The modern praxis of translation, which draws upon sub-disciplines from etymology to ethics, exists on a continuum between science and art. When it comes to literature, it is more art—and fraught with difficulties that, when the gap between two cultures is wide, pile up at a dizzying rate. Translating literature takes quite a lot of time, a view of the process that is at the same time broad and nitpickingly narrow, and an artist’s grasp of the language into which the text is being translated. If these conditions are met, however, there are approaches that allow for what we might call “good” translation—and room for artistic liberty. The translation of literature, while dating back to the Old Babylonian translation of the Sumerian story of Gilgamesh, was first propounded as a discipline in its own right by Holmes. It belongs to the interdiscipline of translation studies, drawing on topics from etymology to ethics, and while it recognizes different approaches to translation, it is nonetheless based on equivalence theory, which is applied as a measure of success of the approach in question to the text and its context. The fact is that different approaches take what is meant by “equivalence” slightly differently, whether they incorporate historical or cultural relativism, questions of localization, skopos theory, or the wrinkle of “directional equivalence,” which acknowledges the limitations of translation in producing equivalence in that back-translation does not necessarily reproduce the source text. Even-Zohar’s theory of polysystems describes literature as an open system into and out of which texts, including translated literature, flow. Within the polysystem, its position is either primary (i.e., it is avant-garde in some way) or secondary, fitting into the polysystem’s cultural consensus as to what literature ought to look like, or its “norms,” as Levý first put it. Translated literature, if it fills a gap or niche in the primary position, always has a foreign feel to it, whether exotic, fresh, or surprising, while that in the secondary position merely fits in: a difference between what MartínezSierra calls “foreignization” and “familiarization.” Yet, as Toury points out, translated literature is never wholly foreign or wholly familiar; rather, its position within the polysystem—indeed, whether it is even recognized as translated, a possibility that is portrayed to humorous effect in Shimizu’s satirical novel Sunō Kantorī—rests with how it is regarded by the reading public. Position, then, is a cultural construct based on Levý’s norms. As such, we need to take a step back from position when it comes to

中文翻译：

---

阿拉伯化仿阿拉伯：《马和他的男孩》中的文学内涵和艺术自由

现代翻译实践借鉴了从词源学到伦理学的分支学科，存在于科学和艺术之间的连续统一体中。说到文学，更多的是艺术——而且充满了困难，当两种文化之间的差距很大时，就会以令人眼花缭乱的速度堆积起来。翻译文学需要相当多的时间，对过程的看法既广泛又狭隘，以及艺术家对文本被翻译成的语言的掌握。但是，如果满足这些条件，则有一些方法可以实现我们所谓的“良好”翻译——并为艺术自由提供空间。文学翻译虽然可以追溯到古巴比伦对吉尔伽美什的苏美尔故事的翻译，但首先由福尔摩斯提出作为一门学科。它属于翻译研究的跨学科，涉及从词源学到伦理学的主题，虽然它承认不同的翻译方法，但它仍然基于对等理论，该理论被用作衡量该方法对文本的成功与否的衡量标准及其上下文。事实是，不同的方法对“对等”的理解略有不同，无论它们是包含历史或文化相对主义、本地化问题、目的论，还是“方向对等”的皱纹，承认翻译在产生对等方面的局限性在那个回译不一定复制源文本。Even-Zohar 的多元系统理论将文学描述为一个开放的系统，包括翻译文学在内的文本流入和流出。在多元系统中，它的位置要么是主要的（即，它在某种程度上是前卫的）要么是次要的，符合多元系统关于文学应该是什么样子的文化共识，或者它的“规范”，正如列维首先所说的. 翻译文学，如果它填补了主要位置的空白或利基，总是有一种异国情调，无论是异国情调的、新鲜的还是令人惊讶的，而处于次要位置的只是适合：MartínezSierra所说的“异化”之间的区别和“熟悉”。然而，正如图里所指出的，翻译文学从来都不是完全陌生的或完全熟悉的。相反，它在多元系统中的地位——事实上，它是否甚至被认为是翻译的，一种在清水的讽刺小说 Sunō Kantorī 中被描绘成幽默效果的可能性——取决于阅读大众如何看待它。因此，位置是一种基于列维规范的文化建构。因此，当涉及到时，我们需要从位置上退后一步