1. The reception of the translated literature according to the theory of polysystem

Polysystem theory was suggested in the 1970s. Its foundations had been laid by Russian Formalism in the 1920s. Israeli scholar Itamar Even-Zohar borrowed ideas from Formalists and developed the theory in order to deal with dynamics, diversity and change in cultures.

According to Even-Zohar’s model, the polysystem is conceived as a heterogeneous and hierarchized conglomerate (or system) of systems which interact to bring about an ongoing, dynamic process of evolution within the polysystem as a whole.

The term polysystem means a layered conglomerate of interconnected/cohesive elements that changes and mutates while these elements are in interaction with one another.

In polysystem theory, a literary work is not studied isolatedly but as part of a literary system. Put it differently, literature is a part of social, cultural, literary and historical framework. A literary system can affect other ones. That is, the translated literature which is being imported to a country can influence the native writings. According to some effects and causes, these influences can be more or less.

According to Holmes’s statement, “Even-Zohar and his colleagues have posited that ‘literature’ in a given society is a collection of various systems, a system-of-systems or polysystem, in which diverse genres, schools, tendencies,…‘literature’ is no longer the stately and fairly static thing it tends to be for the canonists, but a highly kinetic situation in which things are constantly changing”.

Snell-Hornby states that a polysystem is not only characterized by constant shifts and changes, but also by internal oppositions, including those between “primary” and “secondary” models and types. That is, the position of translated literature is not stable and it may occupy a primary or a secondary position in polysystem. Primary texts are the innovative ones, which introduce new ideas, new methods, new ways of looking at literature and the world into a literary polysystem. The secondary texts are the conservative ones which support and uphold the existing system. Provided that translated literature is primary, it plays an active role in shaping the centre of the polysystem.

Even-Zohar gives three major cases when translated literature occupies the primary position:

1. when a ‘young’ literature is being established and looks initially to ‘older’ literatures for ready-made models;

2. when a literature is ‘peripheral’ or ‘weak’ and imports those literary types which it is lacking. This can happen when a smaller nation is dominated by the culture of a larger one.

3. when there is a critical turning point in literary history at which established models are no longer considered sufficient, or when there is a vacuum in the literature of the country.

If translated literature undertakes a secondary position, it exposes a peripheral system within polysystem. It has not any fundamental effect over the central system and further it becomes a conservative factor, maintaining conventional forms and applying to the literary norms of the target system. Even-Zohar states that this secondary position is ‘normal’ one for translated literatures.

Even-Zohar posits that translation strategy is determined by translated literature’s position in the polysystem. If it is primary, translators are free to keep target literature models and more prepared to break common norms. For this reason, a TT which is close to the ST in terms of adequacy is produced. On the other hand, if it is secondary, existing target literature models are used. Thus, a more non-adequate translation is produced.

Snell-Hornby points to translation system within polysystem and writes that in this theory literary translation is seen as one of the elements participating in the constant struggle for survival and domination. Israeli scholars emphasized that translations play a primary, creative and innovative role within the literary system. Hence, in this approach, translation is seen essentially as a text-type in its own right, as an integral part of the target culture and not merely as a reproduction of another text.

Genztler emphasizes that the polysystem theory performs a significant improvement for translation studies. The pros of this are:

1 Literature itself is studied alongside the social, historical and cultural forces.

2 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.

3 the non-prescriptive definition of equivalence and adequacy allows for variation according to the historical and cultural situation of the text.