System theories LESSON 7

Even-Zohar’s Polysystem theory (1/5) Developed in the ‘70s by the Israeli scholar ITAMAR EVEN-ZOHAR Translated literature is a system operating in the larger social, literary and historical systems of the target culture. But what is a literary system? “A system of functions of the literary order which are in continual interrelationship with other orders” (Tynjanov, 1927: 72 in Munday, 2001) In this system there is a continuous struggle for the primary position in the literary canon. (Munday, 2001: 165-166)

Even-Zohar’s Polysystem theory (2/5) Translated literature operates a system in the system: In the way the TL culture selects works for translation In the way translation norms, behaviour and policies are influenced by other co-systems. Even-Zohar focuses on the relations between all these systems in the concept which he named POLYSYSTEM (Munday, 2001: 166) “a system of various systems, which intersects with each other and partly overlap, using concurrently different options, yet functioning as one structured whole, whose members are interdependent”. (Even-Zohar, 2005, in Munday, 2001: 166)

Even-Zohar’s Polysystem theory (3/5) The positioning of the systems occurred in a dynamic hierarchy, changing according to the historical moment The position of translated literature within the polysystem is not fixed, and it may occupy a primary or a secondary position (Munday, 2001: 166) PRIMARY  “it participates actively in shaping the centre of the polysystem” It’s likely to be innovatory and linked to major events of literary history SECONDARY  it represents a peripheral system within the polysystem It’s likely to be conservative – it’s the “normal” position (Even-Zohar, 1978/2004: 200 in Munday, 2001)

Even-Zohar’s Polysystem theory (4/5) There are 3 cases when translated literature occupies a primary position: WHEN A YOUNG LITERATURE IS BEING ESTABLISHED and look initially to more established models WHEN A LITERATURE IS PERIPHERAL OR “WEAK” and imports those literary types which it is lacking WHEN THERE IS A VACUUM IN THE LITERATURE OF THE COUNTRY when there is a turning point in literary history of the country and old models are not considered sufficient anymore (Munday, 2001:167)

Even-Zohar’s Polysystem theory (5/5) The position occupied by translated literature in the polysystem conditions the translation strategies: IF PRIMARY  the translator does not feel constrained to follow TL models and are more prepared to break conventions IF SECONDARY  translators tend to use existing target culture models for the TT and produce more “non-adequate**” translations. (Munday, 2001:168) ** we will discuss this terms in the next few slides

Toury’s Descriptive Translation Studies (1/7) GIDEON TOURY Descriptive Translation Studies – And Beyond (1995) Toury focused on developing a general theory of translation, and replacing the isolated free-standing studies with a properly systematic descriptive branch of the discipline (Munday, 2001: 169) “Only a branch of this kind can ensure that the findings of individual studies will be intersubjectively testable and comparable, and the studies themselves replicable” (Toury, 1995: 3)

Toury’s Descriptive Translation Studies (2/7) He proposed a 3-PHASE METHODOLOGY for the branch of DTS: Situate the text within the target culture SYSTEM Undertake A TEXTUAL ANALYSIS of the ST and the TT in order to identify relations between corresponding segments in the two texts Attempt GENERALIZATION about the patterns identified in the two texts The REPLICABILITY is a fundamental aspect of this approach! (Munday, 2001: 170)

Toury’s Descriptive Translation Studies (3/7) The aim of Toury’s case studies is: to distinguish trends of translational behaviour to make generalizations regarding the decision-making processes of the translator to reconstruct the norms that have been in operation in the translation The translation of general values and ideas shared by a community into performance instructions appropriate for and applicable to particular situations (Munday, 2001: 170)

Toury’s Descriptive Translation Studies (4/7) RULES NORMS CONVENTIONS RULES  supported by legislation, are the strongest constraints NORMS  generally agreed forms of behaviour CONVENTIONS  more informal, and may be acquired by trial and error Toury considers translation to be actively governed by norms, and these norms “determine the (type and extent of) equivalence manifested in actual translations” (Munday, 2001: 172)

Toury’s Descriptive Translation Studies (5/7) The norms that have prevailed in the translation of a particular text can be reconstructed from two types of source: from the examination of the texts, that is the trends of relationships and correspondences between ST and TT segments from the explicit statements made about norms by translators, reviewers, etc. DIFFERENT TYPES OF NORMS OPERATE AT DIFFERENT STAGES OF THE TRANSLATION PROCESS INITIAL NORMS PRELIMINARY NORMS OPERATIONAL NORMS (Munday, 2001: 172-173)

Toury’s Descriptive Translation Studies (6/7) (Munday, 2001: 173-174)

Toury’s Descriptive Translation Studies (7/7) Toury hoped that the cumulative identification of norms in descriptive studies will enable the formulation of probabilistic “laws” of translation and hence of “universals of translation”. LAW OF GROWING STANDARDIZATION “in translation, textual relations obtaining in the original are often modified […] in favour of habitual options offered by a target repertoire” LAW OF INTERFERENCE Interference (mainly in lexical and syntactic patterns) between ST and TT is “kind of default” (Toury, 1995: 268, in Munday, 2001)

Discussion of Toury’s work Some criticisms have been moved to Toury’s model: The ad hoc nature of the ST-TT mapping inevitably means that Toury’s model is not fully objective or replicable Toury’s ambivalence towards the notion of equivalence and the confusion inherent in the proposed terms “adequate” and “acceptable”, because of their evaluative connotations in other contexts (Hermans, 1995: 28 in Munday, 2001) In DTS there is a tendency to overgeneralize from case studies The two laws seems to be contradictory: the law of growing standardization depicts TL-oriented norms, while the law of interference is ST-oriented (Munday, 2001: 178-179)

Discussion of Toury’s work Toury answered to some of these criticisms stressing that these laws are probabilistic explanations at different levels of language …defending the term “laws” instead of “universals”, because exceptions to a law can always be explained with the help of another law, while the so-called “universals of translation” do not cover every act of translation (no features of translation are ever “universal” unless they are so general to be of little use) (Munday, 2001: 178-179)

S-universals vs T-universals CHESTERMAN (2004) He established a link between Toury’s laws and different types of universals: S-UNIVERSALS  universal differences between translations and their STs TTs tend to be longer than STs dialects tend to be normalized explicitation is common Repetition is perhaps reduced Retranslations may lead to a TT that is closer to the ST T-UNIVERSALS  features of translated language as compared to naturally occurring language Lexical simplification Use of non-typical patterns (e.g. unusual collocations) Under-representation of lexical items that are specific to the TL (Munday, 2001: 180)

References CHESTERMAN, A. 1997. Memes of Translation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. EVEN-ZOHAR, I. 1978/2004. The position of translated literature within the literary polysystem”, in Lawrence Venuti (ed). 2004. The Translation Studies Reader. London and New York: Routledge. HERMANS, T. 1985a. The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Translation. Beckenham: Croom Helm. MUNDAY, J. 2001. Introducing Translation Studies. Theories and Applications. London and New York: Routledge. TOURY, G. 1978/2004. “The nature and role of norms in literary translation”, in Lawrence Venuti (ed). 2004. The Translation Studies Reader. London and New York: Routledge. TOURY, G. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies – And Beyond. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION! PROF.SSA LAURA LIUCCI laura.liucci@uniroma2.it