Evan Zohar Polysystems

8/13/2019 Evan Zohar Polysystems

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evan-zohar-polysystems 1/25

Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics

Polysystem TheoryAuthor(s): Itamar Even-ZoharSource: Poetics Today, Vol. 1, No. 1/2, Special Issue: Literature, Interpretation,Communication (Autumn, 1979), pp. 287-310Published by: Duke University Press

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1772051 .

Accessed: 04/11/2013 01:03

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

.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].

.

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

preserve and extend access to Poetics Today.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 163.238.8.158 on Mon, 4 Nov 2013 01:03:17 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=duke

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1772051?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/1772051?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=duke



POLYSYSTEM THEORY

ITAMAR EVEN-ZOHARPoetics nd Comparativeiterature,elAviv

For Roman Jakobson ndin memoryofJurij ynjanov

sine quibus non.

INTRODUCTION

Since I first aunched the polysystem hypothesis in 1970 (Even-Zohar1970: rep. 1978, 11-13), work on developing it, discussions on its

applicability and various tests, both pilot-studies and morecomprehensive investigations, have been carried out by a growingnumber of interested scholars1 as well as by myself (1972a, 1973,1978a-1978f, 1979, 1979a). This is encouragingnot only because the PS

hypothesisthus becomes increasinglypart of the public domain and is

consequentlyrescued from he danger of becoming a privatewhim,butmore basically, it gives hope that the whole process of advancing frommere theoretical premises to a more developed theory and researchpractice will be hastened. My own work has naturally advanced instages and has, deliberately,not offered syntheticview; neither havethe findingsand claims made by me in various articles always beenexplicitly defined as supporting the PS hypothesis. However, theadvantages gained by thus leaving the field relatively open forintroducing new ideas and for avoiding hasty dogmatic petrificationhave been followed by some disadvantage as well. Clearly,the gradual

development of one's ideas cannot necessarily be of interestto others,nor can otherseasily follow them.Therefore, s I observe my own workas well as that of others, I feel that several points now seem neither

See Toury (1974; 1976; 1978), Lambert 1978; 1978a), Shavit (1975; 1978, 1978a; 1979;

1979a), Shavit & Shavit (1974; 1976), Yahalom (1978; 1978a; 1979; 1979a), Lefevere

(1978). Cf. also Nemer's report 1977). Of no less relevance are the various works of Prof.Shmeruk. who, though reluctant to make explicit use of the PS theory,has in factconstructed his description and analysis of Yiddish literature 1978) on the idea of a

symbiotic polysystem. I also find the Bunyan project conducted by Dr. B. Scholz inAmsterdam (1976), where the PS conception is employed, valuable for a better

descriptionof intersystemic ransfer rocesses via peripheries.Also, Prof. Shaked's recentwork on the peripheryof modern Hebrew canonized literature,where secondary models

clearly prevail. is highly lluminating Shaked, in press).

? Poetics Today, Vol. 1: 1-2 (1979)







288 ITAMAR EVEN-ZOHAR

fully explicated nor fullyunderstood. On the otherhand, in order forthe PS hypothesis to cope more adequately than previous models withthe complex phenomena it hopes to explain, its major notions requirecontinued reformulation nd reevaluation, and new formulationsmustbe suggested. The following will attempt to clarify major points,comment upon some misunderstandings, provide some backgroundinformation nd briefly efer o workdone so far.

1. SYSTEM ANDPOLYSYSTEMINMODERNFUNCTIONALISM:STATICSVS. DYNAMICS

The idea that semiotic phenomena, i.e., sign-governedhuman patternsof communication (e.g., culture, language, literature, ociety) should beregarded as systems ratherthan conglomerates of disparate elements,has become one of the leading ideas of our time in most sciences ofman. Thus, the positivistic collection of data, taken bona fide onempiricist grounds and analysed on the basis of their materialsubstance, has been replaced by a functional approach based on theanalysis of relations. Viewed as systems, t became possible to describeand explain how the various semiotic aggregatesoperate. Subsequentlythe way was opened to achieve what has been regardedthroughoutthe

development of modern science as the latter's supreme goal: thedetection of those rules governing the diversity and complexity ofphenomena rather than their registration nd classification. Since thepre-functionalistpproaches hardly ever attemptedto detect such rules,what were taken as phenomena (i.e., the objects forobservation/study),id not actually overlap what it became possible todetect once functional hypotheses were launched. Thus, the idea ofsystem has made it possible not only to account adequately forknown, phenomena, but also enabled the discovery of altogetherunknown ones. In addition, known data which had never been

thought of as correlatable with the data observed now becamemeaningful for the latter. It is unnecessary to describe in detail howthis changed both structures nd methods,both questions and answers,ofevery discipline into which it was introduced.

Nevertheless, despite common premises, the functional approach hasnot quite been unified. Roughly speaking, two different nd greatlyincompatible programs have been circulated. Unfortunately, his facthas not always been understood, and that has caused much damage tothe development of the various semiotic disciplines. Furthermore, hefailure to

distinguishbetween these

programsnot

only gavethe

wrongidea about theirrespective contents,but made it difficult o appreciatefundamentallywhat each was designed to accomplish. It is lamentablethatwhile this is recognised as a trivialcommonplace in some parts of







POLYSYSTEM THEORY 289

the modern semiotic tradition, incorrect presentations, even byprofessionals, are still the order of the day.To cut

thingsshort, I will referto the

respective programsas the

theory of static system vs. the theory of dynamic system. Thetheory of static system has wrongly been identified as the exclusivefunctional or structural approach, and usually referredto the

teachings of Saussure. In his own writingsand in subsequent works inhis tradition,the system is conceived of as a static ( synchronic ) netof relations, in which the value of each item is a function of thespecificrelation into which it enters.While the functionof elements,aswell as the rules governingthem,are thus detected,thereis hardly anyway to account for changes and variations. The factor of

time-succession ( diachrony ) has been eliminated fromthe systemand declared as something which cannot be accounted for byfunctionalhypotheses. It has thus been declared to be extra-systemic,and, since it was exclusively identified with the historical aspect ofsystems, the latter has been virtually banished from the realm oflinguistics.

The advantages of introducingthe concept of systemto replace themechanistic collection of data are evident. Also, the reduction of thesystemto an a-historical,extra-temporalspect, as it were, is notper sewrong. The linguistic scene of the time, with its heavy concentration

on historical change, conceived of as non-systemic, learly constitutedan obstacle for discovering not how language differs in differentperiods, but how it operates. By means of reduction,an adequate levelof abstraction had been achieved, and the principal mechanisms oflanguage function thus were laid bare. Obviously, fromthe point ofview of such an abstractmodel, the possible concurrentexistence ofdifferentoptions within one system at a given moment need notnecessarily be considered if these are, in principle, reducible. As iswell known fromother fields of inquiry (e.g., thermodynamics), t ismore efficientfrom the methodological point of view, to start bydeveloping a theoryfor losed systems.

Thus appreciated, the static approach really accomplishes its ultimatedesign. If taken, however, for what it is not (i.e., for a model whichaims at a closer account of the conditions under which a systemoperates in time), it can disturb scientific inquiry. There is a cleardifferencebetween an attempt to account for some major principleswhich govern a system outside the realm of time, and one whichintends to account both forhow a systemoperates in principle andin time. Once the historical aspect is admitted into the functional

approach, several implications must be drawn. First, it must beadmitted that both synchronyand diachrony are historical, but theexclusive identificationof the latter with history is untenable. As aresult, synchrony annot and should not be equated with statics,as at








any given moment,more than one diachronic set is operating on thesynchronicxis. Therefore,n the one hand a system onsistsof bothsynchronynd diachrony; n the other,each of those separately s

obviously a system.Secondly, as the idea of structurednessndsystematicity eed no longerbe identifiedwith homogeneity, semioticsystem is necessarily a heterogeneous, open structure. t is, therefore,veryrarelya uni-systembut is, necessarily, a polysystem- a multiplesystem, a system of various systems which intersectwith each otherand partlyoverlap, using concurrently ifferentptions, yet functioningas one structuredwhole, whose members are interdependent.

If the static,synchronistic pproach (rather han synchronic, whichhas been claimed above to be non-static) emanates fromthe Geneva

school,the

dynamic approachhas its roots in the works of the Russian

Formalists and the Czech Structuralists. ts positions have been most

explicitly and vehementlyformulatedby JurijTynjanov in the field of

poetics (1927) and by Roman Jakobson n the fieldof linguistics (1929,1931, 1949), as well as by them together (1929). Their notion of a

dynamic system, undergoing constant change, the process of which isin itselfa systemhas regrettably een ignored to a large extent n bothfields.2The synchronistic pproach - which as it was understood wasfallacious - triumphed. For both layman and professional,structuralism is more often than not equated with statics and

synchrony, omogeneic structure nd an a-historicalapproach.

2. PS: PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES

2.1. General PropertiesofthePS

Against a background such as has been described, the termpolysystemis more than just a terminological convention. Its purpose is to make

explicit the conception of the systemas dynamic and heterogeneous in

opposition to the synchronistic approach. But it cannot be stressed

enough that there is no propertyrelatable to the polysystem which

2 It is indeed incomprehensiblewhy Formalism has been accused of ignoring iterary

history and reducing literary studies to text analysis. Erlich's excellent chapter on

LiteraryDynamics (1965: 251-271) is highly informative n this respect. The Slavic

Formalists had, says Erlich, too much historical sense. G. O. Vinokur [...] claimed

that the Opojaz literaryhistorianswere obsessed with the sheer process of motion,with

divergences between differentiterary chools, to the extent of having virtually given up

critical standards applicable to more than one period (Erlich, 1965: 253). Similarly,it is

distorted to describe the Tynjanov-Jakobsontheses (1928) as a transition document

between the primitive stage of Formalism and the developed one of Czech

structuralism.All the ideasexpressed

in that article celbre, as well as later ideas of

Mukarovsk? or Vodicka on literaryhistory,have been formulated- oftenmore clearly

and unambiguously - in the works of Tynjanov, Shklovskij, Ejkhenbaum, Zhirmunskij

and others,who startedworking n the fieldbefore1920.








could not, as such, be related to the system. If by system one isprepared to understand both the idea of a closed net-of-relations,nwhich the members receive their values

throughtheir

respectiveoppositions, and the idea of an open structureconsisting of severalsuch concurrent nets-of-relations, then the term system isappropriate. The trouble is, such practices do not tend to hold. Newterms must therefore be coined to make the concepts behind themconspicuous, even when old termswould in principle suffice.

The emphasis achieved by the termpolysystem s on the multiplicityof intersections, nd hence on the greater complexityof structurednessinvolved. Also, it strongly stresses that in order for a system tofunction, uniformityneed not be postulated. Once the historical

property f a system s recognised (a greatmeritfrom he point of viewof constructingmodels closer to the real world ), the transformationof such a historical object into a series of a-historical uncorrelatedoccurrences s prevented.

Admittedly,since handling an open system is more difficultthanhandling a closed one, the exhaustion levels may be more limited.Perhaps more room will be given for entropy, which may bequantitativelyhigher due to the fact thatmore relations must be takeninto account, and more than one center must be postulated for thesystem.These are disadvantages, to be sure, from the point of view

of the theoryof static systems. But from the dynamic point of view,they are nothing of the sort. Indeed, synchronismcan deal with thegeneral idea of language function,but cannot account for the functionof language on specific territoryn time,as languages are polysystems,not systems. The heterogeneic structure of culture in society can, ofcourse, be reduced to the culture of the ruling classes only, but thiswould not be fruitfulbeyond the attempt to construct homogeneicmodels to account for the principal mechanisms governing a culturalsystem when time factor and adjacent systems' pressures areeliminated. The acuteness of the heterogeneic state of semiosis is

perhaps more conspicuous, palpable as it were, in such cases aswhen a certainsociety is bilingual, the common state ofmost Europeancommunitiesup to modern,and veryrecent,times. Withinthe realm ofliterature, for instance, this is manifested in a situation where acommunitypossesses two literary ptions, two literatures, s it were.For students of literature, to overcome such cases by confiningthemselves to only one of these, ignoringthe other,is naturallymoreconvenient (or rather,more comfortable ) than dealing with them

both. Actually, this is common practice in literary studies; howinadequate theresultsare cannot be

exaggerated.33 Conceptual analysis of the case of the Hebrew-Yiddish symbiotic polysystem cf.

Even-Zohar 1970, 1970a, 1973, 1978c, 1979b).In these papers, the functionof Yiddish as








The PS hypothesis,however, is designed precisely to deal with suchcases, as well as with the less conspicuous ones. Thus, not only does itmake possible the integration into semiotic research of objects(properties,phenomena) previously unnoticed or bluntlyrejected, but,also such an integrationbecomes a precondition,a sine qua non, foranadequate understandingof any semiotic field. Thus, standard languagecannot be accounted forwithout the non-standardvarieties; literaturefor children is not considered a phenomenon sui generis,but is relatedto literature for adults; translated literature s not disconnected fromoriginal literature; mass literary production (thrillers, sentimental

novels, etc.) is not simply dismissed as non-literature in order toevade discovering tsmutual dependence with individual literature.

Further, tmay

seem trivialyet

warrantsspecial emphasis

that thepolysystem hypothesis involves a rejection of value judgments ascriteria for an a priori selection of the objects of study. This must beparticularly stressed for literary studies, where confusion betweencriticism and research still exists. If one accepts the PS hypothesis,then one must also accept that literary historical poetics - thehistorical study of literarypolysystems - cannot confine itself to theso-called masterpieces, even if some would consider them the onlyraison d'6tre of literary tudies in the first lace. (This is an attitudeweneed not accept.) This kind of elitism should be banished from iterary

historiography. t should be remembered,however, that this has nobearing upon our standards as critics or private readers. It means,rather,that as scholars committed to the discovery of the mechanismsof literary history, we cannot use arbitraryand temporary valuejudgments as criteria in selecting the objects of study in a historicalcontext.The prevalentvalue judgmentsof any period are themselves an

integral part of the objects to be observed. No fieldof study can selectits objects according to norms of taste without losing its status as an

intersubjective discipline. Naturally one may take an interest in one

particular area of a broad field but even then it is clear that no

particularpart of any systemcan be analysed in isolation. On the otherhand, I would like to warn against what can be termed a reversehigh-brow approach. There is a tendency among what we might call

high-brows with a bad conscience to ignore cultural hierarchies

altogetherand play up, instead, popular, commercial or naive literatureas the true and exclusive culture, the kind that really mattersfor ahistorian. This kind of approach, popular enough in certain circles, is

a non-canonized system n relation to the Hebrew is suggested. Shmeruk's comprehensive

work (1978) amply sustains the case. No doubt, the same holdstrue of

anybilingualidiglotic community,although this idea is more often than not ignored or

rejected as untenable. Slavonic vs. Russian, Classical vs. Half-literary/vernacularrabic,Latin vs. Spanish/Italian/French/Englishre virtually quivalent cases.








language/another iterature).Thirdly,the materiallymanifestedchanges,(as different romthe process of change, i.e., conversion) could not beinterpreted, s theirnature was concealed fromthe observer's eye. Not

to mention, for example, the distorted ideas about writer's creativitywhich was reduced to vague notions of imagination or inspiration,and thus totally naccessible to any trueunderstanding.One missed thechance of disentangling the knotty complex which constitutes theconditions under which a writer works, part of which consists ofcertainpertinent onstraints,while another is a function of the writer'sability (in cases where this is really prevalent)to create new conditionsnot imposed on him butby him.

Why conversions take place in the firstplace, what are the reasonsfor

specificconversions and

bywhat means

theyare actualized

(performed)are questions with which the polysystemtheoryhas beenoccupied more and more in direct proportion to the increasinginstanceswhere its premiseswere put on trialduringthe last years.

One thing has become clear: the relations which obtain within the

polysystem do not account only for PS processes, but also for PSprocedures. That is to say, the PS constraints urn out to be relevantforthe procedures of selection, manipulation, amplification,deletion, etc.

taking place in actual products (verbal as well as non-verbal)pertainingto the PS. Therefore, hose interestednot in the processes taking place

in theirspecific field,such as language or literature, ut in the actualconstitution of products (e.g., linguistic utterances, literary texts),cannot avoid taking into account the state of the particular PS withwhose products they happen to deal. Naturally, when only official

products (standard language utterances, literary masterpieces ) weretreated,the work of the PS constraintscould not be detected. Facedwith innumerable shiftswithin such texts, the inter-textual tatus ofwhich is clearly manifested (such as translation and adaptation)scholars often- and deplorably so - took refuge n explaining thingswith the notions of mistakes and misunderstandings, bad

imitations and deteriorated culture. As they failed to see theconnection between the position of texts/models properties,features)within the structuredwhole (to which they belong), on the one hand,and the decisions made while producing them, on the other, thisbecame theironly possible refuge.4

2.2.1. Canonized vs. non-canonized strataA major achievement ofthe Russian Formalistshas been, in addition tothe general law of stratification, he formulation of the particularhypothesis on the respective status of the various strata. Shklovskij

4 For discussion of the polysystemicpositions as constraintson products cf. Even-Zohar

(1978b, for ranslated iterature), havit (1978a and 1979, forchildren's literature).








(1921, 1923) was perhaps the firstto notice that in literature theinequality between the various strata is a matter of socio-cultural

differences.Certain properties thus become canonized, while othersremain non-canonized (or, as Bakhtin put it in later years, some areofficial while other are non-official). Canonicity as suggested byShklovskij had nothingto do with value judgment of the texts locatedon the various strata, and is no euphemism for good vs. badliterature. Obviously, the people-in-the-culture make thisidentification n order to accept the one and reject the other,but thisdoes not make it valid as an analytic notion. Moreover, the fact thatcertain properties tend, in certain periods, to cluster around certainstatuses does not mean that these propertiesare essentially pertinent

to some status. Shklovskij, whose initial point of departurewith theidea of making strange (1916; later - de-automatization ) has beena-historical, corrected this fallacy by arguing that it is theautomatization of the canonized, its exhaustion, which makes itpossible for the non-canonized to replace them. The mechanism ofliterarychange was thus explained by the process of what I calledconversion, caused, according to Shklovskij, by the increasing inabilityof the canonized propertiesoccupying the center of literature, o fulfillcertainfunctionalneeds.

The tensions between canonized and non-canonized culture

(official/non-official,igh/low, standard/non-standard)are universal.They are present in every human semiotic system, because anon-stratified uman society simply does not exist, not even in Utopia.There is no un-stratified anguage, even if the dominant ideology

governing the norms of the system does not allow for an explicitconsiderationof otherthan the [...] canonized strata.The same holdstrue for the structure of society and everything involved in thatcomplex phenomenon. Moreover, all anti-stratificationdeologies andexperiments on the social level have turned out to be unsuccessful.What might have changed are the means by which stratificational

oppositions are inherentlymaintained (Even-Zohar [1977] 1978: 43).This state of affairs,which has justifiedlybeen interpreted s one of

the miseries of mankind, need not be thus considered in all itsmanifestations.The ideology of an officialculture as the only tenableone in a given society has resulted in the massive cultural compulsionfor whole nations through a centralized educational system and hasmade it impossible even for students of culture to observe andappreciate the role of the dynamic tensions which operate within theculture for its efficientmaintenance. Similarly to a natural system,which needs, for nstance, heat regulation,so do cultural systemsneeda regulating balance in order not to collapse or disappear. Thisregulatingbalance is manifested n the stratificational ppositions. Thecanonized systemsof any polysystemwould verylikely stagnateafter








certain time if not rivaled by a non-canonized system,which threatensto replace it. Under the latter's pressures,the canonized systemcannotremain untouched. This

guaranteesthe evolution of the

system,which

is the only way by which it can be preserved.On the otherhand, whenno pressures are allowed release, we often witness either the gradualabandonment of a systemand movement to another system e.g., Latinis replaced by the various Romanic vernaculars),or its total collapse bymeans of revolution (overthrowof a regime,the total disappearance ofhitherto preserved models, etc.). Thus it is bothersome to hearlamentationsover the decline of culture and the sweeping victory, s itwere, of sub-culture. As I said before, when there is nosub-culture, or when it is not allowed to exert real pressures on

high' /official/canonizedulture, there is little chance of there being avital high culture. Withoutthe stimulationof a strong sub-cultureor popular art the need for real competition will not be created.Under such circumstances, any canonized semiotic activity tendsgradually to become petrified. The first steps towards petrificationevidence themselves in a high degree of boundness (collocativity) andgrowing stereotypizationof the various repertories.Literature, o takeone instance, becomes highly bookish, language is reduced to anarrow section of its available inventory.Examples such as Latin, lateSlavonic or Hebrew literature and language) until the Israeli period,

Chinese, Arabic literature and language) until very recently (and stillso on the linguistic level) illustrate the case. For the system,petrification s an operational disturbance: in the long run the systemcan not cope with the changing needs of the society in which itfunctions.

As a rule, the center of the whole polysystemis identical with themost prestigious canonized system.This does not mean, however, thatthere is no peripheryof the canonized system,or that the generatingmodels for the whole PS necessarily belong to the latter. t only meansthat it is the group which governs the PS which ultimatelydetermines

the canonicity of a certain repertory of features, tems, models). Oncecanonicity has been determined the said group either adheres to the

properties canonized by it (which subsequently gives them control ofthe PS) or, if necessary, alters the repertory f canonized propertiesinorder to maintain control.On the otherhand, if unsuccessful either inthe first r in the second procedure, both the group and its canonized

repertory re pushed aside by some othergroup, which makes its wayto the center by canonizing a different epertory. f another groupadheres to the canonized repertory,t can only seldom gain control ofthe centerof the polysystem; s a rule, one finds them on the peripheryof the canonized, later referredto by the people-in-the-culture asepigones. Yet, as polysystems may stagnate, epigones may

perpetuate an established repertoryfor a long time, thus eventually








becoming identical - from he stratificational oint of view - with theoriginalgroupwhich initiated thatstate ofaffairs.

Canonicity,however,is not a

simple notion, i.e.,it does not

expressone clear-cut relation but, rather, bundle of relations,which have notyet been satisfactorily larified.Moreover, it expresses, by a contiguityof ideas, not only the status already acquired by a particular literaryunit (text, model), but also its potential status. That is, it can beapplied to literaryunits either about to gain status or about to losestatus. The former,because of newly created options, possess thepotential ofmovingfromthe periphery ntothe centerof the canonizedsystem. The latter,on the other hand, tend to decline in the centeralthough their status may still be perpetuated. The latter,technically

known in the literature as epigonic, may easily be pushed intonon-canonized strata once such units give up certain features.As thesituation on the marginis constantlyfluctuating, nly minute historicalcomparative analysis will be able to cope with an attempt atdescription.A-historicalclassificationattemptedon such a corpus mustfail. It should be emphasized that canonicity is analogous not to thehierarchical oppositions of language functions,but to the hierarchicalrelations governing the linguistic polysystem. The oppositions thatdetermine what variety of language will be considered standard,civilized, vulgar, slang or high-brow, are not primarily

linguistic, but socio-cultural. The selection of a certain aggregate offeaturesfor the assumption of a certainstatus is extraneousin this caseto that aggregate itself. Obviously, once it has been selected, it mayalso contributeto its own continued select position. But even then itwould only be perpetuatinga principle which was generated not byitself,but by some other system.Canonized literature, upported in allcircumstances by either conservatoryor novatoryelites, is constrainedby those cultural patternswhich govern the behavior of the latter. Ifsophistication,eccentricityor the opposite features are required by theelite to gratify ts taste and control the center of the cultural semiotic

system,then canonicity will adhere to these features as closely as itcan. Of course, many components of this mechanism have in fact beentransformednto functionsoperatingwithin co-systems closer to theliteraryPS. Facts of literary ife, i.e., literary stablishmentssuch ascriticism (not scholarship), publishing houses, periodicals and othermediatingfactors, re often translation functors f the more remoteconstraining socio-cultural system. Thus we are enabled to carry outdescriptive work, at least up to a certain extent, in the field ofliterature itself, and supply poetics with well-defined terms ofreference. We can observe what features agglomerate around whichmodels, and assume that the PS regulates itself (cf. Lotman, 1976);that is, we simply register what status has been dictated by whatfunctors f literary ife, especially by those explicitlyformulated, .g.,








polemical rticles,ncyclopedias,raditionaliteraryistories,choolsyllabi, tc. (cf. Shavit,1978). Intra-systemicnalysis s thereforeperfectlymanageable; moreover, t is indispensable ifwe wish to avoid

fallingback on prefunctionalistractices r a-historical,ositivistsociology. But ifwe reject the idea that the intra-systemictratificationrelations within a PS are ultimately constrained by the largersocio-cultural system,we will be left with a set of questions poorlyasked and poorlyanswered.

2.2.2. Primaryvs. Secondary TypesAs stated above (? 2.2.), conversions, as processes, are also necessarilylinked to specific procedures imposed on the properties involved.

Conversion,in other

words,is correlated with

transformation.These

procedures, of various kinds, are sometimes definable as the

preconditions for conversions while, at other times, they are clearlyresults of the latter.Whetherthey are the one or the otherdepends onthe specific state governing the polysystem and on our ability todiscover some general rules forthe correlationbetween conversion andtransformation.nitially it is not veryclear that two separate principlesare involved, as these procedures are intimately inked with the processdiscussed, and since, during certain periods in the historyof languageor literature,certain procedures tend to operate almost permanently

with certain strata. They seem, rather, to be in some wayinterchangeable. am afraid this was the way thingswere described invarious works of mine, but were most explicitly corrected n my latesttheoreticalcontribution o the subject (Even-Zohar,1978: 28-35). As the

principle governing the procedures involved in conversions (andstratificationn the PS in general) I suggested (1973; 1978: 14-20) the

opposition between primary and secondary types. But as in theactual literarycorpora I had then analyzed, primary types tended to

appear exclusively in the canonized system (and secondary in the

non-canonized), I began using the term primary system for a

canonized systempossessing primary ypes (and secondary systemfora non-canonized systempossessing secondary types ). I must now

stronglydisavow this practice as it blurs the issue and is incorrectwhen periods otherthan those I discussed are taken into consideration

(cf.Yahalom, 1978).The primary/secondarypposition refersto the principle governing

the features of semiotic types from the point of view of their

admissibility into established repertories. When a repertory (ofgrammatical items, or of literary models) is established and allderivative models pertaining to it (e.g., the grammatical aspects of

phrases, literarytexts) are constructedin full accordance with what itmakes available, we are faced with a conservative system. Everyindividual product (utterance, text) of the system will be highly








predictable, and any deviation will be considered outrageous. ProductsJfthe conservativesystemI label secondary. On the otherhand, the

augmentationand restructuration f a

repertory ythe introductionof

new elements,as a result of which each product is less predictable,areexpressions of an innovatorysystem. The models it offers re of theprimary type: the pre-condition for their functioning is the

discontinuity of established models. Of course, this is a purelyhistorical notion. It does not take long forany primary model, onceit is admitted into the center of the canonized system, to becomesecondary, if perpetuated long enough. The struggle between the

primaryand secondary options is not a lesser determinant of systemevolution than the struggle between high and low strata within the

system. Naturally, change occurs only when a primarymodel takesover the center of a polysystem:its perpetuation denotes stabilizationand a new conservatism.Usually, perpetuation s governed by its ownspecific rules. Thus, it has not been possible so far to observe theperpetuation of any primarymodel without structuralmodificationsthat can be termed,in an ad hoc manner, simplification. This doesnot mean that primarymodels are more sophisticated than secondary,but that during the course of their perpetuation, and within thesecondary models which ultimatelyemerge out of them, a process ofreduction takes place. For instance, heterogeneous models are

ultimately transformed into homogeneous models; the number ofincompatible patterns within the same structure is thus reduced;complex relations are gradually replaced by less complex and so on.Naturally,the reverseprocedure takes place when a secondarymodel ismanipulated in such a way that it is virtually transformed nto aprimary ne.

As I argued above, canonicity does not necessarily overlap withprimariness, although this may have been the case in more recenttimes, i.e., since the RomanticAge. It is thereforemportant o discoverthe sort of relations which obtain between canonized/non-canonized

systemsand primary/secondary odels. The more we observe literaturewith the help of these notions, the more it becomes apparent that weare facing an overall semiotic mechanism ratherthan an exclusivelyliteraryone. As systems are governed by those who control them, thetools foughtforwill depend on theirrelative efficacyn controllingthesystem.Thus, when control can be achieved only by break ( change ),this becomes the leading popular principle. It will not be supportedhowever, as long as perpetuation can satisfythose who might losemore by break. Naturally,once there is a takeover,the new repertorywill not admit elements which are likely to endanger its control. Theprocess of secondarization of the primary thus turns out to beunavoidable. It is furtherreinforced by a parallel mechanism ofsecondarization, by which a system manages to stabilize itself, or








repress innovation.By such a process, new elements are retranslated, sit were, into the old terms,thus imposing previous functionson newcarriersrather than changing the functions.Thus, as in the case of anew regime which carries on the institutionsof the old by transferringtheir functions to new bodies, so a primary iterarymodel, graduallyaltered, serves the same functions of secondary models of a previousstage. Semiotically speaking, this is a mechanism by which the less

immediately understandable, the less decipherable, becomes more so.The less familiar,and hence more frightening,more demanding andloaded with more information, ecomes more familiar, ess frighteningand so on. Empirically, this seems to be what the overwhelmingmajorityof culture consumers really prefer, nd when one desires to

controlthem,this preferencewill be fullymet.

2.3. Intra- nd InterrelationsThe principles and properties of the PS discussed in the above

paragraphs,valid for the intra-relations f the polysystem, eem to holdtrue for its inter-relations s well. These inter-relations ake place in

conjunction with two kinds of adjacent systems: one with a largerwhole belonging to the same community;and another where another

whole, or its parts, belongs to other communities, either of the sameorder (sort) or not. In the firstcase, such a view is based on the

assumption thatany semiotic polysystem- e.g., literature, anguage -is just a component of a largerPS - that of culture to which it is,

semiotically speaking, both subjugated and iso-morphic cf. Even-Zohar,1978: 39-44), and thus correlatedwith this greaterwhole and its other

components. For instance, the complicated questions of how literaturecorrelateswith language, society,economy,politics, ideology, etc., mayhere, with the PS theory, merit less simplistic and reductionist

hypotheses than otherwise. One need no longer assume that social

facts,to take one such case, must findan immediate,unidirectionalandunivocal

expression(form) in literature, as primitive sociology or

historyof ideas (Geistesgeschichte),Marxism included, would like usto to believe. The intricatecorrelationsbetween these cultural systems,if seen as iso-morphic in nature and functionalonly within a cultural

whole, can be observed on the basis of their mutual give-and-take,which oftenoccurs obliquely, i.e., throughtransmissionaldevices, and

oftenvia peripheries. I thinkI have demonstratedthis, at least in part,in my observations on the function of translated literatureand other

strata which function largely at the periphery.Ample material, anddetailed analysis of such cases are discussed by Toury (1977), Shavit &

Shavit (1974), Shavit (1978a; 1978b; 1979), Yahalom (1978;and

forthcoming)nd others.Moreover, if we assume that the literary system, for instance, is

iso-morphic with, say, the social system, its hierarchies can only be








process, this PS gradually collapsed, to be replaced, about the middleof the 18th century,by a series of more or less independent uni-lingualpolysystems, whose interdependencies with the other polysystemsbecame more and more negligible, at least fromthe point of view ofboth current consumers and the dominating ideologies. However, it is

apparent, for the PS theory, that in order to be able not only todescribe the general principles of interferences, ut also to explain theirnature and causes with certain exactitude, a stratificationhypothesismust be posited for them. For, when the various European nations

gradually emerged and created their own literatures, certain

center-and-peripheryelations unavoidably participated in the processfrom the very start. Literatures which developed before others, and

which belonged to nations which influenced, by prestigeor

directdomination, other nations, were taken as sources for youngerliteratures.As a result,there inevitablyemergeda discrepancybetweenthe imitatedmodels, which were often of the secondary type, and the

original ones, as the lattermighthave been pushed by that time fromthe center of their own PS to the periphery.Thus, the target iterature

actually functioned, from the point of view of the behavior of its

repertory, s a periphery of the source literature. It is no wonder,therefore,hatwhen texts are translatedfrom he first o the latter, heynormally - in terms of the translation source literature - become

secondarized. They often make the impression on the targetpublic ofdejd vu, of epigonic products. However, this objective propertyofsuch texts vis-a-vis a genetic source literature has no functional

importancefor their role (or the role of the models underlyingthem) intheirproper literature. t is only when we are interested n discoveringthe processes and procedures by which a systemevolved or maintaineditselfthat such considerations are indispensable. And, of course, whenbilateral translationalprocedures are investigated.There is no need to

go into detail in explaining why ignoringthese relations brings aboutnaive descriptionsand analyses.

In short,the importantpoint here is that the PS theory offerstheopportunity o deal functionallywith the mechanisms of intersystemicinterference. he particularconditions under which a certain literature

may be interferredwith by another literature,as a result of which

properties are transferred rom one PS to another is a major task ofinterference heoryand calls forthe development of a general transfertheory cf. Even-Zohar,1978e, 1979). In a previous work (1975; 1978a) I

attemptedto formulateseveral transfer aws, part of which operate onthe polysystemic level. Here, the importance of the relative status of

one polysystemversus anotheris apparent. It also leads to the difficult

question of whether a general inventoryrule can be formulated, .e.,whetherone can induce from the cases investigatedthatunless certainitems are possessed by a PS it cannot function.If this is the case, a








literature acking the necessary items,is weaker, so to speak, than anadjacent PS, possessing them. It follows that the weaker will readily

borrow,fnothinginterferes,

he wanted item.Actually,such a point ofview should not cause the grief so often encountered in traditional

comparative literaturestudies where attemptsare repeatedly made toshow that a certain influence, f admitted at all, was not the result ofthe borrower's inferiority. If one accepts the hypothesis thatperipheral properties are likely to penetrate the center once thecapacity of the center (i.e., of the repertory f center) to fulfillcertainfunctions has been weakened (Shklovskij's rule), then thereis no sensein denying that the very same principle operates on the inter-systemiclevel as well. Similarly, it is the polysystemic structure of the

literatures nvolved which can account forvarious intricateprocesses ofinterference. or instance, contrary o common belief, interference ftentakes place via peripheries and moves furtherto the centers) fromthelatter.When this process is ignored,there is simply no explanation forthe appearance and function of new items in the repertory.Semi-literarytexts, translated literature,children's literature,popularliterature- all those strataneglected in current iterary tudies - areindispensable objects of study for an adequate understandingof howand whytransfers ccur,withinsystems s well as among them.

2.4. Stabilityand Instability;Ambivalence and ClassificationFor a PS to be able to operate, it seems thatseveral conditionsmust befulfilled.For instance, there is reason to believe that certain structuralconditions must be met by verbal semiotic systems, nasmuch as theyare conditioned by the largercultural (social, economical) whole. Here,a law of dynamism, otherwise formulatable as the law ofpolysystemization, s universallyvalid. It means that in orderto fulfillthe needs, a system actually strives to avail itself of a growinginventoryof alternative options. When a given PS has succeeded inaccumulating sufficientstock, the chances are good that the homeinventorywill suffice for its maintenance and preseverence, unlessconditions drasticallychange. Otherwise, ntersystemic ransfers emainas the only or at least the most decisive solution, and are immediatelycarried out, even when the center of the PS resists for a while. Thismay give the wrong impression thatit lies within the interest f the PSto be permanently nstable,which is not the case. Instabilityshould notbe identifiedwith change, just as stabilityshould not be identifiedwithpetrification.

The notions should betterbe taken on the functional evel. A systemwhich is

incapableof

maintainingitself over a

periodof time

and isoften on the verge of stagnation or collapse is, fromthe functionalpoint of view instable; while a systemundergoing permanent,steadyand well-controlled change, is a stable one. It is only such stable








polysystems which manage to survive, while others simply perish.Therefore, crises or catastrophes within a polysystem (i.e.,occurrenceswhich call forradical change, eitherby internalconversionor by external interference),which can be controlledby the systemaresigns of a vital, rather than a degenerate, system. Therefore,all theprocesses and procedures of a fluctuating, eterogeneic, shiftingnature- so abhorred forbeing, as it were, undecipherable and enigmatic -have become crucial questions ofstudyforthe PS theory.

Similarly,the systemicstratification,manifested on the product levelin typological oppositions (primary/secondary),annot be interpretedeither n termsof finalized factsor as tools forclassification. n the firstinstance, in balanced, stable periods the nature and status of products

(utterances, texts, models, patterns) may be relatively univocal. Butwhen shiftsbecome more conspicuous, because of various functional

pressures, or when the PS is in state of crisis, because of an overlongoccupation of the center by petrifiedrepertory, hen overlappingsimmediatelytake place. Under these, contradictory tatuses may partlymerge which means that it can functionsimultaneously in more thanone system.

Moreover, this kind of ambivalence thus introduced into the systemseems to be not only a resultof change but also a preconditionfor t. Itis probably one of the major means forsystemic conversion. The idea

of ambivalence, owed to JurijLotman (1976a; 1976c), has been, aftersome modification,demonstratedto be of particularimportanceforthePS by Yahalom (1978; 1978a; 1979; 1979a) and Shavit (1979; 1979a;

1979b). These considerationsmake it absolutely clear, even for the most

orderlyminds, that the idea of system has nothing to do with theideas of classification and nomenclatures. Unfortunately, lassificatoryhabits are hard to dislodge and theytend to creep in unnoticed. Theycan be a serious pitfallwhen trying o apply concepts suggested by thePS theory.This is so because the PS theory s simply not designed todeal with the classification of texts as such. I believe that I have

explicitly clarified in the foregoing that since the PS is a dynamicwhole, a multi-leveled system, t is analyticallyproductive to considerits facts (from the point of view of actualized entities -

products/texts) nly if their various (cor)relationswith each other canbe demonstrated.Thus, detecting the status and/ortype of a specificproduct is valuable not forclassificationof the PS inventory, s it were,at a given time,but when it is necessary to analyze the processes and

procedures involved. Moreover, it seems to emerge clearly fromthewhole presentationof the PS theory, hat the object of study cannot beconfinedto individual finalized texts alone. Since the PS is supposed

to be a network of multi-relations, t is imperative that it deal withmany texts, oftenthroughsampling methods. Hence, it is the idea ofthe model i.e., a potential combination selected froma given repertory








EJKHENBAUM,ORIS, 1927. Literatura: Teorija, Kritika, Polemika (Leningrad).1929 Literaturnyj yt, n: Moj vremennik Leningrad:Izd. pisatelej), 49-58.1971 Literary Environment, in: Matejka & Pomorska, 1971: 56-6 (trans. of

Ejkhenbaum,1929).EJKHENBAUM, ORIS & TYNJANOV,JURIJ,ds., 1926. Russkaja proza (Leningrad: Academia)

(Rep.: The Hague: Mouton, 1963).ERLICH,VIKTOR,1965 (1955). Russian Formalism (The Hague: Mouton).

1965 LiteraryDynamics, in: Russian Formalism (The Hague: Mouton), 251-271.

ESCARPIT.ROBERT,1968 (1958). La sociologie de la littdrature (Paris: PIUF).1968a The Sociology of Literature, n: The InternationalEncyclopedia of the Social

Sciences IX (New York:MacMillan). 417-425.

ESCARPIT, OBERT,d., 1970. Le littdraire t le social: Elementspour une sociologie de lalittdratureParis: Flammarion).

ETIEMBLE,., 1963. La crise de la litterature omparde (Paris: Gallimard).ETKIND, EFIM, 1973. Russkie poety-perevodchiki ot Tredjakovskogo do Pushkina

(Leningrad:Nauka).EVEN-ZOHAR,ITAMAR,1970. The Function of the Literary Polysystem in the History of

Literature. Paper presented to the Tel Aviv Symposium on the Theory of

LiteraryHistory,Tel Aviv University, ebruary2, 1970. (Hebrew trans. in: Massa,6.3.1970: rep. in Even-Zohar 1978: 11-13).

1970a The Nature and Functionalization of the Language of Literature tinder

Diglossia, Ha-Sifrut I, 2, 286-303 (Hebrew; English summary:443-446).1972 An Outline of a Theory of the Literary Text. Ha-Sifrut III, 3-4, 427-446

(Hebrew; English summary: -iii).

1972a Aper;u de la litteraturesraelienne,Libert6

XIV,4-5

(Octobre),104-120.

1973 Israeli Hebrew Literature:A Historical Model. Ha-Sifrut V 3, 427-449 (Hebrew;

Eng. summaryXXI-XXIII).1974 (1973) The Relations between Primary and Secondary Systems within the

LiteraryPolysystem, Ha-Sifrut,17 (September),45-49 (Hebrew) Original Englishversion in Even-Zohar, 1978: 14-20: Forthcoming in Kushner, E., ed. Italian:

Even-Zohar,1975.1975 (1973) Le relazioni tra sistema primario e sistema secondario all'interno del

polisistema letterario, trumenti ritici26, 71-79. (Italian trans. of1974).1978 Papers in Historical Poetics, The Porter nstitutefor Poetics & Semiotics. Tel Aviv

University.Tel Aviv. ( = Papers on Poetics & Semiotics 8).

1978a (1975) Universals of LiteraryContacts, in F. Coppieters & D. Goyvaerts,eds.,Functional Studies in Language and Literature Ghent: Story-Scientia),5-15 (also

rep. in Even-Zohar1978: 45-54).1978b (1976) The Position of Translated Literaturewithin the LiteraryPolysystem, n

Holmes et al., eds., 117-127. (also rep. in Even-Zohar1978: 21-27).1978c (1976) Interference n Dependent LiteraryPolysystems, in: Even-Zohar, 1978:

54-59 (also forthcoming in: Proceedings of the VIIIth Int. ICLA Congress,

Budapest, August 12-17 1976).

1978d (1977) On SystemicUniversals in CulturalHistory, n: Even-Zohar,1978: 39-44.

1978e Where Are We Now in Translation Theory, in: Translation Theory and

InterculturalRelations, Even-Zohar, . & G. Touryeds., (forthcoming).

1978f The Emergence and Crystallisation of Hebrew Native Culture in Palestine1880-1948t The Tel Aviv Symposium on Hebrew Literature n Palestine: Poetics

and History, Tel Aviv University,June26-27. (Hebrew).








LOTMAN, URIJ, 964. Lekcii po struktural'noj poetike (Tartu [Rep. Brown Univ. Slavic

ReprintSeries V, 1968]).1970 Struktura udozhestvennogoteksta (Moskva: Iskusstvo).

1972 Vorlesungen zu einer strukturalen Poetik. K. Eimermacher, ed., W. Jachnow,trans. Miinchen:Fink) (trans.ofLotman,1964).

1973 Structuredu texteartistique (Paris: Gallimard) (trans.ofLotman,1970).1976a (1973). The Content and Structure of the Concept of 'Literature', PTL I, 2

(April), 339-356.1976b (1970) Cultureand Information, isposito, I, 3, 213-215.1976c Un modele dynamique du systemesemiotique. in Travaux sur les systemesde

signes: Ecole de Tartu. (Complexe: Bruxelles) 77-93.

LOTMAN, URIJt al. 1975. Theses on the Semiotic Study ofCultures (as Applied to Slavic

Texts), in: Thomas A. Sebeok, ed., The Tell-Tale Sign: A Survey of Semiotics

(Lisse: The Peter de RidderPress), 57-84.

MATEJKA, LADISLAV, 1973. On the First Russian Prolegomena to Semiotics, in:

Voloshinov, 1973, 161-174.

MATEJKA,ADISLAV,d. 1976. Sound, Sign and Meaning: Quinquagenary of the Prague

LinguisticCircle (Ann Arbor: Slavic Dept., Univ. ofMichigan) (=Michigan SlavicContributions, ).

MATEJKA,ADISLAV KRYSTYNA OMORSKAds., 1971. Readings in Russian Poetics

(Cambridge,Mass.: MIT).MATEJKA,ADISLAV IRWINR. TITUNIK, ds., 1976. Semiotics of Art: Prague School

ContributionsCambridge,Mass.: MIT).MAYENOWA,ARIA ENATA,974. Poetyka teoretyczna Wroclaw: Ossolineum).

MOURALIS,ERNARD,975. Les contre-litteraturesParis: PUF).MUKAROVSKY',AN, 970 (1936). Aesthetic Function, Norm and Values as Social Facts,MarkE. Suino, trans. Ann Arbor:University fMichigan Press).

1974 Studien uber strukturalistischenAsthetik und Poetik, H. Gronebaum & G. Riff,trans.(Mfinchen:Carl Hauser).

NEMER,MONIQUE, 1977. Colloque litterature t traduction, Cahiers de litterature eneraleet comparee, 1: 57-83.

PICHOIS, CLAUDE, 1966. Litteraturecomparee et histoire litterairenationale: le cas de la

France, Actes du IVe congrbsde I'AILC, Fribourg,1964, F. Josted. (The Hague:

Mouton), 357-368.

PIKE,K.L., 1967. Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structureof Human

Behaviour (The Hague: Mouton).PopovIc,ANTON, 968. Preklad a vyraz (Bratislava:Slovenska Akad. Vied).1975 Teoria umeleckehopreklada (Bratislava:TATRAN).

PRAZ,MARIO, 1950 (1933). The RomanticAgony (trans.of La carne, la mortee iidiavolo).

SCHOLZ, BERNARD ., 1976. Bunyan in Dutch Literature. Inst. voor Algemene

Literatuurwetenschap, Univ. van Amsterdam (Mimeographed research

programme).SEGRE, CESARE, 1969. 1 segni e la critica (Torino: Einaudi).

SHAKED,GERSHON.On the Major Models Designed to Satisfythe Expectations of LiteraryCriticism n Hebrew Literaturen Palestine, Ha-Sifrut29 (in press).

SHAVIT, OHAR, 976. Changes in Poetics Norms During a Transition Period in Hebrew

Poetryofthe Revival Period, Ha-Sifrut23: 50-75 (English summary:vii-viii).1978 The Emergence of a New School of Poetry:Modernism in Hebrew Poetryof the

1920s, I-II (Ph.D. Thesis, Mimeo, Tel Aviv University) Hebrew; English summary:

i-xiv).








1978a Translation of Children's Literature s a Function of Its Position in the LiteraryPolysystem, in Modern Realistic Stories for Children and Young People,Majonica, R., ed. (Munich: IBBY), 180-187.

1979 The Self Image of Children's Literature. Paper presented to the InternationalSymposium The Book and the Child, Istanbul,17-20April.

1979a The Ambivalent Status of Texts: The Case of Children's Literature. Paperpresentedto the 2nd IASS InternationalCongress,Vienna, 2-6 July.

SHAVIT, ZOHAR & YAACOV SHAVIT, 1974. Hebrew Crime-Stories During the 1930's inPalestine, Ha-Sifrut18-19: 30-73 (Hebrew; English summary: v).

1976 Translated vs. Original Literature in the Creation of the LiteraryCenter inPalestine. Ha-Sifrut25: 44-68 (Hebrew; English summary:v-vi).

SHMERUK, KHONE, 1969. The Call to the Prophet: Shneur, Bialik, Peretz and Nadson,

Ha-Sifrut I, 1: 241-244 (Hebrew; English summary:251).1975 Contacts between Polish and Yiddish Literatures:The Storyof Esterkaand King

CasimirofPoland, Ha-Sifrut21: 60-100 (Hebrew; English summary: ii-iv).1978 Yiddish Literature:Aspects of Its History. The Porter Institute for Poetics &

Semiotics, Tel Aviv University (Tel Aviv: UniversityProjects) (= Literature,

Meaning Culture5).SHKLOVSKIJ, VIKTOR,1916. Iskusstvo kakpriem, Sbornikpo teoriipoeticheskogo azyka, I.1921 Rozanov (Petrograd).1923 Literatura kinematograf Berlin).

SHUKMAN,ANN, 1977. Literature nd Semiotics: A Study of the Writings f Yu. M. Lotman(Amsterdam:NorthHolland) ( = Meaning and Art 1).

STEINER,WENDY, 1976. Language as Process: S. Karcevskij's Semiotics of Language, in:Matejka 1976: 291-300.

STRIEDTER, URIJ,969. Zur formalistischenTheorie der Prosa und der literarischenEvolution, in: Striedter,Jurij, d., Texte der Russischen Formalisten, (Mtinchen:Fink,IX-XXXIII).

1978 The Russian FormalistTheory of LiteraryEvolution, PTL 3, 1: 1-23 (trans. ofStriedter, 969, LX-LXXXIII).

TEESING,H.P.M., 1948. Das Problem der Perioden in der Literaturwissenschaft(Groningen).

TITUNIK,.R., 1976. M.M. Baxtin (The BakhtinSchool) and Soviet Semiotics, Dispositio,1, 3, 327-338.

TOMASHEVSKIJ, BORIS, 1923. Literatura biografija, in:Kniga i revoljucija 4, 6-9.

1971 Literatureand Biography, in: Matejka & Pomorska, 1971, 47-55. (English trans.ofTomashevskij 1923).TOURY, GIDEON,1974. Literature as a Polysystem, Ha-Sifrut 18-19 (December), 1-19.

(Hebrew; English summary: -iii).1976 Norms ofLiteraryTranslation into Hebrew 1930-1945. Tel Aviv University Ph.D.

Diss., Mimeo; Hebrew withextensiveEnglish summary).1978 Aspects of Epigonic Literature. Paper presentedto the 14thFILLM International

Congress,Aix-en-Provence, 8 August-2September.(1979) In Search of a Theory of Translation. The Porter nstituteforPoetics & Semiotics,

Tel Aviv University. in press).TRAVAUX,TARTU,1976. Travaux sur les systemes de signes: Ecole de Tartu (Bruxelles:

Complexe).TYNJANOV,Ju.N., 1929. Arkhaistyi novatory (Moskva: Academia) (Rep. Mtinchen: Fink,1967).

1929a O literaturnoj voljucii, in: Tynjanov 1929, 30-47 (first ublished 1927).







31o ITAMAR EVEN-ZOHAR

1968a Pushkin i ego sovremenniki.V. Vinogradov,ed. (Moskva: Nauka).1971 On Literary Evolution, in: Matejka & Pomorska, 1971, 66-78. (trans. of

Tynjanov, 1929a).

TYNJANOV,U.N. & JAKOBSON,OMAN, 928. Problemy izuchenija literatury jazyka,Novyi lef 12, 36-37.

1971 Problems in the Study of Literature and Language, in: Matejka & Pomorska,1971, 79-81 (trans.ofTynjanov& Jakobson, 928; Paragraph9 omitted).

VINOGRADOV, VIKTOR, 1921. Sjuzhet i kompozicija povesti Gogolja 'Nos', Nachala,82-105.

1929 Evoljucija russkogonaturalizma (Leningrad).1967 Problemy literaturnykhazykov i zakonomernostrejikh obrazovanija i razvitija

(Moskva: Nauka).1968 O0trudakhJu.N. Tynjanova po istoriirusskoj literatury ervoj poloviny XIX v,

in Tynjanov,1968, 5-22.

VODICKA, ELIX, 976 (1942). Response to Verbal Art, in: Matejka, L. & I.R. Titunik,eds.,Semiotics ofArt:Prague School ContributionsCambridge,Mass: MIT), 197-208.

1976a Die Struktur er LiterarischenEntwicklung Miinchen:Fink).VOEGELIN,C.F., 1960. Casual and Non-Casual Utterances within Unified Structure, in:

Style in Language, Thomas A. Sebeok, ed. (Camb.,Mass: MIT), 57-68.VOLOSHINOV, .N., 1973 (1929) Marxism and the Philosophy of Language, trans. by

Ladislav Matejka & I.R. Titunik, New York & London: SeminarPress).WAUGH, LINDAR., 1976. Roman Jakobson's Science of Language (Lisse: The Peter de

RidderPress).WEINREICH,RIEL, 967 (1953) Languages in Contact (The Hague: Mouton).1956 Yiddish, Knaanic, Slavic: the Basic

Relationships,in: For Roman

Jakobson TheHague: Mouton), 622-632.1958 Yiddish and Colonial German in Eastern Europe: The Differential mpact of

Slavic, in: American Contributions to the 4th Int. Congress of Slavicists.Moscow, Sept., 1958 (The Hague: Mouton).

WVEINREICH,RIEL, LABOV, WILLIAM & HERZOG, MARVIN, I., 1968. Empirical Foundations for

a Theory of Language Change, in: Directions for Historical Linguistics: A

Symposium (Austin: Univ. ofTexas Press), 97-195.WINNER,RENE WINNER,HOMASG., 1976. The Semiotics of Cultural Texts, Semiotica

18/2,101-156.YAHALOM,HELLY, 1978. Relations entre es littOraturesrangaiseet anglaise au 18e siecle.

M6moire de Maitrise, Departement de po6tique et de litt6raturecomparee,Universitede Tel Aviv. (Mimeo; in Hebrewwith extensiveFrenchsummary).1978a Le comportement d'un polysystbme litteraire en cas de crise: contacts

intersystemiques et comportement traductionel, in: Translation Theory andInterculturalRelations. I. Even-Zohar& G. Toury eds. (forthcoming).

1979 Le r61edes textes non-litteraires ans l'elaboration de modbles narratifs. Paperpresented to the International symposium Narrative Theory and Poetics of

Fiction. The Porter Institutefor Poetics & Semiotics, Tel Aviv University.ThePorter ynopsis Symposia, 2., 17-22 June.

1979a Problbmes d'interfrrence e systbmess6miotiques. Paper presented to the 2ndInternationalASS Congress,Vienna, 2-6July.

(in preparation) IntersystemicContacts and theirFunctions in the Mechanisms of Shiftand Model-Change within the Literary Polysystem: The Penetration of EnglishLiterature into French Literature during the EighteenthCentury (Ph.D. Thesis,

Dept. of Poetics & Comp. Lit.,Tel Aviv University).

Evan Zohar Polysystems

Documents

Transcript of Evan Zohar Polysystems