polysystem theory 多元系统理论 ppt课件

合集下载

论多元系统理论

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。

Polysystem_Theory多元系统理论

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 the reasons 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 suchas 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 inte rrelationship 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 problems connected 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 “p olysystem” as follows: Polysystem is “…a semiotic system…a heterogeneous, open structure. It is, therefore, very rarely a uni-system but is, necessarily, a polysystem-a multiple system,a system of various systems which intersect with each other and partly overlap, usingconcurrently different options, yet functioning as one structured whole, whosemembers are interdependent.”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 thecentre 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. A s 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:B y “canonized” one means those literary norms and works (i.e., both models andtexts) which are accepted as legitimate by the dominant circles within a culture andwhose conspicuous products are preserved by the community to become part of itshistorical heritage. “Non-canonized” means those norms and texts which are rejectedby these circles as illegitimate and whose products are often forgotten in the long runby the 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 andsecondary 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 excluding the 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 inhis 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 maintains a 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 a literature 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 in a 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 ofZohar’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 performance instructions appropriate forand 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 ba sed 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 stylisticfeatures.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 Toury consolidated 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 andthe 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 and distribution (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 to the 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 literaturefor 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 what translation 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”.11。

多元系统的背景

多元系统的背景

通过对表情文本的系统分析,有助于实现功能对等。
返回
波波维奇
主要观点: • 继承列维 • 重视“表达转换”
在波波维奇看来,翻译是一种“元交际”(meta-communication)过程,作 者、读者、批评家或翻译家对原文文学文本的操纵和做特别处理都有可能。
返回
索绪尔的结构主义把语言作为一个 系统。
共时和历时、语言和言语、所指和 能指、横组合关系和纵组合关系、 代码和信息、秩序与序列等“二元对 立”的结构范畴的分析模式,给多远 系统以极大地启迪。
结构主义语言学
尤里〃洛特曼(Yuri Lotman, 1922-) 符号圈
人不但生活在自然世界中,同时也生活在符号世界 里。客观世界早已成为人类各种活动的符号化产物, 在符号之外不存在物质世界与精神世界。他将这个 符号世界命名为“符号圈”(自由,多样,动态)。
语言、文化、社会由相关的元素系统组成,这些系统相互交叉重叠,形 成了多元系统。 一件文学作品本身是一个独特的系统、不同的文学体裁是不同的系统、 不同的文学传统也是不同的系统,还有一个需要遵从的规范系统。系统、 规范、传统、体裁的演变,由于形式因素影响有大有小。
索绪尔的结构主义语言学
索绪尔(1857-1913)
系统理论
东欧学者的翻译研究
捷克为主的东欧学者
以列维
米科 波波维奇
系统理论
结构系统分为两种功能:模式功能和交流功能 自然语言:俄语,法语,汉语 作为交流的语言的第一模式系统 人工语言:科学语言以及路标 等常规信号语言
第二模式系统:神话、宗教、音乐、绘画、文学、政治,等等,它们 具有各自独特的规则体系,这些体系不同于自然语言的体系。 返回

整体文化的大多元系统

多元系统理论presentation

多元系统理论presentation
多元系统理论
01 俄国形式主义文学理论

02 东欧学者有关翻译研究
----依瑞·列维 Jiří Levý

03 图里旳规范研究及描述
翻译学
01
背景起源
1、背景
发源地:以色列 历史:1948年建国 地理:地处欧、亚、非三大洲旳结合处 文化:基督教、犹太教、伊斯兰教诞生
在中东这一地域 语言:希伯来语(亚非语系闪米特语族)
依瑞·列维 Jiří Levý
主要翻译思想、贡献、应用
一、 列维旳主要翻译思想:
1.翻译旳忠实性问题
列维在《翻译旳艺术》一书中指出,翻译旳忠 实性就像描写旳真实性或论证旳合理性一样,都是 一种总范围中旳部分现象。
(错觉论、语义综合体、共性与个性、整体与部 分)
2. 翻译规范:再现规范(即忠实性、精确性旳原则) 和艺术性规范(即美旳原则)
• 文学系统由一种中心构成,它往往处于主导旳、受 尊敬旳、权威旳地位,并伴随时间旳推移而逐渐僵
化,最终被系统边沿发展产生旳更新、更灵活旳形 式所取代,文学旳演进就在于“系统旳变异”。

蒂尼亚诺夫《论文学旳演进》
小结
① 系统、系统旳系统 ② 系统旳异质性和层级性 ③ 系统动态旳演变过程
东欧学者翻译研究
• 俄国形式主义者旳这种建立在陌生化作用之上旳形式辩证自 生理论,其缺陷就在于完全断绝了文学与文学形式之外旳一 切联络,否定了文学演变中外因旳作用,企图在纯粹旳和封 闭旳文学系列 内 部 揭 示 出 形 式 发 展 旳 内 在 规 律 性”-----巴赫金
• “将非文学原因逐出文学批评旳殿堂是愚蠢可笑旳。”---穆 卡洛夫斯基
Even-Zohar Polysystem Theory

多元系统理论9.26

多元系统理论9.26

多元系统理论的起源多元系统理论于上世纪七十年代初由以色列学者Even-Zohar提出,然而其源头却可追溯到俄国形式主义时期。

形式主义对多元系统理论最大的贡献在于:形式主义提出了系统的概念,形式主义认为,系统是一种多层次的结构,其构成元素相互联系、相互作用(Baker, 2005: 176)。

形式主义者给文学研究带来革新,提出将文学作品看作是有次序、分等级的结构,而非由各不相干的元素组成的混合体。

他们看重的不是元素本身,而是各元素之间的相互关系。

“在形式主义概念中,文学革命的推动力是用陌生的取代熟悉的,用新鲜的取代传统的那股持续力量。

”在形式主义思想中,Yury Tynjanov 的思想与埃文-佐哈尔的多元系统理论关系最为密切。

Tynjanov是将文学视为“系统”的第一人。

他认为一个“文学事实”是一个相对的实体。

他声称“一个‘文学作品’、一种‘文体’、一个‘时期’、一种‘文学’、或者‘文学’本身,都代表了各种特征的总和,这些特征在与其它元素构成的网络中获得自身价值”。

他还提出了“中心/边缘对立”的概念,这一概念后被Even-Zohar采用。

多元系统理论的重要概念以Tynjanov和其他形式主义者的研究成果为起点,Even-Zohar在上世纪70年代初期开启了他自己的系统方法。

当时他的直接目标是解决与翻译理论以及希伯来文学的历史结构相关的问题。

他在这些领域对形式主义概念的运用最终导致了“多元系统理论”的诞生。

根据Even-Zohar的观点,“多元系统”指异质的、分等级的多个系统的聚合,各个系统相互作用,整个多元系统维持一种持续的、动态的发展状态。

在这种模式中,有三组对立:(1)“经典化的”产品或模式和“非经典化的”产品或模式的对立,类似于“高级”文学和“低级”文学的对立。

“经典化”的或“高级”的形式指“被一个文化的统治阶层视为合乎正统的文学规范和作品(即模式和文本),其最突出的产品被社会保存下来,成为历史遗产的一部分” (Even-Zohar, 1990b:15)“非经典化”的或“低级”的形式指“被那个阶层视为不合正统的规范和作品,其产品通常最终被社会遗忘(除非其地位有所改变)”。

左哈尔的Polysystem-Theory(多元系统理论)分析解析PPT文档34页

左哈尔的Polysystem-Theory(多元系统理论)分析解析PPT文档34页


30、意志是一个强壮的盲人,倚靠在明眼的跛子肩上。——叔本华
谢谢!
Hale Waihona Puke 34▪26、要使整个人生都过得舒适、愉快,这是不可能的,因为人类必须具备一种能应付逆境的态度。——卢梭

27、只有把抱怨环境的心情,化为上进的力量,才是成功的保证。——罗曼·罗兰

28、知之者不如好之者,好之者不如乐之者。——孔子

29、勇猛、大胆和坚定的决心能够抵得上武器的精良。——达·芬奇
左哈尔的PolysystemTheory(多元系统理论)分析
解析
26、机遇对于有准备的头脑有特别的 亲和力 。 27、自信是人格的核心。
28、目标的坚定是性格中最必要的力 量泉源 之一, 也是成 功的利 器之一 。没有 它,天 才也会 在矛盾 无定的 迷径中 ,徒劳 无功。- -查士 德斐尔 爵士。 29、困难就是机遇。--温斯顿.丘吉 尔。 30、我奋斗,所以我快乐。--格林斯 潘。

论多元系统理论

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。

多元智慧理论PPT课件

多元智慧理论PPT课件

* 適合的學習活動: 創造與藝術性的活動、開放式討論個人 與社會的價值。
‧感官—感受型 (注重人際型)
* 特徵: 社交的、友善的、人際取向的,對自己 及他人的感覺很敏感;偏好學習可以影 響人們生活的事物。
* 適合的學習活動: 角色扮演、關懷與注意、自己的表達與 遭遇。
多元智慧理論
V.S.
學習風格理論
二、兩種理論的統整 分為三步驟
1.以智慧為起點,將每一種智慧分為四種風格 ‧精熟性風格
使用語文描述事件及 順序的能力
‧重視人際型風格
使用語文建立信任及融 洽情感的能力
語文智慧
‧理解型風格
發展符合邏輯的辯論 及使用修辭的能力
‧自我表達型風格
使用隱喻性及意味深 長語文的能力
2.針對每一種智慧與風格,找出相關的職業與 真實世界的應用
演說家 哲學家
劇作家 詩人 廣告文案撰寫人 小說家
發展一個廣告 宣傳活動
統整的課程與教學
一、傳統的教學
內容:學校教育注重 精熟型、理解型的學習風格以及 語文、邏輯-數學智慧 缺點:傾向某些風格、智慧的結果,使得其他智慧、 風格的學生很難對所學產生認同和情感 例子:1. 一個注重人際型風格的學習者,對於獨立完 成習ห้องสมุดไป่ตู้並在每一章結束時回答問題,幾乎很 難維持興趣 2.對那些有幸擁有學校所注重的風格與智慧的 學習者而言,他們也因學校沒有提供新的思 考方式或挑戰而喪失成長機會。
判斷
‧思考
a. 客觀 b. 運用邏輯、理性 與證據來分析情 境 c. 認為每一件事都 能以理性的方式 處理
‧感受
a. 主觀 b. 發展自我的價值 觀、創造與他人 的情緒關係 c. 決策時傾向用” 心”來判斷

多元智能理论ppt课件

多元智能理论ppt课件
策略: 在教育目标上,教师应重新审视。既要注重学生发展的全 面性“素质教育”,又要根据学生的不同情况来确定每个学 生最适合的发展道路。
22
四、多元智能理论带给我们的启示 及其在教学中的应用
启示:每个学生都有其独特的智能特征及学习方式。 策略: 1、教师应探索和创造多元的教育环境与教学途径,努力发 现和培养适合学生的学习方式,在提高课堂学习效率上见成 效,总结出一套比较成功的办法和一条适合我们自己的教学 路子。
准确的感觉视觉空间,并把所感 觉到的表现出来的能力。它包括 对色彩,线条,形状,空间及他 们之间关系的敏感,也包括将视
觉和空间的想法在脑中呈现。
14
三、多元智能理论的基本主张与主要论点
肢体-运作智能 (bodily-kinesthetic intelligence)
善于运用整个身体来表达想法 和感觉,以及运用双手灵巧地 产生或改造事物。
16
三、多元智能理论的要点 (二)就人类的智能发展而言
1.每个人至少都具有上述的八种智能,但每 个人在各种智能的发展程度不同 2.每种智能有其独特的发展顺序 3.大部分的人都只能对某些特定区域进行创 造。
17
三、多元智能理论的主要论点
多元性
人的智力结构由八种智力构成
差异性
每个人都有 但发展程度不同
多元智能理论与教育 25
智障早慧不大器晚成也是客观存在目录多元智能理论的主要内容contents人的潜能本旨及实现一多元智能理论主要内容霍华德加德纳博士指出人类的智能是多元化而非单一的主要是由语言智能数学逻辑智能空间智能身体运动智能音乐智能人际智能自我认知智能自然认知智能八项组成每个人都拥有丌同的智能优势组10理论产生背景要求传统智能批判
对周遭环境的动物、植物、人 工制品,及其它食物进行有效

经典:左哈尔的Polysystem-Theory(多元系统理论)

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

多元系统理论presentation

多元系统理论presentation

1、系统和“系统中的系统” • For Tynjanov, the entire literary and extraliterary composed different systems,literary genres formed systems, a literary work itself was also a unique system, and the entire social order comprised another system, all of which were interrelated, ―dialectically‖ interacting with each other, and conditioning how any specific formal element could function. -------Gentzler Contemporary Translation Theories •
3 系统动态的演变过程
• “The
main concepft of literary evolution is the mutation of systems, ” • --Tynjanov On Literary Evolution
3 系统动态的演变过程
• 文学系统由一个中心构成,它往往处于主导的、受
2 系统的异质性和层级性
• A major achievement of the Russian Formalists has been, in addition to the general law of stratification, the formulation of the particlular hypothesis on the respective status of the various strata. • Shkiovskij(1921,1923) was perhaps the first to notice that in literature the inequality between the various strata is a matter of socio-cultural differences. Certain properties thus become canonized, while others remain non-canonized. Even-Zohar Polysystem Theory

多元系统理论教程文件

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。

左哈尔多元系统论

左哈尔多元系统论

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
对译者主观能动性的完全忽视,多元系统理论对翻译文学 中的一些特例无法作出合理解释,适用范围有限。 如果将多元系统理论用于解释翻译策略的选择, 它无法解释 我国晚清的翻译实际。晚清时中国的翻译文学应该处于中 国文学多元系统的中心位置,根据多元系统理论, 译者会遵 守出发语文化的规范, 采取异化翻译策略, 但是, 事实并非 如此。晚清的文学翻译家, 他们渴望传播民族文化, 拥有文 化优越感, 在译文中大量使用了归化的翻译策略。因此多 元系统理论只考虑了制约翻译策略选择的客观文化因素, 而忽视了作为翻译主体的人的主观能动性, 这使我们对其 理论的周密性产生了疑问。对此,王东风是这样评价的: 多 元系统理论关注的是目的语文化对翻译策略的制约, 但忽 略了译者的主体地位。
二.多元系统理论的含义1.义:埃氏多元系统理论的一个核心内容就

左哈尔的Polysystem_Theory多元系统理论课件

左哈尔的Polysystem_Theory多元系统理论课件
2. How texts to be translated are selected by the receiving culture.
3. How translated texts adopt certain norms and functions as a result of their relation to other target language system.
左哈尔的Polysystem_Theory多元系统理论
12
• In this historical situation, translation often (but not necessarily always) assumes forms already established as a dominant type within a particular genre, and the translated literature tends to remain fairly conservative, adhering to norms which the “higher” forms have already rejected. Interestingly, despite playing a secondary role, translations produced under these circumstances may paradoxically introduce new ideas into a culture while at the same time preserving traditional forms.
左哈尔的Polysystem_Theory多元系统理论
6
Polysytem with translation theories

polysystem theory 多元系统理论 ppt课件

polysystem theory 多元系统理论  ppt课件


(美) 安德 烈·勒菲弗尔
The inductive and scientific approach analyzes the influence of the extraliterary upon the literary.
By “ideology”, Lefevere understands that a set of discourses which wrestle over interests which are relevant to the maintenance or interrogation of power structures central to a whole form of social and historical life.
Polysystem theory
CONSECTETUR ADIPISICING
ppt课件
1
Contents
1 Translaion studies in the eighties
2
Gideon Toury: Descriptive translation studies and beyond
ppt课件
nature of language itself.
ppt课件
9
Translation studies in the eighties
Discussion: the very definition of a translated text links between society and language
translations via intervening language (secondary translations)
Translations not identified as such by a culture, including extreme cases of translational activity such as film adaptions(影片加工), versions(改写), imaitations(拟作), or false translations(误译).
  1. 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性,平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
  2. 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
  3. 3、如文档侵犯您的权益,请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间:9:00-18:30)。

Relation
Between authors' and the translators' intensions
Between authors, texts, readers, and norms in the two differing systems
Relation
ppt课件
7
JoséLambert (比利时) 荷西·兰姆伯特
03
An approach to literary translation that is descriptive, target-oriented, functional, and systemic.
An interest in the norms and constraints that govern the 04 production and reception of translation.
Polysystem theory
CONSECTETUR ADIPISICING
ppt课件
1
Contents
1 Translaion studies in the eighties
2
Gideon Toury: Descriptive translation studies and beyond
ppt课件
ppt课件
4
What scholars shared
01 A view of literature as a complex and dynamic system.
Theo Hermans
(英) 西奥·赫曼斯
The Manipulation of Literature(1985)
《文学的操纵》
A conviction that there should be a continual interplay 02 between theoretical models and practical case studies.
2
精品资料
Translation studies in the eighties
The focus of TS is descriptive translation(描述翻译)
Discussions centered around improving methods for describing literary translation and determining cultural and translational normative behavior.
translation policy
genre system
scholars may find the
( gengre rules and gengre policy).
“ground for comparison”.
Genre rules and genre policy (central role) translated literature (literary imports)
Open relationship
Source
Case studies Target-oriented empirical approach
ppt课件
Predictions
Minimum.
The nature of relation
ቤተ መጻሕፍቲ ባይዱ
Dominant norms of the target
system
The nature of the
relation
6
A study of relations
Between differing sociological aspects including publishing and distribution
Relation
Result: The scholar, by establishing priorities, can find a means of being systematic instead of intuitive.
Between the differing literary systems. Reltion
Between pragmatics and reception in source and target systems
Relation
Relation
Between authors and others writers in the source and target systems
ppt课件
5
On Describing Translations
------JoséLambert and Hendrik van Gorp
Suggestions
Observe translation activity
Two system
The author, text, reader, and literary norms in one literary system to be justaposed to an author, text, reader, and literary norms in another literary system.
ppt课件
8
1
Kitty Van
2 Leuven-Zwart 范·路文兹瓦特 “Bottom-up Approach”
“Les Relations littéraires intnationales comme problème de réception”(1986)
“TwTehnetymYoetaivrastioofnRbeesheianrdchteoxnt sLeitleecratiroynTaranndslation at the KatholiekeBUy nfoivceurssiotenit“Lneourmvesn”,” (1988)
Further checking in other European countries.
Norms “imported” “domesticated”
The very definition of translation becomes dependent upon norms and how they work in any given system/society.
相关文档
最新文档