Give me a summary of this"Green Girl:
Nida's work in translation theory introduced the concepts of formal and dynamic equivalence. Formal equivalence, or 'gloss translation', aims for accuracy and closely follows the structure of the source text, often with scholarly footnotes. It's common in academic or legal settings, offering a close connection to the source culture. Dynamic equivalence, on the other hand, focuses on conveying the message in a way that resonates with the receptor's linguistic and cultural context, aiming for naturalness and equivalent effect. Nida emphasizes that achieving similar response is crucial in translation, prioritizing meaning over style when conflicts arise. His work marks a shift from literal word-for-word translation towards a more reader-focused approach. However, his concepts have faced criticism, with some arguing they still prioritize words over overall meaning.

Critics like Broeck and Larose argue that achieving equivalent effect in translation, where a text elicits the same response in two different cultures, is impossible to measure and inherently subjective. This debate continued into the 1990s, with scholars like Qian Hu focusing on examples where meaning is tied to form, making equivalence difficult. For instance, translating English words like "animal, vegetable, mineral, and monster" into Chinese can lead to unintended cohesive links due to the Chinese characters used, highlighting challenges in achieving dynamic equivalence. Cultural references also pose challenges, as seen in examples like translating "she kissed him on the cheek" into Arabic as "she waved at him," illustrating the need for cultural adaptation. Critics question whether Nida's translation theory is truly scientific, given the subjective nature of achieving equivalent effect. Despite criticism, Nida's work provides valuable insights into translation phenomena across languages and acknowledges the importance of artistic sensitivity in literary translation. Edwin Gentzler, a critic of Nida, disparages his work from a deconstructionist perspective, criticizing its theological and proselytizing aspects.

Gentzler criticizes Nida's dynamic equivalence, suggesting it aims to convert readers to Protestant Christianity's dominant discourse. This view is shared by certain religious groups who see dynamic equivalence as altering the sacred Word of God. Despite this, Nida's work is praised for introducing a systematic approach to translation, considering the cultural expectations of the target audience. Nida's influence extended to scholars like Peter Newmark, whose work on translation emphasizes semantic and communicative translation over dynamic equivalence. Newmark believes that achieving equivalent effect is illusory and proposes narrowing the gap between source and target languages through these approaches. Semantic translation focuses on conveying the exact contextual meaning, while communicative translation aims to produce a similar effect on readers as the original text. Newmark's approach differs from Nida's dynamic equivalence in that it acknowledges the limitations of achieving equivalent effect across languages and cultures."