities called "literary",and consequently these activities themselves observed viathat network. Through these definitions, it' s easy to findout that the idea of relational is very important in Even -Zohar's polysystem theory.
There are three important binary oppositions inpolysystem theory. They are: the opposition betweencanonized and non - canonized products or models; theopposition between ' primary ' and ' secondary ' activi-ties; the opposition between the system's centre and itsperiphery. In the first opposition, ' canonized' means "those literary norms and works (i. e. both models andtexts) which are accepted as legitimate by the dominantcireles within a culture and conspicuous products are preserved by the community to become part of its histori-cal heritage". ' Noncanonized' means "those norms of-ten forgotten in the long run by the community". There are two different uses of the term "canonicity", one referring to the level of texts, the other referring tothe level of models. In the first case, which may becalled static canonicity, it introduces a text into the lit-erary canon, and this certain text is accepted as a finialproduct and may be preserved in the target literature cul-tare. In the second case, which may be called dynamiccanonicity, it introduces a text through its model intosome repertoire, and this literary model manages to es-tablish itself as a productive principle in the system. Sothe second kind of canonicity is the most important forthe system' s dynamics.
The opposition between primary and secondaryrefers to innovativeness and conservatism in the reper-toire. Individual translations or certain modes of transla-tion may play a primary or a secondary role in a polysys-tern. "Primary type" refers to the restructure of a reper-toire by the introduction of new elements, so the result ofeach product is less predictab.le. "Secondary type" refersto a state of products produce from a conservative reper-toire. In this type, "all of the derivative models are can-strocted in full accordance with what the repertoire al-lows. Every product of it will be highly predictable, andany deviation will be considered outrageous". In his essay The Position of Translated Fiction with-in the Literary Polysystem, Even - Zohar suggested thatthe relationship between translatod works and the literarypolysystem can be regarded as variable, depending uponthe specific circumstance operating within the literarysystem. There are three social circumstances underwhich the translated literature could be in the primaryposition:
1. When a literature is "young" or in the process ofbeing established;
2.When a literature is "peripheral" or "weak" orboth ;
3.When a literature is experiencing a "crisis" orturning point.
In the first case, the "young" literature cannot cre-ate all forms and genres, so translated texts may serve asthe most important for a certain amount of time, andtranslation fulfills the need of a young literature to use itsnew language for as many different kinds of writing aspoesible. In the second case, when a literature cannotproduce all the kinds of writing a stronger and larger sys-tem can, translated texts serve not ouly as a mediumthrough which new ideas ban be imported, but also asthe form of writing usually imitated by "creative" writersin the native language. In the third case, the establishedliterary models turn somewhere for ideas and forms, andnew elements are introduced into this literary systemthrough the translated text.
As Even - Zohar suggested, when translated litera-ture occupies a primary position, the borders betweentranslated texts and origins] texts "diffuse" (definitionsof translation become liberalized). Translated texts tendto more closely reproduce the original text's forms andtextual relatious (adequate to the source language).When translated literature occupies a secondary position,the translators attempt to find ready - made models fortrauslation result in translation that conform to preestab-lisbed aesthetic norms in the target culture at the expenseof the text' s original form.
The opposition between the system's centre and pe-riphery, as Even - Zohar sees it, the most prestigiouscanonized repertoire occupies the centre of the wholepolyzyztern. The centre of the system can be regarded asthe centre of power. It is much stronger and more orga-nized than the periphery. But the position is not stable,phenomena are often driven from the center to the pe-riphery, and conversely, phenomena may push their wayinto the center and occupy it.
When it occupies a central position, in the processof creating new, primary models, translators will nottend to look for ready - made models in the target litera-ture, but to violate the home conventions. Thus transla-tion will be close to the original in terms of adequacy. Sothe adopted translation norms might for a while be tooforeign and revolutionary to the target fiction. If the newtrend is victorious in the literary struggle, the repertoireof translated literature may be enriched and become more flexible. When translated literature occupies a peripheralposition, translators tend to find the best ready - madesecondary models for a foreign text, thus the translationwill be non - adequate. There will have great discrepan-cy between the seuree text and the target text. From thispoint of view, we can find that translation is an activitydependent on the relations within a certain cultural sys-tem.
Even - Zohar' s polysystem theory integrates thestudy of literature with the study of seeial, economic andhistorical forces. His theory is not text - oriented anddoes not divorce individual texts from their cultural con-text. His outstanding contribution to translation studylies in analyzing translation according to the historicalsituation and embedding translated literature into a largercultural oontext instead of having a static and prescriptivestudy of what a translation should be unlike those lin-guistics- based approaches, it is a descriptive, func-tional and systematic tranalation approach. So many con-troversial issues in translation, which were hard to de-cide with linguistic methods, can be solved with consultof this theory.