, but rather in terms of one and other (Kristeva, 1986, p. 40).
Cascallana (2006, p. 98) also stated that the notion of intertextuality moves away from the traditional study of sources and influences, broadening its scope towards the dialogics of the text. Cascallana (2006) noted that a text is no longer considered as the container of meaning, but as an intertextual space in which a number of elements are combined, absorbed or transformed (p. 98). Cascallana (2006, p. 98) said that the production of meaning from the complex relationships that exist between the text, other texts, the readers and can be referred to as intertextuality (p. 98).
Meanwhile, Porter (1986, p.34) believed intertextually means looking for traces, the bits and pieces of text which writers or speakers borrow and sew together to create new discourse. He claimed that the most mundane manifestation of intertextuality is explicit citation, but intertextuality animates all discourse and goes beyond mere citation (Porter, 1986, p. 34).
Shortly, (Porter, 1986, p. 35) by identifying and stressing the intertextual nature of discourse, however, we shift our attention away from the writer as individual and focus more on the sources and social contexts from which the writer’s discourse arises. According to this view, he noted that authorial intention is less significant than social context; the writer is simply a part of a discourse tradition, a member of a team, and a participant in a community of discourse that creates its own collective meaning (Porter, 1986, p. 35). In other word, “Intertextuality concerns the factors which make the utilization of one text dependent upon knowledge of one or more previously encountered texts (Beaugrande; Dressler, 1981, p. 10).”
But (Hatim 1997, p. 29) believed that intertextuality is essentially a mechanism through which a text refers backward (or forward) to previous (or future) texts, by alluding to, adapting, or otherwise invoking meanings expressed in those other texts. Therefore, “in most basic form of intertextuality, communicative interaction involves the exchange of meanings as signs between speaker and hearer (or writer and reader) (Hatim 1997, p. 219).”
Bakhtin/ Medvedev (as quoted in Allen,2000, p. 16) argued that while Formalism seeks to explain the general ‘literariness’ of literary works, and Saussurean linguistics seeks to explain language as a synchronic system, what is missed by both approaches is that language exists in specific social situations and is thus bound up with specific social evaluations. According to this view, to produce an abstract account of literary language or any language is to forget that language is utilized by individuals in specific social contexts. The crucial word here is utterance, a word which captures the human-centered and socially specific aspect of language lacking in formalism and Saussurean linguistics (Allen, p. 16).
Until, in 1968 Barthes proclaimed “the death of the author” based on the intertextual insight that texts derive their meaning, not from some author creating denovo and exnihilo, but only through their relations to other texts. Meaning results from the play of texts, as they are generated by the langue and the culture. The death of the author results in the liberation of the reader. The intertextual reader or interpreter then is free in tracing the relations between texts (Irwin, 2004, p. 230).
According to Mitchell (2001, p. 26), the importance of Riffaterre’s work for the problem of intertextuality comes mainly from his insistence on the importance of the reader in text production. He also noted that the reader is the only one who makes the connection between the text, interpretant and intertext (Mitchell, 2001, p. 26). Mitchell (2001) pointed out literary production includes the reader and the reader’s reactions as well as the text; and the literary phenomenon is not located in the relationship between the author and the text but between the text and the reader (p. 26). However, Mitchell (2001) noted that the reader is under the guidance and control of the various intertexts; when the text activates an intertext, it controls the reader’s response, thus maintaining the text’s identity (p. 26).
According to Allen (as quoted in Andersen, 2006, p. 16), Genette has outlined a terminology to describe intertextuality. One of the terms he has coined is the architext, which he describes as the entire set of general or transcendent categories from which emerges each singular text. In fact, Allen (as quoted in Andersen, 2006, p. 16) cites Genette as having described his own poetics as open structuralism. Genette (as quoted in Bazerman, 2009, p. 5) has mapped out sets of possible relations among texts, or transtextuality: intertextuality (explicit quotation or allusion) in the following section, types of intertextuality will be elaborated.
2.3. Types of Intertextuality
“Intertextuality can operate at any level of text organization (Hatim & Mason 1997, P. 18).” He pointed out intertextuality involving phonology, morphology, syntax or semantics and its expression ranges from single words or phrases with special cultural significance in a given linguistic community at a certain time, to Macro-textual conventions and constraints associated with genre, register and discourse (Hatim, 1997, p. 201). According to (Hatim and Mason 1997) “intertextuality encompasses any element (macro-or- micro-) which helps readers identify and derive meaning from the surface features they have already come across (p. 201).” Therefore, Hatim (1997, p. 30) has summarized and expanded different types of intertextuality which have been proposed by different writers.
2.3.1. Horizontal or Vertical Reference
Citing the work of Bakhtin, Hatim(1997, p. 30) distinguished between horizontal and vertical intertextuality. In the first case the relation between two texts is explicit-a text, or extract thereof, written in reply to or development of another one, for example. This type of intertextuality is a key feature of academic writing and identified by Hoey (1991, pp. 31-34) in terms of “academic oeuvre” and “text colony”. On the other hand, Hatim (1997) argued that vertical intertextuality is more implicit, and may relate, for example, to writing conventions (p. 30).
2.3.2. Manifest or Constitutive Reference
The distinction between intertextual relations of texts to other texts (horizontally) and/or to textual conventions (vertically), may be linked to another useful distinction proposed by Norman Fairclough- that of “manifest” and “constitutive” intertextuality (Hatim, 1997, p.30). According to Fairclough (as quoted in Agger, par14) manifest intertextuality can be divided into the following categories: “Discourse representation, presupposition, negation, metadiscourse, and irony”, all of which are affected by the text in one way or another.
2.3.3. Active versus Passive Intertextuality
According to Hatim and Mason (1990, p. 124), the intertextual link “is strong when it activates knowledge and belief systems well beyond the text itself”. On the other hand, there are passive forms of intertextuality which “amount of little more than the basic requirement that text be internally coherent (p.124).”This classification of intertextuality is seen by Beagrande and Dressler (1988, p. 182) in terms of the Mediation; or “the extent to which on feeds one’s current beliefs and thoughts into the model of the communicative situation”. Hatim and Mason (1990), argued, occurs when knowledge of other texts is drawn upon to process the text at hand. When there is a great distance between the current text and the previously encountered text (due to the factors such as the passage of time), then mediation is said to be greater (p. 127).
2.4. Scope of Intertextuality
Maybe the context of literary theory is the origin of the studies of intertextuality. Some fields as f
m, music, painting and poetry were encompassing by intertextuality.
Poetry is a form of speech, written or spoken. In other words, poetry like all discourse is a communication-the saying of something by one person to another person (Brooks and Warren, 1838, p. 2). Lefevere (1992, p. 88) maintained that translating poetry can be considered different from translating other text types, in the sense that one translating poetry is not engaged in a single level to deal with but a fourfold process including: language, ideology, poetics and universe of discourse at each of which particular problems arise to involve him with. Therefore, one has to develop some strategies to deal with them considering the perspective problems, Lefevere (1992, p. 88) has introduced a hierarchy for these levels, which looks like this:
3. Universe of discourse
Lefevere (1992) also pointed out that the inconsistency between a ST and the ideology of the target culture can be troublesome, in the sense that it compels translators to manipulate the translation outcome to make it fit in with the dominant ideological currents of his culture) p. 88). By poetics, Lefevere (1992, p. 88) means literary traditions of a certain language one of the problem arising at this level is the presence of a particular genre of poetic element in the SL which is nonexistent in the TL. He argued on the universe of discourse the translator may face things, customs and concepts that are immediately intelligible to the readers of the original text but are no longer intelligible for the readers of TT (p. 49). In Lefevere (1992) view allusion can be found in the level of poetics or prose, in which it is considered, on the one hand, troublesome to convey and on the other hand translatable (p. 49).
2.6. Forms of Intertextuality
According to concept of intertextuality, no text can be read outside its relations to other texts. In fact, any text in order to be communicable would strike various types of relations with other texts. These relations may take many forms including allusion, plagiarism and quotation (Genette, 1992, P. 8). The present study, is investigating on one form of intertextuality, namely; that is allusion.
The etymology of term ‘Allusion’ as proposed by Leppihalme (1997, p. 5), seems to have a connection with the idea of play: add + ludere = alludere. According to Lass et al, (1987 as cited in Leppihalme, 1997, p. 6), an allusion is a figure of speech that compares aspects or qualities of counterpart in history, mythology, scripture, literature, popular or contemporary culture.
In other words, Leddy (1992, p. 110) argued that language use, at least to a certain extent, shows that an allusion is not just a reference. Accordingly, the precise nature of allusions has been debated among scholars over the last three decades. For example, authorial intention and names’ potentiality of being allusive are some of the problematic areas which have caused some debates among scholars which are addressed briefly here as follow:
Leddey (1992, p. 89) assumed a level of authorial intentionally as inevitable. He therefore suggested that the authors make use of allusions to express something, though they may not always be conscious of their intentions and may even create allusions which are culture-bound unintentionally. Pucci (1998) have strongly argued that the reader should be the sole source of meaning in allusion (p. 32).
Another problematic issue to be considered about allusion is whether names are allusive. Hermeren (1992, p. 11) believed that allusions employ implicit information which are unstated connotations, so in this sense they are indirect. He also seems to be suggesting that alluding words cannot be identical with the evoked text and thus he questions the possibility that names and unmodified quotations could function as allusions. On