文化含义词的翻译

ONTRANSLATIONOFCULTURALLY-LOADEDWORDSByDingZhenJune,2010XiaoganUniversityAbstractTranslationisthecommunicationbetweentwodifferentculturesaswellasbetweenEnglishandChineselanguage.Culturally-loadedwordsreflectthehistory,politicalsystem,geographicallocation,religiousbelief,socialcustomsandvaluesystemofcertainculture.Itishardtoachievecompleteequivalenceintermsofculturally-loadedwords,whichthusbecomethemainobstacleininterculturalcommunication.Itissignificanttotranslateculturally-loadedwords.Thepaperaimstoexploretranslatingstrategiesofculture-loadedwordsonthebasisoftheclassificationofsuchwordsbyZhouZhipeiandtheFunctionalEquivalenceraisedbyEugeueA.Nida.Byshiftingthefocusoftranslationtheoryfromthetraditionaldisputeabouttheformversuscontentandliteralversusfreetotheissueofreceptorsresponse,FunctionalEquivalencemakecontributionstothetheoryandpracticeoftranslating,whichessentiallyappliestoculturally-loadedwordstranslation.Itputsemphasisonthespiritandmeaningoftheoriginalinthereceptorlanguageaswellaspreservationoftheformaspossibleasthetranslatorcan,thusreproducinginthereceptorlanguageintheclosestnaturalequivalenceofthesource-languagemessage.Therenderingisnotmerelyunderstandableandacceptableanditretainstheculturalcharacteristicsasmuchaspossiblebutalsoachievesthesubstantiallythesamereadersresponseintarget-languagetextasoriginalreceptors.Sothetranslationofculturally-loadedwordswillconveytheculturalelementsandvariedexpressionsandinturnenrichthetargetlanguage,realizingthetrueculturecommunication.Withnoexception,functionalequivalencehasitslimitationsanddeficiency.Forthelengthofthepaper,hereitwillbenotdiscussedfurther.KeyWords：Culturally-loadedwords;Translation;FunctionalEquivalence文化含义词的翻译翻译不仅是语言的转换，更是文化之间的交流。文化含义词集中反映或表达着某个民族独特的发展历史、社会制度、地理环境、宗教信仰、民情风俗，价值体系等。这一特殊性使文化含义词很难找到完全对等的表达法，成为信息传递的障碍。因此，文化含义词的翻译具有重要意义。本文旨在依据周培志对文化含义词的分类和尤金•奈达提出的功能对等翻译原则，探讨文化含义词的翻译策略。功能对等（即动态对等）把传统的形式与内容之争，直译与意译之争转化为以读者为中心，对于指导翻译文化含义词具有重要意义。它着眼与原文的精神和意义，同时尽可能的兼顾其形式，用最贴切而自然的对等语再现原语信息，便于读者接受和理解，还保留了文化含义词的文化特色，达到译文读者对译文的反应与原文读者对原文的反应基本一致。这不仅将文化含义词的文化因素和丰富的表达法传递给读者，一定程度上还丰富了译语文化，实现真正的文化交流。当然，功能对等理论也有一定的局限性，在此由于篇幅的关系就不加以讨论。关键词:文化含义词；翻译；功能对等关键词:文化含义词；翻译；功能对等ContentsTOC\o"1-5"\h\z\o"CurrentDocument"Introduction 1\o"CurrentDocument"Culturally-LoadedWords 2\o"CurrentDocument"2.1TheDefinitionofCulturally-LoadedWords 22.2TheClassificationofCulturally-LoadedWords 32.2.1DuetoDifferentHierarchiesofVocabularies 3\o"CurrentDocument"2.2.2DuetoDifferentAssociation 3\o"CurrentDocument"2.2.3DuetoDifferentCulturalNorms 4FunctionalEquivalence 4\o"CurrentDocument"3.1TheOriginofFunctionalEquivalence 43.2TheNatureofFunctionalEquivalence 53.3TheContentofFunctionalEquivalence 5\o"CurrentDocument"FunctionalEquivalenceinTranslatingCulturally-LoadedWords 64.1FeasibilityofAchievingFunctionalEquivalenceinTranslatingCulturally-LoadedWords 64.2TheTranslationStrategiesinAchievingFunctionalEquivalenceinTranslatingCulturally-LoadedWords- 8\o"CurrentDocument"4.2.1Borrowing 8\o"CurrentDocument"4.2.2Transliteration 8\o"CurrentDocument"Loantranslation 8\o"CurrentDocument"Substitution 8\o"CurrentDocument"Paraphrasing 9Conclusion 9OnTranslationofCulturally-LoadedWordsIntroductionWiththeintensificationofcultureexchangebetweenchinaandEnglish-speakingcountries,culturaldifferenceshaveincreasinglyinfluenceontranslating,whichdrawsmoreandmoreattention.Culturally-loadedwordsreflectthehistory,politicalsystem,geographicallocation,religiousbeliefs,socialcustomsandvaluesofcertainnation.Itisamixtureofconceptualmeaningandculturalconnotation,whichdeterminesthattranslation,isthecommunicationbetweentwodifferentculturesaswellasbetweenEnglishandChineselanguage.However,itishardtoachievecompleteequivalenceintermsofculturallyloadedwords,thusbecomingthemainobstacleininterculturalcommunication.Therefore,whethertranslationofculturally-loadedwordsisproperornothasagreateffectonreaders.Inrecentyears,manybooksonculturally-loadedwordsappear,suchasC-EContrastiveStudiesandtheTransformationinTranslationandCultureContextandTranslation.AlsoessaysonChineseTranslationJournalandChineseScience&TechnologyTranslatorsJournalanalyzetherelationshipbetweencultureandtranslationinmacroscopeordiscussthetranslationtechniquesinmicroscope,whichplayapositiveroleintranslatingpracticing.Howevertherearealotofproblemsintranslationofculturally-loadedwords.Asaspecialtypeofvocabularyineverylanguage,culturally-loadedwordsarealwaysmistranslated,over-translatedandunder-translated.Asfortranslatingofculturally-loadedwords,theobjectsarereceptors.Itisimportanttounderstandtherenderingforreaders.Forthisreason,intranslatingculturally-loadedwords,wemustfocusonthespiritandmeaningaswellasattaintheculturalcharacteristicsasmuchaspossible.FunctionalEquivalenceputsemphasisonreaders5response,whichprovidesuswithanadvisabletranslationtheoryfortranslationofculturally-loadedwords.Thepaperwillbrieflydiscussthetranslationofculturally-loadedwordsusingtheFunctionalEquivalenceastheguidingprinciple.InNida'sview,translatingconsistsinreproducinginthereceptorlanguageintheclosestnaturalequivalentofthesource-languagemessage.Thepaperaimstoanalyzetheclassificationofculturally-loadedwordsfromthepointofconstitutionandmeaning,takessomeexamplestodiscussthetheory'sfeasibleapplicationandexploressometranslationstrategiesandmethodsinordertorealizethesubstantiallyequivalentresponseandtruecommunication.Culturally-LoadedWordsTheDefinitionofCulturally-LoadedWordsFromtheculturalpointofview,themeaningofwordsincludeslinguisticmeaningandculturalmeaning,whichrespectively,referredto"designativemeaning"and"culturalconnotation"bysomescholars.Theculturalconnotationofwordsincross-culturalcommunicationalwaysreflectsitsownculturalfeaturesincomparisonwithothernationsculture.TheculturalconnotationofwordmeaningwithoutcorrespondenceresultingapbetweentheEnglishandChinese;thustherehasbeenalargenumberofculturalgappedwords,includingculturewordsandculturallyloadedwords.Hereitisnecessarytodistinguishthetwoconcepts.Theformer,alsonamelyemptywords,iscalledwordofculturaluniquewhichcarriesthemeaningofaculturaltraitparticulartoacertainsocio-culturalcommunity,thatis,whosereferentisauniquethingorconception,andthereforethathasnocorrespondingequivalentinothercommunities,whenitisusedincross-culturalcommunication.Forexample:jiaozi,huntun,kowtow,fengshui,yingyang,taiji,kungfu,suimai,hutong,etc.areuniqueinChineseculture.Butthereareicecreamandhotdog,HouseofLordsandHouseofCommons,GodandchurchinEnglish.Theaboveexamplesshowsomethingsorconceptsarenotsharedwithotherculturalcommunities.Howeverthereferentorconceptofaculturallyloadedwordissharedinbothcommunities,inwhichthemeaningisoverlapped.Inotherwords,thereissomedegreeofequivalentinmeaninginsteadofcompletelycoinciding.Forexample,“龙"inChinesesymbolizesauspiciousness,buttheword“dragon”inEnglishrepresentevilness.Anothercaseinpointis“西风”.Chinesepeopleassociate“西风”withadesolate,bleak,melancholyandchillyscene,blowinginthelateautumnorseverelycoldwinter.YetinEnglish“westwind”hasapositiveassociationsuchaswarmness,rebirthandhope.TherearesomelinestopraisethewestwindinShellysOdetotheWestWind.JohnMasfieldalsohassimilarlines“itsawarmwind,thewestwind,fullofbirdscries”.Asamirror,culturally-loadedwordsintensivelyreflectanationscustomsandhabits,attributesandemotion,historicalallusions,thewayofthinking,values,andreligiousbeliefsofcertainnation.Sotheybothcontainconceptualmeaningsandculturalconnotations.Tosomedegree,thismayposesomedifficultiesfortranslator.Accordingtocharacteristicsofconstitutionandmeaningofculturally-loadedwords,theycanbeclassifiedintothreecategories.TheClassificationofCulturally-LoadedWordsDuetoDifferentHierarchiesofVocabulariesThehierarchiesofvocabulary,thatis,thewaysinwhichtermsrepresentingclassesofentities,activities,andcharacteristicsarebuiltupintotaxonomies,reflectinlargemeasurethemannerinwhichpeopleunderstandandclassifytheworldinwhichthelive.Thepastandthepresentlinguistic-culturalinterferencecausesbifurcationandspecializationofterms.Peopleunderstandandclassifythewordindifferentwaybecauseofdifferenttypeofsocio-culturesinwhichtheylive.Thisvocabularyincludesdifferenttermsofkinship,color,weightsandmeasures,andsomecommonnouns.InEnglish,familymembersarefather,mother,grandfather,grandmother,son,daughter,grandson,granddaughter,brother,sister,aunt,uncle,andcousin.Therearethreedistinctivefeatures:sex(masculineandfemine),generation,degreeoflineality(directorlateral).Inchina,apartfromabovefeatures,thereisdistinctionbetweentheinnerandtheouteri.e.relativesonthematernalsidearetheouterandrelativesonthepaternalsidearetheinner.Thusfathersfatherandmothersfatherarecalledasgrandfatherwhileinchinatheformeriscalledas“祖父”,thelatteras“外祖父”.Forexample,“cousin”inEnglishisequalto“堂兄”“堂弟”“堂姐”“堂妹”“表兄”“表弟”“表姐”“表妹”inChinese.Theword“uncle”canbetranslatedintoChinese“伯父”“叔父”“舅父”“姑父”“姨父”.whentranslatingsuchChinese“嫂子”“弟媳”“公公”“婆婆”“岳父”“岳母”“女婿”“媳妇”，thetranslatorshouldaddwords“inlaw”infrontofthem.Inchina"挑、抬、提、扛、背5canbeexpressedbyaword“carry”.Similarly,“山”inChinesecanbetranslatedbythreeEnglishwords“mountain”,“mount”，“hill”.Obviously,inEnglishtherearedistinctivefeaturesamongthembecauseofdifferentgeographyenvironment.DuetodifferentassociationPeopleassociateobjectivearticleswithsubjectivefeeling.Associativemeaningexpressesthespeaker'sattitudetowardscertainthings.Culturally-loadedwordsduetodifferentassociationaredifferentfromtheseduetodifferenthierarchiesofvocabulariesindesignativereferent.Thelatter'sreferentsareobjective.Howevertheformer'sreferentshavedifferentaffectivemeaningsindifferentsocieties.Differentculturehasdifferentassociationtothesameobjectivearticleoractivities.Forexample,“dog”inEnglishisassociatedwithroyalty,faithfulness,aclosefriendofhumanbeingsandallpositivequalities;whereastoChinesedogatitsbestisausefulanimalforhuntingandgatekeeping.Asamatteroffact,itgenerallytakesonnegativeassociations.Ifapersoniscomparedtoadog,thespeaker'sattitudetowardsthepersonisnomorethancontemptuous.Sothereareappreciativeidiomsaboutdog:luckydog,dresslikeadog'sdinner,everydoghashisday,loveme,lovemydog,worklikeadog,ect.However,inchina,dogisusuallyusedforhuntingandgatekeeping.Therefore,therearesomederogatoryexpressionssuchas"狼心狗肺，狗血喷头，狗仗人势，狗急跳墙，狐群狗党，丧家之犬”,etc.InChinese"red”implieshappiness,jubilation,prosperityandrevolution,suchas“红喜字，红蜡烛，红盖头，大红袄，红包，红利，红运，红领巾，红色根据地，红军”etc.InEnglish"red”sometimesmeanssomethingworthcelebrating,suchasred-letterday,rollouttheredcarpetforsomebody.Butitmainlysuggestsanger,dangerandviolence,suchasredwithanger,redlightdistrict,redflag,tobeinthered,redhands,ect.DuetodifferentculturalnormsWordsorphrasesnotonlyhaveprofoundpragmaticmeaning,butalsoimplyobvioussocialandculturalfeatures.Everynationhasitsownstyleandcontentswhicharedifferentfromothernations,especiallyincustomssuchasgreetings,farewell,wedding,funeral,courtesy,clothing,food,travel,etc.ThescholarKachruYamunaoncesaid,“Culturalmeaningsareexpressedinthecognitivestructuresaswellasnormsofbehaviorpeopleutilizewhenusinglanguage”.Forexample,“seeyouaroundthecampus”isusedforfarewellincampus,butsomepeoplemisunderstandandtranslateittobe"在校园里见面”.ThesameistrueintheChinesegreetinglike“你吃饭了吗？"whichisinfactequivalentto“Howareyou?”or“Nicetomeetyou!”inEnglish.Therearesomesimilarexpressionswhichareliabletobemisunderstood."Oh,youshouldn'thave.”太妙了。（乏你不该有。）“Youdon'tsay.”真的吗？太好了。（乏你别说了）“Nowyouaretalking.”正合我意。（乏你正说着，说下去。）Teaculturehaschangedinwesterncountriesthoughteaoriginatedfromchina.Sohasthehabitofhavingatea.Culturally-loadedwordsrelatedteaculturehaveformedanddeveloped.“Wouldyouliketohavehightea?"implythatthespeakerinvitesyoutohavelunchinsteadofacupoftea.Because“hightea"and“lowtea"haveevolvedintocertainspecialwaysofdiet.“Hightea"meansaformalsupperwithmeat;whereaslowteareferstoasimpledinnerwithcakes.FunctionalEquivalenceTheoriginofFunctionalEquivalenceFunctionalEquivalence,alsocalledDynamicEquivalence,isacoreconceptofNida'stranslationtheory.TheconceptDynamicEquivalencedidnotfromnowhere,butwasfoundedonthestudiesofprevioustranslationscholarsontheprincipleof“equivalenteffect".Asearlyas1790theEnglishtranslationtheoristAlexanderFraserTytlerwasthefirstonewhodiscussedtheissueofequivalenteffectinthehistoryoftranslationtheory.InhisEassyonPrincipleofTranslationhestatedthatagoodtranslationwasone,inwhichthemeritoftheoriginalworkissocompletelytransfusedintoanotherlanguage,astobedistinctlyapprehended,andstronglyfelt,byanativeofthecountrytowhichthatlanguagebelongs,asitisbythosewhospeakthelanguageoftheoriginalwork.That'stosay,agoodtranslationindifferentlanguagecouldachieveequivalenteffect.ThenGermantranslationtheoristPaulCauerreferreditas“comparableeffect"in1896.ButitwasE.V.Rieuwhofirstusedtheexpression“theprincipleofequivalenteffect"todiscusstranslation.Nidaclearlystated:atranslationwhichattemptstoproduceadynamicequivalenceratherthanaformalequivalenceisbasedupon“theprincipleofequivalenteffect"postulatedbyRieuandPhillips.TheessentialideaisfirstmentionedbyNidaasearlyastheyearof1959inhisarticlePrinciplesofTranslationasExemplifiedbyBibleTranslating.In1964,Nidadistinguishestwotypesofequivalence:DynamicEquivalenceandFormalEquivalence,andfirstpostulateshisconceptofDynamicEquivalenttranslationasfollows:indynamictranslationoneisnotsoconcernedwithmatchingthereceptor-languagemessagewitchthesource-languagemessage,butwiththedynamicrelationship,thattherelationshipbetweenreceptorandmessageshouldbesubstantiallythesameasthatwhichexistedbetweentheoriginalreceptorsandthemessage.Howeverhedoesnotgiveacleardefinitionof“dynamicequivalence"until1969.InhisbookTheTheoryandPracticeofTranslation,“dynamicequivalence"isdefined“intermsofthedegreetowhichthereceptorsofthemessageinthereceptorlanguagerespondtoitinsubstantiallythesamemannerasthereceptorsinthesourcelanguage".Sincetheexpression“DynamicEquivalence"hasoftenbeenmisunderstoodbysometranslatorsasreferringto“anythingwhichmighthave".InFromOneLanguagetoAnother,theexpression“Dynamicequivalence"isreplacedwith“functionalequivalence",whichalsoemphasizesthecommunicativefunctionoftranslating.ButthesubstitutionofFunctionalEquivalenceisnotdesignedtosuggestanythingessentiallydifferentfromwhatwasearlierdesignatedbythephrase“DynamicEquivalence."In1933,FunctionalEquivalencewasfurtherdividedintotwolevels:theminimallevelandthemaximallevel.Theminimallevelof“functionalequivalence"isdefinedasThetwodefinitionsofequivalencerevealthattheminimallevelisrealistic,whereasthemaximallevelisideal.ForNida,goodtranslationalwaysliesomewherebetweenthetwolevels.Clearly,functionalequivalenceisaflexibleconceptwithdifferentdegreesofadequacy.3.2ThenatureofFunctionalEquivalenceInNida'stheory,“functionalequivalence"isdefinedwith“receptors'response"asitsnature.Functionalequivalencecanbestatedprimarilyintermsofacomparisonofthewayinwhichtheoriginalreceptorsunderstoodandappreciatedthetextandthewayinwhichreceptorsofthetranslatedtextunderstoodandappreciatedthetranslatedtext.Unliketraditionaltranslationtheories,whichfocusonverbalcomparisonbetweentheoriginalanditstranslation,FunctionalEquivalenceshiftsthefocusfromtheformofmessagetotheresponseofthereceptor.Thustheimportanceofreceptors'roleintranslatingisemphasized.Whendeterminingwhetheratranslationisfaithfultotheoriginaltextornot,thecriticshouldnotcomparetheformalstructuresbetweenthesourcetextanditstranslation,butcomparereceptors'response.Ifhefindsthereaderinthereceptorlanguageunderstandsandappreciatesthetranslatedtextinessentiallythesamemannerandtothesamedegreeasthereaderinthesourcelanguagedid,suchatranslationcanbeevaluatedasaDynamicEquivalenttranslation.That'stosaythecriticshouldjudgeatranslationnotbyverbalcorrespondencebetweenthetwotextsinquestion,butbyseeinghowthereceptor,forwhomthetranslatedtextisintended,reactstoit.Apparently,DynamicEquivalenceseemstobereader-oriented,butactuallyitisstilltext-oriented.ThispointcanbetestifiedbyNida'sdefinitionoftranslating(“reproducinginthereceptorlanguageintheclosestnaturalequivalentofthesource-languagemessage,firstintermsofmeaningandsecondintermsofstyle"1969).Adetailedanalysisofthisdefinitionrevealsclearlythetext-orientedpositionofDynamicEquivalence.“Reproducingthemessage"ofthesourcelanguageisthetranslator'sfirstandforemosttaskandtodoanythingelseisessentiallyfalsetoone'staskasatranslator.Theterm“equivalent"emphasizestheimportanceofreproductionofthesource-languagemessage.Theword“closest"requiresthetranslatedtexttobetheclosestequivalenttothesourcetext.Infact,theexpression“theclosestnaturalequivalent"isinessenceanotherwayofdefiningDynamicEquivalence.HerewecanseethatthoughNidaattachesgreatimportancetotheroleofreceptorsintranslating,receptors'responseinhistranslationtheoryisreallytext-oriented.WangHongzhihasrightlyremarked:whateverequivalenceatheorystrivesfor,ifitrequiresthetranslatedtexttobeequivalenttothesourcetext,itissource-textoriented.Obviously,Nida'sDynamicEquivalenceorFunctionalEquivalenceissource-textoriented.Asamatteroffact,onesimplycannottranslateinacompletelyconcordantmannerandatthesametimeaccuratelyrepresentthemeaningofthesource-languagetext.Thisresponsecanneverbeidentical,fortheculturalandhistoricalsettingsaretoodifferentbutthereshouldbeadegreeofequivalenceofresponse,orthetranslationwillhavefailedtoaccomplishitspurpose.Traditionaltranslationtheoriesfocuson.HoweverIfthemessageoftheoriginaltexthasbeentransformedinthereceptorlanguagethattheresponseofthereceptorisessentiallylikethatoftheoriginalreceptors,suchtranslationcanbeThatstosay,agoodtranslationcancallforththeresponseofitsreadersequivalenttothatofthereadersoftheoriginalwork.AccordingtoNida,readersresponseislike“themarketresearch”.Whenjudgingaproduct,oneshouldtesthowconsumerreacttotheproduct,forregardlessofhowtheoreticallygoodaproductmightbeorhowseeminglywellitisdisplayed,ifpeopledonotrespondfavorablytoit,thenitisnotgoingtobeaccepted.Similarly,inevaluatingatranslation,whenapercentageofpeoplemisunderstandarendering,orfinditdifficulttounderstand,thecriticcannotregarditasalegitimatetranslation.Nidastheoryof“readersrespnse”emphasizestheimportanceoftheacceptanceofatranslatedtextbytheintendedreaderinthereceptorlanguage,andavoidsthesubjectiveevaluationofthecritic.3.3ThecontentofFunctionalEquivalenceAccordingtofunctionalequivalent,translatingconsistsinreproducinginthereceptorlanguageintheclosestnaturalequivalentofthesource-languagemessage,firstintermsofmeaningandsecondintermsofstyle.Thatistosay,thetranslatormuststriveforequivalenceratherthanidentity.Inasense,thisisjustanotherwayofemphasizingthereproductionofthemessageratherthantheconversationoftheformoftheutterance.Translatingwasnottogetsomethingcompletelyidentical,buttoreproduce“theclosestnaturalequivalentofthesource-languagemessage"inthereceptorlanguage.Besides,emphatically“equivalence"cannotbeunderstoodinitsmathematicalmeaningidentity,butonlyintermsofproximity,i.e.onthebasisofdegreeofclosenesstofunctionalidentity.Obviously,theterm“equivalence"inNidastheoryisusedinarelativesense,i.e.theclosestpossibleapproximationtothesource-languagemessage.anditisimpossibletoachieveabsoluteequivalenceintranslating.Itisadvisabletounderstandtheterm“"equivalence"attwolevels:therealisticlevelandthetheoreticlevel.Theformerisdefinedas“thereadersofatranslatedtextshouldbeabletocomprehendittothepointthattheycanconceiveofhowtheoriginalreadersofthetextmusthaveunderstoodandappreciatedit".Thelatterisdescribedas“thereadersofatranslatedtextshouldbeabletounderstoodandappreciateitinessentiallythesamemannerastheoriginalreadersdid".ThemaximallevelofFunctionalEquivalenceisanidealandisrarelyachievedexceptforthosetextsofroutineinformation,whichhavelittleornoaestheticvalues;whereastheminimallevelisrealisticandatranslationbelowthislevelisunacceptable.Agoodtranslationalwaysliesinbetweenthetwolevels.FunctionalEquivalenceisquiteflexible,andthereisaconsiderablerangeofdiversitybetweenthetwolevels.Incomparisonwithsometranslationtheorieswhichattempttopinpointasinglestandard,FunctionalEquivalenceallowsawiderangeofdiversityintranslating.Thus,thetranslatorcanhavemorefreedomtodealwithproblemsofdiversitiesintypesofdiscourse(literarygenres),strikingdifferencesinaudiences,anddistinctionsinthewaysinwhichtranslationsaretobeused,e.g.forstudy,propaganda,orenjoyment.AsabovementionedthatFunctionalEquivalenceistext-oriented,whichistheobjectivebasisofNidastheory.Besides,whenevaluatingreadersresponsetoatranslation,thecriticisnotmerelytoexaminereadersresponsetothecontentoftheoriginal,butthesestylisticallyawkward,structurallyburdensome,linguisticallyunnatural,andsemanticallymisleadingorincomprehensibleformalfeatures.Generallyspeaking,theintendedreadersofatranslationcouldhaveasimilarresponsetothesefeatures,despitethefactthatsuchresponseis,toadegree,influencedbytheirattitudestowardsthecontentofthetranslation.Whatmore,inNidasview,theultimatetestofatranslationnotonlydependsontheintendedreceptorofatranslation,butalsoaverycompetentcritic.Inordertoevaluatethemeasureofsuccessofatranslation,itisimportanttoanalyzenotonlythewaysinwhichmonolingualpeopleintheintendedaudienceunderstandandappreciatethequalityofatranslationbutalsotohavethejudgingandwithsensitivitytothepurposeofcommunicationinbothformandcontent.Hence,wecansafelysaythatDynamicEquivalenceisnotsosubjectivethatitcannotbeusedasatranslationcriterion.Rather,byusingDynamicEquivalence,whichcombinestheobjectivetextwiththesubjectivereadersresponse,thequalifiedcriticcanevaluateatranslationmoreobjectivelyandefficiently.FunctionalEquivalenceintranslatingculturallyloadedwordsFeasibilityofachievingFunctionalEquivalenceintranslatingculturallyloadedwordsTheprincipleof“functionalequivalence",whichisdefinedas“theclosestnaturalequivalenttothesource-languagemessage",pointsouttwowaystoachieveagoodtranslation:“theclosestequivalent"and“thenaturalequivalent".Bythe“closestequivalent",Nidameansarenderingthathasthehighdegreeofapproximationtotheoriginaltext.Anaturalequivalentreferstoa“stylisticallyacceptablerendering",aboutwhichabilingualorbiculturalpersonmightsay“thatisjustthewaywewouldsayit."Besides,biculturalismismoreimportantthanbilingualisminasuccessfultranslation.Sincewordsoridiomsonlyhavemeaningsintermsoftheculturesinwhichtheyfunction,thetranslatorcannotunderstandthemadequatelywithoutcarefulconsiderationoftheirculturalbackgrounds.Culturaladjustmentscanbemadeinordertoproduceafunctionalequivalenttranslation.Sincetherenderinthereceptorcultureusuallydoesnotsharetheculturalbackgroundsofthesourcelanguage,thetranslatorcanmakeculturalmodificationsinhandlingsomeculturalwordsandidiomsinordertoachieve“similarresponse".Asfortheexample“dragon"above,whentranslating“dragon"intoChinese,thetranslatorisadvisedtoprovideamodifiedwordsuchas"恶"beforethecharacter"龙”oraddafootnotetoexplainitsculturalimplication.Similarly,when“龙”isrenderedintoEnglish,adynamicequivalenttranslationis“Chinesedragon".Theprincipleof“theclosestequivalent"isofgreatimportanceforculturallyloadedwordstranslation.Sincelanguageshavevariouswaysofcommunicatingessentiallythesamepropositionalinformation,andthesameessentialdatacanbecommunicatedinmorethanoneway,there