【正文】 ely as possible the different elements in the source language. (Nida, 1964:159) so it is clear that the notion of ‘formal equivalent’ is sourcelanguageoriented and this kind of translation is to achieve as much as possible the form and content of the original message. He explains it further: a formal equivalence attempts to reproduce several formal elements: (1) grammatical units, (2) consistency in word usage, and (3) meanings in terms of the source context. The reproduction of grammatical units may consist in (a)translating nouns by nouns, verbs by verbs,etc. (b)keeping all phrases and sentences intact (. not splitting up and readjusting the units), and (c) preserving all formal indicators, . marks of punctuation, paragraph breaks, and poetic indentation.(Nida,1964:165)It seems that ‘formal equivalence’ is more like wordforword translation. That is why people take formal equivalence in translation as another name of wordforword translation. In this way, it is difficult for the target readers to prehend the real meaning of a source text. In the Theory and Practice of Translation, coauthored with Taber, Nida asserts “typical formal correspondence distorts the grammatical and stylistic patterns of receptor’s language and hen distorts the message, so as to cause the receptor to misunderstand or to labor unduly hard.” (Nida and Taber, 1969:201) Nida makes it clear that there is not always formal equivalence between two languages, and formal equivalence should be used wherever possible if the translation aims at achieving formal rather than dynamic equivalence.Nida’s Dynamic (functional) equivalence is based on what he calls ‘the principle of equivalent effect’, . the relation between the TL receivers and message should aim at being the same as that between the original receivers and SL message. That is, the translation should produce the same effect on the readers as the source language does.In his later study, Nida begins to use functional equivalence to replace dynamic equivalence. He explains the relationship between functional equivalence and dynamic equivalence in his book Toward a Science of Translation, in which he writes: “dynamic equivalence has been treated in terms of the ‘closest natural equivalent’ but the term dynamic has been misunderstood by some persons as referring only to something which has impact. Accordingly, many individuals have been led to think that if a translation has considerable impact, then it must be a correct example of dynamic equivalence. Because of this misunderstanding and in order to emphasize the concept of function, it has seemed much more satisfactory to use the expression ‘functional equivalence’ in describing the degrees of adequacy of a translation.” (Nida, 2001: 91) The terms ‘function’ and ‘functional’ seem to provide a much sounder basis for talking about translation as a form of munication, since the focus is on what a translation does or performs. However, he also explains that there is no distinct difference between functional equivalence and dynamic equivalence.Nida has made two definitions of functional equivalence: “the maximal and minimal definition”. A minimal, realistic definition of functional equivalence can be stated as “the readers of translated text should be able to prehend it to the point that they can conceive of how the original readers of the text must have understood and appreciated it”. A maximal, ideal definition is “the readers of a translated text should be able to understand and appreciate it in essentially the same manner as the original readers did”. (Nida, 2001:87) The two definitions of equivalence reveal that the minimal level is realistic, whereas the maximal level is ideal. The minimal level implies “anything less than this degree of equivalence should be unacceptable.” The maximal level is rarely achieved, except for texts having little or no aesthetic value and involving only routine information.Nida defines translation as “reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source language message， first, in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style.” (Nida amp。 Taber,1969: 12) Nida explains “the closest natural equivalent” as follows:“Equivalent” points toward the source language message.“Natural” points toward the receptor language.“Closest” binds the two orientations together on the basis of the highest degree of approximation. (Nida, 1964:166)It is the method used when the translator’s purpose is not to give a literal or wordforword translation. It is receptororiented, which allows adaptations in grammar, lexicon and cultural information, which is considered essential to achieve naturalness in TT. He cites an example from Bible translation, where the phrase “Lamb of God” would be rendered into “Seal of God” for the Eskimos, because the lamb does not symbolize innocence in their culture. In this case, formal translation does not mean anything in different cultures, so the dynamic equivalence is necessary. One can easily see that Nida regards that both SL readers and TL readers are of equal importance.Nida’s theory of functional equivalence or dynamic equivalence is best suited for the translation of a dictionary. Compared with the translation of literature, the translation of a dictionary has its own features. It should always takes words as its focus, with phrases, sentences as independent units, and its basic meaning as the main basis of translation. Besides, “the translation of a dictionary always takes place without an adequate context for reference, thus the differences in translation of a same word in these two different contexts should be taken into consideration in aspects of meaning, usage and register etc.” (Huang Jianhua, 1998:12). The translation of a dictionary is a model for the readers to study and to imitate, and a dictionary has always effected as example for readers to follow. For these reasons, to seek an equivalent in the target la