Introduction
A recent symposium on Translation Studies (Poncharal and Stephens 2018, online) addressed several ethical issues concerning the relationship between humans and nature, on which there has been little or no relevant research in Translation Studies. Suggesting the need to abandon an anthropocentric perspective which considers that cultural and social habits are based on a system of human supremacy, the symposium’s description posited the idea of an ecological understanding of the world to inform translation and interpretation practices. According to Plumwood (2002), anthropocentrism sees the human as being separated from the larger community of life, particularly those networks that pair humans and non-humans (the sentient world). Symptomatic of Western industrial culture, Plumwood (ibid., p. 20) calls this “the illusion of disembeddedness.”
Although non-humans have been regarded by some as marginal, meaningless “things” in Western cultures, there are many examples of interaction between humans and non-humans, all of which shape identities and allow for the creation of new knowledge and perspectives. Non-humans connect humans to a “global macro-organism” (de Rosnay 2015, pp. 41–43), which allows humans to be transformed by other humans and to transform the environment in which they live. Like astronauts who need their spacesuit as an augmenting extension to enable travel in space (“being one with the object”), humans who share their actions with non-humans can either transform non-humans into objects (things) or let themselves be guided, surprised, or transformed by them. From their association or partnership will emerge something new; prototypes such as Bio-suits (custom-fitted skin suits based on an individual human–digital model) will be created and trained to replace bulky traditional spacesuits (Chu 2014, online) and augment the astronaut’s capabilities. Put differently, humans “co-evolve” (Grusin 2015, p. ix) with non-humans by explanting human knowledge into digital prostheses. Arguably, it could be said this makes technology a sort of social, conscious agent: a sentient non-human.1
Technology is increasingly impacting human behavior. Vihelmaa (2010), for instance, provides examples and analyses demonstrating that translational activities have an impact on the environment: the translator, who “does not always realize that what he is doing takes place in a specific ecological context”2 (2010, p. 857; my translation), should be environmentally responsible or aware of the direct effects of his actions on nature and nature preservation. Acosta and Romeva (2010) propose a new ethics of technological design, moving from an anthropocentric design, which bases human well-being and human development on technological consumption, to an ecospheric or ecocentric design. An ethics premised upon an ecospheric perspective would mean creating a better balance between humans and non-humans: people would be able to recognize themselves as symbiotic with animals, nature, culture, and other non-humans.
Augmentation technologies are said to enhance human functions and amplify the human body as well as human thought and decision-making processes far beyond what would otherwise be possible. The idea of “augmented translation” is gaining traction in Translation Studies, particularly with regard to the use of technology. Desjardins (2017, p. 1), for instance, proposed using the term in relation to translation and social media, with an eye to greater “disciplinary consilience.” Considered as a disruptive transformation, researchers and translation technology developers predict augmentation as the “new paradigm for translator productivity” (Lommel 2017a, online) and a way for human translators to remain relevant. However, the success of augmented translation tools will depend on “how far humans (translators, project managers and business owners) engage with these technologies and how effectively these tools and workflows can be personalized to their users” (Oroszi 2018, online). It may also be worth asking to what extent this augmented paradigm subscribes to anthropocentric or ecospheric ethics, and whether or not this has an impact for where we delineate human intervention.
Augmentation: Technology as a Partner
Virtual reality (VR) integrated into the physical world with real-time interaction is known as augmented reality (AR): “Augmented reality mixes the physical world with computer-generated information. The user is able to interact and affect the remote environment by their actions. In augmented reality, the physical reality is here (proximal)” (Sherman and Craig 2003, p. 24).
While the tasks in VR remain virtual, with AR the tasks are real, and the actual, physical world is effectively modified by computer-generated input to make perceptible information which would otherwise remain imperceptible to human senses: “The goal of AR is to enrich the perception and knowledge of a real environment by adding digital information relating to this environment. […] In most AR applications, the user visualizes synthetic images through glasses, headsets, video projectors or even through mobile phones/tablets” (Arnaldi et al. 2018, p. xxii). AR technologies are used in nearly every industrial sector, including the languages services industry, where tools such as MondlyAR and Google Word Lens have made their mark.
Vannevar Bush (1945, online) introduced the idea that technology could augment human thinking, not only by amplifying human physical abilities, but by also increasing the user’s capacity to solve complex problems. Rather than ruling over humans, technologies can be used to empower users by providing insight and perspective and by freeing users from menial tasks for more creative tasks. Engelbart (1962) addressed the idea of empowerment through technology: if the human intellect could be augmented, then new methods of thinking and doing could emerge. In Translation Studies (TS), the idea of empowerment was introduced by Kiraly (2000). Kiraly defined translation competence as “a creative, largely intuitive, socially-constructed, and multi-faceted complex of skills and abilities” (Kiraly 2000, p. 49), a competence which can be developed through collaboration, socialization, and by taking on authentic, real projects. An “empowered translator” is a translator who manages “to be ahead of the game, [who is] equipped with the right level of knowledge and experience using […] new technologies” (O’Dowd 2017, online). An empowered translator is also a translator who exercises personal agency, will, and intentionality. According to Leevi (2016, p. 17), “self-reflexivity and self-awareness are important for a translator in order to determine when and whether to exercise their agency.”
Hookway (2014) claims that the impersonal, the non-human, is intrinsically linked to what is personal and conscious and that subjectivity or creation (poetics) emanates from a continuous tension: “between Genius and Ego, between the impersonal, uncontrolled, and innate, and the personal, controlled, and conscious elements of selfhood” (Hookway 2014, p. 88). In a similar vein, Meschonnic, who takes inspiration from Émile Benveniste, argues that the poetics of translation emanates from the dialectic between the Ego and the Other. Identity, then, emerges only through mediation with Otherness: “A translation is […] a practice of the contradiction between foreign text and re-utterance, […], one language-culture-history and another language-culture-history” (Meschonnic 1999, p. 96; translated by Pym 2003, p. 342). Intelligence, like Genius, is reflected in the connection linking humans and non-humans. Intelligence is not only human, but also impersonal. Increasingly associated with machines, technologies, and organizations, intelligence is also a state that extends from cognition to what is tacit, subliminal, unconscious, or internalized (embodied); it creates an opportunity for humans to reach new levels of perception and knowledge (Hookway 2014, p. 91).
According to Davenport and Kirby (2015, pp. 61–64), augmentation is “a new mindset,” a reframing and renegotiation of the relationship between humans and machines. The authors argue that different strategies can be used to promote augmentation, which include developing higher-order thinking, experience, and analysis, and developing a proficiency in computer science, artificial intelligence, and analytics. Jablokov (2019, online) distinguishes between AI that automates and AI that augments. While automation poses a potential threat, because it disempowers the user and focuses on ways to execute tasks faster and more cheaply (by reproducing human cognition), augmentation is about understanding the meaning behind big data by partnering with machines. Using “isolated clever tricks that help in particular situations” (Engelbart 1962, p. 1) is the equivalent of a lack of discernment; therefore, if something or someone is not able to rise above sensory data or experiences, they remain at the level of automation. On the contrary, living in an augmented state points to the human capacity of exercising ingenium or “the ability to ‘catch sight of relationships of similitudes among things…’” (Grassi quoted by Golden et al. 2003, p. 297) in the same way that the translator is analyzing and trying to find similitudes in parallel and reference texts or is learning from rich contexts (highly contextualized situations) added to objects and locations in augmented environments. Augmentation is not about tricking or replacing the human brain, but about augmenting the intellect by leaving the agency, will, and intentionality of the human actor at the center of the human–computer partnership. AI that augments supposes “using augmented intelligence to sense, decide and act at speed and scale.” Augmentation is therefore about deeper understanding and smarter decision-making: “Augmented intelligence […] helps people be better rather than making us obsolete” (Jablokov 2019, online).
Some authors state that “human augmentation” goes beyond augmenting the intellect, allowing humans to merge with the information world. Human augmentation extends all human functions and abilities, namely the senses, the intellect, as well as motion and the spatial/temporal abilities (Susumu 2014, p. 24; Al-Rodhan 2011, p. 178). Augmentation can therefore be sensorial (e.g., magnifying fine textures), kinetic (for example, by the use of prosthetic limbs), spatial/temporal, or intellectual, which is achieved “b...