【正文】 urce system, or it may not use their habitual binations but employ elements in a unique way. In any case, the need for acceptability bees stronger, the chance that translated text will be adjusted to a standard model which already existed in the repertoire of the target system bees greater, and the meaning of it will bee more familiar to both the translator and the target text reader. In a word, Polysystem Theory is under the guise of a functional approach, because it prehend all the semiotic events as inhering to one system or multiple systems, so as to the appearance of a network of relations. Polysystem Theory reviews phenomena with a reference to both their functions and interdependent relationships. The introduction of the potential that multiple diachronic elements may operate on the basis of the synchronic axis means that this system is able to evolve in time, this is different from what Saussure has put forward. At last, the polysystemic approach put its emphasis not only on the final product of a literary activity, but also get itself involved in interrogating the operative level, that is, “how” to operate both synchronically and diachronically. Polysystem Theory can be regarded as following Russian Formalism, it stresses the formal features of the structure of the text itself by describing the different mechanisms by which texts are organized and then consequently create their unique effects. EvenZohar once put forward: “Polysystem Theory looks at the dynamic relations that constitute the literary or polysystem.”From EvenZohar’s point of view, individuals’ activities are the main cause of the formation of such large social entities as peoples and nations. His opinion is totally different from the former saying that peoples or nations are just naturally existing entities. For those entities to be maintained, the creation of cohesion is of great necessity. So a culture repertoire must be invented or imported in order to organize life both on the collective level and on the individual level (EvenZohar, 2000:392396). The culture repertoire needs to be a source of pride for members of an entity, thus to build a collective identity, which can be regarded as the precondition for cohesion.After that EvenZohar points out: “After a culture repertoire is established and relatively stable, the introduction of new repertoires may cause instability and therefore meet with resistance. And the repertoire imported from other entities may be regarded as subversive because they may hurt national pride, thus posing a direct threat to the collective identity.”(EvenZohar, 2002: 49) In Zohar’s opinion, translated literature should be treated as a particular literary system, translated works do correlate in at least two ways: (a) in the way their source texts are selected by the target literature, the principles of selection never being uncorrelatable with the home cosystems of the target literature；(b) in the way they adopt specific norms, behaviors and policies, which results from their relations with the other home cosystems. Thus, translated literature may possess a repertoire of its own, which to a certain extent may be even exclusive to it. According to Zohar, “translated literature should be regarded as not only an integral system within any literary polysystem, but as a most active system within it”.(EvenZohar, 1990: 47) But what is its position within the polysystem? Here Zohar’s first hypothesis should be displayed: that the position assumed by translated literature in the literary polysystem tends to be a peripheral one under normal circumstances. Due to the fact that translated literature is usually imported from a foreign entity, whose language, culture and history is totally different from the target audience under regular conditions, it will be resisted by the old and established institution of the literary polysystem because they might pose threat to the collective identity of the entity. That means translated literature is not allowed to be converted into a powerful cultural tool that exerts influence on major process. In Zohar’s opinion, whether translated literature bees central or peripheral, and whether this position is connected with primary or secondary repertoires, depends on the specific constellation of the polysystem under study.Then EvenZohar further points out: “After a culture repertoire is established and relatively stable, the introduction of new repertoire may cause instability and therefore meet with resistance. And repertoire imported from other entities may be regarded as doubly subversive because they may hurt national pride, thus posing a direct threat to the collective identity.”(EvenZohar, 2002:49). That means when the translated literature participates actively in shaping the center of the polysystem, it maintains a central position in the literary polysystem. When new literary models are imported, translation is likely to bee one of the useful means to elaborate the new repertiore. Through the foreign literary works, features are introduced into the home literature that didn’t exist there before. The new imported models of reality may replace the old and established ones that are considered no longer effective, in such a state, the national pride may be hurt and the collective may be threatened. However, when a literary polysystem is young, weak or in a crisis, the collective identity may be very weak and fragile as well, then, such foreign items as a new poetic language, positional patterns and techniques may be weled. In such situations, translated literatures may indeed assume a central position and takes part in “the process of creating new, primary models” (EvenZohar, 1990:50). Thus it is clear that the principles of selecting the works to be translated are determined by the situation governing the home polysystem, that means the texts are chosen according to their patibility with the new approaches and the supposedly innovatory role they may