Parts of the source text, suchas content, terms, and formal properties, are retained in its translation, which creates an intertextual relationship between the source text and all its potential target texts that canappear in any given language. However, every time a source text is translated intoanother language, it moves from one socio-historical context to another, losing some ofits properties in favor of those of the new context in which it is being situated (Farahzad2009). Consequently, the theory of intertextuality sheds new light on translation studies,dynamically explaining the translation process.
..........
CHAPTER TWOLITERATURE REVIEW
In this chapter, the author first reviews previous studies on intertextuality, including itsorigin and development as well as classification. Then, studies on the application ofintertextuality to translation field are reviewed. At last, previous studies on newsheadline translation are listed for further analysis.
2.1 The origin and development of intertextuality
To trace the origin of a theory and further development achieved by later scholars canhelp us better comprehend a theory and apply it to analyze things appropriately. In thissection, the author will chart the origin and further development of intertextuality theory.Julia Kristeva coins the term “intertextuality” in the late 1960s, coinciding with thetransition from structuralism to post-structuralism. She holds that “every text isconstructed as a mosaic of citations; every text is an absorption and transformation ofother texts” (Kristeva 1980:66). Although it is Kristeva who initially employs theneologism “intertextuality”, the theory of intertextuality has its origins in twentieth-century linguistics, such as works of Ferdinand de Saussure and M. M. Bakhtin. In thefollowing paragraphs the author will summarize the origins of intertextuality.
.........
2.2 Types of intertextuality
With the development of intertextuality theory, classification of intertextuality hasbecome an important research topic related to intertextuality. More and more specificclassifications have been put forward, most of which are dichotomous.Kristeva categorizes intertextuality into two types: horizontal intertextuality andvertical intertextuality. Horizontal intertextuality refers to intertextual relationscharacterized by “dialogue” between a text and other texts that precede and follow it inthe chain of texts. A typical example of horizontal intertextuality is that a letter isintertextually related to earlier and subsequent letters within a correspondence. Verticalintertextuality refers to intertextual relations “between a text and texts which constituteits more or less immediate or distant contexts: texts it is historically linked with invarious time-scales and along various parameters, including texts which are more orless contemporary with it” (Fairclough 1992:103).For Hatim and Mason (2001), intertextuality can be divided into activeintertextuality and passive intertextuality. On the one hand, they term intertextual linkthat is strong enough to activate knowledge and belief systems well beyond the textitself as active intertextuality. On the other hand, they call intertextual link, which isjust a little more than the basic requirement to make the texts internally coherent orintelligible, passive intertextuality.Jenny (1982) distinguishes between strong intertextuality and weak intertextuality.In the former, a given text contains words that are obviously related to other texts, suchas quotation, imitation, parody and plagiarism. In the latter, a given text containssemantic elements that can induce readers’associations of the themes, main ideas, andgenres of other texts.
..........
CHAPTER THREE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK.....18
3.1 A framework for the analysis of
