PolysystemTheory多元系统理论.docx

PolysystemTheory多元系统理论.docx

《PolysystemTheory多元系统理论.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《PolysystemTheory多元系统理论.docx（12页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

PolysystemTheory多元系统理论

PolysystemTheory

1.HistoricalandTheoreticalBackdropofPolysystemTheory

Earlyin1969,IsraelischolarandprofessoratTelAvivUniversityItamarEven-ZoharsuggestedpolysystemtheorywhileworkingonIsraeliliterature.Laterin1978hecollectedhisarticlesandpaperswrittenfrom1970till1977asPapersinHistoricalPoetics,coveringmainideasofpolysystemtheoryindetails.Sincethen,Even-Zoharhasbeendevelopingpolysystemtheory,designedtodealwithdynamicsandheterogeneityinculture.InhiscollectionofworksPolysystemStudiesin1990,hecontinuedtoreformulateandimprovehisideasofpolysystemtheory.Sincepolysystemhypothesiswasproposed,anumberofIsraelischolarsnotablyGideonTouryandLamberthaddiscussed,testeditsapplicabilityanddevelopedthetheory.

Theemergenceofpolysystemtheorywascloselyassociatedwiththeparalleldevelopmentsinitssocialandhistoricalsituationtoacertainextent.Firstofall,polysystemtheorysawtheriseofIsraelitranslationstudies,whichcouldberepresentedbytheboomofTelAvivSchool.Even-ZoharandhiscollegesespeciallyGideonTouryaremainlytitledtheTelAvivSchoolofPoeticsandSemioticssincetheirworkcenteredonTelAvivUniversity,Israel.Inaddition,IsraelfirstpublishedinternationaljournalsTRANSST（TheInternationalNewsletterofTranslationStudies）,andTarget（InternationalJournalofTranslationStudies）respectivelyin1987and1989,furtheringthedevelopmentoftranslationstudies.

Contrarytothecurrentrosyscene,beforethe1970s,IsraelhadwitnesseditstranslationtheoriesandpracticemoveratherslowlyanditsHebrewcultureinaninferiorstatusforthousandsofyears.However,sincethe1970s,IsraelhasstrivedfortherejuvenationofHebrewculturewithitsscholarsendeavoringtobringtheHebrewculturetothesightofpeopleandeventothecenteroftheworld.WhileworkingonIsraeliHebrewliterature,Israelischolarsalsodevelopedtheirowntranslationtheoriesbasedonrelevantresearch.InhisContemporaryTranslationTheories,AmericantranslationtheoristEdwinGentzler（2004:

107）explainedthereasonsfortheboomofIsraelitranslationstudies：

IsraelischolarsinteractedwithGerman,Russian,andlaterAnglo-Americanscholars,andfoundthemselvesatacrossroadnotonlybetweentheSovietUnionandtheWest,butbetweenWesternand“ThirdWorld”countries.Havingfewpeoplespeakingin“minor”languages,Israeli“national”literatureisverymuchinfluencedby“major”literaturesuchasGerman,RussianandAnglo-Americanliteratures.Worsestill,Israel,lackingacanonofliteraryworks,wastotallydependentuponforeignlanguagetextstoprovidebothdiversityanddepth.Hence,thesurvivalofthenationbecamedependentontranslation.

Thankstotheimportanceoftranslation,translationstudieshasthereupongraduallycometoprominenceinIsraeliacademiccircle.ThereisnodoubtthatthedevelopmentofpolysystemtheoryconstitutesanintegralpartoftheriseofIsraelitranslationstudies.

PolysystemtheoryhasitsoriginsincomparativeliteratureandthestructuralistandsemiotictraditionsoftheRussianFormalistsandCzechStructuralists.ThegeneralapproachesadoptedbyEven-ZoharandGideonTouryrelytoagreatextentontheRussianFormalistsinthe1920s---ViktorShklovskij,JurijTynjanov,RomanJakobsonandothers,andtheirsuccessorsinthefollowingdecade,mainlytheCzechStructuralists,amongwhichtheideasofJurijTynjanovplayedavitalroleintheformulationof“polysystem”.Havingintroducedtheconceptof“system”,Tynjanovviewedaliteraryworkaspartofaliterarysystem,whichitselfisdefinedas“asystemoffunctionsoftheliteraryorderwhichareincontinualinterrelationshipwithotherorders”（Munday2001:

109）.Basedonthisconcept,Even-Zohardevelopedanewterm“polysystem”.Apartfromthis,Even-ZoharandGideonTouryborrowedfrommultipleotherideasofTynjanov,suchashishierarchicalstructureofdifferingliterarysystems,hisconceptofdefamiliarizationasthemeasuringdeviceforhistoricalliterarysignificance,andevenhisconceptofliterarymutationandevolution.

UsingtheworkofTynjanovandotherFormalistsashisstartingpoint,Even-Zohartookupthesystematicapproach,aiminginitiallytoresolvecertainproblemsconnectedwithtranslationtheoryandthehistoricalstructureofHebrewliterature.HisapplicationoftheFormalists’ideasintheseareasfinallyresultedintheformulationofpolysystemtheory.

Inconclusion,thefavorablesocio-historicalbackgroundofpolysystemtheoryhasfacilitateditsemergencewhiletheideasofFormalistsandStructuralistshavelaidasolidtheoreticalfoundationforit.

1.2DevelopmentofPolysystemTheoryintheWest

Eversinceitwasformulated,polysystemtheoryhasexperiencedmanyadrasticchange.Anumberofscholarsinvariouscountrieshaveattemptedtoimprove,advance,enlargeandexperimentwiththetheory,promotingitsdevelopment.

2MajorConceptsofPolysystemTheory

Polysystemtheoryisactuallynotintendedfortranslationstudies;instead,itisatheoryonculture.Even-Zohar’sessay“PolysystemTheory”,asthecoreofpolysystemtheory,boaststhreeversions.“PolysystemTheory”wasfirstpublishedin1979andthesecondin1990,bothpertainingtotheliterarystudyandthetranslationstudies.Subsequently,the1997versionindicatesthatpolysystemtheoryhasalreadyevolvedfromaliterarytheorytoanordinaryculturaltheory3.

2.1Even-Zohar’sPolysystem

TheconceptofpolysystemcoinedbyEven-Zoharconstitutesafundamentalideaofpolysystemtheory.Duringhisresearch,headoptedoneofthecurrentlyleadingideasthatsign-governedhumanpatternsofcommunication,alsoknownassemioticphenomena,includingculture,language,literature,andsocietyshouldberegardedassystemsratherthanconglomeratesofdisparateelements.Basedonthisidea,Zohar（1990:

11）defined“polysystem”asfollows:

Polysystemis“…asemioticsystem…aheterogeneous,openstructure.Itis,therefore,veryrarelyauni-systembutis,necessarily,apolysystem-amultiplesystem,asystemofvarioussystemswhichintersectwitheachotherandpartlyoverlap,usingconcurrentlydifferentoptions,yetfunctioningasonestructuredwhole,whosemembersareinterdependent.”

Anypolysystem,asEven-Zohar（1990:

23）argued,isactuallypartofalargerpolysystem,whichinturnconstitutespartofa“maga-polysystem”,i.e.the“totalculture”ofthesaidcommunityorganizingandcontrollingseveralcommunities.Thebordersseparatingadjacentsystemsshiftallthetime,notonlywithinsystems,butbetweenthem.However,withapolysystemonemustnotthinkintermsofonecenterandoneperiphery,sinceseveralsuchpositionsarehypothesized.Thus,insteadofanalyzingsingletextsandclassifyingthem,heexploredmultipletextsandthecomplexintra-andinter-relationstheyenterintoastheyformahighlystratifiedbutunifiedwhole.

Theintra-relationsofthepolysystemtendtobecomplicatedandchangeable.Thevariousstrataandsubdivisionswhichcompriseagivenpolysystemarenotequal,buthierarchizedwithinthepolysystem.Theyareconstantlycompetingwitheachotherforthedominantposition.Inparticular,inthecaseoftheliterarypolysystemthereisacontinuousstateoftensionbetweenthecentreandtheperiphery,inwhichdifferentliterarygenresallviefordominationofthecenter.

Whathighlightsthepolysystemtheoryshouldbetheheterogeneityofculture,which,forinstance,ismanifestedinasituationwhereacommunitypossessestwoormoreliterarysystems,two“literature”withintherealmofliterature.AsEven-Zohar（1990:

13）claimed,thepolysystemhypothesisisdesignedpreciselytodealwithsuchheterogeneity,aimingtoinvestigatetheparticularconditionsunderwhichacertainliteraturemaybeinterferedwithbyanotherliterature,asaresultofwhichpropertiesaretransferredfromonepolysystemtoanother.

BasedonShklovskij’sidearegarding“canonized”and“non-canonized”,Even-Zohar（1990:

15）developedthosetwogenres,whicharedefinedexplicitlyasfollows:

By“canonized”onemeansthoseliterarynormsandworks（i.e.,bothmodelsandtexts）whichareacceptedaslegitimatebythedominantcircleswithinacultureandwhoseconspicuousproductsarepreservedbythecommunitytobecomepartofitshistoricalheritage.“Non-canonized”meansthosenormsandtextswhicharerejectedbythesecirclesasillegitimateandwhoseproductsareoftenforgotteninthelongrunbythecommunity（unlesstheychangetheirstatus）.

Thetensionsbetween“high”or“canonized”genres（e.g.poetry）and“low”or“non-canonized”genres（e.g.popularliterature,popularart,translatedworks,“sub-culture”inwhateversense,etc.）areuniversallypresentineveryhumanculture.The“low”genresontheperipheryconstantlycompeteforthecentralposition,whicheventuallyresultsinliteraryevolution.Whenthereisno“sub-culture”toexertrealpressuresoncanonizedculture,avitalcanonizedcultureisveryunlikelytoexist.Inotherwords,anycanonizedactivityisboundtograduallybecomepetrifiedwithoutthestimulationofastrong“sub-culture”.

Thecenterofthewholepolysystemisidenticalwiththemostprestigiouscanonizedrepertoire.Repertoireisconceivedofhereastheaggregateoflawsandelements（single,boundortotalmodels）thatgoverntheproductionoftexts（Even-Zohar1990:

17）.Intherepertoirethereexiststheprimaryvs.secondaryopposition,thatis,innovativenessvs.conservatism.Inaconservativeestablishedrepertoire（andsystem）,eachindividualproductwillbehighlypredictable.Productsofsuchstatear