(3) A semantic translation is always inferior to its original, since it involves loss of meaning;

　　Communicative translation may gain in force and clarify what it loses in semantic content. The translator is trying in his own language to write a little better than the original, unless he is reproducing the well-established formulae of notes or correspondence. (Newmark, 2004: 39)

　　Generally, a communicative translation tends to undertranslate. It uses more generic, hold-all terms to translate difficult passages. It is smoother, simpler, clearer, more direct, more conventional, conforming to a particular register of language. It is foremost to produce the same impact or effect on SL readers and fulfill the function of TL texts to establish the communication between SL authors and TL readers. A semantic translation tends to overtranslate. It is more complex, more awkward, more detailed, more concentrated. It pursues the thought-processes and includes more meanings in its search for one nuance of meaning.

　　Differences between communicative translation and semantic translation can be further displayed by the following example:

　　谋事在人，成事在天

　　Version A: Man proposes, God disposes.

　　Version B: Man proposes, Heaven disposes.

　　In ancient Chinese culture, “天” means the ruler of the universe; in Western culture, God is a being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe. So, the communicative translation, “God”, catering for the Western religious background, is more acceptable for Western readers. Here, Version A can be viewed as communicative translation and Version B can be viewed as semantic translation (刘士聪,谷启楠, 1997:16).

　　1.2.2 Similarities between CT and ST

　　Despite the differences, communicative translation and semantic translation are also established largely on the common ground. They “may well coincide——in particular, where the text conveys a general rather than a culturally bound message and where the matter is as important asthe manner” (Newmark, 2004: 40). And they both comply with the usually syntactic equivalents for the two languages. That is to say, a translation can be more or less semantic, or more or less communicative, but without complete division. Chinese scholar Liao Qiyi presented the following similarities (2001: 188—190)：

　　There is no clear line splitting a SL text into one half for communication translation and the other half for semantic translation. Instead, the two methods are cooperative and complementary in coping with specific problems in translation. It is quite difficult to decide to what extent communicative translation should be more applied than semantic translation, or vice versa.

　　Both communicative translation and semantic translation are rooted in cognitive translation, in which translators convert SL grammar to its common TL transpositions by reducing figurative elements like idioms and colloquialism to plain and literal expressions.

　　Common sense or the information free from cultural restrictions can be either translated by communicative translation or semantic translation. Translators therefore should emphasize both content and form of information in translation. To handle the materials concerning religion, philosophy, art and science, the two translation methods can basically prompt similar effects because the materials are the knowledge quite familiar to SL readers and TL readers as well.

　　All in all, the two translation methods cannot be employed separately in practice, they both comply with the usually syntactic equivalents for the two languages. That is to say, a translation can be more or less semantic, or more or less communicative, but without complete division. Only if translators kept the two methods in a kind of harmony, would translation be successful.

　　1.3 Relations with Text Typology

　　With the development of linguistics, some translators have begun to reach a consensus that translation is a text-oriented activity. Translators can almost determine translation methods based upon the characteristics of different text types to balance the relationship between form and content of the original.

　　Newmark suggested that translators should consider characteristic of text types as they choose communicative translation or semantic translation. His communicative translation and semantic translation theory has close connection with his distinction of texts. Newmark suggests that translators should consider characteristics of text types as they choose communicative translation or semantic translation.

　　According to Buhler’s linguistic functional theory, Newmark divided all texts into three categories: expressive text, informative text and vocative text. Typical expressive text includes formal works of literature (poem, novel and drama), authoritative speech (political statements of important person, kinds of rules and regulations, laws and academic works), autobiography, prose and personal letters. Informative text stresses “truth” and the fact outside the language. Its form can be textbook, technical report, newspaper, journals and thesis, etc. Vocative text treats readers as center and its purpose is to call for readers to think and feel as the writer’s aim. Notice, propagandas and advertisements all belong to this category.