A Criticism of Even-Zohar’s Polysystem Theory with a Multifaceted Approach to the Position of Translated Literature in the Persian Literary Polysystem

Document Type : Original Article

Author

Assistant Professor, Department of Foreign Languages, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran.

10.22126/tbih.2025.11377.1023

Abstract

The contribution of Even Zohar’s (1978/2012) polysystem theory to our understanding of the position of translated literature in the Persian literary system is crucial, though the theory has some shortcomings. In fact, by using a single approach - regardless of how appropriate it may be - it is impossible to accurately examine the position of translated literature in the literary polysystem of any language. Hence, it must be investigated with a “multifaceted approach” to help eliminate the polysystem theory’s shortcomings. In this article, we critique some fundamental principles of polysystem theory by examining the position of notable translated literature cases within the Persian literary polysystem, highlighting the theory’s shortcomings and limitations in terms of external validity. The findings indicated that the most important flaws in this theory are a lack of attention to the role of the readers’ reception, a disregard for translation movements, and the agency of academics, translators, and patrons as determining factors in the position of translated literature. Hence, it is necessary to integrate the above facets into the polysystem theory to determine the position of translated literature in the literary polysystem of each language.

Keywords

References

Abrams, M. H., Harpham, G. (2015). A glossary of literary terms. Cengage learning.
American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. American Psychological Association.
Bahri, H. (2011). “The Role of Translation Movements in the Cultural Maintenance of Iran from the Era of Cyrus the Great up to the Constitutional Revolution.” Translation Journal. 15(4).
Batchelor, K. (2018). Translation and Paratexts. Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice, translated by R. Nice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bressler, Charles E. (2011). Literary criticism: An introduction to theory and practice. Pearson.
Chang, N. F. (2001). Polysystem theory: Its prospects as a framework for translation research. Target. 13(2), 317-332.
Chang, N. F. (2011). In defence of polysystem theory. Target. 23(2), 311-347. doi: 10.1075/target.23.2.08cha
Chesterman, A. (2006). “Questions in the Sociology of Translation.” In J. F. Duarte et al. (Eds.), Translation Studies at the Interface of Disciplines, John Benjamins, 9-27.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2023). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Dobie, Ann B. (2015). Theory into practice: An introduction to literary criticism. Cengage learning.  
Dongfeng, W. (2008). When a Turning Occurs: Counter-evidence to Polysystem Hypothesis. In W. Ning, & S. Yifeng (Eds.), Translation, Globalisation and Localisation: A Chinese Perspective (1st ed., 140-154), Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Even-Zohar, I. (1978/2012). ‘The position of translated literature within the literary polysystem’, in L. Venuti (ed.) (2012), pp. 162–67. Also in I. Even-Zohar (1978) Papers in Historical Poetics, Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute, 21-27.
Fowler, A. (1979). Genre and the Literary Canon. New Literary History, 11(1), 97. doi:10.2307/468873
Gentzler, E. (2001). Contemporary Translation Theories (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Guillen, C. (1971). Literature as System: Essays Toward the Theory of Literary History. Princeton University Press.
Hermans, T. (1999). Translation in systems: Descriptive and system-oriented approaches explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Holub, Robert C. (1993). “Constance School of Reception Aesthetics [Reception Theory]”. In Encyclopedia of Contemporary Literary Theory: Approaches, Scholars, Terms, edited by Irena Makaryk. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993, 14-18. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442674417-006.
Jauss, Hans R. (1970). Literary History as a Challenge to Literary Theory. New Literary History, Vol. 2, No. 1, A Symposium on Literary History (Autumn, 1970), 7-37. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Kuhiwczak, P. (2000). Polysystem theory and multifunctional role of literary translation. Translation Ireland. 167-174.
Munday, J. (2016). Introducing Translation Studies, 4th Ed. London and New York: Routledge.
Shuttleworth, M. (2009). Polysystem. In M. Baker, & G. Saldanha (Eds.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (2nd ed., 197-200), Abingdon and New York: Routledge.
Simeoni, D. (1998). “The Pivotal Status of the Translator’s Habitus”. Target. 10(1). 1-39.
Toury, G. (1995). Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. John Benjamins.
Tymoczko, M. (2002). “Connecting the Two Infinite Orders: Translation and Chaos Theory.” In M. Tymoczko & E. Gentzler (Eds.), Translation and Power, University of Massachusetts Press, 97-116.
Tynyanov, Y. N. (1929) Arkhaisty I novatory [Archaists and Innovators], Moscow: Akademia; reprinted 1967, Munich: Wilhelm Fink.
Tynyanov, Y. N. (1971). ‘On Literary Evolution’, trans. C. A. Luplow, in Ladislav Matejka and Krystyna Pomorska (eds) Readings in Russian Poetics: Formalist and Structuralist Views, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 66-78.
Venuti, L. (1998). The Scandals of Translation: Towards an Ethics of Difference. Routledge.
Zhang, X. (2014). Application of Polysystem Theory in the Field of Translation, Comparative Literature: East & West, 19(1), 138-143. doi:10.1080/25723618.2014.12015480

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics