The Polysystem Theory of Even-Zohar enables us to take a look at the areas that we are dealing with from a multi-dimensional perspective. He states that every field is actually a part of the system in which there are also another systems. This theory is not a specially translation theory but a cultural one. However, within the scope of this theory translation and its place and function in the target system can be analyzed. According to this theory, translation is also a fact of the target system and it is a system on its own and can be assessed according to its correlation with other systems such as literature, politics, culture etc.
The importance of this system for the translation studies is that it broadens the field of the studies and enables the scholars to take into consideration translation and translational process with an interdisciplinary approach. The system is inherently dynamic and subject to change. However, the questions of what is the basis of change? Is it really possible? If yes, how? are left unanswered.
Despite its contribution to the translation studies, the polysystem theory is a complex one with the abstract notions of which the concrete act of translational process is tried to be explained. Probably, best words to define this theory would be interlinkage and interaction. Even from these points it becomes clear that this theory can not be understood on its own without reference to other systems of the polysystem. Even-Zohar defines his theory within binary oppositions. The first one is the center-periphery. It is used to explain the place of translation within the target literary system. That is to say, translation may gain a central position as well as a periphery position. This may change according to several factors. According to Zohar, there are three situations in which translation may gain the central position: a) when the target literature is young, b)when the target literature is weak, c)when there are cultural turns, crisis in the target literature. While a) and c) may be grounded on some points and supported despite their vagueness and complexity, it is almost impossible even to define the option b). It is totally blurred what is meant with the term “weak”; how can one call a literature of a culture as weak? It is a very relative concept which becomes clear when we ask the question weak according to whom or what?
Another binary opposition of Even-Zohar is the canonized and non-canonized differentiation. It is related to the products of the literary system. Some works become canonized as legitimate and highly appreciated works of the target literary system. What is meant here is actually not a single text but common properties of these texts. Whereas, some works are defined as non-canonized which are rejected by the norms of the target system. However, as the former binary opposition mentioned, it is again problematic. The criteria to define this canonized vs. non-canonized strata is not clear. Is it the selling rates which matter, or the respected critics etc? Also, can anything that is non-canonized be on the center or periphery? Does the center-periphery thing matter for the determination of this canonized vs. non-canonized strata?
Also the binary opposition of primary and second types is problematic. The primary types are defined with their innovative nature, while the secondary types are defined with their conservative nature. However, the fact that this innovative text of the present may be a canonized feature of the future makes the situation a little bit complicated. I mean what is defined as innovative refers to the fact that this text is different from the established and common norms of the literary system, from which I may infer that it is against the canonized features of this literary system. However, some works of this type may in time gain the title of canonized strata and from that time on can not be defined as a primary text but a secondary one. As it can be seen obviously, all of these binary oppositions are problematic and they lack the fact that the life is in grays not just in blacks or whites.
Moreover, what is also lacking in this theory is the human agent which is the primary factor of the translational process. He states as if all the processes take place on their own. But in fact it is the human agent who decides what is to be central and what is to be periphery and its his/her attribution. Also probably as a result of the same lacking lacking feature (human agent), the subjective and relative feature of these concepts are ignored, and these all together shake the grounds and credibility of this theory for the translation studies.
Furthermore, if I am to turn back to the issue of center and periphery, Even-Zohar touches upon the issue of power relations in the target system. That is to say, some powerful and dominant classes may effect or determine the places of this binary opposition. As an example to this issue the Republican period in which the movement of Westernization was dominant can be taken into consideration. During this period, works of the Western writers were highly translated and these works came into the center of the Turkish literary system. But these were not the demands of the public but the ones above who act in accordance with an ideology.
In conclusion, the polysystem theory of Even -Zohar contributes a lot to the translation studies with its emphasis on culture, broad perspective based upon the system relations. But some of the points that I have mentioned above open the soundness of the theory into question.
REFERENCES
Even-Zohar, Itamar. 1997. “Polysystem Theory”. In Itamar Even-Zohar, Poetics Today. Durham: Duke University Press. p:1-26
Even-Zohar, Itamar. 2000. “The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary
Polysystem.” In Lawrence Venuti, The Translation Studies Reader. London:
Routledge. p: 192 - 197.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder