system theories3

For Toury (1995: 13)' translations first and foremost occupy a position in
the social and literary systems of the target culture, and this position determines
the translation strategies that are employed. With this approach, he is
continuing and building on the polysystem work of Even-Zohar and on
earlier versions of his own work (Toury 1978, 1980, 1985, 1991). Toury
(1995: 36-9 and 102) proposes the following three-phase methodology for
systematic DTS, incorporating a description of the product and the wider
role of the sociocultural system:
1 Situate the text within the target culture system, looking at its significance
or acceptability.
2 Compare the ST and the TT for shifts, identifying relationships between
'coupled pairs' of ST and TT segments, and attempting generalizations
about the underlying concept of translation.
3 Draw implications for decision-making in future translating.

An important additional step is the possibility of repeating phases (1) and (2)
for other pairs of similar texts in order to widen the corpus and to build up a
descriptive profile of translations according to genre, period, author, etc. In
this way, the norms pertaining to each kind of translation can be identified
with the ultimate aim (as more descriptive studies are performed) of stating
j laws of behaviour for translation in general. The concepts of norms and laws
are further discussed in sections 7.2.1 and 7.2.2 below.
I The second step of Toury's methodology is one of the most controversial
areas. The decisions on which ST and TT segments to examine and what the
1 relationships are betureen them is an apparatus which Toury (1995: 85) states
I should be supplied by translation theory. Yet, as we have seen in chapters 4 l
and 5, linguistic translation theory is far from reaching a consensus as to
what that apparatus should be. Most controversially, in earlier papers (1978:
93, 1985: 32), Toury still holds to the use of a hypothetical intermediate
invariant or tertium comparationis (see page 49 for a discussion of this term) as
an 'Adequate Translation' (AT) against which to gauge translation shifts.
However, at the same time he also admits (1978: 88-9) that, in practice, no
translation is ever fully 'adequate'; for this contradiction, and for considerl
i ing the hypothetical invariant to be a universal given, he has been roundly
I ~ criticized (see, e.g., Gentzler 1993: 131-2, Hermans 1999: 56-7).

summery

Summary
Even-Zohar's polysystem theory moves the study of translations out of a
static linguistic analysis of shifts and obsession with one-to-one equivalence
and into an investigation of the position of translated literature as a
whole in the historical and literary systems of the target culture. Toury
then focuses attention on finding a methodology for descriptive translation
studies. His TT-oriented theoretical framework combines linguistic comparison
of ST and TT and consideration of the cultural framework of the
TT. His aim is to identify the patterns of behaviour in the translation and
thereby to 'reconstruct' the norms at work in the translation process. The
ultimate aim of DTS is to discover probabilistic laws of translation, which
may be used to aid future translators and researchers. The exact form of
ST-TI comparison remains to be determined; scholars of the related
Manipulation School led an interplay of theoretical models and case studies
in the 1980s, among which was Lambert and van Gorp's systematic
'scheme' for describing translations. Chesterman has later developed the
concept of norms

Other models of descriptive translation studies: Lambert and van Gorp and the Manipulation School

Other models of descriptive translation studies: Lambert and
van Gorp and the Manipulation School

With the influence of Even-Zohar's and Toury's early work in polysystem
theory, the International Comparative Literature Association held several
meetings and conferences around the theme of translated literature. Particularly
prominent centres were in Belgium, Israel and the Netherlands, and the

first conferences were held at Leuven (1976), Tel Aviv (1978) and Antwerp
(1980).
The key publication of this group of scholars, known as the Manipulation
School or Group, was the collection of papers entitled The Manipulation of
Literature: Studies in Literary Translation (1985a), edited by Theo Hermans.
In his introduction, 'Translation studies and a new paradigm', Hermans
summarizes the group's view of translated literature:
What they have in common is a view of literature as a complex and dynamic
system; a conviction that there should he a continual interplay between theoretical
models and practical case studies; an approach to literary translation which is
descriptive, target-organized, functional and systemic; and an interest in the norms
and constraints that govern the production and reception of translations. in the
relation between translation and other types of text processing, and in the place
and role of translations both within a given literature and in the interaction
between literatures

Toury and descriptive translation studies

Working with Even-Zohar in Tel Aviv was Gideon Toury. After his early
polysystern work on the sociocultural conditions which determine the translation
of foreign literature into Hebrew, Toury focused on developing a general
theory of translation. In chapter 1, we considered Toury's diagrammatic
representation of Holmes's 'map' of translation studies. In his influential
I Descriptive Translation Studies - And Beyond (Toury 1995: lo), Toury calls
for the development of a properly systematic descriptive branch of the
discipline to replace isolated free-standing studies that are commonplace:

What is missing is not isolated attempts reflecting excellent intuitions and supply-
I
ing tine insights (which many existing studies certainly do), but a systematic branch
proceeding from clear assumptions and armed with a methodology and research

techniques made as explicit as possible and justified within translation studies
itself. Only a branch of this kind can ensure that the findings of individual studies
will be intersubjectively testable and comparable, and the studies themselves
replicable.

Toury goes on to propose just such a methodology for the branch of descriptive
translation studies (DTS).
For Toury (1995: 13)' translations first and foremost occupy a position in
the social and literary systems of the target culture, and this position determines
the translation strategies that are employed. With this approach, he is
continuing and building on the polysystem work of Even-Zohar and on
earlier versions of his own work (Toury 1978, 1980, 1985, 1991). Toury
(1995: 36-9 and 102) proposes the following three-phase methodology for
systematic DTS, incorporating a description of the product and the wider
role of the sociocultural system

System Theories

Key concepts :

-  Even-Zohar's polysystem theory (1970s) sees translated literature as part of the
cultural, literary and historical system of the TL.

- Toury (1 995) puts forward a methodology for descriptive translation studies
(DTS) as a non-prescriptive means of understanding the 'norms' at work in the
translation process and of discovering the general 'laws' of translation.

- In DTS, equivalence is functional-historical and related to the continuum of
'acceptability' and 'adequacy'.

- Other systems approaches include the Manipulation School.




Key texts :
 
  -  Chesterman, A. (1997) Memes of Translation, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John
Benjamins, chapter 3.
 - Even-Zohar, 1. (197812000) 'The position of translated literature within the literary
 - polysystem', in L. Venuti (ed.) (2000). pp. 192-7.
 - Gentzler, E. (1 993) Contemporary Translotion Theories, London and New York: Routledge,
chapter 5.
 - Hermans, T. (ed.) (1 985a) The Monipulotion of Literature, Beckenham: Croom Helm.
 - Hermans, T. (1999) Translation in Systems, Manchester: St Jerome. chapters 6 to 8.
Toury, G. (197812000) 'The nature and role of norms in literary translation', in L. Venuti
(ed.) (2000), pp. 198-2 l I.
Toury, G. (1 995) Descriptive Translation Studies - And Beyond, Amsterdam and Philadelphia,
PA: John Benjamins.

System Theoriesv

System Theories

System Theories

cvc