“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.” [Even-Zohar 51]
System, according to Even-Zohar, is the relations between the signs/elements, and accordingly, the polysystem is the relations between different systems, “which intersect with each other and partly overlap, using concurrently different options, yet functioning as one structured whole, whose members are interdependent”. [Even-Zohar 11] These systems are in a dynamic process and there is the continuum of relations in the hierarchy they happen to be a part of. Once the important/powerful/dominant system may be the less of all these features one day. Thus analysing a system synchronically will not help us see this evolution of systems. One also should look at the diachronic dimensions which are “operating on the synchronic axis,” [Even-Zohar, 11] at any given moment. Because Even-Zohar suggests that “a system consists of both synchrony and diachrony, [...] and each of these is separately a system.” [Even-Zohar, 11]
Contrary to Saussure who suggests diachronic relations will not help one to understand the current state of the system, thus need not to be studied at all, Even-Zohar claims that both synchronic and diachronic changes have an effect on the system. This idea is especially important in terms of translation studies because it will eventually affect the choices of the translator according to the time and space. As the polysystem is not homogeneous in itself, more than one diachronic level interferes with synchronic state of time. And this gives the translators the opportunity to analyze the needs of the time better, because this will change the main effort of the translator. The new movements in the literature will inevitably affect the movements in translation, and vice versa. “The fact that certain features tend, in certain periods, to cluster around certain statuses does not mean that these features are "essentially" pertinent to some status.” [Even-Zohar, 16]
Polysystem theory by Even-Zohar sees literature and translation as systems both intra- and inter-related to each other and part of a polysystem which is culture, thus brings a new perspective, which includes the relationships between culture, ideology, society, history, and power, into the translation studies. These features were also included to translation theory by Vermeer in his Skopostheorie, however, his inclusion did not go beyond the target-oriented perspective, for which he was criticized for being a traitor to the source text [Nord 121], and was only restricted with the context defined by the commissioner. This target-oriented approach is not a part of polysystem theory. The main difference between these two approaches is that while Skopostheorie sees translator as a cultural and linguistic expert, i.e. an expert in intercultural communication [Nord 118], polysystem theory puts translator in a position that s/he is the expert of the whole polysystem. I mean the expert of the relationships between the literatures of these two cultures, translation approaches and their status, whether they are canonized or not and whether they are primary or secondary, in the given cultures. So the missions of the translator changes in these two theories. And Vermeer’s translator does not have any effect on the target culture other than the only one translation created by her/him, while Even-Zohar’s translator affects the polysystem, i.e. the culture, since “translation actively participates in shaping the center of the polysystem” [Even-Zohar 46]. And even the anti-universalism claim of Nord does not help exceed the boundaries drawn for translation in the functionalist theories let alone affecting the culture, because cultural relativism defined by Nord is a static state, and is only apparent in the texts.
Consequently, polysystem theory breaks new grounds in the translation studies as making it a part of a larger study and not looking it as a field of study independent from the cultural and literary context.
REFERENCES
Even-Zohar, Itamar 1990. "Polysystem Theory". Poetics Today 11:1, 1990, pp. 9-26.
Even-Zohar, Itamar 1990. "The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem." Poetics Today 11:1, pp. 45-51.
Nord, Christiane 1997. Translating as a Purposeful Activity. St Jerome Publishing.
Thank you for this response. I like the comparative approach, however I am a bit concerned that the PS theory cannot really be considered a specific TS theory. EZ takes the whole culture into account and what he utters would be valid for other systems, not just translation. In the meantime you write "polysystem theory puts translator in a position that s/he is the expert of the whole polysystem." I could not quite follow how you arrived at this conclusion. EZ does bring in the translator (or similar cultural enterpreneurs) but at a later stage, which was a major ground of criticism.
YanıtlaSil