The aim of this paper is to discuss the operational concepts and theory of intertextuality as a postmodern theory. Postmodern theory is a theory that emerged in the second half of the 1960s. This theory was born as a reaction to modernity and its ideals. By the 1970s, postmodern aesthetics, on which postmodern theory was based, began to be felt in almost every field of art, from architecture to painting, from literature to cinema. Intertextuality seems such a useful term because it foregrounds notions of relationality, interconnectedness, and interdependence in modern cultural life. In the Postmodern epoch, theorists often claim, it is not possible any longer to speak of originality or the uniqueness of the artistic object, be it a painting or novel, since every artistic object is so clearly assembled from bits and pieces of already existent art. An author or poet can use intertextuality deliberately for a variety of reasons. They would probably choose different ways of highlighting intertextuality depending on their intention. They may use references directly or indirectly. They might use a reference to create additional layers of meaning or make a point or place their work within a particular framework. A writer could also use a reference to create humour, highlight an inspiration or even create a reinterpretation of an existing work. The reasons and ways to use intertextuality are so varied that it is worth looking at each example to establish why and how the method was used
Postmodern theory is an approach that is the sum of certain breaking moments occurring in the historical development of the western societies.
Intertextuality is one of the most important elements among postmodern elements of literature. Postmodernism is a decentered concept of the universe in which individual works are not isolated creations. It means that much of the focus in the study of postmodern literature is settled down on intertextuality. Intertextuality has been the relationship between one text and another or one text within the interwoven fabric of literary history. An indication of postmodernism’s lack of originality and reliance on cliches are pointed out by the famous critics. It is a reference or parallel to another literary work and an extended discussion of a work or the adoption of a style.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
1. Operational Definition of Intertextuality
2. Theories of Intertextuality
2.1. Bakhtin's Theory of Intertextuality
2.2. Kristeva's Theory of Intertextuality
2.3. Barthes's Theory of Intertextuality
2.4. Genette's Theory of Intertextuality
3. Two General Forms of Intertextuality in Literature
4. Intertextual Practice in the Postmodern Age
II. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
This paper aims to investigate the operational concepts and theoretical framework of intertextuality within the context of postmodern theory, analyzing how texts function as interconnected systems of various discourses and cultural references.
- The historical and theoretical emergence of intertextuality in postmodern aesthetics.
- Core theoretical contributions by Bakhtin, Kristeva, Barthes, and Genette.
- The distinction between intentional and unintentional forms of intertextual practice.
- The role of the reader in navigating the plural, intertextual nature of literary meaning.
- The "mutation" and interdisciplinarity of literary production and canonization.
Excerpt from the Book
First proposition: “The Text is not to be thought of as an object that can be computed.”
In this proposition, Barthes characterizes “the text” as “a methodological field” as opposed to the materiality of “the work”, as in: “The difference is this: the work is a fragment of substance, occupying a part of the space of books (in a library for example), the Text is a methodological field.” To elaborate, what he wants to say is that the meaning of a text is not a finished product; or that the meaning of a text is not a computable experience. Rather, as he proceeds to explain, the text can “endlessly” produce meaning every time it is re-read or experienced through a process in which “the text is a process of demonstration” and a process in which the text exists in the field of language and “in the movement of a discourse”.
Of course, this form of a “textual” movement or activity of meaning production is referred to as signifiance both by Kristeva and Barthes, and perhaps by some other poststructuralists as well (and where, put simply, the term “signifiance implies that meaning is only ever produced in the act of reading” [Allen, 2000: 219])—indeed, it is such usages and applications of the term signifiance that are intimated by Barthes’s assertions about an essentially intertextual nature of the text and/or of the “activity” of generating textual meaning: “the Text is experienced only in an activity of production. It follows that the Text cannot stop (for example on a library shelf); its constitutive movement is that of cutting across (in particular, it can cut across the work, several works).” [emphasis original] (Barthes, 1977b: 157) Here, it is worth noting Barthes’s contention that “the Text cannot stop” for the very reason that it is endowed with a “constitutive” capacity for “cutting across” any number of other “works” or texts, and, such a contention, in simple terms, can be understood to be an reiteration of the idea that (a literary) text can “endlessly” produce meaning because it is intertextual in its constitution or composition.
Summary of Chapters
I. Introduction: This chapter defines the historical context of postmodernism and introduces intertextuality as a foundational theory describing the interconnected fabric of literary works.
1. Operational Definition of Intertextuality: This chapter provides a functional definition of intertextuality, explaining its role in the transformation and recombination of existing textual material.
2. Theories of Intertextuality: This chapter categorizes the major theoretical developments of intertextuality into poststructuralist and structuralist strands.
2.1. Bakhtin's Theory of Intertextuality: This section explores Bakhtin's concepts of dialogism, polyphony, and carnivalesque as essential roots for intertextual analysis.
2.2. Kristeva's Theory of Intertextuality: This section evaluates Kristeva’s formal introduction of the term and her conception of the text as a "mosaic of quotations."
2.3. Barthes's Theory of Intertextuality: This section details Barthes's shift from "work" to "text" and his radical emphasis on the reader in the production of plural meanings.
2.4. Genette's Theory of Intertextuality: This section analyzes Genette’s transtextual framework, including paratextuality and hypertextuality.
3. Two General Forms of Intertextuality in Literature: This chapter contrasts the intentional use of intertextuality as a creative strategy with the unintentional, inherent interconnectedness of language.
4. Intertextual Practice in the Postmodern Age: This chapter examines the contemporary scholarly enthusiasm for intertextuality and its implications for literary canonization and mutation.
II. Conclusion: This chapter reviews the key arguments, highlighting that intertextuality is an umbrella concept for the study of textual relationships and meaning production.
Keywords
Intertextuality, Postmodernism, Dialogism, Polyphony, Structuralism, Poststructuralism, Carnivalesque, Transtextuality, Mosaic of quotations, Signifiance, Hypertextuality, Literary Theory, Discourse analysis, Authorial intention, Reader-response.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this paper?
The paper explores the theory and operational concepts of intertextuality as a major postmodern approach to understanding how literary texts are constructed through their relationships with prior works.
What are the core themes discussed in the work?
The core themes include the rejection of artistic originality in postmodernism, the role of textual interconnectedness, the evolution of meaning through discourse, and the shifting power balance between authorship and readership.
What is the main objective or research question of this study?
The objective is to provide a theoretical reappraisal of intertextuality, defining how it functions as a tool for both the composition and interpretation of literary texts.
Which scientific or theoretical methods are applied?
The study utilizes a literary-theoretical and critical review method, synthesizing works from key theorists like Bakhtin, Kristeva, Barthes, and Genette.
How is the main part of the paper structured?
The main part is structured chronologically and thematically, moving from definitional foundations to detailed explorations of specific theorists, and concluding with a discussion on literary practice in the postmodern age.
Which keywords best capture the essence of this research?
Keywords include Intertextuality, Postmodernism, Dialogism, Plurality, Transtextuality, and Reader-response theory.
How does M.M. Bakhtin’s theory inform the concept of intertextuality?
Bakhtin provides the groundwork for intertextuality through his concepts of dialogism and the carnivalesque, emphasizing that every linguistic act is inherently socially situated and responsive to prior utterances.
What is the significance of the "death of the author" in this context?
The "death of the author," famously articulated by Barthes, is significant because it shifts the focus of meaning production from authorial intent to the reader, allowing a text to be viewed as a plural, intertextual space.
How does Genette's concept of "transtextuality" differ from Kristeva's definition?
While Kristeva uses intertextuality as an all-encompassing term for textual intersections, Genette categorizes the phenomenon more specifically under "transtextuality," subdividing it into precise analytical categories like paratextuality and hypertextuality.
What does the author mean by the "impurity" of a textual system?
The author argues that no text is an isolated, original creation; rather, all texts are "impure" because they are composed of traces, quotations, and language from existing cultural and literary traditions.
- Citation du texte
- Ayenew Guadu (Auteur), 2023, Intertextuality as an Inherent Tool for the Composition and Interpretation of Texts. A Theoretical Reappraisal, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1349464
