Actually, the above two definitions are not very different. Nida explains in Language, Culture and Translating: the substitution of functional equivalence is just to stress the concept of function and to avoid misunderstandings of the term “dynamic”, which is misunderstood by some people as referring only to something which has impact. (1993) It seems that “functional equivalence” is a more satisfying expression of describing the degree of adequacy of translation, because constantly, many people thought if a translation has achieved its effectiveness, then it must contain a good example of dynamic equivalence. In the same book, Nida states the definitions of two degrees of functional equivalence. First, the maximal is defined as: the readers of a translated text should be able to comprehend it to the point that they can conceive of how the original readers of the text must understood and appreciated it. (1993) The maximal is viewed as the ideal degree of functional equivalence. Second, the minimal, regarded as a realistic degree of functional equivalence, is defined as: the readers of a translated text should be able to understand and appreciate it in essentially the same manner as the original readers did. (1993) Nida also stresses on that any translation practice less than the minimal level of equivalence should be unacceptable. At the same time, he points out that “the maximal level of equivalence is rarely ever achieved, except for texts with little or no aesthetic value and involving only routine information.”(1993)

Functional Equivalence Theory includes three aspects: meaning, style and reader’s response. It emphasizes the dynamic equivalence in lexical, syntactic, textual and stylistic levels. Moreover, the significance of form equivalence is secondary to content equivalence’s.

2.1.2 Related studies on Functional Equivalence Theory and its application in translation

    Nida’s Functional Equivalence Theory enjoyed great popularity in western world, especially in America and European countries from the early 1960s to the early 1980s. German professor Wolfrma Wilss supports functional equivalence in his book The Science of Translation: Problems and Methods (1982) and thinks it could be accomplished in translation because effective translation was possible and everything could be expressed in every language. American translation theorist Larson supports Nida by saying that the overriding principle is that translation is meaning-based rather than form-based (1984). She also writes in the preface of her Meaning-based Translation that once the translator has identified the meaning of the source text, his goal is to express that same meaning in the receptor language with forms which may be very different from those of the source text. Nida’s Functional Equivalence Theory has an influential impact on Chinese translation circle as well. Many translators and scholars not only appreciate functional equivalence but also apply it in their own works for a great deal. For example, the famous Chinese scholar Wang Dongfeng thinks that Nida’s theory is not only useful for Bible translation, but also helpful in translation of other types of texts, especially of literary works (2006)

Contributions of Nida’s Functional Equivalence Theory can be concluded mainly in three aspects. First, the theory establishes translation study as an academic discipline, which is greatly different from the traditional belief that translation is an art or a skill. Second, functional equivalence ends the long debate over literal translation and free translation, and focuses on verbal comparison between source text and target text. Third, Nida thinks highly of the target language readers’ response to translation, which sets a new criterion in evaluating the effectiveness of translation. However, the functional equivalence has its own demerits and it can’t be applied in every translation situation. The merits of functional equivalence introduced above make it very useful in evaluating the adequacy of poetry translation.