左哈尔的Polysystem_Theory(多元系统理论)(1)

合集下载

论多元系统理论

论“多元系统论”一伊塔玛·埃文-佐哈尔的“多元系统论”的理论观点多元系统论（Polysystem Theory）是以色列学者伊塔玛·埃文-佐哈尔（Itamar Even-Zohar）于20世纪70年代提出的一种理论。

佐哈尔的多元系统理论是基于俄国形式主义和捷克结构主义而提出的一种普通文化理论。

佐哈尔于1978年将他在1970年至1977年间发表的一系列论文结成论文集，以《历史诗学论文集》（Papers in Historical Poetics）为名出版，首次提出了“多元系统”（Polysystem）这一术语。

佐哈尔认为不应把翻译活动视作个别的文化现象，而应联系到更大的文化层次上加以探讨。

多元系统论实现了对传统语言学和文学界限的突破，并结合翻译研究派的理论，对影响翻译过程的诸多因素及翻译的多元准则等进行了深入研究和有益探讨。

佐哈尔的多元系统论把各种社会符号现象，具体地说是各种由符号支配的人类交际形式，如语言、文学、经济、政治、意识形态等，视作一个系统。

而且，这个系统也不是单一的系统，而是一个由不同成分组成的、开放的结构，也即是一个由若干个不同的系统组成的多元系统。

在这个多元系统里，各个系统“互相交叉，部分重叠，在同一时间内各有不同的项目可供选择，却又互相依存，并作为一个有组织的整体而运作。

”[1]但是，在这个整体里各个系统的地位并不平等，它们有的处于中心，有的处于边缘。

与此同时，它们的地位并不是一成不变的，它们之间存在着永无休止的斗争：处于中心的系统有可能被驱逐到边缘，而处于边缘的系统也有可能攻占中心位置。

任何多元系统都是一个较大的整体文化的组成部分，必然与整体文化以及整体内的其他多元系统相互关联，同时它又可能与其他文化中的对应系统共同组成一个大多元系统。

因此，任何一个多元系统内发生的变化都不能孤立地看待，而必须与整体文化，甚至世界文化这一人类社会中最大的多元系统中的变化因素联系起来研究。

多元系统论分析《爱丽丝漫游奇境记》译本

多元系统论分析《爱丽丝漫游奇境记》译本摘要：以色列学者伊塔马·埃文-佐哈尔于1979 年提出了多元系统理论(polysystem theory)。

本文将重点阐述多元系统理论(polysystem theory)的产生，发展，及其实践意义，并通过对alice’s adventures in wonderland三个版本文化背景翻译策略的介绍对该理论进行更明确的分析。

关键词：多元系统论；翻译策略；文化背景中图分类号：h059 文献标识码：a 文章编号：1009-0118（2011）-08-0-02《爱丽丝漫游奇境记》的作者是英国作家刘易斯·卡洛尔(1832-1898)。

该书于1865年出版，不仅深得英国女皇的青睐，而且在全世界有80多种语言的译本，仅次于圣经和莎士比亚剧本。

书中充满了智慧，不仅有大量的双关语，俏皮话及打油诗等文字游戏，甚至小说里角色的名称都富有隐藏的意义．爱丽丝来到中国已超过八十年，译本也不下十几种，而本文将选取有代表性的三个译本。

1922年作为“清华四导师”之一的赵元任翻译的第一个译本。

1981年陈复庵所翻译的第二个完整版本也是双语版本。

以及2002年中央编译出版社为纪念卡洛尔诞辰170周年，而邀请知名翻译专家王永年先生翻译的全新版本。

一、多元系统论以色列著名学者伊塔马·埃文-佐哈尔（itamareven-zohar）于20世纪70年代提出了多元系统理论（polysystem theory），它常常用于指导文学和翻译研究。

多元系统被看作是一个庞杂的，有阶级性的，由有多体系聚集而成的多元体系，在这个多元体系中，有“高级的”、“中心的”、文学形式，例如诗歌；也有所谓“低级的”、“边缘的”、文学形式例如通俗文学。

然而，在这个多元体系中，各个单元体系彼此竞争，演变。

而正是由于这种演变，翻译文学的地位也不是固定不变的。

佐哈尔在阐述多元系统理论时，着重讨论了翻译作为多元系统中的一个系统在文学多元系统里所占的位置。

多元系统理论简述

理论争鸣Theory of schools of thought contend■ 林娟多元系统理论简述摘要：埃文-佐哈尔运用多元系统理论，把翻译文学视作一国文学多元系统中的子系统，探究翻译文学在文学多元系统的位置，促进了翻译描述性研究的发展以及翻译研究的文化转向。

本文对多元系统理论进行简述，目的是为翻译研究提供一点借鉴。

关键词：多元系统论；翻译文学；埃文-佐哈尔；翻译研究引言：20世纪70年代，埃文-佐哈尔（Itmar Even-Zohar）在对希伯来作品的研究基础之上，提出了多元系统理论，主要用来说明文学系统（systems）的行为和演变。

这一理论一经提出，就在西方学术界引起了强烈的反响，使翻译跳出了文本的限制，视线转向了文化语境、社会条件和政治经济等更加宽泛的领域。

本文对多元系统理论进行简述，希望能对国内的这方面的研究提供参考和借鉴。

1多元系统论理论概述多元系统理论是对早期翻译研究派理论的延伸和发展，借鉴了俄国形式主义的理论框架和研究方法，引入了“多元系统（polysystem）”这一概念，对影响翻译过程的诸多因素和翻译的多元准则进行研究和探讨（廖七一 2002：59）。

多元系统是指由多个系统组成的聚合物（或大系统），多元系统内的各元素之间关系并不平等，而是相互争夺在多元系统中的中心地位，这种相互竞争使得整个多元系统处于不断进化的动态过程（Baker 1998: 179）。

多元系统有多个层级，即某个多元系统既是由多个不同元素（或子系统）组成的系统，又是组成另一更大范围、更宏观视野下多元系统（大多元系统，mega-/macro-polysystem）的一个元素。

多元系统理论中的一个核心内容是，某个多元系统由多个阶层的元素（或子系统）组成，各元素在系统中有的出于中心位置，有的处于边缘位置，各元素在不断相互竞争，争夺系统中的中心位置，系统中各元素之间并不是相互孤立，而是互相相互关联、相互重叠、共同作用的关系。

多元系统视角下《暴风雨》汉译模式的对比研究

2023年12月第40卷第6期西南科技大学学报：哲学社会科学版Journal of Southwest University of Science and TechnologyDec. 2023Vol. 40 No. 6多元系统视角下《暴风雨》汉译模式的对比研究葛颂1 马滢2（1. 中国人民大学外国语学院北京 100859； 2. 中央财经大学外国语学院北京 102206）【摘要】埃文-佐哈尔的多元系统翻译观认为翻译文学是文学动态多元系统不可分割的部分，翻译文学与特定文学存在此起彼伏的关系。

玄幻主义戏剧《暴风雨》是英国文艺复兴巨匠莎士比亚晚期表达人文主义精神的巅峰之作，民国时期以来多位中国翻译家对其进行了汉译实践。

本文研究朱生豪与方平《暴风雨》汉译本，对比两译本在多元系统视角下的翻译模式与策略选择的异同，并结合历史、文化与社会状况探求原因。

研究发现，翻译文学在译入语文学中心位置时，朱生豪采取顺应《暴风雨》原剧本“文化意象”与“语言表达形式”的翻译模式，“以散文译莎”，创造性地发挥译者的主体性；相比之下，新中国成立后翻译文学退居边缘位置，方平运用更加符合中国本土文学的策略处理《暴风雨》中的“文化意象”与“表达方式”，“以诗译莎”，也保留了原作文体特色。

动态的多元系统很大程度上体现出译者对翻译模式的倾向与选择，同时，译者并不完全受多元系统制约，而是在具体社会背景中创造性地进行翻译实践。

多元系统框架中对不同版本译著的阐释，有助于深刻挖掘经典译文的多维度时代内涵。

【关键词】多元系统；《暴风雨》汉译本；翻译模式【中图分类号】H315.9 【文献标识码】A 【文章编号】1672-4860（2023）06-0050-09收稿日期：2023-01-26 修返日期：2023-04-29作者简介：葛颂（1985-），男，汉族，甘肃天水人，博士在读。

研究方向：典籍英译、翻译理论与实践。

马滢（1999-），女，汉族，山东济南人，硕士在读。

经典：左哈尔的Polysystem-Theory(多元系统理论)

Norwegian, Danish, Italian, Russian, German, Icelandic, and a few other
languages. 2
System Polysystem
➢System: This concept is introduced by Tynjanov. Elements, Tynjanov argued, do not exist in
6
Polysytem with translation theories
“It is necessary to include translated literature in the polysystem. This is rarely done, but no observer of the history of any literature can avoid recognizing as an important fact the impact of translations and their role in the synchrony and diachrony of a certain literature”.
4
Polysystem
Literary System
Extraliterary System
Canonized form Non-canonized form
esteemed discourses and genres:
Poetry
…
‘less worthy’ genres: Children’s literature Popular fiction …
interrelated deciding
Specific t function

伊塔玛埃文佐哈尔

多元系统(polysystem)由“poly”与“system”合成。它是以色列学者伊塔玛·埃文－佐哈尔(Itama EvenZohar)20世纪70年代初提出的一个概念。佐哈尔吸取俄国形式主义、结构主义、一般系统理论与文化符号学的积极因素，将翻译文学视为文学多元系统中的子系统，客观描述翻译文学在主体文化中的接受与影响，以期有效揭示制约文学翻译的规范与规律。
伊塔玛埃文佐哈尔 Itama Even-Zohar
————陈茹
＂多元系统论＂是一套常用于文学和翻译研究的理论。其提出者埃文·佐哈尔指出,翻译文学是文学多元系统中不可分割的一部分,在译学理论界曾引起极大反响。这套理论的特别贡献,在于把翻译研究放在整个历史的角度,以宏观、动态的眼光,为翻译研究的发展提出了一套新的研究框架和模式。对于指导我国翻译研究与实践,还是有着重要的指导意义的。
实际上，维持系统运作的挑战、竞争和威 Nhomakorabea就是矛盾和对立。佐哈尔列举了3对相互对立的概念：
：第一，经典化与非经典化(canonized and noncanonized)产品或模式（作品、形式、文类、习俗及规范）的对立，大致与“高雅”与“俚俗” 文学相当。（参见Hermans,1999:107）所谓经典化，即文化中主流阶层认可和接受的“合法”(legitimate)文学，而非经典化则意味着主流阶层排斥或不认可的“不合法”(illegitimate)文学。但是，文化中的主流阶层是一个历史的、动态的规定，常常会随时间的推移而变化。经典性又有静态与动态之分。静态经典是指“一个文本被接受为制成品并且被加插进文学（文化）希望保存的认可文本群中”；动态经典则指“一个文学模式得以进入系统的形式库，从而被确立为该系统的一个能产(productive)的原则”。就系统的演进而言，动态经典“才是最关键的”，是“经典库的真正制造者”。

多元系统理论对翻译的指导

多元系统理论对翻译的指导随着翻译实践的发展，人们对翻译的认识也逐渐深化。

普遍认为，翻译是一种跨文化的交际活动。

在翻译活动中，作为源语作者与译入语读者之间沟通媒介的译者，必须考虑到诸多因素，其中之一就是文化因素。

下面我们就来探讨下多元系统理论是怎样阐释文化因素在翻译过程中发挥作用的。

一、多元系统理论多元系统理论（Polysystem Theory）是翻译研究文化学派的一个重要理论，由以色列当代著名文学家及翻译理论家埃文-佐哈尔(Even-Zohar)早在20世纪70年代初提出。

该学派主要从文化层面对翻译进行研究，认为文化因素对翻译有着非常重要的作用。

1978年，埃文-佐哈尔出版了《历史诗学论文集》(Papers in Historical Poetics)，在本书中首次提出了“多元系统”(polysystem)这一术语。

根据该理论，各种社会符号现象，也就是由符号主导人类交际形式，诸如文化，语言、文学，社会等，须视为系统而非又各不相干的元素组成的混合体，才能较充分地理解和研究。

各系统之间相互联系，相互依赖，形成了一个大的“多元”系统。

要全面并充分的理解各个系统，就必须将其置于多元系统的整体性和关联性中来研究。

后来佐哈尔把这一理论运用于文学翻译研究中。

多元系统理论认为，文学本身是一个多元系统。

作为整个文化和社会系统的次系统，文学系统是各种文学子系统的集合。

翻译文学是文学多元系统的一个子系统，是其不可分割的一部分。

要研究翻译文学，就必须将其置于大的文学系统中来研究。

二、多元系统理论指导下翻译策略的选择多元系统理论认为翻译作品时要考虑其文化因素。

翻译是一个跨文化的交际活动，其过程涉及最少两个文化系统，即源语文化系统和译入语文化系统。

译者在翻译过程中，必然要考虑源语文化和译入语文化在世界多元文化系统中所处的地位，从而采用不同的翻译策略。

根据多元系统理论，翻译文学对译入语文化的作用取决于其在译入语文化中所占的地位。

从多元系统理论角度看鲁迅的翻译策略

从多元系统理论角度看鲁迅的翻译策略摘要：鲁迅是中国近代翻译史上一位重要的人物，他极力主张的异化翻译策略对中国的翻译和文化的发展产生了深远的影响。

佐哈尔的多元系统理论为鲁迅的翻译策略提供了新视角。

从多元系统论的角度审视鲁迅的翻译策略，我们可以更清晰和深刻地理解鲁迅坚持主张直译的历史、文化背景。

关键词：多元系统理论鲁迅翻译策略一、多元系统理论简述多元系统理论(Polysystemtheory)是以色列学者伊塔马·埃文-佐哈尔(ItamarEven-Zohar)于20世纪70年代提出来的一种文学理论。

该理论认为各种由符号支配的人类交际形式，如语言、文学、社会、经济、意识形态等，形成一个开放的、动态的大系统，即一个网络系统。

文学本身是一个多元系统，可以划分为经典文学、非经典文学；成人文学、儿童文学；原创文学、翻译文学等一系列互相对立的系统。

这些系统相互交叉、相互依存，但它们的地位并不平等，有的处于中心，有的处于边缘，而且这些系统处于相互对立和不断的斗争中。

在不断的斗争中，中心和边缘的位置可以转化。

在一定的条件下，处于中心地位的系统会向边缘移动，而处于边缘地位的系统则有可能占据大系统中的中心地位。

翻译文学在文学多元系统中的位置既可以是主要的，又可以是次要的，视当时该文化里其它文学系统的状态而定。

通常翻译文学在文学系统中处于边缘位置，但在某些特定条件下，它的地位也可以发生转化。

佐哈尔提出，在以下阶段或条件下，翻译文学可以占据文学多元系统的中心位置：（1）当文学多元系统还没有完全确立，即文学还处于发展初期。

(2)当文学多元系统在大多元系统中处于边缘或弱势时。

(3)当文学多元系统出现转折、危机或真空时。

根据佐哈尔的多元系统理论，当翻译文学处于文学多元系统的边缘位置时，译者的主要工作就是为外国的文本，找来最佳的现成二级模式，其结果是译本的“充分性”不足，“可接受性”增大；反之，当翻译文学在译入语文学多元系统中占据中心位置时，翻译活动是参与创造移入语文学中的一级模式，这时，译者的主要任务就不是在本国的文学形式中寻找现成的模式，把原文套进来，而是译者不顾一切地打破本国的传统规范。

多元系统理论教程文件

多元系统理论多元系统理论：翻译研究领域的拓展谢天振多元系统理论（Polysystem theory）是以色列学者埃文－佐哈尔早在二十世纪七十年代初就已经提出的一种理论。

1978年，埃文－佐哈尔把他在1970年至1977年间发表的一系列论文结成论文集，以《历史诗学论文集》（Papers in Historical Poetics）名出版，首次提出了“多元系统”（polysystem）这一术语，意指某一特定文化里的各种文学系统的聚合，从诗这样“高级的”、或者说“经典的”形式（如具有革新意义的诗），到“低级的”、或者说“非经典的”形式（如儿童文学、通俗小说等）。

埃文－佐哈尔的多元系统理论虽然在西方学术界早就引起了相当热烈的反响，但由于上世纪七十年代中国大陆特殊的国情，所以直至八十年代末国内学术界对它仍知之甚微。

直至九十年代初，随着我国改革开放政策的实施以及走出国门进行国际学术交流的学者越来越多，才开始有人接触到了多元系统理论。

但是真正把它介绍到国内学术界来，那也已经是九十年代末的事了。

比起国内学术界，我国香港台湾的学者与多元系统理论的接触显然要比大陆学者早，他们在1994年即已直接聆听了埃文－佐哈尔的报告，但是令人遗憾的是，埃氏的多元系统理论在台港也同样在很长一段时间内“没有引起很大的廻响”。

1在台港，埃氏的多元系统理论也要到上世纪九十年代末、本世纪初才真正引起人们的关注――2001年第3期《中外文学》推出的“多元系统研究专辑”也许可视作这方面的一个标志。

埃氏的多元系统理论之所以迟迟未能在华人文化圈内产生较为热烈的反响，一方面固然是因为埃氏的多元系统理论本身比较艰涩，牵涉的学科又过于庞杂，如语言、文学、经济、政治等，无不涉及；另一方面，更因为我国翻译界对翻译的研究和关注较多地仍旧停留在文本以内，而对翻译从文化层面上进行外部研究的意识尚未确立，这使得他们即使接触到了埃氏的多元系统理论，也一时会觉得它似乎与他们心目中的翻译研究相距甚远，甚至没有关系。

Polysystem_Theory多元系统理论

Polysystem Theory1. Historical and Theoretical Backdrop of Polysystem TheoryEarly in 1969, Israeli scholar and professor at Tel Aviv University Itamar Even-Zohar suggested polysystem theory while working on Israeli literature. Later in 1978 he collected his articles and papers written from 1970 till 1977 as Papers in Historical Poetics, covering main ideas of polysystem theory in details. Since then, Even-Zohar has been developing polysystem theory, designed to deal with dynamics and heterogeneity in culture. In his collection of works Polysystem Studies in 1990, he continued to reformulate and improve his ideas of polysystem theory. Since polysystem hypothesis was proposed, a number of Israeli scholars notably Gideon Toury and Lambert had discussed, tested its applicability and developed the theory.The emergence of polysystem theory was closely associated with the parallel developments in its social and historical situation to a certain extent. First of all, polysystem theory saw the rise of Israeli translation studies, which could be represented by the boom of Tel Aviv School. Even-Zohar and his colleges especially Gideon Toury are mainly titled the Tel Aviv School of Poetics and Semiotics since their work centered on Tel Aviv University, Israel. In addition, Israel first published international journals TRANSST (The International Newsletter of Translation Studies), and Target (International Journal of Translation Studies) respectively in 1987 and 1989, furthering the development of translation studies.Contrary to the current rosy scene, before the 1970s, Israel had witnessed its translation theories and practice move rather slowly and its Hebrew culture in an inferior status for thousands of years. However, since the 1970s, Israel has strived for the rejuvenation of Hebrew culture with its scholars endeavoring to bring the Hebrew culture to the sight of people and even to the center of the world. While working on Israeli Hebrew literature, Israeli scholars also developed their own translation theories based on relevant research. In his Contemporary Translation Theories, American translation theorist Edwin Gentzler (2004:107)explained thereasons for the boom of Israeli translation studies：Israeli scholars interacted with German, Russian, and later Anglo-American scholars, and found themselves at a crossroad not only between the Soviet Union and the West, but between Western and “Third World ” countries. Having few people speaking in “minor” languages, Israeli “national” literature is very much influenced by “major” literature such as German, Russian and Anglo-American literatures. Worse still, Israel, lacking a canon of literary works, was totally dependent upon foreign language texts to provide both diversity and depth. Hence, the survival of the nation became dependent on translation.Thanks to the importance of translation, translation studies has thereupon gradually come to prominence in Israeli academic circle. There is no doubt that the development of polysystem theory constitutes an integral part of the rise of Israeli translation studies.Polysystem theory has its origins in comparative literature and the structuralist and semiotic traditions of the Russian Formalists and Czech Structuralists. The general approaches adopted by Even-Zohar and Gideon Toury rely to a great extent on the Russian Formalists in the 1920s---Viktor Shklovskij, Jurij Tynjanov, Roman Jakobson and others, and their successors in the following decade, mainly the Czech Structuralists, among which the ideas of Jurij Tynjanov played a vital role in the formulation of “polysystem”. Having introduced the concept of “system”, Tynjanov viewed a literary work as part of a literary system, which itself is defined as “a system of functions of the literary order which are in continual interrelationship with other orders” (Munday 2001:109). Based on this concept, Even-Zohar developed a new term “polysystem”. Apart from this, Even-Zohar and Gideon Toury borrowed from multiple other ideas of Tynjanov, such as his hierarchical structure of differing literary systems, his concept of defamiliarization as the measuring device for historical literary significance, and even his concept of literary mutation and evolution.Using the work of Tynjanov and other Formalists as his starting point, Even-Zohar took up the systematic approach, aiming initially to resolve certain problemsconnected with translation theory and the historical structure of Hebrew literature. His application of the Formalists’ ideas in these areas finally resulted in the formulation of polysystem theory.In conclusion, the favorable socio-historical background of polysystem theory has facilitated its emergence while the ideas of Formalists and Structuralists have laid a solid theoretical foundation for it.1.2 Development of Polysystem Theory in the WestEver since it was formulated, polysystem theory has experienced many a drastic change. A number of scholars in various countries have attempted to improve, advance, enlarge and experiment with the theory, promoting its development.2 Major Concepts of Polysystem TheoryPolysystem theory is actually not intended for translation studies; instead, it is a theory on culture. Even-Zohar’s essay “Polysystem Theory”, as the core of polysystem theory, boasts three versions. “Polysystem Theory”was first published in 1979 and the second in 1990, both pertaining to the literary study and the translation studies. Subsequently, the 1997 version indicates that polysystem theory has already evolved from a literary theory to an ordinary cultural theory3.2.1 Even-Zohar’ s PolysystemThe concept of polysystem coined by Even-Zohar constitutes a fundamental idea of polysystem theory. During his research, he adopted one of the currently leading ideas that sign-governed human patterns of communication, also known as semiotic phenomena, including culture, language, literature, and society should be regarded as systems rather than conglomerates of disparate elements. Based on this idea, Zohar (1990:11) defined “polysystem” as follows:Polysystem is “…a semiotic system…a heterogeneous, open structure.It is, therefore, very rarely a uni-system but is, necessarily, apolysystem-a multiple system, a system of various systems which intersectwith each other and partly overlap, using concurrently different options,yet functioning as one structured whole, whose members areinterdependent.”Any polysystem, as Even-Zohar(1990:23) argued, is actually part of a larger polysystem, which in turn constitutes part of a “maga-polysystem”, i.e. the “total culture” of the said community organizing and controlling several communities. The borders separating adjacent systems shift all the time, not only within systems, but between them. However, with a polysystem one must not think in terms of one center and one periphery, since several such positions are hypothesized. Thus, instead of analyzing single texts and classifying them, he explored multiple texts and the complex intra- and inter-relations they enter into as they form a highly stratified but unified whole.The intra-relations of the polysystem tend to be complicated and changeable. The various strata and subdivisions which comprise a given polysystem are not equal, but hierarchized within the polysystem. They are constantly competing with each other for the dominant position. In particular, in the case of the literary polysystem there is a continuous state of tension between the centre and the periphery, in which different literary genres all vie for domination of the center.What highlights the polysystem theory should be the heterogeneity of culture, which, for instance, is manifested in a situation where a community possesses two or more literary systems, two “literature” within the realm of literature. As Even-Zohar(1990:13) claimed, the polysystem hypothesis is designed precisely to deal with such heterogeneity, aiming to investigate the particular conditions under which a certain literature may be interfered with by another literature, as a result of which properties are transferred from one polysystem to another.Based on Shklovskij’s idea regarding “canonized” and “non-canonized”, Even-Zohar(1990:15) developed those two genres, which are defined explicitly as follows:By “canonized” one means those literary norms and works (i.e., both models and texts) which are accepted as legitimate by the dominant circleswithin a culture and whose conspicuous products are preserved by thecommunity to become part of its historical heritage. “Non-canonized”means those norms and texts which are rejected by these circles asillegitimate and whose products are often forgotten in the long run bythe community (unless they change their status).The tensions between “high” or “canonized” genres (e.g. poetry) and “low”or “non-canonized” genres (e.g. popular literature, popular art, translated works, “sub-culture” in whatever sense, etc.) are universally present in every human culture. The “low” genres on the periphery constantly compete for the central position, which eventually results in literary evolution. When there is no “sub-culture” to exert real pressures on canonized culture, a vital canonized culture is very unlikely to exist. In other words, any canonized activity is bound to gradually become petrified without the stimulation of a strong “sub-culture”.The center of the whole polysystem is identical with the most prestigious canonized repertoire. Repertoire is conceived of here as the aggregate of laws and elements (single, bound or total models) that govern the production of texts (Even-Zohar 1990: 17). In the repertoire there exists the primary vs. secondary opposition, that is, innovativeness vs. conservatism. In a conservative established repertoire (and system), each individual product will be highly predictable. Products of such state are labeled as “secondary”. Within an innovative repertoire (and system) which reduces the possibility of each product being predictable by the introduction of new elements, it offers models of the “primary” type. The struggle between the primary and secondary options is decisive for the system’s evolution. When a primary form maintains a central position in the literary polysystem, it brings about innovatory forces. But once it achieves the canonized status for some time, it tends to remain conservative, and becomes the secondary form because there are newer models that are pushing it to the peripheral position. However, stability or instability of repertoire do not reflect, or necessarily generate, stability or instability of the system. From the functional point of view, a system incapable of maintaining itself over a period of time is often on the verge of collapse.As for the principle of polysystem theory, Even-Zohar (1990:13) stressed that the polysystem hypothesis involves a rejection of value judgments as criteria for an a priori selection of the objects of study. Meanwhile, he explained that excludingthe selection of objects to be studied according to taste does not mean that either particular “values” or evaluation in general are excluded by any section of the sciences of man as active factors to be accounted for.To sum up, polysystem is heterogeneous and dynamic, which gives explanation to how the polysystem processes. Polysystem theory has been a challenge to the homogeneity tradition. By including all of these excluded parameters such as variety, conflict contradiction, change and the time flow, it thereby makes the idea of system fully compatible with heterogeneity and the flow of time.2. 2 The Position of Translated LiteratureAs noted above, polysystem theory holds that translated literature previously unnoticed should be connected with original literature. Even-Zohar viewed literature as a polysystem, a system of systems, which can be described by a series of oppositions: between the center and the periphery, between the canonized system (which usually occupies the center of the polysystem) and the non-canonized system, between translated and non-translated literature. The literary system is defined as the network of relations that is hypothesized to obtain between a number of activities called “literary”, and consequently these activities themselves observed via that network (Even-Zohar 1990:28).Even-Zohar proposed that translated works correlate and translated literature may possess a repertoire of its own. He conceived of translated literature not only as an integral system within any literary system but also as a most active system within it. Having established its systemtic status, Even-Zohar then proceeded to discuss its role and significance within the literary system in his essay “The position of Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem”. The essay boasted two versions: the first one was presented by Even-Zohar to the Dutch/Belgian group at the historic 1976 Translation Studies Colloquium in Leuven, Belgium; in 1990 Even-Zohar incorporated its revised version in his collection Polysystem Studies.In the essay mentioned above, Even-Zohar(1990:48) elaborated the position of translated literature within a literary system. When it assumes a central position, it participates actively in shaping the center of the polysystem. When it maintainsa peripheral position, it constitutes a peripheral system within the polysystem, generally employing secondary models.Even-Zohar (1978) suggested that the relationship between translated works and the literary polysystem cannot be identified as either primary or secondary, but as a variable, depending upon the specific circumstance operating within the literary system. Generally speaking, the “normal”position of translated literature tends to be in a peripheral one, yet there exist some exceptions. He (Even-Zohar 1990:47) identified the following three major conditions contributing to the translated literature as a central system in the literary polysystem:i.when a polysystem has not yet been crystallized, that is to say, when aliterature is “young”, in the process of being established;ii.ii.when a literature is either “peripheral”(within a large group of correlated literature) or “weak” or both;iii.when there are turning points, crises, or literary vacuums ina literature.He also described the interaction between translation literature and target literature polysystem, and summarized the principle for each situation. The first case was in Israel, and the second in Low Countries and the last could be found in America in the 1960s.The position taken by translated literature is decisive to translation norms, behaviors, and policies. When it assumes a central position in the literary polysystem and functions as a vehicle for creating new, primary models, the translator is far more likely to strive for such translation which is closer to the original in terms of adequacy. On the contrary, if translation occupies a secondary position within a given polysystem, the chances that the translator will attempt to find ready-made models for translation for the sake of the demand of translation norm “acceptability” are much greater than otherwise.The analysis of translated literature proves more than marginal, though it is one aspect of Zohar’s investigation. As a matter of fact, it has far-reaching consequences for the field of translation studies.2. 3 Toury’s Translation NormsNorms, a central concept in the study of translation by the Tel Aviv School, originated from the idea of the Prague structuralist Jiri Levy, who first applied the concept of norms to translation studies. In his doctoral dissertation (1971)4, Itamar Even-Zohar used this concept, based on which Gideon Toury introduced and developed the notion of Translation Norms. In his book Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond, Toury(1995:55) outlined his definition of translation norms as follows:The translation of general values or ideas shared by a community-as to what is right or wrong, adequate or inadequate-into performanceinstructions appropriate for and applicable to particular situations.A given society always has multiple and conflicting norms, all interconnected with other functioning subsystems, but if situations recur regularly, certain behavioral pattern can be established. The same holds true for translation norms. Thus, Toury (1995:56-61) continued to identify three kinds of translation norms operating at different stages of the translation processes, i.e. initial norms, preliminary norms, and operational norms.The basic “initial norms” refers to a general choice made by translators to subject themselves either to original text with its textual relations and norms, or the target culture’s linguistic and literary norms, or some combination thereof.Under initial norms lie “preliminary norms” and “operational norms”. Preliminary norms involve the existence and nature of a translation policy and the directness of translation, i.e. a particular society’s tolerance or intolerance towards a translation based on a text in an intermediate language rather than on the source language text.Operational norms concern decisions made during, rather than prior to, the actual act of translation. It is composed of matricial norms and text-linguistic norms. The former concern the completeness of the target text, and have to do with the way textual material is distributed, how much of the text is translated, and any changes in segmentation. Phenomena include omission or relocation of passages,textual segmentation and the addition of passages or footnotes. The latter relate to the selection of target text linguistic material including lexical items, phrases and stylistic features.Given the fact that translation is a norm-governed activity, to distinguish regular tendencies, it is necessary to study not only single texts, but also different translations of the same original text and even extratextual sources. Consequently, Toury proposed two major sources investigating translational norms: textual sources, namely the target texts themselves; and extratextual sources, i.e. the theoretical and critical statements made about translation in general or about specific translation in general or about specific translations.It is believed that translation norms are to a great extent influenced by the position assumed by translated literature within the polysystem. Norms determine the position of translations on an imaginary axis between two extreme possibilities: adequacy and acceptability. Adequacy means a functional equivalence between the source text and target text achieved by reconstructing the original functions of the elements comprising the source text while acceptability demands that the target text should be adjusted to the system receiving it.Although Toury’s concept of norms focuses mainly on their function as a descriptive category to identify translation patterns, such supposedly non-prescriptive norms have triggered both approval and disapproval within society. Later some translation theorists such as Theo Hermans and Andrew Chesterman further developed translation norms. For instance, Chesterman proposed another set of norms —product or expectancy norms and process or professional norms, covering the area of Toury’s initial and operational norms.3. Extension of Polysystem TheoryEver since 1969 when it was first suggested, polysystem theory has been developed, revised and perfected by a large number of scholars, engendering other systems theories.Perhaps the most significant extension of the polysystem model should be found in Toury’s work. Having adopted the polysystem theory framework, Gideon Touryconsolidated Even-Zohar’s target-oriented approach and conducted his descriptive research, aiming to better detect and describe all those linguistic, literary and sociological laws which govern translation. After his early polysystem work on the sociocultural conditions determining the translation of foreign literature, Toury shifted his focus from theory to descriptive work since 1980 and strived to develop a general theory of translation. To replace the commonplace isolated free-standing studies, he used the abbreviation DTS, introduced by Holmes, to refer to the scientific branch and the longer denomination “descriptive translation studies”, to the activity—any research procedures addressed to translational phenomena. The ultimate aim of DTS is to identify the patterns of behavior in translation and then to “reconstruct” the norms at work in the translation process.In his Descriptive Translation Studies-And Beyond, Toury (1995: 36-39 and 102), encompassed a description of the product and the wider role of the sociocultural system and elaborated three-phase methodology for systematic DTS as follows:1) Situate the text within the target culture system, looking at its significance or acceptability;2) Compare the source text (ST) and target text (TT) for shifts, identifying relationships between “coupled pairs” of source text (ST) and target text (TT) segments, and attempting generalization about the underlying concept of translation;3) Draw implications for decision-making in future translating.Jose Lambert, one of polysystem theory’s strongest advocates during the 1980s, retained a systemic approach while suggesting that the system as conceived may not function as the investigating scholar initially thought. As a result, he was open to the study of “other” patterned behavior which may help explain translated phenomena. Together with Van Gorp, he called for not only a study of the relation between authors, texts, readers, and norms in the two differing systems, but also for relations between authors’ and the translators’ intentions, between pragmatics and reception in source and target systems, between the differing literary systems, and even between differing sociological aspects including publishing anddistribution (Gentzler 2004:132).With its considerable influence, polysystem theory has inspired another important school: the Manipulation School, which has grown up in Leuven, Belgium, where several meetings and conferences around the theme of translated literature were held by the International Comparative Literature Association. The group of scholars carried on the polysystem theorists’ point of view, and got the name because of their conviction that from the target perspective all translation implies a degree of manipulation of the source text for a certain purpose.Polysystem theory has also made its mark in the work of Andrew Lefevere. Though he distanced himself from polysystem vocabulary, his work in translation studies actually developed out of his strong links with polysystem theory and the Manipulation School. Moving away from polysystem terminology, he proposed the addition of notions of polarity, periodicity and patronage and considered the role of ideology and patronage in the system of translated literature. Furthermore, his later work on translation and culture in many ways represents a bridging point to the cultural turn.In conclusion, polysystem theory has inspired a variety of scholars to study translation in another way and to supplement its model. In other words, polysystem theory has found itself developed in DTS and the ideas of Manipulation School as well as Lefevere’ work.4. Influence of Polysystem Theory on Translation StudiesThe work of Even-Zohar, polysystem theory’s initiator, is highly innovative, presenting multiple significant insights for the field of translation theory. Above all, his polysystem theory proves to be revolutionary because it moves the study of translation out of the static, source-oriented linguistic paradigm and obsession with one-to-one equivalence and forward into a less prescriptive observation of translation within its different contexts.Polysystem theory advocates a descriptive, systematic, target-oriented approach to translation studies, inspiring a multinational translation studies school. Moreover, its definition of “equivalence” and “adequacy” according tothe historical and cultural situation offers the translation theory an escape from the constraint that limited the previous theories in the 1960s and 1970s. Additionally, DTS guided by polysystem theory gives accurate definitions of various kinds of translation such as literal translation, literary translation, rewriting, pseudo-translation, so it avoids the confusion and the endless significant disputes caused by the prescriptive translation norms (李文革2004:203).Gentzler(2004:119-123) summarizes the advantages of polysystem theory over other earlier theories. First, it allows for its own augmentation and integrates the study of literature with the study of social and economic forces of history. Secondly, its initiator Even-Zohar moves away from the isolated study of individual texts towards the study of translation within the cultural and literary systems in which it functions. Finally, the non-prescriptive definition of equivalence and adequacy allows for variation according to the historical and cultural situation of the text.In a broad sense, polysystem theory has exerted a profound influence on translation studies. First and foremost, it gives attention and thought to the role of translation within a literary system, which was once ignored by literary theorists for a long time. Before the emergence of polysystem theory, literary translation had seldom been incorporated into the historical account in any coherent way in the long course of the histories of literature. The function of translated literature for a literature as a whole or its position within that literature was not studied by scholars. Meanwhile, there was no awareness of the possible existence of translated literature as a particular literary system. By demonstrating the importance of translation within the larger context of literary studies, polysystem theory has greatly changed the peripheral position of translated literature within the literary system.Furthermore, it proves those remarkable contributions that translation has made to the cultural development, which has directly enhanced the cultural position of translation on the ideological level, and indirectly raised the academic position of translation studies. Since it has deconstructed the prescriptive focus on whattranslation should be, it has encouraged researchers to explore what translation does in specific cultural settings. To put it differently, it looks at actual translations within the larger sociological context, and incorporates social, historical and cultural factors into its hypothesis, expanding the scope of translation studies.Hence, polysystem theory has made an enormous contribution to translation studies, not only providing a useful framework for making the emerging discipline of translation studies academically acceptable but also facilitating the so-called “culture turn”.。

佐哈尔多元系统论

关键词：翻译；多系统论；多元互补论；比较翻译学
一、引言
“多系统论（polysystem theory）”是以色列学者伊塔马·埃文—佐哈尔（Itamar Even—Zohar）提出的。他认为，文学、文化等社会符号现象都是由一系列不同却又互相联系、互相依存的系统组成。同时，埃文—佐哈尔（1990：45－51）在“多系统论”中也谈到了翻译文学在文学这个多系统中的地位和作用，认为翻译文学的地位影响着翻译实践，这一点对于我国的译学建设和翻译理论研究有着一定的借鉴意义。无独有偶，针对中国两千多年来翻译界一直争论不休的翻译标准问题，辜正坤教授提出了“多元互补论”，在我国翻译界引起了巨大的反响，成为我国翻译标准史上一次重大突破。
综上所述，我们看到，埃文—佐哈尔的“多系统论”是针对文化、文学层面的，所以对于研究比较文学和比较文化有着重要的指导意义，而且也已经被广泛用于这些层面的理论研究。另一方面，埃文－佐哈尔还从文化层面上对翻译进行了考察，这种考察是非常有意义的，因为翻译不仅仅是一种语言和两个文本的转换行为，它更是一种文化行为。文化翻译学派的巴斯奈特（Bassnett＆Lefevere, 1990: 8）认为，“翻译绝不是一个纯语言的行为，它深深根植于语言所处的文化之中”。所以翻译应该是文化内部与文化之间的交流。另外，佐哈尔埃文—佐哈尔对翻译文学地位的探讨打破了传统上认为翻译文学只能处于边缘地位的观点，提出应该根据具体情况来看待翻译文学是处于中心还是边缘地位。中国的文学界和翻译界对此非常重视，有人认为“这种把翻译行为与文化的弱势或强势联系起来的理论，对人们客观冷静认识各民族文学中的翻译行为是很有启发的。”（陈惇等，1997：159－160）还有人认为埃文—佐哈尔的“多系统论”“给翻译研究开辟了一条描述性的、面向译语的系统的、功能主义的、系统性性的新途径，推动了翻译研究的文化转向，催生了一个跨国界的翻译研究学派。”所以“多系统论”为中国的翻译学研究方向无疑具有借鉴意义。笔者认为，我国的翻译学，特别是文学翻译研究也可与文学与文化所处的时代和背景结合起来。例如佛经翻译研究和五四时期文学翻译研究等，都应结合当时的社会背景。

浅析多元系统理论视阈下翻译策略的选择

浅析多元系统理论视阈下翻译策略的选择作者：刘传玮来源：《校园英语·上旬》2016年第04期【摘要】多元系统理论是翻译研究学派的一个重要分支，它给翻译研究开辟了一条新途径，推动了翻译研究的文化转向。

基于左哈尔的多元系统理论，本文以我国两个历史时期为例，即鸦片战争到五四运动、改革开放以来，试析译者翻译策略的选择及成因。

【关键词】多元系统理论翻译策略文学翻译一、多元系统理论简介多元系统理论（Polysystem theory）由以色列学者伊塔马·埃文-左哈尔（Itama Even-Zohar）于20世纪70年代提出。

该理论主张语言、文学、政治等各种社会符号现象是一个开放的、动态的大系统。

在这个大系统中又包括众多相互依存的子系统。

然而，各个系统地位并不平等：有的处于中心，起主导作用，有的处于边缘，起次要作用。

它们的地位并非一成不变，而是在永无休止的斗争中不断地从中心到边缘、从边缘到中心地转化。

翻译文学是文学多元系统中的一个子系统，对于传统文学来说，翻译文学只能处于边缘地位，但左哈尔提出了三种使翻译文学在文学多元系统中处于中心地位的条件：第一，当一种文学还处于“幼稚”期或建立过程中；第二，当一种文学处于“边缘”或者“弱小”状态；第三，当一种文学正经历某种“危机”或转折点，或出现文学真空时。

同时，就翻译文学而言，当它处于多元系统中心地位时，译者主要侧重于译文的充分性，采取异化的翻译策略；而当翻译文学处于边缘地位时，译者往往更加注重译文的可接受性，采取归化的翻译策略。

基于左哈尔的多元系统理论，本文以我国两个历史时期——鸦片战争到五四运动、改革开放以来——为例，试析译者翻译策略的选择及成因。

二、鸦片战争到五四运动时期翻译策略的选择鸦片战争到五四运动时期，林纾的文学翻译采用的是归化翻译策略。

林纾不懂外语，他的翻译通常由懂外语的合作者口译，再由他根据意思形成文字，其译文语言均采用文言文。

《黑奴吁天录》（又译为《汤姆叔叔的小屋》），是美国作家斯陀夫人的代表作，此书一直被认为是一部反对奴隶制并带有宗教性质的小说。

经典：左哈尔的Polysystem-Theory(多元系统理论)

secondary system. The literary translation was considered secondary activity, mechanical, rather than creative, neither worthy of serious critical attention. • Even-Zohar argued: It depends! Not all polysystems are the same. Such classification was inaccurate.
Norwegian, Danish, Italian, Russian, German, Icelandic, and a few other
languages. 2
System Polysystem
➢System: This concept is introduced by Tynjanov. Elements, Tynjanov argued, do not exist in
Chapter 5
Polysystem Theory
1
Introduction of Itamar Even-Zohar
➢ Professor Emeritus of Culture Research, of University of Tel Aviv
Itamar Even-Zohar
(Picture taken 1993, Santiago de Compostela)
6
Polysytem with translation theories
“It is necessary to include translated literature in the polysystem. This is rarely done, but no observer of the history of any literature can avoid recognizing as an important fact the impact of translations and their role in the synchrony and diachrony of a certain literature”.

左哈尔多元系统论

二.多元系统理论的含义
1.定义：埃氏多元系统理论的一个核心内容就
是把各种社会符号现象，具体地说是各种由符号支配的人类交际形式，如语言、文学、经济、政治、意识形态等，视作一个系统而不是一个由各不相干的元素组成的混合体。而且，这个系统也不是一个单一的系统，而是一个由不同成分组成的、开放的结构，也即是一个由若干个不同的系统组成的多元系统。在这个多元系统里，各个系统“互相交叉，部分重叠，在同一时间内各有不同的项目可供选择，却又互相依存，并作为一个有组织的整体而运作。
1.在国内的发展
在中国大陆，多元系统理论一直没有引起注意，直2001年第 3期《中外文学》推出多元系统研究专辑，多元系统理论才开始受到越来越多的关注。许多中国学者高度赞赏多元系统理论。 2002年第4期的《中国翻译》上刊印了Even—Zohar的《多元系统论》的中译文，其译者张南峰教授认为该理论“由于强调历史和文化因素的研究，因而提高了翻译研究在文学研究中的地位，同时也把译本从文学系统的边缘带到了与其它各种文本平等的位置”，其翻译理论和研究模式使得翻译研究取得学科地位并进入学术研究系统的中心位置。他的观点得到了许多学者的支持。谢天振“用丰富的例证证明了多元系统理论在翻译研究中的有效性，最后指出多元系统理论把翻译研究引上了文化研究的道路，为翻译研究开拓了一个相当广阔的研究领域”。张柏然和辛红娟指出，多元系统理论就是从翻译和翻译文学对目标文学和文化的影响入手，研究目标文化对外国文学的接受能力
三.多元系统理论在文学翻译中的局限
多元系统理论对于文学翻译的解释不充分性的根源在于如下几个方面
过分强调主流意识形态，疏忽了非主流的意识形态，从而把丰富的翻译现象简单化；过分强调意识形态决定论，忽视了文学发展的自身规律和译者的主体性，能动性与超前性；过分强调两极，忽视中间，结果导致研究方法的僵化、简单化，忽视两极之间的各文化因素对翻译的影响

论多元系统理论

佐哈尔的多元系统理论是基于俄国形式主义和捷克结构主义而提出的一种普通文化理论。

佐哈尔认为不应把翻译活动视作个别的文化现象，而应联系到更大的文化层次上加以探讨。

佐哈尔的多元系统论把各种社会符号现象，具体地说是各种由符号支配的人类交际形式，如语言、文学、经济、政治、意识形态等，视作一个系统。

而且，这个系统也不是单一的系统，而是一个由不同成分组成的、开放的结构，也即是一个由若干个不同的系统组成的多元系统。

在这个多元系统里，各个系统“互相交叉，部分重叠，在同一时间内各有不同的项目可供选择，却又互相依存，并作为一个有组织的整体而运作。

”[1]但是，在这个整体里各个系统的地位并不平等，它们有的处于中心，有的处于边缘。