Mona Baker & Gabriela Saldanha. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (2nd edition)

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Page199

willnotnecessarilyallbehaveinthesameway;likeanyotherliteraryform,it

comprisesitsownstratifiedpolysystem.

Giventhefactthattranslatedliteraturecantakeonavarietyofrolesinthetarget

polysystem–eitherbyconformingtoalreadyexistingmodelsorbyintroducing

originalelementsintothesystem–itinevitablyfollowsthatthewaysinwhich

translationispractisedinagivenculturearethemselvesdictatedbytheposition

whichtranslatedliteratureoccupieswithinthepolysystem.TouseEvenZohar’s

words,‘translationisnolongeraphenomenonwhosenatureandbordersare

givenonceandforall,butanactivitydependentontherelationswithinacertain

culturalsystem’(1990:51).Thisnewinsightinevitablyleadstoawideningofthe

definitionoftranslationitself.Pastdefinitionshavefrequentlybeenformulatedin

highlyprescriptiveterms,andtextsnotconformingtoacceptedtheoretical

preconceptionshavefrequentlybeendeniedthefullstatusof‘translations’,

insteadbeingdubbed‘imitations’,‘adaptations’or‘versions’(see

ADAPTATION).TheworkofEvenZohar,ontheotherhand,suggeststhat

translationscholarshavebeenaskingthewrongquestions,andaimsatanew

definitionofthedisciplineitselfbyacknowledgingthefactthattheparameters

withinwhichthetranslationprocessiscarriedoutinagivencultureare

themselvesdictatedbythemodelswhicharecurrentlyoperativewithinthe

targetliterarypolysystem.Thisfundamentallynonprescriptiveapproachhasled

tothreeextremelyimportantinsights(seeDESCRIPTIVEVS.COMMITTED

APPROACHES).

Thefirstoftheseisthesuggestionthatitismoreprofitabletoviewtranslationas

onespecificinstanceofthemoregeneralphenomenonofintersystemictransfer.

Thishastheadvantagenotonlyofenablingustoexaminetranslationwithina

widercontext,butalsoofallowingthosefeatureswhicharegenuinelypeculiar

totranslationtostandoutagainstthebackdropofthiswidercontext(seeEven

Zohar1990:73–4).Theothertwoinsightsfollowonfromthisfirstone.The

secondconcernsourconceptionofthetranslatedtext.Insteadoflimitingthe

discussiontothenatureoftheEQUIVALENCEwhichexistsbetweensource

andtargettext,thetranslationscholarisnowfreetofocusonthetranslatedtext

asanentityexistinginthetargetpolysysteminitsownright.Thisnew

targetorientedapproach,nowchieflyassociatedwiththenameofGideon

Toury,hasledtoalargevolumeofdescriptiveworkinvestigatingthenatureof

thetargettext,forexampleintermsofthefeatureswhichdistinguishitfrom

othertextsoriginatingwithinaparticularpolysystem(seeUNIVERSALS).

Furthermore,translatedtextsceasetobeviewedasisolatedphenomena,but

areratherthoughtofasmanifestationsofgeneraltranslation‘procedures’which

aredeterminedbytheconditionscurrentlyprevalentinthetargetpolysystem

(EvenZohar1990:74–5).Thethirdinsightconcernsthesetranslation

proceduresthemselves.Onceithasbeenrecognizedthatthetargettextisnot

simplytheproductofselectionsfromsetsofreadymadelinguisticoptionsbutis

rathershapedbysystemicconstraintsofavarietyoftypes(concernednotonly

withlanguagestructurebutalso,forexample,withquestionsofgenreand

literarytaste),itbecomespossibletosuggestexplanationsfortranslation

phenomena(suchastheappearanceinatranslatedtextoffunctionsnativeonly

tothesourcesystem)withinthemoregeneralcontextofintersystemictransfer

(ibid.75–7).

Furtherdevelopments

ThreesubstantialearlycasestudiesthatusepolysystemtheoryareYahalom

(1980,1981)andD’hulst(1987).Furthersystemicconceptshavebeen

proposedtosupplementthemodel:Lefevere(1983b:194),forexample,

suggeststheadditionofnotionsofpolarity,periodicityandpatronage(see

REWRITING).Anumberofscholarshavequestionedthenecessityofthe

primary/secondarydistinction(Lefevere1983b:194;Gentzler1993:122).

GentzlerfurthersuggeststhattheinfluenceofRussianFormalismistoostrong,

andthatpolysystemtheoryneedstobreakfreefromsomeofitsmorerestrictive

concepts(1993:122–3).However,theinfluenceofEvenZohar’sthinkinghas

beenconsiderable,thenewapproachwhichithasengenderedbeingparticularly

associatedwithgroupsofscholarsinIsrael,BelgiumandtheNetherlands.

ProbablythemostsignificantextensionofthemodelisfoundinToury(1980a),

whereEvenZohar’stargetorientedapproachisconsolidatedandthenotionof

translationNORMS–thefactorsand