polysystem) and the non-canonized system, between translated and non-translated literature. The literary system is defined as the network of relations that is hypothesized to obtain between a number of activities called “literary”, and consequently these activities themselves observed via that network (Even-Zohar 1990:28).
Even-Zohar proposed that translated works correlate and translated literature may possess a repertoire of its own. He conceived of translated literature not only as an integral system within any literary system but also as a most active system within it. Having established its systemtic status, Even-Zohar then proceeded to discuss its role and significance within the literary system in his essay “The position of Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem”. The essay boasted two versions: the first one was presented by Even-Zohar to the Dutch/Belgian group at the historic 1976 Translation Studies Colloquium in Leuven, Belgium; in 1990 Even-Zohar incorporated its revised version in his collection Polysystem Studies.
In the essay mentioned above, Even-Zohar(1990:48) elaborated the position of translated literature within a literary system. When it assumes a central position, it participates
11
actively in shaping the center of the polysystem. When it maintains a peripheral position, it constitutes a peripheral system within the polysystem, generally employing secondary models.
Even-Zohar (1978) suggested that the relationship between translated works and the literary polysystem cannot be identified as either primary or secondary, but as a variable, depending upon the specific circumstance operating within the literary system. Generally speaking, the “normal” position of translated literature tends to be in a peripheral one, yet there exist some exceptions. He (Even-Zohar 1990:47) identified the following three major conditions contributing to the translated literature as a central system in the literary polysystem:
i. when a polysystem has not yet been crystallized, that is to say, when a literature is “young”, in the process of being established;
ii.when a literature is either “peripheral”(within a large group of correlated literature) or “weak” or both;
iii.when there are turning points, crises, or literary vacuums in a literature.
12
He also described the interaction between translation literature and target literature polysystem, and summarized the principle for each situation. The first case was in Israel, and the second in Low Countries and the last could be found in America in the 1960s.
The position taken by translated literature is decisive to translation norms, behaviors, and policies. When it assumes a central position in the literary polysystem and functions as a vehicle for creating new, primary models, the translator is far more likely to strive for such translation which is closer to the original in terms of adequacy. On the contrary, if translation occupies a secondary position within a given polysystem, the chances that the translator will attempt to find ready-made models for translation for the sake of the demand of translation norm “acceptability” are much greater than otherwise.
The analysis of translated literature proves more than marginal, though it is one aspect of Zohar’s investigation. As a matter of fact, it has far-reaching consequences for the field of translation studies.
2. 3 Toury’s Translation Norms
Norms, a central concept in the study of translation by the
13
Tel Aviv School, originated from the idea of the Prague structuralist Jiri Levy, who first applied the concept of norms to translation studies. In his doctoral dissertation (1971)4, Itamar Even-Zohar used this concept, based on which Gideon Toury introduced and developed the notion of Translation Norms. In his book Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond, Toury(1995:55) outlined his definition of translation norms as follows:
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.
A given society always has multiple and conflicting norms, all interconnected with other functioning subsystems, but if situations recur regularly, certain behavioral pattern can be established. The same holds true for translation norms. Thus, Toury (1995:56-61) continued to identify three kinds of translation norms operating at different stages of the translation processes, i.e. initial norms, preliminary norms, and operational norms.
The basic “initial norms” refers to a general choice made
14
by translators to subject themselves either to original text with its textual relations and norms, or the target culture’s linguistic and literary norms, or some combination thereof.
Under initial norms lie “preliminary norms” and “operational norms”. Preliminary norms involve the existence and nature of a translation policy and the directness of translation, i.e. a particular society’s tolerance or intolerance towards a translation based on a text in an intermediate language rather than on the source language text.
Operational norms concern decisions made during, rather than prior to, the actual act of translation. It is composed of matricial norms and text-linguistic norms. The former concern the completeness of the target text, and have to do with the way textual material is distributed, how much of the text is translated, and any changes in segmentation. Phenomena include omission or relocation of passages, textual segmentation and the addition of passages or footnotes. The latter relate to the selection of target text linguistic material including lexical items, phrases and stylistic features.
Given the fact that translation is a norm-governed activity, to distinguish regular tendencies, it is necessary to study not only single texts, but also different translations of the same
15