Kandamkulathy 1

Ajay Kandamkulathy

Ms. Gonzalez

ENC 1102

February 27, 2024

Reading Response # 3

In the article “Intertextualities”, Bazerman presents the idea that understanding the

concept of textuality is one of the most difficult to understand when pertaining to writing studies.

He supports this argument by referencing various philosophers (Kristeva, Bakhtin, and

Volosinov). The idea of intertextuality was first introduced by Volosinov, then updated by

Bakhtin, before the actual word was introduced by Kristeva. While Kristeva’s view on it is more

modernized and a combination of both Bakhtin’s and Volosinov’s prior ideas, Bakhtin and

Volosinov have ideas on the concept that differ in both “motives” and “forces” which

complicates the meaning of the term for people. I think one thing that I find shocking about his

argument is how the term can be seen as a simple idea after searching it up, but can be seen as so

difficult when really analyzed and while it was in the developmental stages of being an idea.

Starting off, Volosinov believes that with the concept that would become intertextuality, language

being used cannot be properly understood “apart from its instances of use” where language can

be understood with “surrounding utterances” (Bazerman 54). Bakhtin would challenge this

interpretation. Contrasting from Volosinov, Bakhtin focused on how the relations shown between

characters and narrators can create “narrower” questions of the works themselves. I would say

Bakhtin’s interpretation is more modernized as it recognizes the relationships between

characters, whereas Volosinov does not interpret much from the potential relationships between
 Kandamkulathy 2

characters and the understanding of the language used in works. Last but not least, the term in

textuality would be introduced by Kristeva which was published (in English translation) in 1980.

She describes intertextuality as a “mosaic of quotations” meaning that the dialogue between

characters creates the art of a work and that it is the most artistic part of a written work.

One strength in Bazerman’s argument is that he uses works published by these philosophers, seen

as credible sources, to support his point throughout the article. However, this could also be seen

as a weakness if the philosophers happen to update their interpretations later on due to the

evolution of the concept. Bazerman tries to fix this possible weakness by including multiple

articles written by Bakhtin, however it is harder for him to find multiple articles on this topic

from Volosinov due to the difficulty of finding translated versions of his work. Another strength

of his argument is that he has first-hand experience with this problem. Bazerman incorporates his

experience as an English teacher in the 1970’s and how this problem was seen with his students.

He explains that after surveying his students and their work, he came to the conclusion that it

was difficult for them to incorporate intertextuality because they were being asked to use texts

that were “organized along disciplinary lines” which did not display much intertextuality.

With my research, intertextuality will be used when I compare works from two different

genders of artists, mainly in my elaboration of the comparisons. I will be making new

comparisons and expanding on points that have been made in the past. I will also be using

intertextuality when gathering sources for my paper as I will be creating authority with my work.

Displaying intertextuality in my work will be important because I will be discussing the issue of

misogyny through the reactions seen in explicit music and the relationships between the art and

artists’ is important in showing that.

Kandamkulathy 3