Abstract

Kristeva coined the term, intertextuality in 1966, and since that time intertextuality has come to have almost as many meanings as its users. It is no small task for this paper to clarify what intertextuality means for Kristeva and her mentor/colleague, Roland Barthes before criticizing their concept of intertextuality and its application in interpretation. Because no rational and coherent concept of intertextuality is offered by Kristeva and Barthes or by their Epigoni, it will be concluded that intertextuality should be treated using lexicon of sincere and intelligent humanists. This work will discuss and analyze some types and theories of intertextuality, with examples. These examples would be based on the definitions discussed in this paper, because it is discovered in this research that there are conflicting views among scholars on this topic. For instance, while some authors consider pictures as texts, others do not. At the end of the work, it will be taken that any text is a new tissue of past citations. Bits of code, formulae, rhythmic models, fragments of social languages etc are passed into the text and are redistributed within it, for there is always language before and around the text. Intertextuality, the condition of any text whatsoever, cannot of course be reduced to sources or influences of problem;  intertext is a general field of anonymous formulae whose origin can scarcely be ever located; of unconscious or automatic quotations, given without quotation marks.

Key words: Intertxuality, imitation, film, literature, art.