INTERTEXTUALITY

GRAHAM ALLEN

Origins: Saussure, Bakhtin, Kristeva

TEL QUEL: PRODUCTON:
KRSTEVA
Tel Quel
Tel Quel was a french literary
journal published between 1960
and 1982.
It was founded by Philippe
Sollers.
Many essays on post-
structuralism and deconstruction
inspired by Saussurean linguistics
were published in this journal.
As Allen points out in his book
Intertextuality 1960s in
France was a time of theory
quoting Patrick Ffrenchs
definition. (Allen, 2000: 30)
 TEL QUEL
The role of literature and literary language
was key to the rise of post-structuralist theory
which was mostly seen in the journal Tel Quel.
Major theorists of the time suuch as Jacques
Derrida, Roland Barthes, Philippe Sollers,
Micheal Foucault and Julie Kristeva took part
in Tel Quels investigation of literatures
relation to political and philosophical thought
(Allen, 2000: 31).
 TEL QUEL
Kristeva along with the other Tel Quel
theorists view the notions of a relationship
between the signifiers and the signifieds as
a means with which the dominant ideology
at rule maintains its power and suppresses
other revolutionary thoughts.
The Tel Quel society attack the very
foundations of meaning (Allen, 2000)
 TEL QUEL

The notions of stable signifiers/signifieds

relations, meaning and communication
presents knowledge and inttellectual work as
an object of value that can be bought or sold
placing them into the capitalist market system
 TEL QUEL
Kristeva, with this new mode of semiotics
tries to capture a vision of texts that are
always in a state of production rather than
being products to be quickly consumed.
(Allen, 2000: 34).
This Kristevas concept focuses on the
dynamical character of the process of
generative activity productivity rather
than on some final actual product.
 CONCLUSON: BAKHTN V.S. KRSTEVA
Bakhtin with his theories of dialogism,
heteroglossia, focuses more on the human
subjects operating language in social
contexts.
Kristeva omits that human subject just like
texts and textuality.
She makes use of Bahktins view double-
voiced texts, enhances it but totaly
abandons his notionts of dialogism due its
nature of accepting a simplified, unified and
stable meaning.
CONCLUSON: BAKHTN V.S. KRSTEVA
Kristevas conception of intertextuality opens
several spaces not in Bakhtin. The first
involves a vagueness about the relation of the
social to the literary text. Kristeva does not
discuss what happens to a fragment of the
social text when it is absorped and
 CONCLUSON: BAKHTN V.S. KRSTEVA
Jill Felicity Durey views Kristevas work as a
misrepresentation of Bakhtin that corrupts
the author-writer bond into a plain and
abstract linguistic and textual processes.
(Allen, 2000: 57)
 CONCLUSON: BAKHTN V.S. KRSTEVA
Intertextuality with its complex history, drags us
to series of oppositions which leads us to an
instable manner.
Our goal should be to deal with this concept in its
split, contradictory, and most importantly
unstable nature rather than seeing it as an
informative tool, an asset that can be bought and
sold or a model for interpretation.
As Kristeva adequately put herself with her
semianalysis, we must enter into the process of
practice and productivity with the author, reader,
analyst and the critic over the text not expect a
finished and ready text.