. Brief Introduction of Eugene NidaDr. Eugene A. Nida (1914--) is one of the most distinguished contemporary translation theorists in the west. During his past fifty years of study in translation theory and practice, he has achieved great success in this field. His translation theory has exerted a tremendous influence on the translation studies not only in western countries but also in Asian countries, especially in China. He is generally recognized as the most influential one among all the contemporary translation theorists.He develops the communicative translation theory put forward by Newmark, who is a famous translation theorist of England. The communicative translation theory not only emphasizes language meaning transform, but also functional equivalence. Spreading and becoming popular in China in early 1980s, Nida’s translation theory is the debut for most of Chinese translators to contact the western systematic translation theories and has deeply influenced the translation theory research in China. In spite of the doubts on his theory appearing in late 1980s and early 1990s, it is certain that Nida’s translation theory gives significant inspiration to translation researchers.With the research fruits of modern linguistics, Nida has carries out a descriptive research on translation and contemplated deeply on the major problems of the practice and research of the translation theory. With an active mind, he frequently renews the translation theory and keeps rectifying and developing his thoughts and ideas about translation theory. His translation theory is mainly on the basis of the developments of contemporary linguistics, communication theory, information theory and semiotics.2. Nida’s Functional Equivalence Theory2.1 Conception of Functional EquivalenceFunctional equivalence theory was first put forward in 1964. This principle emphasizes the functional equivalence of information instead of the direct formal equivalence in translation so as to keep the meaning and style of the source language functionally equivalent to that of the target language as much as possible. The functional feature of the translation depends on the balance of two relationships, that is, the relationship between the target language receptor and the target text should generally be equivalent to the relationship between the source language receptor and the source text, and it is the two relationships that provide the basis for functional equivalence.2.2 Literal Translation, Free Translation and Functional EquivalenceNida is the first person to handle the disputable problem between literal translation and free translation. He holds that effect is the most important element in translation. Regardless of the method of literal translation or free translation is followed, as long as the response of both source language reader and target language reader is somewhat equivalent, the best translation can be achieved.In traditional translation theory, literal translation focusing on form is called faithful, while translation emphasizing meaning is free. Nida insists translator focusing on form, especially in verses, sentences and concepts equivalence, is formal equivalence. It is dangerous in reproducing intention and meaning of original author, even worse, to result in reader’s misunderstanding. In his opinion, the translator following functional equivalence will be more faithful to the original text than following literal translation, for that the former strategy requires more fully and comprehensively understanding of the meaning of original text. Moreover.2.3 Four Levels of Functional Equivalence.Translation involves message transmission between two languages and cultures, and therestill exists lots of similarity among different language cultures, which is the objective basis. Because of the different location, history, cultural ground and education level, it is hard to be objective. The definition of translation Nida proposed shows that translation is not only related to equivalence of lexical meaning, but also the equivalence of text connotation and style, message translated in translation includes surface lexical message and deep cultural message. Functional equivalence includes four levels: lexical equivalence, sentence equivalence, passage equivalence and style equivalence.2.3.1 Lexical equivalenceThe meaning of a word lies in its usage in language. In translation practice, what confuse us is how to find the corresponding meaning in target language. Take Tension is building up as an example, tension and build up both have different explanations without consideration of context. Thus this sentence can be translated as several different editions:In English—Chinese translation, completely lexical equivalence lies in special terms and terminology, besides which there are five correspondences, word equivalence, synonymy, polysemy, lexical meaning overlap and zero equivalence.2.3.2 Sentence EquivalenceSentence equivalence is more complicated than lexical equivalence. In English- Chinese translation, singular and plural form is an important and evident problem. Plural meaning in Chinese is not expressed with any evident plural form, which is different in English. Moreover, for different target language, tender, number and tense should be taken into consideration in translation. Thus, translator should be clear about whether such a sentence grammar exists in the target language or not, and be clear about the frequency of such sentence grammar.2.3.3 Passage EquivalenceIn order to achieve passage equivalence, language is not the unique element we should consider, what we should also take into consideration is how the language represents meaning and performs its function in a specific context. Passage equivalence consists of three parts, passage context, scene context and cultural context. Passage context lies in analysis of language, which aims to judge the meaning of words and semantic units in original text, and is based on analysis of meaning and connotation of the passage. Scene context includes the concrete person and things involved in communication, the channel of communication, the relationship among participants and mental emotions.3. ConclusionNida’s translation theory has been popular in the world for nearly sixty years and it has become an indispensable part of translation studies. Holding a panoramic view of all the important points in Nida’s theory, we can conclude that the essence of his theory is that he insists the translator should pay prior attention to the meaning of the source text and should not be curbed by the expression form of the source text. Moreover, Nida’s translation theory is a genuine breakthrough and its influence and contribution to the translation field cannot be underestimated, and it dose render us a profound enlightenment that the excellent translation comes from practice.Nida has been a pioneer in the fields of translation theory and linguistics.His Ph.D. dissertation, A Synopsis of English Syntax, was the first full-scale analysis of a major language according to the "immediate-constituent" theory. His most notable contribution to translation theory is Dynamic Equivalence, also known as Functional Equivalence. For more information, see "Dynamic and formal equivalence." Nida also developed the"componential-analysis" technique, which split words into their components to help determine equivalence in translation (e.g. "bachelor" = male + unmarried). This is, perhaps, not the best example of the technique, though it is the most well-known.Nida's dynamic-equivalence theory is often held in opposition to the views of philologists who maintain that an understanding of the source text(ST) can be achieved by assessing theinter-animation of words on the page, and that meaning is self-contained within the text (i.e. much more focused on achieving semantic equivalence).This theory, along with other theories of correspondence in translating, are elaborated in his essay Principles of Correspondence,[6]where Nida begins by asserting that given that “no two languages are identical, either in the meanings given to corresponding symbols or in the ways in which symbols are arranged in phrases and sentences, it stands to reason that there can be no absolute correspondence between languages. Hence, there can be no fully exact translations.”[7] While the impact of a translation may be close to the original, there can be no identity in detail.Nida then sets forth the differences in translation, as he would account for it, within three basic factors: (1) The nature of the message: in some messages the content is of primary consideration, and in others the form must be given a higher priority. (2) The purpose of the author and of the translator: to give information on both form and content; to aim at full intelligibility of the reader so he/she may understand the full implications of the message; for imperative purposes that aim at not just understanding the translation but also at ensuring no misunderstanding of the translation. (3) The type of audience: prospective audiences differ both in decoding ability and in potential interest.Nida brings in the reminder that while there are no such things as “identical equivalents” in translating, what one must in translating seek to do is find the “closest natural equivalent”. Here he identifies two basic orientations in translating based on two different types of equivalence: Formal Equivalence (F-E) and Dynamic Equivalence (D-E).F-E focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content. Such translations then would be concerned with such correspondences as poetry to poetry, sentence to sentence, and concept to concept. Such a formal orientation that typifies this type of structural equivalence is called a “gloss translation” in which the translator aims at reproducing as literally and meaningfully as possible the form and content of the original.The principles governing an F-E translation would then be: reproduction of grammatical units; consistency in word usage; and meanings in terms of the source context.D-E on the other hand aims at complete “naturalness” of expression. A D-E translation is directed primarily towards equivalence of response rather than equivalence of form. The relationship between the target language receptor and message should be substantially the same as that which existed between the original (source language) receptors and the message.The principles governing a D-E translation then would be: conformance of a translation to the receptor language and culture as a whole; and the translation must be in accordance with the语言学派翻译理论奥古斯丁发展了亚里士多德的“符号”理论，提出了语言符号的“能指”、“所指”和译者“判断”的三角关系，开创了西方翻译理论的语言学传统。
