Intertextuality and the Discourse : James E. Porter

7/22/2019 Intertextuality and the Discourse : James E. Porter

1/15

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (Taylor & Francis Group)

Intertextuality and the Discourse CommunityAuthor(s): James E. PorterSource: Rhetoric Review, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Autumn, 1986), pp. 34-47Published by: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (Taylor & Francis Group)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/466015

Accessed: 26/05/2009 15:51

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lebtaylorfrancis.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (Taylor & Francis Group)is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and

extend access toRhetoric Review.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/466015?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lebtaylorfrancishttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lebtaylorfrancishttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/466015?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/15

JAMES E. PORTER IndianaUniversity-PurdueUniversityat FortWayne

Intertextuality and the Discourse CommunityAt the conclusion of Eco's TheName of theRose, the monk Adso of Melkreturns o theburnedabbey,wherehe finds nthe ruinsscrapsof parchment,heonly remnants rom one of the greatlibraries n all Christendom.He spendsaday collectingthe charred ragments,hopingto discoversome meaning n thescattered pieces of books. He assembles his own lesser library . . . offragments, quotations, unfinishedsentences, amputated stumps of books

(500). To Adso, these randomshardsare an immense acrostic thatsays andrepeatsnothing (501). Yetthey are significantto him as an attempt o orderexperience.Wemightwell deriveour own orderfrom this scene. Wemightsee Adso asrepresentinghewriter,andhisdesperateactivityat theburnedabbeyas a mod-el for thewritingprocess.Thewriter nthisimageis a collectorof fragments,anarchaeologistcreatingan order,buildinga framework,fromremnantsof thepast. Insofar as the collected fragmentshelp Adso recallother,lost texts, hisexperienceaffirmsa principlehe learned romhis master,William of Basker-ville: Not infrequentlybooks speak of books (286). Not infrequently,andperhapsever andalways, textsreferto other texts andin factrelyon themfortheirmeaning.All texts areinterdependent:We understand textonly insofaras we understand ts precursors.This is theprinciplewe know as intertextuality,heprinciple hatall writingand speech-indeed, all signs-arise from a single network:whatVygotskycalled the web of meaning ;what poststructuralistsabel Text or Writing(Barthes,ecriture);andwhat a more distantage perhapsknew as logos. Exam-ining texts intertextuallymeans looking for traces, he bits andpieces ofText which writersor speakersborrow and sew togetherto create new dis-course. The most mundanemanifestation f intertextualitys explicitcitation,butintertextualitynimatesall discourseandgoes beyondmerecitation. For heintertextual ritics, Intertext s Text-a greatseamlesstextual fabric.And, asthey like to intone solemnly, no text escapes intertext.Intertextuality rovidesrhetoricwith animportant erspective,onecurrentlyneglected,Ibelieve. Theprevailingcompositionpedagogiesbyand argeculti-vate the romantic mage of writer as free, uninhibited pirit, as independent,creative genius. By identifyingand stressingthe intertextualnatureof dis-course, however,we shiftour attentionawayfromthe writeras individualand

RhetoricReview, Vol.5, No. 1, Fall 19864


3/15

Intertextuality nd the Discourse Communityfocus moreon the sourcesandsocialcontextsfrom whichthe writer'sdiscoursearises.Accordingto thisview, authorial ntention s less significant hansocialcontext;thewriter s simplyapartof a discourse radition,a memberof a team,and a participantn a communityof discourse that creates its own collectivemeaning. Thus the intertextconstrainswriting.My aim hereis to demonstrate he significanceof this theoryto rhetoric,byexplainingintertextuality,ts connectionto the notionof discoursecommuni-ty, and its pedagogical implicationsfor composition.The Presence of Intertext

Intertextualityhas been associated with both structuralism nd poststruc-turalism,with theorists ike RolandBarthes,JuliaKristeva,JacquesDerrida,HaydenWhite, HaroldBloom, Michel Foucault,and MichaelRiffaterre. Ofcourse, the theoryis most often appliedin literaryanalysis.) The centralas-sumptionof thesecritics hasbeen describedby VincentLeitch: The extis notan autonomousor unifiedobject, but a set of relationswith othertexts. Itssystem of language, its grammar, ts lexicon, drag along numerousbits andpieces-traces---of historyso that he text resemblesaCulturalSalvationArmyOutlet with unaccountable collections of incompatible ideas, beliefs, andsources (59). It is these unaccountable ollections that intertextual riticsfocuson, notthetext as autonomous ntity.Infact, these critics have redefinedthe notion of text :Text is intertext,or simplyText. The traditionalnotion ofthe textas thesinglework of a givenauthor,andeven theverynotionsof authorand reader,are regardedas simply convenient fictions for domesticatingdis-course. The old borders that we used to rope off discourse, proclaimthesecritics, are no longeruseful.We can distinguishbetween two types of intertextuality:terabilityandpresupposition. Iterabilityrefers to the repeatability of certain textualfragments, ocitation n itsbroadest enseto includenotonlyexplicitallusions,references,andquotationswithina discourse,but also unannounced ourcesandinfluences, cliches, phrases n the air,and traditions.That is to say,everydiscourseis composedof traces, pieces of other texts thathelpconstitute tsmeaning.(I will discussthisaspectof intertextualitynmy analysisof the Dec-larationof Independence.)Presupposition efers to assumptionsa text makesabout tsreferent, ts readers,and its context-to portionsof the text which areread, but which are not explicitly there. Forexample, as JonathanCullerdiscusses, thephrase JohnmarriedFred's sister s an assertion hat ogicallypresupposes hatJohnexists, thatFredexists, and thatFredhas a sister. Openthe door contains a practicalpresupposition,assumingthe presenceof a de-coder who is capableof beingaddressedand who is betterable toopenthedoor

35


4/15

RhetoricReviewthan heencoder. Onceuponatime s atracerich n rhetorical resupposition,signalingto even theyoungestreader heopeningof a fictionalnarrative.Textsnot only refer to but in fact containother texts.2An examinationof three sampletexts will illustratethe variousfacets ofintertextuality. hefirst,the Declaration f Independence,s popularlyviewedas the workof ThomasJefferson.Yet if we examine hetextcloselyin its rhetori-cal milieu,we see thatJeffersonwas authoronlyin theveryloosestof senses.Anumberof historiansandatleast twocompositionresearchersKinneavy,Theo-ry393-49;Maimon,Readings6-32) haveanalyzed heDeclaration,with inter-esting results. Theirworksuggests that Jeffersonwas by no means an origi-nalframerora creativegenius,as some like to suppose.Jeffersonwas a skilledwriter, o be sure,butchiefly because he was an effective borrowerof traces.To producehis originaldraftof the Declaration,Jefferson seems to haveborrowed,eitherconsciouslyor unconsciously, rom his culture'sText. Muchhas been made of Jefferson's reliance on Locke's social contracttheory(Becker).Locke'stheory nfluencedcolonialpoliticalphilosophy,emerging nvariouspamphletsandnewspaperarticlesof thetimes, and servedas the foun-dation for the opening section of the Declaration.The Declarationcontainsmanytraces hatcan be found nother,earlierdocuments.Therearetraces roma FirstContinentalCongressresolution,a MassachusettsCouncildeclaration,GeorgeMason's Declaration f Rightsfor Virginia, a political pamphletofJamesOtis, and a varietyof othersources,includinga colonialplay.The over-all formof the Declaration theoretical rgumentollowedbylist of grievances)stronglyresembles, ironically,the English Bill of Rights of 1689, in whichParliamentists the abuses of JamesIIanddeclaresnew powersfor itself. Sev-eral of the abuses in the Declarationseem to have been taken, more or lessverbatim, rom aPennsylvaniaEveningPost article.And the most memorablephrases ntheDeclaration eem to be leastJefferson's: Thatall men arecreatedequal s a sentiment romEuripideswhich Jeffersoncopiedin his literary om-monplacebook as a boy; Life, Liberty,and the pursuitof Happiness was acliche of the times, appearingn numerouspoliticaldocuments Dumbauld).ThoughJefferson'sdraftof the Declarationcanhardlybe consideredhis inanyexclusive sense of authorship,he documentunderwent tillmoreexpropri-ationatthe handsof Congress,who madeeighty-sixchanges(Kinneavy,Theo-ry438). Theycut the draft rom211 linesto 147.Theydidconsiderable ditingto temper what they saw as Jefferson's emotional style: For example,Jefferson'sphrase sacred& undeniable was changedto the more restrainedself-evident. Congressexcised controversialpassages, such as Jefferson'scondemnation f slavery.Thus,we should ind t instructiveonote,Jefferson'sfew attemptsat original expressionwere those least acceptableto Congress.

36


5/15

Intertextuality nd the Discourse CommunityIf Jeffersonsubmitted he Declaration or a college writingclass as his own

writing, he mightwell be chargedwith plagiarism.3The idea of Jefferson asauthor is but convenient shorthand.Actually, the Declarationaroseout of acultural and rhetoricalmilieu, was composedof traces-and was, in effect,team written.Jefferson deserves creditfor bringingdisparate racestogether,for helping to mold and articulate he milieu, for creatingthe all-importantdraft.Jefferson's kill as awriterwashisabilitytoborrow raceseffectivelyandto find appropriate contexts for them. As Michael Halliday says,[C]reativeness oes notconsist inproducingnew sentences. Thenewnessof asentenceis a quiteunimportant-and unascertainable-propertyand 'creativi-

ty' in language ies in thespeaker's bilitytocreatenewmeanings: o realizethepotentialityof language or theindefiniteextensionof its resources o newcon-texts of situation. . . . Our most 'creative' acts may be precisely among thosethat are realizedthroughhighly repetitiveforms of behaviour Explorations42). The creative writer is the creativeborrower, n other words.Intertextuality an be seen working similarlyin contemporaryorums.Re-call this scene from a recentPepsi commercial:A young boy in jeans jacket,accompaniedby dog, standsin some desolateplainscrossroadsnext to a gasstation,next to which is a soft drinkmachine.An alienspacecraft,resemblingthe one in Spielberg's Close Encounters of the Third Kind, appears overhead.Totheboy'sjoyful amazement, hespaceshiphoversover thevendingmachineandbeginssuckingPepsicans into theship. It takesonlyPepsi's, theneventual-ly takes the entiremachine.The ad closes withagraphic: Pepsi.TheChoiceofa New Generation.

Clearly,the commercialpresupposes amiliaritywith Spielberg'smovie or,at least, with his pacific vision of alien spacecraft.We see several Americanclich6s, well-wornsigns fromtheDepressionera: the desolateplains, thegen-eral store, the pop machine, the country boy with dog. These distinctivelyAmerican traces arejuxtaposed against images from science fiction and thesixtiescatchphrase newgeneration nthecoda. In thisarrayof signs, we havetraditionandcounter-tradition armonized.Pepsisqueezesitself in themiddle,and thus becomes the greatAmerican conciliator.The ad's use of ironymayserve to distractviewers momentarily rom noticing how Pepsi achieves itspurpose by assigning itself an exalted role throughuse of the intertext.We find an interestingexampleof practicalpresuppositionn John Kifner'sNew YorkTimesheadlinearticlereportingon the KentState incidentof 1970:Fourstudents at Kent State University, two of them women,were shot to death this afternoonby a volley of NationalGuardgunfire.At least 8 other students were wounded.

37


6/15

RhetoricReviewTheburstof gunfirecameabout20 minutesaftertheguardsmen

brokeupa noonrallyon theCommons,a grassy campusgatheringspot, by lobbingteargas at a crowd of about1,000 youngpeople.Fromoneperspective, hephrase twoof themwomen s a simplestatementof fact; however, it presupposesa certain attitude-that the event, horribleenough as it was, is more significantbecause two of the personskilled werewomen. It mightbe going too far to say that the phrasepresupposesa sexistattitude womenaren't upposedto be killed in battles ),butcan we imaginethe phrase two of them men in this context?Though equally factual, this

wordingwould havebeenconsideredodd in 1970(andprobably odayas well)because it presupposesa culturalmindset alien fromthe one dominantat thetime. Twoof them women s shocking(andhenceit wasreported)becauseitupsets the sense of order of the readers,in this case the Americanpublic.Additionally andmorethana littleironically),thetextcontainsa numberoftraceswhichhave the effect of blunting he shockof the event. Notice that thestudentswere not shot by NationalGuardsmen,but were shot bya volley of. . . gunfire ; he teargas was lobbed ;and the event occurredat a grassycampusgatheringspot. Volley and lobbed are militaryterms, but withconnectionsto sportas well; grassycampusgathering pot suggestsa picnic;burst anrecall theglorioussightof bombs bursting n TheStar-SpangledBanner. This pasticheof signs casts the text into a certaincontext, making tdistinctivelyAmerican. We might say that the turbulentmilieu of the sixtiesprovided a distinctive arrayof signs from which John Kifner borrowedtoproducehis article.Eachof the three texts examined containsphrasesor imagesfamiliarto itsaudienceorpresupposes ertainaudienceattitudes.Thus theintertext xertsitsinfluencepartly ntheformof audienceexpectation.Wemightthensaythat heaudienceof each of these textsis as responsible or itsproductionas the writer.That, in essence, readers,not writers,create discourse.

The Power of Discourse CommunityAnd, indeed, this is whatsome poststructuralistritics suggest, those whoprefera broader onceptionof intertextor who lookbeyondtheintertext o thesocial framework egulating extualproduction:o whatMichelFoucault allsthediscursiveformation, whatStanleyFish calls the nterpretive ommuni-ty, and what PatriciaBizzell calls the discoursecommunity.A discoursecommunity s a groupof individuals boundby a commoninterestwho communicate hroughapprovedchannels and whose discourseis

38


7/15

Intertextuality nd the Discourse Communityregulated.An individualmaybelongto severalprofessional,public,orperson-al discourse communities. Examples would include the community ofengineerswhose researchareais fluid mechanics;alumniof the UniversityofMichigan; Magnavox employees; the members of the Porter family; andmembersof the IndianaTeachersof Writing.The approvedchannels we cancall forums. Each forum hasa distincthistoryandrulesgoverningappropri-atenessto which membersareobliged to adhere.These rulesmay be more orless apparent,more or less institutionalized,more or less specificto each com-munity. Examplesof forums include professionalpublications ike RhetoricReview, English Journal, and Creative Computing; public media likeNewsweek and Runner'sWorld;professionalconferences(the annualmeetingof fluid powerengineers, the 4C's); companyboardmeetings; family dinnertables; and the monthly meeting of the Indianachapterof the Izaak WaltonLeague.A discoursecommunity haresassumptionsaboutwhatobjectsareappropri-ateforexaminationanddiscussion,whatoperating unctionsareperformed nthoseobjects,whatconstitutes evidence and validity, nd whatformalcon-ventions are followed. A discoursecommunitymay have a well-establishedethos;oritmayhavecompeting actionsand ndefiniteboundaries. tmaybe ina pre-paradigm tate(Kuhn),that s, havinganill-definedregulating ystemand no clear leadership.Some discourse communitiesarefirmlyestablished,such as the scientificcommunity, he medicalprofession,and thejustice sys-tem, to cite a few from Foucault's ist. In these discoursecommunities,asLeitchsays, aspeakermustbe 'qualified' otalk;hehas tobelongto a commu-nity of scholarship;and he is required o possess a prescribedbodyof knowl-edge (doctrine). . . . [This system] operates to constrain discourse; itestablishes limits andregularities. . . who mayspeak,whatmaybe spoken,and how it is to be said;in addition rules]prescribewhat s trueandfalse, whatis reasonableand whatfoolish, and what is meantand whatnot. Finally, theywork to deny the materialexistence of discourse itself' (145).A text is acceptable within a forumonly insofaras it reflects the communi-ty episteme(to use Foucault's erm).On a simple level, this meansthat for amanuscripto be accepted orpublicationntheJournalofAppliedPsychology,it must follow certain ormatting onventions: tmust have theexpectedsocialscience sections(i.e., review of literature,methods, results,discussion),anditmustuse thejournal'sversionof APAdocumentation.However, heseareonlysuperficialfeaturesof the forum. On a more essential level, the manuscriptmust reveal certaincharacteristics,have an ethos (in the broadestpossiblesense)conforming othestandards f the discoursecommunity: t mustdemon-strate orat leastclaim)that t contributesknowledgeto thefield, it mustdem-

39


8/15

RhetoricReviewonstrate amiliaritywith the workof previousresearchersn the field, it mustusea scientificmethod nanalyzing ts results showingacceptanceof the truth-value of statisticaldemonstration),t must meet standardsor test design andanalysisof results,it must adhere o standards eterminingdegreeof accuracy.Theexpectations,conventions,andattitudes f thisdiscoursecommunity-thereaders,writers,andpublishersof JournalofAppliedPsychology-will influ-ence aspiringpsychologyresearchers, hapingnotonlyhowtheywritebutalsotheircharacterwithin that discoursecommunity.Thepoststructuralistiew challengesthe classicalassumptionhatwriting sa simple linear,one-waymovement:The writercreatesa text whichproducessome changein an audience.A poststructuralisthetoricexamines how audi-ence (in the formof communityexpectationsandstandards)nfluencestextualproductionand, in so doing, guides the developmentof the writer.This view is of courseopen to criticismfor its apparentdeterminism,fordevaluingthe contribution f individualwritersandmaking hemappearmere-ly tools of thediscoursecommunity chargeswhichFoucaultanswers n Dis-courseon Language ). f theseregulating ystemsare so constraining,how canan individualmerge?Whathappens o the ideaof the lone inspiredwriterandthe sacred autonomous ext?

Bothnotionstake a prettyhardknock. Genuineoriginality s difficultwithinthe confinesof a well-regulated ystem. Genius is possible, butit maybe con-strained. Foucaultcites the example of GregorMendel, whose work in thenineteenthcenturywas excluded from theprevailingcommunityof biologistsbecause he spokeof objects, employedmethodsandplacedhimselfwithin atheoreticalperspectivetotally alien to the biology of his time. ... Mendelspoke the truth,but he was not dans le vrai (withinthe true) (224). FrankLentricchia ites a similarexamplefrom the literarycommunity:RobertFrostachievedmagazinepublicationonlyfive times between1895and1912,aperi-od duringwhich he wrote a numberof poemslateracclaimed . . [because] norder o write withinthe dominant enseof thepoeticin the UnitedStates nthelastdecadeof the nineteenth enturyand the firstdecade of thetwentieth,onehad to employ a diction, syntax, and prosody heavily favoringShelley andTennyson. One also had to assume a certainstance, a certainworld-wearyidealismwhich tookcarenot to refertoo concretelyto the worldof which onewas weary (197, 199).Both examplespoint to the exclusionarypowerof discoursecommunitiesand raise seriousquestionsabout the freedomof the writer:chiefly, does thewriterhaveany?Is anywriterdoomedtoplagiarism?Cananytextbe saidtobenew? Arecreativityandgeniusactuallypossible?WasJeffersonacreativegen-ius or a blatantplagiarist?

40


9/15

Intertextuality nd the Discourse Community

Certainlywe wantto avoid bothextremes.Evenif the writer s locked intoaculturalmatrixandis constrainedby the intertextof thediscoursecommunity,the writerhas freedomwithin the immediaterhetorical ontext.4Furthermore,successfulwritinghelpsto redefine he matrix-and in thatway becomes crea-tive. (Jefferson'sDeclaration ontributedo definingthenotionof America orits discoursecommunity.)Everynew text has the potential o alterthe Textinsome way;in fact, everytext admittednto a discoursecommunitychangestheconstitutionof the community-and discourse communities can revise theirdiscursivepractices,as the Mendel and Frostexamples suggest.Writing s anattempt o exercise thewill, to identifythe self within the con-straintsof some discoursecommunity.We areconstrainednsofaras we mustinevitablyborrow he traces,codes, andsigns which we inheritand whichourdiscoursecommunityimposes. We arefree insofar as we do what we can toencounterand learnnewcodes, to intertwine odes innewways, andtoexpandoursemioticpotential-with ourgoal beingto effect changeandestablishouridentities within the discoursecommunitieswe choose to enter.

The Pedagogy of IntertextualityIntertextualitys not new. Itmayremindsome of Eliot's notion of tradition,thoughtheparameters recertainlybroader. t is animportantoncept,though.ItcounterswhatI see as one prevailingcompositionpedagogy,one favoringaromantic mageof the writer,offeringas role modelsthe creativeessayists, theSunday Supplementfreelancers, the Joan Didions, E. B. Whites, CalvinTrillins,and Russell Bakers.Thisdashingimageappealsto ourneedfor intel-lectualheroes;butunderlying t maybe ananti-rhetoricaliew:thatwritersareborn,notmade;thatwriting s individual, solated,andinternal;not social buteccentric.This view is firmly set in the intertextof our discipline. Our anthologiesglorify the individualessayists, whose work is valued for its timelessness andcreativity.Freshmanrhetoricsannounceas the writer'spropergoals personalinsight, originality,and personalvoice, or tell students that motivationsforwriting come from within. Generally,this pedagogy assumes that such athing as the writeractuallyexists-an autonomouswriterexercising a free,creative will throughthe writingact-and that the writing process proceedslinearlyfrom writer o text to reader.This partialpictureof the processcan alltoo readilybecome the picture,and our studentscan all too readilylearntooverlook vital facets of discourseproduction.When we romanticizecompositionby overemphasizingheautonomyof thewriter, mportantquestionsareoverlooked,the samequestionsan intertextual

41


10/15

Rhetoric Review

view of writingwould provoke:To whatextent is the writer'sproduct tself apartof a largercommunitywritingprocess?Howdoes thediscoursecommuni-ty influencewritersand readerswithin it?Theseare essentialquestions,butareperhaps outside the prevailing episteme of composition pedagogy, whichpresupposes he autonomous tatusof the writeras independent ogito. Talkingaboutwriting ntermsof socialforcesinfluencing he writer aisesthespecterof determinism,and so is anathema.David Bartholomae ummarizes his issue very nicely: Thestruggleof thestudent writer is not the struggleto bringout that which is within;it is thestruggleto carryout those ritualactivitiesthatgrantour entrance nto a closedsociety (300). Whenwe teachwritingonly as theact of bringingoutwhatiswithin, we riskundermining ur own efforts. Intertextualityemindsus that

carryingout ritual activities is also part of the writing process. Barthesremindsus that the'I' whichapproacheshetext is already tselfa pluralityofothertexts, of codes which are infinite (10).Intertextuality uggeststhatourgoal shouldbe tohelpstudents earn o writefor thediscoursecommunities heychoose tojoin. Studentsneedhelpdevelop-ing out of whatJosephWilliams calls their pre-socializedcognitive states.Accordingto Williams,pre-socializedwritersare notsufficiently mmersed n

their discoursecommunity o producecompetentdiscourse:Theydo not knowwhat can be presupposed,arenotconsciousof the distinctive ntertextualityfthecommunity,maybeonly superficiallyacquaintedwithexplicitconventions.(Williamscites theexampleof the freshmanwhosepaper ortheEnglishteach-er begins Shakespeares a famous Elizabethandramatist. )Our immediategoal is to produce socializedwriters, who arefull-fledgedmembersof theirdiscoursecommunity,producing ompetent,usefuldiscoursewithin thatcom-munity.Our long-rangegoal might be post-socializedwriters, those whohave achievedsuchadegreeof confidence,authority,power,orachievementnthediscoursecommunityso as to becomepartof theregulatingbody. Theyareable to vary conventions and question assumptions-i.e., effect change incommunities-without fear of exclusion.Intertextuality as thepotential o affect all facets of ourcompositionpeda-gogy. Certainly t supportswritingacrossthe curriculumas a mechanism orintroducingstudents to the regulatingsystems of discourse communities. Itraises questions aboutheuristics: Do different discoursecommunitiesapplydifferent heuristics?It assertsthe value of criticalreadingin the compositionclassroom. It requiresthat we rethink our ideas aboutplagiarism:Certainlyimitatio is an important tage in the linguistic developmentof the writer.The most significantapplicationmightbe in the area of audienceanalysis.Currentpedagogies assume that when writersanalyzeaudiencesthey should

42


11/15

Intertextuality nd the Discourse Communityfocus on theexpectedflesh-and-blood eaders.Intertextualityuggeststhattheproper ocus of audienceanalysis s not theaudienceas receiversperse, buttheintertextof the discoursecommunity.Insteadof collecting demographicdataaboutage, educationallevel, and social status, the writermight insteadaskquestionsaboutthe intertext:Whatare the conventionalpresuppositions f thiscommunity?In whatforums do they assemble?Whatarethe methodologicalassumptions?Whatis considered evidence, validargument, nd proof'?A sample heuristicfor such an analysis-what I term forumanalysis -isincluded as an appendix.A criticalreadingof the discourse of a communitymay be the best way tounderstand t. (We see a versionof this message in the advice to examine ajournalbefore submittingarticlesfor publication.)Traditionally, nthologieshaveprovidedstudentswithreadingmaterial.However, hetypicalanthologieshave two seriousproblems: 1) limitedrange-generally they overemphasizeliteraryor expressivediscourse;(2) unclearcontext-they frequentlyremovereadingsfrom theiroriginalcontexts, thusdisguisingtheirintertextual ature.Severalrecently publishedreadershaveattempted o providea broader elec-tion of readings in various forums, and actually discuss intertextuality.Maimon'sReadings n theArtsandSciences,Kinneavy'sWritingn theLiberalArtsTradition,andBazerman'sTheInformedWriter reespeciallynoteworthy.Writingassignments houldbeexplicitlyintertextual. fwe regard achwrit-ten productas a stage in a largerprocess-the dialecticprocesswithin a dis-coursecommunity-then theindividualwriter'sworkis partof a web, partof acommunitysearchfor truthandmeaning. Writingassignmentsmighttake theformof dialoguewith otherwriters:Writing etters nresponse oarticles s onekind of dialectic (e.g., letters respondingto Atlantic Monthlyor Sciencearticles).Researchassignmentsmightbe morecommunityorientedrather hantopicoriented; tudentsmightbe askedto become involvedin communitiesofresearchers e.g., the sociologists examining changing religious attitudes nAmericancollege students).The assignments n Maimon'sWritingn the Artsand Sciences are excellent in this regard.Intertextualheorysuggeststhat hekeycriteria orevaluatingwritingshouldbe acceptability within some discourse community. Acceptability n-cludes, but goes well beyond, adherenceto formal conventions. It includeschoosing the right opic, applyingthe appropriateriticalmethodology,ad-hering to standards or evidence and validity, and in general adoptingthecommunity's discourse values-and of course borrowing the appropriatetraces. Success is measuredby the writer'sabilityto know whatcanbepresup-posed and to borrow thatcommunity'straceseffectively to create a text thatcontributes o the maintenanceor, possibly, the definitionof the community.

43


12/15

RhetoricReviewThewriter s constrainedby thecommunity,andby its intertextual referencesandprejudices,but the effective writerworksto assert the will againstthosecommunityconstraints o effect change.ThePepsicommercialandthe Kent Statenews articleshow effective usesofthe intertext. In the Kent State piece, John Kifner mixes picnic imagery( grassycampusgathering pot, youngpeople )with violentimagery burstof gunfire ) o dramatizehe event. ThePepsiad writerscombinetwo unlikelysets of traces, linking folksy depression-eraAmerican magerywithsci-fi im-agery stolen from Spielberg.Forthis creative intertwiningof traces, bothdiscourses can probablybe measuredsuccessful in theirrespectiveforums.Coda

Clearly much of what intertextuality upports s alreadyinstitutionalized(e.g., writing-across-the-curriculumrograms).And yet, in freshmancomptexts andanthologiesespecially,there s thistendency o see writingas individ-ual, as isolated,asheroic. Even afterdemonstrating uiteconvincingly hat heDeclarationwas writtenby a teamfreely borrowing roma cultural ntertext,Elaine Maimoninsists, againstall the evidenceshe herselfhascollected, thatDespitetheadditions,deletions,andchangesin wording hat t wentthrough,the Declarationis still Jefferson'swriting (Readings 26). Her saying thispresupposesthat the readerhas just concludedthe opposite.When we give our studentsromanticrole models like E. B. White, JoanDidion, and Lewis Thomas, we create unrealisticexpectations.This type ofwriterhas oftenachievedpost-socializedstatuswithinsome discoursecommu-nity (Thomasin the scientificcommunity,for instance).Canwe realisticallyexpectour students o achievethis statewithout irstbecomingsocialized,with-out learningfirst what it means to write within a social context? Their rolemodels ought not be only romanticheroes but also communitywriters likeJefferson,the anonymouswritersof the Pepsicommercial-the Adsos of theworld,notjustthe Aristotles.Theyneed to see writerswhoseproductsaremoreevidently partof a largerprocessandwhoseworkmoreclearlyproducesmean-ing in social contexts.

Notes'The dangersof defining intertextualityoo simplisticallyare discussed by Owen Miller inIntertextualdentity, dentityof theLiteraryText,ed. MarioJ. Vald6sandOwenMiller Toronto:U of TorontoP, 1985), 19-40. Millerpointsoutthat ntertextuality addressestselfto aplurality fconcepts (19).

44


13/15

Intertextuality and the Discourse Community

2For uller discussion see JonathanCuller,The Pursuit of Signs (Ithaca:CornellUP, 1981),100-16. MichaelHallidayelaboratesonthetheoryof presuppositionomewhat, oo, differentiatingbetweenexophoricandendophoricpresupposition.Themeaningof anytextatleastpartlyrelies onexophoricreferences, .e., externalpresuppositions.Endophoric eferences nthe formof cohesivedevices and connectionswithina text also affectmeaning,butcohesion inatextdependsultimatelyon the audiencemakingexophoricconnections o prior exts, connections hatmaynot be cuedbyexplicit cohesive devices. See M. A. K. Halliday and RuqaiyaHasan, Cohesion in English(London:Longman, 1976).3Millercautions us aboutintertextuality ndpost hoc ergo propterhoc reasoning.All we cansafelynote is thatphrases ntheDeclaration lsoappearnother,earlierdocuments.Whether r notthe borrowingwas intentionalon Jefferson'spartor whetherthe priordocuments caused heDeclaration(in any sense of the word) is not ascertainable.4RobertScholes puts it this way: If you play chess, you can only do certainthingswith thepieces, otherwiseyouarenotplayingchess. But those constraints o notinthemselves ellyouwhatmoves to make. See TextualPower (New Haven: Yale UP, 1985), 153.

Works CitedBarthes,Roland. S/Z. Trans. RichardMiller. New York:Hill and Wang, 1974.Bartholomae,David. WritingAssignments:Where Writing Begins. fforum. Ed. PatriciaL.

Stock. UpperMontclair,NJ: Boynton/Cook, 1983.Bazerman,Charles.TheInformedWriter.2nd ed. Boston:HoughtonMifflin, 1985.Becker, Carl. The Declaration of Independence.2nd ed. New York:Random,Vintage, 1942.Bizzell, Patricia. Cognition,Convention,andCertainty:WhatWe Need to KnowaboutWriting.PRE/TEXT (1982): 213-43.Culler,Jonathan.The Pursuitof Signs. Ithaca:CornellUP, 1981.Dumbauld,Edward.The Declarationof Independence.2nd ed. Norman:U of OklahomaP,1968.Eco, Umberto.TheNameof the Rose. Trans.WilliamWeaver.SanDiego:HarcourtBraceJovano-vich, 1983.Fish, Stanley.Is Therea Text n This Class? Cambridge:HarvardUP, 1980.Foucault,Michel. TheArchaeologyof Knowledgeand the Discourse on Language.Trans.A. M.SheridanSmith. New York:Harper& Row, 1972.Halliday,M. A. K. Explorations n the Functionsof Language. New York:Elsevier, 1973.Halliday,M. A. K., and RuqaiyaHasan. Cohesion in English. London:Longman, 1976.Kifner,John. 4 Kent State Students Killed by Troops. New YorkTimes5 May 1970: 1.Kinneavy,JamesL. A Theory of Discourse. EnglewoodCliffs: Prentice-Hall,1971.---, et al. Writing n the Liberal Arts Tradition.New York:Harper& Row, 1985.Kuhn,Thomas S. The Structureof ScientificRevolutions.2nd ed. Chicago:U of Chicago P, 1970.Leitch, Vincent B. DeconstructiveCriticism.New York:CornellUP, 1983.Lentricchia,Frank.Afterthe New Criticism.Chicago:U of ChicagoP, 1980.Maimon, ElaineP, et al. Readingsin the Arts and Sciences. Boston:Little, Brown, 1984.---. Writing n the Arts and Sciences. Cambridge:Winthrop,1981.Miller,Owen. Intertextualdentity. dentityof the LiteraryText. Ed. MarioJ. ValdesandOwenMiller. Toronto:U of TorontoP, 1985, 19-40.Scholes, Robert. TextualPower. New Haven:YaleUP, 1985.Williams, Joseph. CognitiveDevelopment, CriticalThinking, and the Teachingof Writing.Conferenceon Writing,Meaning, and HigherOrderReasoning, Universityof Chicago, 15May 1984.

45


14/15

Rhetoric Review

APPENDIXForum AnalysisBackground

-Identify the forumby name and organizationalaffiliation.-Is thereanexpressededitorialpolicy, philosophy,orexpressionof belief? Whatpurposedoes the forumserve?Why does it exist?-What is the disciplinaryorientation?-How large is the forum? Who are its members?Its leaders?Its readership?-In what mannerdoes the forumassemble(e.g., newsletter,ournal,conference,weekly meeting)?How frequently?-What is the origin of the forum?Why did it come into existence?Whatis itshistory?Its politicalbackground? ts traditions?-What reputation oestheforumhaveamong tsown members?Howis itregardedby others?

Discourse ConventionsWhoSpeaks/Writes?-Who is grantedstatusas speaker/writer?Who decides who speaks/writesn theforum?By what criteriaare speakers/writerselected?-What kindof people speak/writen this forum?Credentials?Disciplinary rienta-tion? Academicor professionalbackground?-Who are the importantigures n this forum?Whose workorexperience s mostfrequentlycited?-What are the important ources cited in the forum?Whatare the key works,events, experiencesthatit is assumed membersof the forum know?To WhomDo TheySpeak/Write?-Who is addressed n the forum?Whatare the characteristicsof the assumedaudience?-What are the audience's needs assumedto be? To whatuse(s) is the audienceexpected to put the information?-What is the audience'sbackground ssumed o be? Level of proficiency,experi-ence, and knowledgeof subjectmatter?Credentials?-What are the beliefs, attitudes,values, prejudicesof the addressedaudience?WhatDo TheySpeak/WriteAbout?-What topics or issues does the forumconsider?What are allowablesubjects?Whattopics are valued?-What methodologyor methodologiesareaccepted?Whichtheoreticalapproachis preferred:deduction(theoreticalargumentation) r induction(evidence)?-What constitutes validity, evidence, and proof'in theforum e.g., personalexperience/observation, testing and measurement, theoretical or statisticalanalysis)?How Do They Say/Write t?Form-What typesof discoursedoes the forumadmit(e.g., articles, reviews, speeches,poems)? How long are the discourses?-What are the dominantmodes of organization?

46


15/15

Intertextuality and the Discourse Community

-What formatting onventionsarepresent:headings,tablesandgraphs,illustra-'tions, abstracts?Style-What documentation orm(s)is used?-Syntactic characteristics?-Technical or specializedjargon?Abbreviations?-Tone? Whatstancedo writers/speakersakerelative to audience?-Manuscript mechanics?

Other Considerations?

James E. Porters AssistantProfessorof EnglishatIndianaUniversity-Purdue niversityat FortWayne, where he teaches freshmancomposition, technicalwriting, and graduaterhetoric. Hisresearchfocuses on the connections betweenpoststructuralistriticaltheory,historicalrhetoric,and contemporarynotions of audience and audienceanalysis. He has publishedin Journal ofTeaching Writing, in Rhetoric Review, and in the Rhetoric Society publication OldspeaklNewspeak:RhetoricalTransformations.He is currently ompletinga bookentitledContemporaryTheoriesof Audience.

47

Date post:	09-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	crystal-barr
View:	222 times
Download:	0 times

Intertextuality and the Discourse : James E. Porter

Documents