Although translating involves significant creativity and subjectivity, the currently dominant form of translation does not oblige translators to take responsibility for their words in the same way as authors can. If one adopts the perspective of formal pragmatics (Habermas, Goffman), several kinds of empirical testing demonstrate how this mode of non-authorship operates within the current form: 1) when translating, translators adopt the alien I (the pronoun “I” refers to someone else); 2) translators are not commonly required to make validity claims about the content of their productions, as it attested through the existence and social function of pseudo-translations; and 3) translators are not usually required to swear commitment to what their words say, as can be tested on the limits of translated Auschwitzlüge. Tentative date from process studies further support the claim that translating a text tends to be psychologically different from authoring a text, especially with regard to the conceptual space available for thought about responsibility. A critical attitude is thus necessary with respect to the current translation form.