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.