The third criterion in judging translations, equivalence of response, is oriented toward either the source culture (in which case the receptor must understand the basis of the original response) or the receptor culture (in which case the receptor makes a corresponding response within a different cultural context). The extent to which the responses are similar depends upon the cultural distance between the two communication contexts.

In this description of the various criteria involved in the judging of translations, intent and response have been isolated from each other. But actually such isolation is impossible; for the nature of the response is closely tied to intent, presumed or actual, and any final judgment of translations must deal with both interrelated elements. At the same time, this formulation implies that the orientation can be to either the source or the receptor context, while in actual practice no either/or distinction can be made; rather, various grades of mixture or interpenetration must be dealt with. The either/or distinction is primarily a matter of principal focus of attention, or of priority of concern. In the same way, no judgment on translations can completely isolate the source context from the receptor one. Nevertheless, though the three criteria of efficiency, comprehension of intent, and similarity of response cannot be fully isolated from one another, they are all basic to an understanding and evaluation of different translations.

Though there isa relatively wide range of possible legitimate translaions beginning with somewha literal F-E (Formal Equivalent) renderings to rather highly D-E (Dynamic Equivalent) ones,.there are certain points on both ends of this scale at which extremely F-E r D-E translations fall off rapidly in efficiency, acсuracy, and relevance. On the F-E end of the scale a translation which is exceedingly literal, contains numerous awkward expressions, and is hence "overloaded" as far as the prospective receptors are concerned, is obviously far below legitimate standards. At the other end of the scale, a D-E translation may likewise fail to come up to a valid standard, if in the translator's concern for the response of the receptors he has been unfaithful to the content of the original message.

F-E translations which fall below standard are generally more common than correspondingly inadequate D-E translations, for the gross errors in F-E translating arise primarily out of ignorance, oversight, and failure to comprehend the true nature of translating. On the other hand, mistakes in D-E translations are generally less numerous, for they are usually made with the translator's eyes wide open. In a sense, renderings which err in being too far in the direction of a D-E translation may be more dangerous, particularly if a translator is clever in concealing his "slanting." But the mistakes resulting from filling a translation with renderings which are too much in the direction of F-E translating are more ruinous, for the translation is usually so overloaded that it is unlikely to be used with any great effectiveness, except where there is an unusual amount of incentive and cultural pressure.

责任编辑：admin