2.

POLYSYSTEM THEORY
Polysystem theory was suggested in the 1970s. Its foundations had been laid by Russian
Formalism in the 1920s, and Israeli scholar Itamar Even-Zohar borrowed ideas from
Formalists and developed the theory in order to deal with dynamics, diversity and change in
cultures. In addition, Even-Zohar is also known as a pioneer of the theory of cultural
repertoires. Even-Zohar assumes a dynamic structuralism or in other words a dynamic
functionalism rather than a static, a-historical text-based approach to literature and culture.
According to Even-Zohars model, the polysystem is conceived as a heterogeneous
and hierarchized conglomerate (or system) of systems which interact to bring about an
ongoing, dynamic process of evolution within the polysystem as a whole. From the
first part of this definition, it follows that polysystems can be postulated to account for
phenomena existing on various levels, so that the polysystem of a given national
literature is viewed as one element making up the larger socio-cultural polysystem,
which itself comprises other polysystems besides the literary, such as for example the
artistic, the religious or the political (Baker and Malmkjr 1998:176, 177).
Moreover, being put in this manner in a larger socio-cultural context literature is regarded as
a collection of texts; however, it is a set of factors governing the production, promotion and
reception of these texts.
Polysystem theory is defined as a theory to account for the behaviour and evolution of literary
system in the Dictionary of Translation Studies. The term polysystem means a layered
conglomerate of interconnected/cohesive elements that changes and mutates while these
elements are in interaction with one another.
In polysystem theory, a literary work is not studied isolatedly but as part of a literary system.
Put it differently, literature is a part of social, cultural, literary and historical framework. A
literary system can affect other ones. That is, the translated literature which is being imported
to a country can influence the native writings. According to some effects and causes, these
influences can be more or less.

According to Holmess statement, Even-Zohar and his colleagues have posited that
literature in a given society is a collection of various systems, a system-of-systems or
polysystem, in which diverse genres, schools, tendencies,literature is no longer the stately
and fairly static thing it tends to be for the canonists, but a highly kinetic situation in which
things are constantly changing (Snell-Hornby 1988:23).
Thereupon, Snell-Hornby states that a polysystem is not only characterized by constant shifts
and changes, but also by internal oppositions, including those between primary and
secondary models and types (1988:23, 24). That is, the position of translated literature is not
stable and it may occupy a primary or a secondary position in polysystem. Primary texts are
the innovative ones, which introduce new ideas, new methods, new ways of looking at
literature and the world into a literary polysystem. The secondary texts are the conservative
ones which support and uphold the existing system. Provided that translated literature is
primary, it plays an active role in shaping the centre of the polysystem. Even-Zohar gives
three major cases when translated literature occupies the primary position:
1. when a young literature is being established and looks initially to older literatures
for ready-made models;
2. when a literature is peripheral or weak and imports those literary types which it is
lacking. This can happen when a smaller nation is dominated by the culture of a larger one.
3. when there is a critical turning point in literary history at which established models
are no longer considered sufficient, or when there is a vacuum in the literature of the country
(Munday 2001:110).
If translated literature undertakes a secondary position, it exposes a peripheral system within
polysystem. It has not any fundamental effect over the central system and further it becomes a
conservative factor, maintaining conventional forms and applying to the literary norms of the
target system. Even-Zohar states that this secondary position is normal one for translated
literatures.
Even-Zohar posits that translation strategy is determined by translated literatures position in
the polysystem. If it is primary, translators are free to keep target literature models and more
prepared to break common norms. For this reason, a TT which is close to the ST in terms of
adequacy is produced. On the other hand, if it is secondary, existing target literature models
are used. Thus, a more non-adequate translation is produced.
2

Snell-Hornby points to translation system within polysystem and writes that in this theory
literary translation is seen as one of the elements participating in the constant struggle for
survival and domination. Israeli scholars emphasized that translations play a primary, creative
and innovative role within the literary system. Hence, in this approach, translation is seen
essentially as a text-type in its own right, as an integral part of the target culture and not
merely as a reproduction of another text (Snell-Hornby 1988:24).
Even-Zohar points out that it seems that there is neither awareness of the function of
translated literature for a literature as a whole or of its position within that literature, nor
awareness of the possible existence of translated literature as a particular literary system. The
valid concept is rather that of "translation" or just "translated works" treated on an individual
basis.
Genztler emphasizes that the polysystem theory performs a significant improvement for
translation studies. The pros of this are:
1 Literature itself is studied alongside the social, historical and cultural forces.
2 Even-Zohar moves away from the isolated study of individual texts towards
the study of translation within the cultural and literary systems in which it functions.
3 the non-prescriptive definition of equivalence and adequacy allows for
variation according to the historical and cultural situation of the text (Munday 2001:111)
It should be aware that translated literature can possess its own influences, which not only can
be to certain extent but also even be exclusive to it. So, these points make it justifiable to talk
about translated literature.

3. CONCLUSION
As a conclusion, there is a paradox that polysystem has probably been transformed into
research under various labels. It has probably lost its programmatic identity while just
promoting research more than the institutionalization of particular research labels. Polysystem
does not exist on its own, certainly not as an organized frame, but that it has changed the
scope of Translation Studies and that it has probably contributed to changes in other ones.

WORK CITED
BAKER, Mona (ed.) and MALMKJR (ass.), Kirsten. Routledge Encyclopedia of
Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge, 1998.
<http://books.google.com/books?id=T8Mt8ObEBOQC&pg=PA176&dq=itamar+evenzohar+polysystem+theory&hl=tr#v=onepage&q=itamar%20even-zohar
%20polysystem%20theory&f=false> Nov 30, 2009 19:26
MUNDAY, Jeremy. Introducing Translation Studies Theories and Applications. London and
New York: Routledge, 2001.
SNELL-HORNBY, Mary. Translation Studies an Integrated Approach. Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2006.
The Polysystem Theory;
<http://www.translationdirectory.com/articles/article1320.php> Oct.18, 2009 15.09
More Adaptive Networks! A Summary of Polysystem Theory;
<http://pervegalit.wordpress.com/2008/05/08/more-adaptive-networks-a-summary-ofpolysystem-theory/> Oct 18, 2009 15.21
Itamar Even-Zohar;
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itamar_Even-Zohar> Oct 18, 2009 15:13