Lauren Shively and Bailey Rhodes
As we read, we are recreating meaning from the words on a page. As we make connections, we bring the words to life, but we bring our lives to the writing as well. We each interpret texts differently depending on where we are coming from. Part of this context includes the reading we’ve done in the past. This idea that texts get their meanings from other texts is known as intertextuality. Intertextuality has long been a focus in literary criticism. Theorist Julia Kristeva coined the term in the 1960s, but before that T.S. Eliot pondered the interplay between texts on an even larger scale. In “Tradition and the Individual Talent,” Eliot writes that when a new work of art is created, “the whole existing order must be, if ever so slightly, altered; and so the relations, proportions, values of each work of art toward the whole are readjusted; and this is conformity between the old and the new” (37). Though Eliot is discussing canon formation—intertextuality at the highest level—the same is true on a personal level. Each new work we read expands the catalog of our internal libraries, adding more pieces to the puzzle of links that our brains can make while reading. These texts come to bear on our future reading. As Kevin Roozen indicates in Naming What We Know, “whatever meaning a writer or reader makes of a particular text is not a result of their engagements with that particular text alone” (44). Across literary studies, there is disagreement on how intertextuality should be defined, understood in the process of reading and writing, and taught in the classroom.
Across different fields of literary study, intertextuality has different specified definitions based on its intended breadth of use. According to Ann Rigney in “Texts and Intertextuality,” intertextuality can most broadly be understood as “all the possible relationships between a text and previous utterances” (99). As implied by the word choice “utterances,” this is not limited to the written word. Instead, these relationships can exist between entire genres, styles, or traditions, as in Eliot’s case. Similarly, Frank D’Angelo, in “The Rhetoric of Intertextuality,” summarizes intertextuality as “[describing] the relationship that exists between texts” (33). The essence of intertextuality is then its relational nature, the connections between works that exist and may be uncovered. A narrower and perhaps more useful definition of intertextuality is “an aesthetic device whereby a new text cites, with varying degrees of explicitness, a specific text” (Rigney 99). Rigney cites several modes of intertextuality, including allusions, retellings, and parodies. D’Angelo expands on these categories by examining how each functions rhetorically to further the purpose of a text. These references are typically inexplicit, but detectable and significant to those who have the requisite knowledge. Rigney explains that meaning is created in the conversation between texts, and that the path that conversation takes “ultimately depends on the reader’s previous knowledge and cultural repertoire” (101). Again, this reminds us that intertextuality relies on more than just written texts, but instead draws on narratives of cultural knowledge. D’Angelo concurs, and seeks to expand the definition of intertextuality to less literary fields of writing, such as rhetoric and composition.
As a writing studies scholar, Roozen can contribute more to the composition side of this discussion. In his chapter, “Texts Get Their Meanings From Other Texts,” Roozen expands the types of texts we ought to consider to nonwritten texts and texts which have yet to be written. Even the examples he gives—of someone writing a shopping list based on an older list, a student writing notes with the upcoming exam in mind, or a child thinking of films while being read a book—focus us in on more real-world conceptions of the interplay between pieces of text. So, when Roozen says that, “Rather than existing as autonomous documents, texts always refer to other texts and rely heavily on those texts to make meaning” (44), we can understand these texts both as multi-media interactions as well as those which exist with texts that are not yet recorded or which will never be recorded. While D’Angelo focuses on the strategies that intertextuality employs, Roozen begins to widen our understanding of what a “text” can be and stresses the importance of understanding intertextuality for students, teachers, theorists, alike, both in the classroom and beyond, as Armstrong, Newman, Bloome, and Egan-Robertson will discuss.
In order to move forward with intertextuality and its application to reading and writing processes, we must understand the definition of “text.” Both Sonya L. Armstrong and Mary Newman, in their article “Teaching Textual Conversations: Intertextuality in the College Reading Classroom,” and David Bloome and Ann Egan-Robertson, in their article “The Social Construction of Intertextuality,” emphasize the need for students to broaden their understanding of the meaning of the word “text.” For Armstrong and Newman, “a text can be defined as a conversation that is informed by other conversations” (17). Likewise, Bloome and Egan-Robertson propose that a text “is something done by people to experience (broadly defined)” (311). Both sets of authors argue that intertextuality is more of a conversation between the text and the reader and that it is a social construct consisting of people’s actions and reactions. Armstrong and Newman explain that, when students come to understand that their role as readers is an active process of conversing with a text and reacting to it in various contexts, they will be able to use intertextuality to draw connections and form advanced critical thinking skills as they read (7). Similarly, Bloome and Egan-Robertson reveal that “The intertextual links [students] make may be at a variety of levels (content, text structure, genre) and of various complexity and explicitness” (307), as intertextuality involves the relationships between many different kinds of texts. Though Armstrong and Newman have not researched the way writing is influenced by intertextuality, Bloome and Egan-Robertson explore the ways in which, through “writing, students may employ their previous reading and writing experiences as guides and resources for their current efforts” (307). Intertextuality between all genres that is related to conversation and writing has a profound impact on students’ reading and writing processes and should be modeled to students prior to their entrance into college.
Armstrong and Newman converge with Bloome and Egan-Robertson in their belief that the best way to expose students to intertextuality is through teaching using multiple genres. Armstrong and Newman propose that educators should “offer multiple texts and materials of a wide variety of genres to give students the opportunity to increase background knowledge; make connections across and among texts; develop multiple perspectives, interpretations, and a broader picture of a topic; and develop their critical thinking skills” (9). Additionally, they advocate for three types of intertextual connections: associating the text students are reading with a text they have read previously, integrating their background knowledge into the text, and evaluating the text in terms of personal opinion and comparison to previous texts they have read (11). Bloome and Egan-Robertson agree with Armstrong and Newman’s advocacy for teaching with various genres, since “Intertextuality is not limited to explicit or implicit references to other texts, and it is not limited to literary texts. Nor is it limited to imitation. Rather, intertextuality can occur at many levels (e.g., . . . situational contexts in which texts occur), and in many ways (e.g., . . . genres)” (306). Like Armstrong and Newman, Bloome and Egan-Robertson identify three levels of analysis—description, interpretation, and explanation— that prove useful when considering the social framework of intertextuality in the classroom setting. They explain, “description notes what occurs, interpretation presents the meaning of what occurs within that event…and explanation locates the event and its meaning within broader social, political, cultural, and educational frameworks” (330). Though these levels are different from Armstrong and Newman’s three types of intertextual connections, there is a recognizable pattern traveling from students’ grasping a basic understanding of a text (associating and describing) to their situating it within the context of a particular field (evaluating and explaining).
Overall, the idea that texts get their meaning from other texts allows for a richer understanding of the processes of reading and writing and for a useful application of intertextuality in the classroom setting to strengthen students’ critical thinking and meaning-making skills. Roozen expresses that, “For teachers, recognizing that texts work in conjunction with other texts is a key first step toward creating opportunities for students to engage with a wide variety of texts, perhaps even ones that might not be privileged in formal educational settings” (46). It seems that the best way to implement intertextuality in the classroom is to give students different types of texts and allow them to make connections in relation to Armstrong and Newman’s associating, integrating, and evaluating model and Bloome and Egan-Robertson’s description, interpretation, and explanation model. Ultimately, the main idea is to help students recognize when they might need more information to have a more meaningful conversation with a text, as Armstrong and Newman point out (17), and to “facilitate the building of a knowledge base on topics associated with a core text or content topic” (11). As students build this “knowledge base” throughout their lives, their conversations and reactions to the texts they read will deepen and prove more fruitful.
Armstrong, Sonya L., and Mary Newman. “Teaching Textual Conversations: Intertextuality in the College Reading Classroom.” Journal of College Reading and Learning, vol. 41, no. 2, 2011, pp. 6–21. ProQuest, https://search.proquest.com/docview/863852156?accountid=8361. Accessed 9 Oct. 2020.
Bloome, David, and Ann Egan-Robertson. “The Social Construction of Intertextuality in Classroom Reading and Writing Lessons.” Reading Research Quarterly, vol. 28, no. 4, 1993, pp. 305–333. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/747928. Accessed 9 Oct. 2020.
D’Angelo, Frank J. “The Rhetoric of Intertextuality.” Rhetoric Review, vol. 29, no. 1, 2010, pp. 31–47., www.jstor.org/stable/25655982. Accessed 9 Oct. 2020.
Eliot, T. S. “Tradition and the Individual Talent.” Perspecta, vol. 19, 1982, pp. 36–42. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1567048. Accessed 4 Nov. 2020.
Roozen, Kevin. “Texts Get Their Meanings From Other Texts.” Naming What We Know: Threshold Concepts of Writing Studies, by Linda Adler-Kassner and Elizabeth A. Wardle, Utah State University Press, 2016, pp. 44–46.
Rigney, Ann. “Texts and Intertextuality.” The Life of Texts: An Introduction to Literary Studies, by Ann Rigney and Kiene Brillenburg Wurth, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, 2019, pp. 79–112. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvt9k5s9.7. Accessed 9 Oct. 2020.