original text and even extratextual sources. Consequently, Toury proposed two major sources investigating translational norms: textual sources, namely the target texts themselves; and extratextual sources, i.e. the theoretical and critical statements made about translation in general or about specific translation in general or about specific translations.
It is believed that translation norms are to a great extent influenced by the position assumed by translated literature within the polysystem. Norms determine the position of translations on an imaginary axis between two extreme possibilities: adequacy and acceptability. Adequacy means a functional equivalence between the source text and target text achieved by reconstructing the original functions of the elements comprising the source text while acceptability demands that the target text should be adjusted to the system receiving it.
Although Toury’s concept of norms focuses mainly on their function as a descriptive category to identify translation patterns, such supposedly non-prescriptive norms have triggered both approval and disapproval within society. Later some translation theorists such as Theo Hermans and Andrew Chesterman further developed translation norms. For instance, Chesterman proposed another set of norms—product or expectancy norms and process
16
or professional norms, covering the area of Toury’s initial and operational norms.
3. Extension of Polysystem Theory
Ever since 1969 when it was first suggested, polysystem theory has been developed, revised and perfected by a large number of scholars, engendering other systems theories.
Perhaps the most significant extension of the polysystem model should be found in Toury’s work. Having adopted the polysystem theory framework, Gideon Toury consolidated Even-Zohar’s target-oriented approach and conducted his descriptive research, aiming to better detect and describe all those linguistic, literary and sociological laws which govern translation. After his early polysystem work on the sociocultural conditions determining the translation of foreign literature, Toury shifted his focus from theory to descriptive work since 1980 and strived to develop a general theory of translation. To replace the commonplace isolated free-standing studies, he used the abbreviation DTS, introduced by Holmes, to refer to the scientific branch and the longer denomination “descriptive translation studies”, to the activity—any research procedures addressed to translational phenomena. The ultimate aim of DTS
17
is to identify the patterns of behavior in translation and then to “reconstruct” the norms at work in the translation process.
In his Descriptive Translation Studies-And Beyond, Toury (1995: 36-39 and 102), encompassed a description of the product and the wider role of the sociocultural system and elaborated three-phase methodology for systematic DTS as follows:
1) Situate the text within the target culture system, looking at its significance or acceptability;
2) Compare the source text (ST) and target text (TT) for shifts, identifying relationships between “coupled pairs” of source text (ST) and target text (TT) segments, and attempting generalization about the underlying concept of translation;
3) Draw implications for decision-making in future translating.
Jose Lambert, one of polysystem theory’s strongest advocates during the 1980s, retained a systemic approach while suggesting that the system as conceived may not function as the investigating scholar initially thought. As a result, he was open to the study of “other” patterned behavior which may help explain translated phenomena. Together with Van Gorp, he called for not only a study of the relation between authors, texts,
18
readers, and norms in the two differing systems, but also for relations between authors’ and the translators’ intentions, between pragmatics and reception in source and target systems, between the differing literary systems, and even between differing sociological aspects including publishing and distribution (Gentzler 2004:132).
With its considerable influence, polysystem theory has inspired another important school: the Manipulation School, which has grown up in Leuven, Belgium, where several meetings and conferences around the theme of translated literature were held by the International Comparative Literature Association. The group of scholars carried on the polysystem theorists’ point of view, and got the name because of their conviction that from the target perspective all translation implies a degree of manipulation of the source text for a certain purpose.
Polysystem theory has also made its mark in the work of Andrew Lefevere. Though he distanced himself from polysystem vocabulary, his work in translation studies actually developed out of his strong links with polysystem theory and the Manipulation School. Moving away from polysystem terminology, he proposed the addition of notions of polarity, periodicity and patronage and considered the role of ideology
19
and patronage in the system of translated literature. Furthermore, his later work on translation and culture in many ways represents a bridging point to the cultural turn.
In conclusion, polysystem theory has inspired a variety of scholars to study translation in another way and to supplement its model. In other words, polysystem theory has found itself developed in DTS and the ideas of Manipulation School as well as Lefevere’ work.
4. Influence of Polysystem Theory on Translation Studies
The work of Even-Zohar, polysystem theory’s initiator, is highly innovative, presenting multiple significant insights for the field of translation theory. Above all, his polysystem theory proves to be revolutionary because it moves the study of translation out of the static, source-oriented linguistic paradigm and obsession with one-to-one equivalence and forward into a less prescriptive observation of translation within its different contexts.
Polysystem theory advocates a descriptive, systematic, target-oriented approach to translation studies, inspiring a multinational translation studies school. Moreover, its definition of “equivalence” and “adequacy” according to the historical and
20