English Can’t Ask This Question

What is the “purpose” of a translator?

The English word “purpose” is foggy and imprecise. If I ask “What is the purpose of a translator?” I could be asking many different questions at one time. I could be asking “What role does the translator fill?” or “Why do they fill it?” I could be asking what purpose they are fulfilling for themselves, or what purpose they are fulfilling for someone else. It is a word that needs the support of other words to be understood.

“Telos”, on the other hand, has a precision that is hard to find in English. It is the Greek term for “end cause”, and it describes the ultimate reason behind something or someone’s existence. It gracefully encompasses one of the definitions of “purpose” that we can construct in English only with extra vocabulary.

So, while my question “What is the purpose of a translator?” requires extra explanation to warrant an answer, asking “What is the telos of a translator?” allows us to dig immediately for the response.

I was inspired to write about the “telos” of our industry because of a great conversation I had with Dr. Andrew Richmond, which you can listen to on the latest episode of Merging Minds.

“Purpose”

Backtracking to the imprecision of English, I want to identify why the word “purpose” can cause so much trouble in our profession. If I ask “What is the purpose of a translator?”, someone with a mechanistic view of language may say that the purpose of a translator is to change a text from one language to another so that it can be understood.

They are not wrong. That is one purpose of the translator, when purpose is defined as a role to fill. However, it is not the final cause for the existence of translators or translation. It is merely a role filled along the way and a method of arriving at the final cause (the telos).

When we ask what the telos of the translator is, it is not as easy to confuse the final cause with the method. The final cause of translation is re-creating in a target language the message and connection that is formed in the source language. The the method of doing so is changing the text from one language to another.

Techne

The best way to steer clear of confusing the "final cause" of translation with the method of achieving it is to avoid imprecise English. It is best to stick with the ancient good stuff: Greek.

In Aristotelian philosophy, there is a concept that complements telos called “techne”. Techne is the method used to accomplish a goal or arrive at the “final cause”, but it would never be confused with telos. In translation, while the telos may be recreating meaning and connections, the techne is changing text from one language to another. In short, techne is the means of arriving at our telos.

Our Techne is Threatened, Our Telos is Not

To me, identifying the difference between our telos and our techne as translators is of utmost importance. With that separation clear, it is easier to recognize that our techne can be disturbed by technological and economic forces, and to see that our telos cannot. This is what is happening now, and it is what has happened throughout the history of translation. The printing press, the typewriter, the computer, the CAT tool, NMT, and Gen AI have all shaken the techne of translation to its core, but none of them have changed the telos. The final cause of re-creating meaning and connection has remained intact.

Identifying our telos is crucial because it anchors us in something that will not be disturbed by technology, even as our techne is turned completely upside down. It gives us something to hold onto.

The New Techne

Although our telos as translators is still to recreate meaning, our techne is changing more than it ever has. A translator used to change every single word in order to recreate meaning, but the advent of machine translation made it so the translator would confirm segments and make select changes in order to arrive at meaning in the target language. Improvements in machine translation led to fewer changes, and Gen AI has ushered in a world of even fewer changes, context-sensitive suggestions, and segment reevaluation in runtime.

In other words, translators are no longer doing “as much”; their techne is shrinking in breadth. However, with a decrease in the volume of changes made, each change that a translator makes becomes all the more important. And, since it is increasingly rare to make changes that are based purely on explicit vocabulary or grammar errors, the techne of the modern translator is much more like message curation than individual word selection.

Examples

With augmented translation tools, a translator may only make a handful of changes in order to correct the tone and relevance of the text. For example, they may receive a machine translation that is largely correct and then change certain pronouns to make the text more formal/informal or more gender inclusive. Once they have made this change in one section of the text, augmented translation technology will use generative AI to apply it throughout. So, instead of needing to update the whole text to match the original register or to be inclusive, one change will do the trick.

This makes the techne of the translation job much less intense, but it does not make it any less crucial. And, the telos that informs the translator’s work has not changed although their means of working towards it has.

Impacts

As a profession, evolution in our techne is bringing about opportunities and challenges. With that, it is also causing both anxiety and excitement. Augmented translation optimists are excited that this will make translation more accessible and efficient, while others are concerned that it will further drive down translator compensation.

In reality, they are both likely correct. I am an optimist, and although I can see where compensation per job will decrease, I believe translators will find greater economic opportunity in the number of jobs available and their increased efficiency to complete more in a day. I think this evolution will help many translators earn more while still working in a fashion that is true to the telos of our job.

Still, I know translators for whom the constant of telos is not enough. They love the old techne of translation so much that witnessing this evolution has been too painful for them to continue as translators. This makes sense. You should align with both the final cause of your job as well as what you do every day to achieve it. If either one of those elements makes you very unhappy, it is a valid choice to move on.

However, as we all evaluate our relationship with professional translation, it will be helpful to understand what is changing and what remains constant. As I see it, our telos of re-creating meaning and connection is a constant that will endure even the most drastic technological changes. Our techne, on the other hand, is something that we can actively manipulate in pursuit of our telos.

To me, this is a gift. We have a north star that never moves, but we can constantly evolve how we chase it.