From Representation to Enactment: The ABC Framework of the Translating Mind

Large language models (LLMs) are commonly associated with the distributional hypothesis, according to which (1) semantic meaning is grounded in distributional patterns of linguistic context, and (2) knowledge of cross-linguistic distributional correspondences allows for successful translation. This paper rejects the first claim as a causal inversion: linguistic distributions reflect patterns arising from meaning-making practices rather than constituting their source. At the same time, it accepts the second claim, arguing that translation -human or machine - can succeed without requiring access to meaning or reference. Knowledge of interlingual distributional correspondence and their inferential organization may be sufficient for translation. The paper develops an ecological-enactivist perspective, according to which reference and meaning are grounded in agent-environment interaction and stabilized through action-grounded concepts, forms of world-involving cognition that current LLMs do not possess.

We present Agentic AI Translate, an agentic translator prototype that operationalises the thesis of Yamada (forthcoming) -- that the metalanguage of Translation Studies has become an instruction code for generative AI. The system replaces the dominant text-in / text-out paradigm of machine translation with a four-stage agentic cycle (Identify -> Prompt -> Generate -> Verify), preceded by an interactive specification phase in which the user composes -- through model-assisted dialogue -- a structured translation brief grounded in skopos theory, register, audience, and genre conventions. The verification stage adopts the GEMBA-MQM error-span protocol (Kocmi & Federmann, 2023) for evidence-grounded scoring, and document-level coherence is preserved through a DelTA-lite memory of proper nouns and a running bilingual summary, after Wang et al. (2025). We describe the philosophical motivation, the architectural commitments, the four reference-material categories the system consumes, and the principal design tensions the architecture makes explicit. Empirical validation is left for future work; the contribution here is conceptual and architectural -- an executable embodiment of the position that translation in the GenAI era is communication design, not text conversion.

Foundation models place language throughout embodied agents, but its presence does not show what it contributes or how well that contribution is grounded. This survey separates these two questions. We define five non-exclusive functional roles for language: Specification, Embodied Representation, Action Orchestration, Grounding Regulation, and Execution Coupling. For each role, we trace the path from linguistic content to its embodied consumer and identify the observations or interventions that can test the claimed responsibility. Applying this framework to the reviewed literature reveals a recurring gap between functional use and evidential support. Interpretable or revised linguistic intermediates may be incorrect, go unused, or fail to affect later behavior. Even when actions are directly conditioned on language, system-level success does not by itself isolate language's contribution. We therefore evaluate grounding claim by claim, asking whether the reported evidence supports the specific responsibility assigned to language. Using role claims rather than architectures as the unit of comparison allows us to compare modular and end-to-end embodied agents without extending conclusions beyond the reported evidence.