ABSTRACT
Eugene A. Nida distinguishes between formal and dynamic equivalence in translation, with 'formal equivalence' referring to a faithful reproduction of source-text form elements and 'dynamic equivalence' denoting equivalence of extralinguistic communicative effect. A feature common to the functionalist scholars engaged in translator training is that, unlike the linguistic theorists, they try to focus on the language-independent pragmatic or cultural aspects of translation, emphasizing the specific nature of translation competence as against language proficiency. The ability to design functional message transmitters is determined by brain functions, which have to be taken into account in the training of expert text designers. The classification of the source text as belonging to a particular text type is relevant only in special cases in which the intended function of the target text is to represent a textual equivalent of the source text. The theorists of equivalence tend to accept non-literal translation procedures more readily in the translation of pragmatic texts than in literary translation.
