Introduction to Intertextuality by rQVXV8Q

VIEWS: 18 PAGES: 21

									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.

								
To top