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 Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

One of the main problems of defining postmodernism as a stylistic designation lies in its relation towards modernism. Such dilemmas arise from the linguistic construction of the term: the prefix “post” determines the nature of the relation towards modernism. This relation can be observed on different levels: on the level of time, quality or content. Regarding the historical, time relation, there seems no doubt that postmodernism comes after modernism; however, it is the examination of substantive differences that offers us more possibilities. Many scholars who try to define postmodernism emphasise precisely this somehow obscure relation. Therefore, Helga de la Motte-Haber shifts the problem of the definition from the nature of the prefix to the core of the term itself,1 as does Ross Feller, who is convinced that “there exist as many different types

Palimpsest and/or parody technique: The relation between modernism and postmodernism in Peter Ruzicka's composition Tallis