Polysystem theory holds that literary systems (e.g. the canon , children’s literature) tend to be in a state of fl ux, constantly changing status and fl uctuating between a peripheral and a central position in their interaction with one another. The notion of the polysystem has emerged specifi cally to explain the way these systems function and evolve under a variety of societal constraints.
The interaction among literary systems is closely linked to the familiar tension which emanates from the way the various literary models (e.g. genres and traditions) interact with one another, all vying for recognition. There will always be a canonised form and a form which is less infl uential. Endorsed by an institutionalised aesthetic, the canonised form (e.g. the ‘realistic novel’ as a genre) will attempt to protect its prominence at whatever cost, while the non-canonised, usually innovative, form (e.g. ‘popular fi ction’) tends to struggle for some form of prominence.
According to polysystem theory, it is necessary in dealing with the liter- ature of any nation to account for the so-called ‘low’ forms as well as the ‘high’ forms. In addition to the widely recognised and respected models, non-canonic and seemingly peripheral forms must not be ignored. Genres such as children’s literature, popular fi ction and, perhaps more signifi cantly, translated literature are no less worthy of attention than those systems which have traditionally occupied a central position.
Literary systems, then, invariably involve the struggle of a minor form to gain equality with the major form, and perhaps even hold sway. Obviously, translation is heavily implicated in all of this inter-systemic rivalry. Translated works usually occupy a peripheral position, but this is not necessarily always the case. Translations can at times assume a more infl uential role. Although often associated with the secondary func tion of merely propping up existing structures, genres, poetic traditions, etc., translated literature can be (and often is) capable of performing a primary function in the polysystem, bringing in new forms and innovative models. According to Even-Zohar (1978a: 24), translation can achieve a primary position when, in a given society at a particular period of time, indigenous literature might be:
• too young or in the process of being established; • peripheral or weak (or both) vis-à-vis world literature; • going through a crisis.
The Israeli case is interesting in this regard. In the early stages of its development, modern Hebrew did not have an indigenous literature as such, and thus it virtually lacked a canon of literary forms. Given demographic and other political considerations, Hebrew was therefore heavily reliant on foreign language translations to fi ll serious gaps in literary thought and practice.
In such circumstances, which are all too common around the world, the new idiom of translated works tends to give rise to a variety of innovative forms of writing. Similarly, the repertoire of a burgeoning literature is never complete and translation serves as an important source of inspiration. There will also be factors such as generation gaps and changing socio-cultural mores which render certain forms obsolete and in need of rejuvenation, and translation fulfi ls this need.
The opposite of the conditions that make translation primary can also occur, relegating translation to secondary importance in the polysystem. In well-established, strong and dominant systems, translations might only be seen as peripheral, optional extras. This has serious implications for the theory and practice of translation. Polysystemists use the peri- pherality index to explore how and what kinds of texts are selected for translation by both the sending culture and the receiving culture. Research in this area has shown that texts are invariably chosen for translation if they are compatible with the canon (Even-Zohar, 1978b).
This dynamic search for homogeneity is evident in another aspect of the relationship between translation and the literary polysystem: the
language of the translated work itself. The language of translation may be explored in terms of how responsive a translated text is to existing norms and models within the target system. In cases where translated literature is primary, what counts might not be the genius of the original work slavishly reproduced, but rather the ‘version’, the ‘imitation’ or even the ‘adaptation’ which assures an insecure receiving polysystem that it still has something to offer.
6.1.1 The development of norms
From the overall perspective of polysystem theory, and particularly in the work of Toury, translation shifts have come to be seen as indices pointing to the workings of norms and as attributable to a variety of infl uences, including translators’ individual styles, translation policy, ideological considerations and political decisions.
Descriptive Translation Studies has emerged to deal with these issues and is totally at variance with the ‘equivalence’ proposals. In a similar way to what has happened under deconstruction , the equivalence argument is simply turned on its head. From the perspective of the descriptivists, the prime movers of the translation process are not source texts but socio-cultural norms and textual-literary conventions in the target lan- guage and culture, together with such factors as:
• the model within which the translator works; • the presuppositions as to what counts as relevant;
• the decisions taken regarding the nature of the end-product.
Thus, literariness is never a concrete reality enshrined in the source text but a set of values that owes its existence to a wide range of factors. These factors are said to be facts of one system only – the target’s. Toury insists that these ‘translational facts’ are linked only indirectly to the source text, and rarely to the source culture. This is how equivalence is effectively replaced by the notion of ‘norms’ (Hermans, 1985: 217).
Toury’s crucial contribution to the debate regarding ‘norms’ may be set against the background of his own research experience. This began with an examination of a sizeable sample spanning a period of fi fteen years of prose fi ction translations into modern Hebrew from English, Russian, German, French and Yiddish. The aim of the investigation was to explore the kind of decisions considered to be instrumental in the making of a translation. This was one way of trying to unravel the polysystems at work in the receiving culture (Hebrew). The shifts between the source
One of the more interesting fi ndings of Toury’s research emerged in the domain of ‘shifts’. In the translations examined, very few straight- forward linguistic changes were in evidence, and the minimal omissions or additions that were there tended in fact to be somehow irrelevant to the overall identity of the end product. More meaningful changes were observed in the area of style (e.g. motivated lexical choice, syntactic reformulation, etc.). For example, there was a tendency to upgrade language to avoid sounding common or vulgar: register was elevated and the general tenor of the text raised appreciably. Observation of this kind provided Toury with a rich hypothesis to work with and, in turn, lent further support for the existence and power of ‘norms’.
The analysis of norms and of the way they are manifested in actual translations was an important source of insights for translation analysts and practitioners. The descriptivists hoped that a pattern would emerge to indicate how basic notions in the theory and practice of translation (e.g. equivalence) are dealt with in different traditions, by different societies or cultures and at different periods of time. In addition, they hoped that, through such empirical data, insight would be gained into whether true universals in translation practice existed. An investigation along these lines would shed light on the highly opaque relationship between major and minor forms and forces within given literary systems.
Concept 6.2 Norms
In dealing with the norm model as developed by Toury, it must fi rst be recognised that, in the 1970s, concepts such as ‘norms’ were contentious issues in the study of translation. The literature on the subject of norms was extremely confused, and many contradictory normative models were in circulation.
Toury presented a straightforward tripartite model of normative translational behaviour: the category norm would be situated somewhere along the line between ‘ competence ’ (rule-governed behaviour) and ‘performance’ ( actual decision making, including lapses and idiosyncrasies) (1995: 54).
Toury then defi ned norms as strategic courses of action that were opted for with a noticeable frequency and chosen in preference to other available options within a given system of socio-cultural or socio - textual practices (1995: 54).
and target texts were an obvious starting point since it was here that the aesthetic underpinning translator decisions was thought to lie.
6.1.2 The ideology of what to translate
Operating within the general parameters of polysystem theory, Toury specifi cally deals with the factors at work in the selection of what is to be translated. Ideological reasons are found to motivate selection in most cases, with linguistic or even aesthetic criteria playing a minor role. For example, given the marginality and the crisis which Hebrew was going through generally, a tendency towards choosing social or socialist works was much in evidence in the fi rst half of the twentieth century. Similarly, Jewish authors writing in the various European lan- guages were selected fi rst for translation, as were certain subjects and topics of national interest.
Literary and aesthetic criteria were not completely ignored but to be admitted, they had to be supplemented by other criteria. For example, literary reasons for the choice of certain works did feature fairly promin- ently but only in cases where compatible (i.e. comparable) indigenous literary models were not available. In fact, when this happened, translated works normally became a shaping force occupying the centre within the Hebrew polysystem. Other factors invoked in support of certain selec- tions, and prompted by agendas other than the ‘ideological’, include the didactic appeal which the work might have and the adaptability of the work to jealously guarded norms in the target language.
6.1.3 Polysystem theory assessed
Within the polysystem paradigm, to talk of genuine linguistic or even functional equivalence seems irrelevant in most cases. What matters is the way texts come in, how they are translated and where in the target poly- system they are eventually found. Questions such as the acceptability of a translation as translation, and whether the translation is central or peripheral within the overall conceptual map, far outweigh considerations of correspondence and linguistic or aesthetic compatibility of source and target versions.
The value of examining a source text for evidence is certainly not ruled out, but the object of the analysis is to get to grips with the grounds on which operational decisions are taken, shifts effected and choices made. To the polysystemists, these are translational phenomena that legitimately belong to the target system and the receiving culture which operates it. The reason for the rather unenthusiastic attitude towards the source text and towards considerations of faithfulness, loyalty and so on, is not so much a lack of concern with the textual minutiae of the
source text as it is a sociologically motivated plan to fi nd out what actually happens when translations are made.