Communicative translation attempts to produce on its readers an effect as close as possible to that obtained on the readers of the original. Semantic translation attempts to render, as closely as the semantic and syntactic structures of the second language allow, the exact contextual meaning of the original.

In theory, there are wide differences between the two methods. Communicative translation addresses itself solely to the second reader, who does not anticipate difficulties or obscurities, and would expect a generous transfer of foreign elements into his own culture as well as his language where necessary. But even here the translator still has to respect and work on the form of the source language text as the only material basis. Semantic translation remains within the original culture and assists the reader only in its connotations if they constitute the essential human (non-ethnic) message of the text. One basic difference between the two methods is that where there is a conflict, the communicative must emphasize the‘force’ rather than the content of the message. Generally, communicative translation is likely to be smoother, simpler, clearer, more direct, more conventional,conforming to a particular register of language, tending to undertranslate, i.e to use more generic, hold-all terms in difficult passages. A semantic translation tends to be more complex, more awkward, more detailed, more concentrated, and pursues the thought-processes rather than the intention of the transmitter. It tends to overtranslate, to be more specific than the original, to include more meaning in its search for one nuance of meaning.

However, in communicative as in semantic translation, provided that equivalent effect is secured, the literal word–for-word translation is not only the best, it is the only valid method of translation. There is no excuse for unnecessary‘synonyms’, let alone paraphrases, in any type of translation.