Intertextual Analysis

Intertextual Analysis: Weaving the Web of Texts

I. Introduction to Intertextuality: Weaving the Web of Texts

A. Defining Intertextuality: Beyond the Single Text

Intertextuality, a cornerstone of contemporary literary and cultural theory, posits that no text exists in isolation. Instead, every text is fundamentally a nexus of relationships, intricately woven from and into other texts, absorbing and transforming them in a continuous dialogue. This perspective radically redefines the locus of meaning, suggesting that meaning is not an inherent property residing within a singular, autonomous text, but is rather generated between texts.1 This foundational concept directly challenges traditional Romantic and New Critical notions of textual self-sufficiency and originality, proposing instead that all literary and cultural productions are part of an expansive, interconnected web.3 As such, intertextuality offers a lens through which to understand texts not as closed-off entities, but as dynamic sites of cultural exchange and signification.

The nature of this interconnectedness is often captured through potent metaphors. Julia Kristeva, who coined the term, famously described any given text as a "mosaic of quotations," emphasizing its construction from pre-existing textual fragments.1 This imagery powerfully conveys the idea that texts are not created ex nihilo but are assembled, consciously or unconsciously, from the vast archive of language and culture. Similarly, texts are understood to exist within a "vast network of discourses and languages that make up culture" 1, highlighting the social and historical dimensions of textual production and reception. These metaphors underscore the composite and relational character of all texts, from ancient scriptures to contemporary digital media.

Intertextual relationships manifest in various forms, broadly distinguishable as explicit or implicit. Explicit intertextuality involves overt and direct references to other texts, such as quotations, clear allusions, or formal citations.3 For instance, a scholarly article citing previous research or a novel directly quoting a poem exemplifies this form. Implicit intertextuality, conversely, operates more subtly, through shared themes, stylistic conventions, genre expectations, or faint echoes of other works.3 Identifying these implicit links often requires a deeper familiarity with literary and cultural contexts, as they rely on the reader's ability to recognize less obvious connections. This distinction is critical not only for understanding the diverse ways texts interact but also for the methodological approaches employed in intertextual analysis.

The pervasiveness of these intertextual links, evident from the earliest recorded human discourses to the complex media environment of the 21st century 1, suggests a profound characteristic of symbolic systems. The observation that ancient texts exhibit intertextual practices, long before the theory was formalized, and the understanding from 20th-century linguistics that language itself is a shared, pre-existing system not invented by individual speakers 1, lead to a significant realization. If all texts are, as Kristeva and Barthes proposed, woven from myriad cultural and textual threads 1, then intertextuality is not merely an optional literary device or a feature of certain texts. Rather, it emerges as a fundamental condition of meaning itself. It is an intrinsic characteristic of textuality, reflecting the inherently social and historical nature of language, culture, and human expression. Through this constant interplay, culture perpetuates, reinterprets, and transforms itself.

This understanding of texts as inherently relational and constructed from prior significations 1 inevitably brings the traditional Romantic concept of originality into question. If, as Kristeva suggested, authors primarily "compile from the already existing texts" rather than creating from wholly "original minds" 9, and if the author is not the sole originator of meaning, as Barthes's later arguments would emphasize 14, then the notion of a completely novel or unique creation becomes deeply problematic. Intertextuality compels a re-evaluation of what "originality" signifies. The focus shifts from an ideal of creation ex nihilo to an appreciation of skillful recombination, transformation, and dialogic engagement with the existing textual and cultural landscape. This re-evaluation carries significant implications for concepts such as authorship, literary value, intellectual property, and the very understanding of artistic genius, suggesting that creativity lies not in pure invention but in the innovative re-weaving of the cultural fabric.

B. Historical Roots and the Evolution of the Concept

While the term "intertextuality" is a product of 20th-century poststructuralist thought, the phenomenon it describes—the intricate ways in which texts echo, reference, and build upon one another—is as ancient as recorded human society. Scholars have identified intertextual practices in the works of classical antiquity, with figures like Plato, Aristotle, Horace, and Cicero engaging in forms of textual dialogue and referencing.1 Ancient religious texts, such as the Bible, are also rich with internal references and allusions to other contemporaneous or earlier traditions.13 This long history establishes that intertextuality is not merely a modern theoretical construct but an enduring characteristic of how human beings create and transmit meaning through texts. The formalization of the concept in the 20th century provided a new vocabulary and theoretical framework for understanding these long-standing practices.

The emergence of intertextuality as a formal theory in the mid-20th century was deeply connected to broader shifts in the understanding of language and artistic expression. Developments in linguistics emphasized that no speaker or writer creates their language from scratch; rather, all linguistic utterances depend on the employment and redeployment of already existing words, phrases, and structures.1 Language is a social inheritance, a shared system that pre-exists the individual. Simultaneously, artistic movements, particularly Modernism, showcased practices that resonated with what would later be termed intertextuality. The use of collage by artists like Pablo Picasso and Georges Braque, incorporating found materials into their artworks, James Joyce's encyclopedic weaving of styles and references in his novels, and Stéphane Mallarmé's experiments with ellipsis and contingency in poetry all suggested an awareness of the text or artwork as a composite, referential entity.1 These artistic and linguistic developments paved the way for a "radical rethinking of human subjectivity and human expression" 1, creating fertile ground for theories that emphasized the relational and constructed nature of meaning.

It was within the intellectual ferment of the "poststructuralist moment," particularly in France during the 1960s, that intertextuality was formally theorized and gained prominence.1 Poststructuralism, as a broad intellectual movement, was characterized by its critique of structuralism's claims to objectivity and stable meaning, its deconstruction of traditional hierarchies (such as that of author over reader), and its emphasis on the role of language in constructing, rather than merely reflecting, reality. Julia Kristeva coined the term "intertextuality" in this period, drawing upon but also significantly transforming earlier ideas, particularly those of the Russian theorist Mikhail Bakhtin.1 Roland Barthes further developed and popularized the concept, linking it to his influential arguments about the "death of the author" and the reader's role in producing meaning.1 Situated within poststructuralism, intertextuality became a powerful tool for analyzing how texts are embedded in larger systems of signs and how meaning is generated through a dynamic interplay of textual voices and cultural codes, rather than being fixed or singularly determined by an author.

II. Foundational Theorists and Their Seminal Contributions

The theory of intertextuality, while popularized in the poststructuralist era, draws significantly from earlier linguistic and literary theories. The contributions of Mikhail Bakhtin, Julia Kristeva, and Roland Barthes were pivotal in shaping its conceptual contours and establishing its importance in critical thought. Their ideas reveal a progressive radicalization in understanding textual relations, moving from the social dynamics of language to a comprehensive theory of textual production and, ultimately, to a redefinition of authorship and readership.

A. Mikhail Bakhtin: Dialogism, Polyphony, and Heteroglossia as Precursors

Mikhail Bakhtin, a Russian philosopher and literary critic, though not using the term "intertextuality" himself, laid crucial groundwork for its development through his theories of dialogism, polyphony, and heteroglossia. His work emphasized the inherently social and interactive nature of language.

Dialogism is Bakhtin's central concept, asserting that every utterance, and by extension every text, is fundamentally dialogic. It exists in a state of constant interaction with past utterances, anticipates future responses, and is shaped by the social context in which it arises.5 For Bakhtin, a word is never neutral; it is "half someone else's" 1, already imbued with the intentions and accents of previous users. Meaning is thus relational, co-constructed in this ongoing dialogue between voices and perspectives.1 As he famously stated, "Life by its very nature is dialogic. To live means to participate in dialogue".5 This understanding of language as inherently populated by other voices provided a profound philosophical basis for later theories of intertextuality.

Polyphony, a term Bakhtin applied particularly to the novel (most notably in the works of Dostoevsky), describes a literary structure characterized by a "plurality of independent and unmerged voices and consciousnesses".17 In a polyphonic work, no single authorial voice or perspective dominates. Instead, characters are granted the autonomy to speak in their own distinct voices, representing different ideological positions and worldviews that interact and contend within the narrative space.18 This concept illustrates a concrete literary manifestation of dialogism, demonstrating how multiple, even conflicting, discourses can coexist and resonate within a single text, a notion that became central to intertextual thought.

Heteroglossia refers to the coexistence and interplay of a diversity of social languages, dialects, professional jargons, and stylistic registers within a single national language, and consequently, within a single text, especially the novel.4 Bakhtin saw the novel as uniquely capable of orchestrating this "multiplicity of divergent and contending social voices" 18, reflecting the social stratification and ideological diversity inherent in any society. Heteroglossia underscores that texts are not linguistically monolithic but are sites where various social discourses intersect and interact, highlighting the socio-ideological dimensions of language use within literature.

Bakhtin's ideas profoundly influenced subsequent theorists, most notably Julia Kristeva, who explicitly acknowledged his work as foundational to her formulation of intertextuality.1 Kristeva introduced Bakhtin's concepts to a French audience, reinterpreting them within a semiotic and poststructuralist framework.1 Thus, understanding Bakhtin's emphasis on the social, dialogic, and multi-voiced nature of language is indispensable for grasping the intellectual lineage and deeper socio-linguistic implications of intertextuality.

B. Julia Kristeva: The Mosaic of Quotations and Transposition

Julia Kristeva, a Bulgarian-French philosopher and literary critic, is credited with coining the term "intertextuality" in the late 1960s.1 Her work, deeply influenced by Bakhtin's theories of dialogism and the social nature of language, shifted the focus towards the text as a dynamic semiotic system, a site of production rather than a finished product.

Kristeva's most famous formulation describes the text as a "mosaic of quotations," asserting that "any text is constructed as a mosaic of quotations; any text is the absorption and transformation of another".1 This powerful metaphor emphasizes that texts are not original in the sense of being created in a vacuum. Instead, they are inherently composite, constructed from fragments, echoes, and transformations of pre-existing textual and cultural material.4 The author, in this view, is not an originator of entirely new meanings but rather a compiler and transformer of what is already present in the cultural discourse.9

Crucially, Kristeva defined intertextuality as "transposition," the process by which "one (or more) systems of signs [are transposed] into another".4 This concept highlights the dynamic and transformative nature of intertextual relations. It is not merely about borrowing or referencing, but about the active re-signification that occurs when elements from one signifying system are integrated into another. This transposition, Kristeva argued, "demands a new articulation of the ethic—of enunciative and denotative positionality," allowing for "fresh expressions" and the generation of new meanings within a relational process.9 Every signifying practice, therefore, becomes a field of such transpositions, leading to the understanding that a text's point of enunciation and its denoted objects are never singular or stable but always plural and multifaceted.9

To further elucidate the text's relational dynamics, Kristeva proposed a model involving horizontal and vertical axes.6 The horizontal axis concerns the relationship between the author (or producer) and the reader (or receiver) of the same text, focusing on the immediate communicative act. The vertical axis, on the other hand, connects the text to other texts, specifically to an anterior literary corpus or a synchronic system of contemporary texts.6 These axes are linked by shared codes, illustrating how a text simultaneously functions as an individual communicative event and as a node within a larger intertextual network.

Kristeva's work represents a significant revision of Bakhtin's concepts. She shifted Bakhtin's dialogism from a primary focus on social, interpersonal linguistic interaction to a more textual and semiotic phenomenon.4 For Kristeva, the dialogue within and between texts, with its inherent sociolinguistic and ideological dimensions, becomes a cognitive and evaluative force shaping meaning.9 She also introduced the term "ambivalence" to describe the dual-voiced nature of poetic language arising from the Bakhtinian concepts of hybridity and heteroglossia, further challenging traditional Western logic based on singularity and unity.4 By focusing on the text as "productivity" and a "permutation of texts" 9, Kristeva adapted Bakhtin's insights for the emerging poststructuralist framework, emphasizing the text's internal dynamics and its complex relationships with other sign systems.

C. Roland Barthes: The Death of the Author and the Birth of the Readerly Text

Roland Barthes, a French literary theorist, semiotician, and philosopher, further radicalized the concept of intertextuality, most famously in his 1967 essay "The Death of the Author".2 In this seminal work, Barthes argued against the traditional critical practice of seeking a text's ultimate meaning in the intentions or biography of its author. He proclaimed that the author is not the sole origin or authority for a text's significance. Instead, meaning is generated in the act of reading, through the reader's engagement with the text's interplay of intertextual codes and cultural references.14 The text's meaning, therefore, arises not from the author's unique consciousness but from its "place in language and culture".15 This concept profoundly shifted interpretive authority from the author to the reader and the text's inherent intertextual connections, becoming a cornerstone of poststructuralist literary theory.

Echoing Kristeva, Barthes viewed the text as a "tissue of quotations," intricately woven from "innumerable centres of culture".15 He asserted that a text is "made from multiple writings, drawn from many cultures and entering into mutual relations of dialogue, parody, contestation".15 This perspective reinforces the idea of the text as a site where various cultural codes intersect and interact, rather than as a singular, original creation emanating from an individual author. The author, in this view, functions more as a "scriptor" or compiler who arranges pre-existing linguistic and cultural materials, rather than an "Author-God" who creates meaning ex nihilo.15

Barthes also introduced a crucial distinction between the "work" and the "Text".15 The "work" refers to the traditional notion of a literary artifact – a finite, physical object that can be held in the hand, often seen as possessing a singular, interpretable meaning and closure.15 The "Text," in contrast, is a poststructuralist concept representing a "methodological field," a dynamic process of signification that exists "in language" rather than as a physical object.15 The Text is infinitely open, a "galaxy of signifiers," and inherently intertextual, offering a plurality of meanings rather than a single, unified one.15 This distinction was vital for clarifying the poststructuralist understanding of textuality as an ongoing, productive activity, not a static product.

Consequently, for Barthes, the reader becomes the primary producer of meaning. The unity of a text, he argued, is found not in its origin (the author) but in its destination (the reader).15 The reader actively "writes" or co-creates the Text's meaning by navigating its intertextual fabric, bringing their own knowledge, experiences, and cultural understanding to the interpretive process.14 Thus, "the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the Author".15 This empowering of the reader highlighted the subjective and plural nature of interpretation, marking a significant departure from traditional critical methods that sought to uncover a singular, author-intended meaning.

The progression from Bakhtin's foundational ideas about the social and dialogic nature of language, through Kristeva's formalization of intertextuality as a semiotic theory of textual interconnectedness, to Barthes's radical use of intertextuality to dismantle the author's authority and champion the reader, reveals an increasing radicalization of the concept. Bakhtin's work highlighted that texts are inherently social and contain multiple voices 17, but he did not fully decenter the author or the stability of meaning in the way later poststructuralists did. Kristeva then took these ideas, coined "intertextuality," and shifted the emphasis to the text itself as a dynamic field of intersecting codes, a "permutation of texts" and a "transposition of sign systems," moving away from Bakhtin's more direct emphasis on social speech and replacing "intersubjectivity" with intertextuality.1 Barthes subsequently employed this concept of intertextuality to explicitly argue for the "death of the Author," asserting that a text's meaning derives not from authorial intent but from its position within language and culture, ultimately focused and actualized in the reader.14 This trajectory—from recognizing the social nature of textual voices, to defining the structural interconnectedness of all texts, to leveraging this interconnectedness to radically decenter the author and empower the reader—mirrors the broader intellectual shift within poststructuralism towards questioning stable meanings, traditional authority, and the nature of subjectivity itself.

This theoretical evolution carries profound implications beyond literary interpretation, challenging traditional Western epistemological assumptions. The notion that language, rather than human intention, generates meaning 1, and that the linguistic sign may not express a stable, singular self, as in the Cartesian "I think therefore I am," finds in intertextuality a significant tool for dismantling such views.1 The emphasis by Kristeva and Bakhtin on the "doubleness" or dialogic nature of words directly interrogates the foundations of Western logic, which often prioritizes unity and singularity.4 Barthes's "death of the Author" further attacks the idea of a unified, originating consciousness as the source of stable meaning.15 Consequently, intertextuality, as developed by these key theorists, functions not merely as a literary analytical tool but as a philosophical stance. It suggests that meaning is not discovered but constructed; not singular but plural; not stable but contingent upon the "vast network of discourses" that constitute culture.1 This perspective has far-reaching implications for how knowledge itself is perceived, validated, and transmitted across various disciplines.

To clarify these distinct yet related contributions, the following table provides a comparative overview:

\begin{table}[h!]

\centering

\caption{Key Theorists of Intertextuality: A Comparative Overview}

\label{tab:theorists}

\begin{tabular}{|p{2.5cm}|p{4cm}|p{3.5cm}|p{3cm}|p{3.5cm}|p{3.5cm}|}

\hline

\textbf{Theorist} & \textbf{Key Concepts} & \textbf{Primary Focus} & \textbf{View of Author} & \textbf{View of Text} & \textbf{View of Meaning} \

\hline

Mikhail Bakhtin & Dialogism, Heteroglossia, Polyphony, Chronotope & Social interaction in language; the novel as a site of diverse social voices & Orchestrator of voices; conduit for social discourses & Site of social dialogue; product of manifold social determinants 17 & Co-constructed; relational; emerging from dialogue \

\hline

Julia Kristeva & Intertextuality (coined term), Transposition, Mosaic of Quotations, Semanalysis, Horizontal/Vertical Axes & Semiotic systems; textual productivity; the text as a signifying practice & Compiler/transformer of pre-existing textual material; subject-in-process & Permutation of texts; absorption and transformation of other texts; dynamic signifying system 1 & Plural; produced through transposition of sign systems; unstable; "always already" given \

\hline

Roland Barthes & Death of the Author, Work vs. Text, Readerly vs. Writerly Text, Five Codes, Pleasure of the Text & Reader's role in meaning production; cultural codes embedded in texts & Scriptor; weaver of pre-existing cultural codes; not an originator of meaning 14 & Tissue of quotations; methodological field; network of cultural codes; infinitely open & Generated by the reader; plural; unstable; dependent on intertextual play \

\hline

\end{tabular}

\end{table}

This table facilitates a clearer understanding of how each theorist contributed uniquely to the evolving concept of intertextuality, highlighting their specific terminologies and the nuances in their perspectives on the author, text, and meaning. Such a structured comparison is valuable for navigating the complexities of these foundational ideas.

III. Core Concepts and Manifestations of Intertextuality

Intertextuality manifests in a multitude of ways, ranging from overt borrowings to subtle resonances. These manifestations can be broadly categorized into explicit and implicit forms, each contributing to the text's dialogic nature and overall cohesion. Understanding these forms is crucial for analyzing how texts construct meaning through their relationships with other texts.

A. Explicit Forms: Recognizable Borrowings

Explicit forms of intertextuality involve direct and generally recognizable incorporations of material from other texts.

Quotation is perhaps the most straightforward manifestation, involving the direct inclusion of a segment from another text, typically demarcated by quotation marks, block indentation, or other typographic cues, and often accompanied by an acknowledgement of its source.6 This act directly signals a connection to and reliance upon a precursor text.

Citation is a specific type of quotation or reference that formally acknowledges the source text and its author, a practice fundamental to academic, legal, and other scholarly discourses.6 Citations establish an explicit link to a pre-existing body of knowledge, positioning the current text within a broader intellectual conversation and acknowledging intellectual debts.24

Direct Allusion involves an explicit, though often brief, reference to a well-known person, historical event, artwork, literary work, or cultural artifact, where the source is generally intended to be recognized by the audience, even if not fully quoted.12 For example, T.S. Eliot's mention of Dante's "celestial rose" in his poem "Hollow Men" is a direct allusion that relies on the reader's familiarity with Paradiso to grasp its full significance.12 Such allusions enrich the text by importing the connotations, themes, and cultural weight associated with the referenced material.

B. Implicit Forms: Subtle Weavings and Transformations

Implicit forms of intertextuality are more nuanced, involving less direct connections that often require greater inferential work from the reader.

Indirect Allusion, Echo, or Reminiscence refers to subtle textual connections that rely on shared themes, motifs, stylistic features, or faint linguistic echoes of other texts.5 These are often described as "fragments or whispers of a previous text" 25, creating layers of meaning or irony that may not be immediately apparent but contribute to the text's richness upon closer examination.

Parody is an imitation of the style of a particular writer, artist, text, or genre with deliberate exaggeration for comic or satirical effect, often to critique or mock the original.12 George Orwell's inclusion of the political tract "The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism" in Nineteen Eighty-Four serves as a parody of Leon Trotsky's revolutionary writings.12 Similarly, the film Spaceballs parodies the Star Wars franchise.26 The effectiveness of parody hinges on the audience's familiarity with the source text or style being imitated.

Pastiche involves imitating the style of another work, artist, or period, but typically without the satirical intent of parody; it is often done as a form of homage or to evoke a specific mood or aesthetic.14 A pastiche might directly mimic the technical codes of an earlier work, such as its characteristic language, genre conventions, or visual style, offering little alteration of the original material.28 It can also manifest as a medley or composite of various styles blended together.27

Appropriation or Adaptation involves reworking, re-imagining, or recontextualizing a well-known text, character, plot, or artwork to create a new work that may extend, challenge, or transform the original's meaning.7 Marcel Duchamp’s L.H.O.O.Q., which adds a mustache and goatee to a reproduction of Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa, is a classic example of artistic appropriation that critiques the iconic status of the original.12 Film adaptations of novels are also a prominent form of intertextual appropriation.7 These practices represent significant forms of cultural dialogue, reinterpretation, and critique.

C. The Dialogic Nature of Texts: Interaction and Cohesion

Underlying all forms of intertextuality is the Bakhtinian concept of the dialogic nature of texts. Texts are not monologic entities but are perpetually in dialogue with other texts—antecedent, contemporary, and even anticipated future texts.1 This interaction shapes and is shaped by the texts involved, creating a dynamic interplay where meaning is relational and emergent.24 Kristeva's notion of the text as an "absorption and transformation of another" 5 encapsulates this dialogic process.

Furthermore, intertextual references play a crucial role in establishing text cohesion. By incorporating citations, allusions, echoes, and other intertextual links, a text weaves itself into a broader intellectual, cultural, or artistic landscape.24 These connections are not merely decorative; they contribute to the text's internal structural integrity and its semantic coherence by linking its arguments, themes, or narratives to established discourses or shared cultural knowledge.24 The interdependence of text fragments, revealed through their intertextual relationships, reinforces the text as a meaningful communicative unit.

The diverse manifestations of intertextuality exist along a continuum of explicitness, directly impacting the nature of reader engagement. Overt forms like direct quotations with clear citations 6 provide explicit guidance to the reader, leaving little ambiguity about the source. Parodies 12 and recognizable allusions 12 also depend on a fairly widespread familiarity with the original for their effect. In contrast, more implicit forms, such as subtle literary echoes 25, nuanced stylistic pastiche 28, or complex artistic appropriations 29, demand a greater degree of cultural capital and interpretive skill from the reader. The efficacy of these varied forms is contingent upon the "reader's familiarity with the referenced material" 23 or their "extensive knowledge of different texts".12 This implies that an author's choice of intertextual strategy often implicitly targets a particular kind of reader and shapes the interpretive pathways available. Highly allusive works may cater to a more scholarly or culturally sophisticated audience, whereas more explicit references might aim for broader comprehension. Consequently, the "meaning" derived from an intertextual engagement can vary significantly based on the reader's individual intertextual competence and background.

Moreover, intertextuality serves as a potent tool for both cultural critique and affirmation. Forms like parody and appropriation are rarely neutral acts of borrowing; they are frequently employed to critique, subvert, or re-evaluate the source text or the cultural ideologies it embodies.12 Duchamp's L.H.O.O.Q., for instance, is a clear act of artistic rebellion against established conventions.29 Conversely, other intertextual forms, such as homage (often associated with pastiche) 28 or certain types of allusion, can function to affirm, celebrate, or align the new text with the prestige and values of the source text.12 Intertextuality thus becomes a dynamic arena for cultural negotiation. Authors utilize these connections not merely to import content but to strategically position their own work ideologically in relation to the past and to prevailing cultural norms, thereby either reinforcing or challenging those norms.

The following table offers a typology of common intertextual manifestations, outlining their definitions, key characteristics, and illustrative examples:

\begin{table}[h!]

\centering

\caption{Typology of Intertextual Manifestations}

\label{tab:manifestations}

\begin{tabular}{|p{3cm}|p{5cm}|p{5.5cm}|p{3.5cm}|}

\hline

\textbf{Type} & \textbf{Definition} & \textbf{Key Characteristics} & \textbf{Example} \

\hline

Quotation & Direct incorporation of a segment from another text, usually acknowledged. & Highly explicit; source often identified; aims for accuracy in representation. & A scholar quoting Shakespeare in an essay. \

\hline

Citation & Formal acknowledgement of a source text. & Explicit; common in academic/legal texts; establishes authority and lineage. & A research paper citing previous studies. \

\hline

Allusion (Direct/Indirect) & Brief, often indirect, reference to a person, place, event, or another work. & Can be explicit or implicit; relies on reader's recognition; enriches meaning through association. & Eliot's "celestial rose" alluding to Dante.12 \

\hline

Parody & Imitation of another text/style for satirical or humorous effect, often to mock or critique. & Explicit in imitation, implicit in critique; relies on familiarity with original. & Spaceballs parodying Star Wars.26 \

\hline

Pastiche & Imitation of the style of a particular writer, artist, or genre, often as homage or to evoke atmosphere. & Can be explicit stylistic mimicry; often lacks satirical intent of parody; can be a medley of styles. & A modern novel written in the style of a 19th-century gothic romance. \

\hline

Appropriation/ Adaptation & Reworking or re-imagining a well-known text to change or extend its meaning. & Transforms the original; can be critical or celebratory; common in cross-media adaptations. & Film adaptation of a novel 7; Duchamp's L.H.O.O.Q..29 \

\hline

Echo/ Reminiscence & Subtle, often unconscious, resonance of another text through language, theme, or structure. & Highly implicit; faint whisper of another text; requires deep reading. & A phrase in a poem subtly recalling a line from an earlier poet. \

\hline

\end{tabular}

\end{table}

This typology helps to differentiate the various ways texts can relate to one another, providing a clearer framework for analysis.

IV. Methodologies of Intertextual Analysis

Analyzing intertextuality involves more than simply identifying references; it requires a systematic approach to understanding how these connections function within a text and its broader cultural context. Various methodologies have been developed, ranging from general interpretive steps to more structured frameworks proposed by key theorists.

A. Identifying and Interpreting Intertextual Relationships: General Steps

A common approach to intertextual analysis involves several core steps:

1. Identification of References: This initial phase requires careful, close reading of the text to detect potential intertextual links, whether they are explicit quotations and allusions or more subtle, implicit echoes and stylistic parallels.3 This stage heavily relies on the analyst's own breadth of knowledge concerning literature, cultural history, and other relevant texts. Without a substantial "intertextual competence," many references, particularly implicit ones, may go unnoticed.12

2. Researching Referenced Texts (Hypotexts): Once a potential intertextual link is identified, the analyst must typically research the source text (or hypotext). Understanding the original context, themes, common interpretations, and cultural significance of the referenced material is crucial for discerning its function within the new text (the hypertext).12 This step allows for an informed comparison and prevents superficial interpretations.

3. Analyzing the Function and Effect: The core interpretive act involves determining how the intertextual reference contributes to the meaning, themes, tone, character development, or structure of the hypertext.12 The analyst considers whether the reference serves to extend, enrich, challenge, parody, or subvert the source text or its associated ideas. Questions to guide this stage include: How does this reference complement or complicate the author's apparent message? Does it deepen the reader's current understanding of the text, and if so, in what way?12

A more detailed and systematic framework for identifying and interpreting intertextual relationships, particularly allusions and echoes, has been proposed by Will Kynes. While originating in biblical studies, Kynes's eight-step process offers a rigorous model adaptable for general literary analysis.25 This process includes:

1. Identifying marked parallels (e.g., similar sequences of words, thematic elements).

2. Dating the texts to determine the likely direction of influence.

3. Evaluating each text internally for coherence.

4. Analyzing how the later text evokes or transforms the earlier one.

5. Correlating the texts to find broader resonances beyond the immediate link.

6. Examining the structures of both texts for formal and material resemblances.

7. Investigating how the later text might influence the reception history of the earlier one.

8. Studying modifications in the later text to understand the writer's interpretive engagement with the source.25 This structured approach can lend greater precision to the often complex task of tracing and interpreting intertextual connections.

B. Barthes's Five Codes: Unlocking Connotative Dimensions

Roland Barthes, in his influential work S/Z, proposed a framework of five "codes" through which texts signify and which can be employed to analyze their intertextual dimensions.10 These codes are not mutually exclusive but rather overlap and interact to produce the text's meaning, particularly its connotative and polyvalent aspects.10 Examining how a text deploys these codes can reveal its underlying cultural assumptions and its dialogue with other texts and discourses. The five codes are:

1. The Semic Code (SEM): This code operates through the accumulation of "semes" (signifiers or connotations) around a proper name, character, object, or place, thereby defining its attributes, qualities, and thematic significance.10 For example, repeated descriptions of a character's attire or mannerisms contribute to their semic definition. This code often establishes relationships of power and reinforces cultural stereotypes.

2. The Hermeneutic Code (HER): This code structures the narrative around enigma and its resolution. It involves the posing of questions or mysteries, the suspension and delay of answers, and the eventual disclosure of truth.10 Barthes identified several stages within this code, such as the proposal of the enigma, snares, equivocations, and final disclosure, all of which drive narrative suspense and reader engagement.

3. The Proairetic Code (ACT) (or Action Code): This code pertains to the sequence of actions and events in the narrative, governing its causal logic and temporal progression.10 It is based on the reader's expectation of how actions unfold and relate to one another, often drawing on established genre conventions and cultural scripts for behavior.

4. The Symbolic Code (SYM): This code organizes meaning around fundamental antitheses, binary oppositions (e.g., life/death, male/female, nature/culture), and symbolic fields.10 These oppositions often structure the central conflicts of a text and can reveal its underlying ideological framework, frequently reinforcing dominant cultural values or exposing inherent tensions.

5. The Cultural Code (REF) (or Referential Code): This code refers to the body of shared knowledge, commonplaces, cultural assumptions, and "already written" discourses that a text invokes.10 It draws upon science, history, popular wisdom, and various cultural "voices." This code is perhaps the most overtly intertextual, as it explicitly links the text to the broader cultural "text" and its prevailing ideologies. Barthes suggests this code often controls the interpretation of the others.

By analyzing a text through the lens of these five codes, the intertextual analyst can deconstruct how it generates meaning by weaving together these various threads of signification, many of which are drawn from the wider cultural and textual environment.

C. Bazerman's Framework: Intertextuality in Discursive Practices

Charles Bazerman, a prominent scholar in rhetoric and composition, has developed a framework for understanding intertextuality primarily as a social and discursive practice.6 His approach extends intertextual analysis beyond literary texts to encompass all forms of communication, emphasizing how texts rely on other texts to perform social actions, establish meaning, and function within specific communities and contexts.31 For Bazerman, "intertextual analysis examines the relation of a statement to that sea of words, how it uses those words, how it positions itself in respect to those other words".31

Bazerman identifies six common techniques of intertextual representation, which provide a practical toolkit for analyzing how texts incorporate and respond to other texts 6:

1. Direct quotation: Using quotation marks or other typographic markers to set apart words taken verbatim from another source.

2. Indirect quotation or paraphrase: Reporting or summarizing the meaning of another text in one's own words, often filtering it through one's own perspective.

3. Mentioning a person, document, or statement: Referring to a source by name, relying on the audience's familiarity with it.

4. Comment on or evaluation of a statement, text, or otherwise invoked voice: Explicitly taking a stance towards or interpreting another text or utterance.

5. Using recognizable phrasing, terminology associated with specific people or groups of people or particular documents: Employing language that signals affiliation with or reference to a particular discourse community or textual tradition.

6. Using language and forms that seem to echo certain ways of communicating, discussions among other people, types of documents: This is a more implicit technique, involving the evocation of specific genres, registers, styles, or social worlds through linguistic and formal choices.31 An example provided by Bazerman is the use of the phrase "an intellectual wasteland" to critique education, which echoes Newton Minow's famous 1960s critique of television as "a vast wasteland".31 This echo relies on reader recognition and imports the critical weight of the original controversy into the new context.31 This technique often blurs into what others might term interdiscursivity, the mixing of genres or discourses.33

Bazerman's framework is particularly valuable for analyzing non-literary texts, such as academic papers, news articles, legal documents, and professional communications, revealing how intertextuality is integral to the construction of knowledge and the performance of social actions in diverse fields.

The availability of these varied methodological approaches—from general interpretive steps and Kynes's structured model to Barthes's semiotic codes and Bazerman's rhetorical techniques—indicates that intertextual analysis is not a singular, monolithic practice. The choice of methodology is often contingent upon the nature of the text under scrutiny (be it literary, rhetorical, or professional) and the specific research questions being addressed.10 For instance, Barthes's codes are deeply embedded in semiotic and poststructuralist theory, designed to excavate connotative and cultural meanings, particularly within complex literary or cultural artifacts.10 In contrast, Bazerman's framework is more oriented towards understanding intertextuality as a pragmatic social and rhetorical activity across a broader spectrum of discourses, including academic and professional writing.31 An adept analyst must therefore possess an awareness of this methodological pluralism, selecting or adapting the approaches that most effectively serve their analytical objectives and the specific characteristics of the texts they are investigating.

Furthermore, all these methodologies implicitly or explicitly underscore the crucial role of the analyst's own "intertextual competence." The ability to identify references, understand cultural codes, or recognize generic echoes hinges on the analyst's breadth of knowledge of other texts, cultural conventions, and discursive practices.3 The analyst is not a detached, objective observer positioned outside the intricate web of texts; they are, themselves, an intertextual subject whose interpretations are inevitably shaped by their own textual history and interpretive frameworks. The act of analysis itself becomes an intertextual event, where the analyst brings their own accumulated textual experiences to bear upon the text at hand, as highlighted by the reader-response dimensions inherent in intertextual theory.14 This recognition of the analyst as an intertextual subject carries significant implications for the perceived objectivity of the analysis and emphasizes the importance of critical self-awareness regarding one's own interpretive lenses and potential biases.

V. Applications of Intertextual Analysis Across Disciplines

Intertextual analysis, far from being confined to a narrow theoretical niche, has proven to be a versatile and illuminating approach across a wide range of disciplines within the humanities and social sciences. Its capacity to reveal the hidden dialogues between texts, uncover layers of meaning, and contextualize cultural productions makes it a valuable tool for scholars in literary criticism, film and television studies, media and communication studies, cultural studies, and art history, among others.

A. Literary Criticism: Unveiling Layers in Canonical Works

Literary criticism is the traditional domain of intertextual analysis, where it is employed to explore how literary works engage with, reference, adapt, or critique other literary texts, as well as myths, historical events, and broader cultural narratives.19 This approach enriches interpretation by revealing complex layers of meaning, enhancing characterization, and deepening thematic development. The intertextual theory posits that literary language is often characterized by ambivalent or multiple meanings precisely because of these connections.19

A quintessential example of a highly intertextual literary work is James Joyce's Ulysses. The novel is renowned for its dense allusiveness, weaving an intricate web of references that are central to its structure and meaning.36 Most famously, Ulysses is structured as a parallel to Homer's Odyssey, with its characters and episodes corresponding to those in the ancient epic.39 Beyond this overarching Homeric framework, Joyce incorporates numerous allusions to Shakespeare (particularly Hamlet), the Catholic Mass and catechism, classical orators, the minutiae of Dublin street life in 1904 (including street furniture and social interactions), popular songs of the era, and contemporary events.36 Joyce's technique often involves introducing these references "silently, without supplying the reader with a useful context" 36, challenging the reader to decipher their significance. His own description of his method as that of a "scissors-and-paste man" 36 suggests a conscious and deliberate construction from diverse textual sources. Due to this complexity, annotated editions, such as Don Gifford's Ulysses Annotated, have become indispensable tools for readers seeking to navigate the novel's rich intertextual landscape.36 Ulysses thus exemplifies how intertextuality can serve as a fundamental organizational and thematic principle, creating a work of profound depth and enduring interpretive challenge.

Another landmark of modernist literature, T.S. Eliot's The Waste Land, is similarly characterized by its profound intertextuality.36 The poem is often described as an "intertextual fabric" or a "puzzle" 40, composed of a complex mosaic of quotations, allusions, and fragments drawn from a vast array of literary (e.g., Dante, Shakespeare, Ovid, Chaucer), religious (the Bible, the Upanishads, Buddhist texts), mythological, and anthropological sources, presented in multiple languages including Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, German, and French.40 Eliot employs these intertextual references not merely as decorative elements but as integral components of the poem's meaning. He uses them to "shore against [his] ruins," recontextualizing fragments from past cultures to articulate the spiritual desolation and cultural fragmentation of the modern post-war world.40 In this sense, The Waste Land itself can be understood as an act of cultural translation and reinterpretation, where Eliot "adopted a wide range of intertextual instances and transformed them into new material, continuing or altering original significances".40 The poem thus demonstrates how intertextuality can be a powerful means of diagnosing a cultural crisis and attempting to forge new meanings from the remnants of a shattered tradition.

B. Film and Television Studies: Adaptation, Genre, and Cinematic Homage

Intertextual analysis is equally vital in film and television studies, offering insights into processes of adaptation, the functioning of genre conventions, and the use of cinematic allusions and homages.

Adaptation as Intertextuality is a core area of study. Film and television adaptations of literary works, plays, or other source materials are inherently intertextual, establishing a dialogic relationship between the original text (the hypotext) and the new audiovisual text (the hypertext).7 Analysis in this area often focuses on issues of fidelity, but more sophisticated intertextual approaches examine how the adaptation transforms, reinterprets, and recontextualizes the source material for a new medium and a new audience.7 The Turkish television series Yaratılan (Created), an adaptation of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, serves as an illustrative case study.7 This adaptation recontextualizes Shelley's themes—such as the conflict between science and religion, the perils of ambition, and the nature of creation—within the specific cultural and historical milieu of the late Ottoman Empire. By doing so, Yaratılan enters into a dialogue with Frankenstein, recalling and mirroring the original narrative while simultaneously adapting its messages to resonate with a 21st-century Turkish audience and a different historical setting.7 This exemplifies how intertextuality operates in cross-cultural and transmedial adaptation.

Genre Conventions as Intertextual Codes also form a significant focus. Genres such as horror, film noir, science fiction, or the Western rely on a shared system of conventions, tropes, character archetypes, and audience expectations developed over time through countless individual films.26 Each new film within a genre engages with this intertextual system by adhering to, subverting, parodying, or hybridizing these established codes.26 For example, the horror genre's conventions—the "final girl," the jump scare, the isolated setting—create an implicit intertextual dialogue with the genre's entire history.26 Understanding genre as an intertextual phenomenon allows for analysis of how films communicate with their audiences and how genres themselves evolve. The film Blade Runner, for instance, is notable for its "genre mashing" 42, blending elements of science fiction (dystopian future, androids) with the stylistic and thematic conventions of film noir (cynical detective, femme fatale, moral ambiguity, dark urban landscapes).42 This intertextual fusion contributes significantly to its unique atmosphere and thematic complexity, exploring questions of humanity, memory, and identity through its engagement with both sci-fi and noir traditions.42 The film also draws from Philip K. Dick's novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, though it makes significant alterations, creating another layer of intertextual dialogue.44

Furthermore, films frequently employ Allusion, Parody, and Homage to reference other films, literary works, or cultural texts. Direct allusions, such as the numerous references to The Godfather in the television series The Sopranos 26, or Ex Machina's reference to the Bhagavad Gita 26, enrich the narrative by inviting viewers to draw connections. Parody films like Spaceballs, which satirizes Star Wars 26, rely on the audience's familiarity with the original for their comedic effect. Homage, a tribute to an earlier work or style 28, also functions intertextually by acknowledging and celebrating cinematic predecessors. These explicit intertextual links create layers of meaning, generate comedic or critical effects, and position films within the broader history of cinema and culture.

C. Media and Communication Studies: Analyzing News Discourse and Advertising

Intertextuality is a pervasive feature of modern media, playing a crucial role in news reporting, advertising, and other forms of mass communication.

In News Discourse, particularly in headlines, intertextual references are common rhetorical strategies used to capture attention, convey complex meanings economically, and sometimes to imply reliability or authority.8 News headlines frequently paraphrase well-known proverbs (e.g., "Where there is smoke, there is ire, and there is the Mayor’s Cash"), allude to historical figures or events (e.g., "Winehouse ‘bribe plot man’ like ‘AI Capone’"), or reference popular cultural works such as songs or films (e.g., "Rule, Britannia, but Maybe Not Over Scotland").8 The effectiveness of such intertextuality in media often depends on Reader Perception and their background knowledge. Studies have explored whether audiences recognize these references and how such recognition (or lack thereof) impacts their comprehension and interpretation of the news.46 The concept of "precedent-related phenomena"—culturally significant texts or events that are expected to be easily recognized—is particularly relevant here.46

Advertising is an exceptionally rich field for observing the strategic deployment of intertextuality.30 Advertisements frequently incorporate references to other texts—including fine art, films, music, and literature—to create emotional impact, enhance message comprehension by linking to familiar contexts, and build brand identity.30 This can involve direct quotation or parody of famous scenes or characters, allusions to popular figures or events, or homages to specific artistic styles or genres.30 Audio Intertextuality is particularly prevalent, with advertisements using recognizable pieces of classical music, popular songs (often with altered lyrics), or film scores to evoke specific associations, create a desired mood, or enhance memorability.48 For example, Marlboro's use of the theme from "The Magnificent Seven" associated the brand with rugged heroism, while Ford Kuga's use of a song from "The Bremen Town Musicians" evoked feelings of family and adventure.48 Multimodal Intertextuality, the combination of visual, textual, and auditory references, is also common in contemporary advertising, creating complex persuasive messages that aim to achieve promotional, relational (building rapport with the audience), and entertainment functions simultaneously.49

A landmark example of intertextuality in advertising is Apple's "1984" Commercial. This iconic advertisement, aired during the 1984 Super Bowl, primarily and explicitly referenced George Orwell's dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four.51 It portrayed an oppressive, conformist society dominated by a "Big Brother" figure on a large screen, with a rebellious young woman (representing Apple's Macintosh) shattering this control.51 Directed by Ridley Scott, the commercial's visual style also evoked dystopian cinematic aesthetics, potentially alluding to Scott's own film Blade Runner.51 The "1984" commercial was groundbreaking because it used a strong narrative and striking visuals rooted in a well-known literary work, rather than direct product promotion, to convey its message of liberation and innovation. Its profound cultural impact demonstrated the power of intertextuality in creating memorable and persuasive advertising with lasting resonance.51

D. Cultural Studies: Exploring Identity, Heritage, and Discourse

In cultural studies, intertextual analysis is a valuable methodology for exploring how texts draw upon shared cultural narratives, symbols, historical events, and traditions to articulate and negotiate themes of identity, assimilation, cultural heritage, and power dynamics within discourse.11 Texts are seen as sites where cultural meanings are produced, contested, and transformed through their engagement with other cultural "texts."

Ken Liu's short story "Paper Menagerie" provides a poignant example of how intertextual references to specific cultural practices and historical contexts can create powerful narratives about cultural identity and the immigrant experience.53 The story adeptly employs intertextuality through references to Chinese cultural traditions, such as the Qingming festival (a time for honoring ancestors) and the mother's practice of crafting origami animals (though origami is Japanese, its use by the Chinese mother in the story becomes a personal and cultural expression of love and heritage).53 These references, along with the use of the Chinese language and subtle allusions to historical events like the Cultural Revolution, create layers of resonance and authenticity in exploring the tensions of assimilation faced by the protagonist, Jack, and his Chinese mother in an American context.53 The story also explores how language itself (English versus Chinese) becomes a site of cultural conflict and power dynamics within the family, reflecting the broader challenges of cross-cultural communication and the potential for heritage loss in the process of assimilation.53

E. Art History: Reinterpreting Iconic Imagery

Intertextuality is not confined to verbal or narrative texts; it is also a crucial concept in art history for understanding how visual artists engage with the works of their predecessors.29 Art historical intertextuality (often termed "intervisuality" or discussed in terms of influence and appropriation) involves artists deliberately adopting, inheriting, transforming, or critiquing iconic subject matter, compositions, styles, or specific artworks from past masters.29

Several examples illustrate this process:

• Marcel Duchamp's L.H.O.O.Q. (1919) is a well-known instance of artistic appropriation and intertextual commentary. By taking a postcard reproduction of Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa and adding a mustache and goatee, Duchamp directly engaged with and irreverently altered one of Western art's most iconic images, thereby critiquing traditional notions of originality, authorship, and the sanctity of the masterpiece.12

• The evolution of Papal Portraits during the Renaissance and beyond demonstrates a clear lineage of intervisual dialogue. Raphael’s portrait of Pope Julius II (c. 1511), which depicted the Pope in a moment of introspection seated alone, broke with earlier traditions and became a highly influential model. Titian, in his portrait of Pope Paul III (1546), adopted Raphael's general compositional model while introducing his own stylistic innovations. A century later, Velázquez’s portrait of Innocent X (c. 1650) clearly observed and responded to Titian's work, reinterpreting the established visual tradition. This chain of influence and transformation was then radically disrupted by Francis Bacon in his "Study after Velázquez's Portrait of Pope Innocent X" (1953), which deconstructed the iconic image into a horrific and visceral expression of psychological torment.29

• Contemporary artist Shelley Reed consciously engages with art history by choosing details from 17th and 18th-century European realist paintings, particularly animal and still life subjects. She reassembles these fragments into large-scale, monochromatic works that force viewers to consider how historical art informs contemporary understanding and how painters reference one another across time.54

These examples from diverse disciplines demonstrate the broad applicability and analytical power of intertextuality. Across fields, the examination of intertextual relationships reveals a fundamental mechanism of cultural evolution and canon formation. Newer texts and artworks invariably build upon, critique, or transform older ones. Joyce's Ulysses reworks Homer, Eliot's The Waste Land reassembles cultural fragments, Blade Runner reinterprets its novelistic source alongside film noir conventions, and Bacon reconfigures Velázquez. This is not mere passive borrowing but an active, ongoing process of cultural meaning-making, re-evaluation, and dialogue with the past. It is through such intertextual engagements that societies maintain continuity with their heritage, reinterpret foundational narratives for new contexts, and establish which works achieve "canonical" status by virtue of being repeatedly referenced, adapted, and debated.

However, while the underlying mechanism of texts referencing other texts is broadly similar, the primary functions or "stakes" of intertextuality vary significantly depending on the specific discipline or field of application. In literary criticism, as seen with Ulysses or The Waste Land, intertextuality often serves to deepen thematic complexity, showcase erudition, or engage in a sophisticated artistic dialogue with tradition; the stakes are frequently aesthetic and interpretive.36 In film studies, particularly in the realm of adaptation like Yaratılan, intertextuality involves negotiating fidelity and transformation, often intertwined with commercial considerations of audience appeal, while genre intertextuality manages audience expectations.7 In media and advertising, intertextuality is a direct rhetorical tool employed for persuasion, brand building, and capturing audience attention rapidly; here, the stakes are primarily commercial and communicative efficacy.8 For cultural studies, as illustrated by "Paper Menagerie," intertextual references to cultural practices or historical events are deployed to explore complex issues of identity, power, and assimilation, with socio-political and ethical stakes.53 Finally, in art history, intertextual acts can concern artistic lineage, a critique of tradition, or the re-contextualization of iconic imagery, where the stakes can be aesthetic, critical, and historical.29 Thus, while intertextuality provides a unifying analytical lens, its specific manifestations and the primary goals it serves are highly context-dependent, requiring the analyst to consider the unique communicative aims and conventions of each field.

VI. The Computational Turn: Intertextuality in the Digital Age

The advent of digital technologies and computational methods has opened new frontiers for intertextual analysis, allowing researchers to investigate textual relationships at an unprecedented scale. These approaches complement traditional close reading by offering tools to identify patterns of text reuse, allusion, and influence across vast digital corpora.

A. Overview of Computational Methods for Detecting Text Reuse and Allusion

The fundamental rationale for employing computational methods in intertextual studies is their capacity to analyze large volumes of text systematically, potentially uncovering connections that might elude human readers or would be prohibitively time-consuming to trace manually.55 This is particularly relevant in an era of mass digitization of historical archives and the proliferation of born-digital texts.

Several techniques have been adapted or developed for computational intertextual analysis:

• Sequence Alignment: Algorithms like BLAST (Basic Local Alignment Search Tool), originally developed for bioinformatics to find similarities in DNA or protein sequences, have been adapted to identify similar sequences of text between documents.56 These tools are effective for detecting near-verbatim text reuse.

• N-grams and Syntactic Pattern Matching: These methods involve identifying shared sequences of words (n-grams) or similar syntactic structures across texts.56 They can help detect paraphrases or structural similarities that go beyond exact string matching.

• Machine Learning and Neural Embeddings: More recent approaches leverage machine learning, particularly neural network models, to represent words, sentences, or entire documents as dense vector representations (embeddings) in a high-dimensional space. Models like word2vec, GloVe, and transformer-based architectures (e.g., BERT, LaBSE) capture semantic relationships, meaning that texts with similar meanings or thematic content will have embeddings that are closer together in this vector space.56 The cosine similarity between two text embeddings is a common metric used to quantify their relatedness; a higher cosine similarity suggests a stronger semantic or potential intertextual link.57 Multilingual embedding spaces are particularly useful for analyzing intertextuality across translations.57

• Topic Modeling: Algorithms such as Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) and Non-negative Matrix Factorization (NMF) can identify latent thematic structures within large collections of documents.61 By uncovering shared topics or thematic patterns between texts, topic modeling can suggest potential areas of intertextual influence or dialogue, even if direct lexical overlap is minimal.

These diverse computational techniques offer various lenses through which to explore intertextual phenomena, from direct textual borrowing to more abstract thematic connections.

B. Applications in Analyzing Large Corpora

Computational intertextuality has found applications in a range of scholarly domains:

• Biblical Texts and Translations: A significant area of application involves analyzing the dense network of intertextual references within the Bible itself (e.g., New Testament quotations of or allusions to the Hebrew Bible) and, crucially, examining how these references are preserved, altered, or even amplified in various historical and modern translations, including both human and machine-generated versions.55 For instance, researchers have used cosine similarity of verse embeddings to calculate an "intertextuality ratio," comparing known intertextual pairs with random pairings to quantify the strength of intertextuality and track its changes across different translations.60 This can shed light on translators' strategies and the evolution of theological interpretations.

• Classical Literature: Computational tools are used to identify allusions, quotations, and patterns of text reuse in classical Latin and Greek poetry and prose, helping scholars to map literary influences and traditions within these ancient corpora.55

• Historical Archives and Print Culture: Digital humanities projects have employed text reuse detection to analyze historical newspapers (e.g., identifying reprinted articles in 19th-century American or Finnish newspapers), to study Enlightenment literature (e.g., tracing sources and unacknowledged borrowings in Diderot and d'Alembert's Encyclopédie), and more broadly to map patterns of influence, citation, and intellectual exchange within historical print culture.59 These applications enable a "distant reading" approach to vast textual networks, revealing large-scale cultural dynamics.

C. Challenges and Future Directions in Computational Intertextuality

Despite its promise, computational intertextuality faces several challenges and points towards exciting future directions:

• Beyond Allusion Detection to Deeper Intertextuality: A significant critique is that many current computational methods tend to reduce the rich concept of intertextuality to the more limited task of detecting direct text reuse or explicit allusions.58 This often operationalizes a more structuralist understanding of intertextuality, focusing on surface-level similarities, and may fail to capture the more complex, transformative, and culturally embedded forms of intertextuality theorized by Kristeva or Barthes (e.g., parody, irony, transposition of sign systems).58 The challenge lies in developing models that can identify and analyze these more nuanced semantic and pragmatic relationships.

• The Indispensable Role of Domain Expertise and Hermeneutics: Computational outputs, such as lists of potential textual parallels, are not self-interpreting. They require careful evaluation and interpretation by humanities scholars possessing deep domain expertise and sophisticated hermeneutic skills.59 There is a growing recognition of the need for "computational hermeneutics"—frameworks for interpreting the results of computational analyses in meaningful humanistic terms.59

• Intertextuality and Large Language Models (LLMs): The rapid development of LLMs presents both a new subject for intertextual analysis and a new set of tools that might transform the field. LLMs are inherently intertextual engines, trained on vast datasets of existing texts, and their outputs are complex assemblages of this training data.58 Theories of intertextuality can provide crucial frameworks for understanding how LLMs generate text, the nature of their "originality," and their relationship to their source materials.58 The emerging concept of "AI-textuality" seeks to extend traditional intertextual theory to encompass interactions involving texts produced by generative AI, recognizing that GenAI outputs are created through the assemblage of digital and multimodal texts from vast datasets.62

• Balancing Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis: There is an ongoing need to integrate large-scale quantitative findings (e.g., network analyses of text reuse) with in-depth qualitative analysis of specific intertextual instances to understand their particular functions and effects.57

• Ethical Considerations: The ease of digital text reuse and the advent of AI-generated content raise pressing ethical questions regarding copyright, plagiarism, intellectual property, and the very definition of originality in a hyper-intertextual age. While not explicitly detailed in the provided materials, these are logical and critical extensions of the challenges in this domain.

The computational turn in intertextual studies can be viewed as a double-edged sword. On one hand, it offers unprecedented power and scale for identifying textual similarities across enormous datasets, revealing connections that would be impossible for human readers to uncover alone.55 On the other hand, there is a significant risk of reductionism if these methods oversimplify the nuanced, context-dependent, and transformative nature of intertextuality as conceived by its foundational theorists.58 Current computational techniques, such as those based on cosine similarity of embeddings 60, excel at detecting lexical and broad semantic similarity but may struggle with more abstract or culturally embedded forms of intertextuality like irony, parody, or complex thematic resonances that depend heavily on contextual understanding not easily encoded in algorithms. The path forward likely lies in developing hybrid methodologies that harness computational power for initial identification and large-scale patterning, while deeply integrating humanistic expertise for nuanced interpretation, contextualization, and understanding of the function and effect of these intertextual links.

Furthermore, the rise of sophisticated AI, particularly LLMs, is not merely providing a new subject for intertextual analysis but is forcing a re-evaluation of the core tenets of intertextual theory itself. LLMs, by their very design, are hyper-intertextual engines, generating outputs through complex recombinations of their vast training data—they are, in a sense, "mosaics of quotations" on an unimaginable scale. The introduction of concepts like "AI-textuality" 62 signals this profound shift. This development challenges traditional notions of authorship even more radically than Barthes's "death of the author," as the "author" of AI-generated text is diffuse and complex (is it the AI, its programmers, the data it was trained on, or the user prompting it?). It also redefines questions of originality and plagiarism. If an LLM produces a text that is an intricate interweaving of its training data, how do we assess its novelty or its borrowings? This suggests that intertextuality is evolving from a theory primarily concerned with human-produced texts to one that must grapple with texts generated by non-human intelligences that are inherently and massively intertextual. This could represent the next major conceptual evolution for intertextual studies.

VII. Evaluating Intertextual Analysis: Strengths, Limitations, and Debates

Intertextual analysis, as a significant theoretical and methodological framework, offers numerous benefits for understanding texts and culture. However, it also presents certain challenges in its application and has been the subject of ongoing critical debate.

A. Strengths and Benefits of Intertextual Analysis

The strengths of intertextual analysis are manifold and contribute to its enduring relevance:

• Deepening Understanding and Revealing Layers of Meaning: By tracing the connections between texts, intertextual analysis uncovers layers of meaning, cultural resonances, historical linkages, and symbolic significances that might otherwise remain hidden.12 It allows readers and critics to appreciate the richness and complexity that arises from a text's dialogue with other works, potentially reshaping interpretations of both the text at hand and its precursors.13

• Contextualizing Works within Broader Dialogues: Intertextuality firmly places texts within their literary, cultural, and historical contexts, demonstrating how they respond to, are shaped by, and contribute to ongoing dialogues and traditions.14 This contextualization moves beyond viewing texts as isolated artifacts, instead seeing them as active participants in cultural conversations.

• Revealing Processes of Influence and Transformation: The framework is adept at tracing how authors and creators borrow, adapt, transform, and critique source materials, thereby illuminating the dynamic processes of literary and cultural evolution.38 It shows how tradition is not static but is constantly being reinterpreted and reinvented.

• Understanding Textual Archives as Binding Resources: Intertextual analysis highlights how accumulated bodies of texts—archives, canons, disciplinary literatures—become authoritative and binding resources that shape current communication, understanding, and social practices in various fields, from law to academia.63

• Empowering the Reader in Meaning Construction: Particularly in its poststructuralist formulations (e.g., Barthes), intertextual analysis emphasizes the active and productive role of the reader in constructing meaning.14 By bringing their own intertextual knowledge and experiences to a text, readers participate in the creation of its significance.

B. Challenges in Application

Despite its strengths, applying intertextual analysis presents several practical challenges:

• Need for Extensive Textual and Cultural Knowledge: Effective intertextual analysis, especially of implicit references, often demands that the reader or analyst possess a broad and deep knowledge of other texts, genres, historical periods, and cultural contexts.3 Without this "intertextual competence," many significant connections may be missed, potentially limiting the depth and validity of the analysis.3 This requirement can make the practice seem daunting or exclusive.

• Distinguishing Intentionality from Coincidence or Unconscious Echoes: It can be exceedingly difficult to determine whether an identified intertextual link represents a deliberate authorial allusion, an unconscious echo stemming from the author's own immersion in a textual environment, or merely a coincidental similarity.3 While poststructuralist approaches often downplay authorial intent, for some analytical purposes (e.g., influence studies), this distinction remains pertinent and challenging to establish definitively.

• Defining the Boundaries of a "Text" and Relevant Connections: Given the potentially infinite web of intertextual relationships, a key challenge is to define the relevant boundaries for analysis. Without clear criteria, there is a risk of an unfocused and endless tracing of links, leading to interpretations that lack coherence or significance.64 Barthes himself, in S/Z, implicitly acknowledged this by circumscribing the codes he applied, suggesting an inherent difficulty in managing the boundless scope of intertextuality.64

• Distinguishing Between Different Types of Intertextual References: The various forms of intertextuality (allusion, parody, pastiche, quotation, echo, etc.) are not always neatly separable and often overlap within a single text.3 Clearly categorizing these references can be complex, yet such distinctions are often important for understanding their specific functions and effects.

C. Criticisms and Debates

Intertextual analysis has also faced several criticisms and is the site of ongoing theoretical debates:

• The "Intentional Fallacy" Revisited: A central and persistent debate revolves around the role and relevance of authorial intent. While poststructuralist intertextuality, particularly through Barthes, famously proclaimed the "death of the author" and dismissed intent as a primary determinant of meaning 22, many critics and scholars continue to argue for the importance of considering an author's intentions, especially when analyzing specific intertextual choices or studying literary influence.3 The question of whether an allusion is consciously deployed or unconsciously present remains a point of contention with significant interpretive implications.

• Risk of Over-interpretation (Apophenia): A frequent criticism is that the search for intertextual connections can lead to "apophenia"—the tendency to perceive meaningful patterns or connections in random or meaningless data.64 The vastness of the potential "intertext" can tempt analysts to find allusions and influences that are tenuous, subjective, or not meaningfully present in the text's reception or production, leading to interpretations that lack robust evidential support.64

• The Reader's Role and Interpretive Relativism: While the empowerment of the reader is seen as a strength by many, the emphasis on reader-generated meaning and the "plurality of meaning" 22 has led to concerns about interpretive relativism. If meaning is entirely constructed by the reader through their intertextual lens, it raises questions about the stability of textual meaning and the possibility of shared or verifiable interpretations.

• Elitism and Accessibility: Related to the challenge of requiring extensive textual knowledge, intertextual analysis can be criticized as an elitist practice. If full appreciation or analysis of a text depends on recognizing a multitude of obscure or specialized references, it may render such texts and their critical discussion inaccessible to a broader audience lacking the requisite cultural capital.

The framework of intertextual analysis, particularly in its poststructuralist manifestations, appears to champion a certain interpretive freedom by decentering the author and emphasizing the "plurality of meaning" inherent in texts.22 This liberation from a singular, author-imposed meaning is a key appeal of the theory. However, this freedom is paradoxically constrained. The effective practice of intertextual analysis, as repeatedly noted, necessitates extensive textual and cultural knowledge on the part of the analyst.3 A reader or critic lacking this broad intertextual competence cannot fully participate in the "free play" of meaning that the theory seems to promise. This creates a tension: is the interpretive freedom offered by intertextuality universally accessible, or is it contingent upon the analyst's cultural capital and educational background? This contingency can lead to accusations that intertextual analysis, despite its democratizing rhetoric regarding the reader, may inadvertently re-inscribe a different form of authority—that of the erudite critic who possesses the keys to the intertextual kingdom—in place of the author's.

Furthermore, the criticisms leveled against intertextual analysis—such as the debates surrounding authorial intent, the risk of apophenia, and concerns about elitism—are not necessarily fatal flaws that invalidate the theory. Instead, they function as crucial points of ongoing debate and theoretical negotiation. These critiques highlight the complexities and potential pitfalls of the approach, prompting practitioners to refine their methodologies, acknowledge their limitations, and continuously reflect on the philosophical underpinnings of their analyses. The ongoing discussions about how to balance textual evidence with readerly interpretation 3, the need for methodological rigor to guard against over-interpretation 64, and the challenge of making such analyses accessible 12 all suggest that intertextuality is not a static, monolithic doctrine. Rather, it is an evolving interpretive framework that must continually grapple with its own methodological and epistemological implications. The criticisms are, in this sense, productive, ensuring that intertextuality remains a dynamic and self-reflexive field of inquiry rather than a closed system of thought.

VIII. Intertextuality in Dialogue: Relationship with Other Critical Theories

Intertextuality does not exist in a theoretical vacuum. Its development and application are best understood in relation to other critical approaches, particularly influence studies, source criticism, and the broader movements of structuralism and post-structuralism. Examining these relationships clarifies intertextuality's unique contributions and its points of departure from earlier or contemporaneous theories.

A. Intertextuality vs. Influence Studies: Authorial Agency and Textual Connection

Influence Studies have a long tradition in literary scholarship, typically focusing on tracing the direct and demonstrable impact of earlier authors or specific texts on later ones.13 This approach often emphasizes authorial intention, biographical connections, and the conscious borrowing or adaptation of themes, styles, or ideas.13 The aim is often to establish a lineage or a clear chain of transmission from one creative mind to another.

Intertextuality, while also concerned with connections between texts, offers a significantly broader and often more impersonal perspective.2 It encompasses a vast field of textual relations that includes not only conscious borrowings but also unconscious echoes, shared cultural codes, generic conventions, and the anonymous circulation of discourses.2 A key distinction lies in the treatment of authorial agency. While influence studies often foreground the author as a creative agent deliberately engaging with predecessors, intertextuality, especially in its poststructuralist forms, tends to decenter the author. The focus shifts from the author's intention to the text's participation in a larger discursive field and the reader's role in activating intertextual connections to construct meaning.64 The term "intertextuality" itself is often preferred over "influence" precisely to avoid the connotations of a conscious, controlling author and to emphasize the more systemic and often anonymous nature of textual interconnectedness.64

Thus, the shift from influence studies to intertextuality represents a theoretical move from a model centered on individual authorial psychology and direct transmission to one that emphasizes textual networks, cultural systems, and the readerly production of meaning.

B. Intertextuality and Source Criticism: Beyond Tracing Origins

Source Criticism (or Quellenforschung) is a scholarly method primarily aimed at identifying the specific written or oral sources that an author utilized in the composition of a text.2 Its goals can include understanding how a text was assembled, determining an author's indebtedness to previous works, or reconstructing earlier versions of a narrative.

While the identification of sources can be a component of intertextual analysis, intertextuality's focus is significantly different and broader.2 Intertextuality is less concerned with merely tracing origins and more interested in how borrowed or referenced textual material is transformed, reinterpreted, and dialogized within the new textual context and the wider cultural system.20 It examines how the incorporation of existing textual elements creates new meanings, effects, and resonances in the later text.20 As Kristeva and others have emphasized, intertextuality involves the "absorption and transformation" of other texts, where the text becomes a site of rewriting and parody, not just passive reception of sources.20

Intertextuality, therefore, views prior texts not simply as static "sources" from which material is extracted, but as active "intertexts" that participate in the ongoing meaning-making process of the current text. It moves beyond the often positivistic endeavor of source-hunting to explore the dynamic and culturally embedded nature of textual relationships, including unconscious influences and the interplay of broader literary conventions and discourses.20

The relationship between these approaches can be seen as intertextuality absorbing some of the investigative concerns of influence studies and source criticism (such as identifying textual connections) but radically reframing their significance within a different theoretical paradigm—one rooted in poststructuralist understandings of text, author, and meaning. While influence studies might focus on an author's direct engagement with a precursor, and source criticism might identify the specific passages borrowed, intertextuality broadens the inquiry to include unconscious echoes, the anonymous circulation of cultural codes, and the transformative power of textual interaction. The shift from a model of linear transmission and authorial control (characteristic of much influence and source criticism) to one of networked meaning and textual productivity (central to intertextuality) marks a fundamental reinterpretation of how texts relate to one another and to the culture that produces them.

This reframing also has implications for concepts like Harold Bloom's "anxiety of influence," which describes the psychological struggle of later poets against their powerful precursors. Poststructuralist intertextuality, particularly as articulated by Barthes with the "death of the author" 15, can be interpreted as displacing or even inverting this anxiety. If the author is reconceptualized as a "scriptor" who merely weaves together pre-existing cultural codes and textual fragments 15, rather than an original genius battling for unique expression, the intense burden of originality and the Oedipal struggle against literary forefathers are significantly lessened or reframed. The focus shifts from the individual author's psychological drama to the impersonal play of texts themselves, the "impersonal field of intersecting texts" 64 or the "tissue of quotations".15 In this light, the "anxiety" might transfer from the author's struggle for originality to the critic's or reader's challenge in navigating the potentially infinite web of intertexts, or perhaps it morphs into a broader cultural anxiety about the perceived loss of originality in a world saturated with pre-existing textual forms.

C. Intertextuality, Structuralism, and Post-structuralism: A Paradigm Shift

The emergence and development of intertextuality are inextricably linked to the broader intellectual shifts from structuralism to post-structuralism in the mid to late 20th century.

Structuralism, heavily influenced by the linguistic theories of Ferdinand de Saussure, sought to identify the underlying systems, codes, conventions, and binary oppositions that structure language, literature, and cultural phenomena.15 Structuralist analysis typically aimed to uncover stable, objective meanings by examining the internal relationships within a closed textual system.65 The text was often viewed as an autonomous object, and the goal was to reveal its inherent formal organization.

Post-structuralism emerged as a critique of and reaction against structuralism's claims to scientific objectivity, its belief in stable meaning, and its concept of fixed, universal structures.15 Post-structuralist thinkers emphasized the instability and slipperiness of language ("différance" in Derrida's terms), the "decentered subject" (questioning the notion of a unified, autonomous self), and the endless play of signification.21 They argued that meaning is not inherent in structures but is constantly deferred and produced through discourse.

Intertextuality, as theorized by Kristeva and developed by Barthes and others, is a quintessential post-structuralist concept.1 It directly undermines the structuralist notion of the text as an autonomous, self-contained entity with a fixed, inherent meaning. By positing the text as an open network of relations, a "mosaic of quotations" 9 or a "tissue of quotations" 15 drawn from an infinite cultural "Text," intertextuality highlights the fluidity and constructedness of meaning. Meaning arises not from within the text alone, but from its interactions with countless other texts and discursive formations.21 Kristeva's concept of intertextuality explicitly challenged notions of textual autonomy by emphasizing the profound interconnectedness of all texts.21

This represents a fundamental paradigm shift: from the structuralist view of the text as a "work" (a closed, finite object analyzable for its inherent structure and meaning) to the post-structuralist concept of the "Text" (an open, dynamic site of productivity, endlessly referring to and constituted by other texts). Intertextuality was crucial in effecting this shift, providing a theoretical basis for understanding texts not as static objects but as processes of signification embedded within a boundless cultural and linguistic field.

IX. Conclusion: The Enduring Relevance and Evolving Nature of Intertextual Inquiry

Intertextual analysis, since its formal articulation in the mid-20th century, has profoundly reshaped the study of literature, culture, and communication. Its core premise—that no text is an island, entire of itself, but rather a piece of the continent, a part of the main—continues to offer a powerful lens for understanding the intricate ways in which meanings are woven, contested, and transformed across the vast web of human expression.

A. Recap of Key Insights

This report has traced the trajectory of intertextual theory from its conceptual precursors in the work of Mikhail Bakhtin, through its formalization by Julia Kristeva, to its radical application by Roland Barthes. Bakhtin's notions of dialogism, polyphony, and heteroglossia laid the groundwork by emphasizing the inherently social and multi-voiced nature of language.17 Kristeva built upon this foundation, coining "intertextuality" to describe the text as a "mosaic of quotations" and a "transposition" of sign systems, highlighting its productive and transformative engagement with other texts.1 Barthes further extended the concept, proclaiming the "death of the author" and championing the reader's role in activating the "tissue of quotations" that constitutes the Text, thereby liberating meaning from singular authorial control.14

The diverse manifestations of intertextuality—ranging from explicit quotations and allusions to implicit echoes, parodies, and pastiches—demonstrate the myriad ways texts interact.12 Methodologies for analyzing these connections, whether general interpretive steps, Barthes's five codes, Bazerman's rhetorical framework, or Kynes's systematic process, provide tools for navigating this complexity.10 The broad applicability of intertextual analysis has been demonstrated across disciplines: enriching literary criticism through studies of canonical works like Joyce's Ulysses and Eliot's The Waste Land; informing film and media studies in analyses of adaptation, genre, and advertising phenomena like Apple's "1984" commercial; providing insights in cultural studies through explorations of identity in works like "Paper Menagerie"; and revealing artistic dialogues in art history, as seen in the reinterpretations of iconic imagery from da Vinci to Bacon.7

B. The Future of Intertextual Studies in a Hyperconnected, AI-Driven World

The principles of intertextuality are arguably more relevant and visible than ever in the contemporary digital landscape. The internet, with its hyperlinked structure, social media platforms facilitating rapid sharing and remixing of content, and the pervasive culture of sampling and memes, offers explicit and accelerated manifestations of intertextual networks. This digital environment creates new forms and speeds of textual interaction, making the processes of intertextuality more overt and accessible to a wider audience. This heightened visibility may foster a broader public understanding of textual interconnectedness, though it also risks a more superficial engagement if the deeper transformative and critical aspects of intertextual theory are overlooked in favor of simple referencing or aggregation.

The emergence of Artificial Intelligence, particularly Large Language Models (LLMs), presents both a profound challenge and a new frontier for intertextual studies.58 LLMs are, by their very nature, hyper-intertextual engines, generating text by synthesizing patterns and information from the vast textual databases on which they are trained. Analyzing AI-generated content through an intertextual lens raises fundamental questions about authorship (who, or what, is the "author" of an AI text?), originality (how do we define novelty in a text assembled from countless prior texts?), and the very nature of the "text" itself. The concept of "AI-textuality" 62 signals an effort to adapt and expand intertextual theory to account for these new forms of textual production and human-AI interaction. This domain is poised to be a critical area of future research, potentially leading to the next major evolution of intertextual thought.

The continued importance of intertextual analysis in fostering interdisciplinary research also marks its future trajectory. As demonstrated by computational intertextuality projects that bridge the humanities with computer science 55, and by studies that apply intertextual concepts across media and cultural forms 5, the framework's ability to connect diverse fields of inquiry remains a significant strength.

C. Concluding Thoughts on the Dynamic Nature of Texts and Meaning

Intertextual analysis consistently underscores that meaning is not a fixed, inherent property of texts but is fluid, relational, and dynamically constructed through the ongoing dialogue between texts, readers, and cultural contexts. It challenges notions of textual autonomy and singular authorship, revealing instead a world where texts are perpetually interwoven, echoing, transforming, and responding to one another.

In an information-saturated age, where texts—including misinformation, propaganda, and algorithmically generated content—circulate and reference each other with unprecedented speed and complexity, a critical understanding of intertextuality becomes more than an academic exercise; it approaches an ethical imperative. The ability to discern how texts draw upon, manipulate, or interact with their intertextual sources, to recognize the voices they amplify or silence, and to evaluate the claims they make in relation to other discourses, is crucial for informed civic engagement and critical thinking. Intertextual awareness equips individuals to navigate the complex communicative landscapes of the 21st century, fostering a more nuanced understanding of how texts shape, and are shaped by, our world. The evolving nature of intertextual inquiry, particularly as it grapples with new digital and AI-driven textual forms, ensures its continued relevance and vitality in the ongoing human endeavor to make sense of meaning.

Works cited

1. Intertextuality | Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Literature, accessed May 14, 2025, https://oxfordre.com/literature/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190201098.001.0001/acrefore-9780190201098-e-1072?p=emailA/UlD/9zLYk0U&d=/10.1093/acrefore/9780190201098.001.0001/acrefore-9780190201098-e-1072

2. Intertextuality | Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Literature, accessed May 14, 2025, https://oxfordre.com/literature/literature/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190201098.001.0001/acrefore-9780190201098-e-1072?p=emailAogdFlbme7qvo&d=/10.1093/acrefore/9780190201098.001.0001/acrefore-9780190201098-e-1072

3. Intertextuality | Literary Theory and Criticism Class Notes | Fiveable ..., accessed May 14, 2025, https://library.fiveable.me/literary-theory-criticism/unit-3/intertextuality/study-guide/cCQ1IzfGxUwxrXgo

4. Text/Texts: Interrogating Julia Kristeva's Concept of Intertextuality | Ars Artium, accessed May 14, 2025, https://arsartium.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/14.-TextTexts-Interrogating-Julia-Kristevas-Concept-of-Intertextuality-by-P.-Prayer-Elmo-Raj.pdf

5. Text, Context and Intertextuality, accessed May 14, 2025, http://marul.ffst.hr/~bwillems/fymob/text.ppt

6. www.atlantis-press.com, accessed May 14, 2025, https://www.atlantis-press.com/article/125946474.pdf

7. dergipark.org.tr, accessed May 14, 2025, https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/3907506

8. www.academypublication.com, accessed May 14, 2025, http://www.academypublication.com/issues2/tpls/vol08/08/13.pdf

9. (PDF) Text/Texts: Julia Kristeva's Concept of Intertextuality, accessed May 14, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273771676_TextTexts_Julia_Kristeva's_Concept_of_Intertextuality

10. Intertextual Analysis - Writing Arts Senior Seminar: Evaluating Writing, accessed May 14, 2025, http://evaluatingwritingk.weebly.com/intertextual-analysis.html

11. Intertextuality | Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Literature, accessed May 14, 2025, https://oxfordre.com/literature/literature/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190201098.001.0001/acrefore-9780190201098-e-1072?p=emailAuThTvBnA3Vek&d=/10.1093/acrefore/9780190201098.001.0001/acrefore-9780190201098-e-1072

12. Literary Techniques: Intertextuality | The Matrix Literary Techniques ..., accessed May 14, 2025, https://www.matrix.edu.au/literary-techniques-intertextuality/

13. Intertextuality | EBSCO Research Starters, accessed May 14, 2025, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/literature-and-writing/intertextuality

14. Roland Barthes - (Intro to Comparative Literature) - Vocab, Definition, Explanations, accessed May 14, 2025, https://library.fiveable.me/key-terms/introduction-to-comparative-literature/roland-barthes

15. Barthes Intertextuality | PDF | Intertextuality | Author - Scribd, accessed May 14, 2025, https://www.scribd.com/document/622133140/Barthes-intertextuality

16. library.fiveable.me, accessed May 14, 2025, https://library.fiveable.me/literary-theory-criticism/unit-3/intertextuality/study-guide/cCQ1IzfGxUwxrXgo#:~:text=Intertextuality%20is%20a%20key%20concept,of%20other%20theorists%20and%20linguists

17. Mikhail Bakhtin's Dialogism and Intertextuality: A Perspective, accessed May 14, 2025, https://oldisrj.lbp.world/ArchiveArticle.aspx?ArticleID=161

18. Mikhail Bakhtin's Dialogism and Intertextuality: A Perspective, accessed May 14, 2025, http://englishlinguafranka.blogspot.com/2017/10/mikhail-bakhtins-dialogism-and.html

19. www.universitypublications.net, accessed May 14, 2025, http://www.universitypublications.net/ijas/0704/pdf/E4X158.pdf

20. dergipark.org.tr, accessed May 14, 2025, https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/411869

21. Structuralism and Post-Structuralism | History of Modern Philosophy ..., accessed May 14, 2025, https://fiveable.me/history-modern-philosophy/unit-12/structuralism-post-structuralism/study-guide/a97R4vzBWwKjJedW

22. Intertextuality and the Death of the Author | Intro to Literary Theory ..., accessed May 14, 2025, https://fiveable.me/introduction-to-literary-theory/unit-4/intertextuality-death-author/study-guide/GJsJNUHVi4YFMGla

23. 2771-2273) INTERTEXTUAL DEVICES IN ENGLISH AND AMERICAN LITERATURE, accessed May 14, 2025, https://www.theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps/article/download/3773/3540/4107

24. rtmll.vnu.edu.ua, accessed May 14, 2025, https://rtmll.vnu.edu.ua/index.php/fgh/article/download/49/18/30

25. Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary Intertextuality: What Is It and Is ..., accessed May 14, 2025, https://dbts.edu/2017/02/14/intertextuality-what-is-it-and-is-it-helpful-part-2/

26. What is Intertextuality — Definition and Examples - StudioBinder, accessed May 14, 2025, https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/what-is-intertextuality-definition/

27. Pastiche Guide: 4 Tips for Writing a Pastiche - 2025 - MasterClass, accessed May 14, 2025, https://www.masterclass.com/articles/pastiche-guide#:~:text=Pastiche%20is%20a%20form%20of,of%20different%20works%20mixed%20together.

28. intertextuality | Definition and Examples - Media Studies, accessed May 14, 2025, https://media-studies.com/intertextuality/

29. ademgenc.com, accessed May 14, 2025, https://ademgenc.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/INFLUENCE-and-INTERTEXTUALITY.pdf

30. Intertextuality in charity advert – A Level Media Studies Eduqas Revision - Study Rocket, accessed May 14, 2025, https://studyrocket.co.uk/revision/a-level-media-studies-eduqas/advertising/intertextuality-in-charity-advert

31. bazerman.education.ucsb.edu, accessed May 14, 2025, https://bazerman.education.ucsb.edu/sites/default/files/docs/Bazerman2004ChapIntertextuality.pdf

32. Charles Bazerman and Paul Prior, What Writing Does and How It Does It | Exam. Play., accessed May 14, 2025, https://examplay.wordpress.com/composition-studies-notes/charles-bazerman-and-paul-prior-what-writing-does-and-how-it-does-it/

33. Same, same, but different: Intertextual and interdiscursive features of communication strategy texts - ResearchGate, accessed May 14, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258432673_Same_same_but_different_Intertextual_and_interdiscursive_features_of_communication_strategy_texts

34. A genre-based exploration of intertextuality and interdiscursivity in advertorial discourse - Sci-Hub, accessed May 14, 2025, https://sci-hub.se/downloads/2021-06-21/de/deng2021.pdf

35. www.ebsco.com, accessed May 14, 2025, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/literature-and-writing/intertextuality#:~:text=other%20ancient%20writings.-,Literary%20Applications,character%2C%20setting%2C%20or%20plot.

36. Intertextuality (Chapter 12) - The Cambridge Companion to Ulysses, accessed May 14, 2025, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-companion-to-ulysses/intertextuality/65C0B7266E972C0FBAEEA5834052F459

37. The Realism of James Joyce: Autobiography, Intertextuality, and Genius - Western CEDAR, accessed May 14, 2025, https://cedar.wwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1281&context=wwu_honors

38. Intertextuality and influence studies | Intro to Comparative Literature ..., accessed May 14, 2025, https://library.fiveable.me/introduction-to-comparative-literature-literary-and-cultural-history/unit-14/intertextuality-influence-studies/study-guide/ImMRsL76VdZrefHq

39. www.savap.org.pk, accessed May 14, 2025, http://www.savap.org.pk/journals/ARInt./Vol.11(4)/ARInt.2020(11.4-01).pdf

40. revistaseug.ugr.es, accessed May 14, 2025, https://revistaseug.ugr.es/index.php/sendebar/article/download/366/398/510

41. “The Wasteland” by T.S. Eliot–A Reading and Explanation - Resurrecting Orthodoxy, accessed May 14, 2025, https://www.joeledmundanderson.com/the-wasteland-by-t-s-eliot-a-reading-and-explanation/

42. Can someone please explain Blade Runner? : r/movies - Reddit, accessed May 14, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/sgo71r/can_someone_please_explain_blade_runner/

43. Blade Runner: English Analysis, Summary, Themes & Characters - Art of Smart, accessed May 14, 2025, https://artofsmart.com.au/english/blade-runner-analysis/

44. Runner: The Video Game - IGI Global, accessed May 14, 2025, https://www.igi-global.com/viewtitle.aspx?TitleId=157022

45. anapplefortheteacher.files.wordpress.com, accessed May 14, 2025, https://anapplefortheteacher.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/androids_and_bladerunner.pdf

46. hrcak.srce.hr, accessed May 14, 2025, https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/397194

47. The Intertextuality of Works of Art in Advertising - ResearchGate, accessed May 14, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Eduardo-Cintra-Torres/publication/283697158_The_Intertextuality_of_Works_of_Art_in_Advertising/links/5be2ba9b299bf1124fc0a6f2/The-Intertextuality-of-Works-of-Art-in-Advertising.pdf

48. pdfs.semanticscholar.org, accessed May 14, 2025, https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e8de/7ece3039c233b97b0b407634b9f7fc54680b.pdf

49. ira.lib.polyu.edu.hk, accessed May 14, 2025, http://ira.lib.polyu.edu.hk/bitstream/10397/99193/1/Xing_Multimodal_Intertextuality_Persuasion.pdf

50. accessed December 31, 1969, http://ira.lib.polyu.edu.hk/bitstream/10397/99193/1/Multimodal_Intertextuality_Persuasion.pdf

51. The Revolutionary Ad: Unveiling the Impact of Apple's '1984 ..., accessed May 14, 2025, https://www.brandvertising.ch/2023/06/apple-1984-campaign/

52. "For the Rest of Us": A Reader-Oriented Interpretation of Apple's ..., accessed May 14, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265898012_For_the_Rest_of_Us_A_Reader-Oriented_Interpretation_of_Apple's_1984_Commercial

53. (PDF) Cultural Identity and Intertextual Discourse: A Study of Paper ..., accessed May 14, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378962542_Cultural_Identity_and_Intertextual_Discourse_A_Study_of_Paper_Menagerie

54. SHELLEY REED INTERTEXTUAL PAINTINGS - Visions West Contemporary, accessed May 14, 2025, https://www.visionswestcontemporary.com/artist/230/pdf/WA&A%20Article%20Print%20Out%202018.pdf

55. enrique manjavacas arévalo COMPUTATIONAL APPROACHES TO INTERTEXTUALITY, accessed May 14, 2025, https://repository.uantwerpen.be/docman/irua/6b6d46/178931.pdf

56. DHQ: Digital Humanities Quarterly: Systems of Intertextuality: Towards a formalization of text relations for manual annotation and automated reasoning, accessed May 14, 2025, https://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/17/3/000731/000731.html

57. Characterizing the Effects of Translation on Intertextuality using Multilingual Embedding Spaces - arXiv, accessed May 14, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2501.10731v1

58. Large language models are post-structuralist intertexts - University of Texas at Austin, accessed May 14, 2025, https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/items/a48fe4de-1445-42cb-b22d-1eb0d35f043c

59. Roe | Text reuse as cultural practice: intertextuality in the 18th ..., accessed May 14, 2025, https://digitalenlightenmentstudies.org/article/id/23/

60. aclanthology.org, accessed May 14, 2025, https://aclanthology.org/2025.naacl-short.14.pdf

61. Applying Topic Modeling to Literary Analysis: A Review - ResearchGate, accessed May 14, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/386139568_Applying_Topic_Modeling_to_Literary_Analysis_A_Review

62. AI-textuality: Expanding intertextuality to theorize human-AI interaction with generative artificial intelligence | Applied Linguistics | Oxford Academic, accessed May 14, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amaf016/8116680?searchresult=1

63. 3.1: Intertextuality - Humanities LibreTexts, accessed May 14, 2025, https://human.libretexts.org/Courses/University_of_Arkansas_Little_Rock/ENGL_3330%3A_Approaches_to_Literature_(McAbee)/03%3A_Texts_in_Conversation/3.01%3A_Intertextuality

64. Intertextuality, accessed May 14, 2025, https://core-cms.cambridgecore.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/65C0B7266E972C0FBAEEA5834052F459/9781139696425c12_p171-183_CBO.pdf/intertextuality.pdf

65. Difference between Structuralism and Post-Structuralism | Free ..., accessed May 14, 2025, https://aithor.com/essay-examples/difference-between-structuralism-and-post-structuralism