English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Arguments about the concept of adequacy (›Angemessenheit‹) of interpretation are as constitutive for many hermeneutic theories of meaning as they are for the interpretive praxis derived from these theories. This essay seeks to illustrate by way of exemplary approaches by Georg Friedrich Meier (1718–1777), Johann Martin Chladenius (1710–1759) and Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher (1768–1834) that very different notions are prevalent within hermeneutics as to what counts as an adequate interpretation. For instance, the ascription of  logical  adequacy as a criterion for the adequacy of a judgment about a literary text means something like »internal coherency«, whereas  rhetorical  adequacy means the orientation of an author or speaker to his public and the situation of utterance. This semantic wiggle room of ›Angemessenheit‹ is presumably the result of the linguistic convergence (homonymy) of very different concepts. ›Angemessenheit‹ is on the one hand used synonymously with »adequacy«, (»Adäquatheit«) from the Latin  adaequare , »to make equal«, while on the other hand it is used synonymously with  to prepon , or  decorum/aptum , from rhetoric or the ancient doctrines of harmony and proportion.

Historische Angemessenheit als hermeneutisches Konzept, Argument oder Problem?