http://www.erudit.org/revue/meta/1998/v43/n1/004592ar.

html
http://www.biu.ac.il/hu/tr/tr-sta/weissbrod.html
TRANSLATION RESEARCH IN THE FRAMEWORK
OF THE TEL AVIV SCHOOL OF POETICS AND SEMIOTICS [!]
Rachel Weissbro
#he $ebrew %niversit& o 'erusalem and (e&t (erl )ollege* +srael
Me!a" #LIII" $" $%%&
R's()'
Isral a apport une contribution importante la traductologie.
Depuis la fin des annes 1960, cette contribution est largement
identifie lcole de potiue et de smiotiue de l!ni"ersit de
#el$%"i", dite cole de #el$%"i". &et article se propose de prsenter
les ides fondamentales de lcole de #el$%"i" et de retracer leur
d"eloppement. Il passe en re"ue les ralisations dans les di"erses
disciplines traductologiues' t(orie, rec(erc(e descripti"e et
sciences appliues. Il e)amine leur influence sur la rec(erc(e
actuelle en traductologie. %bordant uelues c(ecs ui, au) *eu)
de lauteur, sont susceptibles dentra"er le d"eloppement de lcole,
larticle indiue les directions "enir en mati+re de rec(erc(e et les
dfis ue lcole doit encore rele"er.
Abs!rac!
Israel (as made an important contribution to translation studies.
,ince t(e late 1960s, its contribution in t(is field is mainl* identified
-it( t(e #el %"i" sc(ool of poetics and semiotics. #(is paper sets out
to introduce t(e basic ideas of t(e #el %"i" sc(ool and s(o- (o- t(e*
de"eloped. It sur"e*s t(e sc(ools ac(ie"ements in t(e "arious
branc(es of translation studies . t(eor*, descripti"e researc( and t(e
applied branc(es, and e)amines its impact on translation researc( in
t(e -orld. #a/ing into account some s(ortcomings -(ic( in t(e
aut(ors "ie- mig(t interfere -it( t(e sc(ools de"elopment, t(e
paper points out t(e sc(ools future directions of researc( and t(e
c(allenges still to be met.
$* HISTORICAL +ACK,RO-ND
+srael has made an important contribution to translation studies. ,ince the late
19-0s* its contribution in this ield is mainl& identiied with the #el .viv school o
poetics and semiotics. #he research group and approach thus titled emerged in the
/epartment o 0oetics and )omparative 1iterature at #el .viv %niversit&* and or a
long time was largel& identiied with it. 2 $ 3 #he ounders o the department are
(en4amin $rushovs5i 6later $arshav7 8 poet* literar& researcher and semiotician*
now at 9ale %niversit& 8 and several o his students and colleagues. +n 19--* the&
let the $ebrew %niversit& in 'erusalem in order to establish a new literature
department* based on a new conception* at #el .viv %niversit&* which had been
ounded in the previous decade. #heir ob4ective was to deal neither with one
speciic national literature nor with comparative literature* but rather with .oe!ics 8
the stud& o literature as literature. 2 / 3 #heir main goal was the development o a
theor& o literature. /escriptive research was to be conducted in the ramewor5 o a
set o theoretical assumptions and was not to be conined a priori to an& speciic
ob4ect. 2 0 3 #his approach* which guided the ounders o the department* also
ound e:pression in its institute o research* the 0orter +nstitute or 0oetics and
,emiotics* ounded in 19;5* and in its periodicals* 0a$,ifrut 61iterature7* which
appeared in $ebrew in 19-8-198-* 2#1 62oetics and #(eor* of 1iterature7* which
appeared in <nglish in 19;--19;8* and its successor* 2oetics #oda** which has
been appearing since 19;9.
#he general approach o $rushovs5i and his ollowers* and the theories which the&
have developed in its ramewor5* were largel& inluenced b& research conducted in
<astern <urope. #he& relied to a great e:tent on the =ussian ormalists o the
1920s 8 >i5tor ,h5lovs5i4* 'uri4 #&n4anov* (oris <4:enbaum* =oman 'a5obson and
others* and their successors in the ollowing decade* mainl& the structuralists o
0rague* including 'an ?u5arovs5@ and 0eter (ogat&rAv. 2 1 3 $owever* rom the
start* some members o the department were more interested in .nglo-.merican
literar& criticism. Bith the growing BesterniCation o +sraeli culture* the emphasis o
research among the acult& o the department shited to Bestern theories: at irst*
theories o te:t structure* and later* post-modernist theories* theories o
interte:tualit& and more.
#he ollowing discussion will ocus on the wor5 o a group which currentl& operates
under the name Dculture research groupE and is no longer part o the department.
#he stud& o translation* in the broader conte:t o the stud& o literature and
semiotics o the culture* which is identiied with the #el .viv school* is principall& the
achievement o the members o this group* mainl& +tamar <ven-Fohar and Gideon
#our&. #he latter is at present head o the culture research group.
/* +ASIC IDEAS
/*$* Pol2s2s!e) Theor2
Hn the basis o ormalism and structuralism* two directions o research began to
develop in the earliest da&s o the department* merging during the 19;0s: the stud&
o literature in terms o a s2s!e)* and the stud& o translation. #he main impetus
or the stud& o literature as a s&stem was provided b& <ven-Fohar 6representative
wor5s: 19;1* 19;8* 19907. (ased on ormalism* he assumed that literature* li5e
other cultural activities* is to be seen as a s&stem 8 a networ5 o relations among
phenomena* both concrete 6te:ts* authors* publishers7 and abstract 6status within
the s&stem* methods o advertising and mar5eting* te:tual models7. Iollowing the
ormalists* he assumed that the s&stem was an open and d&namic entit&* into and
out o which phenomena passed and lowed. #his latter assumption was a drastic
departure rom the perception o the Geneva school* Ierdinand de ,aussure and
his ollowers* who b& the end o the 19th centur& and the beginning o the 20th had
used the concept o a s&stem in the realm o language* but saw it as a static entit&*
closed within determined boundaries 6,aussure 1983 2191-37.
<ven-Fohar both accepted and continued to develop the concept o literature as a
s&stem. Iirst he suggested viewing literature as a .ol2s2s!e)* a s&stem o
s&stems* which can be described b& a series o oppositions: between the ce3!er
6which dictates norms and models to the entire pol&s&stem7 and the .eri.her2*
between the ca3o3i4e s&stem 6which usuall& occupies the center o the
pol&s&stem7 and the 3o35ca3o3i4e* between the s&stems o adult and childrenJs
literature* between translated and non-translated literature. <ven-Fohar claimed
that there was no point in researching each o these s&stems as i it operated in a
vacuumK rather* one had to consider that its structure was the conseLuence o its
relationship with other s&stems in this and other pol&s&stems.
/*/* Pol2s2s!e) Theor2 a3 a Tar6e!5Orie3!e A..roach !o Tra3sla!io3
)entral assumptions o pol&s&stem theor& as ormulated b& <ven-Fohar led him
and his ollowers to ta5e particular interest in translation. #hese assumptions were:
1iterature develops while in contact with other literatures. #his contact ma& be
e:pressed in the DtranslationE o models 6as ollows7 as well as through the
translation o concrete te:ts.
#ranslated literature is a part o the literar& pol&s&stem. +t ma& be positioned at the
center o the pol&s&stem* in its peripher&* or in an& one o its s&stems* and can
even be distributed among several s&stems. +t ma& be a bastion o conservatism or
a channel or innovation* and oten the histor& o the pol&s&stem cannot be
understood without relating to it.
Iollowing these assumptions* the oundations were laid or a theor& o translation
whose uniLueness with regard to other paradigms was its !ar6e!5orie3!e3ess. +t
ocused on the translated te:ts themselves* their position and role within the target
culture* and their relations with original te:ts o that culture. 2 7 3 .ccording to this
approach* DrealE translations were not the onl& issues relevant to research in the
ield o translation* but also .se(o5!ra3sla!io3s 8 original te:ts o a given culture
which were disguised as translations. ,uch a disguise was oten used to introduce
new models into a conservative literar& pol&s&stem* which did not tolerate
innovations unless the& were perceived as a oreign import 6see 9ahalom 1980
and 1981K pseudo-translations and their signiicance in translation studies are
discussed in #our& 1995 : 40-527.
/*0* Tra3sla!io3 Nor)s a3 Re.er!oire
Nor)s were a central concept in the stud& o translation b& the #el .viv school.
#he concept o norms was introduced to semiotics* linguistics and literar& studies
b& researchers such as ?u5arovs5@ 619;07* $rushovs5i 619;17 and )oseriu
619887. .s ar as is 5nown* this concept was irst used in translation studies b& 'irM
1ev@* a ollower o the 0rague structuralists 61ev@ 19-3K German version 19-97. +t
reappeared in the doctoral dissertation o +tamar <ven-Fohar 619;17 and in later
wor5s o his 6particularl& 19;87* and received momentum in the wor5s o Gideon
#our& 619;;* 1980* 19957.
#he norms are DdoNs and donNtsE* not necessaril& ormulated* which appl& to various
areas o behavior in societ&. #he& are social in nature and in that the& dier rom
both personal actors which aect the behavior o people in societ& and universal
behavior patterns.
Oorms also appl& to Dtranslational behavior.E ?oreover* the& have a central role in
determining this behavior. +n the stages prior to the act o translating itsel* the&
dictate the selection o te:ts to be translated* determining what source languages
and models should be preerred b& a given target literature. #he& ma& encourage
or delegitimiCe the production o )eia!e 89seco3 ha3:; !ra3sla!io3s and
pseudo-translations. Oorms also pla& a central role in dictating the mode o
translation 6e.g.* what linguistic variant to choose7 and conseLuentl& the&
determine the relations between source and target te:t. #our& 61995 : 241-2587
suggests that translators get to 5now the translation norms and learn to obe& them
in the process o their wor5 in a socio-cultural conte:t and with eedbac5 rom
publishers* critics and readers. $owever* these norms are oten internaliCed and
adherence to them comes rom the orce o inner aith.
Oorms* more than an& other actor* determine the position o translations on an
imaginar& a:is between two e:treme possibilities 8 ae<(ac2 and acce.!abili!2.
.ccording to <ven-Fohar and #our&* adeLuac& means a =(3c!io3al e<(i>ale3ce
between source and target te:t. ,uch an eLuivalence is achieved b& reconstructing
the original unctions o the elements comprising the source te:t. Bhen translated
literature occupies a central position in the literar& pol&s&stem and unctions as a
vehicle or introducing innovations into that pol&s&stem* one ma& e:pect the norms
to encourage translators to strive or such an eLuivalence 6<ven-Fohar 1990 : 45-
517. $owever* it is doubtul whether total unctional eLuivalence can be achieved.
<ven when desired* the dierences between source and target language usuall&
necessitate deviations rom the source te:t. ?oreover* it is assumed that the
tendenc& or 3o35obli6a!or2 shi=!s rom the source* which cannot be attributed to
the dierent structures o source and target languages* is a universal o translation.
#he tendenc& to ma5e such non-obligator& shits grows when the norms o
translation demand acceptabilit& 8 ad4usting the translated te:t to the s&stem
receiving it. #his usuall& happens when translated literature occupies a peripheral
position in the pol&s&stem and conseLuentl& is not DallowedE to unction as a
channel or innovation.
+t is assumed that in an& s&stem* the production o te:ts is governed b& a
re.er!oire o te:tual elements together with their rules o combination 6<ven-Fohar
1990 : 1;-197. . group o elements which is organiCed according to those rules is a
)oel* which is an abstract ormula or the creation o te:ts. . source te:t ma& be
based on an e:isting model in the repertoire o the source s&stem* or it ma& use
elements in a uniLue manner* not according to their habitual combinations. +n an&
case* the stronger the demand or acceptabilit&* the greater the chance that the
translated te:t will be ad4usted to a model which alread& e:ists in the repertoire o
the target s&stem and is amiliar to both the translator and target audience.
/*1* Foc(si36 o3 Real5Worl Phe3o)e3a
#he concepts and distinctions described above combine to orm a theor& o
translation* whose main 4ustiication is in that it does not orce itsel on realit&. +n
other paradigms* attempts to deine translation according to criteria i:ed a prior&
led to a rupture between research and realit& 6or the debate with some o them
see #our& 1980 : 35-50* -3-;07. ?an&* and sometimes most* o the te:ts regarded
as translations in a given culture could not be considered as translations according
to these deinitions. 1ogicall&* these te:ts should have been e:cluded rom
translation research or at most treated as variations* adaptations* etc. +n act* the
researchers oten contradicted themselves b& treating as translations te:ts which
did not conorm to their own deinitions.
#he concepts and distinctions developed b& the #el .viv school 8 obligator& as
opposed to non-obligator& shits* norms o translation* acceptabilit& and adeLuac&*
ad4ustment to amiliar models rom the Dhome repertoireE 8 have made real-world
phenomena the proper ob4ect or research. #he assumption underl&ing them is that
translation is conceived dierentl& in dierent cultures and in dierent periods.
#hus it is not impossible that what is considered a Dgood translationE under certain
circumstances would not be considered good* or even a translation at all* under
other circumstances* in a dierent culture or at a dierent time.
0* THE SCHOOL?S DESCRIPTIVE RESEARCH
. theor& which regards translation as a culture-bound phenomenon calls or
descriptive research. #he need or such research* both or the sa5e o itsel and or
testing the theor&* is the rationale or #our&Ns new boo5* 2 @ 3 published in 1995.
/escriptive research on a variet& o sub4ects was indeed conducted b& <ven-Fohar
and #our&* as well as b& their disciples. #o mention 4ust a ew wor5s: <ven-Fohar
619907 anal&Ced the =ussiication o $ebrew culture. +n this process* which lasted
until the 1950s* translations pla&ed an important role. #he norms o literar&
translation rom German and <nglish* which were marginal* while translations rom
=ussian occupied the center o translated literature in $ebrew* were studied b&
#our& 619;;* 1980 : 122-1397. (en-,hahar 61983* 19927 ocused on the language
o dialogue as a speciic translation problem* and anal&Ced its norm-dependent
treatment in translations o prose iction and theater scripts rom <nglish and
Irench into $ebrew. ,havit 6198-7 and (en-.ri 619927 e:amined the manipulations
perormed in adapting <nglish and German te:ts to $ebrew childrenNs literature.
.mit-Pochavi and Pa&&al are writing doctoral dissertations on sub4ects o utmost
importance to +sraeli culture: translations rom .rabic to $ebrew and vice versa
6see also .mit-Pochavi 19937. ?& own wor5 6Beissbrod 19917 e:amines the
relations between canoniCed and non-canoniCed literar& translations rom <nglish
into $ebrew. #hese and other wor5s do not onl& shed light on the histor& o
translation* mainl& into $ebrew* but the& also put to the test the theor& itsel* in
whose ramewor5 the& have been conducted* and add new aspects to it. Ior
instance* (en-.riNs wor5 619887 on literar& translation rom German into a variet& o
languages 8 <nglish* Irench and +talian 8 testiies to the recurrence o some
translation norms in various cultures* and raises the Luestion 8 to be urther
e:amined 8 whether the& are universals o translation.
1* APPLICATION OF THE RESEARCH ACHIEVEMENTS IN TRANSLATION
AND CRITICISM
#he theoretical concepts and distinctions developed b& the #el .viv school have
been o use in applied areas as well. #he& have proven useul in the criticism o
translation. Ior instance* on the basis o research o the elevated st&le used in
literar& translation into $ebrew* #our& 619;47 argued in avor o spo5en $ebrew as
a legitimate language or translation.
#he research achievements have also been utiliCed in the training o translators*
particularl& the training given in wor5shops at #el .viv %niversit&. +n these
wor5shops* students have been made conscious o the various actors which aect
translating. #he& have become amiliar with contemporar& norms* to be either
obe&ed or re4ected 6usuall& at a price7.
#he schoolNs presence has also been elt in the practical world. Hver the &ears*
man& o its members have done translations or various publishing houses. Hne o
them* D$a5ibbutC $ameuchadE* hosts the D,iman PriNaE series* which was ounded
b& ?ena5hem 0err&* himsel one o the Dounding athersE o the #el .viv school. +n
the 19;0s and ater* D,iman PriNaE represented new directions in literar& translation*
inluenced b& the schoolNs ideas. +t pla&ed a role in placing .nglo-.merican
literature at the center o translated literature in $ebrew* and in reeing literar&
translation rom the elevated language avored b& ormer generations.
7* THE RELATIONS +ETWEEN THEORA" DESCRIPTIVE RESEARCH AND THE
APPLIED +RANCHES
.s shown* the activit& o the school has encompassed all branches o the discipline
o translation studies 8 theoretical* descriptive and applied* and has allowed or
interactive lin5s among them. #he theor& has guided descriptive research* which in
turn has contributed to the correction and improvement o the theor&* and the
applied branches have been nourished b& the other two. 9et* the researchers o
the school attributed considerable importance to a clear distinction between the
various branches o translation studies. Bithout this distinction there is room or
common errors* irst and oremost or presenting personal or norm-governed
preerences as ob4ective generaliCations about the realit& in Luestion. #he
distinction between DpureE research* both theoretical and descriptive* and the
applied branches* la& at the oundation o the #el .viv ,choolNs literar& studies. (ut
in appl&ing this distinction speciicall& to the ield o translation* the schoolNs
researchers also responded to the call o 'ames ,. $olmes o the %niversit& o
.msterdam. $olmes* one o the leading igures in modern translation research*
claimed that the lac5 o a clear distinction between the branches o translation
studies* as accepted in older and better-ormulated disciplines such as linguistics*
was one o the main obstacles to the development o research in this area 6$olmes
1988K irst in 19;27.
@* F-T-RE DIRECTIONS
.ter twent& ive &ears o research activit&* much is still to be done. /escriptive
research has b& no means e:hausted even literar& translation into $ebrew* a
relativel& small ield. #heoretical research* too* has new goals. . methodolog& is
being developed to e:plore such sub4ects as the process o translation and how it
e:plains the e:istence o universal DlawsE o translation 6#our& 19957. #he
possibilit& o appl&ing the theor& to additional phenomena is being e:plored. #he
stud& o translation as described here originall& ocused mainl& on translated
literature. #oda&* attempts are being made to e:amine the validit& o the proposed
assumptions be&ond the boundaries o literature* in other 5inds o translation. +n
teaching* attempts are being made to broaden the concept o the non-obligator&
shit* to include not onl& changes which are the conseLuence o language
structure* but also those which result rom the character o the medium and the
mode o translation. #hus broadened* the concept will permit a distinction between
obligator& and non-obligator& shits in research concerning sub-titles and dubbing
in ilms and television series* and will help to identi& the norms operating in them
as well. Iurthermore* preliminar& research is under wa& 6,hlesinger 1989a and
1989b7 regarding the applicabilit& o the concept o norms to simultaneous
translation* where there is no control o the product such as b& critical articles* as
there is in literar& translation.
B* TRANSLATION AND TRANSFER
. particularl& challenging ield which has developed in the ramewor5 o
pol&s&stem theor&* and which includes man& possibilities or the uture* is the
attempt to address translation as one phenomenon in a broader conte:t o
interrelated phenomena* and to stud& the relations among these phenomena.
,ince the inception o pol&s&stem theor& there has been a tendenc& to address
translation as part o a series o phenomena* which <ven-Fohar 61990: ;3-;87
proposed calling !ra3s=er. .ter 'a5obson 619;17* this included not onl& interlingual
translation 6as translation is usuall& understood7* but also intralingual 6the
transormation o te:ts within the same language7 and inter-semiotic 6translation
rom medium to medium7. <ven-Fohar added to these the phenomenon o the
DtranslationE o models or producing te:ts. +n all these cases a te:t or model is
transerred rom one s&stem to another 8 within the same culture or rom culture to
culture. Hn this basis* pol&s&stem theor& and the theor& o translation developed in
that ramewor5 were applied to studies o various t&pes o transer. ,havit 6198-7
e:plored the modiication o te:ts rom adult literature to childrenNs literature. ?&
dissertation 619897 deals with the adaptation o world classics to the $ebrew non-
canoniCed literar& s&stem. GertC 619937 e:amined the adaptation o literar& wor5s
to the cinema 6see also Beissbrod* orthcoming7. #he transer o models was
anal&Ced b& 9ahalom 61980 and 19817 in studies on connections between <nglish
and Irench literature in the 18th centur&. ,he& 619857 studied the penetration o
models o Bestern roc5 into +sraeli songwriting. (enhabib 619857 e:amined the
penetration o models o the .merican press into the +sraeli one. /ror& 619887
anal&Ced the connections between $ebrew and .rabic poetr& in the 10th centur&.
?an& more sub4ects await e:ploration* which would possibl& remain completel&
unnoticed unless researchers are inspired b& pol&s&stem theor&.
&* THE SCHOOLCS IMPACT
#he above discussion summariCes the research achievements o the school as
maniested in ?... and doctoral dissertations* articles and boo5s 8 mainl& in
$ebrew and <nglish. +t has also pointed at some o the schoolNs uture directions.
$owever* in the academic world* the success o an& approach is measured b& its
impact. Hne must thereore as5 to what e:tent the school has succeeded in
imparting its perceptions and concepts in the ield o translation* in +srael and
abroad. +n +srael* the students o <ven-Fohar and #our& at #el .viv %niversit& have
ound their place in other academic institutions 8 #he $ebrew %niversit&* (ar +lan
%niversit&* #he Hpen %niversit&* (eit (erl )ollege* Hranim )ollege and more* and
the& continue to appl& the schoolNs concepts in teaching and research. .broad* the
schoolNs inluence has been elt since the 19;0s* particularl& ollowing the
conerence D1iterature and #ranslationE in 1euven* 19;-. #he school has made its
mar5 at several translation stud& centers* particularl& in (elgium and the
Oetherlands* in the wor5 o 'osQ 1ambert* .ndrQ 1eevere* =a&mond van den
(roec5* #heo $ermans* /ir5 /elabastita* 1ieven /N$ulst* )lem =ob&ns and others.
#he inluence o researchers who base their wor5 on pol&s&stem theor& is
prominent in )<#=. 6previousl& )<=.7* the annual summer seminar at 1euven*
which has in recent &ears attracted students o research rom all over the world.
Oew directions emerging in research in +srael* such as the attempt to appl&
pol&s&stem theor& to the stud& o the relationship between literature and ilm* have
been ta5en up in research conducted in those centers as well 6e.g. )attr&sse
19927. 2 B 3
#he highlight o cooperation is probabl& the periodical #arget* ounded in 1989 b&
Gideon #our& o #el .viv and 'osQ 1ambert o 1euven on the basis o shared
interests and belies. #hese are maniest in the presentation o the periodicalJs
goals:
#arget will orient itsel towards the )HO#<R#%.1+F.#+HO HI
#=.O,1.#+HO. +t will ocus on the interdependencies between the
position and role o translated te:ts and translational behavior in
culture* the norms that determine their appropriateness and govern
their establishment* and the modes o e:ecuting translation under
various circumstances. 6#our& and 1ambert 1989K capital letters in the
original.7
(e&ond (elgium and the Oetherlands* the schoolNs conceptions inluenced the
wor5 o researchers in German&* ,pain* Irance* Iinland and #ur5e&* and outside
<urope 8 especiall& in )anada. .ccording to 1ambert 619957* man& researchers
throughout the world rel& on it at least partiall& without mentioning it* and perhaps
without being aware o its inluence on their wor5.
%* SHORTCOMIN,S
#he enumeration o achievements and successes should not blind one to wea5
points. #he schoolNs continuous struggle at conerences and in publications to have
its basic conceptions accepted has not entirel& succeeded. #hese conceptions are
ar rom being universall& accepted. #he lac5 o distinction 8 even the conscious
reusal to distinguish 8 between theoriCing and prescribing* which characteriCed
central wor5s in this ield 6e.g. Oewmar5 19817* still persists 6Oord 1991* is an
e:ample7.
?oreover* pol&s&stem theor& itsel* in whose ramewor5 the stud& o translation as
described here developed* was to a great e:tent overshadowed b& other theories
with which researchers o literature and culture throughout the world are
concerned. 2 & 3 #his can be attributed to several actors. #he schoolNs descriptive
wor5s deal mainl& with $ebrew culture. #his possibl& ma5es them esoteric rom an
international perspective. +sraelNs marginal status in the international academic
communit& is another actor. +n a marginal position it is diicult to impart an& theor&*
particularl& such a demanding one* and one which* i used onl& partiall& in
combination with other theories* could so easil& lead to its complete
misinterpretation.
#he main diicult& in imparting pol&s&stem theor& is that one can hardl& accept it
without necessaril& re4ecting modern Bestern theories dominant toda& in the stud&
o culture. #he rit began with the disagreement o the representatives o
pol&s&stem theor& with the version o structuralism which developed in Irance in
the 19-0s. 2 % 3 #he representatives o this version* such as Greimas* #odorov and
Genette* themselves ollowed the theories o the )Cech structuralists. (ut the&
deviated rom viewpoints o their predecessors which the researchers o #el .viv
saw as their Dprinciples o aithE: regarding the te:t in its historic conte:t* and the
attempt to view phenomena in literature without ta5ing an& ideological or political
sides. 1ater* structuralism in its Irench orm became an ob4ect o attac5 in Irance
itsel and elsewhere. (ut its successor theories have shared no common ground
with pol&s&stem theor& either. #he post-modernist assertion that there can be no
ob4ective observation o realit& could not be accepted b& those who claim that this
is the ver& observation reLuired or scientiic research. #hus pol&s&stem
theoreticians had no dialogue with a large part o the research in the Best in the
ields o literature and culture in general. 2 $D 3
$D* A DISCIPLECS DO-+TS
#he gap described above is real* and the Luestion o whether and how it can be
bridged is not easil& answered. $owever* as a disciple o the #el .viv school it is
m& opinion that in order to survive and advance in the intellectual and practical
sense* the advocates o pol&s&stem theor& ma& possibl& have to address
competing modern theories. >arious theories o interte:tualit& 6e.g. =iaterre 19;8*
19837 describe the mechanism o te:t ormation dierentl& than it is presented b&
<ven-Fohar using the concepts o repertoire and model. /ialogue* and even
conrontation with them* ma& possibl& contribute to the development o pol&s&stem
theor& more than disregarding them would. +n the ield o translation studies*
theories regarding the alienation rom language and addressing the ot(er*
developed b& such researchers as (arthes* /errida* Ioucault and 1acan* ma&
perhaps e:plain* rom another direction* manipulations perormed in the target
culture on te:ts o the culture o origin. 2 $$ 3 #he troubling Luestion is to what
e:tent pol&s&stem theor&* and the theor& o translation deriving rom it* can absorb
inluences o these DoreignE theories without giving up the basic conceptions
orming the ver& oundation and 4ustiication o its e:istence.
$$* IN PLACE OF A S-MMARA
/escribing a school o thought is an impossible mission. #he author is either too
distant rom the sub4ect* or too close to it 6m& case7. #he individuals comprising the
group in Luestion do not spea5 with one voice. <ach o them regards other topics
in the large ramewor5 o Dthe schoolNs interestsE as ocal. ?oreover* one can
hardl& condense &ears o research into one article. +t is m& hope* nevertheless* that
the present review 4ustiies regarding translation studies in the ramewor5 o the #el
.viv school o poetics and semiotics as an approach in its own right. +t is
distinguished rom other approaches b& some basic ideas* irst and oremost the
idea that translation should be studied in the conte:t o the culture receiving it*
which is viewed in terms o a s&stem. #his basic idea* which is Dthe invariant under
transormationE 6to use #our&Ns ma:im o translation7* has inspired the schoolNs past
achievements and guides it to its uture ones.
REFERENCES
.?+#-PH)$.>+* $annah 619937: D,ome .spects o #ranslations o +sraeli .rabic
1iterature into $ebrewE* 0a$3i4ra( 0e$0adas( 6#he Oew <ast 8 'ournal o the
+srael Hriental ,ociet&7* vol. RRR>* a special issue on the literature o the .rabs in
+srael* guest editor .mi <lNad* pp. 4---1. 6$ebrew* <nglish summar&7
.?+#-PH)$.>+* $anna 6in preparation7: #ranslations of %rabic 1iterature into
0ebre-' #(eir 0istorical$&ultural 5ac/ground, #(eir &(aracteristics and #(eir
2osition -it(in t(e #arget &ulture* /octoral dissertation* #el .viv* #el .viv
%niversit&. 6$ebrew* <nglish summar&7
(.,,O<##* ,usan 619937: &omparati"e 1iterature . % &ritical Introduction* H:ord
and )ambridge* (lac5well.
(<O-.=+* Oitsa 619887: 6orms !nderl*ing #ranslation of 7erman 1iterature into
8nglis(, 9renc( and Italian* ?... thesis* #el .viv* #el .viv %niversit&.
(<O-.=+* Oitsa 619927: D/idactic and 0edagogic #endencies in the Oorms
/ictating the #ranslation o )hildrenJs 1iterature: #he )ase o 0ostwar German-
$ebrew #ranslationsE* 2oetics #oda** 13 617* pp. 221-230.
(<O$.(+(* /oli 619857: % 2ortrait of t(e 2ortrait in 3aga4ines' 2rofile 3odels in
#-o 2opular 0ebre- 3aga4ines* ?... thesis* #el .viv* #el .viv %niversit&.
(<O-,$.$.=* =ina 619837: Dialogue ,t*le in t(e 0ebre- 2la*, 5ot( :riginal and
#ranslated from 8nglis( and 9renc(, 19;<$19=>* /octoral dissertation 6orthcoming
in boo5 orm7* #el .viv* #el .viv %niversit&. 6$ebrew* <nglish summar&7
(<O-,$.$.=* =ina 619947: D#ranslating 1iterar& /ialogue: . 0roblem and +ts
+mplications or #ranslation in $ebrewE* #arget* - 627* pp. 195-221.
(1H<?<O* $enri* $<=#HG* <ri5 S Binibert ,<G<=, 6<ds7 619957: 1etterli?/(eid
@oordeli?/(eid . 1iteralit* Aerbalit** .ntwerpen S $armelen* Iantom.
(H%=/+<%* 0ierre 619807: Buestions de sociologie* 0aris* ?inuit.
(=H<)P* =a&mond van den 619907: D#ranslation #heor& ater /econstructionE*
0atric5 Oigel )hae&* .ntin Iougner =&dning and ,olveig ,chult %lri5sen 6<ds7*
#ranslation #(eor* in ,candina"ia, 2roceedings from t(e ,candina"ian
,*mposium on #ranslation #(eor* C,,:## IIID, :slo, 11$1E %ugust 19<<* Hslo* pp.
24-5;.
(=%O<1* 0ierre et 9ves )$<>=<1 619897: 2rcis de littrature compare* 0aris*
0%I.
).##=9,,<* 0atric5 619927: DIilm 6.daptation7 as #ranslation: ,ome
?ethodological 0roposalsE* #arget* 4 617* pp. 53-;0.
)H,<=+%* <ugenio 619887: ,c(riften "on 8ugenio &oseriu C196>$19<=D* 'orn
.lbrecht 6<d.7* #ubingen* Oarr.
/<==+/.* 'acLues 619857: D/es tours de (abelE* 'oseph Graham 6<d.7*
Difference in #ranslation* +thaca* )ornell %niversit& 0ress* pp. 19--199* 240-242.
/+?+)* ?ilan >. and ?arguerite P. G.=,#+O 619887: #(e 2ol*s*stem #(eor* . %
5rief Introduction, -it( 5ibliograp(** <dmonton* %niversit& o .lberta. 22apers on
t(e #(eor* and 0istor* of 1iterature* 1.3
/=H=9* =ina 619887: #(e 8mergence of Fe-is($%rabic 1iterar* &ontacts at t(e
5eginning of t(e #ent( &entur** #el .viv* #he 0orter +nstitute or 0oetics and
,emiotics and $a-PibbutC $a-?euchad. 6$ebrew7
<=1+)$* >ictor 619557: Gussian 9ormalism' 0istor*, Doctrine* #he $ague* ?outon.
<><O-FH$.=* +tamar 619;17: %n Introduction to a #(eor* of 1iterar* #ranslation*
/octoral dissertation* #el .viv* #el .viv %niversit&. 6$ebrew* <nglish summar&7
<><O-FH$.=* +tamar 619;47: D#he ,cience o 1iteratureE* 8nc*clopaedia
0ebraica* vol. 2-* pp. 413-419. 6$ebrew7
<><O-FH$.=* +tamar 619;;7: DBor5s on 0oetics and ,emioticsE* in the section
DOew (oo5s 8 (rie =eportsE* 0a$,ifrut 61iterature7* 24* pp. 155-15-. 6$ebrew7
<><O-FH$.=* +tamar 619;87: 2apers in 0istorical 2oetics* #el .viv* #he 0orter
+nstitute or 0oetics and ,emiotics.
<><O-FH$.=* +tamar 619907: 2ol*s*stem ,tudies* a special issue o 2oetics
#oda** 11 617.
I<1/?.O* 9ael ,. 619857: D0oetics and 0olitics: +sraeli 1iterar& )riticism (etween
<ast and BestE* 2roceedings of t(e %merican %cadem* for Fe-is( Gesearc(* vol.
1++* pp. 9-35.
IHPP<?.* /ouwe B. and <lrud +(,)$ 619;;7: #(eories of 1iterature in t(e
#-entiet( &entur*' ,tructuralism, 3ar)ism, %est(etics of Geception, ,emiotics*
1ondon* $urst.
G.=>+O* 0aul 1. 6<d. S tr.7 619-47: % 2rague ,c(ool Geader on 8st(etics, 1iterar*
,tructure, and ,t*le* Bashington /)* Georgetown %niversit& 0ress.
G<O#F1<=* <dwin 619937: &ontemporar* #ranslation #(eories* 1ondon S Oew
9or5* =outledge 6#ranslation ,tudies7.
G<=#F* Ourith 6198;7: D3* 3ic(ael 8 Irom 'erusalem to $oll&wood via the Ged
DesertE* 1eon 9ud5in 6<d.7* 3odern 0ebre- 1iterature in 8nglis( #ranslation* Oew
9or5* ?ar5us Biener* pp. 139-15-.
G<=#F* Ourith 619937: 3otion 9iction . Israeli 9iction in 9ilms* #el .viv* #he Hpen
%niversit& o +srael. 6$ebrew7
G%+11<O* )laudio 619937: #(e &(allenge of &omparati"e 1iterature* tr. )ola
IranCen* )ambridge* $arvard %niversit& 0ress.
$<=?.O,* #heo 6<d.7 619857: #(e 3anipulation of 1iterature' ,tudies in 1iterar*
#ranslation* 1ondon and ,&dne&* )room $elm.
$<=?.O,* #heo 619957: D=evisiting the )lassics 8 #our&Ns <mpiricism >ersion
HneE* #(e #ranslator* 1 627* pp. 215-223.
$H1?<,* 'ames ,. 61988 219;237: D#he Oame and Oature o #ranslation ,tudiesE*
in his: #ranslatedH 2apers on #ranslation and #ranslation ,tudies* .msterdam*
=odopi* pp. -;-80.
$H1?<,* 'ames ,.* 1.?(<=#* 'osQ S =a&mond van den (=H<)P 6<ds7 619;87:
1iterature and #ranslation . 6e- 2erspecti"es in 1iterar* ,tudies* 1euven* .cco.
$=%,$H>,P+* (en4amin 619-87: DHn the ?ain (ranches o 1iterar& ,tud&E* 0a$
,ifrut 61iterature7* 1 617* pp. 1-10. 6$ebrew7
$=%,$H>,P+* (en4amin 619;17: D#he ?a4or ,&stems o $ebrew =h&me rom the
0i&ut to the 0resent /a& 6500 a.d. - 19;07: .n <ssa& on (asic )onceptsE* 0a$,ifrut
61iterature7* 2 647* pp. ;21-;49. 6$ebrew* <nglish summar&7
$=%,$H>,P+* (en4amin 619;-7: D0oetics* )riticism* ,cience: =emar5s on the
Iields and =esponsibilities o the ,tud& o 1iteratureE* 2#1 6% Fournal for
Descripti"e 2oetics and #(eor* of 1iterature7* vol. 1* pp. +++-RRR>.
'.PH(,HO* =oman 619597: DHn 1inguistic .spects o #ranslationE* =euben
(rower 6<d.7* :n #ranslation* H:ord* H:ord %niversit& 0ress* pp. 232-239.
'.PH(,HO* =oman 6198-7: ,emiotics, 1inguistics, 2oetics* +tamar <ven-Fohar
and Gideon #our& 6<ds S tr.7* #el .viv* $a-PibbutC $a-?euchad. 6$ebrew7
P.99.1* ?ahmoud 6in preparation7: #ranslational 6orms in t(e #ranslation of
3odern 0ebre- 1iterature into %rabic, 19;<$1990* /octoral dissertation* #el .viv*
#el .viv %niversit&. 6$ebrew7
P+##<1* $arald 6<d.7 619927: 7esc(ic(te, ,*stem, literarisc(e Iberset4ungJ
0istories, ,*stems, 1iterar* #ranslations* (erlin* ,chmidt. 2Gottinger (eitrage Cur
internationalen TbersetCungsorschung* 5.3
P%,$O<=* <va 6<d.7 619847: Genou"ellements dans la t(orie de lK(istoire
littraire* ?ontrQal* ?cGill.
1.?(<=#* 'osQ 619957: D#ranslation* ,&stems and =esearch: #he )ontribution o
0ol&s&stem ,tudies to #ranslation ,tudiesE* ##G* >+++:1* pp. 105-152.
1.?(<=#* 'osQ 6orthcoming7: D#ranslation and the 6Oon-7 )anoniCation o
HthernessE.
1<%><O-FB.=#* Pitt& ?. van and #on O..+'P<O, 6<ds7 619917: #ranslation
,tudies' #(e ,tate of t(e %rt, 2roceedings of t(e 9irst Fames ,. 0olmes
,*mposium on #ranslation ,tudies* .msterdam S .tlanta 6Georgia7* =odopi.
1<>U* 'irM 619-9 219-337: Die literarisc(e Iberset4ung . #(eorie einer
Lunstgattung* tr. Balter ,chamchula* Iran5urt am ?ain S (onn* .thenaum.
?.#<'P.* 1adislav and Pr&st&na 0H?H=,P. 6<ds7 619;17: Geadings in Gussian
2oetics* )ambridge 6?ass.7 and 1ondon* #he ?+# 0ress.
?+O#F* .lan 619847: DHn the #el .viv ,chool o 0oeticsE* 2roofte)ts* 4* pp. 215-
235.
?H+,.O* )lement 619907: 1(istoire littraire* 0aris* 0%I* coll. DVue sais-4eWE* nX
2540.
?%P.=H>,PU* 'an 619;07: %est(etic 9unction, 6orm and Aalue as ,ocial 9acts*
tr. ?ar5 <. ,uino* .nn .rbor* %niversit& o ?ichigan 0ress.
O<B?.=P* 0eter 619817: %pproac(es to #ranslation* H:ord* 0ergamon.
OH=/* )hristiane 619917: D,copos* 1o&alt&* and #ranslational )onventionsE*
#arget* 3:1* pp. 91-109.
0.G<.%R* /aniel 619947: 1a littrature compare* 0aris* )olin.
=.(./YO* =osa 619917: 8ui"alencia * traducciMn . 2roblemNtica de la
eui"alencia translmica ingls$espaOol* %niversidad de 1eZn.
=<+,,* Patharina and $ans '. ><=?<<= 619847: 7rundlegung einer allgemeinen
#ranslationst(eorie, #ubingen* Oieme&er.
=+II.#<==<* ?ichael 619;87: ,emiotics of 2oetr** (loomington and 1ondon*
+ndiana %niversit& 0ress.
=+II.#<==<* ?ichael 619837: #e)t 2roduction* tr. #erese 1&ons* Oew 9or5*
)olumbia %niversit& 0ress.
=H).* ?iguel Gallego 619947: #raducciMn * 1iteratura . 1os estudios literarios
ante las obras traducidas* <diciones 'ucar.
=H1HII* $ans-Gert 6<d.7 619897: Fa(rbuc( fPr internationale 7ermanisti/* RR+:2*
(ern* 0eter 1ang.
,.%,,%=<* Ierdinand de 61983 2191-37: &ourse in 7eneral 1inguistics* ed.
)harles (all& and .lbert ,echeha&e in collaboration with .lbert =eidlinger* tr. and
annotated b& =o& $arris* 1ondon* /uc5worth.
,$.>+#* Fohar 6198-7: 2oetics of &(ildrens 1iterature* .thens and 1ondon* #he
%niversit& o Georgia 0ress.
,$<II9* =a5eet 619857: 8stablis(ment and &anoni4ation in t(e 8"olution of
&ultural ,*stems . #(e 2opular ,ong as a #est &ase* ?... thesis in $ebrew* #el
.viv* #el .viv %niversit&. 6<nglish summar&7
,$<II9* =a5eet 619927: Gepertoire 9ormation in t(e &anoni4ation of 1ate 1<t(
&entur* 7erman 6o"el* /octoral dissertation* #el .viv* #el .viv %niversit&.
,$1<,+OG<=* ?iriam 61989a7: ,imultaneous Interpretation as a 9actor in
8ffecting ,(ifts in t(e 2osition of #e)ts on t(e :ral$1iterate &ontinuum* ?... thesis*
#el .viv* #el .viv %niversit&.
,$1<,+OG<=* ?iriam 61989b7: D<:tending the #heor& o #ranslation to
+nterpretation: Oorms as a )ase in 0ointE* #arget* 1:1* pp. 111-115.
,#<+O<=* 0eter 619847: Gussian 9ormalism . % 3etapoetics* +thaca and 1ondon*
)ornell %niversit& 0ress.
#H#H,9 de Fepetne5* ,teven 619927: D,&stemic .pproaches to 1iterature 8 .n
+ntroduction with ,elected (ibliographiesE* &anadian Ge"ie- of &omparati"e
1iterature* R+R:1-2* pp. 21-93.
#H%=9* Gideon 619;47: D,po5en $ebrew 8 a 1egitimate 1anguage or 1iterar&
#ranslationE* ,iman Lria* 3/4* pp. 3---3;1. 6+n $ebrew7
#H%=9* Gideon 619;;7: #ranslational 6orms and 1iterar* #ranslation into 0ebre-,
19E0$19;>* #el .viv* #he 0orter +nstitute or 0oetics and ,emiotics. 6+n $ebrew7
#H%=9* Gideon 619807: In ,earc( of a #(eor* of #ranslation* #el .viv* #he 0orter
+nstitute or 0oetics and ,emiotics.
#H%=9* Gideon 619957: Descripti"e #ranslation ,tudies and 5e*ond* .msterdam S
0hiladelphia* 'ohn (en4amins.
#H%=9* Gideon and 'osQ 1.?(<=# 619897: DHn #argetNs #argetsE* #arget* 1:1* pp.
1-;.
><O%#+* 1awrence 6<d.7 619927: Get(in/ing #ranslation . Discourse, ,ub?ecti"it*,
Ideolog** 1ondon S Oew 9or5* =outledge.
><O%#+* 1awrence 619957: #(e #ranslators In"isibilit* . % 0istor* of #ranslation*
Oew 9or5* =outledge.
><=?<<=* $ans '. 619;87: D<in =ahmen [r eine allgemeine #ranslationstheorieE*
1ebende ,prac(en* 23* pp. 99-102. 2=ep. in >ermmeer 1983: 48--1.3
><=?<<=* $ans '. 619837: %ufsat4e 4ur #ranslationst(eorie* $eidelberg.
><=?<<=* $ans '. 619927: ,/i44en 4u einer 7esc(ic(te der #ranslation* 1-2*
Iran5urt* +PH 8 >erlag [r inter5ulturelle Pommuni5ation.
B<+,,(=H/* =achel 619917: D#ranslation o 0rose Iiction rom <nglish to
$ebrew: . Iunction o Oorms 619-0s and 19;0s7E* ?ildred 1. 1arson 6<d.7* %#%*
vol. >* Oew 9or5* ,tate %niversit& o Oew 9or5* pp. 20--223. 2,ummar& o a
doctoral dissertation in $ebrew* 1989.3
B<+,,(=H/* =achel 6orthcoming7: D8)odus: the Oovel* the Iilm* and +sraeli
)ultureE* Ourith GertC* Hrl& 1ubin and 'udd OeNeman 6<ds7* Israeli &inema' %n
%nt(olog** #el .viv* #he Hpen %niversit& o +srael. 6+n $ebrew7
9.$.1H?* ,hell& 619807: D/u non-littQraire au littQraireE* 2otiue* 44* pp. 40--
421.
9.$.1H?* ,hell& 619817: D1e s&st\me littQraire en Qtat de crise: )ontacts inter-
s&stQmiLues et comportement traductionnelE* 2oetics #oda** 2:4* pp. 143-1-0.
No!es
E + wish to than5 0ro. +tamar <ven-Fohar and 0ro. Gideon #our& o #el .viv
%niversit&* and 0ro. Ourith GertC and +lana /an o #he Hpen %niversit& o +srael*
or their helpul remar5s.
$* Ior a review o the histor& and activit& o the #el .viv ,chool until the mid-1980s
8 including controvers& over its goals 8 see ?intC 619847.
/* #he name o the department* particularl& in <nglish 8 D#he /epartment o
0oetics and )omparative 1iteratureE 8 is circumstantial and misleading.
0* #he branches o literar& research and the interaction and lin5s between them
were discussed b& $rushovs5i in a maniesto which opens the irst issue o the
periodical 0a$,ifrut 61iterature7 619-87* and in the more elaborate version opening
the irst issue o 2#1 619;-7. . slightl& dierent scheme o the branches o literar&
studies was presented b& <ven-Fohar in the 8nc*clopaedia 0ebraica 619;47.
1* Bor5 in <nglish b& and on <astern <uropean ormalists and structuralists
include: <rlich 619557K Garvin 619-47K ?ate45a and 0omors5a 6<ds7 619;17K ,teiner
619847. . collection o essa&s b& =oman 'a5obson was published in $ebrew
6198-7 as part o the #el .viv schoolNs eorts to ma5e his wor5s 5nown in +srael.
7* +n its target-orientedness 8 and less in other respects 8 it is close to the
Ds5opostheorieE which has been developed since the 19;0s b& >ermeer and his
ollowers 6e.g. >ermeer* 19;8 and 1992K =eiss and >ermeer 1984K Oord 19917.
@* ,ee 3eta vol. 42* nX 3* ,ept. 199;* pp. 5;9-58-* or a review.
B* #he stud& o translation based on pol&s&stem theor& as developed in <urope
and especiall& in (elgium and the Oetherlands was recentl& discussed b& 1ambert
619957. +t is unortunate that in his essa& #el .viv is all but missing rom the scene
in the generation ollowing <ven-Fohar and #our&. $opeull& the present review will
supplement what is lac5ing in his* and vice versa. Hther reerences to the stud& o
translation in the ramewor5 o pol&s&stem theor& include: $olmes et al. 6<ds7
619;87K $ermans 6<d.7 619857K =olo 6<d.7 619897K =abadan 619917K 1euven-Fwart
S Oaai45ens 6<ds7 619917K Pittel 6<d.7 619927K GentCler 619937K =oca 619947K
$ermans 619957K (loemen et al. 6<ds7 619957.
&* Oevertheless it attracted attention and was reviewed in various wor5s
concerning literar& theories throughout the world* including: Io55ema and +bsch
619;;7K Pushner 6<d.7 619847K Guillen 619857K /imic S Garstin 619887K (runel S
)hevrel 619897K ?oisan 619907K #otos& 619927K (assnett 619937K 0ageau: 619947.
%* <ven-Fohar reerred to the points o the argument in a review appearing in 0a$
,ifrut 61iterature7 in 19;;* and in the introduction to the collection o 'a5obsonNs
wor5s in $ebrew. $is reservations regarding some current trends in cultural studies
in the Best are mentioned in the introduction to his 2ol*s*stem ,tudies 61990: 5-
-7. Ior a broader discussion* see Ieldman 619857.
$D* (& contrast* there is a sense o closeness to the wor5 o the sociologist 0ierre
(ourdieu 6e.g. (ourdieu 19807 describing culture in terms o DieldsE in which power
struggles are conducted over DcapitalE which is speciic to the ield in Luestion. .
collection o his wor5s in $ebrew is orthcoming. .n attempt to integrate his
conceptions into pol&s&stem theor& was made b& ,he& 619927.
$$* /errida has dealt with translation in D/es tours de (abelE 619857 and in other
wor5s. ?odern Bestern theories* including /erridaNs* were recentl& used in
translation studies b& >enuti 61992* 19957. Iirst steps towards bridging the gap
between these theories and translation studies in the ramewor5 o pol&s&stem
theor& are =a&mond van den (roec5Ns attempt to combine /econstruction with the
schoolNs conceptions 619907 and 1ambertNs wor5 on translation and the DotherE
6orthcoming7.