Against the predominantly ‘normative’ approach, scholars like Itamar Even- Zohar and Toury have called for a ‘descriptive’ perspective, based on the analysis of actual translations. Following the lead of the Russian formalists, these poly- system theorists have argued that translations need to be understood in relation to the system. in which they function, in relation to a particular set of translation itorms, for example, or, when literary cexes are concerned, in eelation to the lives ary system of the target-culture (Even-Zohar, 1990; Toury, 1995). Translations’, in the words of Toury, ‘are facts of target-cultures; on occasion facts of a special status, sometimes even constituting identifiable (sub)systems of their own, but of the target-culture in any event’ (Toury, 1995: 29). For the sociological approach of translations which I will explore here, the conceptual shift from source-text 10 target-context offers a fruitful bue insufficient point of departure. ‘The international translation system is first and foremost, a hierarchical struc- ture, with central, semi-peripheral and peripheral languages. Using a simple defi- nition of centrality, one can say that a language is more central in the world-system of translation when it has a larger share in the total number of translated books worldwide. The international figures available unambiguously But the structure of the international translation system is obviously not a static sut a dynamic constellation. The postion of language groups changes over time, sentra languages may lose something of their share, more peripheral languages san improve theit positions in the international ranking, The translation system s a historical system, marked by a specific genesis and minor and major trans- ‘ormations over time. The major changes are long-term processes. When Changes in the international position of languages do not generally occur abruptly: They require a culcural worientaion which takes a lest a change of generation, and often more than chat. Changes in the position of languages and anguage groups occu suddenly only ifthe positon of language depends closely onthe political power ofa regime. The central position of Russian, for example, which is clear from the Unesco statstcs for the 1980s, will undoubtedly have declined rapidly since 1989. Its predominant role in the system of international randations was based on the domination of the Soviet Union over Eastern Europe, implying obligatory and quasi-obligatory translations in nearly all fields, aot metely those which were bound to the Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy Since the All of the Soviet empire, the use of Russian has declined sharply in Eastemn Europe, just as, undoubtedly, translations from Russian have.