(a) in the way their source texts are selected by the target literature, the principles of

selection never being uncorrelatable with the home co-systems of the target literaturę (to put
it in the most cautious way);
(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. …
Thus, translated literature may possess a repertoire of its own, which to a certain extent
could even be exclusive to it.” (193)

Translated literature as a system

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?

Polysystem
a heterogeneous, hierarchised conglomerate (or system) of systems which interact to bring
about an ongoing, dynamic process of evolution within the polysystem as a whole
Hierarchy – the positioning and interaction at a particular historical moment of the different
strata of the polysystem
If the highest position is occupied by innovative literary type, the lower positions will be
occupied by conservative types
And the other way round
The polysystem evolves dynamically, innovative and conservative systems are in constant
competition and flux

Innovatory/
conservatory functions
„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 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.” 193

Primary Position of Translated Literature in the Polysystem

Functions:
shapes the centre of the polysystem
innovatory
created by leading writers
introduces new models for the target culture
Circumstances:
young domestic literature
„peripheral” or „weak” literature
Literature at the turning point in history
Secondary Poistion of Translated Literature in the Polysystem
Has no major influence over the centre of the polysystem
Becomes a conservative element
Conforms to the literary norms of the target system
Translated literature is in itself stratified – some is secondary (e.g. Russian in Hebrew), while
other is primary (English, German)

Position within the Polysystem determines the strategy

If it is primary, translators are unconstrained to follow domestic norms
TT – a close match in terms of adequacy
This leads to new TC models
If the translated literature is secondary – translators use existing models and produce
„non-adequate” translations

Pros and cons of the systems approach

Pros:
Literature studied alongside the social, historical and cultural forces
A panoramic view instead of local case studies
Non-prescriptive definition of equivalence and adequacy allows to explore the historical and
cultural sitiation of the text
Cons:
overgeneralisation to „universal laws”
verification?

Gideon Toury’s Descriptive Translation Studies

Gideon Toury (1942-2016)

was an Israeli translation scholar and professor of Poetics, Comparative Literature and
Translation Studies at Tel Aviv University.

The „founding father” of Descriptive Translation Studies, as propagated by the 1995

publication of Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond.

Descriptive Traslation Studies

Toury wished to develop a general theory of translation to replace isolated, free-standing
case studies
He proposed a methodology:
situate a text within the target culture system, looking at its significance and acceptability
Compare the ST and the TT for shifts, identifying relationships betwen „coupled pairs” of ST
and TT segments, and attempting generalizations about the underlying concept of
translation
Draw implications for decision-making in future translating

DTS
Phases 1 and 2 could be repeated for similar texts in order to widen the corpus and describe
translations according to the genre, period, author
General objective: describing the laws of translation in general
Step number 1 is practically controversial: what units to compare and how?
Toury suggests theory of translation should supply us with criteria, but in the past he opted
for a tertium comparationis he called ADEQUATE TRANSLATION, against which to gauge
the shifts
In 1995 he drops the idea of invariant; he advocates spontaneous mapping of ST on TT,
which yields a series of ad hoc coupled pairs
It is partial, indirect, undergoes „continuous revision” with each repetition of 1 and 2.

Toury’s aims
Toury aims to:
distinguish trends of translation behaviour
generalise about the decision-making process
reconstruct the norms at play in translation
test them (hypotheses) by future descriptive studies

Norms
The translation of general values or ideas shared by a community – as to what is right or
wrong, adequate or inadequate – performance instructions appropriate for and applicable to
particular situations
Sociocultural constraints specific to a culture, society and time
An individual acquires them thorugh socialisation and education
Located between rules and idiosyncracies
Translation is a norm-governed activity: they determine the type and extent of equivalence
demonstrated by TTs

Investigating norms
Although he focuses on the analysis of translation product, it is to explain the
decision-making process
He claims norms can be reconstructed from two sources:
The examination of texts, the products of norm-governed activity, which shows „regularities
of behaviour”
From explicit statements made about the norms by translators and other participants in the
translation act

Types of norms:
Initial Norm
Initial norm – general choice concerning the translation
If it conforms to the ST norms – adequacy
If it conforms to the TC norms – acceptability
Shifts are inevitable: obligatory and non-obligatory, and they are universal

Equivalence for Toury

Norms are not fully systematic and they differ in intensity from mandatory (maximal) to
behaviour that is tolerated (minimal intensity)
It analyses how the equivalence has been achieved and reveals the underlying concept of
translation: the decision-making process and the constraints it involves
A „functional-relational concept” – equivalence is assumed between ST and TT

Laws of translation
Cumulative identification of norms will, according to Toury, help define probabiliistic laws of
translation
The law of growing standardisation – in translation the 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
The law of interference – interference from ST to TT is „a kind of default” – lexical and
syntactic patterning is being copied; tolerance depends on cultural factors (prestige of
translations in minor cultures)

Example
The use fo conjoined phrases (X and X: able and talented, law and order, nie und nimmer)
Popular in old Hebrew texts and used in translation
Then the tendency declined over the last 50 years, with Hebrew literature becoming stronger
Still, they are much often used in translation than the original texts

Pros and cons of DTS

Cons:
Overlooks the status of ST in the SC;
The aspect of S.C. promotion in the TT
The effect translation exerts back on the S.C. system
Is it possible to trace norms credibly and speak of „laws” on that basis?
Restriction of research to literature
Pros
Abandonment of one-to-one notions of correspondence
The involvement of TC literary conventions on the development of TT
Destabilisation of the notion of the original message with fxed identity

Andrew Chesterman’s translation norms

Toury: descriptive category to account for the patterns of behaviour

Chesterman: norms „exert a prescriptive pressure”
Product or expectancy norms – „established by expectations of readers of translation,
concerning what a translation (of a given type) should be”.
Determined by predominant translation tradition, discourse conventions, economical and
ideological conventions

Evaluative judgements (readers have expectations)

May be validated by norm-authority (teacher, critic, publisher)
2. Professional norms – regulate the translation proces itself:
The accountability norm – ethical – professional standards and integrity (accepting
responsibility for the work)

The communication norm – social – the translation works to ensure maximum

communcation between the parties

The „relations” norm – linguistic – relationship between ST and TT judged on the basis of
text-type, commisioner, intentions of the original writer, assumed needs of readers

Developments…
DTS should take into account post-colonialism, gender studies, cultural studies…

Miami vice…

Miami vice continued…

CROCKETT: Eddie here flashes the cash, and we take my
boat and pick up the Colombian's stash.
(TVP) Eddie wywala gotówkę, potem wsiadamy do
mojej łodzi i odbieramy towar kolumbijski.
(DVD) Eddie ma forsę, a towar Kolumbijczyka
odbieramy moją łódką

TUBBS: He's a major-league, Crockett. He killed a cop. That

dude I showed up with tonight is one of his front men.
(TVP) To ktoś ważny, Crockett. Zabił gliniarza. Ten facet, z
którym pokazałem się dzisiaj, to jeden z ich oficjalnych przedstawicieli.
(DVD) To gruba ryba. Zabił gliniarza. Facet, z którym mnie widziałeś,
to jego człowiek

TUBBS: Rodriguez told me I'd find you here... under the name of Burnett Is that your
cover or somethin'?
CROCKETT:
That's the general idea, Tubbs. As far as the locals are concerned, I'm just another
hard-partyin' ocean guy with questionable means.
TUBBS: With a hundred thousand dollar cigarette boat and a sideline of recreational
stimulants.

(TVP) Rodriguez powiedział mi, że zastanę cię tutaj pod nazwiskiem Burnett. Pod tym
nazwiskiem działasz?
Taka jest koncepcja. Dla miejscowych jestem tylko jeszcze jednym rozrywkowym
przewodnikiem po oceanie, facetem o wątpliwych źródłach utrzymania.
 Z łodzią za sto tysięcy dolarów i ubocznymi dochodami z rekreacyjnych środków
podniecających.

(DVD) Rodriguez mówił, że pracujesz tu jako Burnett. To przykrywka?

Tak jakby. Lokalsi uważają, ze jestem imprezującym skipperem o podejrzanych
dochodach.
Z łódką za 100 tysięcy i stymulantami na boku.

Looking carefully at Lolitas…

http://www.dezimmer.net/Covering%20Lolita/LoCov.html
https://lithub.com/the-60-best-and-worst-international-covers-of-lolita/
Inspired by Andrew Chesterman
Memes of Translation
1

https://www.gry-online.pl/S043.asp?ID=14016809
https://wilczywykrot.blogspot.com/2009/04/tumaczenia-wadcy-pierscieni.html

The concept borrowed from Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene (1976) (Cited Chesterman 1):

Chesterman speaks of 5 translation supermemes (pervasive ideas)

Source-target
Equivalence
Untranslatability
Free vs. Literal
All-writing-is translating

Source-target

1. Source-Target
translation is directional, going from somewhere to somewhere
Hence… Source Text and Target Text
“Path schema” : translation itself is the “trajector” moving along this path.
Translations are seen as “moving” from A to B.
https://www.dreamstime.com/illustration/pointing-target.html

Related schema:
Translations are “containers” for something else; as they are formed
translations “carry across” something from A to B.

Misconceptions connected to the meme

„although they are directional, translations do not in fact move.
„If an object moves from A to B, when it arrives at B it is no longer at A”.
„But translation does not eliminate the presence of the source text at A”.

Chesterman’s comment
But the memes themselves do not move: they are not absent from the source culture when
they appear in the target culture.
They do not move, they spread, they replicate. In place of the metaphor of movement,
therefore, I would suggest one of propagation, diffusion, extension, even evolution:
a genetic metaphor. Evolution thus suggests some notion of progress: translation adds value
to a source text, by adding readers of its ideas, adding further interpretations, and so on.

https://www.leafacademy.eu/hu/bad-translation-2/
2. Equivalence
a translation is, or must be, equivalent to the source, in some sense at least.
„After all, the very term “translation” in English and related languages has the same root as
“metaphor” – carrying across. If your view of translation is that you carry something across,
you do not expect that this something will change its identity as you carry it. A metaphor
states that two different entities can be seen as identical in some respect: X = Y.”
http://www.tec.mu/recognition_equivalence

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/life/in-pictures-twelfth-night-celebrations/a-man-carrying-a
-christmas-tree-down-a-street/

formal vs. Dynamic equivalence (Nida 1969)

semantic vs. communicative (Newmark 1981),
overt vs. covert (House 1981), documentary vs. instrumental (Nord 1991),
imitative vs. functional (Jakobsen 1994a)
functional, stylistic, semantic, formal or grammatical, statistical and textual subtypes, etc…
Hence… Different subtypes of equivalence

And others dispensed with it:

matching (Holmes 1988)
family resemblance (Wittgenstein 1953: §66f.; see e.g. Toury 1980: 18) or similarity (e.g.
Chesterman 1996b):
Not (being) dissimilar in relevant respects”. (Hervey and Higgins 1992: 24).
Only reversability?
https://redherringsdotnet.wordpress.com/2013/05/09/what-is-red-herring-and-what-does-it-ta
ste-like/

Chesterman 2016: 6)

http://www.basicbeijing.com/uncategorized/a-resigned-effort-beijing-holds-correction-contest
-for-signs-with-poor-english/

3. Untranslatability
„if translation is defined in terms of equivalence, and since absolute equivalence is
practically unattainable, translation must surely be impossible. Alternatively: it is assumed
that equivalence is, by definition, perfect; but perfection, in practice, is unattainable”
Poetry by definition is untranslatable” claims Jakobson ([1959] 1989: 59–60) – despite the
fact that poetry is of course translated.
https://www.artmajeur.com/pl/mikhalchyk2110/artworks/12543434/the-tower-of-babel-big

Counterproposals
Walter Benjamin:” languages share a kinship that is marked by a convergence, so that
“[l]anguages are not strangers to one another, but are, a priori and apart from all historical
relationships, interrelated in what they want to express”.

„An opposing view is also crystallized in Katz’s (1978) Effability Principle, according to which
any proposition can be expressed by some sentence in any language (although this principle
is thus explicitly restricted to propositional meaning). Keenan (1978) rejects Katz’s principle,
and thus agrees with the untranslatability thesis at least in its weak form: nothing is
translatable exactly”.

https://pl.pinterest.com/pin/836402962017089822/

4. Free vs. Literal

Barkhudarov (1993): the translator’s choice of unit of translation: the smaller the unit of
translation, the more literal the result, and the larger the unit, the freer the result (where the
units are morpheme, word, phrase, clause, sentence). The appropriate unit of translation
depends (among other things) on the kind of text: a translation that is “too literal” is based on
tosmall units, and one that it “too free” on too large units.

Opposing views
Newmark: literal translation should always be preferred where it is possible: “provided that
equivalent-effect is secured, the literal word-for-word translation is not only the best, it is the
only valid method of translation” (1981: 39).
Robinson: argues that translators have the right to translate just how they feel, exploiting a
wide range of relations between source and target
source and target text should “stand in some kind of recognizable relation to each other”
(153). This is a long way from the traditional equivalence requirement, some kind of
“sameness”.
ST and TT should stand in a „recognizable relation to each other” (153). This is a long way
from the traditional equivalence requirement, some kind of “sameness”.

https://pl.pinterest.com/pin/356628864214873155/

5. All Writing is Translating

„This supermeme thus stresses not the impossibility of translation but its possibility, its
familiarity. Translating is no more than a form of writing that happens to be rewriting.
Learning to speak means learning to translate meanings into words (cf. Paz 1971).
Furthermore, translation is also like the comprehension of everyday speech, as
Schleiermacher ([1813] 1963: 38) points out: we often have to rephrase another person’s
words in our own minds, in order to understand”
(Chesterman 2016: 9)

Postmodern uses (Benjamin, Derrida…)

no texts are original, they are all derivative from other texts, parasitical upon them;
writers do not create their own texts but borrow and combine elements from others, linking
up in the global textual web.
Our words are not ours: they have been used before, and our own use is inevitably tainted
by their previous usage, in other people’s mouths. There are no “originals”; all we can do is
translate.
Meaning is something that is negotiated during the communication or interpretation process
itself
https://www.ebaumsworld.com/images/bad-translation-of-chinese-sign/727458/