In traditional literary theory, it is assumed that when we read a work of literature we are trying to find a meaning which lies inside that work. Literary texts possess meaning, and that is why readers extract meaning from them. The process of extracting meaning from texts is called interpretation. However, in contemporary literary and cultural theory such ideas have been radically changed. It is now believed that works of literature are built from systems, codes, and traditions established by previous works of literature. Crucial to the meaning of a work of literature are also the systems, codes, and traditions of other art forms, such as films, and of culture in general.
It is claimed that the act of reading, rather than the interpretation of one work, engages the reader in discovering a network of textual relations. Tracing those relations is, in fact, interpreting the text, that is, discovering its meaning, or meanings. Reading thus becomes a process of ‘touring between texts.’ According to Allen (2000: 1), “Meaning becomes something which exists between a text and all the other texts to which it refers and relates, moving out from the independent text into a network of textual relations.”
The word “intertextuality” derives from the Latin intertexto, meaning to ‘mingle while weaving’ (Keep et al 2000). The term “intertextuality” was first introduced in literary linguistics by Bulgarian-born French semiotician Julia Kristeva (1941- ) in the late 1960s. In her manifesto – which includes such essays as The Bounded Text (Kristeva 1980: 36-63) and Word, Dialogue, and Novel (Kristeva 1980: 64-91) – Kristeva broke from traditional notions of the author’s influences and the text’s sources. She argued that all signifying systems, from table settings to poems, are constituted by the manner in which they transform earlier signifying systems. A literary work, then, is not simply the product of a single author, but of his/her relationship to other texts (both written and spoken), and to the structure of language itself.
The origins of intertextuality, like modern literary and cultural theory itself, can be traced back to 20th-century linguistics. A major role was played by the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913). By emphasizing the systematic features of language, he established the relational nature of meaning and texts. Another literary theorist who had a major influence on the theory of intertextuality was the Russian literary theorist and philosopher Mikhail Bakhtin (1895-1975). The founder of a school of literary criticism known as dialogism, Bakhtin emphasized the relation between an author and his work, the work and its readers, and the relation of all three to the social and historical forces that surround them (Hernadi 2004). By combining Saussurean and Baktinian theories, Kristeva produced the first enunciation of intertextual theory.
Kristeva’s work was published during a transitional period in modern literary and cultural theory. This transition is described in terms of moving from structuralism to post-structuralism. Structuralists analyzed texts of all kinds, from works of literature to aspects of everyday communication. These theorists based their analysis on semiology, which is the study of signs, a movement fathered by Saussure. Post-structuralists, on the other hand, believed in the unstable nature of language and meaning, insisting that all texts have multiple meanings. The transition from structuralism to post-structuralism is characterized by the replacement of objectivity, scientific rigour, and methodological stability by an emphasis on uncertainity, indeterminancy, incommunicability, subjectivity, desire, pleasure, and play. Structuralists believed that criticism is objective, while post-structuralists argued that criticism, like literature, is inherently unstable.
Another social and literary critic and theorist who made use of intertextual theory was Roland Barthes (1915-1980). Barthes’s position on intertextuality, his belief in plurality and the freedom of all readers from constraints is characteristically post-structuralist. Concerned with the role of the author in the production of meaning, he believed that literary meaning can never be fully grasped by the reader, because the intertextual nature of literary works always leads readers on to new textual relations. Authors, therefore, cannot be held responsible for the multiple meanings readers discover within literary texts. Thus, Barthes proclaimed the “death of the Author”, and viewed this situation as a liberation for readers. He believed that all literary productions take place in the presence of other texts, and only through intertextuality are texts allowed to come into being:
“Any text is a new tissue of past citations. Bits of code, formulae, rhythmic models, fragments of social languages, etc., pass into the text and are redistributed within it, for there is always language before and around the text. Intertextuality, the condition of any text whatsoever, cannot, of course, be reduced to a problem of sources or influences; the intertext is a general field of anonymous formulae whose origin can scarcely ever be located; of unconscious or automatic quotations, given without quotation marks” (Barthes 1981: 39).
Thus, writing is always an iteration which is also a re-iteration, a re-writing which foregrounds the trace of the various texts in both knowing and unknowing places. It is important to note that these elements of intertextuality need not be simply “literary.” One also has to take into account historical and social determinants which, themselves, transform and change literary practices. Moreover, strictly speaking, a text is constituted, only in the moment of its reading. The reader’s own previous readings, experiences and position within the cultural formation also form crucial connections, and open new doors to intertextuality.
The concept of intertextuality is very flexible, in the sense that structuralist critics use it to locate and even fix literary meaning, while post-structuralists employ the term to disrupt notions of meaning. Other literary critics, such as Gérard Genette (1930- ), employ intertextuality theory to argue for critical certainty, or at least for the possibility of saying definite, stable and incontrovertible things about literary texts.
Although intertextuality has inspired various critical positions, it is a term by no means exclusively related to literary works, or written communication. Intertextuality has been adapted by critics of non-literary art forms, such as painting, music, architecture, photography or even film. Through the use of intertextuality employed by other art forms, traits of society or periods of history can be captured not only in the written form, but also by using visual imagery.
Intertextuality, as a concept, has a history of different expressions, which reflect the historical situations out of which it has emerged. The purpose of this chapter is not to choose between theories of intertextuality, but rather to present their most important elements, and understand the term intertextuality in its specific historical and cultural manifestations.
To summarize, we can state that the concept of intertextuality dramatically blurs the outlines of texts, making them an “illimitable tissue of connections and associations” (Barthes 1981: 39). Of course, it entirely depends on the reader’s sensibility and background knowledge to make all the necessary connections in order to get the most out of a text.
Resources:
- Allen, G. (2000) Intertextuality. London: Routledge.
- Barthes, R. (1981) Theory of the Text, in R. Young (ed.). Untying the Text, 31-47, London: Routledge.
- Hernadi, P. (2004) Mikhail Bakhtin. Microsoft Encarta Reference Library. Microsoft Corporation. CD-ROM.
- Keep, C., T. McLaughlin, and R. Parmar (2000) Intertextuality. Institute of Advanced Technology in Humanities, University of Virginia.
- Kristeva, J. (1980) Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art. Leon S. Roudiez (ed.), T. Gora et al (trans.). New York: Columbia University Press.
(Fragment from The Matrix and the Alice Books by Voicu Mihnea Simandan, p.14-18)
My intertextual study The Matrix and the Alice Books looks at the way Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass have influenced some of the ideas put forth by Andy and Larry Wachowski. The book is now available as a Kindle ebook too.
