Implications of Nida's theory

Gentzler argues that Nida's theory, despite its emphasis on dynamic equivalence, is as abstract as Chomsky's. It seems to assume that the SL text can be seen as something having a unified meaning. Moreover, it assumed that a translation can evoke from the TL reader an emotional and cognitive response which is similar to what the SL readers had to the original. Meaning is defined according to the function of the SL text and it is given a status similar to that of universal structure.

This also makes demands on the translator. To understand the meaning, s/he should not only know both the languages involved in the process, but also know the subject matter thoroughly. The translator should have an empathetic relationship with the SL author, and have an ability to get underneath the skin of the author. This is important to understand the meaning of the SL text. This of course requires the translator to totally subjugate her/his personality to that of the author. Gentzler points out that this also has the problem of what in literary terms is called ‘intentional fallacy' or guessing the author's intention. Very often a literary work might convey what its author had not intended.

Despite the obvious preference for the sociosemiotic perspective, Nida seems to be going back to the concept of fidelity in translation. Who is more faithful to the SL text – the translator who does ‘word for word' translation or the one who conveys the basic meaning of the text even as s/he deviates from the original in these formal elements? Nida says that the former might lose the wood for the trees and go completely astray in arriving at the meaning. It cannot be denied that Nida seems to have a contradictory stand on the issue: on the one hand he is pointing to the essential instability of language and showing how it changes from place to place and time to time. But paradoxically he also insists on a meaning that is an unchanging entity behind the flux of language, which is an idealistic view that contradicts his pragmatic approach to language and translation.