Intertextuality and its modern concept

Intertextuality as a term was first used in Julia Kristeva's "Word, Dialogue and Novel" (1966) and then in
"The Bounded Text" (1966-67), essays she wrote shortly after arriving in Paris from her native Bulgaria.
The concept of intertextuality that she initiated proposes the text as a dynamic site in which relational
processes and practices are the focus of analysis instead of static structures and products. The "literary
word", she writes in "Word, Dialogue, and Novel", is "an intersection of textual surfaces rather than a
point (a fixed meaning), as a dialogue among several writings". Developing Bakhtin's spatialization of
literary language, she argues that "each word (text) is an inter section of other words (texts) where at
least one other word (text) can be read.

There are always other words in a word, other texts in a text. The concept of intertextuality requires,
therefore, that we understand texts not as self-contained systems but as differential and historical, as
traces and tracings of otherness, since they are shaped by the repetition and transformation of other
textual structures. Rejecting the New Critical principle of textual autonomy, the theory of intertextuality
insists that a text cannot exist as a self-sufficient whole, and so, that it does not function as a closed
system.

On its most basic level, intertextuality is the concept of texts' borrowing of each others' words and
concepts. This could mean as much as an entire ideological concept and as little as a word or phrase. As
authors borrow pro-actively from previous texts, their work gains layers of meaning. Also, another
feature of intertextuality reveals itself when a text is read in light of another text, in which case all of the
assumptions and implications surrounding the other text shed light on and shape the way a text is
interpreted.

In response to Ferdinand de Saussure's claim that signs gain their meaning through structure in a
particular text, implying that meaning is transmitted directly from writer to reader, Kristeva argued that
because of the influence of other texts on readers' consciousnesses, texts are always filtered through
"codes" which bring the weight of other, previous meanings with them. We are, then, already
imbricated in a web of meaning created by other texts and the connotations surrounding them as
opposed to deriving meaning directly from the structure of signs as Saussure would have it in his
semiotics.

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 postmodernisms 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. Actually intertextuality has, itself,
been borrowed and transformed many times. William Irwin, a well known critic talks about this term
such as has come to have almost as many meaning as users from those faithful to Kristevas original
vision to those who simply use it as a stylish way of talking about allusion and influence Intertextuality
has been differentiation. There are different views on intertextuality. It has no accurate boundary in
literature. It is found different definition based on that term. We can make a distinction between a mere
reference to another work e.g. a mention of the name of a book, movie, song, etc within another work
and an actual intertexual use of an idea, citation, allusion, motif or symbol from another work in order
to make a point on reinterpret an earlier work. Theses two varieties are in that term. It means that there
are vertical intertextuality and horizontal intertextuality. John Fiske does agree on these two
differences. He says that it will be become possible. Intertexuality can be found easily in the postmodern
English literature. Many authors are coined this device in their writings. John Steinbeck published East
of Eden in 1952. East of Eden has a retelling of the story of Geneis which is set in the Salinas Valley of
Northern California. James Joyces Ulysses (1918) has a retelling of Homers Odyssey, set in Dublin.
Here is intertextuality between James Joyces Ulysses and Homers Odyssey. Matt Haigs The Dead
Fathers Club (2006) is set in modern England where is a retelling of Shakespeares Hamlet, Jane
Smileys A Thousand Acres (1991) is based on a retelling of Shakespeares King Lear. C.S. Lewis
Perelandra is related with Miltons Paradise Lost. Jean Rhys Wide Sargasso Sea (1966) is based on
the mad women of Charlotte Brontes Jane Eyre. Steven Pressfied refers Bhagavad Gita in his The
Legend of Bagger Vance (1996). John Steinbeck unfolds the Arthurian legends in his Tortila Flat (1935).
Craig Janacek retells Homers Illiad in his The Anger of Achilles Peterson (2011). Eugene ONeill retells
Aeschylus The Oresteia in his Mourning Becomes Electra(1931). These above authors are used
intertextuality very effectively in their writings. Authors borrow and transform of a prior text or to a
readers referencing of one text in reading another are intertexuality.

Intertextuality is also present in criticism through poststructuralism. Kristevas intertextuality exists an

attempt to synthesize ferdinad de Saussures semiotics which is his study of how sings derive their
meaning within the structure of a text. Bakhtins dialogism is his examination of the multiple meaning,
or heteroglossia in each text and in each word. Kristeva think that the notion of intertextuality replaces
the notion of intersubjectivity when we realize that meaning is not transferred directly form writer to
reader, but instead is mediated through, or filtered by codes imparted to the writer and reader by
other texts. We have a great example of James Joyces Ulysses. We decode it as a modernist literary
experiment, or as a response to the epic tradition or as part of some other conversation, or a part of all
of these conversation at once. Roland Barthes supports to the intertextual view of literature that it is a
concept of the meaning of a text does not reside in the text, but it is produced by the reader in relation
not only to the text in question, but also the complex network of texts invoked in the reading process.
Daniela caselli reexamines intertextuality as a series of relationship between different text in his more
recent post structuralist theory Dantes Intertextuality in the Fiction and Criticism (MUP 2005). Some
postmodern theorists find a relationship between intertextuality and hypertextuality.

According to them, intertextuality makes each text a living hell of hell on earth and hyper text is a part of
a larger mosaic of texts such as each hypertext can be a web of links and a part of the whole World Wide
Web. A famous critic shows distinctions between the notions of intertext hypertextand supertext.
We have a good example of Milorad Pavics Dictionary of the Khazars. It is present in criticism areas of
literature.
Some famous critics criticize that the ubiquity of the term intertexuality in postmodern criticism has
crowded out related terms and important nuances. William Irwin expresses that intertextuality is
eclipsed allusion as an object of literary study while lacking the latter terms clear definition. Linda
Hutcheon comments that excessive interest in intertexuality rejects the role of the author, because it
can be found in the eye of the beholder and does not entailed communicators intentions. He takes
notes in his A Theory of Parody that parody is always features of an author who actively encodes a text
as an imitation with critical difference. It is criticized by different critics and writers.

Intertextuality retains from very previous time to now. In the previous time it had less importance, but
now it gets more and more significance by every day. Its usage is very effectively in the postmodern
literature. If it is in the postmodern literature, it crosses the field of literature and it goes different filed.
After 1950s, it reaches achievement. It presents also in internet, movies, etc. In internet we have
hypertext. Movies have direct relationship with intertextuality. Intertextuality has the most important
notable element in the postmodern literature. There is a need that to find out various function of that
term in the literature and also in the other fields. Its role is unforgettable in our literature. It was present
in the previous time. It shapes novels, poems, dramas etc. On that basis many writers and authors are
become very famous and got name and fame on their credit. This term can be found easily in the
postmodern English literature. The Postmodern English literature takes a base of Intertextuality.