Legal and postal addresses of the publisher: office 1410a, 17 Naberezhnaya Severnoy Dviny, Arkhangelsk, 163002, Russian Federation, Northern (Arctic) Federal University named after M.V. Lomonosov

Phone: (818-2) 28-76-18


Intertextuality vs Interdiscursivity as a Formed Discourse. P. 104–111

Версия для печати

Section: Philology




Ierusalimskaya Anna Olegovna
Postgraduate Student, Institute of Humanities, Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University
14 A. Nevskogo St., Kaliningrad, Russian Federation;


This article details the history of the emergence and development of the term intertextuality as well as the history of the phenomena described by the term before it acquired this meaning. The author analysed the differences in understanding intertextuality by various schools, as well as narrow and broad interpretations of the term. The paper proves that the different perceptions of intertextuality arise from different definitions of the term text. Further, it demonstrates the relationship between intertextuality and interdiscursivity through the identity of such concepts as constitutive intertextuality and interdiscursivity. Using concrete examples, the author dwells on various types of intertextuality, such as typological, code, genre, and rhetorical intertextuality. In addition, the article makes a distinction between the linguistic and literary interpretations of the term intertextuality. Further, the paper presents a comparative analysis of various conceptions concerning the relationship between intertextuality, interdiscursivity and such related concepts as polyphony, intermediality, metadiscursivity, iterability, presupposition, mediality, hypertextuality, and extratext. The importance of the role played by the sociocultural space in linguistic discourse analysis is also proved here. The author argues that the interdiscursivity / intertextuality relation is not symmetrical to the discourse / text one. The concept of interdiscursivity is close to the notion of typological intertextuality but, unlike the latter, it is a more extensive phenomenon having both sociocultural and psychological dimensions. Intertextuality indicates a lack of self-sufficiency of the discourse, thereby signaling interdiscursivity. Interdiscursivity is recipient-oriented and requires a high level of scientific and artistic abstraction from the recipient. Interdiscursivity in a literary text makes it multidimensional and creates a hierarchy of contexts by including cultural codes from various spheres of culture.


intertextuality, interdiscursivity, discourse, polyphony, intermediality, metadiscursivity
Download (pdf, 3.1MB )


  1. Piégay-Gros N. Introduction à l’intertextualité. Paris. 1996 (Russ. ed.: P’ege-Gro N. Vvedenie v teoriyu intertekstual’nosti. Moscow, 2008. 240 p.).
  2. Barthes R. Ot proizvedeniya k tekstu [From the Work to the Text]. Barthes R. Izbrannye raboty: Semiotika: Poetika [Selected Works: Semiotics: Poetics]. Moscow, 1989. 616 p.
  3. Kosikov G.K. Rolan Bart – semiolog, literaturoved [Roland Barthes: Semiotician and Literary Theorist]. Barthes R. Izbrannye raboty: Semiotika: Poetika [Selected Works: Semiotics: Poetics]. Moscow, 1989.
  4. Chernyavskaya V.E. Tekst v medial’nom prostranstve [Text in the Media Space]. Moscow, 2013. 232 p.
  5. Landwehr M. Introduction: Literature and the Visual Arts; Questions of Influence and Intertextuality. Coll. Lit., 2002, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 1–16.
  6. Blommaert J., Bulcaen C. Critical Discourse Analysis. Annu. Rev. Anthropol., 2000, vol. 29, pp. 447–446.
  7. Lotman Yu.M. Tekst v tekste [The Text Within the Text]. Lotman Yu.M. Izbrannye stat’i v trekh tomakh [Selected Articles in 3 Vols.]. Moscow, 1992. Vol. 1. 247 p.
  8. Vladimirova N.G. Uslovnost’, sozidayushchaya mir: poetika uslovnykh form v sovre-mennom romane Velikobritanii [The Convention That Creates the World: Poetics of Conventional Forms in the Modern British Novel]. Veliky Novgorod, 2001. 270 p.
  9. Riffaterre M. Intertextuality vs Hypertextuality. New Lit. Hist., 1994, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 779–788.
  10. Kuyunzhich D. Posle “posle”: kovchezhnaya likhoradka [After “After”: The Ark Fever]. Available at: http:// (accessed 18 October 2015).
  11. Porter J.E. Intertextuality and the Discourse Community. Rhetor. Rev., 1986, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 34–47.
  12. Culler J. Presupposition and Intertextuality. MLN, 1976, vol. 91, no. 6, pp. 1380–1396.
  13. Orr L. Intertextuality and the Cultural Text in Recent Semiotics. Coll. Engl., 1986, vol. 48, no. 8, pp. 811–823.
  14. Beloglazova E.V. Polidiskursnost’ kak osobyy issledovatel’skiy fokus [Polydiscoursity as Special Research Focus]. Izvestiya SPbUEF, 2009, no. 3, pp. 66–71.
  15. Plett H.F. Rhetoric and Intertextuality. Rhetorica: A J. Hist. Rhetor., 1999, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 313–329.
  16. Bakhtin M.M. Formy vremeni i khronotopa v romane [Forms of Time and of the Chronotope in the Novel]. Bakhtin M.M. Voprosy literatury i estetiki [Questions of Literature and Aesthetics]. Moscow, 1975. 504 p.
  17. Georginova N.Yu. Interdiskursivnost’, intertekstual’nost’, polifoniya: k sootnosheniyu ponyatiy [Interdiscoursivity, Intertextuality, Polyphony: To the Correlation of Terms]. Vestnik Leningradskogo gosudarsvennogo universiteta im. A.S. Pushkina, 2014, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 149– 155.
  18. Kaplunenko A.M. Kurs diskursa: pod Flagom Fuko [The Course of Discourse: Nailing the Foucault Colors to the Mast of Discourse Analysis]. Vestnik IGLU, 2013, no. 4(25), pp. 9–15.
  19. Silant’ev I.V. Gazeta i roman: ritorika diskursnykh smesheniy [The Newspaper and the Novel: The Rhetoric of Discourse Mixing]. Moscow, 2006. 224 p.