Intertextuality and Interdiscursivity

Abstract

0171.xml and sites of application, including ritual, the law, economy, academic discourse, and media, among others. Scholars wishing to engage the primary sources common to contemporary traditions should refer to the works listed below in *Key Works*. Scholars new to the topic or interested in the most recent applications should see *Current Discussions* and *Monographs, Edited Volumes, Special Issues*. KEY WORKSA number of works serve as important touchstones for current applications and discussions and remain frequently cited. Anthropology's engagement with the idea of intertextuality has largely been through uptake of Bakhtin, especially Bakhtin 1981. Hill 1985 and Hanks 1986 were among the first to draw on Bakhtinian ideas as a method of social discourse analysis. Hanks 1989 offers an early review article on textuality, synthesizing a number of approaches to text, discourse, and genre. The major citations for intertextuality are Bauman and Briggs 1990 and Briggs and Bauman 1992 (see *Genre* for further discussion). In these twin articles, the authors introduce a number of terms--entextualization, decontextualization, recontextualization, as well as intertextual gap--that have remained enduring theoretical resources for ethnographic analysis. For sociolinguistic approaches, Fairclough 1992 provides a

One confession, multiple chronotopes: The interdiscursive authentication of an apology in an international criminal trial

“…Overall, the analysis contributes to ongoing debates about intertextuality and interdiscursivity, and the latter's role as a possible umbrella notion (Silverstein, 2005, cf. the discussion in Prentice & Barker, 2017). Language and law scholars have extensively demonstrated the structuring force of intertextuality proper, drawing attention to the role that text trajectories and ‘traveling texts’ (Heffer et al., 2013; Komter, 2019) play in ‘shifting’ evidence (Ehrlich, 2012) and in importing hegemonic masculinity (Ehrlich, 2012; Matoesian, 2001) or colonial hierarchy (Eades, 2008) into the courtroom (which in turn trades on the ‘textualist ideology’ [Mertz, 2007] that permeates the legal procedure).…”

Understanding the Roles of Rhetorical Devices and Intertextuality in Promotional Discourse

“…An equally important element in advertisements is intertextuality. The term was officially introduced by Julia Kristeva in 1966 (Prentice and Barker, 2017). Kristeva opined that a text is not an isolated piece of work but rather it is conceptualised based on various referents such as discourse, texts and genres (Elmo Raj, 2015).…”

Interdiscursivity in the English Orthodox Sermon

“…напр. : В. Бхатія [10], Л. Чуліаракі [11], М. Прентіс і М. Баркер [18], Цзяньго У [19]), а також вітчизняних (О.О. Бойко [2], С. Застровська і О. Найдюк [3], Н.К.…”

“…Ляшко [7]) дослідників. Найбільш ґрунтовною, на наш погляд, є праця М. Прентіс і М. Баркер [18], в якій науковці приділяють значну увагу понятійно-термінологічному апарату та аналізу досліджень, присвячених поняттю інтердискурсивності. Аналіз останніх досліджень і публікацій доводить, що актуальним у сучасній лінгвістиці залишається проблема розмежування термінів інтердискурсивності, інтертекстуальності та суміжних термінів.…”