Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
http://www.jstor.org
ATLANTISXVIII (1-2) 1996
INTERTEXTUALITY:
ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONCEPT*
Alfaro
MaríaJesúsMartínez
de Zaragoza
Universidad
1. INTRODUCTION
as a termwasfirst
Intertextuality usedinJuliaKristeva's "Word,DialogueandNovel"
(1966) and then in "The Bounded Text" (1966-67),essays wroteshortly
she afterarriving
inParisfrom hernativeBulgaria.2 Theconcept thatsheinitiated
ofintertextuality proposes
thetextas a dynamicsitein whichrelational processesand practicesare thefocusof
analysisinstead ofstaticstructures andproducts. The"literaryword",shewrites in"Word,
Dialogue,andNovel",is "anintersection oftextualsurfaces ratherthana point(a fixed
meaning),as a dialogueamongseveralwritings" (1980, 65). DevelopingBakhtin's
spatializationofliterary language, shearguesthat"eachword(text)is an inter sectionof
otherwords(texts)whereatleastoneotherword(text)canbe read"(1980,66).
Therearealwaysotherwordsina word,othertextsin a text.Theconceptofintertex-
tualityrequires,therefore, thatwe understand textsnotas self-containedsystems butas
differential
andhistorical, as tracesandtracings ofotherness,sincetheyareshapedbythe
repetitionand transformation of othertextualstructures. RejectingtheNew Critical
principleoftextual autonomy, thetheory insiststhata textcannotexistas
ofintertextuality
whole,andso,thatitdoesnotfunction
a self-sufficient as a closedsystem.
Fromthisinitialapproach, therehaveappeareda widerangeof attitudes towards the
conceptofintertextuality andwhatit implies,to suchan extentthatit is practically im-
possibletodeal withitwithout considering otherrelatedsubjectsor without takinginto
accountthevariouscontributions madebya largenumber critics.One of the
of literary
mostimmediate consequences ofsucha proliferationofintertextual hasbeenthe
theories
progressive dissolution ofthetextas a coherent andself-contained unitofmeaning, which
has led,in turn, to a shiftofemphasisfromtheindividual texttothewayin whichtexts
relatetooneanother.
1Theresearch of
ofthispaperhasbeenfinanced
outforthewriting
carried bytheSpanishMinistry
EducationandScience(DGICYT,PS94-0057).
2InDesirein
Language,"Word,DialogueandNovel"is datedin 1966and"TheBoundedText"in
volumeofessaysRecherches
1966-67;bothessaysappearedinherfirst pourunesémanalysein
1969.
268
ORIGINS
INTERTEXTUALITY: ANDDEVELOPMENT
OFTHECONCEPT 269
Thisassertion Bakhtin
separates frompoststructuralist withwhomhe hasbeenas-
critics,
sociatedonaccount ofhisdefence ofthepolyphonic characteroflanguage ingeneralandof
thenovel,inparticular.
The otherpointI wouldliketocomment on goesbackto whathas alreadybeensaid
aboutthenovel'slinkwiththepresent, a presentwhichis alwayschanging andmovingto-
wardsan equallyinconclusive future.In spiteofthis,thenovelcan have,andoftenhas,
thepastas itscentralsubject.Butevenwhenthisis thecase,thepresent anditsopencha-
racterwillalwaysbe thebasison whichtheportrait ofthepastis structured.According to
AídaDíaz Bild(1994, 140),thisdirectcontactwithcontemporary realityhas important
consequences forthenovelistic discourse.Oneofthemhastodo withtheauthor'sability
tomovefreely withinhis/herfieldofrepresentation (something unthinkablein thecase of
theepic),whichmakespossibletheintroduction ofoneofthenovel'sbasicfeatures: its
self-consciousness.
literary thisnewtemporal
In addition, orientationputsitincontactwith
extra-literarygenres,thatis,witheveryday realityandideology. Thisfactenhanceseven
moretheopenqualityof thenovel,sinceliterary evolutionbringswithit notonlythe
introduction of changeswithinexistinglimitsbutalso themodification of suchlimits:
"Afterall, the boundariesbetweenfictionand nonfiction, betweenliterature and
nonliteratureandso fortharenotlaidupinheaven"(Bakhtin 1981,33).
According toBakhtin, everythingstandsunderthesamesign:thesignofplurality. Our
livesaresurrounded bytheechoesofa dialoguethatundermines theauthorityof anysingle
voice,a dialoguethattakesplacewithin thetext,butwhichis,atthesametime,a dialogue
withall thevoicesoutsideit.Unlikethethird eyeofTibetanBuddhism, whichgivesthose
whopossessita visionofthesecretunity holdingcreation together,Bakhtin seemstohave
hada third earthatpermitted himtoheardifferences whereothers perceivedonlysameness,
especiallyintheapparent wholeness ofthehumanvoice(Holquist1983,307).
***
Oneofthemostimportant, andearliest ofBakhtin'sworkfora Western
interpretations
publicwas the one by Julia Kristeva. In the late 1960s, Kristevasubscribedto the Tel
Quelian notions of textual, i.e. cultural,revolution.She saw Bakhtin'sconceptofdialo-
gismas quintessentiallydynamic, evenrevolutionary. In herview,whatittriedto revolu-
tionizedynamically wasnotonlythestaticstructural modelbutcultural politicsingeneral.
in the
Bakhtin, propagating relativity of each singleposition,the self-criticismof each
word,theundermining of all dogmaticand officialmonologism, the carnivalesque
profanizationofall thatis sacredandthesubversion ofall authority, was fighting against
theincreasing of
rigidity post-revolutionary Soviet cultural politics and thedoctrinary
canonization ofSocialistRealism.He was,in fact,continuing therevolutionary struggle
againstrepression. (
Itwasthisrevolutionary potential ofBakhtin's criticismofideological monologism that
fascinated Kristevaandother writers ofthe Tel Quel circlein the late sixties,and they,in
turn,employed Bakhtin's concept of dialogism intheirown struggle against thebourgeois
ideologyof theautonomy andunityof individual consciousness andtheself-contained
meaning oftexts.Kristeva tried to achievethis objectivebyfusing ideasfromphilosophy
(Husserl/Derrida), political science (Marx/Althusser) and psychoanalysis (Freud/Lacan)
withtheprocedures ofstructural linguistics(Chomsky) andformal logic.
For Kristeva,Bakhtinrepresents thepossibility of openinglinguistics to society:
"Bakhtin thetextwithin
situates and
history society, which areseen as texts read bythe
writer,and intowhich he inserts himself by rewriting them" (Kristeva 1980, 65). Fol-
Bakhtin, Kristeva attempts to transform semiotics into something she also calls
lowing
(1980,37), a method ofanalysisthatallowshertoconfront theliterary
"translinguistics"
ATLANTISXV'''{'-2) 1996
INTHRTEXTUALITY: OFTHECONCEPT
ANDDEVELOPMENT
ORIGINS 277
cubre
escritura, la vozpresente
demispalabras.
Todahuellaescrita comoun
se precipita
elemento
químico, primero inocente
transparente, enelquela simple
yneutro, duración
hace
aparecer a un en una cada
poco poco pasado suspensión, criptografía vez másdensa.(Barthes
1973a,25)
Thisis intertextuality
in thesensethata textmayappeartobe thespontaneous andtrans-
parent expression ofa writer's intentions,butmustnecessarily containelements ofother
texts.
Barthes provides anextraordinary exampleofthisinS/Zwherehe picksoutsomeof
the quotationswithoutquotationmarks,some of the references to culturalcodes,
stereotypes,received wisdomandso oninBalzac's Sarrasine.
LikeKristeva, Barthesholdsthatthelimitations ofthelinguistic-structuralistapproach
haveto be overcomeby meansof a meeting of differentepistemes, namelydialectical
materialism andpsychoanalysis. Thisnewmethod willproducea newobjectthatwe call
textandwhichis intertextual bydefault: othertextsare alwayspresentin it,at varying
levelsandinmoreorlessrecognizable forms (Barthes1987,39).
Barthes'visionofintertextuality alsohighlights thefrequentanonymity ofthe"sources"
of intertextual quotations.This idea was implicitin Kristeva's discussionof the
"absorption" of socialtexts,becausethesocialmaybe thought of as the networkof
anonymous ideas,commonplaces, folkwisdom,andclichésthatmakeupthebackground
ofone's life.Whereastraditional influence studiesprimarily hunted forallusionstocele-
bratedworksofthepast,Barthes, however, makesthecommomplace central: "thecitations
whichgo tomakeupa textareanonymous, untraceable,andyetalready read"(1990, 160).
The "alreadyread" in Barthesencompassesmorethantheidea thatwe all possess
conventional knowledge whosesourceswecannotrecall.Itextends towards a notionofthe
subjectas constituted by the texts ofhis/her culture,the as
subject already read: "ThisT
whichapproaches thetextis alreadyitselfa plurality of othertexts,of codes whichare
infiniteor,moreprecisely, lost"(1974,10). Kristevaherself hasconsistently argued,in
accordance withnewFrenchpsychoanalytic theory,for thisre-definitionof the subjectas
alwaysalreadycleftasunderor evenradicallydispersed. The fracturing of thereading
subjectis inevitablyassociated withthedissolution oftheauthor, ordeathoftheauthor as
Barthesputsit.This impliedrejection of authority does notcorrespond exactlyto the
orevenrevolutionary
political thrustwhichKristeva emphasizes inBakhtin. Barthestends
tosoundrather neutralinhissenseas heseemseverreadytopoliticize matters oftaste,but
alsotoaestheticize issues.
political
Valuableas Barthes'accountofintertextuality is,itdoesnotprovidethecriticwitha
particularlyeffectivetool for analyzingliterary texts.ClaytonandRothstein (1991,23)
pointtothefactthatBarthes' radicalintertextualityforegoes thepossibilityofrigour inthe
discussion ofindividual texts,so muchso thatto attempt sucha rigorous discussion, he
mustretrench on thetheory.This theory, however,has a real heuristic or, at least,
iconoclasticvalueinunsettling customary ideasabouttheauthor, thework,andtherepre-
sentationofreality.
WORKSCITED
Roland1973a(1972). El gradocerode la escritura,
Barthes, seguidode Nuevosensayos
Trad.NicolásRosa.Madrid:SigloVeintiuno.
críticos.
1973b.Le plaisirdutexte
. Paris:Seuil.
1974(1970).S/Z.Trans.Richard
Miller.NewYork:Hill& Wang.
1983(1979).TextProduction.
Trans.TereseLyons.New York:ColumbiaUniver-
sityPress.
1987(1981).TheoryoftheText.UntyingtheText:A Post-Structuralist
Reader.Ed.
RobertYoung.London:Routledge andKeganPaul.31-47.
1990 (1977). FromWord to Text. Image-Music-Text.
Trans.StephenHeath.
London:Fontana.155-64.
JayandEricRothstein,
Clayton, eds. 1991.Influence
andIntertextuality
inLiterary
His-
tory.Madison:University
ofWisconsin.
Culler,Jonathan
1976.Presupposition
andIntertextuality.
ModernLanguageNotes 91:
1380-396.
Eliot,T. S. 1971.Tradition
andtheIndividual
Talent.CriticalTheorysincePlato. Ed.
HazardAdams.Trans.S. H. Butcher.
San Diego: Harcourt.
784-87.
Foucault,Michel 1972 (1971). The Discourse on Language. The Archeologyof
Knowledge andtheDiscourseonLanguage.Trans.A. M. Sheridan
Smith.New
York:Harper& Row.215-37.
SusanStanford
Friedman, 1991.Weavings: andthe(Re)Birth
Intertextuality oftheAuthor.
and Intertextuality
Influence inLiterary
History. Eds. JayClaytonand Eric
Rothstein.
146-80.
TomásMonterrey,
Galván,Fernando, Aída Díaz Bild andManuelBrito1994. Ensayos
sobremetaficción
inglesa. La Laguna: Secretariado
de Publicacionesde la
Universidad
de La Laguna.
Genette, la literatura
Gérard1989 (1962). Palimpsestos: ensegundogrado. Trans.C.
Fernández Madrid:Taurus.
Prieto.
Michael1983.Answering
Holquist, as Authoring:MikhailBakhtin'sTrans-Linguistics.
CriticalInquiry10,2: 307-319.
1990.Dialogism:Bakhtin andhisWorld.London:Routledge.
Hutcheon, Linda 1986. LiteraryBorrowing... and Stealing:Plagiarism,Sources,In-
fluences, EnglishStudiesinCanadaXII.2: 229-39.
andIntertexts.
Barbara1987.Les FleursduMal Arme:SomeReflections
Johnson, A
onIntertextuality.
WorldofDifference. Baltimore: JohnsHopkinsU. P. 116-33.
Kiely,Robert1993.ReverseTradition.
Postmodern Fictionsand theNineteenth
Century
Novel.Cambridge: HarvardU. P.
Julia1980(1977).Word,Dialogue,andNovel.DesireinLanguage:A Semiotic
Kristeva,
Approach andArt. Ed. Leon S. Roudiez.Trans.ThomasGoraet
toLiterature
al. NewYork:ColumbiaU. P. 64-91.
Lauter,Paul 1993(1991).Caste,Class andCanon.Feminisms.AnAnthology ofLiterary
Theory and Eds.
Criticism. RobinR. Warhol
and Diane Price.New Brunswick:
Rutgers U. P. 227-48.
F. 1991.Intertextualities.
Plett,Heinrich Intertextuality. F. Plett.Berlin:De
Ed. Heinrich
Gruyter.3-29.
Michel1980.Syllepsis.Critical
Riffaterre, Inquiry6, 4: 625-38.
1983(1979).TextProduction.Trans.TereseLyons.New York:ColumbiaUniver-
sityPress.
Unconscious.
1987.TheIntertextual Critical
Inquiry 13,2: 381-85.
Robinson,LillianS. 1993.TreasonOurText.Feminist
Challenges Canon.
totheLiterary
Feminisms. AnAnthology Theory
ofLiterary Eds. RobinWarhol
andCriticism.
andDianePrice.NewBrunswick: U.P. 212-26.
Rutgers
Todorov,Tzvetan1984(1981). MikhailBakhtin. Trans.Wlad
TheDialogicalPrinciple.
Godzich.Manchester: Manchester Press.
University
Theoriesand Practices.
Worton,Michael and JudithStill,eds. 1990. Intertextuality:
Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress.