Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics

The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem

Source: Poetics Today, Vol. 11, No. 1, Polysystem Studies (Spring, 1990), pp. 45-51
Published by: Duke University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1772668
Accessed: 13-10-2016 22:13 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Duke University Press, Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics are collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Poetics Today

This content downloaded from 137.122.64.12 on Thu, 13 Oct 2016 22:13:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Position of
Translated Literature within

the Literary Polysystem

Dedicated to the memory of James S. Holmes-a great student of

translation and a dear friend

In spite of the broad recognition among historians of culture of the

major role translation has played in the crystallization of national cul-
tures, relatively little research has been carried out so far in this area.
As a rule, histories of literatures mention translations when there is no
way to avoid them, when dealing with the Middle Ages or the Renais-
sance, for instance. One might of course find sporadic references to
individual literary translations in various other periods, but they are
seldom incorporated into the historical account in any coherent way.
As a consequence, one hardly gets any idea whatsoever of the function
of translated literature for a literature as a whole or of its position
within that literature. Moreover, there is no awareness of the possible
existence of translated literature as a particular literary system. The
prevailing concept is rather that of "translation" or just "translated
works" treated on an individual basis. Is there any basis for a different
assumption, that is for considering translated literature as a system? Is
there the same sort of cultural and verbal network of relations within
what seems to be an arbitrary group of translated texts as the one

First version published under the title "The Position of Translated Literature
within the Literary Polysystem." In Literature and Translation: New Perspectives in Lit-
erary Studies. James S. Holmes, J. Lambert, and R. van den Broeck, eds. (Leuven:
Acco), 1978: 117-127.

Poetics Today 11:1 (Spring 1990). Copyright ? 1990 by The Porter Institute for
Poetics and Semiotics. ccc 0333-5372/90/$2.50.

This content downloaded from 137.122.64.12 on Thu, 13 Oct 2016 22:13:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
46 Poetics Today 11:1

we willingly hypothesize for original literature? What kind of rela-

tions might there be among translated works, which are presented as
completed facts, imported from other literatures, detached from their
home contexts and consequently neutralized from the point of view
of center-and-periphery struggles?
My argument is that translated works do correlate in at least two
ways: (a) in the way their source texts are selected by the target litera-
ture, the principles of selection never being uncorrelatable with the
home co-systems of the target literature (to put it in the most cau-
tious way); and (b) in the way they adopt specific norms, behaviors,
and policies-in short, in their use of the literary repertoire-which
results from their relations with the other home co-systems. These are
not confined to the linguistic level only, but are manifest on any selec-
tion level as well. Thus, translated literature may possess a repertoire
of its own, which to a certain extent could even be exclusive to it. (See
Toury 1985 and 1985a.)
It seems that these points make it not only justifiable to talk about
translated literature, but rather imperative to do so. I cannot see how
any scholarly effort to describe and explain the behavior of the literary
polysystem in synchrony and diachrony can advance in an adequate
way if that is not recognized. In other words, I conceive of translated
literature not only as an integral system within any literary polysystem,
but as a most active system within it. But what is its position within
the polysystem, and how is this position connected with the nature
of its overall repertoire? One would be tempted to deduce from the
peripheral position of translated literature in the study of literature
that it also permanently occupies a peripheral position in the literary
polysystem, but this is by no means the case. Whether translated lit-
erature 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.

To say that translated literature maintains a central position in the

literary polysystem means that it participates actively in shaping the
center of the polysystem. In such a situation it is by and large an in-
tegral part of innovatory forces, and as such likely to be identified
with major events in literary history while these are taking place. This
implies that in this situation no clear-cut distinction is maintained be-
tween "original" and "translated" writings, and that often it is the
leading writers (or members of the avant-garde who are about to
become leading writers) who produce the most conspicuous or ap-

This content downloaded from 137.122.64.12 on Thu, 13 Oct 2016 22:13:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem 47

preciated translations. Moreover, in such a state when new literary

models are emerging, translation is likely to become one of the means
of elaborating the new repertoire. Through the foreign works, fea-
tures (both principles and elements) are introduced into the home
literature which did not exist there before. These include possibly not
only new models of reality to replace the old and established ones that
are no longer effective, but a whole range of other features as well,
such as a new (poetic) language, or compositional patterns and tech-
niques. It is clear that the very principles of selecting the works to be
translated are determined by the situation governing the (home) poly-
system: the texts are chosen according to their compatibility with the
new approaches and the supposedly innovatory role they may assume
within the target literature.
What then are the conditions which give rise to a situation of this
kind? It seems to me that three major cases can be discerned, which
are basically various manifestations of the same law: (a) when a poly-
system 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.
In the first case translated literature simply fulfills the need of a
younger literature to put into use its newly founded (or renovated)
tongue for as many literary types as possible in order to make it
serviceable as a literary language and useful for its emerging public.
Since a young literature cannot immediately create texts in all types
known to its producers, it benefits from the experience of other lit-
eratures, and translated literature becomes in this way one of its most
important systems. The same holds true for the second instance, that
of relatively established literatures whose resources are limited and
whose position within a larger literary hierarchy is generally periph-
eral. As a consequence of this situation, such literatures often do not
develop the same full range of literary activities (organized in a variety
of systems) observable in adjacent larger literatures (which in conse-
quence may create a feeling that they are indispensable). They may
also "lack" a repertoire which is felt to be badly needed vis-a-vis, and
in terms of the presence of, that adjacent literature. This lack may
then be filled, wholly or partly, by translated literature. For instance,
all sorts of peripheral literature may in such cases consist of translated
literature. But far more important is the consequence that the ability
of such "weak" literatures to initiate innovations is often less than that

1. On the concept of "weak" see "Interference in Dependent Literary Polysystems"

below.

This content downloaded from 137.122.64.12 on Thu, 13 Oct 2016 22:13:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
48 Poetics Today 11:1

of the larger and central literatures, with the result that a relation of
dependency may be established not only in peripheral systems, but in
the very center of these "weak" literatures. (To avoid misunderstand-
ing, I would like to point out that these literatures may rise to a central
position in a way analogous to the way this is carried out by periph-
eral systems within a certain polysystem, but this cannot be discussed
here.)
Since peripheral literatures in the Western Hemisphere tend more
often than not to be identical with the literatures of smaller nations, as
unpalatable as this idea may seem to us, we have no choice but to admit
that within a group of relatable national literatures, such as the litera-
tures of Europe, hierarchical relations have been established since the
very beginnings of these literatures. Within this (macro-) polysystem
some literatures have taken peripheral positions, which is only to say
that they were often modelled to a large extent upon an exterior lit-
erature. For such literatures, translated literature is not only a major
channel through which fashionable repertoire is brought home, but
also a source of reshuffling and supplying alternatives. Thus, whereas
richer or stronger literatures may have the option to adopt novelties
from some periphery within their indigenous borders, "weak" litera-
tures in such situations often depend on import alone.
The dynamics within the polysystem creates turning points, that
is to say, historical moments where established models are no longer
tenable for a younger generation. At such moments, even in central
literatures, translated literature may assume a central position. This is
all the more true when at a turning point no item in the indigenous
stock is taken to be acceptable, as a result of which a literary "vacuum"
occurs. In such a vacuum, it is easy for foreign models to infiltrate,
and translated literature may consequently assume a central position.
Of course, in the case of "weak" literatures or literatures which are in
a constant state of impoverishment (lack of literary items existing in
a neighbor or accessible foreign literature), this situation is even more
overwhelming.

III

Contending that translated literature may maintain a peripheral posi-

tion means that it constitutes a peripheral system within the polysys-
tem, generally employing secondary models. In such a situation it has
no influence on major processes and is modelled according to norms
already conventionally established by an already dominant type in the
target literature. Translated literature in this case becomes a major
factor of conservatism. While the contemporary original literature
might go on developing new norms and models, translated literature

This content downloaded from 137.122.64.12 on Thu, 13 Oct 2016 22:13:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem 49

adheres to norms which have been rejected either recently or long be-
fore by the (newly) established center. It no longer maintains positive
correlations with original writing.
A highly interesting paradox manifests itself here: translation, by
which new ideas, items, characteristics can be introduced into a litera-
ture, becomes a means to preserve traditional taste. This discrepancy
between the original central literature and the translated literature
may have evolved in a variety of ways, for instance, when translated
literature, after having assumed a central position and inserted new
items, soon lost contact with the original home literature which went
on changing, and thereby became a factor of preservation of un-
changed repertoire. Thus, a literature that might have emerged as a
revolutionary type may go on existing as an ossified systeme d'antan,
often fanatically guarded by the agents of secondary models against
even minor changes.
The conditions which enable this second state are of course dia-
metrically opposite to those which give rise to translated literature
as a central system: either there are no major changes in the poly-
system or these changes are not effected through the intervention of
interliterary relations materialized in the form of translations.

IV

The hypothesis that translated literature may be either a central or

peripheral system does not imply that it is always wholly one or the
other. As a system, translated literature is itself stratified, and from
the point of view of polysystemic analysis it is often from the vantage
point of the central stratum that all relations within the system are
observed. This means that while one section of translated literature
may assume a central position, another may remain quite peripheral.
In the foregoing analysis I pointed out the close relationship between
literary contacts and the status of translated literature. This seems to
me the major clue to this issue. When there is intense interference,
it is the portion of translated literature deriving from a major source
literature which is likely to assume a central position. For instance,
in the Hebrew literary polysystem between the two world wars lit-
erature translated from the Russian assumed an unmistakably central
position, while works translated from English, German, Polish, and
other languages assumed an obviously peripheral one. Moreover, since
the major and most innovatory translational norms were produced by
translations from the Russian, other translated literature adhered to
the models and norms elaborated by those translations.
The historical material analyzed so far in terms of polysystemic
operations is too limited to provide any far-reaching conclusions about

This content downloaded from 137.122.64.12 on Thu, 13 Oct 2016 22:13:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
50 Poetics Today 11:1

the chances of translated literature to assume a particular position.

But work carried out in this field by various other scholars, as well
as my own research, indicates that the "normal" position assumed by
translated literature tends to be the peripheral one. This should in
principle be compatible with theoretical speculation. It may be as-
sumed that in the long run no system can remain in a constant state
of weakness, "turning point," or crisis, although the possibility should
not be excluded that some polysystems may maintain such states for
quite a long time. Moreover, not all polysystems are structured in the
same way, and cultures do differ significantly. For instance, it is clear
that the French cultural system, French literature naturally included,
is much more rigid than most other systems. This, combined with
the long traditional central position of French literature within the
European context (or within the European macro-polysystem), has
caused French translated literature to assume an extremely periph-
eral position. The state of Anglo-American literature is comparable,
while Russian, German, or Scandinavian would seem to show different
patterns of behavior in this respect.

What consequences may the position taken by translated literature

have on translational norms, behaviors, and policies? As I stated above,
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. When it takes a central position,
the borderlines are diffuse, so that the very category of "translated
works" must be extended to semi- and quasi-translations as well. From
the point of view of translation theory I think this is a more adequate
way of dealing with such phenomena than to reject them on the basis
of a static and a-historical conception of translation. Since translational
activity participates, when it assumes a central position, in the process
of creating new, primary models, the translator's main concern here
is not just to look for ready-made models in his home repertoire into
which the source texts would be transferable. Instead, he is prepared
in such cases to violate the home conventions. Under such conditions
the chances that the translation will be close to the original in terms
of adequacy (in other words, a reproduction of the dominant textual
relations of the original) are greater than otherwise. Of course, from
the point of view of the target literature the adopted translational
norms might for a while be too foreign and revolutionary, and if the
new trend is defeated in the literary struggle, the translation made
according to its conceptions and tastes will never really gain ground.
But if the new trend is victorious, the repertoire (code) of translated

This content downloaded from 137.122.64.12 on Thu, 13 Oct 2016 22:13:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem 51

literature may be enriched and become more flexible. Periods of great

change in the home system are in fact the only ones when a translator
is prepared to go far beyond the options offered to him by his estab-
lished home repertoire and is willing to attempt a different treatment
of text making. Let us remember that under stable conditions items
lacking in a target literature may remain untransferable if the state of
the polysystem does not allow innovations. But the process of open-
ing the system gradually brings certain literatures closer and in the
longer run enables a situation where the postulates of (translational)
adequacy and the realities of equivalence may overlap to a relatively
high degree. This is the case of the European literatures, though in
some of them the mechanism of rejection has been so strong that the
changes I am talking about have occurred on a rather limited scale.
Naturally, when translated literature occupies a peripheral position,
it behaves totally differently. Here, the translator's main effort is to
concentrate upon finding the best ready-made secondary models for
the foreign text, and the result often turns out to be a non-adequate
translation or (as I would prefer to put it) a greater discrepancy be-
tween the equivalence achieved and the adequacy postulated.
In other words, not only is the socio-literary status of translation de-
pendent upon its position within the polysystem, but the very practice
of translation is also strongly subordinated to that position. And even
the question of what is a translated work cannot be answered a priori in
terms of an a-historical out-of-context idealized state: it must be deter-
mined on the grounds of the operations governing the polysystem.
Seen from this point of view, translation is no longer a phenomenon
whose nature and borders are given once and for all, but an activity
dependent on the relations within a certain cultural system.

This content downloaded from 137.122.64.12 on Thu, 13 Oct 2016 22:13:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms