VIEWS: 18 PAGES: 21 POSTED ON: 2/10/2012
Introduction to Intertextuality APTS-BIB509-2006 Intertextuality in General ● "'Intertextuality' is a covering term for all the possible relations that can be established between texts. The relations can be based on anything from quotes and direct references to indirect allusions to common words and even letters to dependence on language itself. The effect of the relations can extend from support and agreement to one text's rejection and attempted destruction of the other." [Miscall] Intertextuality in General ● "Writers who use the term and concept of intertextuality generally imply trouble and disturbance in textual relations. Relations between texts are never paradisiacal; texts can only exist in a fallen world. The major writers I have in mind are Julia Kristeva (who first introduced the term intertextuality into critical parlance), Roland Barthes, Jacques Derrida, Barbara Johnson, Paul de Man and Harold Bloom. Nietzsche and Freud can be included in this list as well, since they are texts to which these more contemporary writers frequently refer. To even speak of "(inter)textualist" is to enter the realm of texts." [Miscall] The Term "Intertextuality" ● The term "Intertextuality" was originated by Julia Kristeva. She claims that the concept came from her study of Mikhail Bakhtin's work on Dialogism From Bakhtin to Kristeva 1. Mikhail Bakhtin – "Dialogism" 1.1 “By dialogism, Bakhtin suggests the open-ended, back-and-forth play between the text of the sender (subject), the text of the addressee (object), and the text of culture. In so doing he introduces a dynamic instability which is unallowable in traditional formalisms and structuralisms. Inherent in language itself, this back-and-forth play between and among texts explodes, or dynamites, the supposedly closed structure and univocal meaning of any particular text, opening it to further and further reappropriations, reinscriptions, and redescriptions.” [Beal] From Bakhtin to Kristeva 2. Julia Kristeva: 2.1 "For Kristeva, intertextuality . . . has two dimensions: the inner play, namely "'the web of relations that produce the structure of the text (or the subject),' and the outer play, 'the web of relations linking the text (subject) with other discourses.'" Intertextuality encompasses those forces that give structure and shape not only to texts but to reading and writing subjects as well." [Aichel & Philips] Bakhtin's Dialogism via Claassen ● ". . . the most promising aspect of Bakhtin's work for developing a model for biblical theology is his theory on the dialogical nature of language, literature and truth." ● Bakhtin: "Life by its very nature is dialogic. To live means to participate in dialogue: to ask questions, to heed, to respond, to agree, and so forth." “The Speaker is not Adam” 1. "First, Bakhtin argues that the word or utterance is integrally dialogical in nature. This means that no word or text can be heard or read in isolation. Each word or utterance responds in one form or another to utterances that precede it." ● "Bakhtin argues that the speaker is constructing an utterance in anticipation of possible responses, something he calls the "act of responsive understanding." Thus, no word or utterance or text is ever spoken in isolation. It always calls to mind other words, utterances or texts pertaining to the same theme." "The word lives, as it were, on the boundary between its own context and another, alien, context." ● "Bakhtin argues that the words or utterances involved in the dialogical relation are not left untouched by the interaction. He argues that the text comes alive only by coming into contact with another text (with context). At this point of contact between texts, it is as if a light flashes, which illuminates both the posterior and anterior. Thus, Bakhtin is of the opinion that the real meaning of the text, "its true essence," develops on the boundary of two texts or "consciousnesses," as Bakhtin calls it. . . . One could thus argue that meaning is not to be found in one text alone, but in the midst of the dialogue of interacting voices. The meaning, created by this dialogical interaction, is entirely new." "Who is the Designer" 2. "Second, an important question to ask is who the designer of this dialogue is. . . . Bakhtin theorized more about the author than the reader. However, Bakhtin does concede that "authoring" occurs on various levels. Bakhtin argues that besides the author who created the text, "listeners or readers who recreated and in so doing renew the text – participate equally in the creation of the represented world in the text." Thus, the reader becomes an active participant in the authoring process." “Great Time” 3. "Third, Bakhtin describes this potential for creating new meaning in terms of the notion of "great time." Bakhtin defines "great time" as the "infinite and unfinalized dialogue in which no meaning dies." . . . . Bakhtin argues that "in the process of their posthumous life they are enriched with new meanings, new significance: it is as though these works outgrow what they were in the epoch of their creation." "Nothing is absolutely dead: every meaning will have its homecoming" ● "There is neither a first nor a last word and there are no limits to the dialogic context (it extends into the boundless past and the boundless future). Even past meanings, that is, those born in the dialogue of past centuries can never be stable (finalized, ended once and for all) – they will always change (be renewed) in the process of subsequent, future development of the dialogue. At any moment in the development of the dialogue there are immense, boundless masses of forgotten contextual meanings, but at certain moments of the dialogue's subsequent development along the way they are recalled and invigorated in renewed form (in a new context)." "Re-accentuation" 4. "Fourth, central to Bakhtin's notion of great time is what he calls the concept of "re-accentuation." Bakhtin argues that within the dialogue where various utterances interact, an open-ended dialogue begins within the image itself. As context changes and as one brings different texts and points of views together, the potential is there to create new meaning and insights by re- accentuating the image. However, Bakhtin argues that this re-accentuation is not a crude violation of the author's will. This process takes place within the image itself, when changed conditions actualize the potential already embedded in the image." "A Meaning reveals its depths once it has encountered and come into contact with another, foreign meaning" 5. "Fifth, within this re- accentuation, Bakhtin's notion of the "outsider" plays a crucial role. Bakhtin argues that "a meaning reveals its depths once it has encountered and come into contact with another, foreign meaning." Bakhtin maintains that within this dialogue, the foreign culture or unfamiliar text has the function of challenging us to ask new questions, questions we have not thought of raising." Procedure for Intertextual Research 1. The texts (two or more) are to be studied on their own. 2. Repetitions Compared: 2.1 Word & Repeated Semantic Fields 2.2 Repetition of larger textual units or structures 2.3 Similarities in theme or genre 2.4 Analogies in character description or types 2.5 Similarities in actions or series of actions 2.6 Similar narratological representations [Ellen van Wolde] Michael Fishbane: Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel ● ". . . intertextuality is the core of the canonical imagination; that is, it is the core of the creative imagination that lives within a self-reflexive culture shaped by an authoritative collection of text. The main reason for this is that a canon (or whatever sort) presupposes the possibility of correlations among its parts, such that new texts may imbed, reuse, or otherwise allude to precursor materials – both as a strategy for meaning-making, and for establishing the authority of a given innovation. Put in a nutshell, . . . intertextuality is a form that literary creativity takes when innovation is grounded in tradition." [Fishbane 2000] Fishbane – Inner-biblical Exegesis 1. "The Hebrew Bible (HB) is . . . a thick texture of traditions received and produced over many generations. In the process, a complex dynamic between tradition (traditum) and transmission (traditio) developed – since every act of traditio selected, revised, and reconstituted the overall traditum." [Fishbane 1996] Fishbane – Inner-biblical Exegesis 2. "The formal separation of a traditum and its exegetical traditio is not as neat within the HB as in subsequent stages. Appropriate methodological procedures must therefore be adduced to disentangle the traditum-traditio complex. These vary by genre, topic, and period. Overall, the most objective signs of a traditum subjected to traditio include citation formulary and verbal repetitions in parallel or related genres; but close analysis is still required to isolate interpolations, changes or conflations. Deictic markers and semantic redundancies are helpful indices in this process." [Fishbane 1996] Fishbane – Inner-biblical Exegesis ● Legal Exegesis – "The ambiguity of a legal traditum was ever a source of exegetical energy. . . . In addition to the concern for clarity, the legal traditum shows a will to completion or comprehensiveness." [Fishbane 1996] ● Aggadic Exegesis - ". . . the reapplication of traditional materials . . . are drawn from the entire range of biblical texts (legal; cultic; moral), and the genres of the traditio are often quite distinct from the inspiring traditum (e.g., laws are reinterpreted in prophetic homilies). Moreover, the adaptation of a legal or ritual traditum into one or another rhetorical form with new theological purposes does not mean that the older traditum has been canceled: the law or rite remains in effect whatever their transforming traditio." Fishbane – Inner-biblical Exegesis ● Mantological Exegesis - ". . . prophecy is a word for the future. Expectation and its tensions surcharge each pronouncement. Accordingly, oracles must make sense and project a conceivable future. For that reason, ambiguities of formulation require new explanations. . . . Apart from clarifications or elaborations, it was also necessary to up-date or reapply oracles whose sense once seemed certain." [Fishbane 1996] Criticism ● How does one deal with ● Ellen van Wolde the diachronic versus distinguishes between synchronic problem in the writer (diachronic) Intertextuality? versus the reader ● Fishbane - How does (synchronic) one tell who is borrowing from whom? ● Fishbane's categories are from Judaism and Kugel and others have questioned if he did not read them into the past.
Pages to are hidden for
"Introduction to Intertextuality"Please download to view full document