Jeremy Munday 2016 Chapter 7 Systems Theories Introducing Translation

CHAPTER 7
Systems theories
All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law.
Key concepts
Q Even-Zohar’s polysystem theory (1970s) sees translated literature
as part of the cultural, literary and historical system of the TL.
Q Toury (1995/2012) puts forward a systematic methodology for
descriptive translation studies (DTS) as a non-prescriptive
means of understanding the ‘norms’ at work in the translation
process and of discovering the general ‘laws’ of translation.
Q Chesterman (1997) expands norms to include professional and
ethical factors.
Q Other models (e.g. Lambert and van Gorp 1985) propose
different methodologies for TT description.
Q Toury’s ‘laws’ of translation are the law of standardization and
the law of interference. Pym (2008) proposes resolving the
contradiction between these by reference to the social
conditions under which the TT is produced.
Key texts
Chesterman, Andrew (1997) Memes of Translation, Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: John Benjamins, Chapter 3.
Even-Zohar, Itamar (1978/2012) ‘The position of translated literature within
the literary polysystem’, in Lawrence Venuti (ed.) (2012)The Translation Studies
Reader, 3rd edition, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 162–7.
Hermans, Theo (ed.) (1985a) The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary
Translation, Beckenham: Croom Helm.
Hermans, Theo (1999) Translation in Systems, Manchester: St Jerome, Chapters
Copyright 2016. Routledge.
6 to 8.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 9/17/2020 2:44 PM via UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON
AN: 1166164 ; Jeremy Munday.; Introducing Translation Studies : Theories and Applications
Account: s8454451.main.ehost
170 INTRODUCING TRANSLATION STUDIES
Pym, Anthony, Miriam Shlesinger and Daniel Simeoni (eds) (2008) Beyond
Descriptive Translation Studies, Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Toury, Gideon (1978/2012) ‘The nature and role of norms in literary translation’,
in Lawrence Venuti (ed.) (2012), The Translation Studies Reader, 3rd edition,
London and New York: Routledge, pp. 168–81.
Toury, Gideon (1995/2012) Descriptive Translation Studies – And Beyond,
revised edition, Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
7.0 Introduction
Watch the introductory video on the companion website.
In Chapters 5 and 6 we saw how linguistics broadened out from the models of
the 1960s to an approach which incorporates first skopos theory and then
Register and discourse analysis, relating language to its sociocultural function. In
the 1970s, another reaction to the prescriptive models was polysystem theory
(see section 7.1), which saw translated literature as a system operating in the
larger social, literary and historical systems of the target culture. This was an
important move, since translated literature had up to that point mostly been
dismissed as a derivative, second-rate form. Polysystem theory fed into develop-
ments in descriptive translation studies (see section 7.2), a branch of translation
studies that aims at identifying norms and laws of translation. Developments in the
study of norms are discussed in section 7.3 (work by Chesterman), and work by
systems theorists of the related Manipulation School is described in section 7.4.
7.1 Polysystem theory
Polysystem theory was developed in the 1970s by the Israeli scholar Itamar
Even-Zohar borrowing ideas from the Russian Formalists of the 1920s and the
Czech Structuralists of the 1930s and 1940s, who had worked on literary his-
toriography and linguistics (see Further reading section). For the Formalists, a
literary work was not studied in isolation but 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’ (Tynjanov 1927/1971: 72). Literature is thus
EBSCOhost - printed on 9/17/2020 2:44 PM via UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
SYSTEMS THEORIES 171
part of the social, cultural, literary and historical framework and the key concept
is that of the system, in which there is an ongoing dynamic of ‘mutation’ and
struggle for the primary position in the literary canon.
Although building on work by the Formalists, Even-Zohar reacts against ‘the
fallacies of the traditional aesthetic approach’ (Even-Zohar 1978: 22), which had
focused on ‘high’ literature and had disregarded as unimportant literary systems
or genres such as children’s literature, thrillers and the whole system of trans-
lated literature. Even-Zohar (ibid.) emphasizes that translated literature operates
as a system in itself:
(1) in the way the TL culture selects works for translation;

(2) in the way translation norms, behaviour and policies are influenced by other
co-systems.
Even-Zohar focuses on the relations between all these systems in the overarching
concept to which he gives a new term, the polysystem. This is defined by Even-
Zohar as:
a multiple system, a system of various systems which intersect with each

other and partly overlap, using concurrently different options, yet functioning
as one structured whole, whose members are interdependent.
Even-Zohar (2005: 3)
Importantly, the interaction and positioning of these systems occurs in a dynamic

hierarchy, changing according to the historical moment. If, at a given point, the
highest position is occupied by an innovative literary type, then the lower strata
are likely to be occupied by increasingly conservative types. On the other hand,
if the conservative forms are at the top, innovation and renewal are likely to come
from the lower strata. Otherwise a period of stagnation occurs (Even-Zohar
1978). This ‘dynamic process of evolution’ is vital to the polysystem, indicating
that the relations between innovatory and conservative systems are in a constant
state of flux and competition.
Because of this flux, the position of translated literature is not fixed either. It
may occupy a primary or a secondary position in the polysystem. If it is
primary, ‘it participates actively in shaping the centre of the polysystem’ (Even-
Zohar 1978/2012: 163). It is likely to be innovatory and linked to major events of
literary history as they are taking place. Often, leading writers produce the most
important translations and translations are a leading factor in the formation of
new models for the target culture, introducing new poetics, techniques and so
on. Even-Zohar gives three major cases when translated literature occupies the
primary position (see Figure 7.1):
(1) When a ‘young’ literature is being established and looks initially to

more established literatures for ready-made models. Such would be the
case in Toury’s example of the Hebrew Enlightenment of the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries, which arose in Germany and used German models
(Toury 1995/2012: 167). Another example is literature in Finnish, which
developed in the nineteenth century using the models of realist novels from
France and Britain.
(2) When a literature is ‘peripheral’ or ‘weak’ and it imports those literary
types which it is lacking. This can happen when a smaller nation or language is
dominated by the culture of a larger one. Even-Zohar sees that ‘all sorts of
peripheral literature may in such cases consist of translated literature’
(1978/2012: 164). This happens at various levels. For instance, in modern
Spain regions such as Galicia import many translations from the dominant
Castilian Spanish, while Spain itself imports canonized and non-canonized
literature from the English-speaking world. In Malaysia, local oral traditions were
displaced by a written literature created from the Arabic models that had arrived
with the introduction of Islam from the fifteenth century. When we think of other
genres, the pervasive influence of English as the main international language
for the dissemination of science is leading to the displacement of some local
scientific traditions (e.g. in Scandinavian languages) even without translation.
(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. Where no type holds sway, it is easier for
foreign models to assume primacy. This can be domain specific, as occurred
with the early twentieth-century translations of new German psychoanalytic
work (Freud, Jung etc.) into languages such as English and French. And in
India, the popularity of science-fiction writing began with the importation of
models from English.
If translated literature assumes a secondary position, then it represents a periph-

eral system within the polysystem. It has no major influence over the central system
and even becomes a conservative element, preserving conventional forms and
conforming to the literary norms of the target system. Even-Zohar points out (ibid.:
165) that this secondary position is the ‘normal’ one for translated literatures.
Figure 7.1 Conditions when translation is in primary position in polysystem
However, translated literature itself is stratified (ibid.: 164). Some translated litera-
ture may be secondary while others, translated from major source literatures, are
primary. An example Even-Zohar gives is of the Hebrew literary polysystem published
between the two world wars, when translations from Russian were primary but
translations from English, German and Polish were secondary.
Even-Zohar (ibid.: 166–74) suggests that the position occupied by translated
literature in the polysystem conditions the translation strategy. If it is primary,
translators do not feel constrained to follow target literature models and are more
prepared to break conventions. They thus often produce a TT that is a close match
in terms of adequacy, reproducing the textual relations of the ST. The influence of
the foreign language model may itself then lead to the production of new models
in the TL, for non-translated as well as translated languages. On the other hand, if
translated literature is secondary, translators tend to use existing target-culture
models for the TT and produce more ‘non-adequate’ translations. The technical
term ‘adequate’ is developed in the discussion of Toury’s work in section 7.2.
Gentzler (2001: 118–20 and 123–5) stresses the way polysystem theory
represents an important advance for translation studies. The advantages of this
are several:
(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 vari-
ation according to the social, historical and cultural situation of the text.
This last point offers translation theory an escape from the repeated arguments
that had begun to follow insistently the concept of equivalence in the 1960s and
1970s (see Chapter 3). Equivalence was no longer considered to be fixed – it
varied according to extratextual conditions.
However, Gentzler (ibid.: 120–3) also outlines criticisms of polysystem
theory. These include:
(1) overgeneralization to ‘universal laws’ of translation based on relatively little

evidence;
(2) an over-reliance on an historically based Formalist model which, following
Even-Zohar’s own model of evolving trends, might be inappropriate for
translated texts in the 1970s and beyond;
(3) the tendency to focus on the abstract model rather than the ‘real-life’
constraints placed on texts and translators;
(4) the question as to how far the supposed scientific model is really objective.
In addition, Even-Zohar restricts the application of the theory to literature. An

interesting question is how far it would be applicable to other text types, such as
the translation of scientific texts mentioned earlier.
Despite these objections, polysystem theory has had a profound influence on
translation studies, moving it forward into a less prescriptive observation of trans-
lation within its different contexts.
7.1 Exploration: Polysystem theory
The full article by Even-Zohar (2005) is available online.
7.2 Toury and descriptive translation studies
Working with Even-Zohar in Tel Aviv was Gideon Toury. After his early polysystem
work on the sociocultural conditions which determine the translation of foreign liter-
ature into Hebrew, Toury focused on developing a general theory of translation. In
Chapter 1, we considered Toury’s diagrammatic representation of Holmes’s ‘map’
of translation studies. In his influential Descriptive Translation Studies – And

Beyond, Toury calls for the development of a properly systematic descriptive branch
of the discipline to replace isolated free-standing studies that are commonplace:
What is missing is not isolated attempts reflecting excellent intuitions and

supplying fine insights (which many existing studies certainly do), but a
systematic branch proceeding from clear assumptions and armed with a
methodology and research techniques made as explicit as possible and justi-
fied within translation studies itself. Only a branch of this kind can ensure that
the findings of individual studies will be intersubjectively testable and com-
parable, and the studies themselves replicable.
(Toury 2012: xiii)
Toury goes on to propose just such a methodology for the branch of descriptive
translation studies (DTS).
For Toury, translations first and foremost occupy a position in the social and
literary systems of the target culture; they are ‘facts of target cultures: on occa-
sion facts of a peculiar status, sometimes even constituting identifiable (sub)-
systems of their own’( ibid.: 23). Their position determines the translation strategies
that are employed. With this approach, Toury is continuing and building on the
polysystem work of Even-Zohar and on earlier versions of his own work (Toury
1978, 1980, 1985, 1991). He (2012: 31–4 and 102) proposes the following
three-phase methodology for systematic DTS, incorporating a description
of the product and the wider role of the sociocultural system, as below:
(1) Situate the text within the target culture system, looking at its signifi-
cance or acceptability.
(2) Undertake a textual analysis of the ST and the TT in order to identify rela-
tionships between corresponding segments in the two texts. Toury calls
these segments ‘coupled pairs’. This leads to the identification of translation
shifts, both ‘obligatory’ and ‘non-obligatory’.
(3) Attempt generalizations about the patterns identified in the two texts,
which helps to reconstruct the process of translation for this ST–TT pair.
An important additional step is the repeating of these phases for other pairs of
similar texts. This replicability allows the corpus to be extended and a descrip-
tive profile of translations to be built up according to genre, period, author, etc.
In this way, the norms pertaining to each kind of translation can be identified.
As more descriptive studies are performed, the ultimate aim is to state laws of
behaviour for translation in general. The concepts of norms and laws are further
discussed later in sections 7.2.1 and 7.2.2.
The second step of Toury’s methodology is one of the most controversial
areas. The decisions on which ST and TT segments to examine and what the
relationships are between them is an apparatus which Toury (2012: 111) states
should be supplied by translation theory. Yet, as we have seen in Chapters 4 and
5, linguistic translation theory is far from reaching a consensus as to what that
apparatus should be. Most controversially, in earlier papers (1978/2012, 1985:
32), Toury still holds to the use of a hypothetical intermediate invariant or tertium
comparationis1 as an ‘adequate translation’ against which to gauge
translation shifts. However, at the same time he also admits that, in practice, no
translation is ever fully ‘adequate’. For this contradiction, and for considering the
hypothetical invariant to be a universal given, he has been roundly criticized (see,
e.g., Gentzler 2001: 130–1, Hermans 1999: 56–7).
In his 1995/2012 book, Toury drops the invariant concept. Instead, the model
‘maps’ the TT onto the ST, comparing the two to see where the two texts corre-
spond and differ. This process involves ‘a series of (ad hoc) coupled pairs’ (Toury
2012: 103). In other words, the segments of the ST and TT that are analysed are
not pre-determined and indeed will vary in different texts. Thus, in one study it is the
addition of rhymes and omission of passages in the Hebrew translation of a German
fairy tale; in another study it is two-part or ‘conjoint’ phrases in literature translated
into Hebrew (see section 7.2.3 for an explanation of these). This is a type of compar-
ison which Toury admits (ibid.: 105) is inevitably ‘partial [and] indirect’ and which will
undergo ‘continuous revision’ during the very analytical process itself. The result has
the advantage of being a flexible and non-prescriptive means of comparing ST and
TT, but it is also one that lacks some consistency. Both flexibility and lack of consist-
ency are revealed in the analysis contained in Toury’s case studies.
7.2.1 The concept of norms of translation behaviour
The aim of Toury’s case studies is to distinguish trends of translation behaviour,

to make generalizations regarding the decision-making processes of the trans-
lator and then to ‘reconstruct’ the norms that have been in operation in the trans-
lation and make hypotheses that can be tested by future descriptive studies. The
definition of norms used by Toury is:
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 for and applicable to particular situations.
(Toury 2012: 63)
These norms are sociocultural constraints specific to a culture, society and time.
An individual is said to acquire them from the general process of education and
socialization, learning what kind of behaviour is expected in a given situation.
Thus, university students may learn norms for translation from their tutors and
these may even be set out formally in a handbook as a set of evaluation criteria.
In terms of their ‘potency’ Toury places norms between rules and idiosyncrasies
(ibid.: 65), which could be illustrated on a cline:
rules norms conventions idiosyncrasies
STRONG WEAK
Rules, supported by legislation, are the strongest constraints, since breaking a

rule will normally incur a formal legal penalty or caution. In a professional translation
context, this could be the breaking of a confidentiality agreement; or, in textual
terms, committing a gross grammatical error in a translation test, where such
accuracy is highly valued and which would usually lead to the loss of marks.
Norms, as generally agreed forms of behaviour, are partly prescriptive in nature
but weaker than rules. Violating them (for instance, writing a very informal transla-
tion commentary in an academic setting) might well lead to negative evaluation.
Conventions (Nord 2003) are more informal and may be acquired by trial
and error.
Toury considers translation to be an activity governed by norms, and these
norms ‘determine the (type and extent of) equivalence manifested in actual trans-
lations’ (Toury 2012: 61). This suggests the potential ambiguity of the term
‘norm’. Toury uses it first as a descriptive analytical category to be studied
through regularity of behaviour – norms are ‘options that translators in a given
socio-historical context select on a regular basis’ (Baker 2009: 190). So, the
belles infidèles literary translations of eighteenth-century France generally privi-
leged strategies that were free and conformed to the criterion of stylistic elegance.
As we discussed above, norms also appear to exert pressure and to perform
some kind of prescriptive function.
7.2 Exploration: Norms and rules
Look again at the rules-idiosyncracies cline above. Add a definition or

description to each of the terms to differentiate them.
Although Toury focuses initially on the analysis of the translation product, he

emphasizes (Toury 2012: 5) that this is simply in order to identify the decision-
making processes of the translator. His hypothesis is that the norms that have
prevailed in the translation of a particular text can be reconstructed from two
types of source:
(1) from the examination of texts, the products of norm-governed activity

(this will reveal ‘regularities of behaviour’ (ibid.: 64) – that is, the trends of
relationships and correspondences between ST and TT segments; it will
point to the processes adopted by the translator and, hence, the norms that
have been in operation);
(2) from the explicit statements made about norms by translators, publishers,
reviewers and other participants in the translation act. However, Toury (ibid.:
88) warns that such explicit statements may be incomplete or biased in
favour of the role played by the informants in the sociocultural system and
are therefore best avoided.2
Toury (ibid.: 61ff) sees different kinds of norms operating at different stages
of the translation process: (1) the initial norm; (2) preliminary norms; and
(3) operational norms.
The basic initial norm refers to a general choice made by translators
(Figure 7.2).
Figure 7.2 Toury’s initial norm and the continuum of adequate and acceptable translation
Thus, translators can subject themselves to the norms realized in the ST or to the
norms of the target culture or language. If it is towards the ST, then the TT will be
adequate; if the target culture norms prevail, then the TT will be acceptable. For
example, a translation of a scientific text from Portuguese to English may repro-
duce the complex sentence structure and argumentation patterns of the ST to give
an ‘adequate’ translation, or alternatively rewrite the text to conform to the clarity of
argumentation and standard SVO and passive structures of English scientific
discourse (see Bennett 2011), an ‘acceptable’ translation. The poles of adequacy
and acceptability are on a continuum since no translation is ever totally adequate
or totally acceptable. Shifts are inevitable, norm-governed and ‘a true universal of
translation’ (Toury 2012: 57). These may be obligatory (Vinay and Darbelnet’s
servitude), and non-obligatory (option), the latter being of greater interest since
they reveal the choices made by the translator (see section 4.1.3, pp. 93–4).
Lower order norms described by Toury are preliminary norms and
operational norms (ibid.: 58–9). Their relation to the initial norm is displayed in
Figure 7.3.
Figure 7.3 Initial, preliminary and operational norms
Preliminary norms are translation policy and directness of translation.

Translation policy refers to factors determining the selection of texts for trans-
lation in a specific language, culture or time. Toury does not pursue this area in
his case studies. Directness of translation relates to whether translation
occurs through an intermediate language (e.g. Finnish to Greek via English).
Questions for investigation include the tolerance of the TT culture to this
practice, which languages are involved and whether the practice is camouflaged
or not. Operational norms describe the presentation and linguistic matter of
the TT. These are matricial norms and textual-linguistic norms. Matricial norms
relate to the completeness of the TT. Phenomena include omission or relocation
of passages, textual segmentation, and the addition of passages or footnotes.
Textual-linguistic norms govern the selection of TT linguistic material: lexical
items, phrases and stylistic features (compare Nord’s list in Chapter 5).
The examination of the ST and TT should reveal shifts in the relations between
the two that have taken place in translation (compare shift analysis in Chapter 4).
It is here that Toury introduces the term ‘translation equivalence’ (ibid.: 85), but
he is at pains to emphasize that it is different from the traditional notion of equiva-
lence, which we studied in Chapter 3. Toury’s is a ‘functional–relational
concept’, by which he means that equivalence is assumed between a TT and a
ST. This is very important because analysis does not then focus prescriptively on
whether a given TT or TT-expression is ‘equivalent’ to the ST or ST-expression.
Instead it focuses on how the assumed equivalence has been realized and is a tool
for uncovering ‘the underlying concept of translation . . . [the] derived notions of
decision-making and the factors that have constrained it’ (ibid.: 86).
As noted above, DTS aims to reconstruct the norms that have been in opera-
tion during the translation process. However, Toury stresses (ibid.: 67) that
norms are a ‘graded notion’ since ‘a translator’s behaviour cannot be expected to
be fully systematic’ but will vary for a host of different reasons. In addition, these
norms are of different intensity, ranging from behaviour that is mandatory
(maximum intensity) to tendencies that are common but not mandatory and to
behaviour that is tolerated only (minimum intensity) (ibid.: 67–9). We discuss this
further in sections 7.2.4 and 7.3.
7.2.2 ‘Laws’ of translation
Toury hopes that the cumulative identification of norms in descriptive studies will
enable the formulation of probabilistic ‘laws’ of translation and thence of ‘univer-
sals of translation’. The tentative laws he proposes are listed below:
(1) The law of growing standardization (ibid.: 267–74), which states that
‘in translation, textual relations obtaining in the original are often modified,
sometimes to the point of being totally ignored, in favour of [more] habitual
options offered by a target repertoire’ (ibid.: 268). This refers to the disrup-
tion of the ST patterns in translation and the selection of linguistic options
that are more common in the TL. Thus, for example, there will be a tendency
towards a general standardization and loss of variation in style in the TT, or
at least towards an accommodation to target culture models. Examples
would be the standardization of ST culture-specific items such as food
terms that do not exist in the target culture (e.g. pitta bread translated as flat
bread ), or the translation of non-core forms into more general TL items (e.g.
English glisten and glint translated as shine). Toury considers this to be
especially the case if, as commonly occurs, translation assumes a weak and
peripheral position in the target system.
(2) The law of interference (ibid.: 274–9), which sees interference from ST to
TT as ‘a kind of default’. Interference refers to ST linguistic features (mainly
lexical and syntactic patterning) that are copied in the TT. These may be
‘negative’, because they simply create non-normal TT patterns. For example,
negative interference occurs when a new term (e.g. benchmarking) is
borrowed into the TL or when a collocation is calqued from the ST and creates
an unusual collocation in the TT (e.g. Vinay and Darbelnet’s example of Normal
School from the French élite École Normale). Or the interference may be
‘positive’. That is, the existence of features in the ST that will not be abnormal
in the TL makes it more likely they will be used by the translator. For instance,
subject–verb–object (SVO) order may tend to be selected by a translator
working from English into a more flexible TL (e.g. Arabic, Hebrew, Spanish)
where SVO is possible but where VSO order is more standard. In this way,
the common SL patterns are reinforced in the TT. Toury (ibid.: 278) considers
tolerance of interference to depend on sociocultural factors and the prestige
of the different literary systems. Thus, there would be greater tolerance when
translating from a prestigious language or culture, especially if the target
language or culture is considered to be more ‘minor’. An example would be
translation from Arabic to Malay, where borrowing, especially of religious
items, is very common. These laws are further discussed in section 7.2.4.
7.2.3 Toury’s model in action
Toury (1995/2012) presents a series of case studies, including an ‘exemplary’

study of conjoint phrases in Hebrew TTs. Conjoint phrases or binomials are pairs
of near-synonyms that function together as a single unit. Examples from English

which Toury gives are able and talented and law and order; and, from German,
nie und nimmer (‘never ever’). He discusses (ibid.: 103–4) the significance of
such phrases in Hebrew literature and indicates that their use is prevalent in old
written Hebrew texts from the Bible onwards and in Hebrew texts from the end
of the eighteenth century onwards, when the language was struggling to adapt
to modern writing and was under the influence of imported literary models.
However, the preference for conjoint phrases has declined over the past sixty
years, as Hebrew has become a more confident and primary literature and has
moved away from the imitation of imported models. Nevertheless, Toury (ibid.:
105) suggests that the number of such phrases in Hebrew translations of the
same period tends to be higher than in Hebrew STs and that translations also
contain more newly coined or ‘free’ combinations (rather than fixed phrases). He
supports this with examples from Hebrew translations of children’s literature, of
Goethe and of a story by the German writer Heinrich Böll, ‘Ansichten eines
Clowns’ (‘Views of a clown’). In the latter case, the translator’s very frequent use
of conjoint phrases to translate single lexical items in German produces a Hebrew
TT that is almost 30 per cent longer than the ST. The effect, in a translation
published in 1971, is also to make the Hebrew seem very dated.
From these findings, Toury puts forward a possible generalization to be tested
in future studies across languages and cultures. The claim (ibid.: 111) is that
frequent use of conjoint phrases, particularly in place of single lexical items in the
ST, ‘may represent a universal of translation into systems which are young, or
otherwise “weak” ’. This consideration of translated literature as part of a hierar-
chical system of weak and strong literatures shows the way that DTS interlinks
with polysystem theory.
Although DTS centres very much on description, the findings may also be
applied (see the Holmes/Toury map in Chapter 1). An example is Toury’s own
translation of Mark Twain’s Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court, where
Toury says he has deliberately used frequent conjoint phrases in Hebrew in order
to create ‘a parodistic air of “stylistic archaism” ’ (ibid.: 112).
7.2.4 Discussion of Toury’s work
It is now clear that Toury’s methodology for DTS has been an important step
towards setting firm foundations not only for future descriptive work but for the
discipline as a whole. As early as 1993, Gentzler lists four aspects of Toury’s

theory that have had an important impact on translation studies:
(1) the abandonment of one-to-one notions of correspondence as well as

the possibility of literary/linguistic equivalence (unless by accident);
(2) the involvement of literary tendencies within the target cultural system in
the production of any translated text;
(3) the destabilization of the notion of an original message with a fixed identity;
(4) the integration of both the original text and the translated text in the semi-
otic web of intersecting cultural systems.
(Gentzler 1993/2001: 131)
Nevertheless, the ad hoc nature of the ST–TT mapping inevitably means that
Toury’s model is not fully objective or replicable. The alternative is Holmes’s
(1988a: 80) suggestion of an extensive ‘repertory of features’ approach. As we
have seen in Chapter 4, this is potentially what Holmes called ‘arduous and
tedious’, although this is certainly not a justification for not making an attempt.
Other elements of the methodology are questioned by Hermans. These are
Toury’s ambivalence towards the notion of equivalence (Hermans 1999: 97) and
the confusion inherent in the proposed terms ‘adequate’ and ‘acceptable’
because of their evaluative connotations in other contexts (ibid.: 77).3 In a review
of Toury’s earlier (1980) book, Hermans (1995: 218) also queries Toury’s exclu-
sively TT-oriented position. Certainly, Toury’s early stance risked overlooking, for
example, some of the complex ideological and political factors such as:
Q the status of the ST in its own culture, e.g. a ‘classic’ author such as
Ernest Hemingway or a modern-day best-seller such as Stephen King’s The
Dark Tower series and its TV series and film tie-ins);
Q the source culture’s possible promotion of translation of its own
literature, through grants from public or privately funded institutions, and
online4; and
Q the effect that translation might exert back on the system of the source
culture (e.g. the success in translation of Nordic noir writers in the 2010s
has considerably enhanced their reputation in their home countries).
These are areas which will benefit from employing concepts from studies of
ideology in translation (see Chapter 8) and from reception theory, notably consid-
eration of the way in which a new literary work influences its audience (see
Chapter 9). Toury’s later work (e.g. 2004) in fact shows keener concern for the
relation of sociocultural factors to the linguistic choices and, although it
is worth noting that systems theorists in general have restricted their work to
literary translation, the descriptive model does lend itself to the examination of the
translation of non-fiction or technical texts or other modes such as audiovisual
translation (Karamitroglou 2000, Pedersen 2011, see this volume, Chapter 11).
More recently, it is the ‘norms’ and particularly ‘laws’ of translation that have
received closest attention. Criticisms which Gentzler makes of the earlier
polysystem work (see section 7.1) have been levelled at Toury. In DTS, there is
still a tendency to (over)generalize from case studies, and the ‘laws’ Toury tenta-
tively proposes are in some ways simply reformulations of generally held, though
not necessarily proven, beliefs about translation. It is also debatable to what extent
a semi-scientific norm/law approach can be applied to a field such as translation.
The norms described are, after all, abstract and only traceable in Toury’s method
by examining the results of the often subconscious behaviour that is supposedly
governed by them. It is impossible to know or study all the variables relevant to
translation and to find laws relevant to all translation (Hermans 1999: 92).
Toury’s two laws themselves seem to some extent to be contradictory, or at
least they appear to pull in different directions: the law of growing standard-
ization depicts TL-oriented norms, while the law of interference is ST-oriented.
We also suggest the need for modification of the law of interference, and even
its replacement by more refined laws, such as that the law of reduced control
over linguistic realization in translation. Such a law would take into account
the constraining factors which affect the translation process and it would
acknowledge that the concept of norms and laws in translation is more complex
than is suggested by some of Toury’s studies. These constraining factors include
the effect of ST patterning, the preference for clarity and avoidance of ambiguity
in TTs and real-life considerations for the translator, such as the need to maximize
the efficiency of thought processes and the importance of decision-making under
time pressure.
Toury answers some of these criticisms by stressing that these laws are
probabilistic explanations at different levels of language. He defends the term
‘law’ rather than ‘universals’ because ‘this notion [law] has the possibility of
exception built into it [and] because it should always be possible to explain away
(seeming) exceptions to a law with the help of another law, operating on another
level’ (Toury 2004: 29). As Toury argues, so-called ‘universals’ of translation
such as explicitation (see Chapter 4) should be understood to be common
tendencies in translated texts and cannot cover every act of translation. No
features of translation are ever ‘universal’ unless they are so general and bland as
to be of little use (e.g. ‘translation involves shifts’). In the same volume, Chesterman
(2004) pursues this link between Toury’s laws and different types of universals,
suggesting a division into the following:
(1) ‘S-universals’. These relate to ‘universal differences between translations

and their source texts’ (ibid.: 39). These patterns of shifts that occur in
ST–TT pairs encompass Toury’s two laws of interference and growing
standardization as well as some of the trends of shifts identified by the
models discussed in Chapters 4 to 6:
Q TTs tend to be longer than STs;
Q dialect tends to be normalized;
Q explicitation is common;
Q repetition is perhaps reduced;
Q retranslation may lead to a TT that is closer to the ST.
(2) ‘T-universals’. These are features that characterize translated language
as compared to naturally occurring language, irrespective of the source
language. They are identified by examining TTs without reference to their
STs. These might include:
Q lexical simplification and conventionalization (including reduced variety
in TTs);
Q a contrary move towards non-typical patterns (e.g. unusual collocations
such as do a mistake rather than make a mistake);
Q under-representation of lexical items that are specific to the TL (e.g. the
reduced use of culture-specific items such as sophomore or informal
words such as pester which are associated with specific varieties of
English).
Although S-universals are derived from a ST–TT pair comparison and T-universals
are based on the study of TTs vs. non-translated TL texts, some of the features may
overlap. So, some types of standardization discussed under S-universals derived
from, say, Arabic>English and Russian>English text pairs may also be seen in lexical
simplification as a T-universal in a corpus of English translations of promotional leaf-
lets when compared to leaflets on similar topics written originally in English. Both
types of universals also benefit from the study of large amounts of text. This is espe-
cially so for T-universals since subtler differences between translated language and
naturally occurring language may well escape intuition and may only be identifiable
using corpus-based techniques and the tools of corpus linguistics (see Chapter 11).
7.3 Exploration: Translation laws and universals
Look at the different laws and universals suggested above and see if you
can find examples of them in translations involving your own language pairs.
Read Chesterman (2010), available online, and note how these universals
might be investigated.
In a volume which takes up the challenge of Toury’s subtitle ‘and beyond’,

Anthony Pym seeks to resolve the apparent contradiction in the two laws:
The main point is that, thanks to these probabilistic formulations, it becomes

quite reasonable to have contradictory tendencies on the level of linguistic
variables. If social conditions A apply, then we might expect more standard-
ization. If social conditions B are in evidence, expect interference. And there
is no necessary contradiction involved.
(Pym 2008: 321)
The link to social conditions is crucial, since it recognizes that they influence and
to some extent determine the translation patterns. As an extreme example, in
conditions of censorship where there is concern to filter out unwanted ideolog-
ical elements of a ST, it might be expected that the TT would standardize or
substitute culture-specific elements or even omit chunks that conflict with the
accepted target culture ideology. This is what happened, for example, in the
subtitling of Soviet Films in the Fascist Italy of the 1920s and 30s (Stephenson
2007). For Pym (2008: 323), it is the concept of risk and reward that is a possible
means of unifying the two laws: ‘Translators will tend to avoid risk by standard-
izing language and/or channelling interference, if and when there are no rewards
for them to do otherwise.’
7.3 Chesterman’s translation norms
Toury’s concept of norms is focused mainly on their function as a descriptive

category to identify translation patterns. However, as we noted in section 7.2.1,
even such supposedly non-prescriptive norms attract approval or disapproval
within society. Likewise, Chesterman (1997: 68) states that all norms ‘exert a
prescriptive pressure’.
Chesterman himself proposes another set of norms, covering the area of
Toury’s initial and operational norms (see Figures 7.1 and 7.3 earlier). These are
(1) product or expectancy norms and (2) process or professional norms.
(1) Product or expectancy norms ‘are established by the expectations of

readers of a translation (of a given type) concerning what a translation (of
this type) should be like’ (ibid.: 64). Factors governing these norms include
the predominant translation tradition in the target culture, the discourse
conventions of the similar TL genre, and economic and ideological consid-
erations. Chesterman makes two important points about these norms:
(a) They allow evaluative judgements about translations since readers
have a notion of what is an ‘appropriate’ or ‘acceptable’ translation of
the specific genre and will approve of a translator who conforms to
these expectations (ibid.: 65).
(b) They are sometimes ‘validated by a norm-authority of some kind’ (ibid.:
66). For example, a teacher, literary critic and publisher’s reader can
confirm the prevalent norm by encouraging translations that conform
with that norm. This may be, for instance, that a translation should meet
TL criteria of readability and fluency (see Chapter 9). Alternatively, a
literary critic may criticize a translation that offends the norm, and this
criticism may damage the reception of that book among ordinary
readers. Of course, as Chesterman notes, there may sometimes be a
clash between the norm ‘authorities’ and society in general.
(2) Professional norms ‘regulate the translation process itself’ (ibid.: 67).
They are subordinate to and determined by expectancy norms. Chesterman
proposes three kinds of professional norm.
(a) The accountability norm (ibid.: 68): This is an ethical norm, dealing
with professional standards of integrity and thoroughness. The trans-
lator will accept responsibility for the work produced for the commis-
sioner and reader.
(b) The communication norm (ibid.: 69): This is a social norm. The
translator, the communication ‘expert’, works to ensure maximum
communication between the parties (compare Holz-Mänttäri’s model
of translatorial action in Chapter 5).
(c) The ‘relation’ norm (ibid.: 69–70): This is a linguistic norm which
deals with the relation between ST and TT. Again, in terms similar to those
we discussed in Chapter 5, Chesterman rejects narrow equivalence rela-

tions and sees the appropriate relation being judged by the translator
‘according to text-type, the wishes of the commissioner, the intentions of
the original writer, and the assumed needs of the prospective readers’.
As with expectancy norms, these professional norms are validated partly by norm
authorities such as other professionals and professional bodies but also partly
by their very existence. They include social and ethical factors that are not covered
by Toury, and therefore they may be useful in enhancing the description of the
overall translation process and product. Table 7.1 provides a visual comparison
of Toury and Chesterman’s norms.
Table 7.1 Comparison of Toury’s and Chesterman’s norms
Toury Chesterman
Initial norm TT’s subjection Product or What the readers expect

to ST-oriented norms expectancy of the TT; they relate to
(adequacy) or norms translation tradition and
TT-oriented norms prevailing genre and
(acceptability) discourse conventions
and give criteria for
evaluation
Preliminary Translation policy for Professional Accountability norm
norms selection of texts and norms is ethical; the translator
directness of translation accepts responsibility
(sometimes via intermediate Communication norm
language) is social; translator is
expert
Operational Relate to the choices in the Relation norm is
norms text itself; matricial norms linguistic; judged
(is the text complete?) and according to text type,
textual-linguistic norms brief, ST author
(the lexical and syntactic intentions and needs
choices) of TT readers
7.4 Exploration: Different norms and their applications
How might you investigate each of the norms presented in this chapter?
7.4 Other models of descriptive translation studies:

Lambert and van Gorp and the Manipulation School
With the influence of Even-Zohar’s and Toury’s early work in polysystem theory,
the International Comparative Literature Association held several meetings and
conferences around the theme of translated literature. Particularly prominent
centres were in Belgium, Israel and the Netherlands, and the first conferences
were held at Leuven (1976), Tel Aviv (1978) and Antwerp (1980).
The key publication of this group of scholars, known as the Manipulation
School or Group, was the collection of papers entitled The Manipulation of
Literature: Studies in Literary Translation, edited by Theo Hermans (1985a). In
his introduction, ‘Translation studies and a new paradigm’, Hermans summarizes
the group’s view of translated literature:
What they have in common is a view of literature as a complex and dynamic

system; a conviction that there should be a continual interplay between theo-
retical models and practical case studies; an approach to literary translation
which is descriptive, target-organized, functional and systemic; and an
interest in the norms and constraints that govern the production and recep-
tion of translations, in the relation between translation and other types of text
processing, and in the place and role of translations both within a given litera-
ture and in the interaction between literatures.
(Hermans 1985b: 10–11)
The link with polysystem theory and DTS can be seen to be strong and the
Manipulation School proceeded on the basis of ‘a continual interplay between
theoretical models and practical case studies’.
A key point at that time was the exact methodology for the case studies. The
paper by José Lambert and Hendrik van Gorp (1985/2006), ‘On describing
translations’, draws on Even-Zohar’s and Toury’s early work and proposes one
such scheme for the comparison of the ST and TT literary systems and for the
description of relations within them. Each system comprises a description of
author, text and reader. Lambert and van Gorp divide the scheme into four
sections (Lambert and van Gorp 1985/2006: 46–7):
(1) preliminary data: information on title page, metatexts (preface, etc.) and
the general strategy (whether the translation is partial or complete); the
results should lead to hypotheses concerning levels 2 and 3;
(2) macro-level: the division of the text, titles and presentation of the chapters,
the internal narrative structure and any overt authorial comment; this should
generate hypotheses about the micro-level (level 3);
(3) micro-level: the identification of shifts on different linguistic levels; these
include the lexical level, the grammatical patterns, narrative point of view
and modality (the results should interact with the macro-level (level 2) and
lead to their ‘consideration in terms of the broader systemic context’;
(4) systemic context: here micro- and macro-levels, text and theory are
compared and norms identified; intertextual relations (relations with other
texts including translations) and intersystemic relations (relations with other
genres, codes) are also described.
Lambert and van Gorp (ibid.: 41) accept that ‘it is impossible to summarize all
relationships involved in the activity of translation’ but suggest a systematic
scheme that avoids superficial and intuitive commentaries and ‘a priori judgments
and convictions’. Like Hermans, they stress the link between the individual case
study and the wider theoretical framework:
It is not at all absurd to study a single translated text or a single translator, but
it is absurd to disregard the fact that this translation or this translator has
(positive or negative) connections with other translations and translators.
(Lambert and van Gorp 1985/2006: 45)
This is still a crucial statement for those undertaking descriptive studies, even
though DTS has moved on since that paper was written, not least with Toury’s
1995/2012 work and later corpus-based studies. Scholars from the late André
Lefevere onwards also rather marginalized polysystem theory as they began to
consider more closely the role of ideology and patronage in the system of trans-
lated literature. In this respect, pointers for future work in the theory of descriptive
studies were given by Hermans:
The discipline generally, but the descriptive school in particular, urgently

needs to take account of developments in some of the more vigorous intel-
lectual and social movements of our time, including gender studies, post-
structuralism, postcolonial and cultural studies, and the new interdisciplinarity
of human sciences.
(Hermans 1999: 159–60)
We shall examine the contribution to translation studies of some of these other

movements in Chapters 8 and 9.
Case study
The text for this case study is the first in the hugely successful Harry Potter
series: Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone by J. K. Rowling5 and its trans-
lations into Italian (Harry Potter e la pietra filosofale6) and Spanish (Harry Potter
y la piedra filosofal 7). Following Toury’s three-phase methodology, we shall:
(1) place the TTs in their TT cultural systems;

(2) ‘map’ TT segments onto the ST equivalents;
(3) attempt to draw some generalizations regarding the translation strategies
employed and the norms at work.
Comparing two translations of the same ST, even though they are into different
TLs, allows some triangulation of findings and helps to avoid jumping to conclu-
sions based on a single isolated study, as Lambert and van Gorp warned.
(1) Both the Italian and Spanish TTs are presented and accepted as transla-
tions, the translators’ names and the original titles being published on the
copyright pages. The Italian also has the translator’s name on the title page.
Both TTs are direct translations from English. Even though both target
cultures have strong native children’s literature traditions themselves, the
decision to select this book for translation is not surprising given its huge
success in the UK and the USA where it became the best-selling book in
the country among both adults and children.
The fact that the Spanish and Italian books are translations is not
stressed, however. The blurb on the back cover of the Spanish TT, for
example, quotes comments from reviews in the UK and Italy and emphasizes
the book’s relevance to ‘all children of all ages’. The Italian TT also incorpo-
rates illustrations by an Italian illustrator, Serena Riglietti, cited along with the
translator on the title page, where the book is described as a romanzo (novel).
The use of this word indicates the way in which the book is marketed as adult
literature in Italy. There is a strong suggestion, therefore, that the Spanish
and Italian publishers were prepared to make modifications, even perhaps
including a modification of the genre, in order to ensure its full acceptability,

including to more sophisticated adult readers.
(2) The TTs are full translations of the ST with no major additions, omissions or
footnotes. The choice of ST–TT segments to examine is ad hoc in Toury’s
model. In the case of Harry Potter, one of the most striking features of the
book (and indeed of much children’s literature) concerns the names of char-
acters and elements related to the school of magic and sorcery of which
Harry Potter is a pupil. The school itself has the sonorous and Anglo-Saxon
sounding name of Hogwarts. Along the old English boarding school model,
it is divided into houses with suggestive names such as Slytherin, Gryffindor
and Ravenclaw. The names of the characters are similarly sonorous and
suggestive: Hagrid, Hedwig, Snape, Draco Malfoy, Argus Filch and the
headmaster Albus Dumbledore.
The two TTs deal with these names in very different ways. The Spanish
TT, almost without exception, retains these names in the translation, although
the first time Draco Malfoy appears, the translator adds an explanation of his
name in brackets: ‘Draco (dragón) Malfoy’. On the other hand, the Italian TT,
although transferring some of the names such as Hogwarts, Hagrid and
Hedwig directly into the TT, makes an attempt at translating the sense of
others: Slytherin is Serpeverde (‘green snake’), Ravenclaw is Pecoranera
(‘black sheep’), Snape is Piton (‘python’), Argus Filch is Argus Gazza
(‘Argus Magpie’), and so on. Where the sound of the name is more impor-
tant and where the original would be difficult for the TT readers to pronounce
(as happens with Gryffindor) the Italian translator adapts (in this case to
Grifondoro). She goes further with the headmaster’s name: he becomes
Albus Silente, and one of his titles, Supreme Mugwamp, is rendered by the
colloquial and humorous supremo Pezzo Grosso (‘Big Fish’). Even though
this is not a neologism, it is markedly different from the neutral and formal
Spanish jefe supremo (‘supreme boss’).
Names of crucial features of life in the school – such as the ball-game
Quidditch and the term Muggles for non-magicians – are retained in Spanish,
although italicized to emphasize their foreignness. In Italian, Quidditch is
retained, but Muggles is replaced by the neologism Babbani. Some of the
most playful names are those of the authors in the list of textbooks which
the children receive before the start of term. Typical is Magical Theory
by Adalbert Waffling. The Spanish does not change the author’s name, while
the Italian attempts to suggest the play on words with Adalbert Incant. Even
more imaginatively, the Italian TT changes the author’s name in The Dark
Forces by Quentin Trimble to Dante Tremante, using the rhyme of the Italian,
the sense of tremante (‘trembling’) and, of course, the allusion to Dante and
his inferno.
Interestingly, although the names are retained, there is intralingual transla-
tion between the UK and US versions, evident in the title (The Sorcerer’s
Stone in the US8) and in some lexical, cultural and syntactic selections – for
instance, US cookies for UK biscuits and US baseball for UK rounders.
(3) From these findings certain generalizations can be proposed concerning
the translation norms that have been in operation:
(a) the Spanish adopts a more ST-oriented translation strategy, retaining
the lexical items of the English original, even when this means that the
TT reader will encounter pronunciation problems and/or not under-
stand the allusion;
(b) the Italian adopts a more TT-oriented translation strategy, modifying
many of the names to create new humorous sound patterns, plays on
words and allusions.
This brief descriptive comparison of two translations suggests that different

norms are at work in the two target cultures (or at least in these two translations).
It also provides research questions that can be addressed in future studies in an
attempt to refine the generalizations and contribute to knowledge of laws of
translation. For example, were these same strategies followed in subsequent
translations of the Harry Potter series in Spanish and Italian? Do translations of
modern children’s literature into Spanish generally tend to reinforce ST lexical
patterns? How far does the translation strategy depend on the translator, the
publisher, the SL, the social and historical conditions of production? What
happens when names and cultural references are translated and transliterated
into a language such as Arabic or Chinese? Do translations of this literature into
Italian usually demonstrate a TL orientation? If so, does this suggest that Italian
culture gives central position to its own culture, forcing imports to adapt to it?
How has this varied over time? Do other genres show the same trend?
Discussion of case study
The advantages of Toury’s methodology are that an attempt is made to place

translation within its target-culture context, it is a relatively simple methodology to
follow, and it is replicable. As other studies follow up the findings, a better picture
can gradually be formed about the translation of the genre of modern children’s
literature, how this has varied over the years, the translation strategies into Italian
and Spanish, their relation to what might have been assumed to be the more
dominant English culture, and so on. A framework has thus been set up enabling
researchers from almost any background to contribute in a meaningful way to our
knowledge of translation. Nevertheless, some objections could be raised. So, the
choice of ST–TT coupled pairs (segments that are analysed) is still far from
systematic. Also, while the findings from the study of the translation of proper
names are enlightening, names might be expected to be the most culturally
bound items. It does not necessarily mean that the findings reflect the overall
translation strategy. For this reason, it may well be preferable, as suggested by
Holmes, to develop a checklist of features to examine, even if that list is not as
comprehensive as some of the taxonomies we reviewed in Chapters 4 and 5. The
location of such studies within the target-culture context is also inevitably limited
in Toury’s model. Focus could be shifted to look more deeply at the interaction
between culture, ideology and text, and to look at the translators and publishing
industry themselves. These topics are discussed in the next two chapters.
Summary
Even-Zohar’s polysystem theory moves the study of translations out of a purely

linguistic analysis of shifts and a one-to-one notion of equivalence and into an
investigation of the position of translated literature as a whole in the historical
and literary systems of the target culture. Toury then focuses attention on
finding a methodology for descriptive translation studies. His TT-oriented theo-
retical framework combines linguistic comparison of ST and TT and considera-
tion of the cultural framework of the TT. His aim is to identify the patterns of
behaviour in the translation and thereby to ‘reconstruct’ the norms at work in the
translation process. The ultimate aim of DTS is to discover probabilistic laws of
translation, which may be used to aid future translators and researchers. The
exact form of ST–TT comparison remains to be determined; scholars of the
related Manipulation School led an interplay of theoretical models and case
studies in the 1980s, among which was Lambert and van Gorp’s systematic
‘scheme’ for describing translations. Chesterman has later developed the concept
of norms.
Further reading
For a summary of the influence of the Russian Formalists on polysystem theory,

read Gentzler (2001: 118–25). Selected Formalist writings in English translation
are to be found in Matejka and Pomorska (1971). For further reading on
polysystem theory, see Even-Zohar (1978, 1990, 2005) and, for a challenge to
the theory, Fung Chang (2008, 2010). For further discussion on norms, see
Komissarov (1993), Hermans (1996), Nord (1997), Pym (1998) and Schäffner
(1999, 2010). For the Manipulation School and other descriptive approaches,
see the collection of papers in Hermans (1985a). Related work by Lefevere is
discussed in Chapter 8. For a later perspective on descriptive translation studies,
including norms, see the papers in Pym et al. (2008). For translation universals,
see Mauranen and Kujamäki (2004).
Discussion and research points
1 ‘Translation is no longer a phenomenon whose nature and borders are

given once and for all, but an activity dependent on the relations within a
certain cultural system’ (Even-Zohar 1978/2012: 167). What are the
implications of this comment for translation and translation studies?
How far do you agree with it? How far do you agree that translations are
‘facts of target cultures’ alone?
2 How far do Chesterman’s norms complement or advance Toury’s concept
of norms? Expand Figure 7.3 to account for Chesterman’s norms. Are
there other elements or norms which you feel they have omitted? Follow
up the discussion of norms in the suggested further reading.
3 Using Toury’s methodology, carry out a descriptive study of the translation
of proper names in two of the Harry Potter books in another TL. Are
your findings similar to those given in the case study in this chapter?
What generalizations is it possible to then make about the translation
process? What hypotheses can you propose and how would you seek to
investigate them further? If you are working in a class, compare your
findings with other members of the class. How replicable do the studies
seem to be?
4 Carry out a study of the same texts using Lambert and van Gorp’s model.
What differences do you note compared to Toury’s model? Which
seems to be more rigorous? Is it possible to merge the two?
5 Systems theories have focused almost exclusively on literary translation.
How far do you feel these theories may work for non-fiction, journalistic
and technical texts?
The ITS website at www.routledge.com/cw/munday contains:
Q a video summary of the chapter;

Q a recap multiple-choice test;
Q customizable PowerPoint slides;
Q further reading links and extra journal articles;
Q more research project questions.

Jeremy Munday 2016 Chapter 7 Systems Theories Introducing Translation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jeremy Munday 2016 Chapter 7 Systems Theories Introducing Translation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jeremy Munday 2016 Chapter 7 Systems Theories Introducing Translation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER 7

Watch the introductory video on the companion website.

(1) in the way the TL culture selects works for translation;

a multiple system, a system of various systems which intersect with each

Importantly, the interaction and positioning of these systems occurs in a dynamic

(1) When a ‘young’ literature is being established and looks initially to

If translated literature assumes a secondary position, then it represents a periph-

Figure 7.1 Conditions when translation is in primary position in polysystem

(1) overgeneralization to ‘universal laws’ of translation based on relatively little

In addition, Even-Zohar restricts the application of the theory to literature. An

7.1 Exploration: Polysystem theory

The full article by Even-Zohar (2005) is available online.

7.2 Toury and descriptive translation studies

of translation studies. In his influential Descriptive Translation Studies – And

What is missing is not isolated attempts reflecting excellent intuitions and

7.2.1 The concept of norms of translation behaviour

The aim of Toury’s case studies is to distinguish trends of translation behaviour,

the translation of general values or ideas shared by a community – as to what

rules norms conventions idiosyncrasies

Rules, supported by legislation, are the strongest constraints, since breaking a

7.2 Exploration: Norms and rules

Look again at the rules-idiosyncracies cline above. Add a definition or

Although Toury focuses initially on the analysis of the translation product, he

(1) from the examination of texts, the products of norm-governed activity

Figure 7.3 Initial, preliminary and operational norms

Preliminary norms are translation policy and directness of translation.

7.2.3 Toury’s model in action

Toury (1995/2012) presents a series of case studies, including an ‘exemplary’

of near-synonyms that function together as a single unit. Examples from English

7.2.4 Discussion of Toury’s work

discipline as a whole. As early as 1993, Gentzler lists four aspects of Toury’s

(1) the abandonment of one-to-one notions of correspondence as well as

(1) ‘S-universals’. These relate to ‘universal differences between translations

7.3 Exploration: Translation laws and universals

In a volume which takes up the challenge of Toury’s subtitle ‘and beyond’,

The main point is that, thanks to these probabilistic formulations, it becomes

7.3 Chesterman’s translation norms

Toury’s concept of norms is focused mainly on their function as a descriptive

(1) Product or expectancy norms ‘are established by the expectations of

we discussed in Chapter 5, Chesterman rejects narrow equivalence rela-

Table 7.1 Comparison of Toury’s and Chesterman’s norms

Initial norm TT’s subjection Product or What the readers expect

7.4 Exploration: Different norms and their applications

7.4 Other models of descriptive translation studies:

What they have in common is a view of literature as a complex and dynamic

The discipline generally, but the descriptive school in particular, urgently

We shall examine the contribution to translation studies of some of these other

(1) place the TTs in their TT cultural systems;

including a modification of the genre, in order to ensure its full acceptability,

This brief descriptive comparison of two translations suggests that different

Discussion of case study

The advantages of Toury’s methodology are that an attempt is made to place

Even-Zohar’s polysystem theory moves the study of translations out of a purely

For a summary of the influence of the Russian Formalists on polysystem theory,

Discussion and research points

1 ‘Translation is no longer a phenomenon whose nature and borders are

The ITS website at www.routledge.com/cw/munday contains:

Q a video summary of the chapter;

You might also like