【正文】 and second, that translation tends towards acceptability when it is at the periphery, and towards adequacy when it is at the center (Chang Namfung, 2020:17). The Main Content of Polysystem Theory Polysystem Theory was defined by EvenZohar like this: “Semiotic phenomena, ., signgoverned human patterns of munication (such as culture, language, literature, society), could more adequately be understood and studied if regarded as system rather than conglomerates of disparate elements” (EvenZohar, 1990:9). The term “polysystem” was invented by EvenZohar, it was coined to refer to the entire work of correlated system— literary, semiliterary and extraliterary. Polysystem Theory was based on the Russian formalist and Czechic structuralist. In EvenZohar’s point of view, polysystem theory aims to define the function of all kinds of literary models within a certain culture— from “canonized” forms( such as innovative verses) to “noncanonized” forms (such as children’s literature and popular fiction). During the late 1960s and the early 1970s, positivist was much more popular during that period. As a new er in this trend, Polysystem Theory arose at this historical moment. Before the appearance of Polysystem Theory, most scholars tend to put their emphasis on studying literature and culture in static and historical textbased approach, which was called “the theory of static systems” by 杭州師范大學(xué)碩士學(xué)位論文 多元系統(tǒng)論視角下文化負(fù)載詞的翻譯研究 — 以楊必《名利場(chǎng)》為例 7 Even Zohar. The theory of static systems has wrongly been identified as the exclusive “functional” or “structural” method, and is usually referred to as the teachings of Saussure. This method has obvious disadvantage. Language is unstable as time goes by, and culture will be changed too because it is prised of language. So Polysystem Theory surely can be regarded as a creative breakthrough. Different from the static approach, Even Zohar posits a dynamic way, that is dynamic structuralism. It is different from Saussure’s method. In Saussure’s own writings, structuralism is a science that aims to present all of the deep structures that underlay all the things people do, think and feel. For this reason, de Saussure insisted that language should be studied in a synchronic way while Even Zohar put forward that semiotic phenomena, ., signgoverned human patterns of munication (such as culture, language, society) should be regarded as systems rather than conglomerates of disparate elements, which is one of the main statements of polysystem theory. Such different kinds of social semiotic phenomenon as culture, literature and politics can all be regarded as systems. These systems are bined by a great number of different subsystems, they function separately but intersect reciprocally, some of them even overlap reciprocally, at the same time they work as an anized unit and rely on each other. Each polysystem is a large one, that is an indispensable part of overall culture system. Meanwhile it is possible that one polysystem can be used to form a “l(fā)arge polysystem” with its equivalent system in other culture. That means any phenomenon existing in polysystem should be studied by relating it to overall culture system even the world culture, instead of being viewed in an isolated way. Polysystem Theory opened up a descriptive, targetlanguageoriented, functional and systemic way for translation study, and it pushed forward the cultural turn of translation. EvenZohar put his focuses on the plicated interrelationship between these systems, especially the interrelationship between the primary systems and the secondary systems. To be more exact, the writer considers, the polysystem is a part of the whole culture system, in this sense, it connects with the culture itself and other polysystems existing in the culture. Meanwhile, according to EvenZohar, the polysystem and the corresponding systems in other cultures will anize a 杭州師范大學(xué)碩士學(xué)位論文 多元系統(tǒng)論視角下文化負(fù)載詞的翻譯研究 — 以楊必《名利場(chǎng)》為例 8 megapolysystem or microsystem, so any change within a polysystem cannot be treated independently, it may cause the change of the whole polysystem, sometimes it could even change the whole human culture, namely the largest polysystem in the society. Polysystem Theory consists of both the advantages and disadvantages of Saussure’s theory. On the one hand, Even Zohar introduces the concept of the system into the discourse in order to replace the “mechanistic collection of data”, as Even Zohar said, “the advantage of introducing the concept of system to replace the mechanistic collection of data are evident.” On the other hand, in Saussure’s writings, the system is regarded as a synchronic of relations, in which the value of each element is decided by the relation between the element itself and the other elements. Although he discovers the function of elements, as well as the rules governing them, there is hardly any way to explain the changes and variations. In other words, the linguistics at Saussure’s time mainly focused on studying the historical change of language, but the obstacles resulting from nonsystemic study make it difficult to conceive how language differs in different periods and how it operates in the first place. Then the disparity appears between the two scholars in this point. Polysystem Theory emphasizes the diachronic element and places it back into the functional approach to the study of literature and culture. From this move, two important implications can be induced. Firstly, it must be admitted that both synchrony and diachrony are historical, the exclusive identification of diachrony with history is unsound. Just as Even Zohar (1990) notes: “synchrony cannot and should not be equated with statics, since at any given moment, more than one diachronic set is operating on the synchronic axis”. It means that on the on