CHAPTER 7: SYSTEMS THEORIES

Pre-discussion

Watch this video, and share your insights below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fi8Q5uHKH1A

Discussion Proper

7.1. POLYSYSTEM THEORY

Polysystem theory was developed in the 1970s by the Israeli scholar Itamar Even-Zohar

borrowing ideas from the Russian Formalists of the 1920s, who had worked on literary

historiography. A literary work is here not studied in isolation but as part of a literary system,

which itself is defined as ‘a system of functions of the literary order which are in continual

interrelationship with other orders’ (Tynjanov 1927/71: 72). Literature is thus part of the social,

cultural, literary, and historical framework and the key concept is that of the system, in which

there is an ongoing dynamic of ‘mutation’ andstrugglese for the primary position in the literary

canon. Although building on work by the Formalists, Even-Zohar reacts against ‘the fallacies of

the traditional aesthetic approach’ (Even-Zohar 1978: 119), which had focused on ‘high’

literature and had disregarded unimportant literary systems or genres such as children’s

literature, thrillers and the whole system of translated literature. Even-Zohar (p. 118) emphasizes

that translated literature operates as a system: in the way, the TL selects works for translation;
and in the way translation norms, behavior and policies are influenced by other co- systems.

Even-Zohar focuses on the relations between all these systems in the overarching concept to

which he gives a new term, the polysystem, which is defined by Shuttleworth and Cowie (1997:

176) as follows: The polysystem is conceived as a heterogeneous, hierarchized conglomerate (or

system) of systems which interact to bring about an ongoing, dynamic process of evolution

within the polysystem as a whole. The hierarchy referred to is the positioning and interaction at a

given historical moment of the different strata of the polysystem. If the highest position is

occupied by an innovative literary type, then the lower strata are likely to be occupied by

increasingly conservative types. On the other hand, if the conservative forms are at the top,

innovation and renewal are likely to come from the lower strata. Otherwise, a period of

stagnation occurs (Even-Zohar 1978: 120). This ‘dynamic process of evolution’ is vital to the

polysystem, indicating that the relations between innovatory and conservative systems are in a

constant state of flux and competition. Because of this flux, the position of translated literature is

not fixed either. It may occupy a primary or a secondary position in the polysystem. If it is

primary, ‘it participates actively in shaping the center of the poly system (Even-Zohar1978/2004:

200). It is likely to be innovatory and linked to major events of literary history as they are taking

place. Often, leading writers produce the most important translations and translations are a

leading factor in the formation of new models for the target culture, introducing new poetics,

techniques, and so on. Even-Zohar gives three major cases when translated literature occupies

the primary position:

(1)when ‘young’ literature is being established and looks initially to ‘older’ literature for ready-

made models;

(2)when literature is ‘peripheral’ or ‘weak’ and imports those literary types which it is lacking.
 This can happen when a smaller nation is dominated by the culture of a larger one. Even-

Zohar sees that ‘all sorts of peripheral literature may in such cases consist of translated

literature’ (1978/2004: 201). This happens at various levels. For instance, in modern Spain

regions such as Galicia import many translations from the dominant Castilian Spanish, while

Spain itself imports canonized and non-canonized literature from the English-speaking world;

(3)when there is a critical turning point in literary history at which established models are no

longer considered sufficient, or when there is a vacuum in the literature of the country. Where

no type holds sway, it is easier for foreign models to assume primacy.

If translated literature assumes a secondary position, then it represents a peripheral system within

the polysystem. It has no major influence over the central system and even becomes a

conservative element, preserving conventional forms and conforming to the literary norms of the

target system. Even-Zohar points out (p. 203) that this second position is the ‘normal’ one for

translated literature. However, translated literature itself is stratified (p. 202). Some translated

literature may be secondary while others, translated from major source literature, are primary. An

example Even-Zohar gives is of the Hebrew literary polysystem published between the two

world wars when translations from Russian were primary but translations from English, German

and Polish were secondary. Even-Zohar (pp. 203–4) suggests that the position occupied by

translated literature in the polysystem conditions the translation strategy. If it is primary,

translators do not feel constrained to follow target literature models and are more prepared to

break conventions, they thus often produce a TT that is a close match in terms of adequacy,

reproducing the textual relations of the ST. This in itself may then lead to new SL models. On

the other hand, if translated literature is secondary, translators tend to use existing target-culture
models for the TT and produce more ‘non-adequate’ translations. The term ‘adequate’ is

developed in the discussion of Toury’s work. Gentzler (2001: 118–20 and 123–5) stresses the

way polysystem theory represents an important advance for translation studies. The advantages

of this are several:

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

(2) Even-Zohar moves away from the isolated study of individual texts towards the study of

translation within the cultural and literary systems in which it functions.

(3) The non-prescriptive definition of equivalence and adequacy allows for variation according

to the historical and cultural situation of the text.

This last point offers translation theory an escape from the repeated linguistic arguments that had

begun to follow insistently the concept of equivalence in the 1960s and 1970s. However,

Gentzler (pp. 120–3) also outlines criticisms of polysystem theory. These include:

(1) overgeneralization to ‘universal laws’ of translation based on relatively little evidence;

(2) an over-reliance on a historically-based 1920s Formalist model which, following Even-

Zohar’s model of evolving trends, might be inappropriate for translated texts in the 1970s;

(3) the tendency to focus on the abstract model rather than the ‘real-life’ constraints placed on

texts and translators;

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

7.2. TOURY AND DESCRIPTIVE TRANSLATION STUDIES

Working with Even-Zohar in Tel Aviv was Gideon Toury. After his early polysystem work on

the sociocultural conditions which determine the translation of foreign literature into Hebrew,

Toury focused on developing a general theory of translation. In his influential Descriptive

properly systematic descriptive branch of the discipline to replace isolated free-standing studies

that are commonplace: What is missing is not isolated attempts reflecting excellent intuitions and

supplying fine insights (which many existing studies certainly do), but a systematic branch

proceeding from clear assumptions and armed with a methodology and research techniques

made as explicit as possible and justified within translation studies itself. Only a branch of this

kind can ensure that the findings of individual studies will be intersubjectively testable and

comparable, and the studies themselves replicable. (Toury 1995: 3) Toury goes on to propose

just such a methodology for the branch of descriptive translation studies (DTS). For Toury

(1995: 13), translations first and foremost occupy a position in the social and literary systems of

the target culture, and this position determines the translation strategies that are employed. With

this approach, he is continuing and building on the polysystem work of Even-Zohar and earlier

versions of his work (Toury 1978, 1980, 1985, 1991). Toury (1995: 36–9 and 102) proposes the

following three-phase methodology for systematic DTS, incorporating a description of the

product and the wider role of the sociocultural system: Situate the text within the target culture

system, looking at its significance or acceptability; Compare the ST and the TT for shifts,

identifying relationships between ‘coupled pairs’ of ST and TT segments; and attempt

generalizations, reconstructing the process of translation for this ST–TT pair. The second step of

Toury’s methodology is one of the most controversial areas. The decisions on which ST and TT

segments to examine and what the relationships are between them is an apparatus that Toury

(1995: 85) states should be supplied by translation theory. Linguistic translation theory is far

from reaching a consensus as to what that apparatus should be. Most controversially, in earlier

papers (1978: 93, 1985: 32), Toury still holds to the use of a hypothetical inter- mediate invariant
or tertium comparationis (see page 49 for a discussion of this term) as an ‘Adequate Translation’

(AT) against which to gauge translation shifts. However, at the same time he also admits (1978:

88–9) that, in practice, no translation is ever fully ‘adequate’; for this contradiction, and for

considering the hypothetical invariant to be a universal given, he has been roundly criticized. In

his 1995 book, Toury drops the invariant concept. What remains in his model is a ‘mapping’ of

the TT onto the ST which ‘yields a series of (ad hoc) coupled pairs’ (Toury 1995: 77). This is a

type of comparison that Toury admits (p. 80) is inevitably ‘partial [and] indirect’ and which will

undergo ‘continuous revision’ during the very analytical process itself. The result is flexible and

non-prescriptive, if also less than rigorously systematic, means of comparing ST and TT. The

flexibility leads to different aspects of texts being examined in Toury’s series of case studies.

Thus, in one study (pp. 148–65) it is the addition of rhymes and omission of passages in the

Hebrew translation of a German fairy tale; in another study, it is conjoint phrases in literature

translated into Hebrew.

7.2.1. The concept of norms of translation behavior

Toury’s case studies aim to distinguish trends of translation behavior, make generalizations

regarding the decision-making processes of the translator, and then ‘reconstruct’ the norms that

have been in operation in the translation and make hypotheses that can be tested in the future

descriptive studies. The definition of norms used by Toury is the translation of general values or

ideas shared by a community – as to what is right or wrong, adequate or inadequate – into

performance instructions appropriate for and applicable to particular situations. (Toury 1995:

55) These norms are sociocultural constraints specific to a culture, society, and time. An

individual is said to acquire them from the general process of education and socialization. In
terms of their ‘potency’ Toury places norms between rules and idiosyncrasies (p. 54). He

considers translation to be an activity governed by norms, and these norms ‘determine the (type

and extent of) equivalence manifested in actual translations’ (p. 61). This suggests the potential

ambiguity of the term ‘norm’: although Toury uses it, first, as a descriptive-analytical category to

be studied through the regularity of behavior (norms are ‘options that translators in a given

socio-historical context select regularly’; Baker 1998: 164), they appear to exert pressure and to

perform some kind of prescriptive function. Although Toury focuses initially on the analysis of

the translation product, he emphasizes (p. 174) that this is simply to identify the decision-making

processes of the translator. He hypothesizes that the norms that have prevailed in the translation

of a particular text can be reconstructed from two types of sources:

(1)from the examination of texts, the products of norm-governed activity. This will show up

‘regularities of behavior’ (p. 55) (i.e. trends of relationships and correspondences between ST

and TT segments). It will point to the processes adopted by the translator and, hence, the

norms that have been in operation;

(2)from the explicit statements made about norms by translators, publishers, reviewers, and other

participants in the translation act. However, Toury (p. 65) warns that such explicit statements

may be incomplete or biased in favor of the role played by the informants in the sociocultural

system and are therefore best avoided.

7.2.2 'Laws' of translation

Toury hopes that the cumulative identification of norms in descriptive studies will enable the

formulation of probabilistic ‘laws’ of translation and thence of ‘universals of translation’. The

tentative laws he proposes are: The law of growing standardization (pp. 267–74), which states
that ‘in trans- lation, textual relations obtaining in the original are often modified, sometimes to

the point of being totally ignored, in favour of [more] habitual options offered by a target

repertoire’ (p. 268). This refers to the disruption of the ST patterns in translation and the

selection of linguistic options that are more common in the TL. Thus, for example, there will a

tendency towards a general standardization and loss of variation in style in the TT, or at least an

accommodation to target culture models. This is especially the case if, as commonly occurs,

translation assumes a weak and peripheral position in the target system. The law of interference

(1995: 274–9), which sees interference from ST to TT as ‘a kind of default’. Interference refers

to ST linguistic features (mainly lexical and syntactical patterning) being copied in the TT, either

‘negatively’ (because they create non-normal TT patterns) or ‘positively’ (the existence of

features in the ST that will not be non-normal in the TT makes them more likely to be used by

the translator). Toury (p. 278) considers tolerance of interference to depend on sociocultural

factors and the prestige of the different literary systems: there is greater tolerance when

translating from a prestigious language or culture, especially if the target language or culture is

‘minor’.

7.2.3 Toury's model in action

Toury (1995) presents a series of case studies, including an ‘exemplary’ study of conjoint

phrases in Hebrew TTs. Conjoint phrases or binomials are pairs of near-synonyms that function

together as a single unit. Examples Toury gives from English are able and talented and law and

order; and, from German, nie und nimmer. He discusses (pp. 103–4) the significance of such

phrases in Hebrew literature, indicating that their use is prevalent in old written Hebrew texts

from the Bible onwards and in Hebrew texts from the end of the eighteenth century onwards,
when the language was struggling to adapt to modern writing and was under the influence of

imported literary models. However, the preference for conjoint phrases has declined over the

past sixty years, now that Hebrew is a more confident and central literature. Nevertheless, Toury

(p. 105) suggests that the number of such phrases in Hebrew translations tends to be higher than

in Hebrew STs and that translations also contain more newly coined or ‘free’ combinations

(rather than fixed phrases). He supports this with examples from Hebrew translations of

children’s literature, of Goethe and of a story by Heinrich Böll (Ansichten eines Clownes). In the

latter case, the translator’s very frequent use of conjoint phrases to translate single lexical items

in German produces a TT that is almost 30 per cent longer than the ST. The effect, in a

translation published in 1971, is also to make the Hebrew seem very dated. From these findings,

Toury puts forward a possible generalization to be tested in future studies across languages and

cultures. The claim (p. 111) is that frequent use of conjoint phrases, particularly in place of

single lexical items in the ST, ‘may represent a universal of translation into systems which are

young, or otherwise “weak” ’. The consideration of translated literature as part of a hierarchical

system shows the way DTS interlinks with polysystem theory. The final stage of Toury’s model

is the application of the findings. An example is his own translation of Mark Twain’s

Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court, where Toury says he has deliberately used frequent

conjoint phrases in Hebrew in order to create ‘a parodistic air of “stylistic archaism”’ (p. 112).

7.2.4. Discussion of Toury's work

It is now clear that Toury’s methodology for DTS has been an important step toward setting firm

foundations for future descriptive work. As early as 1993, Gentzler lists four aspects of Toury’s

theory that have had an important impact on translation studies: the abandonment of one-to-one
notions of correspondence as well as the possibility of literary/linguistic equivalence (unless by

accident); the involvement of literary tendencies within the target cultural system in the

production of any translated text; the destabilization of the notion of an original message with a

fixed identity; and the integration of both the original text and the translated text in the semiotic

web of intersecting cultural systems. (Gentzler 1993: 133–4)

7.3 CHESTERMAN'S TRANSLATION NORMS

Toury’s concept of norms is focused mainly on their function as a descriptive category to

identify translation patterns. Even such supposedly non-prescriptive norms attract approval or

disapproval within society. Likewise, Chesterman (1997: 68) states that all norms ‘exert a

prescriptive pressure’. Chesterman himself (pp. 64–70) proposes another set of norms, covering

the area of Toury’s initial and operational norms. These are (1) product or expectancy norms and

(2) process or professional norms:

(1) Product or expectancy norms ‘are established by the expectations of readers of a translation

(of a given type) concerning what a translation (of this type) should be like’ (p. 64). Factors

governing these norms include the predominant translation tradition in the target culture, the

discourse conventions of the similar TL genre, and economic and ideological considerations.

Chesterman makes two important points about these norms:

a) Expectancy norms allow evaluative judgments about translations since readers have a

notion of what is an ‘appropriate’ or ‘acceptable’ translation of the specific text variety

and will approve of a translator who conforms to these expectations (p. 65).

b) Expectancy norms are sometimes ‘validated by a norm-authority of some kind’ (p. 66).

For example, a teacher, literary critic and publisher’s reader can confirm the prevalent
 norm by encouraging translations that conform with that norm. This may be, for instance,

that a translation should meet TL criteria of readability and fluency. Alternatively, a

literary critic may criticize a translation that offends the norm, and this criticism may

damage the reception of that book amongst ordinary readers. Of course, as Chesterman

notes (p. 66), there may sometimes be a clash between the norm ‘authorities’ and society

in general.

(2) Professional norms ‘regulate the translation process itself’. They are subordinate to and

determined by expectancy norms. Chesterman proposes three kinds of the professional norm:

(1) The accountability norm (p. 68): This is an ethical norm, dealing with professional

standards of integrity and thoroughness. The translator will accept responsibility for the

work produced for the commissioner and reader.

(2) The communication norm (p. 69): This is a social norm. The translator, the

communication ‘expert’, works to ensure maximum communication between the parties

(3) The ‘relation’ norm (pp. 69–70): This is a linguistic norm which deals with the relation

between ST and TT. Chesterman rejects narrow equivalence relations and sees the

appropriate relation being judged by the translator ‘according to text-type, the wishes of

the commissioner, the intentions of the original writer, and the assumed needs of the

prospective readers’ (p. 69).

7.4. OTHER MODELS OF DESCRIPTIVE TRANSLATION STUDIES: LAMBERT AND

VAN GORP AND THE

MANIPULATION SCHOOL

With the influence of Even-Zohar’s and Toury’s early work in polysystem theory, the Inter-
national Comparative Literature Association held several meetings and conferences around the

theme of translated literature. Particularly prominent centers were in Belgium, Israel, and the

Netherlands, and the first conferences were held at Leuven (1976), Tel Aviv (1978), and

Antwerp (1980). The key publication of this group of scholars, known as the Manipulation

School or Group, was the collection of papers entitled The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in

Literary Translation (1985a), edited by Theo Hermans. In his introduction, ‘Translation studies

and a new paradigm’, Hermans summarizes the group’s view of translated literature: What they

have in common is a view of literature as a complex and dynamic system; a conviction that there

should be a continual interplay between theoretical models and practical case studies; an

approach to literary translation which is descriptive, target-organized, functional and systemic;

and an interest in the norms and constraints that govern the production and reception of

translations, in the relation between translation and other types of text processing, and the place

and role of translations both within given literature and in the interaction between literature.

(Hermans 1985b: 10–11). The link between polysystem theory and DTS can be seen to be strong

and the Manipulation School proceeded based on ‘a continual interplay between theoretical

models and practical case studies’. A key point at that time was the exact methodology for the

case studies. The paper by José Lambert and Hendrik van Gorp (1985/2006), ‘On describing

translations’, draws on Even-Zohar’s and Toury’s early work and proposes one such scheme for

the comparison of the ST and TT literary systems and the description of relations within them.

Each system comprises a description of the author, text, and reader. Lambert and van Gorp

divide the scheme into four sections (Lambert and van Gorp 1985/2006: 46–7):

(1) Preliminary data: information on title page, metatexts (preface, etc.) and the general

strategy (whether the translation is partial or complete). The results should lead to
 hypotheses concerning levels 2 and 3.

(2) Macro-level: the division of the text, titles and presentation of the chapters, the internal

narrative structure and any overt authorial comment. This should generate hypotheses about

the micro-level (level 3).

(3) Micro-level: the identification of shifts on different linguistic levels. These include the

lexical level, the grammatical patterns, narrative, point of view and modality. The results

should interact with the macro-level (level 2) and lead to their ‘consideration in terms of the

broader systemic context’.

(4) Systemic context: here micro- and macro-levels, text and theory are compared and norms

identified. Intertextual relations (relations with other texts including translations) and

intersystemic relations (relations with other genres, codes) are also described.

Post-discussion

Answer the following questions:

1. How “law” is defined in terms of translations? Where do they refer?

2. How do norms work in translation as a theory?

3. How will you discuss Toury's work?

4. What are the characteristics of a translation?

5. What are the four sections of a scheme divided by Lambert and van Gorp?

6. What are the principles of translation?

7. What are the problems with translation?

8. What are the strategies for translation?

9. What is the aim of translation studies?

Rubric for Short Answer Responses

 4 points— The response indicates that the student has a thorough understanding of the

reading concept embodied in the task. The student has provided a response that is accurate,

complete and fulfills all the requirements of the task. Necessary support and/or examples are

included, and the information is text-based.

 3 points— The response indicates that the student has an understanding of the reading

concept embodied in the task. The student has provided a response that is accurate and

fulfills all the requirements of the task, but the required support and/or details are not

complete or clearly text-based.

 2 points— The response indicates that the student has a partial understanding of the reading

concept embodied in the task. The student has provided a response that includes information

that is essentially correct and text-based, but the information is too general or too simplistic.

Some of the support and/or examples and requirements of the task may be incomplete or

omitted.

 1 point— The response indicates that the student has a very limited understanding of the

reading concept embodied in the task. The response is incomplete, may exhibit many flaws,

and may not address all requirements of the task.

 0 point— The response indicates that the student does not demonstrate an understanding of

the reading concept embodied in the task. The student has provided an inaccurate response;

the response has an insufficient amount of information to determine the student’s

understanding of the task, or the student has failed to respond to the task.