Influence on translation theory

Chomsky's theory was appropriated by translation theorists because it conceptualized a universal pattern behind different grammatical structures and Nida was one of the first to make use of this theory.

It has been noted earlier that the purpose of the translation decides the methodology. This was the case with Nida. In the course of the translation of the Bible he was made acutely aware of the importance of conveying the message as accurately as possible. He was unhappy with the prevalent modes of translation that gave more importance to form than content. He saw this as a direct descendant of 19th century attitudes to translation as epitomized by Matthew Arnold. Arnold had insisted on retaining all the difficult foreign elements of the SL text as they were without domestication, for the benefit of the TL reader. It was the duty of the reader to rise up to the situation and understand the text. This puts pressure on the reader; s/he is expected to be a scholar who is educated and refined and is almost at par with the writer/translator. Nida disliked this elitist approach; if the word of God had to be accessible to the common man, one could not afford such an attitude. It was the translator's duty to get across the word to the lay reader and s/he had to look for ways in which it could be done in a satisfactory way. Nida's example was the American Standard Version of the Bible. It was a literal translation of the Bible that was in the English language but foreign in terms of its grammar and structure. It was read by students of theology but not by the general reader. Nida's point was that for the Bible to be read, it has to be translated into a familiar idiomatic language.

Gentzler argues that Nida's ‘scientific' theory of translation has a direct connection to his evangelization mission or the mission of spreading the word of God. Nida believed that there is a unitary meaning behind every text that can be and should be, conveyed adequately into another language. It is in this context that Chomsky's theory helped Nida formulate his theory of translation. Despite Chomsky's warnings on the appropriation of transformational generative rules to other areas, Nida borrowed from precisely that area. The Chomskian concept of common features or ‘universals' that is present in all languages was interpreted by Nida as the single, unitary message that is hidden in the text, waiting for the translator to bring it out. This is what prompts Gentzler to comment: “If Chomsky's theoretical base is Platonic, Nida's is Protestant” (Gentzler 52). Nida's theory took the socio-cultural contexts of SL and TL respectively and translated in such a way that the TL reader could comprehend the SL well.

The practical difficulties that Nida encountered in translating the Bible into a language that was far removed in terms of culture is perhaps what led him in the direction of the sociosemiotic perspective. So, unlike Chomsky who pays more attention to the sign, Nida pays more attention to the response to the sign. In Biblical translation this would assess whether the receptor has really understood the word of God or not. However, Nida's primary concern “is not with the meaning any sign carries with it, but with how the sign functions in any given society” (Gentzler 53). This is a more pragmatic approach to the concept of meaning. However, since he believes that the source is unitary (which is God in the case of Bible translation), the intention in communication is stable. Gentzler states: “Nida's theory emphasizes not formal correspondence, but functional equivalence; not literal meaning but dynamic equivalence; not “what” language communicates, but “how” it communicates” (53).