Jump to content


Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment


This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sohaha1221!.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment


This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bellabalde.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment


This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kschmick.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Fiske part


Seems to be a wrong interpretation of vertical intertextuality. Horizontal, in Fiske's words, is "that between a primary text, such as a television program or series, and other texts of a different type that refer explicitly to it. These may be secondary texts such as studio publicity, journalistic features, or criticism, or tertiary texts produced by the viewers themselves in the form of letters to the press or, more importantly, of gossip and conversation" (television culture, p.108). What lead to the mistake is probably an overinterpretation of the "other texts of a different type"-segment. Additionally, the seperate entry on John Fiske doesn't make it appear as if he's Danish. Thought I'd put it here.

Intertextuality vs Breaking the fourth wall


Aren't these concepts closely related? B4thWall could be mentioned here if that is the case. Just thinking. —Preceding comment was added at 17:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contains nothing but a quotation and a link. Redirect to Kristeva. RickK 23:53, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Important concept that wouldn't be illuminated by a link to Julia Kristeva. I agree that it needs work; I'll start by adding some "see also" links. Wikisux 00:36, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Keep, at least for a week or so - the page was just created today. -Seth Mahoney 01:22, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I just had my gag reflex triggered by seeing Kristeva's name again. Keep it. The concept is important to post-modernism and tens of thousands of black-clad grad students weaving around a keg. (Sheesh, I can't even manage to not be sarcastic with this.) Keep the page. I'm not the guy to expand it. Geogre 02:35, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • This is a major movement in literary criticism, and we need to have an article on it. This entry needs a lot of work, but it's important. Keep. -FZ 13:12, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • It is a major concept. I'm not sure, though, that a Kristeva-only approach would do it, as, although it was her coinage, there are a lot of other literary theory terms for the same basic thing, and I hope that whoever does do the expansion includes dialogic, for example, and the Reader Response and Reception Aesthetic notions of the open work (which is intertextual). Geogre 22:09, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Needs cleanup, but is definitely encyclopedic. Should not be redirected to Julia Kristeva unless Id is to be redirected to Freud and Deconstruction to Jacques Derrida as well. Snowspinner 02:11, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep but cleanup ScottyBoy900Q 13:58, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. See The Seagull for a perfectly sane example. Charles Matthews 19:01, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Hyacinth 22:14, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Neutrality 22:33, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep... so if someone really creates a new page, you immediately put it on vfd? After all, if the original writer didn't write it perfect the first time, it's shit and it has to be started over... right? --Lussmu 08:25, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

needs some more contextualization (ironically enough)


Intertextuality isn't universally agreed to be some particular thing, and it isn't universally agreed what role (if any) it should play in analysis. I'm mostly familiar with criticism of the term, but it seemed weird to add a "Criticisms" section when there was hardly anything from the "Pro" side in the first place, so I'm holding off on that until hopefully someone with a more favorable view of intertextuality adds some citations/explanations of the "Pro" side. For future reference, this is a pretty good article expounding the viewpoint that it is an ill-defined and incoherent term:

  • William Irwin (2004). Against intertextuality. Philosophy and Literature 28(2): 227-242. (Online abstract.)

--Delirium 21:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this reference; I used it in an edit today, but I'm sure there's more that could be gotten out of it. Hickoryhillster 18:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extra examples in pop culture section


Added a bit of balance in pop culture section along with extra examples. Frelaras 21:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]



A Hypertext as can be found in the internet is NOT the same as a hypertext in the field of transtextuality. will take care of it as soon as i find the time.

The above unsigned comment was posted by at 10:19, 29 November 2006 I moved this comment from the "From Wikipedia:Votes for deletion", since it doesn't seem to be from the deletion discussion. On the substance of the comment: It's true that "hypertext" means something differently (namely, a hypertext is one that refers to another text in a way other than commentary, according to Gennette). However, it's probably also true that some critics have considered internet hypertextuality as intertextual, although I can't think of any references.

Hickoryhillster 01:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hypertext suffers from almost as vague a definition as intertextuality does, so it's not surprising that there'd be disagreement or confusion in that regard... the relationship of two ill-defined terms is bound to be ill-defined. :) Here's a paper that surveys some of the historical and often conflicting definitions of "hypertext" (it's not solely a survey paper, but it includes a good survey nonetheless). --Delirium 15:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Differentiation of Intertextualities


While the article mentions that there are many different views of what intertextuality is, there is no delineation between those various views beyond this mention. For a better article I suggest that the different definitions of intertextuality be recognized along with its specific movement or prime user. 01:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC) goodtim[reply]

I think it is also important to draw 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 intertextual use of an idea, citation, allusion, motif, or symbol from another work in order to make a point or reinterpret an earlier work. I don't think most of the examples mentioned under Pop Culture would qualify as the latter. A movie or TV show which has a character simply mention that he watched "Star Wars" last night, is not necessarily using intertextuality. That is merely a reference that might be intended to lend verisimilitude, but nothing more. But, if a movie or TV show uses the "I'm your father" line from Star Wars in a way that plays on the original meaning, or that intends to evoke a similar ethos to the original usage, that might be considered intertextual.RhondaGC 19:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)RhondaGC[reply]

rmv "Intertextuality in pop culture" section

  • The entire "Intertextuality in pop culture" section is (or was, more accurately) totally unreferenced and thus is WP:OR that violates WP:V.
  • Even more unforgivable/laughable, the editors of this section have no clue as to the difference between intextuality and allusion. The examples given are uniformly the latter; they do not even belong in this article. Ling.Nut (talk) 08:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Examples and history of intertextuality


The term "history of intertextuality" is a rather inflated title. All this section has by way of history is a discussion of intertextuality in the bible, then an unrelated section on plagiarism, using only one example. A "history of intertextuality" has to establish that the devise was first used in the Bible (something the writer tacitly avoids), and then discuss its various uses in different times, since, and possibly before. Otherwise, "Examples" is just enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some theoretical texts that will help in expanding this page


I personally do not have the time, but anyone interested in making this thread a bit more useful should check the following recent scholarly monographs: Mary Orr's Intertextuality: Debates and Contexts: http://www.worldcat.org/title/intertextuality-debates-and-contexts/oclc/51477027&referer=brief_results

and Marko Juvan's History and Poetics of Intertextuality: http://www.worldcat.org/title/history-and-poetics-of-intertextuality/oclc/261176641&referer=brief_results (talk) 00:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An external wiki page with thorough bibliography directly on topic


Researching this topic I stumbled across Georgetown U's "Narrative" wiki, which has a very complete bibliography on Intertextuality. I did not think it correct to swipe the contents altogether and don't have the time right now to work on the page, so I wanted to include it as a placeholder for future contributions: http://narrative.georgetown.edu/wiki/index.php/Intertextuality. Wichitalineman (talk) 15:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Class project


Hi, everyone! Just a heads up -- I'll be working on this article for the next few weeks. I'm planning on changing some of the language to read more like a Wikipedia article rather than an essay. Let me know if you have other ideas! Kschmick (talk) 01:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Large restructure


I reordered most of the content and combined sections that seemed to overlap. Hopefully, the layout feels a bit more logical now. Here's the old layout if anyone is curious: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intertextuality&oldid=822578179 Kschmick (talk) 01:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did Kristeva write "living hell of hell on earth"?


Today I happened to look up a quotation from Kristeva's book: Kristeva, Julia (1980). Desire in language : a semiotic approach to literature and art. New York: Columbia University Press. p. 66. ISBN 0231048068. OCLC 6016349. I noticed that a later quotation in the article refers to this same page in Desire in Language, but that the quotation does not actually appear on that page. The quotation is "living hell of hell on earth" and the citation is simply, "Kristeva, 66". Perhaps it's a different Kristeva piece, but Googling around a bit I could not find it. So, did Kristeva actually write "living hell of hell on earth" in Desire in Language? --Jeremy Butler (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Writing Studies approach to Intertextuality


Earlier today I proposed some substantial additions to the Intertextuality page to give clearer presence to the writing studies approach to this topic which is distinctly different than the literary studies approach which is largely presented here. Mr. Ollie (automated review) pulled the proposed changes and asked for review articles and no self-citation. This latter is difficult as I am myself editor and or author of the major review pieces on this subject and am also editor of the volume in which some of the seminal articles appeared. I will propose another revision to try to remedy some of the difficulties, but I need to explain my choices. i would also like a {{request edit}} of this next version, as some self-citation is inevitable.

I did not contest any existing statements, though I did move a few sentences for coherence. Rather I added a few sentences at the beginning and then added a new section in the bottom half labelled "Writing Studies" In the top section there were no self-citations, and the references were to classic works of Bakhtin and Volosinov. I will replace these with xrefs to the Wikipedia pages for these authors. I will make these top section edits as one edit.

As a separate edit I will make a slimmed down version of the Writing Studies section. I will remove all the mentions on which I was editor, though this would mean removing some key articles. But I will need to keep one citation as warrant for a key statement in the lead sentence. As this is a review article, it would hard to support this point without the article. The alternative would be to leave the claim uncited, which I am willing to do.

While we are discussing this I would like to ask you about a more overarching matter. As I am sole editor of the Handbook of Research on Writing: History, Society, School, Individual, Text. (Erlbaum/ Routledge, 2008). As it would be difficult for me to contribute as an area expert without relying on this volume (it covers many topics not covered in more narrowly focused handbooks on writing), I need guidance on how to proceed. Methodical 22:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)Charles Bazerman, CBazerman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbazerman (talkcontribs) 22:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 17-AUG-2019

  • @Cbazerman: Thank you for your question. Some points to keep in mind when making changes to an article:
  1. You are free to make changes to the article as you see fit. These changes need to include references which support the claims you are making.
  2. If the references which you are providing are from sources which you yourself have been involved in writing, editing or publishing, then you may have a conflict of interest which would caution against you adding these materials yourself.
  3. This is because your role as a Wikipedia editor can come into conflict with your role as writer, editor or publisher of the relevant materials.
  4. To guard against this conflict of interest, the additions (or subtractions) from the article which are directly related to these references in which you are involved ought to be proposed here on the talk page for a neutral editor to evaluate and add (or subtract) from the article.
  5. To propose edits to the article as a COI editor, you merely need propose the requested edits here on the talk page by supplying the verbatim text of anything you wish to add along with the verbatim text of anything you wish to subtract from the article.
  6. Some additional things to keep in mind:
    1. A disclosure regarding this conflict of interest should be made on this talk page which delineates what relationship you have to any of the materials which you wish to add to the article. If you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with Wikipedia's terms of use and the policy on paid editing.
    2. Please be aware that any large scale additions of text from your publication are to be discouraged. The publication you've mentioned appears to be a textbook, and Wikipedia articles are not meant to be reproductions of text which are already available in such publications. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter, and it would be inappropriate to edit an article to read like a textbook (See WP:NOTTEXTBOOK).
    3. Any edits which you propose should make use of the {{fake heading}} template if they involve adding or subtracting headers which are within the article, because the table of contents of this talk page is dependent upon its own headings to separate editor's posts, and any proposed heading changes made by placing the heading directly on the talk page need to be filtered out.
    4. Please be sure to add your signature to the end of any post you make on the talk page by using four tildes (⇧ Shift+~ x 4).
  • If you have any questions about this process, please don't hesitate to ask here on the talk page.

Regards,  Spintendo  01:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]