Analysing Multimodal Intertextuality: An illustrative analysis (original) (raw)
Related papers
Intertextuality: Definitions and Dimensions
The present article attempts to define intertextuality, an emerging term in literature and delineates its diverse dimensions. It has been derived from the Latin term 'intertexto', which means 'to intermingle while weaving'. Intertextuality has become an influential concept in modern literary theory. It is indeed one of the most leading intellectual terms that dominate contemporary critical theory. Coined and conceptualized by the French neo-structuralist Julia Kristeva in the late 1960s, it has remained a much debated term in literary and cultural studies because of its diverse interpretations. At present, intertextuality "has come to have almost as many meanings as users, from those faithful to Kristeva's original version to those who simply use it as a stylish way of talking about allusion and influence" (Irwin 2004:228). It has been borrowed, transformed and utilized by so many critics and theorists that it is "in danger of meaning nothing more than whatever each particular critic wishes it to mean" (Allen 2000:2). Thus even today, it lacks a universally accepted mainstream definition. However, it can be said that, confounding the realist agenda that art imitates life, intertextuality suggests that art imitates art. It reminds us that texts are instrumental not only in the construction of other texts but in the construction of experiences. ___________________________________________________________________________ Derived from the Latin term intertexto, which means 'to intermingle while weaving', intertextuality promises to be a potent and prominent concept in modern literary theory. It is indeed one of the most influential intellectual terms that dominate contemporary critical theory. Coined and conceptualized by the French neo-structuralist Julia Kristeva in the late 1960s, it has remained a much debated term in literary and cultural studies because of its diverse interpretations. As Daniel Chandler points out, Intertextuality does not seem to be simply a continuum on a single dimension and there does not seem to be a consensus about what dimensions we should be looking for. Intertextuality is not a feature of the text alone but of the 'contract' which reading it forges between its author(s) and reader(s). (Chandler 2002: 141) At present, intertextuality "has come to have almost as many meanings as users, from those faithful to Kristeva's original version to those who simply use it as a stylish way of talking about allusion and influence" (Irwin 2004:228). It has been borrowed, transformed and utilized by so many critics and theorists that it is "in danger of meaning nothing more than whatever each particular critic wishes it to mean" (Allen 2000:2). Thus even today, it lacks a universally accepted mainstream definition. Despite this, there are some commonly shared assumptions and tenets which throw light on this critical concept.
International Journal of Literature and Arts, 2023
The aim of the 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.
2013
The objective of this work is to understand how multisemiotic texts interact with each other to produce meanings, observing the complex intertextual relations among genres from various artistic and/or audiovisual fields. Therefore, I initially present a brief review of the literature on intertextuality, critically discussing how leading scholars address this issue. Then I argue that it is necessary to understand intertextuality in an integral and non-discretized way through a typological continuum of relationships between verbal-visual texts. Thus, I develop a model for understanding this phenomenon by means of a graph in which two continua intertwine: the representation of intertextuality through form (Implicitness/ Explicitness) and function (Approach/ Distance of the quoted voice) assumed in communicative situations. To test the model, four music video clips of American singer Madonna were selected so we can verify how music video texts rely on other texts to build their discourses and evoked identities.
Intertextuality and Interdiscursivity
This is an annotated bibliography on intertextuality and interdiscursivity published on Oxford Bibliographies Online. In the article, we organize and summarize over a hundred works related to the two key terms from the fields of linguistic anthropology, sociolinguistics, and critical discourse analysis. This paper is useful for those seeking to understand the history of the terms and contemporary debates and theorizations.
History and Poetics of Intertextuality
2008
In his book History and Poetics of Intertextuality Marko Juvan argues that intertextuality is constitutive of all textuality and that it may be foregrounded in literary works, genres, or styles such as parody. Juvan surveys the field in order to ground the poetics of intertextuality in the history of its idea and presents its development as general intertextuality (from Kristeva to New Historicism) and citationality (from Genette’s late structuralism to the present text theory). He also discusses the concept’s precursors since Antiquity (imitatio, influence, etc.). In modern times the concept emerged in the 1960s from a radical theory of writing. Based in Derrida’s deconstruction, the notion and practice of intertextuality implied a relational and transformative character of identity, meaning, subject, text, and socio-historical reality. In consequence, the notion gained currency in postmodernist aesthetics while in literary studies it has been transformed from its transgressive content into a detailed descriptive methodology. However, by bringing citationality into focus, practices of intertextuality suggest that literature is an autopoetic system, living on cultural memory, and interacting with other social discourses. The poetics of intertextuality Juvan proposes in his book is based mainly on semiotics and it elucidates factors determining the socio-historically elusive border between general intertextuality and citationality (encyclopaedic literary competence, paratext, etc.). In his analysis Juvan explores modes of intertextual representation. He stresses that in intertextuality pre-texts evoked or re-written in post-texts figure as interpretants of the latter and vice versa. Juvan’s analysis suggests that intertextual derivations and references have become common in literary culture as citational figures and genres.