On “The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem”

Even-Zohar argues that translated works in a particular language “correlate in at least two ways”: (a) “in the way their source texts are selected by the target culture…” (b) “in the way they adopt specific norms, behaviors, and policies (Even-Zohar 2000:192-193). Even-Zohar’s including “at least” in this utterance gives me the opportunity to say that another quality such translations share is that they might be selected by the source culture, as well. As İsmail Kaplan argues, this is the result of a translation policy adopted by the USA. His article on George Orwell’s Animal Farm makes it clear that the dominant power USA is capable of getting a work to be translated exactly when it wants it to be translated, not before. So there may also be times when a particular work is selected to be translated by not the target culture but the source culture. This is a fact supporting that systems are always in relation to one another, and also that those occupying the central position have an effect on those occupying the weak or peripheral position.
Regardless of by whom it is selected, how does translation play a major role in shaping the center of the polysystem? When does translation become one of the means of introducing new repertoire? (ibid 2000:193). There are different but related answers can be given to the question: “When a literature is in the process of being established”, “when a literature is ‘peripheral’ or ‘weak’or both”, or “when there are turning points, crises or literary vacuums in a literature” (ibid 2000:194). When a literature is being established it “cannot immediately create texts in all types known to its producers, it benefits from the experience of other literatures” by translating (ibid 2000:194). This assumption is also valid for literatures whose “resources are limited and whose position within a larger literary hierarchy is generally peripheral” (ibid 2000:194). Translation also plays a major role in the making of the repertoire when “no item in the indigenous stock is taken to be acceptable, as a result of which a literary ‘vacuum’ occurs” (ibid 2000:194). In such a vacuum it is easy for foreign models to infiltrate. In his book The Scandals of Translation Lawrence Venuti he is trying to shake the regime of English. This can be interpreted in the light of Even-Zohar’s ideas that Venuti’s political agenda consists of transforming standard(ized) English getting translation to play a major role in the making of the repertoire of English. In fact, Venuti advises translators to be strategic in two things: (a) selecting which foreign texts to translate (b) developing discourses to translate them. These two steps can be compared to Even-Zohar’s “selecting the source text” and “adopting specific norms” mentioned above. Probably Venuti agrees with Even-Zohar that no polysystem can keep occupying the central position forever, and tries to end the occupation of the central language as soon as possible.
Despite the endeavors of Venuti, translation might be yet to begin playing a major role in the realm of English. But when translation assumes a central position (in the making of the repertoire in any language), “in the process of creating new, primary models, the translator’s main concern is not just to look for ready-made models in his home repertoire into which the source texts would be transferable. Instead [she or] he is prepared in such cases to violate the home conventions,” “translation will be close to the original in terms of adequacy” (Even-Zohar 2000:196). This will not be immediately accepted by the reader of the target text; “of course, from the point of view of the target literature the adopted translational norms might for a while be too foreign and revolutionary, and if the new trend is defeated in the literary struggle, the translation made according to its conceptions and tastes will never really gain ground” (Even-Zohar 2000:196). In Toury’s words, the translator who does not conform with the norms of her/his culture will bear the consequences. Even-Zohar says “periods of great change in the home system are in fact the only ones when a translator is prepared to go far beyond the options offered to him by his established home repertoire and is willing to attempt a different treatment of text making” (Even-Zohar 2000:196-197). Is there a great change in the home system of English, or is Venuti, with his 4.000 selling translation in two years, an exception to this rule? Only time will tell.

Reference:
Even-Zohar, Itamar (2000) “The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem” in The Translation Studies Reader ed. Lawrence Venuti, New York: Routledge.