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.
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.
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.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder