Introduction

Key concepts

• Even-Zohar's polysystem theory (1970s) sees translated literature as part of the cultural, literary and historical system of the TL

• Toury (1995) puts forward a methodology for descriptive translation studies (DTS) as a non-prescriptive means of understanding the 'norms' at work in the translation process and of discovering the general 'laws' of translation.

• In DTS, equivalence is functional-historical and related to the continuum of 'acceptability' and 'adequacy'.

• Other systems approaches include the Manipulation School.

Key texts

Chesterman, A. (1997) Memes of Translation, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John

Benjamins, chapter 3. Even-Zohar, I. (1978/2000) 'The position of translated literature within the literary

polysystem', in LVenuti (ed.) (2000), pp. 192-7. Gentzler, E. (1993) Contemporary Translation Theories, London and New York: Routledge,

chapter 5. Hermans, T. (ed.) (1985a) The Manipulation of Literature, Beckenham: Croom Helm. Hermans, T. (1999) Translation in Systems, Manchester: St Jerome, chapters 6 to 8. Toury, G. (1978/2000) 'The nature and role of norms in literary translation', in L. Venuti

(ed.) (2000), pp. 198-211. Toury, G. (1995) Descriptive Translation Studies - And Beyond, Amsterdam and Philadelphia,

PA:John Benjamins.

Introduction

In chapters 5 and 6 we saw how linguistics broadened out from static models in the 1960s to an approach which incorporates first skopos theory and then register and discourse analysis, relating language to its sociocultural function. In the 1970s, another reaction to the static prescriptive models was poly-system theory (see section 7.1), which saw translated literature as a system operating in the larger social, literary and historical systems of the target culture. This was an important move, since translated literature had up to

that point mostly been dismissed as a derivative, second-rate form. Polysys­tem theory fed into developments in descriptive translation studies (see section 7.2), a branch of translation studies that has been crucial in the last twenty years and which aims at identifying norms and laws of translation. Developments in the study of norms are discussed in section 7.3 (work by Chesterman), and work by systems theorists of the related Manipulation School is described in section 7.4.

7. / Polysystem theory

Polysystem theory was developed in the 1970s by the Israeli scholar Itamar Even-Zohar borrowing ideas from the Russian Formalists of the 1920s, who had worked on literary historiography (see further reading section). A liter­ary work is here not studied in isolation but as part of a literary system, which itself is defined as 'a system of functions of the literary order which are in continual interrelationship with other orders' (Tynjanov 1927/71: 72). Literature is thus part of the social, cultural, literary and historical frame­work and the key concept is that of the system, in which there is an ongoing dynamic of 'mutation' and struggle for the primary position in the literary canon.

Although building on work by the Formalists, Even-Zohar reacts against 'the fallacies of the traditional aesthetic approach' (Even-Zohar 1978: 119), which had focused on 'high' literature and had disregarded as unimportant literary systems or genres such as children's literature, thrillers and the whole system of translated literature. Even-Zohar (p. 118) emphasizes that translated literature operates as a system:

1 in the way the TL selects works for translation;

2 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 over­arching concept to which he gives a new term, the polysystem, which is defined by Shuttleworth and Cowie (1997: 176) as follows:

The polysystem is conceived as a heterogeneous, hierarchized conglomerate (or system) of systems which interact to bring about an ongoing, dynamic process of evolution within the polysystem as a whole.

The hierarchy referred to is the positioning and interaction at a given histor­ical moment of the different strata of the polysystem. If the highest position is occupied by an innovative literary type, then the lower strata are likely to be occupied by increasingly conservative types. On the other hand, if the conservative forms are at the top, innovation and renewal are likely to come from the lower strata. Otherwise a period of stagnation occurs (Even-Zohar 1978: 120). This 'dynamic process of evolution' is vital to the polysystem, indicating that the relations between innovatory and conservative systems

110 SYSTEMS THEORIES

are in a constant state of flux and competition. Because of this flux, the position of translated literature is not fixed either. It may occupy a primary or a secondary position in the polysystem. If it is primary, 'it participates actively in shaping the centre of the polysystem' (Even-Zohar 1978/2000: 193). It is likely to be innovatory and linked to major events of literary-history as they are taking place. Often, leading writers produce the most important translations and translations are a leading factor in the formation of new models for the target culture, introducing new poetics, techniques and so on. Even-Zohar gives three major cases when translated literature occupies the primary position:

1 when a 'young' literature is being established and looks initially to 'older' literatures for ready-made models;

2 when a literature is 'peripheral' or 'weak' and imports those literary types which it is lacking. This can happen when a smaller nation is dominated by the culture of a larger one. Even-Zohar sees that 'all sorts of peripheral literature may in such cases consist of translated literature' (p. 194). This happens at various levels. For instance, in modern Spain smaller regions such as Galicia import many translations from the dominant Spanish form Castilian, while Spain itself imports canonized and non-canonized literature from the English-speaking world;

3 when there is a critical turning point in literary history at which estab­lished models are no longer considered sufficient, or when there is a vacuum in the literature of the country. Where no type holds sway, it is easier for foreign models to assume primacy.

If translated literature assumes a secondary position, then it represents a peripheral system within the polysystem. It has no major influence over the central system and even becomes a conservative element, preserving con­ventional forms and conforming to the literary norms of the target system. Even-Zohar points out (p. 196) that this secondary position is the 'normal' one for translated literatures. However, translated literature itself is stratified (p. 195). Some translated literature may be secondary while others, translated from major source literatures, are primary. An example Even-Zohar gives is of the Hebrew literary polysystem published between the two world wars, when translations from Russian were primary but translations from English, German and Polish were secondary.

Even-Zohar (pp. 196-7) suggests that the position occupied by translated literature in the polysystem conditions the translation strategy. If it is pri­mary, translators do not feel constrained to follow target literature models and are more prepared to break conventions, They thus often produce a TT that is a close match in terms of adequacy, reproducing the textual relations of the ST. This in itself may then lead to new SL models. On the other hand, if translated literature is secondary, translators tend to use existing target-culture models for the TT and produce more 'non-adequate' translations

III

DESCRIPTIVE TRANSLATION STUDIES

(p. 197). The term 'adequate' is developed in the discussion of Toury's work in section 7.2 below.

Genztler (1993: 120-1 and 124-5) stresses the way polysystem theory

represents an important advance for translation studies. The advantages of

this are several:

1 Literature itself is studied alongside the social, historical and cultural forces.

2 Even-Zohar moves away from the isolated study of individual texts towards the study of translation within the cultural and literary systems in which it functions.

3 The non-prescriptive definition of equivalence and adequacy allows for variation according to the historical and cultural situation of the text.

This last point offers translation theory an escape from the repeated linguistic arguments that had begun to follow insistently the concept of equivalence in the 1960s and 1970s (see chapter 3).

However, Gentzler (pp. 121-3) also outlines criticisms of polysystem theory. These include:

1 overgeneralization to 'universal laws' of translation based on relatively little evidence;

2 an over-reliance on a historically based 1920s' Formalist model which, following Even-Zohar's own model of evolving trends, might be inappropriate for translated texts in the 1970s;

3 the tendency to focus on the abstract model rather than the 'real-life' constraints placed on texts and translators;

4 the question as to how far the supposed scientific model is really objective.

Despite these objections, polysystem theory has had a profound influence on translation studies, moving it forward into a less prescriptive observation of translation within its different contexts.

7.2 Toury and descriptive translation studies

Working with Even-Zohar in Tel Aviv was Gideon Toury. After his early polysystem work on the sociocultural conditions which determine the trans­lation of foreign literature into Hebrew, Toury focused on developing a gen­eral theory of translation. In chapter 1, we considered Toury's diagrammatic representation of Holmes's 'map' of translation studies. In his influential Descriptive Translation Studies - And Beyond (Toury 1995: 10), Toury calls for the development of a properly systematic descriptive branch of the discipline to replace isolated free-standing studies that are commonplace:

What is missing is not isolated attempts reflecting excellent intuitions and supply­ing fine insights (which many existing studies certainly do), but a systematic branch proceeding from clear assumptions and armed with a methodology and research

112 SYSTEMS THEORIES

DESCRIPTIVE TRANSLATION STUDIES 113

techniques made as explicit as possible and justified within translation studies itself. 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 goes on to propose just such a methodology for the branch of descrip­tive translation studies (DTS).

For Toury (1995: 13), translations first and foremost occupy a position in the social and literary systems of the target culture, and this position deter­mines the translation strategies that are employed. With this approach, he is continuing and building on the polysystem work of Even-Zohar and on earlier versions of his own work (Toury 1978, 1980, 1985, 1991). Toury (1995: 36-9 and 102) proposes the following three-phase methodology for systematic DTS, incorporating a description of the product and the wider role of the sociocultural system:

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

2 Compare the ST and the TT for shifts, identifying relationships between 'coupled pairs' of ST and TT segments, and attempting generalizations about the underlying concept of translation.

3 Draw implications for decision-making in future translating.

An important additional step is the possibility of repeating phases (1) and (2) for other pairs of similar texts in order to widen the corpus and to build up a descriptive profile of translations according to genre, period, author, etc. In this way, the norms pertaining to each kind of translation can be identified with the ultimate aim (as more descriptive studies are performed) of stating laws of behaviour for translation in general. The concepts of norms and laws are further discussed in sections 7.2.1 and 7.2.2 below.

The second step of Toury's methodology is one of the most controversial areas. The decisions on which ST and TT segments to examine and what the relationships are between them is an apparatus which Toury (1995: 85) states should be supplied by translation theory. Yet, as we have seen in chapters 4 and 5, linguistic translation theory is far from reaching a consensus as to what that apparatus should be. Most controversially, in earlier papers (1978: 93, 1985: 32), Toury still holds to the use of a hypothetical intermediate invariant or tertzum comparationis (see page 49 for a discussion of this term) as an 'Adequate Translation' (AT) against which to gauge translation shifts. However, at the same time he also admits (1978: 88-9) that, in practice, no translation is ever fully 'adequate'; for this contradiction, and for consider­ing the hypothetical invariant to be a universal given, he has been roundly criticized (see, e.g., Gentzler 1993: 131-2, Hermans 1999: 56-7).

In his 1995 book, Toury drops the invariant concept. What remains in his model is a 'mapping' of the TT onto the ST which 'yields a series of (ad hoc) coupled pairs' (Toury 1995: 77). This is a type of comparison which Toury

admits (p. 80) is inevitably 'partial [and] indirect' and which will undergo a

'continuous revision' during the very analytical process itself. The result is a 3"

flexible and non-prescriptive, if also less than rigorously systematic, means £

of comparing ST and TT. The flexibility leads to different aspects of texts ^

being examined in Toury's series of case studies. Thus, in one study (pp. 148- ^

65) it is the addition of rhymes and omission of passages in the Hebrew S|
translation of a German fairy tale; in another study it is conjoint phrases in
literature translated into Hebrew (see section 7.2.3 below).

7.2.1 The concept of norms of translation behaviour

The aim of Toury's case studies is to distinguish trends of translation behaviour, to make generalizations regarding the decision-making processes of the translator and then to 'reconstruct' the norms that have been in oper­ation in the translation and make hypotheses that can be tested by future descriptive studies. The definition of norms used by Toury is:

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.

(Toury 1995: 55)

These norms are sociocultural constraints specific to a culture, society and time. An individual is said to acquire them from the general process of education and socialization. In terms of their 'potency' Toury places norms between rules and idiosyncrasies (p. 54). He considers translation to be an activity governed by norms, and these norms 'determine the (type and extent of) equivalence manifested in actual translations' (p. 61). This suggests the potential ambiguity of the term 'norm': although Toury uses it, first, as a descriptive analytical category to be studied through regularity of behaviour (norms are 'options that translators in a given socio-historical context select on a regular basis'; Baker 1997a: 164), they appear to exert pressure and to perform some kind of prescriptive function.

Although Toury focuses initially on the analysis of the translation product, he emphasizes (p, 174) that this is simply in order to identify the decision­making processes of the translator. His hypothesis is that the norms that have prevailed in the translation of a particular text can be reconstructed from two types of source:

1 from the examination of texts, the products of norm-governed activity. This will show up 'regularities of behaviour' (p. 55) (i.e. trends of rela­tionships and correspondences between ST and TT segments). It will point to the processes adopted by the translator and, hence, the norms that have been in operation;

2 from the explicit statements made about norms by translators, pub­lishers, reviewers and other participants in the translation act. However, Toury (p. 65) warns that such explicit statements may be incomplete or

114 SYSTEMS THEORIES

DESC RIPTIVE TRANSLATION STUDIES 115

Figure 7.2 Preliminary norms

Preliminary norms

Translation policy

Directness of translation

Figure 7.3 Operational norms

Operational norms

biased in favour of the role played by the informants in the sociocultural system and are therefore best avoided (see chapter 9 for further discus­sion of this point). Toury (pp. 56-9) sees different kinds of norms operating at different stages of the translation process. The basic initial norm refers to a general choice made by translators (figure 7.1). Thus, translators can subject themselves to the norms realized in the ST or to the norms of the target culture or lan­guage. If it is towards the ST, then the TT will be adequate; if the target culture norms prevail, then the TT will be acceptable (p. 57). The poles of adequacy and acceptability are on a continuum since no translation is ever totally adequate or totally acceptable. Shifts - obligatory and non-obligatory -are inevitable, norm-governed and 'a true universal of translation' (p. 57).

Other, lower order, norms described by Toury are preliminary norms (p. 58) and operational norms (pp. 58-9). Preliminary norms can be displayed as in figure 7.2. Translation policy refers to factors determining the selection of texts for translation in a specific language, culture or time. Toury does not pursue this area in his case studies. Directness of translation relates to whether translation occurs through an intermediate language (e.g. Finnish to Greek via English). Questions for investigation include the tolerance of the TT culture to this practice, which languages are involved and whether the practice is camouflaged or not.

Operational norms (figure 7.3) describe the presentation and linguistic matter of the TT. Matricial norms relate to the completeness of the TT. Phenomena include omission or relocation of passages, textual segmenta­tion, and the addition of passages or footnotes. Textual-linguistic norms govern the selection of TT linguistic material: lexical items, phrases and stylistic features (compare Nord's list in chapter 5).

The examination of the ST and TT should reveal shifts in the rela­tions between the two that have taken place in translation (compare shift analysis in chapter 4). It is here that Toury introduces the term 'transla­tion equivalence' (p. 85), but he is at pains to emphasize that it is different from the traditional notion of equivalence (see chapter 3). Toury's is a