After the author explicates how his academic relationship to Paepcke began in the 1970s, he proceeds to discuss critically the latter’s reflections on language and translation. Latent contradictions in Paepcke’s conceptual framework and in his understanding of the relationship between theory and practice are brought to the fore. This conceptual tension shows that Paepcke’s understanding of and approach to dealing with texts is problematic. Using concrete examples, the author demonstrates that Paepcke did not rely on the text as the criterion for constituting meaning. Rather Paepcke relied on historically mediated conceptual constructs which were given the status of authoritative units of sense, and these units guided Paepcke in his process of establishing the meaning of the whole. The reason for this can be found in unreflected preliminary decisions that are seen as “a priori evidence.” This also explains why Paepcke’s real achievement lies in the contrastive analysis of comprehensive concepts – of traditionally rich concepts developed over the course of time (human orientation) as well as in rationalized contemporary language (functional orientation).

Evidentia is a concept passed on to us from rhetoric – more precisely from the third of the five canons of classical rhetoric, namely elocution. The goal of this canon is to achieve a stylistic quality that enables the listener to see what (s)he hears with his or her inner eye, i.e. to enable the listener to really visualize what is being said. Fritz Paepcke – whose one hundredth birthday we celebrated at this conference – applied the concept of evidentia to the field of translation studies. Within his conceptual framework, he portrayed it as a new experience – one which arises immediately, i.e., not through induction or deduction, but “as a result of the rule-governed and yet playful process of developing the most adequate wording of a translation” and from one’s interaction with the text. Paepcke did not, however, elaborate on this “intuition of intuition.” This article attempts to further develop the concept evidentia rhetorically and philosophically and to apply it to the field of translation studies. Two conceptions are particularly instrumental here: 1) The concept of fidélité créatrice as elucidated by the French philosopher Gabriel Marcel – to whom Paepcke often referred – as well as 2) the conceptual approach underlying and informing the research center Hermeneutik und Kreativität. In the latter, the processes of understanding and translating / translating and understanding are conceived of as being bi-directional and interdependent; this conception, which fuses understanding with empathy, is making new, significant inroads into translation studies. The notion of evidentia will be exemplified here using an empathetic Italian translation of a very young poet – Selma Meerbaum-Eisinger.

This article seeks to shed some light on the experience of interpretation and translation from a hermeneutical point of view, more precisely on how the subjectivity of the translator plays an essential mediation role in the process of rendering the meaning of a text in a new language, a role that certainly goes beyond the sole linguistic transfer, without being per se subjective. This idea can best be understood through the concept of “game” as developed by the philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer and introduced in translation theory by Fritz Paepcke, because it offers a model in which the participation of the individual is necessary without being arbitrary, since the players have to abide by the rules of the specific game they are playing – in this case, the text itself. However, the aim of this article is not to offer a method of translation, but is rather an attempt to consider the adequacy of translation on the basis of subjective and intersubjective factors – including the translator’s own prior knowledge and experience, his openness towards the text and his critical self-awareness – and therefore to propose an alternative to the overly normative and restrictive theoretical framework strictly focused on linguistic equivalence between ST and TT.

The present chapter discusses the human dimensions of the translation process. Translators responsibly act as mediators of a comprehended message and undertake their work as culturally embedded persons. The scientific subject of translation studies is therefore the person of the translator, a person possessed of a body and a mind. The various activities of translators are described socio‑psychologically in terms of the four ‘E’s’: human activities are embodied, embedded, extended and enactive. The process of translation as a performance can be understood in the same terms. Insofar as knowledge, emotions and cultural background play a role, what is significant is the relationship of translators to the outside world, aspects of which are both sensual and existential, and which only afterwards involve mental and cognitive ones. A systematic model of translation also includes the personal growth of the translator who tries to understand texts in a constant learning process. In his or her handling of the text, one’s interest, intuition and feeling for language are decisive for what is presented as the translation. In this chapter, therefore, what is at issue is that the scholarly perspective in translation studies accordingly changes from the comparison of languages to the analysis of translational thinking. The hermeneutic translation competence integrates a variety of aspects both on the linguistic level and in the social dimension, and because this is so, this chapter profiles new questions for research. Keywords: Interest, Intuition, Feeling for Language, Embodiment, Cognition, Understanding.

In terms of the bidirectional relationship between hermeneutics and creativity, the responsibility of the communicator is of the essence. Given the Covid pandemic, this responsibility, and the connections to be made with truth and solidarity, has become particularly clear. In order to better understand these connections, this chapter proceeds as follows: First, responsibility is anthropologically anchored as a human‑relational attitude. Secondly, this attitude is shown to be particularly illuminated by the process of interpretation, a process which can be deemed an effort to recognise reality, and not simply to bypass it. Thirdly, a question arises concerning the means by which the communicator can do justice to his task and grow in responsibility. In what follows, two dimensions of the communicator's responsibility are clarified: Responsibility as the awareness of doing justice to reality through one's own interpretation as far as is possible (this is the hermeneutic dimension), and responsibility as commitment, as an active participation in the communicative process (this is the creative dimension). The virtues of humility and boldness are recognised as ways to consolidate responsibility whereby responsibility does not become an unbearable burden that one wants to get rid of quickly, but a concrete exercise of personal freedom.

Because of the influence of globalisation, pluralisation, individualisation and secularisation, children and teenagers are increasingly distancing themselves from the Christian traditio since they either do not understand or barely understand its specific language, whether it be its vocabulary, syntax or semantics. This has a concrete effect on religious education, whose subject matter, Christian traditio, lacks appeal for many students. Religious education and didactics react by attempting to translate the language of Christian traditio, which is perceived as difficult, into the language worlds of the students. Although this appears to be a logical consequence, it raises questions in theological and translatological terms that need to be clarified in different ways. Elaborating and addressing these questions takes place on two levels: Firstly, this chapter takes up the discourse on religious education and didactics in order to articulate the churches’ pronouncements in this regard. Secondly, task formats from lesson plans for Protestant and Catholic religious education are discussed in light of the present author’s own pedagogy. At issue is encouraging the students to make intra‑, interlingual and intersemiotic translations of the Christian traditio. Both levels are explored against the background of the opportunities but also limitations that arise in view of a theologically and translatologically appropriate translation of the Christian traditio placed under the sign of hermeneutics and creativity.

Asylum hearings require a high degree of sensitivity from interpreters. Language mediation during the procedure must meet requirements that are different from conventional consecutive interpreting: In addition to linguistic competence, specific interaction skills come into play—involved here is a comprehensive habitus geared towards the moment of encounter between the parties to the conversation. But how does this work? Are there concepts that are suitable for quickly grasping certain emotions such as the feeling of fear? Is there a terminology that takes emotional impulses into account and which have a lasting influence on interpreting? In the following chapter, I explore these questions with the help of Sören Kierkegaard’s concept of fear, which—in contrast to psychotherapeutic concepts— opens up to a non‑pathological approach to the emotional dimension of the asylum interview.

The purpose of this chapter is to elucidate the hermeneutical potential latent in specialized language, and the specialized language of medicine will be used as an example. The phrase “hermeneutical potential”—as it is invoked in what follows —refers to the spectrum of possible interpretations that specialized language allows for in different contexts and which, in turn, influence the particular message imparted. In a first step, this chapter addresses the factors which determine the hermeneutic potential of specialized language, focusing on the one hand on the linguistic resources available (also employed in pseudo‑specialized language, moreover), and on the other hand on three different levels of interpretation: 1) denotation, 2) connotation and association, and 3) metaphor. On the basis of these factors, a rubric is proposed which facilitates analysis of the potential contexts in which this specialized language is used: in the specialized field itself, in advertising, and in literature. The results of this analysis are then discussed with reference to the translation of Romance languages into German and vice versa.

The field of performative translation focuses on forms of translation as they result from the influence of the human body in its psycho‑physical form. The human body, which is involved in productions such as a dance performances or in church processions, functions as a media relay for the translation to be performed: through it and on it, transformation processes are connected. This transformation performs two translation services: on the one hand, it extends from the sensual impression of a template to the (individual) ideas related to it and, on the other hand, from the (individual) ideas to a body movement related to it. In terms of the latter translatory step, however, regulatory measures are often implemented, and these are intended to dictate performativity vis‑à‑vis the individual. They can accordingly be described retrospectively as disciplining measures in regards to the individual and his or her capacity for imagination insofar as the individual imagination is determined as something that endangers the social (e.g. the procession of the faithful, the choreography of the dance ensemble), because it is hypertrophic and must therefore be subdued if it proves necessary. The term performative translation can thus be used to address not only aesthetic but also discursive issues.