In Defence of Polysystem Theory

Forum
In defence of polysystem theory

Nam Fung Chang
Lingnan University, Hong Kong
This article revisits Itamar Even-Zohars polysystem theory, including its hypotheses on the position of translated literature and its relation with translation norms, and some of its basic assumptions and principles, such as the heterogeneity, dynamics and overlapping of systems, the quest for probabilistic laws, and objectivity and neutrality. Through reading Even-Zohars texts closely and tracing the later developments of the theory, it attempts to explore the complexities of the theory, and clear up some misunderstandings, citing examples from polysystem-inspired case studies. It also discusses the complications caused by the expansion made by Gideon Toury on the concept of adequacy and acceptability, presents a revised version of Even-Zohars hypothesis on the situations in which translated literature is likely to occupy a central position, and suggests ways in which polysystem theory can or should be rendered more intricate. It argues that polysystem theory and other cultural theories can be complementary and mutually enriching. Keywords: polysystem theory, translated literature, norm, weak, adequacy, acceptability, binary opposition, heterogeneity, system, objectivity
1.
Introduction
Polysystem theory was developed by Itamar Even-Zohar in the 1970s for the study of language, literature and translation, and expanded into a general theory of culture in the 1990s. In the first twenty years since its birth, it had a great impact on translation studies and was well received by theorists. Gentzler (1993) made a very positive assessment of the theory. Although he questioned some of its basic tenets, he regarded the problems as minor (Gentzler 2001: 120). Hermans (1999) cast more serious doubts on some important assumptions of the theory in a systematic and substantial critique, but still endorsed systems thinking. With the rise to power of morally/politically committed approaches and the emergence of other cultural-sociological approaches in the twenty-first century, more and more
Target 23:2 (2011), 311347. doi 10.1075/target.23.2.08cha issn 09241884 / e-issn 15699986 John Benjamins Publishing Company
312 Nam Fung Chang
scholars find polysystem theory unable to handle the complexities and versatility of translation phenomena, and systems thinking in general seems to be on the verge of being abandoned. Meanwhile, Even-Zohars later writings, as well as some endeavours to augment polysystem theory (such as Chang 2000, 2001), have attracted little attention. In response to this situation, this article attempts to clarify and explore the complexities and complications of polysystem theory. It will start with the minor problems and then go on to discuss the bigger issues.1 2. The hypothesis on the position of translated literature In his paper The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem, Even-Zohar presented a series of hypotheses about translated literature. First, translated works can be considered as a system of the target culture rather than just a bundle of individual foreign texts as they have been treated in traditional translation studies. There are at least two reasons for this assumption: the selection of source texts follows principles that are correlatable with the conditions of the target culture, and their selection of translation norms depends very much on their relations with the home co-systems. (Even-Zohar 1990a: 4546) Secondly, being a polysystem with its own centres and peripheries, translated literature normally occupies a peripheral position in the literary polysystem. However, translated literature, or its central strata, may maintain a central position mainly in three typical situations, which are various manifestations of the same law:
(a) when a polysystem has not yet been crystallized, that is to say, when a literature is young, in the process of being established; (b) when a literature is either peripheral (within a large group of correlated literatures) or weak or both; and (c) when there are turning points, crises, or literary vacuums in a literature. (Even-Zohar 1990a: 47)
The third hypothesis concerns the relation between the position and behaviour of translated literature. When translated literature assumes a central position, taking part in shaping the centre of the literary polysystem, the translators main concern is the introduction of new models and repertoires rather than the preservation of those existing in the home system. Under such special circumstances the chances that the translation will be close to the original in terms of adequacy [] are greater than otherwise. When translated literature occupies a peripheral position, on the other hand, the translators main effort is to find ready-made secondary models for the foreign text, and the result often turns out to be a non-adequate translation. (Even-Zohar 1990a: 5051)
In defence of polysystem theory 313
While the first hypothesis has seldom been challenged, the other two have been queried. Gideon Toury has redefined and elaborated upon the third hypothesis in order to develop a Descriptive Translation Studies, creating a number of new problems in the process. Taking stock of these developments, sections 2 and 3 of this paper will try to clear up some misunderstandings about the second and the third hypothesis. While praising Even-Zohars theory for opening so many avenues to researchers in translation studies (Bassnett 1998: 128), Susan Bassnett has found some of the key words in the second hypothesis problematic:
Today we find this statement somewhat crude. What does it mean to define a literature as peripheral or weak? These are evaluative terms and present all kinds of problems. Is Finland weak, for example, or Italy, since they both translate so much? In contrast, is the United Kingdom strong and central because it translates so little? Are these criteria literary or political? (Bassnett 1998: 127)
Sharing Bassnetts views, Hermans further comments:

It is also deeply troubling, [] because it points to a lack of clarity regarding the vantage point from which the comments are being made. The value judgement in characterizing a literature as young or weak or in crisis or, even more puzzling, as containing a vacuum (a culture with a disability?), requires a criterion to ascertain such things as the youth or strength of a culture or the presence of a vacuum in it. It also suggests critical involvement, as the qualification affects the situation that is being described. (Hermans 1999: 109)
He suggests, Even-Zohars statements about typical situations when translations are likely to fulfil a primary role make more sense if we take them as referring to perceptions from within a system. (Hermans 1999: 109) Meanwhile, Wang Dongfeng, a Chinese scholar, cites the co-existence of domesticating and foreignizing strategies, which he observes to have actually been the translation norms in China for a long time, as counter-evidence to the assumption of polysystem theory that there is only one overall orientation of translation strategy at any given time in a culture.2 He attributes the co-existence of opposing strategies to the different cultural attitudes of individual translators, arguing that while the cultural position of a nation is both an objective fact and a matter of subjective perception, it is ultimately the latter that determines translation strategies. He criticizes polysystem theory for failing to make allowance for such exceptional cases by overlooking the translators cultural attitude (Wang 2000, 2008). His criticisms are directed at both the second and third hypotheses, but they boil down to the question of what determines the position and function of translated literature in the literary polysystem.
314 Nam Fung Chang
2.1 Value judgement? These criticisms lead to a series of questions. First, are terms like peripheral, young and weak evaluative? Is one passing a value judgement when characterizing a literature or culture as such? In the polysytemists usage these terms carry no appreciative or derogatory connotation but are entirely neutral. To describe something as central or peripheral (or old or young), for example, does not imply like or dislike, or respect or disrespect on the part of the researcher. A basic assumption of polysystem theory is that the member systems of a polysystem are not equal but hierarchized, some being in more central positions than others (Even-Zohar 1990: 14). The most problematic term is probably weak. It is derogatory in general usage, and has often been taken to be synonymous with peripheral although EvenZohars wording (either peripheral [] or weak or both) makes it quite clear that it is not. But what does Even-Zohar actually mean by this word? In his paper The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem there is a footnote referring the reader to another paper Interference in Dependent Literary Polysystems for the concept of weak (Even-Zohar 1990a: 47), and in the latter he explains:
It is then the weakness of the literary repertoire vis--vis a situation with which it cannot cope that mostly determines whether an alien system may be accessed or not. In a weak situation, a system is unable to function by confining itself to its home repertoire only. (Even-Zohar 1990c: 8081)
Thus, weakness or strength refers mainly to an entitys internal conditions instead of such things as political or cultural power vis--vis another entity, and the word weak is not intended to be derogatory. However, it is a bad choice of word for a descriptive theory, as Even-Zohar has admitted (in conversation with the author). With such an understanding, we can see nothing puzzling in the word vacuum either. It is just a figure of speech that describes the lack of a repertoire to handle a certain situation, or to satisfy a certain need. In fact, one may say that there are always vacuums (at least small ones) in a culture as there are in the air; otherwise, it will stagnate. In other words, cultures having vacuums are just the normal state. They have never been regarded by polysystem theory as what Gentzler (2001: 122) calls non-conforming models. To put it the other way round, whenever a new repertoire is accepted into a culture, one may assume that there must have been a vacuum to accommodate it. It is big and perfect vacuums that cause crises in a culture, just as they cause strong wind in the natural world. Hermans query suggests that a culture cannot possibly have a disability. However, we can certainly recognize cases in which individuals, groups and entire social
In defence of polysystem theory
315
entities which may all be regarded as cultures, though at different levels are, or find themselves to be, unable to function by confining themselves to their own resources. It does not matter very much whether we use vacuum or disability or some other terms to describe such situations. 2.2 Subjective or objective? The second question is: can those typical situations be identified objectively? With regard to the relative position of a literature, there could be a number of indicators. If Literature A translates less from Literature B than vice versa, that would be one of the manifestations of the centrality of Literature A in relation to Literature B. It would be another if translations from A to B tend more towards adequacy than translations from B to A. For example, weights and measures tend to be converted in Chinese-English literary translations, but preserved in the opposite direction (Chang 1998: 265266). This points to the relative centrality of English literature. These indicators can sometimes be measured fairly objectively or assessed intersubjectively, and I do not see any problems moral, ideological or academic in describing English literature as central relative to Chinese and many other literatures, for such an assessment, based on facts rather than opinion, does not constitute a value judgment. The relative positions of literary polysystems may be determined by political as well as literary factors, because political power may contribute to cultural interference (Even-Zohar 1990c: 80). To touch on political matters does not mean that the researcher is using political criteria or taking a political stance. One can always try ones best to be neutral, whether one is describing political or literary phenomena. The youthfulness or maturity of literatures may also be compared fairly objectively, by measuring not just their years of development, but also the volume and diversity of their repertoires (of both texts and models), which is a more important indicator. Of course one can always find cases where the situation is not so clear-cut, especially in cultures that have undergone, or are undergoing, dramatic changes, but even if an element of subjectivity or speculation is sometimes unavoidable, the researcher need not and cannot shirk the responsibility of making judgements in good faith when it is necessary to do so. On the other hand, weakness and the existence of a vacuum or crisis can be more subjective. Weakness means inability to cope with a situation by Even-Zohars definition, but there are in many cases no objective criteria to judge whether a culture is coping or not, and therefore opinions may differ. For example, an outsider may judge an entity to be weak if many of its people are dying of famine;
316 Nam Fung Chang
however, if the government is spending a substantial portion of its resources on developing nuclear weapons, ignoring the suffering of its people, one may assume that, as the government sees it, the entity is coping with the situation. Similarly, for some cultures the splitting of an entity is a crisis to be avoided at all costs, but for others it may not matter that much and may sometimes even be desirable. Cultural vacuums are sometimes even less objectively discernable. The fourteen-line poem, for instance, did not exist as a genre in traditional Chinese poetry, although some classical poems do consist of fourteen lines, but we cannot say objectively whether there was a vacuum or not, for while there was not such a genre, there was no ten-line poem or eighteen-line poem as genres either. The persons-in-the-culture did not feel something lacking until they learned about the sonnet in another literature. Then the model was imported through translation, and transferred into the indigenous literary system in the sense that Chinese sonnets began to be composed and a new genre was established. On the whole, the assessment of the relative position and degree of development of literatures or cultures can usually be more objective because it is based on fairly hard facts, whereas the perception of weakness, crises or vacuums must be more subjective because it is determined by cultural values. Needless to say, however, even facts can be interpreted differently, distorted, ignored, or even fabricated. 2.3 Self-perception but of what? A further question is whether it is the objective situation or peoples perception of the situation that determines the role of translated literature. On this point views are in fact less different than they seem to be. Both Hermans and Wang Dongfeng think that it is the latter. They are certainly right. Many case studies may prove that the attitude of an entity to foreign repertoires is determined not by the researchers or any other outsiders judgement of it, however neutral and objective they may be, but by its perception of itself. One such case is the account by Laura Bohannan of her attempt to translate the story of Hamlet in West Africa to a group of illiterate tribal elders. Instead of passively receiving the story from the teller, the elders queried many of the details, made their own interpretations such as approving Gertrudes marrying her brother-in-law Claudius soon after her husbands death, lest she should have no one to hoe her farms and eventually took over the telling of the story. They invited her to tell them other stories so that they could instruct her in their true meaning and teach her wisdom (Tymoczko 1990: 4749). An outsider would most likely think that the literature of the tribe is less developed than English literature, but the elders, feeling no deficiencies in their own culture, would accept only a highly acceptable translation of Hamlet.
Other theorists have had similar ideas. Lefevere (1992: 87) has remarked that translators attitudes towards the source texts universe of discourse are heavily influenced by the self-image of the target culture, among other things; and Yahalom (1979: 65, translated by Codde 2003: 114), has pointed out that when a system imports from a neighbouring system, the home system will consider the adjacent system more complete, developed, or adapted for the attainment of a certain goal, while considering itself inferior . Even-Zohar holds a similar view when he writes:
Although accessibility [of a foreign repertoire] may result from physical (co-territorial) contacts, such as domination, pressure, and/or prestige, it is nevertheless ultimately determined by the cultural promptness (openness/ readiness) of the target system to consider a potential source available. (Even-Zohar 1990d: 93)
He has cited cases where a conquering entity may be culturally weak and has to adopt the repertoires of the conquered entity, or two entities may be mutually weak, each dependent on the other for some of the repertoires (Even-Zohar 1990c: 80). Although he has not explicitly said so, in his hypothesis, weakness is meant to be a state not for other people to judge, but for the entity itself to perceive. Indeed, this is how the term has all along been understood by some polysystemists, as evidenced by the following observation:
When certain members of a society perceive their own culture as weak or defective in certain ways and thus see a need for reform, they will naturally turn to cultures that they perceive to be stronger or better for models to be imported. (Chang 1998: 265, emphasis added)
It can be argued therefore that the criticism that Even-Zohar has overlooked the self-perceptions of a culture is not justified. It is all agreed then that it is the peoples perception of their cultures situation that determines the position of translated literature. I think this applies more to weakness than any other aspect. If a culture realizes that it is peripheral compared to some others, but feels that its position is undeserved, it is unlikely to welcome foreign repertoires. An obvious example is the French cultural system, which takes vigorous measures to protect the purity of the French language, warding off interference from other languages, especially English, in spite of the fact that it has lost much of its prestige to English culture. Even-Zohar (1990a: 50) has found the French system to be much more rigid than most other systems, and I think its rigidity is at least partly attributable to the mixture of a sense of superiority and an awareness of its peripheralization. A mere sense of youthfulness will not necessarily lead translation to assume a central position either. In fact, not even crises, turning points or vacuums will. A
318 Nam Fung Chang
culture in such a situation will try to invent a new repertoire if it believes it is able to do so, or if it does not consider any foreign repertoire to be superior. The key word therefore seems to be Even-Zohars weakness or Yahaloms inferiority, a sense of which alone is in fact necessary and sufficient for a culture to welcome foreign repertoires. All the other typical situations mentioned by Even-Zohar are just favourable conditions for such a feeling to arise. 2.4 Second hypothesis revised In light of the foregoing discussion, weakness or inferiority, which carry derogatory connotations, can be replaced by a sense of self-insufficiency, which is not only neutral but also closer to what Even-Zohar actually means,3 and his second hypothesis can be reformulated as follows:
Translated literature tends to assume a central position in the literary polysystem when there is a general sense of self-insufficiency, which is likely to arise in three situations: a. when a literature is young; b. when a literature is peripheral; and c. when there are turning points, crises, or vacuums in a literature.
However, this is just a specific manifestation (in the domain of translation) of a general law of cultural interference, which is that when a culture faces a situation in which it cannot cope with existing repertoires while a foreign repertoire happens to be accessible, it may choose to import that repertoire with or without modifications rather than invent a new one. The hypothesis may thus be rewritten in more general terms:
Foreign repertoires tend to be welcomed by a culture when there is a general sense of self-insufficiency, which is likely to arise in three situations: a. when a culture is young; b. when a culture is peripheral; and c. when there are turning points, crises, or vacuums in the culture.
Nevertheless, exceptions are always possible since these are just probabilistic laws (see Toury 1995: 264272). 2.5 Can polysystem theory explain it? The fourth question is whether polysystem theory can account for the co-existence of conflicting translation strategies, in China or anywhere else. A systems theory, or any theory at all, is designed to explain general tendencies instead of subjective
decisions and individual behaviour, as Even-Zohar points out (Huang 2006: 58). If a substantial number of people, even though they may constitute only a minority in a culture, happen to make similar decisions and behave in similar fashions, then one may assume that their decisions are not entirely subjective but intersubjective; in other words, there are norms at work. Polysystem theory would be defective if it were unable to explain such behaviour. However, this does not seem to be the case here. Assuming heterogeneity and permanent struggles in the system (Even-Zohar 1990: 1115), Polysystem theory allows for the co-existence of rival systems and conflicting norms and their changing relations, and polysystem researchers do not flinch from explaining such relations. Wang Dongfeng suggests that polysystem theory would be more convincing if it took into consideration the translators subjective perception of the source and target cultures as a factor in the translation process (Wang 2000: 45), but the theory has precisely done that, at least as it is understood by some researchers. In fact, the overlapping of conflicting translation norms in China at the beginning of the twentieth century has been briefly explained in polysystemic terms:
In the perspective of Even-Zohars polysystem theory, an explanation of the translations of Yan Fu, Lin Shu and Lu Xun may be attempted. In the late Qing Period, invasion by foreign powers created in Chinas cultural polysystem a crisis or a vacuum, which needed to be filled with the help of translations. However, at the inception of the crisis, the linguistic-literary system of classical Chinese still maintained a secure position at the centre of the Chinese linguistic-literary polysystem, and was still the supreme form in the mind of Yan Fu, Lin Shu and their readers. They must needs therefore conform to the linguistic and literary norms of the target culture, producing highly acceptable but rather inadequate (that is, unfaithful) translations. [] After the New Literature Movement, the linguisticliterary system of classical Chinese lost its dominant position along with the ideological system of Confucianism at least in the eyes of left-wing writers, and therefore Lu Xun used unsmooth translations as offensive weapons to reform Chinas ideology and literature, and even its language (cf. Lu 1931/1984: 275277). (Chang 1998a: 3435, my translation, emphasis added. Also see Chang 1998: 265)
One may add that the acceptability-oriented translation norm of Yan and Lin, the two pioneering translators in modern China, was dominant in the first two decades of the twentieth century, but by the 1920s this norm, which Lin still adhered to, became old-fashioned, as the status of the adequacy-oriented norm changed from progressive to trendy (see Toury 1995: 63 for these terms). In this period there were heated debates over the issue of faithfulness versus smoothness as an accompaniment to divergence in translation strategies between left-wing and right-wing writers/translators, represented by Lu Xun and Liang Shiqiu respectively. These were cited by Wang Dongfeng (2000: 6; 2008: 146148) as evidence
320 Nam Fung Chang
against polysystem theory. However, if we take a diachronic perspective, we can see that although Liang advocated smooth translation, his works (especially his translations of Shakespeare) were rather Europeanized in comparison not only with those by Yan and Lin, as Wang Dongfeng (2000: 6) observes, but also with those by acceptability-oriented translators in later periods, whereas Lu has remained the most adequacy-oriented translator in modern China. Roughly speaking, the first twenty years of the twentieth century remain the most acceptabilityoriented period in modern Chinese history, and the ensuing two decades are the most adequacy-oriented as the self-perception of the Chinese cultural polysystem changed dramatically. This shift is proof of the existence of period norms. The fact that there are conflicting norms in each period does not mean that there is no change over time, because we can see that the middle ground has indeed shifted, and largely in the way polysystem theory has predicted. Even if one confines oneself to a synchronic view, one cannot prove polysystem theory to be faulty just by pointing out the co-existence of various shades of translation strategies. To do that one will have to prove either that these strategies are not hierarchized in the way hypothesized by polysystem theory, or that there is no competition among them, or even that it is a normless, free-for-all situation. The heated debates mentioned above indicate that there was indeed fierce competition, and, although more research needs to be done, it can safely be said that the majority of translated works in the 1920s-30s tended towards adequacy, and that Lu came out the winner of the debates, according to the accounts of translation histories (such as Chen 1992: 288308). Wang Dongfeng (2000: 7) also opines that in present-day China the two types of strategies co-existed relatively peacefully. However, there are still argument and competition. In the mid 1990s, there was a debate over strategies for the translation of Stendhals Le rouge et le noir, and the findings of a survey show that most readers prefer adequacy-oriented translations (Xu 1996: 98100). Although some of the questions seem to be loaded, such as should the language of literary translation have an exotic flavour, or should it be completely naturalized? (Xu 1996: 79, my translation, emphasis added), and many questions need to be answered in such detail that only the most fervent readers will have the patience to complete the questionnaire, the survey may still reflect that adequacy is the dominant norm. (Chang 2008: 6970) The Chinese Cultural polysystem is old and established, and is independent and self-sufficient most of the time. It has been at the centre of the mega-polysystem of the region for centuries, interfering rather than interfered with, and therefore it has a deep-rooted sense of superiority. After a series of military defeats by Western powers and Japan in the late nineteenth century, it came to realize that it was lagging far behind in terms of scientific, technological and economic develop-
ments. However, some people, especially those of the ruling class, were still proud of the central systems of this cultural polysystem, that is, its ideology, language and literature, while some others, losing faith in these systems, wished to change them by importing Western repertoires. For the culture as a whole it may be said that a superiority-inferiority complex arose in that period. Since then this complex has existed in different forms and to different extents. After disappearing for about two decades since the 1960s, it came back in the 1980s. Since then national pride has been rising amid rapid economic growth and technological advancement, while there is awareness that the progress is largely a result of Westernization. It is no surprise to polysystemists that, when a culture has such mixed feelings about itself, there should be conflicting translation norms. The translation phenomena of the present day can be explained even without recourse to this superiority-inferiority complex. The Chinese nation and its culture have left the periphery of the polysystem of the world but have not arrived at the centre. In consequence, adequacy- and acceptability-oriented norms exist only in their moderate forms, with neither clearly having the upper hand. (cf. Chang 2008: 70) 3. The hypothesis about the behaviour of translated literature, and Tourys Descriptive Translation Studies Even-Zohars third hypothesis seems to have been less challenged, except that Hermans has raised two points about the pair adequacy and acceptability: (1) the hopelessly confusing terms adequate and acceptable should be replaced by source-oriented and target-oriented respectively; and (2) there seems little point in trying to conceptualize a socio-cultural activity such as translation in terms of a choice along a single axis (Hermans 1999: 77). Although some of the problems have been addressed by Toury, a more detailed examination of them is warranted. 3.1 Tourys redefinition of adequacy and acceptability Even-Zohar coined the term adequacy and defined it as a translation which realizes in the target language the textual relationships of a source text with no breach of its own [basic] linguistic system (Even-Zohar 1975: 43, translated by Toury 1995: 56). The term he uses as the antonym of adequate is non-adequate (Even-Zohar 1990a: 51). Toury seems to be the first to complement it with acceptability, which means a translation not only reading the way a TL text should read, [] but also reading the way a translation [] into TL should read (Toury
322 Nam Fung Chang
1980: 29). He argues that a translated text can be located on an axis between the two hypothetical poles of adequacy (source text oriented) or acceptability (target language oriented) (Toury 1980: 34), and he regards the determining of this position of the text as one of the main objects of translation analysis (Toury 1980: 49). The focus is therefore on the linguistic-textual level (cf. Gentzler 2001: 119, 130). This seems to be inadequate if the aim is an exhaustive account of translation phenomena, because the translator is faced with norms on other levels as well (cf. So 2002: 9798), such as that of ideology and of what Lefevere (1992: 41) calls the universe of discourse. Even if ones research interests are mainly on the linguistictextual level, one cannot overlook those other levels. Otherwise, the explanation may not only be local and partial but sometimes even erroneous. A case in point is Wang Dongfengs explanation of the practice of Yan Fu and Lin Shu. He argues that their adoption of domesticating translation strategies at a time when the target culture was weaker than the source culture proves that translation strategies are determined not by the objective position of the culture but by the translators subjective recognition, contrary to what polysystem theory hypothesizes. (Wang 2008: 147148) In my opinion, a more nuanced analysis is necessary. A culture is a polysystem consisting of many domains, towards which a person-in-the-culture may have different attitudes. Yan and Lin no doubt saw the Chinese language and literature as superior; hence the acceptability-oriented strategies they adopted. However, they must have perceived a weakness in many other domains of Chinese culture, such as science and technology, the education system, and certain moral concepts. Otherwise, they would not have translated so many works, producing such a foreignizing effect on Chinese culture. In other words, their subjective recognition tallied with the objective situation as far as these domains are concerned.4 Toury later redefined the two terms, saying that adequacy means [subscription] to the norms of the source text, and through them also to the norms of the source language and culture (Toury 1995: 56), whereas acceptability is determined by subscription to norms originating in the target culture (Toury 1995: 57). As these new definitions are meant to include norms beyond the linguistic-textual level, the two special terms coined by Even-Zohar and Toury have no reasons to exist any more, and should indeed be replaced by the more commonly used source-oriented and target-oriented. 3.2 How many axes? A significant implication of Tourys redefinitions made before Hermans expressed his concern is that translating is seen no longer as the making of a choice along a single axis, but as that of a multitude of choices simultaneously
along many axes. In Tourys words, translation is intrinsically multi-dimensional (Toury 1995: 66). This means that Descriptive Translation Studies will have to determine the position of a translated text on all axes if it wants to be exhaustive. It can start with the study of normemes, or discrete norms, and then it should proceed from this paradigmatic phase to a syntagmatic phase, to establish the relations among normemes pertaining to various domains, and finally, providing that the network of relations established is thick enough, it may attempt to reconstruct the overall normative model the text is subject to, that is, the norms governing translation in their totality (Toury 1995: 6667; 1998: 23). However, it is impossible to implement this ambitious scheme in full. As there is in theory no limit to the types of norms that may have governed the translating of a text, the researcher has to select those that he/she deems to be most relevant for his/her purpose, and any case study has to remain partial with regard to both discrete norms and the overall normative model. 3.3 Where are the tools for each phase? A more serious problem after Tourys expansion of the scope of Descriptive Translation Studies is that tools are yet to be developed for the paradigmatic and syntagmatic phases of investigation. According to Toury, while the initial norm governs the choice which can be made between requirements of the two different sources of norms (Toury 1995: 56), there are two types of operational norms that direct the decisions made during the act of translation itself : matricial norms that govern the very existence of target-language material intended as a substitute for the corresponding source-language material, and textual-linguistic norms that govern the selection of material to formulate the target text in, or replace the original textual and linguistic material with (Toury 1995: 5859). These two tiers of norms may be sufficient if the focus is on the linguistic-textual level only, but they are inadequate when the scope of investigation is enlarged to include all types of cultural norms. Instead of simply saying that certain items have been deleted or replaced, one needs to describe what types of items have been deleted, or replaced by what, and to explain why they have been treated in that way. Take for example abridged translations as objects of study. Researchers who confine themselves to the linguistic-textual level may just say that the translation leans towards acceptability since even the fullness of translation (see Toury 1995: 59) is not respected, thus drawing a conclusion about initial norms directly from observations on operational norms. Those who seek higher-level explanations, however, will have to find out or speculate upon the causes of the abridgements: the literary device or the universe of discourse may be alien to the target culture, the ideology may be offensive to
324 Nam Fung Chang
those in power, or a full translation produced at a higher cost may have a much smaller market. For the second type of researcher there seems to be a gap between the two tiers of norms, and one wonders if all possible causes can be explained in terms of the initial norms of adequacy or acceptability. The next problem is how to proceed to the syntagmatic phase. Needless to say, the position of a translated text is not identical on every axis. A translator may lean towards one pole in certain domains, and towards the other pole in others, depending on his/her translation purposes (cf. Toury 1995: 67). Yan Fus translation of Thomas Henry Huxleys Evolution and Ethics, for instance, is highly acceptable on the linguistic, textual and literary levels as it is written in elegant classical Chinese, more or less adequate on the ideological level as Huxleys views are largely preserved, and somewhere in the middle where the universe of discourse is concerned as Chinese items are sometimes used in analogies and examples to replace Western ones in the text proper, while the latter are retained and explained in brackets. (Chang 2005: 4647) Then what can one say about the overall normative model of Yans translation? Obviously one cannot simply give a numerical value to the texts position on each axis and average them out. As the overall normative model cannot be derived automatically from findings about various discrete norms, the empirical researcher still waits to be enlightened by the theorist. 3.4 May texts fall outside the axes? A further question is whether translated texts always occupy a position along the straight line between the two poles, so that a text less adequate than another must necessarily be more acceptable, and vice versa. In fact, there are texts that are neither adequate nor acceptable to different extents. For example, in his translation of Victor Hugos Les Misrables, Su Manshu invented a character to voice his own views on Chinese affairs:
(Su 1903/1991: 696) (The slavish teachings of that Confucius of China are revered as virgin gold and solid rock only by the miserable, wretched Chinese. Surely we, noble citizens of France, need not listen to such shit!)
The ideology behind this attack on Confucianism and the Chinese people originates from neither the source nor the target culture, but from the translator himself, or from a trend of thought among left-wing intellectuals in China. On the ideological axis Sus translation is neither source- nor target-oriented, but can be said to be translator-oriented. Similarly, Ezra Pounds translated poems collected
in his Cathay do not conform to the poetics of either Chinese or English literature. Pound did not care very much about accuracy his knowledge of Chinese is very limited anyway, as translation is a tool for him to experiment with new forms, posing a challenge to the dominant literary norms of his time. The fundamental problem with Tourys conception of the initial norm as a choice on axes between two poles is that, although it assumes a multitude of axes after Tourys revision, it fails to take into consideration the possibility of translated texts falling outside these axes. Toury mentions only two sources of norms operative in the translation process the source and the target culture,5 whereas in reality there may be other important sources. These may include not only the United Nations and other multi-cultural settings in the special cases cited by Hermans (1999: 69), but also, in quite ordinary cases, the translators themselves, who may not only conform to existing norms, but also break them by inventing new models and repertoires. Their inventions may result from creativity or an insufficient command of the norms involved. Pounds inventions are a result of both. It may be argued that, as Tourys Descriptive Studies is also designed mainly to explain general tendencies, it is less interested in individual behaviour. However, it leaves a portion of translation phenomena unaccounted for, and that portion may sometimes be so substantial that a sub-set of norms may be assumed to exist. This limitation of the axis concept may even lead researchers astray. Seeing that Pounds translations often deviate from the source texts, one researcher (Zhu 2003: 2627) concludes that his translation strategies are extremely domesticating, while another (Zhang 2005: 101) remarks that Pound was foreignizing on the grounds that his translations have created new, primary models for American literature. Both researchers apparently assume that a translation must lean towards either acceptability or adequacy. The locations of translated texts between the two poles should perhaps be conceived as forming a solid sphere rather than an axis, so that a text may still be said to be nearer a certain pole than another text although one may be off the axis while the other may be on it in the way that Europe is nearer the Arctic pole than the centre of the earth, and a text near the axis may be more adequate and more acceptable at the same time than another that is at the same latitude but further away from the axis. 3.5 Is position the sole determinant of behaviour? It seems that translation norms are not always solely determined by the position of translated literature in the literary polysystem. I contend that in China translation norms have been heavily influenced by the concept of loyalty of the inferior to the superior. Originating from the ideological and the political polysystems, this
326 Nam Fung Chang
concept has for thousands of years dominated every aspect of Chinese society. This may be what Even-Zohar (1990d: 8990) calls the conversion of norms in our case from an ideological and political norm into a translational one. And I further contend that the norm of literal translation or even rigid translation advocated by the well-known writer cum translator Lu Xun in the 1930s, when the Chinese literary polysystem and even the whole Chinese cultural polysystem were in a crisis and therefore translated literature was at the centre, has been canonized due to Lu Xuns status as the greatest revolutionary writer and to Mao Zedongs support, and have continued to exert pressure on translators for over sixty years (Chang 2005: 61, 7071). This may be described as perpetuation of norms crystallized in an earlier phase. As the result of such conversion and perpetuation of norms, one may not always see a shift of translation norms from adequacy to acceptability to a corresponding degree when a centrifugal movement of translated literature takes place. This overdetermination of translation by various norms has created an interesting situation: at a time when translated literature assumed a peripheral position, the mainstream translation norms tended towards adequacy and yet a translator produced an acceptable translation on the linguistic-textual level in order to pose a challenge to the dominant translation norms and, indirectly, even to the dominant ideological norms (see Chang 1998). If a researcher has read Even-Zohars paper The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem only but not his other papers, and applies Even-Zohars hypotheses to the study of this case in a simplistic manner, he/she may conclude that the translator, producing a textually acceptable translation when translated literature is on the periphery, is just a normal, average one. Such a conclusion will not just be partial, but even erroneous. A clause should therefore be attached to the third hypothesis: other things being equal. 3.6 Does central and adequate always mean innovative? Even-Zohars hypothesis of a link between adequacy and the central position of translated literature is apparently made on the assumptions that primary (or innovatory) activities take place at the centre of the literary polysystem, and that adequacy-oriented translation has the function of creating new, primary models (EvenZohar 1990a: 50). However, neither assumption seems to be entirely unproblematic. In his earlier writings, Even-Zohar (1978: 16) equated primary with central and canonized, and secondary with peripheral and non-canonized since he found in the corpora he was then analyzing that primary activities were confined to canonized systems, and secondary activities to non-canonized systems. It is no surprise that the same assumption was made in The Position of Translated Litera-
ture within the Literary Polysystem, which was first published in 1976. He revised his views later and made the following correction:
[] as in the actual literary corpora I had then analyzed, primary types tended to appear exclusively in the canonized system (and secondary in the non-canonized), I began using the term primary system for a canonized system possessing primary types (and secondary system for a non-canonized system possessing secondary types). I must now strongly disavow this practice as it blurs the issue and is incorrect when periods other than those I discussed are taken into consideration [] (Even-Zohar 1979: 298)6
This is tantamount to admitting that innovations can be initiated by peripheral systems. However, no corresponding revisions have been made in the 1990 version of The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem except for the insertion of the following statement:
Whether translated literature becomes central or peripheral, and whether this position is connected with innovatory (primary) or conservatory (secondary) repertoires, depends on the specific constellation of the polysystem under study. (Even-Zohar 1990a: 46)
This remark seems to imply that the centre is not necessarily linked with innovation, and the periphery with conservation, in contradiction to the third hypothesis. Even-Zohar clarified his position on the issue in an email to me (dated 2 July 2004):
I believe there are instances in the history of cultures where it is the periphery which creates innovative, alternative models. I think I have even discussed this in several other papers. Often, when the established center is capable of only perpetuating accepted repertoire, innovations may then take place on the periphery. For example, when original writings perpetuated old models (French 18th century) while an adjacent culture (English) offered alternatives, translations and pseudo-translation on the French periphery began to offer alternatives, which eventually penetrated the French center after some 70 years of successful production. However, the overwhelming majority of the cases I have studied has shown that the combination of peripheral + secondary is more regular, but if we have a dynamic concept of a system, then clearly it is very rare that a system can be dominated by a perpetuated repertoire in the long run UNDER CONDITION THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME CONTACT WITH OTHER CULTURES. Please remember that the paper you are now discussing was written in 1976, before I made some progress in analyzing and thinking about systemic dynamics. I would consider it a pre-runner of what I, and others, have been able to develop
328 Nam Fung Chang
later. If I had to re-write it in view of further work done, it would have had to be completely reshuffled.
The assumption that adequacy-oriented translation has an innovatory function seems to be somewhat shaky as well. If a source text that is highly compatible with target culture norms is chosen, then the translation cannot possibly be innovatory however adequate it may be; whereas a translation made highly acceptable on the linguistic-textual level (such as some of the works of Yan Fu) may produce a great impact on the target culture if the source text is utterly alien in certain respects. Adequacy may be the product of the conscious use of translation strategies motivated by a desire to reform, but it may also result from a lack of bilingual and/ or bi-cultural competence. Although even the second type of adequacy may have an unintended innovatory effect in the sense that some new models may be introduced into the target language and eventually accepted into the indigenous repertoire, some others just become stable norms for translation but not for original writing. The continued use of such translationese is conservative. 3.7 Acceptability vs. acceptance The concept of acceptability, or indeed Tourys target-oriented Descriptive Translation Studies, is designed to describe and explain what goes on during translation, not the actual reception of a text. In Gideon Tourys words:
It is not acceptance (or reception) which is the key-notion here, but acceptability. Thus, what may be said to operate in literary translation [] is not any fact about the reception of its product []. Only assumptions can be operative here, namely, as to the chances a text has of being accepted whose structure and/or verbal formulation would follow a certain pattern. [] Where in the target culture the [text] will then be located is a totally different matter which may indeed form part of a research program in reception, literary or otherwise. [] Thus, not only can translations which have been carried out according to strict requirements of literary acceptability not be accepted into the target literature, but translations which have not been executed under this mandate may nevertheless carve a niche for themselves in it, even in cases where what they reflect is the source text and its underlying models [] (Toury 1995: 172173)
In fact, conformity to target linguistic and literary norms is not the only strategy to overcome cultural resistance, and sometimes it is not the most effective one. To understand the more complicated phenomena of actual reception one must look at a wider picture that of the entire culture, for the decisive battle may have to be fought on the ideological and political fields. For instance, without the social discourse that gave legitimacy to Western learning, such as the seventeenth century
myth that Western learning originates from China and the late nineteenth century proposition of Chinese learning as the body, Western learning for practical application (see Wang Xiaoyuan 2006: 42; Chang 2008: 138139), translation may not have eventually flourished in China at the turn of the twentieth century in spite of the efforts of the pioneering translators to make their products acceptable. An intriguing case is the reception of Sir Henry Rider Haggards Joan Haste around that time. According to a case study conducted by Wang Xiaoyuan, the first Chinese translation, published in 19011902, contains only the second half of the source text. The translator explained that the first half was missing when he bought the book from a second-hand bookstore. The story, about the heroine sacrificing herself for the one she loves, was well received. Four years later, a complete translation was published, but it was accused by some critics of having a corrupting effect on morals because in the first half of the story the heroine had pre-marital sex and got pregnant. One critic lamented, Oh, chastity can now be broken in an instant! He preferred the first half to be deleted for the good of Chinese society. (Wang 2006: 107115) The translator of the complete version is none other than Lin Shu, who was well known for his systematic use of acceptabilityoriented strategies on the linguistic and literary levels, but these strategies made little difference. The work was not able to gain acceptance until the moral norms that governed love and marriage changed. The most striking examples are perhaps foreign religions and ideologies such as Buddhism, Christianity and Marxism, none of which managed to carve a niche in Chinese culture until after bloody conflicts and even civil wars. 3.8 Synonymous with domestication and foreignization? Finally, it may be necessary to compare acceptability and adequacy with Lawrence Venutis concepts of domestication and foreignization, since the two pairs have been used by some scholars interchangeably. There are significant differences between them at least in two ways. First, Venutis concepts apply not just to Tourys initial norms, but to his preliminary norms as well. As Venuti remarks, the choice of a source text that challenges certain values dominant in the target culture can be just as foreignizing in its impact on the receiving culture as the invention of a discursive strategy (Venuti 2008: 125, 153).7 Tymoczko finds Venutis concepts problematic on the grounds that, since choice of text and discursive strategy are not family resemblances, he seems to attempt to define a category characterized by disjuncts of various properties rather than partial overlaps (Tymoczko 2000: 36). However, it seems puzzling why the selection of a text to translate and of strategies to translate it cannot be regarded as family resemblances. They are both decisions that the producer of a translated text has to make in
330 Nam Fung Chang
relation to the question of what foreign repertoires to transfer, and they jointly determine the function of the text in the target culture. Such academic niceties apart, some researchers may find foreignization and domestication a more helpful pair of concepts than adequacy and acceptability. The former may yield more satisfactory answers to certain complicated questions, such as why some translated works have produced a great impact on the target culture or have been regarded as a serious threat in spite of their norm-conforming discursive strategies. It is worth noting that Even-Zohars second and third hypotheses are both attempts to explain the second reason why translated works can be regarded as a system of the target culture, that is, the selection of translation norms depends very much on their relations with the home co-systems, whereas the first reason that the selection of source texts follows principles that are correlatable with the conditions of the target culture has not been followed up. My second revised version of his second hypothesis (presented in Section 1.4) is in part an attempt to fill this gap. The second difference is that, while domestication means conformity to target norms in the same way that Tourys redefined acceptability does, foreignization refers to the introduction of any element incompatible with values or norms currently dominant in the target culture, regardless of where it comes from. It may have been invented by the translator, or borrowed from an earlier period or the peripheries of the target culture, or from a third culture (see Venuti 1998: 1320). That is why Venuti (2008: 252) warns that implementing a strategy of resistance must not be viewed as making the translation more literal or more faithful to the foreign-language text. Foreignization in translation, therefore, covers a wider area than adequacy or source-orientation. A translation that can be described as foreignizing is not necessarily an adequate one. Pounds translation may serve as an example. Another, more complicated case is an acceptable translation produced at a time when the dominant translation norm is adequacy (see Chang 1998). On the linguistic-literary level it may be said to constitute a domesticating or acceptable translation, but on the level of translation poetics it can be explained conveniently only in Venutis term foreignizing, but not in any of Tourys terms. The adequacy-acceptability continuum may still be a useful concept for the study of the relation between the position of translated literature and its behaviour, but this relation should not be the only object of Descriptive Translation Studies. On the other hand, it seems that Venutis concepts, being more comprehensive, sophisticated, and flexible, may be turned into a more helpful explanatory tool for some more complicated cases, in spite of his prescriptive stance.
4. The bigger issues Many of the doubts about the basic tenets of polysystem theory were raised by Hermans (1996, 1999) and expounded on by others. The most serious criticisms include binary thinking, over-emphasis on systemicity at the expense of the agency of the translator, text orientation, inability to deal with power and ideology, lack of a coherent theoretical framework, and the impossibility of objectivity and neutrality. Some of these questions have been partly answered in the previous two sections, but a more detailed discussion is called for. 4.1 Binary oppositions? Hermans is of the view that the pattern of binary oppositions with which polysystem theory operates has resulted in research findings that are highly structured accounts of systems which are themselves shown to be highly structured (Hermans 1999: 119). He explains:
To the extent that translation research inspired by polysystem theory operates with mutually exclusive terms [], it remains blind to all those ambivalent, hybrid, unstable, mobile, overlapping and collapsed elements that escape binary classification. (Hermans 1999: 119)
It is not entirely clear from this statement whether Hermans lays the blame on the theory itself, or the application of the theory, or the interpretation of these terms by researchers, or both. Meylaerts blames Descriptive Translation Studies (Meylaerts 2006: 6) which can be regarded as a polysystem-theory-inspired framework designed specifically for the study of translation. Wolf and Agorni blame the theory itself (Wolf 2007: 7; Agorni 2007: 127), and Gentzler blames both (Gentzler 2008: 53). The binary oppositions they cite include central/peripheral, canonized/non-canonized,8 source/target, adequate/acceptable, primary/secondary, and producer/consumer. Meylaerts claims that functionalist descriptive research on heterolingualism in/and translation can render traditional binary oppositions [] more flexible (Meylaerts 2006: 6). However, most of these pairs are in relations of more or less, not either/or as Hermans alleges (Hermans 1999: 119). Take for example the pair adequacy and acceptability. As mentioned in Section 2 of this article, Hermans criticizes Toury for conceptualising translation in terms of a choice along a single axis (Hermans 1999: 77), not between two alternatives, thus recognizing that the two poles form a continuum. Many other pairs in polysystem theory, such as author/ translator or original writing/translation, are of a similar nature: Even-Zohar al-
332 Nam Fung Chang
lows for the existence of quasi-translations and of diffuse borderlines between a translated work and an original work (Even-Zohar 1990a: 50). These continuums are unstable and mobile. As Even-Zohar emphasizes, the distinction between a translated work and an original work in terms of literary behavior is a function of the position assumed by the translated literature at a given time. (Even-Zohar 1990a: 50) In his works one can also find references to centripetal and centrifugal motions, and to canonization, all of which imply changes. Rather than jumps from one pole to the other, such changes are often movements along a cline, which may reach the other pole or stop halfway. Polysystem theory is, after all, a theory of dynamic systems (Even-Zohar 1990: 10). In fact, the very term polysystem is coined to prevent binary thinking and simplistic ideas about cultures. As Even-Zohar points out,
if the idea of structuredness and systemicity need no longer be identified with homogeneity, a semiotic system can be conceived of as 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. (Even-Zohar 1990: 11, emphasis added)9
Since cultures, literatures, literary canons, languages, ideologies, repertoires, institutions, and by extension producers, consumers, and translators, etc. can all be regarded as polysystems, we can see that polysystem theory is not guilty of binary thinking. Nor does it assume the neat demarcation of national cultures, or the neat equation of cultures with monolingual territories coinciding in turn with nation states (Hermans 1999: 121), as some people might think it does. If there are case studies that perpetuate simplicities by assuming that the translator belongs to the target culture (Hermans 1999: 6869), etc., the fault is with those particular applications of the theory instead of the theory itself, because there are polysystem-inspired studies that deal with literary translation initiated by the source culture and with the conflicting norms between translators and even cotranslators with different cultural backgrounds (such as Chang 2004: 215227). 4.2 System vs. agency Closely related to binary thinking is the criticism that polysystem theory, by foregrounding systemicity and universals, has overlooked the agency of the translator and non-conforming behaviour. Gentzler observes that Even-Zohar and Toury seem to set out to look for unity and conformity more than contradiction and deviation (Gentzler 2001: 122, 130), Hermans suggests that the structuredness
of the method produces the structuredness of the object (Hermans 1999: 119), Daniel Simeoni feels a need to [nudge] theory away from the properties of systemic constructs towards the main focus of translation norms, i.e., the translator (Simeoni 1998: 1), and Agorni finds a mechanical tendency implicit in system thinking (Agorni 2007: 130). To address this perceived insufficiency of polysystem theory, some alternative research models have been proposed. Simeoni applies Pierre Bourdieus notion of habitus to translation studies in order to help account for the myriad determining choices made by translators in the course of translating (Simeoni 1998: 1). According to Simeoni, the difference between his notion of the translators habitus and Tourys Descriptive Translation Studies is simply one of angle:
Toury places the focus of relevance on the pre-eminence of what controls the agents behaviour translational norms. A habitus-governed account, by contrast, emphasizes the extent to which translators themselves play a role in the maintenance and perhaps the creation of norms. (Simeoni 1998: 30)
As he sees it, the two approaches are complementary rather than contradictory to each other, because norms without a habitus to instantiate them make no more sense than a habitus without norms (Simeoni 1998: 30, 33). Agorni derives from Maria Tymoczko the concept of localism, which means localized research into specific translation phenomena (providing a careful and detailed reconstruction of their social, linguistic, historical, and cultural context), to help investigate the contingent nature of the various agencies and institutions involved in translation practices (Agorni 2007: 129). Although she finds Tourys concept of norms compatible with the translators agency, she sees a need to pay attention to the role of individual case studies as a testing-ground for the discovery [] of general patterns of translation behaviour, so as to avoid the danger of generalisation (Agorni 2007: 128129). It seems to me, however, that such criticisms are not totally justified. As polysystem theory was intended to pose a challenge to traditional translation criticism the central paradigm of the time whose main objective is the evaluation of the translators competency and creativity, it naturally emphasizes systemicity and norms. Probably being too eager to prove their point, some researchers may have focused in their methodology and their findings on translation as a norm-governed activity and on regularities, but there is nothing in the content of the theory itself that shows a mechanical tendency (cf. Gentzler 2001: 122). Heterogeneity and changes are postulated from the beginning, and words like chances [] are greater than otherwise and often are used in the formulation of hypotheses. As mentioned in Section 1.4, polysystem theory is just after probabilistic laws.
334 Nam Fung Chang
Agorni calls for translation studies to employ research models committed to register both stability and change, both norm and norm-breaking (Agorni 2007: 125). However, some case studies inspired by polysystem theory have tried to do exactly that.10 Further, there seems to be binary thinking in Agornis statement. Stability and change are not always mutually exclusive. As Even-Zohar remarks, change does not always entail instability; on the contrary, permanent, steady, and well-controlled change may be a means to maintain stability. (Even-Zohar 1990: 26) The relationship between norm-conformity and norm-breaking is even more complicated. First, norm-breaking, or creativity, may result from the invention of new items, new combinations of existing items (cf. Simeoni 1998: 6), recycling items no longer in use, or appropriation of items existing in a co-system (another social domain, another stratum, etc.). Conformity and non-conformity to norms are therefore relative. Secondly, norm-breaking and norm-conformity may be interdependent. In what Even-Zohar calls innovative or primary systems new products are expected to break existing norms, resulting in a low degree of predictability (Even-Zohar 1990: 2021). In such cases breaking norms at a lower level is a means to conform to norms at a higher level. In the case mentioned in Section 2.5, conforming to target linguistic and literary norms serves the purpose of challenging translation and ideological norms. Referring to Andr Lefeveres theory of rewriting, Hermans finds that his terms are too apodictic, too few, and therefore too broad to be able to guide research in any meaningful way beyond a general orientation towards the social context of literature (Hermans 1994: 139140). The same can be said about polysystem theory, which is a general theory of culture designed to provide a broad framework. For detailed research into particular problem areas it may need to be revised and elaborated upon in the light of the special features of the area to be investigated, and for this purpose input from theories focusing on those areas is needed (see Chang 2001: 319, 329). In this sense polysystem theory and the concept of habitus are complementary as general theories and partial theories are. There is nothing in polysystem theory that makes light of empirical research either. The inter-dependency of theorizing or hypothesizing on the one hand and case studies on the other has been emphasized by Toury:
the findings of a well-executed study will always bear on the theory in whose framework it has been performed, thus contributing to the verification/refutation/modification of this theory []. A theory thus refined will, in turn, make possible the execution of yet more elaborate studies, which will then reflect on the theory and render it even more intricate; and so on and so forth [] (Toury 1995: 266)
As long as some theorists may be too hasty in drawing conclusions about patterns, an emphasis on case studies should be welcomed, but I wonder if it is necessary to invent an ism just to make this point. After all, research cannot stop at individual case studies. Eventually attention must be turned to universalism if that is the right word, because the ultimate goal of academic research should be the discovery of regularities. 4.3 Text-bound? Another so-called limitation of polysystem theory is that it is concerned mainly with the text. Hermans remarks that the theory remains thoroughly text-bound (Hermans 1999: 118). Meylaerts opines that only a combination of such a textoriented approach with an actor- and institution-oriented model will enable us to avoid simplistic, mechanical patterns (Meylaerts 2006: 7). Wolf finds that Even-Zohars words remain directly related to the text in the following passage:
It suffices to recognize that it is the interdependencies between these factors which allow them to function in the first place. Thus, a CONSUMER may consume a PRODUCT produced by a PRODUCER, but in order for the product (such as text) to be generated, a common REPERTOIRE must exist, whose usability is determined by some INSTITUTION. A MARKET must exist where such a good can be transmitted. None of the factors enumerated can be described to function in isolation, and the kind of relations that may be detected run across all possible axes of the scheme. (Even-Zohar 1990b: 34, original emphasis)
It can be seen, however, that text is cited in brackets only as an example of product. Elsewhere in the article The Literary System , from which this passage is quoted, Even-Zohar states clearly that the text is no longer the only, and not necessarily for all purposes the most important, facet, or even product, of this system, and that the actual merchandise lies in a completely different sociocultural and psychological sphere: interpersonal as well as political production of images, moods, and options of action (Even-Zohar 1990b: 33, 35). When this passage reappears in another paper Factors and Dependencies in Culture: A Revised Outline for Polysystem Culture Research with slight modifications, the phrase such as text is deleted (Even-Zohar 1997a: 20). In the 1990 article the capitalized words represent the factors involved with the literary (poly)system (Even-Zohar 1990b: 31), but in the 1997 article they become the constitutive factors involved with any socio-semiotic (cultural) event (1997a: 19). Consequently, the range of products regarded as legitimate objects of study in polysystem research has increased enormously.
336 Nam Fung Chang
If one is to employ this scheme as a framework for a case study, one may choose to investigate the whole event, identifying all the factors and exploring the relations among them, or one may choose to focus on a particular factor and its relations with the other factors. In theory at least, any cultural phenomenon can be regarded as the product or as some other factor, depending on the perspective of the researcher. For example, in a study of a translated text, the translator is the main producer, but in a study of a translator-training programme, the translator is the product and the university is part of the institution, and in a study of the tertiary educational system the university is part of the product. As a matter of fact, Even-Zohars own research interest has turned from literature and translation to culture in general (see Chang 2001: 318), as can be seen in the variety of his case studies published after 1990. Polysystem research projects undertaken by other people have also proved that the theory is a very versatile tool. For example, it can be used to analyse the Westernization process of translation studies in China (Chang 2009), or explain the authoritative status of a certain Chinese version of the Bible, focusing on actors and institutions without touching on the text itself (Chong 2000). It is therefore only fair to say that polysystem theory is not text-oriented, not even product-oriented. It is intended to be, and has been used as, a general theory of culture. 4.4 Unable to deal with power and ideology? The text-bound allegation goes hand in hand with the complaint that polysystem theory is ferociously abstract and depersonalized (Hermans 1999: 118). Gentzler observes that, despite allowing for such a possibility, Even-Zohar seldom relates texts to the real conditions of their production, only to hypothetical structural models and abstract generalizations (Gentzler 2001: 121). Hermans comments that polysystem theory is aware of the social embedding of cultural systems but in practice takes little heed of actual political and social power relations or more concrete entities such as institutions or groups with real interests to look after (Hermans 1999: 118). Wolfs criticism is even more unreserved:
Even-Zohar [] fails to integrate his factors (i.e. agents and institutions) into the frameworks of polysystem theory, and prefers to focus on the description of the existing relationships between them. (Wolf 2007: 7)
From this perception it follows that polysystem is not in a good position to investigate issues of power and ideology for two related reasons. One is that, since the material, social milieu of translation is somehow overlooked,
questions of power and ideology, issues of primary concern for researchers and practitioners alike, run the risk of appearing obscure and ineffectual if they are not linked to the actual people involved in translation activities. (Agorni 2007: 126)
The other is that, because Even-Zohar masks issues related to [power and political engagement] with his rather sanitized vocabulary, it is difficult to tease out the geopolitical implications of centre and periphery, cultural prestige and so forth in his presentation of the issues (Tymoczko 2000: 31). Tymoczko prefers postcolonial approaches, which, she thinks, unpack EvenZohars ideas about centre and periphery in both concrete and theoretical terms pertaining to power (Tymoczko 2000: 32). However, the daunting level of abstraction (Hermans 1999: 115) is what Even-Zohar aims to achieve. He explains:
System, or better: relational, thinking has provided the sciences of man with versatile tools to economize in the analysis of socio-semiotic phenomena. This approach has allowed the significant reduction of the number of parameters assumed to work in any given context, thus making it possible to get rid of huge nomenclatures and intricate classifications. Instead, a relatively small set of relations could be hypothesized to explain a large and complex array of phenomena. (Even-Zohar 1997a: 15, original emphasis)
In other words, phenomena may be different in their surface manifestation, but the relations in different sets of phenomena may be similar. Instead of developing different partial theories to explain different sets of phenomena, Even-Zohar builds a general theory with an abstract terminology to explain relations that he believes or assumes to be universal. The terminology must be sanitized for the principles of descriptivism and neutrality. These principles might have been a necessity as well as a virtue. Yael S. Feidman offers the following conjecture with regard to the emergence of such a school of thought in Israel:
I would imagine that it is the fear of the overpowering presence of political issues, palpable as they are in the Israeli experience, that endows the scientific metaphor with such alluring power. The delusion of rationality and objectivity is, no doubt, a greatly needed defence against the turbulent reality of Israeli life. (Feidman 1985: 34)
It is understandable that some scholars working in a social environment where there is freedom of speech, and where speaking truth to power (Said 1996: 85) is less likely to entail persecution than fame and gain in academic circles, would find polysystem theory insufficient for their purpose. However, they should also
338 Nam Fung Chang
understand that one persons poison is another persons meat. The delusion of rationality and objectivity and the daunting level of abstraction may help scholars who need or wish to publish in repressive societies on power and ideology get away from the censors. Take for example the following statement:
In cultures which think that the people need to be governed, the political and the ideological system are central systems, while other systems, being in more peripheral positions, are more heteronomous than autonomous [] the academic system being no exception (Chang 2010: 78, my translation)
If it is to be expressed in terms that are more concrete, taking heed of actual political and social power relations or more concrete entities, it will become something like this:
In the Peoples Republic of China, where the social elite think that the people should be governed rather than be governing, the Communist Party controls every social domain, and academics are expected to say what the ruler wants them to say more than tell the truth.
Such a version might constitute the crime of counter-revolutionary propaganda and incitement. Polysystem theory is less interested in the actual people than the relationships among them, but it is untrue to say that it is incapable of integrating agents and institutions into its framework. It at least allows for such a possibility, as Gentzler recognizes. This possibility has been demonstrated by Even-Zohar himself:
Of course, from the point of view of power, whether it be one Czar Nicolai, one Stalin or one Franco, or (though in a different way, no doubt) one Mitterand the repertoires proposed by an industry more or less free (or less dependent) are too dangerous. (This is, obviously, because it can conflict with the repertoires desirable and preferred by the power.) Consequently, even when they cannot control directly this industry, power attempts to do it through an indirect control. This can be expressed today in several forms. For example, a quite generous treatment of the producers or of the industry as a whole in the form of subsidies, scholarships, positions in the administration (ministers, ambassadors), or sometimes simply in the form of an invitation extended to one Roland Barthes to have tea in the Elises Palace with the President of the Republic. (Even-Zohar 2002: 81)
Even-Zohars interest is still in relations more than in the people that may be involved, who are cited only to prove a pattern. Actually, describing a struggle between competing norms and models is academically more challenging than describing a struggle between individuals or collectives who stand to gain or lose something by the outcome (Hermans 1999: 118) because the former involves tak-
ing one step up the level of abstraction. Polysystemists may always take that easy step down to describe actual people if they so wish. Some of the criticisms directed against polysystem theory seem to have resulted from using the research interests and values prevalent in ones own culture as the standards to judge (rather hastily too) a theory designed under different cultural constraints for a purpose somewhat different from ones own. Ethnocentrism has been committed unwittingly. 4.5 A coherent theoretical framework proposed In order to cater for my own research needs and to answer Hermans call for a comprehensive theoretical and methodological framework that can encompass the social and ideological embedding and impact of translation (Hermans 1996: 41), I ventured to propose an augmented version of polysystem theory specifically for the study of translation (Chang 2000). This version follows Hermans first, faltering step (Hermans 1996: 42) towards such a framework through further elaboration of the concept of norms, hypothesizing that activities within a polysystem are governed not only by norms from within the polysystem itself, but also by a web of norms from many other polysystems (Chang 2000: 119). It goes in a direction opposite to that of Even-Zohars revised outline in the sense that while the latter moves towards generality, getting rid of huge nomenclatures and intricate classifications on its way, the former moves towards particularity, with an increase in nomenclatures. The following is a summary of my proposal:
I propose that the activities and products of translators, especially those of literary texts, are governed mainly, but not exclusively, by norms originating from six polysystems or certain sub-systems thereof: 1. The political polysystem, which is made up of institutions of power and marginalized groups; 2. The ideological polysystem, which consists of competing and conflicting ideologies of all sorts that exist in a given culture, sponsored by different groups; 3. The economic polysystem, whose norms would bind translation activities to certain economic principles; 4. The linguistic polysystem, which would require conformity to the norms of a language variety; 5. The literary polysystem, which offers certain recognized literary models (see Toury 1995: 171) for translations to emulate; and 6. The translational polysystem, whose norms may be partially reflected in certain classroom exercises where the texts to be translated are not posited to serve any real purpose, and students are instructed just to translate, as if in a cultural vacuum.
340 Nam Fung Chang
It can be seen that norms originating from the translational polysystem often conflict with the other types of norms. These different types of norms pull the translator in different directions, and reach an equilibrium with the resistance of the translator, if any. This equilibrium becomes the overall normative model a translation event is subject to. (Chang 2001: 321)
I also attempted to demonstrate the operation of this framework with a small-scale case study (Chang 2001). I believe that this augmented version of polysystem theory can better accommodate investigations into the socio-cultural factors involved in translation (Chang 2000: 122). Among habitus theorists there is a view that translation does not constitute a field since it is heteronomous. The argument is:
it will be difficult to envisage actual products of translation as anything more than the results of diversely distributed social habituses or, specific habituses governed by the rules pertaining to the field in which the translation takes place. Not the field of translation, but that of heteronomous (literary, scientific, technical, legal, etc.) production. Whatever special habitus can be deemed relevant will have originated in a special field distinct from that which we-as-scholars take to be the sphere of translation. (Simeoni 1998: 1920)
This means, if translated into polysystemic terms, that all the norms operative in translation activities originate from systems other than translation, and none from the translation system itself. This assumption is entirely against that of polysystem theory, according to which no system, however weak or peripheral, can be entirely heteronomous; otherwise it does not exist as a system. In reality, we can see that in some cultures and for some time there have been commonly accepted translation criteria. These criteria have been claimed to be applicable to all types of translation, such as Yan Fus xin, da, ya (faithfulness, fluency and elegance), or Eugene A. Nidas dynamic equivalence; and at least some parts of them, such as dynamic equivalence and xin, are never considered applicable to non-translational text production. In other words, these norms are more or less specific to translation activities. Further, they originate mainly from the translation system, although they are not entirely untainted by the norms of other systems. These norms can be taken as strong evidence for the existence of a translation system, or field, with a certain degree of autonomy. Regarding translation as entirely heteronomous smacks of binary thinking. Yet Simeonis view has been echoed by other habitus theorists, such as Gouanvic (2007), whereas Wolf has found it necessary to resort to Homi Bhabhas third space theorem to argue to the contrary (Wolf 2007a).
4.6 Objectivity and neutrality Agorni suggests that a distinction can be drawn between descriptive approaches that emphasize neutrality and objectivity, such as Mona Bakers work on corpus linguistics and Tourys Descriptive Translation Studies, and approaches that highlight issues such as translators agency and choices, and questions of power and ideology (Agorni 2007: 124). This distinction seems strange because approaches that highlight those issues may also emphasize neutrality and objectivity. An example is Lefevere, who believes that the concept of system allows us to describe power in its various ramifications [] in a fairly neutral way, because it enables the elimination of evaluative terms (Lefevere 19881989: 59). Even-Zohar, who anticipated many of the points about power and translation made by recent theorists (Tymoczko 2000: 31), also uses a technical, or, in Tymoczkos word, sanitized, vocabulary to emphasize neutrality.11 It is one thing to emphasize neutrality and objectivity, and another to achieve these goals. It has been generally agreed that total objectivity is impossible in research in the humanities. The main reason is that many objects of study, such as norms, are not directly observable hard facts. The reconstruction of composite norms already involves an element of speculation, not to speak of the further attempt to resolve them into normemes and trace each of them to a particular system, which again is even less directly observable. This problem is aggravated by the fact that social phenomena are so complex that how we make sense of them depends on our perspective, which is over-determined by our cultural background, our polysystemic position, and our values. The diversity of judgements made on polysystem theory, including mine, may serve as an example. Such difficulties, however, are not entirely unsurmountable. We may, and should, try our best to observe from perspectives other than our natural one, especially from a higher one, one that is above and beyond our own background and position. This is the aspiration of polysystem theory. Gentzler criticizes EvenZohar for locating his theory above other translation theories, giving him an independent perspective on translational phenomena because such total objectivity is impossible (Gentzler 2001: 122). In my opinion, the academic world is in need of theories that include other theories as their objects of study, and the impossibility of objectivity does not mean that we should give up trying, in the same way as the impossibility of complete honesty does not justify lying. As an objective, neutrality is probably even more controversial. Just as traditional translation theories take sides in translational issues, the committed approaches to translation, which have been making most of the running (Hermans 1999: 157) since the 1990s, take sides in moral and/or political issues, and some of
342 Nam Fung Chang
them in translational issues too. I think Tymoczkos remark on Lawrence Venutis methods and concepts may be applied to these approaches in general, that is, they
lead us backward rather than forward in the development of translation studies, for the development of descriptive approaches as an alternative to normative approaches has been a major watershed in the expansion of the contemporary academic disciplines related to translation. (Tymoczko 2000: 39)
Whether we like it or not, impartiality, concern for truth, honest evaluation of evidence, and objectivity (Simon 1994: 5) used to be, and seem to remain, the dominant academic norms in many parts of the world. A further complication is that description, even if it can be (more or less) objective or neutral, alters the perception or the status of the things described (cf. Hermans 1999: 150). It may expose certain aspects of a system that the system wishes to hide. Polysystem theory refuses to take for granted the assumed inherent superiority of central systems, and sees the standards they uphold as norms rather than as the only truth, thus demythicizing their very centrality. The mere recognition of the existence of a neglected peripheral system may draw attention to it and contribute to its legitimation, whereas acknowledging the dominant position of central norms may be construed as endorsement (Chang 2001: 327328). The following observation made by Even-Zohar, for instance, is hardly music to the ears of authoritarian governments:
The ideology of an official culture as the only tenable one in a given society has resulted in the massive cultural compulsion for whole nations through a centralized educational system and has made it impossible even for students of culture to observe and appreciate the role of the dynamic tensions [between canonized and non-canonized cultures] which operate within the culture for its efficient maintenance. (Even-Zohar 1979: 295)
Polysystem theory and other descriptive approaches are thus neutral, doubleedged weapons. They can be subversive or conservative depending on where and how they are used. In societies with very limited freedom, however, neutral description is often subversive because there are a lot of facts that the government does not want anyone to mention.12 One need not reject the polysystem concept even if one does not believe in neutrality, because there is no necessary relation between the two. Although EvenZohar is against the reverse high-brow approach (Even-Zohar 1979: 292), there is nothing to prevent one from using polysystem as a theoretical basis to speak truth to power or, for that matter, to non-power.
5. Concluding remarks It often happens that after a period of domination a theory begins to lose influence and eventually give place to other theories. There are several possible causes for such a situation. The theory may have exhausted its potential as research reaches a higher level of sophistication, it may be unable to cope with a new set of problems that arise as research interests change, its potential may not have been fully developed or understood, or it may lose in a competition for some non-academic reasons, such as power relations. In the case of polysystem theory I think it is a combination of all these causes. In an attempt to tackle some of these causes, I have argued in this article that polysystem theory is more intricate than it has been generally taken to be: some key points have been missed or misunderstood, some later revisions and developments by Even-Zohar and others have been overlooked, and sometimes the theory gets the blame for the fault of practice. On the whole, the allegations that polysystem theory is simplistic and mechanical are based on a simplistic and mechanical interpretation of the theory. I have also suggested some revisions to the theory. After all, a theory is not the property of any one person, as Even-Zohar says (Huang 2006: 57). I think that it is a shame polysystem theory should have come to such a state. It still has a contribution to make because it remains one of the few theories that provide a general framework for the descriptive study of the relations between translation and other cultural domains. If there are limitations in the theory in its present form, it can be further expanded, as Gentzler points out:
The advantage of Polysystem theory is that it allows for its own augmentation and integrates the study of literature with the study of social and economic forces of history. Even-Zohar uses the term poly just to allow for such elaboration and complexity without having to limit the number of relations and interconnections. (Gentzler 2001: 119)
Its relation with other theories can be complementary and even mutually enriching, if there is sufficient dialogue between them. Polysystem theory can be made more intricate with input from other cultural theories, and it in turn may provide a more comprehensive framework, enabling researchers of particular problem areas to take a step back and enjoy a panoramic view.
Notes
1. Sections 2 and 3 of this article are based on two unpublished conference presentations: EvenZohars Hypothesis on the Position of Translated Literature, presented at the Conference on
344 Nam Fung Chang the Building of Translation Studies as a Discipline in the New Millenium, Three Gorges University, Yichang, China, 2729 October 2007; and Adequacy and Acceptability Revisited, presented at the International Conference Translation Studies and Translation between Chinese and English, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, 1112 December 2008. 2. Wang Dongfeng, as well as many other Chinese scholars (such as Zhu Yige and Zhang Qiyan, who will be quoted later in this paper), takes foreignization and domestication as synonymous with adequacy and acceptability respectively. 3. Even-Zohar agreed to this amendment in conversation with the author during a conference held at the University of Hyderabad, India in February 2007. He has used the term sense of insufficiency when discussing factors of transfer of repertoires from another culture (EvenZohar 1997: 360). 4. Wang Dongfengs explanation of Yans selection of domesticating translation strategies in conjunction with foreignizing source texts is that when the translated literature takes the secondary position, the target literature must be highly developed in such a way that it only needs new ideas, but does not need new foreign forms (Wang 2008: 147). He states that this is Even-Zohars argument without indicating the source. This seems to me to be a rather strained interpretation of Even-Zohar if he is referring to the latters observation that, when translated literature occupies a peripheral position, translation, by which new ideas, items, characteristics can be introduced into a literature, becomes a means to preserve traditional taste (Even-Zohar 1990a: 49) 5. Toury states that translation involves at least two sets of norm-systems (Toury 1995: 56), but he has not named a third set. 6. Regrettably, this correction has been ignored by some critics, who still talk about the primary/secondary position or status or importance of translated literature when referring to EvenZohars theory (such as Gentzler 2001: 116121, Wang 2008: 141). 7. This, by the way, is an understatement untypical of Venuti. The translation projects of Yan Fu and Lin Shu prove that the choice of a foreignizing text may produce a far greater social impact than foreignizing discursive strategies. 8. Gentzler alleges that one of the pairs used by Even-Zohar and Toury is canonical/non-canonical (Gentzler 2001: 53). This is of course incorrect. The pair they consistently use is canonized/ non-canonized. Even-Zohar explains why: While canonical may suggest [] the idea that certain features are inherently canonical [], canonized [] clearly emphasizes that such a state is a result of some act(ivity) exercised on certain material, not a primordial nature of this material itself. (Even-Zohar 1990: 16) 9. Contrary to Hermans view that if all systems are poly-, the poly- in polysystems is redundant (Hermans 1999: 106), it seems that the poly-ness of systems cannot be over-emphasized. 10. Such as my work Yes Prime Manipulator: How a Chinese Translation of British Political Humour Came into Being, which describes how dominant translation norms have changed over time in China, and how a particular translator conforms to some norms while breaking others (Chang 2005).
In defence of polysystem theory 345 11. Tymoczko finds that some of [Even-Zohars] theoretical language high vs. low, for example is today distasteful, offensive and unacceptable (Tymoczko 2000: 31). In fact, EvenZohar puts terms like high culture and low culture in brackets most of the time to distance himself from their connotations. 12. For instance, any mention of June 4 is not allowed on the Internet in China, but May 35 still is.
References
Agorni, Mirella. 2007. Locating Systems and Individuals in Translation Studies. Michaela Wolf and Alexandra Fukari, eds. Constructing a Sociology of Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 136. Bassnett, Susan. 1998. The Translation Turn in Cultural Studies. Susan Bassnett and Andr Lefevere. Constructing Cultures: Essays on Literary Translation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 123140. Chang Nam Fung. 1998. Politics and Poetics in Translation: Accounting for a Chinese Version of Yes Prime Minister . The Translator 4:2. 249272. Chang Nam Fung. 1998a. An Applied Discipline Obsessed with Loyalty On the Chinese Tradition of Translation Studies [in Chinese]. Journal of Translation Studies 2. 2941. Chang Nam Fung. 2000. Towards a Macro-polysystem Hypothesis. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 8:2. 109123. Chang Nam Fung. 2001. Polysystem Theory: Its Prospect As a Framework for Translation Research. Target 13: 2. 317332. Chang Nam Fung. 2004. Zhongxi yixue piping (Criticism of Chinese and Western Translation Theories). Beijing: Tsinghua University Press. Chang Nam Fung. 2005. Yes Prime Manipulator: How a Chinese Translation of British Political Humour Came into Being. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press. Chang Nam Fung. 2008. The Concept of Norms in Polysystem Theory [in Chinese]. Journal of Foreign Languages 5. 6471. Chang Nam Fung. 2009. Repertoire Transfer and Resistance: The Westernization of Translation Studies in China. The Translator 15:2. 305325. Chang Nam Fung. 2010. Translation Studies, Academic Norms and Cultural Traditions [in Chinese]. Chinese Translators Journal 2. 7380. Chen Fukang. 1992. Zhongguo yixue lilun shi gao (History of Chinese Translation Theory). Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. Chong Yau Yuk. 2000. A Study of the Phenomenon of Authoritativeness in the Chinese Translations of the Protestant Bible [in Chinese]. Hong Kong: International Bible Society. Codde, Philippe. 2003. Polysystem Theory Revisited. Poetics Today 24:1. 91126. Even-Zohar, Itamar. 1975. Decisions in Translating Poetry [in Hebrew]. Ha-sifrut/Literature 21. 3245. Even-Zohar, Itamar. 1978. Papers in Historical Poetics. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. Even-Zohar, Itamar. 1979. Polysystem Theory. Poetics Today 1:12. 287310. Even-Zohar, Itamar. 1990. Polysystem Theory. Poetics Today 11:1. 926.
346 Nam Fung Chang Even-Zohar, Itamar. 1990a. The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem. Poetics Today 11:1. 4551. Even-Zohar, Itamar. 1990b. The Literary System . Poetics Today 11:1. 2744. Even-Zohar, Itamar. 1990c. Interference in Dependent Literary Polysystems. Polysystem Studies, Poetics Today 11:1. 7983. Even-Zohar, Itamar. 1990d. System, Dynamics, and Interference in Culture: A Synoptic View. Poetics Today 11:1. 8595. Even-Zohar, Itamar. 1997. The Making of Culture Repertoire and the Role of Transfer. Target 9:2. 355363. Even-Zohar, Itamar. 1997a. Factors and Dependencies in Culture: A Revised Outline for Polysystem Culture Research. Canadian Review of Comparative Literature 24:3. 1534. Even-Zohar, Itamar 2002. Literature as goods, Literature as Tools. Neohelicon 1 (XXIX). 7583. Feidman, Yael S. 1985. Poetics and Politics: Israeli Literary Criticism between East and West. Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research vol. LII. 935. Gentzler, Edwin. 1993. Contemporary Translation Theories. London: Routledge. Gentzler, Edwin. 2001. Contemporary Translation Theories (Revised 2nd Edition). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Gentzler, Edwin. 2008. Translation and Identity in the Americas: New Directions in Translation Theory. London: Routledge. Gouanvic, Jean-Marc. 2007. Objectivation, rflexivit et traduction. Pour une re-lecture bourdieuscienne de la traduction. Michaela Wolf and Alexandra Fukari, eds. Constructing a Sociology of Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 7992. Hermans, Theo. 1994. Translation between Poetics and Ideology. Translation and Literature 3. 138145. Hermans, Theo. 1996. Norms and the Determination of Translation: A Theoretical Framework. Roman lvarez and M. Carmen-frica Vidal, eds. Translation, Power, Subversion. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 2551. Hermans, Theo. 1999. Translation in Systems: Descriptive and System-oriented Approaches Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome. Huang Dexian. 2006. Duoyuanxitonglun shiyi: Zuohaer fangtan lu (Clarifications on Polysystem Theory: Interview with Even-Zohar). Chinese Translators Journal 3. 5760. Lefevere, Andr. 19881989. Systems Thinking and Cultural Relativism. Jadavpur Journal of Comparative Literature 2627. 5568. Lefevere, Andr. 1992. Translation, Rewriting, & the Manipulation of Literary Fame. London: Routledge. Lu Xun. 1931/1984. Lu Xun he Qu Qiubai guanyu fanyi de tongxin: Lu Xun de fuxin (Correspondence between Lu Xun and Qu Qiubai on Translation: Reply of Lu Xun). Luo Xinzhang, Ed. Fanyi lun ji (Essays on Translation). Beijing: Commercial Press. 273279. Meylaerts, Reine. 2006. Heterolingualism in/and Translation: How Legitimate Are the Other and His/Her Language? An Introduction. Target 13: 2. 317332 Said, Edward. 1996. Representations of the Intellectual. New York: Vintage Books. Simeoni, Daniel. 1998. The Pivotal Status of the Translators Habitus. Target 10:1. 139. Simon, Robert L. 1994. Neutrality and the Academic Ethic. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. So Sin Nga. 2002. A Critical Study of Inclusive Language in Protestant Chinese Bibles [in Chinese]. MPhil. thesis, Lingnan University, Hong Kong. Su Manshu (trans). 1903/1991. Beican shijie (A Miserable World) Su Manshu wenji (The Works of Su Manshu). 2 vols. Guangzhou: Flower City Publishing House. II. 671753.
In defence of polysystem theory 347 Toury, Gideon. 1980. In Search of a Theory of Translation. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. Toury, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Toury, Gideon. 1998. A Handful of Paragraphs on Translation and Norms . Current Issues in Language & Society 12. 1032. Tymoczko, Maria. 1990. Translation in Oral Tradition as a Touchstone for Translation Theory and Practice. Susan Bassnett and Andr Lefevere, eds. Translation, History and Culture. London: Pinter (reprinted London: Cassell 1995). 4655. Tymoczko, Maria. 2000. Translation and Political Engagement: Activism, Social Change and the Role of Translation in Geopolitical Shifts. The Translator 61. 2347. Venuti, Lawrence. 1998. The Scandals of Translation: Towards an Ehtics of Difference. London: Routledge. Venuti, Lawrence. 2008. The Translators Invisibility: A History of Translation (2nd Edition). London: Routledge. Wang Dongfeng. 2000. Cultural Position of Translated Literature and Translators Cultural Attitude [in Chinese]. Chinese Translators Journal 4. 28. Wang Dongfeng. 2008. When a Turning Occurs: Counter-evidence to Polysystem Hypothesis. Wang Ning and Sun Yifeng, eds. Translation, Globalisation and Localisation: A Chinese Perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 140154. Wang Xiaoyuan. 2006. Translation, Ideology and Discourse: Literary Translation in China 18951911 [in Chinese]. PhD thesis, Lingnan University, Hong Kong. Wolf, Michaela. 2007. Introduction: The Emergence of a Sociology of Translation. Michaela Wolf and Alexandra Fukari, eds. Constructing a Sociology of Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 136. Wolf, Michaela. 2007a. The Location of the Translation Field: Negotiating Borderlines between Pierre Bourdieu and Homi Bhabha. Michaela Wolf and Alexandra Fukari, eds. Constructing a Sociology of Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 109119. Xu Jun (ed.). 1996. Wenzi,wenxue,wenhua: Hong Yu Hei Han yi yanjiu (Language, Literature and culture: A Study of the Chinese Translations of Le rouge et le noir). Nanjjing: Nanjing University Press. Yahalom, Shelly. 1979. Het gedrag van een literair polysysteem in een crisissituatie: Intersystemische contacten en soorten vertalingen. Andr Lefevere and Ria Vanderauwera, eds. Vert aalwetenschap. Literatuur, wetenschap, vertaling en vertalen. Leuven: Acco. 6485. Zhang Qiyan. 2005. On the Non-adequacy of Polysystem Theory in Explaining Literary Translation [in Chinese]. Journal of Sichuan International Studies University 1. 100103. Zhu Yige. 2003. Cong Pangde he Lin Shu fanyi gean fanguan duoyuanxitong lilun (Looking back at Polysystem Theory from a Case Study of the Translation of Ezra Pound and Lin Shu). Foreign Language Teaching Abroad 4. 2528.
Authors address
Nam Fung Chang Department of Translation Lingnan University Tuen Mun Hong Kong e-mail: changnf@ln.edu.hk

In Defence of Polysystem Theory

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

In Defence of Polysystem Theory

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Forum

In defence of polysystem theory

Lingnan University, Hong Kong

312 Nam Fung Chang

In defence of polysystem theory 313

Sharing Bassnetts views, Hermans further comments:

314 Nam Fung Chang

In defence of polysystem theory

316 Nam Fung Chang

In defence of polysystem theory 317

318 Nam Fung Chang

In defence of polysystem theory 319

320 Nam Fung Chang

In defence of polysystem theory 321

322 Nam Fung Chang

In defence of polysystem theory 323

324 Nam Fung Chang

In defence of polysystem theory 325

326 Nam Fung Chang

In defence of polysystem theory 327

328 Nam Fung Chang

In defence of polysystem theory 329

330 Nam Fung Chang

In defence of polysystem theory 331

332 Nam Fung Chang

In defence of polysystem theory 333

334 Nam Fung Chang

In defence of polysystem theory 335

336 Nam Fung Chang

In defence of polysystem theory 337

338 Nam Fung Chang

In defence of polysystem theory 339

340 Nam Fung Chang

In defence of polysystem theory 341

342 Nam Fung Chang

In defence of polysystem theory 343

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen