POLYSYSTEMS THEORY AND MULTIFUNCTIONAL ROLE

OF LITERA TY TRANSLATION

* Dr. Piotr Kuhiwczak

Susan Bassnett in her 1982 book entitled Translation Studies gaye

the following definition of translation thoory.

"The purpose of translation theory, then, is to reach anunderstanding of the processes undertaken in the act of translationand not, as is so commonly misunderstood, to provide a set ofnorms for effecting the perfect translation" (1).

i can assume that most of us have no reservations about this simple

and clear definition but problems arise when we try to decide in what way

we should reach an understanding of the processes undenaken in the act of

translation. in DWstcases those who attempt to explain these processes

tend to use purely linguistic tools. However, some thooreticians claim that

structural linguistics, for instance, is not adequate in this respect, and

therefore they resott to semiotics or cultural studies in order to establish

convincing thooretic~ models for the processes of translation.

It should not be surprising to anyone, then, that the theory of

translation is an object in the making. The purely linguistic-theories of

translation which provide us with strict patternsand definitions fail the test

of universa1ity, because the linguists are very far from reaching a

consensus conceming the nature of language. It is not surprising, then;

that a thoory of translation based on the principles of, let's say, generatiye

grammar, will tell us something entirely diferent from a model built on the

principles of cognitive linguistics. The non-linguistic thoories of translation

do not provide us with one comprehensive model either, since so-ca1led

cultural studies have a distinctly interdisciplinary character. in addition to

worked out in a c1imate of idoologica1turmoil, which means that their

* University ofWarwick.

primary role was not to produce a feasible theory of cu1turebut to convince

us that tne particular theory was idelologically correct and politicallysound.

if it is stilI possible to talk about translation theory as applied to the

field of non-literary translation (although my personel view is that the

study of non-literary translation should be based on practice rather than on

theory), it is very difficuIt to get hol~ of a thooretical model which couldhelp us to deal with the translation of artistic tt;xts. i am deliberately using

here the term "artistic texts'~in order to emphasize the fact that literary

translation does not mean only translation of printed texts from one

language into another. It also means a translation and adaptation of such

complex texts as film dialogues, plays, radio and theatre scripts. Maybe

this is why Susan Bassnett tends to avoid the term, theory of literary

translation, and suggests a more flexible and broader term, translationstudies.

There are many reasons why there is so much vagueness and

suspicion surrounding the field of translation studies. The obvious one is

that only recent1yand only in some countries has translation achieved full

. academicstatus.On the whole,however,the idea that literarytranslationhas got nothing to do witl-ithe principle of originality or creative thinking

stiUprevails in many countries and in many academic institutions. It also

must be said that the newly emerging theories of translation have not

helped to improve the status of litemry translation in the eyes of the general

publle, either. Like literary eritics, the theoretiC?iansof translation have triedto prove that their subject can be conceived in purely scientific terms, so

that its positiQn within the academy cou1dbe justified and seeured. As a

result, the pseudo-scientific jargon which some of the theoreticians use

does not only alienate the general public, but also facilitates a popillar

opinion that translation studies is not a subject which shov\d be subsidized

wiili taxpayers; money.

168

It would be a difflcuIt but also rewarding task to decide which of

the recendy proposed theories of translation genuinely contribute to our

understanding of translation and which depend only on a skilful use of

quasi-scientiflc terminology. What strikes me when i look through some

thooretical articles is the fact that the most important work on translation is

undertaken in the so called "small" cultures, for which translation is very

often an issue of primary importance. This is why the most interes~gcoatributions to the field of translation studies come from such countries as

Holland, Isrea1' or Czechoslovakia. (Andre Lefevre, Anton Popovic,

Gideon Toury ete.). Each of the theoreticians mentioned above has

provided us with an interesting contribution to the field of literary

translation. But for all my respect for these achievements, i would heshate

to call them "theories of translation", since each of them admits a great

. numberof exceptions;a fact that might suggesteither, that theyare notcapable of identifying universal laws of literary translation, or that such

laws simply do not exist.

In order to make my point clearer I would like to discuss very

briefly one of the most influential translation thooriesof recent years, called

the polysystems approach. The theory has been developed at the Porter

Institute for Poetics and Semiotics in Tel-Aviv. Its main principles were

presented by Itmar Even-Zohar in Papers in Historical Poetics (Tel-Aviv

1978) and by Gidoon Toury in his In Search of a Thoory of Translation

(Tel-Aviv 1980).

The polysystems approach is not a theory which explains what

happens when we trimsfer a literary text from the source language into a

target language. Its main aim is to show how translation can function

within literary systems and how it can challenge or maintain a dominant

poetic s or a dominant ideology. From my short and very simplified

definition of the polysystems approach, one can deduce that it is a "thoory"

169

which has its roots in at least three dis~plines: linguistics, social sciences

and literary history. Those who promote ~is approach elaim that it can

bring about a revolution in our thinking about literary history, since it

shows that translation can play a crucial role in. the formation of literary

genres as well as the transformation of do~ant social values.

The American schoIar Maria Tymoczko showed in her artieleTrans1i on F fi r L' RI. in h Tw if - n u °hi

from Epic to Romance (2) how translation triggered a shift from epic toromance arid a transition from oral to written cuIture in medieva! France.

T~zko argued that "translation played a centta! and in fact decisive rolein the shift from oral to written literature, from epic to romance. Failure to

recognize and define the precise role of translation in this Hterary

development has marred all critical and historica! discussions of the

emengence of the genre of romance" (3). Although Tymoczko points out

that she presentsjust one case study, we can assume that like Even-Zohar,

she would be inclined to look for paradigms which polysystems theory

could produce when applied to various cultural contexts.

lt is undoubtedly true that this approach heIps us to undersiand the

role of translation in the-formation of what i call1iterary genres and what

the above-mentioned scholars tend to cal1"literary systems". The work of

several critics included in the volume The Manipu1ation of Literature (4)

proves the validity of this theory in some European countries.

The development of the sonnet form in Northern Europe or the rise

of the novel, ft}rinstance, are cases which call for the applicationof this

approach. The study of a single case does not however Iead us to any

useful generalisation, especial1ysince it can be observed that in many cases

translation has very little influence on the emergence of new literary forms.

Even-Zohar pointed out that translation becomes a prominent forceeither in a time of cu1tura1crisis or when "internal candidates for

170

restructuring a literary hierarchy cannot for some reason fulfill a

replacement function" (5). Even if we accept this explanation, we may find

it difficult to agree with Even-Zohar's and his followers' interpretation of

social phenomena as related to the processes of literary translation.

According to the polysystems approach, the power of translation is such

that it cannot only change the so-called dominant poetics, but it can also

alter the value systems, ideology and patterns of social behaviour. When

analysing mid-twelfthcentury France, Maria Tymoczko claimed:

"Thus, the translations of the mid-twelfth century had a primaryfunction in expressing or promoting a new ideology as well as anew poetics. All these elements indieate that the translation systemwas associated with a shift in value structures, precisely thesame shift we associate with romance, but a shift wellunderway by the time romances began to be writren" (6).

What Tymoczko tells us, is that tr9.nslation can play not a

supplementary but a major role in bringing about a social change. i do not

feel competent to discuss this p6int in the context of the mid-twelfUi

century France. However, from the observation of other literary cu1turesin

their various stages of development, i draw the conclusion that although

translation can accelerate the pace of Social change' considerably, it can

never be the agent which triggers off this change.

In order to strengthen the force of my argument, let me look at

some examples. One of them has been rather conveniently provided by Dr.

Saliha Paker in her article, Hamlet in Turkey (7). Dr. Paker's argument is

that Turkish translation and productions of Shakespeare's play have

always been closely related to major developments in Turkish theatre, and

also to crucial changes in Turkish cultural history in the twentieth century.

But before Dr. Paker presents to us her analysis of modern literary life in

Turkey, she discusses the role translation played during the period of

Tanzimat reforms in the nineteenth century. According to her, after 1859

"the [irst generation of Westem-onented Onomans began to introduce

171

generic and literary innovations (such as the novel, drama and new forms

of poetty) into mitive literature by means of translation" (8). It seems, then,

. that in thatcrucialperiodof modernTurkishhistorytranslationdid playanimportant role in altering literary culture. However, in Dr. Paker article

there is no suggestion that translation opened the gateway to the major

social and political changes of that time. We may guess that the need for

change derived from the decomposition of power relations wIthin the

Ottoman Empire, and translation was only a supplementary factor which

assisted the major political change. This, in fact, can be found in Dr.Paker's conclusion:

"It was in this period, extending from the mid-nineteenth centuryonwards, in which the Ottoman society was for the first timeopening out tO Westem influence, that Shakespeare and the rest ofthe continentalliteramres were read and translated through Frenchas the intermediate source language" (9).

,

The Turkish example is in a way the reverse of the phenomenon

deseribed by Maria Tymoczko.

Chinese culture provides us with examples entirely different from

the situtations we have discussed above. China has twice gone thrOugh a

period of intense translation -one during the Tang Dynasty (618-907), and

that which started during the Opium War and continued up till now. It

would be natural, therefore, to expect that these two periods of intense

translation have brought about an enormous difference to the countty

which for thousands of years has been successfully implementing

isolationist policies. The conclusions we can draw from our reading about

China do not at all support the thesis about the innovatory role of

translation'in altering the dominant patterns of Chinese cnlture.

There seem to be two entirely diverse traditions of translatingfnTPian tpvtl;: in mMPni {"'hin!:," nnp t!:a'rcrpt t"111t111"P n";pntPr1 ianr1 thp nthp1'~- --e--. , -_.._..

172.

source culture oriented. Unlike the Europeans, who have tried to find a

compromise between the two approaches, the Chinese felt compelled tho

choose either of the lwo methods and implement it in the p'urse~possibleform. Gao Chang Fan quotes examples of famous Chinese transhitors who

have followed stricdy one of the approaches. He claims that in either case

we are dea1ingwith translation fallure. The tar~et culture oriented translatorproduced versions of European masterpieces such that one could hardly

recognize anything Westem in them, while the source culture oriented

translator supplied the Chinesereader with the translations which they

were not able to understand at all. It seems, then, that in the Chinese

tradition translations have been completely neutralized, and therefore have

neither strengthened nor subverted the cultura1status quo. Gao Chang Fanconcludes:

"Language does not restrain thoughts and ways of thinking. Thereare cultural bairiers to translation but there are no cultura!bairiers tothoughts and ideas. Cultura! bairiers can be broken but only byremoving cultura! obstacies. Translation cannot fu1fill this task.(n.) Shared knowledge and shared practice do not comethrough translation. The ultimate force that breaks culturalbarriers are changes of economic structure, political systems anda range of other practices " (10).

Thus, the Chinese case offers us a possibility which the

polysystems approach has not taken Into account: translation neither brings

innovation nor facilitates the existing "literary system".

Using these three examples i have attempted to show the

polysystems approach can be found useful onJy when we dea! with

relatively uncomplicated situations. Unfortunately, the number of such

clear-cut cases is very smal1.Normally, translated texts enter cultures in

which it is difficult tOestablish what is a"dominant literaiy polysystem" or

a "dominant ideologyil. if we want to leam something about the role of

tra.ü.siarioilin süch compiex cases, we caiiilot limit ourselves just to oiie

theory of translation.

173

REFERENCES :

i. S. Bassnett-Mc Guire, Translation Studies, London 1980, p. 17.

2. M. Tymoczko, "Translation as a Force for Literary Reyolution in theTwelfth-Century Shifat from Epic to Romance", New Comparison.

Nr 1, 1986,pp. 7-27.

3. M. Tymoczko, op. cit. p. 8.

4. T. Hermans (ed.), Manipulation of Literature. Loiidon 1988.

5. Quoted after M. Tymoczko, op.cit. p. 20.

6. M. Tymoczko,~,p. 14.

7. S. Paker, "Hamlet in Turkey", New Comparison, Nr 2, 1986.

pp.89-105.

8. S. Paker, Qlt&I1.p. 90.9. Ibidem.

10. Gao Chang Fan, "Cultura! Barries in Translation", New ComDarison..Nr 8, 1989, p. 10.

174