Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Intertextuality: Zeinab Nasrollahi
Intertextuality: Zeinab Nasrollahi
Intertextuality: Zeinab Nasrollahi
Zeinab Nasrollahi
Paratextuality
Genette:
The paratext marks those elements which lie
on the threshold of the text and which help to
direct and control the reception of a text by its
readers.
2
Paratextuality
Threshold consists of a
• Peritext, i.e. titles, chapter titles, prefaces
and notes
• Epitext consisting of elements – such as
interviews, publicity announcements,
reviews by and addresses to critics, private
letters and other authorial and editorial
discussions– ‘outside’ of the text in
question.
Paratext: Peritext + Epitext 3
Paratextuality
5
Paratextuality
6
Paratextuality
Paratexts
• autographic,
• allographic
They can slip into modes of ambiguity
crucial for an interpretation of the text.
Paratexts can signify a text’s status as
part of a literary canon and thus worthy
of study
7
Paratextuality
8
Hypertextuality
9
Hypertextuality
13
Hypertextuality
15
STRUCTURALIST
HERMENEUTICS:
RIFFATERRE
The core of Riffaterre’s semiotic
approach is:
• his belief that literary texts are not referential
(mimetic).
• they have their meaning because of the semiotic
structures which link up their individual words,
phrases, sentences, key images, themes and
rhetorical devices.
• signaled by this anti-referential approach
16
STRUCTURALIST
HERMENEUTICS:
RIFFATERRE
Riffaterre refers to: ‘referential fallacy’
• the text refers not to objects outside of itself, but
to an inter-text
• For Riffaterre, true analysis seeks to describe the
uniqueness of the literary text.
Riffaterre states that the ‘largest analysable corpus that
we conceive in literature should be the text and not a
collection of texts’
The text itself, because of its uniqueness ‘control its
own decoding
17
STRUCTURALIST
HERMENEUTICS:
RIFFATERRE
The reading strategy Riffaterre charts is one in which
the reader at first seeking for a textual mimesis is
forced, by the indeterminacies of the text, into a deeper
examination of the text’s non-referential structures.
Reading, then, takes place on two successive levels:
• first, a mimetic level which tries to relate textual
signs to external referents and tends to proceed in a
linear fashion; (Mimetic)
• second, a retroactive reading which proceeds, in a
nonlinear fashion, to unearth the underlying
semiotic units and structures which produce the
text’s non-referential significance. (semiotic)
18
STRUCTURALIST
HERMENEUTICS:
RIFFATERRE
What forces the reader into the leap from a mimetic to
semiotic interpretation of the text is recognizing what
Riffaterre calls the text’s ‘ungrammaticalities’.
Ungrammaticalities are aspects of the text which are
contradictory on a referential reading but resolved when
we reread the text in terms of its underlying sign
structures.
By analyzing a poem by Sylvia Plath, the necessity of a
semiotic analysis is pinpointed which apparently
ambiguous images and phrases are connected on a
deeper, non-referential level.
19
STRUCTURALIST
HERMENEUTICS:
RIFFATERRE
Riffaterre resists the traditional literary critical notion of
‘ambiguity’ and the various poststructuralist and
deconstructionist versions of that concept.
Riffaterre prefers to substitute alternative figures and
explanatory concepts which work to reinforce the
notion of a move from initial ambiguity or
ungrammaticality on a mimetic level to final
decidability on a semiotic level.
Against the term ambiguity, Riffaterre offers the
rhetorical term ‘syllepsis’, a word which means
something in one context and has an opposed or
clashing meaning in another context.
20
STRUCTURALIST
HERMENEUTICS:
RIFFATERRE
Another term frequently invoked by Riffaterre, the
‘interpretant’ is a sign which explains the relation
between one sign and another sign.
For Riffaterre, texts produce their significance out of
transformations of socially normative discourse, which
he calls the ‘sociolect’.
A text’s significance, we might say, depends on an
‘idiolect’ which transforms a recognizable element of
the sociolect by means of inversion, conversion,
expansion or juxtaposition.
21
STRUCTURALIST
HERMENEUTICS:
RIFFATERRE
The way the reader recognizes this transformation, and
so recognizes the text’s semiotic unity, is to discover
what Riffaterre calls the poem’s ‘matrix’, a word,
phrase or sentence unit which does not necessarily exist
in the text itself but which represents the kernel upon
which the text’s semiotic system is based.
The matrix is hypothetical, being only the grammatical
and lexical actualization of a structure
The text’s structural unity is created by the
transformation of this matrix.
22
STRUCTURALIST
HERMENEUTICS:
RIFFATERRE
Only when we have recognized the matrix and passed to the
semiotic significance of the text, do the text’s various
apparent ‘ungrammaticalities’ become understandable as
referring to an ‘invariant’ structure.
Riffaterre is a superb close reader of texts, his characteristic
manner of presenting theoretical points being through
intricate interpretations of canonical texts.
Riffaterre’s concern is with what it is to read, with what it is
to produce a text.
This concern with the phenomenology of reading can be
discerned in the rather blurred relationship drawn in his work
between the notion of the ‘intertext’and of the ‘hypogram’
23
STRUCTURALIST
HERMENEUTICS:
RIFFATERRE
Intertextuality is the web of functions that constitutes
and regulates the relationship between text and intertext
inter-text is a corpus of texts, textual fragments, or
text-like segments of the sociolect that shares a lexicon
and, to a lesser extent, a syntax with the text we are
reading (directly or indirectly) in the form of synonyms,
or even conversely, in the form of antonyms. In
addition, each member of this corpus is a structural
homologue of the text.
inter-text is an aspect of the sociolect rather than a specific
text or group of texts
for semiotic interpretation to occur, all that is required is
what he calls the presupposition of the intertext.
24
STRUCTURALIST
HERMENEUTICS:
RIFFATERRE
We do not, that is, need to discover specific inter-texts
behind the texts we read; all we need to do to produce a
sufficient interpretation is to assume that such an inter-text –
either a specific text or a piece of socially significant
language – is being transformed by the text in question.
Intertextual reading is the perception of similar
comparabilities from text to text; or it is the assumption that
such comparing must be done if there is no intertext at hand
wherein to find comparabilities.
hypogram is ‘the text imagined by him [the reader] in its
pretransformational state’
25
STRUCTURALIST
HERMENEUTICS:
RIFFATERRE
This hypogram (a single sentence or string of
sentences) may be made out of clichés, or it may be a
quotation from another text, or a descriptive system.
Since the hypogram always has a positive or a negative
‘orientation’, the constituents of the conversion always
transmute the hypogram’s markers ...
This means that the significance will be a positive
valorization of the textual semiotic unit if the hypogram
is negative, and a negative valorization if the hypogram
is positive.
26
STRUCTURALIST
HERMENEUTICS:
RIFFATERRE
the hypogram represents specifically literary or
‘poeticized’ signs.
A hypogram depends on the notion that certain words
or word groups already possess a ‘poetic’ function in
the sociolect.
Riffaterre’s interpretive practice is dependent on
discovering the ways in which texts produce semiotic
unity by transforming socially shared codes, clichés,
oppositions and descriptive systems; yet such an
approach refuses to accept that such a reliance on the
sociolect involves the text in anything other than its
own self-generating system, its idiolectic and thus
unique significance.
27
Literary competence
28
Literary competence
29
Literary competence
30
Literary competence