The theory of intertextuality, which is proposed by Julia Kristeva is not the starting point for the textual interrelations. This paper considers the main traces of intertextuality through literary development. The intertextuality is being discussed in variety of viewpoints and Kristeva’s model is applied for studying Tom Stoppard’s Cahoot’s Macbeth as the contemporary play which is made on its Shakespearean bases. There are many traces that all together prove the Kristevan theory of Intertextuality, asserting text as “mosaic of quotations”. Tom Stoppard uses different techniques in producing this play. Stoppard, in Cahoot’s Macbeth restates the story of Macbeth, for his political and satirical intentions in the totalitarian social and political context of Czechoslovakia in the second half of the twentieth century in the Eastern Europe. There are many ellipses and compressions to make it more qualified for performing in a modern society. This play can be studied based on Kristevan notion of intertextuality in two levels. There are processes of deconstructing and reconstructing meanings in horizontal level between the play and the audience while in vertical level, this play is enrooted in Shakespeare’s works. Intertextuality causes the literary productivity and the excessiveness of interpretations due to the dialogic nature of language.
| Published in | English Language, Literature & Culture (Volume 2, Issue 2) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.ellc.20170202.12 |
| Page(s) | 17-24 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2017. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Ambivalence, Dialogism, Semiotics, Intertextuality, Texts Within Text
| [1] | Abrams, M. H. A Glossary of Literary Terms. 7th. ed. Boston: Heinle & Heinle, 1999. |
| [2] | Alfaro, María Jesús Martínez. “Intertextuality: Origins and Development of the Concept.” Atlantis 18 (1996): 268-85. JSTOR. Web. 5 September 2012. http://www.jstore.org/stable/480142. |
| [3] | Allen, Graham. Intertextuality. London: Routledge, 2000. |
| [4] | Bakhtin, M. M. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays, Trans. V. W. McGee. C. Emerson and M. Holquist (eds). Austin: U of Texas P, 1986. |
| [5] | Barthes, Roland. “The Death of the Author,” Trans. Stephen Heath. Twentieth-Century Literary Theory. 2nd ed. K. M. Newton. New York: ST. Martin’s P, 1997. 120-23. |
| [6] | Bloom, Harold. “Poetry, Revisionism and Region.” Twentieth-Century Literary Theory. 2nd ed. K. M. Newton. New York: ST. Martin’s P, 1997. 148-52. |
| [7] | Bull, John. “Tom Stoppard and Politics.” Katherine E. Kelly 136-53. |
| [8] | Castle, Gregory. The Blackwell Guide to Literary Theory. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007. |
| [9] | Cohn, Ruby. Retreats from Realism in Recent English Drama. Cambridge: Cambridge U P, 1991. |
| [10] | Cuddon, J. A. A Dictionary of Literary Terms. New York: Penguin, 1984. |
| [11] | Culler, Jonathan. Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics and the Study of Literature. London: Routledge, 1975. |
| [12] | “Presupposition and Intertextuality.” Comparative Literature 91. 6 (1976): 1380-96. JSTOR. Web. 24 June 2012. http://www.jstore.org/stable/2907142. |
| [13] | Delaney, Paul. “Exit Tomáš Straüssler, Enter Sir Tom Stoppard.” Katherine E. Kelly 25-37. |
| [14] | Freeman, John. “Holding up the Mirror to Mind’s Nature: Reading Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead Beyond Absurdity.” The Modern Language Review 91.1 (1996): 20-39. JSTOR. Web. 22 September 2012. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3733994. |
| [15] | Genette, Gerard. Figures of Literary Discourse, Trans. Alan Sheridan. New York: Columbia U P, 1982. |
| [16] | Green, T. M. The light in Troy: Imitation and Discovery in Renaissance Poetry. New Haven: Chicago U P, 1 Levenson, Jill L. “Stoppard’s Shakespeare: Textual Re-visions.” Katherine E. Kelly 154-69.982. |
| [17] | Kristeva, Julia. The Kristeva Reader. Toril Moi (ed.). Oxford: Blackwell, 1986. |
| [18] | Revolution in Poetic Language, Trans. Margaret Waller. New York: Columbia U P, 1984. |
| [19] | Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art, Trans. Thomas Gora, Alice Jardine and Leon S. Roudiez, Leon S. Roudiez (ed.). New York: Columbia U P, 1980. |
| [20] | “Word, Dialogue and Novel.” Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art, Trans. Thomas Gora, Alice Jardine and Leon S. Roudiez (ed.). New York: |
| [21] | “Intertextuality vs. Hypertextuality.” New Literary History 25. 4 (1994): 779-88. JSTOR. Web. 24 June 2012. http://www.jstore.org/stable/4609373. |
| [22] | Murry, Chris, ed. Encyclopedia of Literary Critics and Criticism. Vol. 1. Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, 1999. |
| [23] | Orr, Mary. Intertextuality: Debates and Context. Oxford: Blackwell, 2003. |
| [24] | Payne, Michael, ed. A Dictionary of Cultural and Critical Theory. 2nd ed. London: Blackwell, 2010. |
| [25] | Riffaterre, Michael. “Compulsory Reader Response: the Intertexual Drive.” Worton and Still 56-78. |
| [26] | “Intertextuality vs. Hypertextuality.” New Literary History 25. 4 (1994): 779-88. JSTOR. Web. 24 June 2012. http://www.jstore.org/stable/4609373. |
| [27] | Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. The Library Shakespeare. Vol. 2. London: Trident P International, 1999. 101-42. |
| [28] | Macbeth. The Library Shakespeare. Vol 2. London: Trident P International, 1999. 1-30. |
| [29] | Stoppard, Tom. Rosencrantz and Gildenstern Are Dead. London: Faber and Faber, 1967. |
| [30] | Dogg’s Hamlet, Cahoo’s Macbeth. London: Faber and Faber, 1980. |
| [31] | Worton, Micheal and Still, Judith, ed. Intertextuality: Theories and Practices. Manchester: Manchester U P, 1990. |
APA Style
Fatemeh Sadat Basirizadeh, Amirhossein Emamirad. (2017). Study of Intertextuality in Cahoot’s Macbeth: A Kristevan Reading. English Language, Literature & Culture, 2(2), 17-24. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ellc.20170202.12
ACS Style
Fatemeh Sadat Basirizadeh; Amirhossein Emamirad. Study of Intertextuality in Cahoot’s Macbeth: A Kristevan Reading. Engl. Lang. Lit. Cult. 2017, 2(2), 17-24. doi: 10.11648/j.ellc.20170202.12
AMA Style
Fatemeh Sadat Basirizadeh, Amirhossein Emamirad. Study of Intertextuality in Cahoot’s Macbeth: A Kristevan Reading. Engl Lang Lit Cult. 2017;2(2):17-24. doi: 10.11648/j.ellc.20170202.12
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.ellc.20170202.12,
author = {Fatemeh Sadat Basirizadeh and Amirhossein Emamirad},
title = {Study of Intertextuality in Cahoot’s Macbeth: A Kristevan Reading},
journal = {English Language, Literature & Culture},
volume = {2},
number = {2},
pages = {17-24},
doi = {10.11648/j.ellc.20170202.12},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ellc.20170202.12},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ellc.20170202.12},
abstract = {The theory of intertextuality, which is proposed by Julia Kristeva is not the starting point for the textual interrelations. This paper considers the main traces of intertextuality through literary development. The intertextuality is being discussed in variety of viewpoints and Kristeva’s model is applied for studying Tom Stoppard’s Cahoot’s Macbeth as the contemporary play which is made on its Shakespearean bases. There are many traces that all together prove the Kristevan theory of Intertextuality, asserting text as “mosaic of quotations”. Tom Stoppard uses different techniques in producing this play. Stoppard, in Cahoot’s Macbeth restates the story of Macbeth, for his political and satirical intentions in the totalitarian social and political context of Czechoslovakia in the second half of the twentieth century in the Eastern Europe. There are many ellipses and compressions to make it more qualified for performing in a modern society. This play can be studied based on Kristevan notion of intertextuality in two levels. There are processes of deconstructing and reconstructing meanings in horizontal level between the play and the audience while in vertical level, this play is enrooted in Shakespeare’s works. Intertextuality causes the literary productivity and the excessiveness of interpretations due to the dialogic nature of language.},
year = {2017}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Study of Intertextuality in Cahoot’s Macbeth: A Kristevan Reading AU - Fatemeh Sadat Basirizadeh AU - Amirhossein Emamirad Y1 - 2017/04/11 PY - 2017 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ellc.20170202.12 DO - 10.11648/j.ellc.20170202.12 T2 - English Language, Literature & Culture JF - English Language, Literature & Culture JO - English Language, Literature & Culture SP - 17 EP - 24 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2575-2413 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ellc.20170202.12 AB - The theory of intertextuality, which is proposed by Julia Kristeva is not the starting point for the textual interrelations. This paper considers the main traces of intertextuality through literary development. The intertextuality is being discussed in variety of viewpoints and Kristeva’s model is applied for studying Tom Stoppard’s Cahoot’s Macbeth as the contemporary play which is made on its Shakespearean bases. There are many traces that all together prove the Kristevan theory of Intertextuality, asserting text as “mosaic of quotations”. Tom Stoppard uses different techniques in producing this play. Stoppard, in Cahoot’s Macbeth restates the story of Macbeth, for his political and satirical intentions in the totalitarian social and political context of Czechoslovakia in the second half of the twentieth century in the Eastern Europe. There are many ellipses and compressions to make it more qualified for performing in a modern society. This play can be studied based on Kristevan notion of intertextuality in two levels. There are processes of deconstructing and reconstructing meanings in horizontal level between the play and the audience while in vertical level, this play is enrooted in Shakespeare’s works. Intertextuality causes the literary productivity and the excessiveness of interpretations due to the dialogic nature of language. VL - 2 IS - 2 ER -
Email: