Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Intertextuality: An Introduction

Intertextuality: An Introduction e laine martin Intertextuality An Introduction Intertextuality, which has occasionally been used somewhat blithely to designate interdisciplinary and comparative investigations of various sorts, may, in its theo- rization and historicization, not be blithe at all. a Th t is, we may not agree on its meaning. Most critics agree that the term was coined in the late 1960s by Julia Kristeva, who combined ideas from Bakhtin on the social context of language with Saussure’s positing of the systematic features of language.1 Kristeva’s den fi ition, in her essay “Word, Dialogue and Novel,” reads: intertextuality is “a mosaic of quo- tations; any text is the absorption and transformation of another. e Th notion of intertextuality replaces that of intersubjectivity, and poetic language is read as at least doub ” l(K e risteva 85, cited in Moi 37).2 Kristeva’s work on intertextuality in the late sixties coincided with the transition from structuralism to poststructuralism. Graham Allen describes this move as “one in which assertions of objectivity, sci- entic fi rigour, methodological stability and other highly rationalistic- s ounding terms are replaced by an emphasis on uncertainty, indeterminacy, incommunica- bility, subjectivity, desire, pleasure and play” (3). i Th s uncertainty undercut autho- http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png The Comparatist University of North Carolina Press

Intertextuality: An Introduction

The Comparatist , Volume 35 – Jun 15, 2011

Loading next page...
 
/lp/university-of-north-carolina-press/intertextuality-an-introduction-0mXIcJDXlh
Publisher
University of North Carolina Press
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Comparative Literature Association.
ISSN
1559-0887

Abstract

e laine martin Intertextuality An Introduction Intertextuality, which has occasionally been used somewhat blithely to designate interdisciplinary and comparative investigations of various sorts, may, in its theo- rization and historicization, not be blithe at all. a Th t is, we may not agree on its meaning. Most critics agree that the term was coined in the late 1960s by Julia Kristeva, who combined ideas from Bakhtin on the social context of language with Saussure’s positing of the systematic features of language.1 Kristeva’s den fi ition, in her essay “Word, Dialogue and Novel,” reads: intertextuality is “a mosaic of quo- tations; any text is the absorption and transformation of another. e Th notion of intertextuality replaces that of intersubjectivity, and poetic language is read as at least doub ” l(K e risteva 85, cited in Moi 37).2 Kristeva’s work on intertextuality in the late sixties coincided with the transition from structuralism to poststructuralism. Graham Allen describes this move as “one in which assertions of objectivity, sci- entic fi rigour, methodological stability and other highly rationalistic- s ounding terms are replaced by an emphasis on uncertainty, indeterminacy, incommunica- bility, subjectivity, desire, pleasure and play” (3). i Th s uncertainty undercut autho-

Journal

The ComparatistUniversity of North Carolina Press

Published: Jun 15, 2011

There are no references for this article.