Response Paper on "The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary Polsystem" by Itamar Even-Zohar

In his essay on “The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem” Itamar Even-Zohar dwells upon the reciprocal influences between national literary polysystems via translated literature, which he regards as a long-time neglected realm and aims to raise awareness about the possible functions of translated works without treating them in an isolating manner but seeing them as components of the literary systems just like the original works, i.e. source texts. What Even-Zohar tries to draw attention to is the possibility that the influence of translated literature on a particular national literary system is able to carry an exclusive value to the extent that translated works from a foreign literary polysystem might introduce brand new elements that enrich the target literary polysystem as well as help establish translational norms.

Even-Zohar’s argument that translated works correlate and struggle for dominance in order to obtain central position just like the dynamic tension within the original literary works of a certain national literature, as put by Tynjanov, paints a polysystemic world, where there are no more stark distinctions between what Even-Zohar calls as ‘original’ and ‘translated’ products. The translated works correlate either in the way they are selected by the target literature or in the way they adopt specific norms, behaviours and policies as a result of their relations with the other co-systems.

Acknowledging Tynjanov, Ejchenbaum and Sklovskij as the introducers of what he turned into a more comprehensive theory, Even-Zohar underlines the importance of the polysystem analysis in the sense that it makes historical perspective possible in order to provide explanation for the mechanisms of relations and positions of literary genres within various literary systems. It is not an issue of high or low stratas any more but the conditions that prevail during the process of changes that certain types undergo. There, Even-Zohar chooses to make a distinction of primary activities representing principles of innovation and the secondary ones maintaining the established code. His postulation that translated literature can belong to any of the high, low, innovatory, conservatory, simplified or stereotyped genres that owe their positions to constant correlations within a literary polysystem, marks translated literature as an integral system whose active nature might put it in a situation where it plays a big role in literary history of a nation. For Even-Zohar, translated literature can occupy such a central position when a polsystem such as a ‘young’ literature is on the verge of being established, when a literature is peripheral or weak, or both and when there are turning points resulting in vacuums in literature.

In the instances when translated literature constitutes a secondary or peripheral position within the polysystem, Even-Zohar likens this situation to that of “epigonic” writing, which bears no influence and has to abide by the norms already established rather than set out norms on its own. Moreover, translated literature can be both in that while one part is primary, the other may remain secondary. However, Even-Zohar points out that, according to his and other scholars’ research, the latter tends to be the normal position assumed by translated literature.

The primary or secondary position adopted by translated literature in a literary polysystem also determines the translational strategies employed by the translator. If translated literature maintains a secondary position, the translator will tend to use ready-made target culture norms at the risk of producing “non-adequate” translations. However, if it assumes a primary position, then the translator will not feel obliged to follow the translational norms and policies of the target culture but break the home conventions. Even-Zohar claims that the end product will be closer to the original in terms of “adequacy”, keeping the dominant textual relations of the source text as they are, which I think, echoes Lawrence Venuti’s foreignization strategy. In that sense, Venuti's argument for foreignizing a text as a means of fighting against the global hegemony of languages such as English also aims to show how translated literature can be influential in a broader cultural perspective. I also think that Even-Zohar’s notion of “adequacy” is also in line with Gideon Toury’s, who states that the observation of source-text norms determines a translated text’s “adequacy”. In that sense, I believe Even-Zohar’s approach is closer to being descriptive with its emphasis on cultural interdependency in literary world as well as its treatment of translated literature as a powerful polsystemic entity, which is capable of influencing or even modeling either central or peripheral literary works of any given culture.

Response Paper on “Skopos and Commission in Translational Action” by Hans J Vermeer
“Function plus Loyalty” by Christiane Nord

Skopos Theory & Function plus Loyalty

The Skopos Theory propounded by Hans J Vermeer, foregrounds the translator as an “expert”, rather than one who only serves as a mediator between the source and the target text, while also denoting him/her as a decision maker throughout the translation process. Vermeer re-directs the attention from the source text to the target text, i.e. the translatum, which is determined by the purpose of a text, i.e. the skopos. The skopos theory emphasizes the pragmatic aspects of translation and is far from being restrictive in terms of the liberties it offers to the translator during the translation process contrary to the notion that a commissioner who acts as the main determinative for a “skopos” might look intimidating. Vermeer trusts the “competency” of the translator and expects “the commisioner”, who might as well be the translator himself, to do so too, and adjust the skopos for the target culture if necessary.

Vermeer regards translation as an offer of information which may diverge from the source text considerably, mainly in terms of their respective goals and the reconstruction of the source text elements. For Vermeer, an “intertextual coherence” between the two texts is essential to some degree, though determined by various kinds of “skopos” . To what degree this “intertextual coherence” can be preserved is left ambigious in Vermeer’s attempts to produce legitimate answers for the arguments against his theory. Purposefully or not, though it looks more like the former, his postulate that a translation realizes something “different”, not something “more” or “less” presents a dilemma since determining one possible goal and adherence to it, though it might be for the sake of preserving the breadth of interpretation of the source text, will inevitably result in “losses” or “gains” , in Anton Popovic’s terms, even in situations where the translator sets fidelity to the source-text as his/her primary goal.

The fact that Vermeer regards “fidelity” to the source text as one of the many possible and legitimate purposes but at the same time advocates the “intertextual coherence” no matter what skopos might be assigned to the translation task at hand, puts the skopos theory in an arbitrary realm whereby the legitimacy of the end-product is questioned and brought upon by Christiane Nord from the perspective of the translator’s “moral responsibility”. The main departure point for her objection against Vermeer’s notion of an adjustible fidelity, in other words a fidelity whose existence (or its lack thereof) depending on a certain skopos, consists of her concerns over keeping the purpose in line with communicating the intentions of the original author effectively, which she further develops into meeting the expectations of the target culture as well.

The term Nord introduces as “loyalty”, while dismissing the terms “fidelity” or “faithfulness” on the basis that they only offer a source and target text relationship, echos the “dynamic equivalence” theory that Nida proposes as rendering the mental intention of the author rather than translating the words, thus creating the same impact on the target reader as the source text does on its own reader. Her “function plus loyalty” approach, which she claims to show up Skopostheorie as an anti-universalist model since loyalty forces the translator to be aware of the culture–specific concepts of translation and respect the sender’s own communicative intentions, actually does not seem to clash with Vermeer’s skopos. On the contrary, Skopos denotes the translator as an expert in intercultural action who has the freedom to accept a commission or not, under what circumstances and whether it needs to be modified. In that sense, the example given by Nord as regards with the book called En Cuba, whose German translator produced a text which is nowhere near its original author’s intentions, could as well be a part of Vermeer’s article. The only difference is that where Vermeer does not prefer to denote a separate term, Nord fills the vacancy with her own. In my opinion, Nord’s attempt to clear away any traces of promiscuity in skopos theory through her “function plus loyalty” approach results in a clear-cut definition of the translator, who observes the intentions of the initiator, the target receiver and the author, thus painting an “ideal” translator model.

I think it would be relevant to reach a conclusion via Nord’s other argument concerning the possibility of cases where the loyalty may require the adaptation of certain translation units even against the author’s wishes. Her second example of the German translator’s decision of protecting a well-respected scholar’s reputation on foreign grounds raises the question of “Loyalty to who?”. While “Function plus Loyalty” approach expects a lot from the translator, it also presents him/her with a “moral responsibility”, which, ironically, puts the translator in a position where he/she will be the “scapegoat” no matter which direction he/she follows.

NATURALNESS OF TRANSLATION?

In his article “Principles of Correspondence”, Eugene Nida discusses translation from the perspective of equivalence, formal and dynamic. While formal equivalence means the closest possible match of form and content between source-text and target-text, dynamic equivalence stands for the closest natural equivalent to the source-language message, thus the equivalence of effect on reader of target-text.

Dynamic equivalence translation is based primarily on receptive response, which makes it a communicative oriented approach. Then, the aim of translation is to maintain a relationship of equivalence between the source and the target texts (i.e., both texts communicate the same message) and this brings about various constraints on the translator, such as adherence to the rules of grammar, literary traditions and idioms of the source language. The impact of the original should be re-established in such a style that it must look natural in the receptor language. For Nida, a natural translation requires conformance to the receptor language and culture in which the quality of linguistic appropriateness is only noticeable when it is absent, resulting in a translation that does not carry any trace of foreign. This brings in the mind Lawrence Venuti’s idea of transparency effect as an outcome of the fluent discourse. Venuti holds that the absence of linguistic or stylistic peculiarities makes a translated text so transparent as to give the reader illusory impression that it is the “original”. However, Nida postulates the impossibility of both creating such an illusory effect on the lexical level and eliminating the traces of foreign setting, especially when terms that identify cultural specialties come into view. He also asserts that it’s the same way with basic themes and accounts that are immune to naturalization process where two different cultures are concerned. This reminds me of a short story called “Shakespeare in the Bush” in which the anthropologist Laura Bohannan talks of her attempts at telling the story of Hamlet to an African tribe. Since they do not believe in the survival after death of any individuating part of the personality, the members of the tribe give her a hard time in trying to find a semantic equivalence of the word “ghost” in their culture to no avail. Even her oral “footnotes” are not enough to explain this phenomenon, which causes the question of translatability arise once again here. Nida’s answer to this question seems to be the employment of footnotes in such situations though, in my opinion, which might be at the expense of quality of “naturalness” of expression.

Another key to a truly natural translation for Nida is “what it avoids than what it actually states”. If the translator avoids severe anomalies, then the reader feels at home with the context. The exclusion of crude vulgarities, slang, onomatopoeic expressions and anachronisms where they would totally look out of context is what Nida suggests for a natural work. In this sense, I think, Anton Popovic’s idea of presence and absence of shifts in several layers of translation is relevant. As he puts it, “All that appears as new with respect to the original, or fails to appear where it might have been expected may be interpreted as a shift.” For Popovic, the shifts of the basic semantic units of the source text in another linguistic structure moves along the axis of faithfulness / freedom. In that respect, the translator sets out to be “faithful” but is also comparatively free in his treatment of details to achieve the ideal, the faithful reproduction, which forces him to look for corresponding expressions in the recipient language that concerns the resulting impression on reader’s perception. Anton Popovic calls this as “functional faithfulness” which I think is quite similar to Nida’s “dynamic equivalence” theory. In other words, the comparison of the relative responses of both the source-text audience and the target text receptors determines the validity of the translation in terms of both form and content. However, how this evaluation will be carried out is of question since determining the real effects on the target-text audience is not always easy. Therefore, one solution can be the equivalence of the intended message by the original author and the translator, which provides the basis for the principle of “similar response”.

Another factor that enhances the naturalness of translation, for Nida, is the level of experience and the capacity for decoding on the target audience’s part. In that aspect, although this idea somewhat bears resemblance to Schleiermacher’s view of an educated reader, it’s obvious that the reason behind it is not of romantic purposes like creating an “ideal” reader platform but of appropriateness of the message, such as the texts intended for audience’s belonging to scientific world or the ones for more general audiences. This brings us to the conclusion that the level of appropriateness may vary in accordance with not only the prospective readers’ capacity and ability of decoding but also their potential interest.