-----------------------------------------------------------------
2.- SHARING
A CLASS EXPERIENCE: AN EXERCISE OF INTERTEXTUALITY
Sharing a Class
Experience: An Exercise of Intertextuality*
By Adriana
Podestá
Introduction
Dear SHARERS,
In this
paper I am showing you the way I worked
on Intertextuality with my 3rd year students at the teacher training course
(ISFD 127, San Nicolás), and I would like to share this experience with you.
My aim was to
establish intertextual relations by comparing two texts: the short story Little
Red Cap by the Grimm brothers (traditional version) and the poem Little Red Riding Hood and the
Wolf by Roald Dahl (modern version). My students examined how much the modern
version owes to the traditional and how different it is from the former.
While working in
this way, they integrated the four skills: listening, speaking, reading and
writing.
Addressees
Teachers of
intermediate and advanced levels since this paper can be adapted to both
levels. Acting as facilitators, teachers can conduct the analysis and
comparison of both texts by providing their students with questionnaires or
guidelines.
Those who work
with Advanced Students, can also ask their students to do research into the
concept of Intertextuality. Those who work with lower levels, can just have
their students discover that texts are based on others in different ways.
Sometimes we, readers, know the original text(s), sometimes we do not. In the
texts we analysed in class, it was easy to connect the poem to the traditional
short story because almost everyone knows the story.
We should note
that what we call “the traditional version” is at the same time, the result of
transformations of a story about Little Red Riding Hood and the Wolf.
Theoretical
Framework:
My theoretical
framework included the theories of Intertextuality, as developed by different
authors, and the Hallidayan Systemic Functional Grammar.
Intertextuality
Mikhail Bakhtin
was the first to say that “each text is part repetition, part creation”(“Discourse
in the novel”) and he also said that “an utterance is a link in the chain of
discourse communication” (“The problem of speech genres”) since it responds to previous utterances and
expects a response.
According to
Bakhtin, an author’s work is in this respect, an utterance: it has been
influenced by previous utterances and it will influence future utterances. By
saying this, he was referring to the dialogic nature of utterances. And Bakhtin’s dialogics will give rise to the
concept of Intertextuality, developed by Julia Kristeva (1981). Kristeva
expresses that Bakhtin was the first to introduce into literary theory the
notion that a text is built like a mosaic of quotations, that a text absorbs
another text and is tranformed into a new one. Kristeva refers to texts in
terms of two axes: a horizontal axis, connecting the author and the reader of a
text, and a vertical axis, connecting the text to other texts. Uniting these
two axes are shared codes.
*My students made
a presentation of this work at the Book Fair in San Nicolás, October 2008.
Every text and
every reading depends on prior codes. She also declares that every text is from
the outset under the jurisdiction of
other discourses that impose a universe on it.
Other authors
have also referred to this phenomenom of Intertextuality.
Barthes (1977)
says that “a text is a multidimensional space in which a variety of writings,
none of them original, blend and clash. The text is a tissue of quotations...
The writer can only imitate a gesture which is always anterior, never original.
His only power is to mix writings, to counter the ones with the others in such
a way as never to rest on any one of
them”.
Halliday (1985)
states that part of the environment for any text is a set of previous texts,
texts that are taken for granted as shared among those taking part.
Foucault (1974)
declares that “The frontiers of a book are never clear-cut beyond the title,
the first lines and the full stop, beyond its internal configuration and its
autonomous form, it is caught up in a system of references to other books,
other texts, other sentences: it is a node within a network... The book is not
simply the object that one holds in one’s hands... Its unity is variable and
relative”.
As we can see,
the authors mentioned agree that each text exists in relation to others.
There is also
Intertextuality in the fluidity of genre boundaries and in the blurring of
genres and their functions which is reflected in such recent coinages as
“advertorials”, “infomercials”, “edutainment”, “docudrama” and “faction” (a
blend of fact and fiction). Within Semiotics, genres can be seen as sign
systems or codes –conventionalised but dynamic structures. Each example of a
genre utilizes conventions which link it to other members of that genre.
The debt of a
text to others is not always acknowledged. However, some texts allude directly
to each other –as in remakes of films, extradiegetic references to the media in
the animated cartoon The Simpsons, and many amusing TV ads.
Gerard Genette
(1997) proposed the term “transtextuality” as a more inclusive term than
“intertextuality”. He listed five subtypes:
• intertextuality is the direct presence of
a text in another, through allusion, quotation or plagiarism;
• hypertextuality is the relation between a
text and a preceding hypotext, a text or genre on which it is based but which
it transforms, modifies, elaborates or extends (including parody, spoof, sequel
or translation);
• architextuality is the designation of a
text as part of a genre or genres;
• metatextuality is the explicit or
implicit critical commentary of one text on another text;
• paratextuality is the relation between a
text, the main body of a text, and what surrounds it – titles, headings,
prefaces, epigraphs, dedications, acknowledgements, footnotes, illustrations,
dust jackets, etc.
Halliday’s
Systemic Functional Grammar
Halliday’s
Grammar is called Systemic because Language is considered a set of systems,
each of which offers the speaker (or writer) the choice of ways of expressing
meanings, and it is called Functional because it focuses on the use of
Language, that is, discourse.
Halliday
classifies the ways in which human beings use language into three broad
categories.
Ideational
function: Language is used to organise, understand and express our perceptions
of the world.
Interpersonal
function: Language is used to enable us to participate in communicative acts
with other people, to take on roles and to express and understand feelings,
attitudes and judgements
Textual function:
Language is used to relate what is said (or written) to the real world and to
other linguistic events. This involves the use of language to organise the text
itself.
These categories
were considered in the analysis of the texts.
Development
Steps
I) Listening to
the poem.(What is it about? Which text is it based on?)
II) Speaking
about the traditional story.
III) Reading both
the poem and the story.
IV) Comparing
both texts (following Halliday’s Functional Systemic Grammar).
V) Writing
Step IV
Titles: Little
Red Cap (the story by the Grimm brothers)
Little Red Riding
Hood and the Wolf (the poem by Roald Dahl)
Textual
function
Genre
The modern
version is a poem. It is an amusing version (a parody) of the traditional story and it is written in
verse, it has rhythm and rhyme .
The traditional
version is a short story, a fairy tale in this case.
Text
types
In the short
story, there is narration (mainly), description and dialogue.
Narration:
succession of events. (Introduction, Development, Resolution and Coda).
Description of
L.R.Cap, of Grandma, of the woods.
Dialogue between
the Wolf and L.R.Cap.
In the poem there
is narration (mainly), dialogue and description.
Narration:
succession of events (Development, Resolution and Coda), Dialogue between L.R.R.H.
and the Wolf and Description of characters.
The narrator uses
Direct Speech when he reproduces the Wolf`s intentions.
Structure
The traditional
story has an introduction, a development, a resolution and a coda (moral)
Introduction
Who little Red
Cap is and why she is called Little Red Cap.
Development
Mother sends her
to Grandma’s house, Little Red Cap meets the Wolf, she takes another path, Wolf
eats Grandma, Wolf puts on Grandma’s clothes, Little Red
Cap arrives at
Grandma’s house, Wolf eats her up.
Resolution:
huntsman rescues both.
Coda (moral): Little Red Cap should have obeyed
her mother.
The story is in
the Past Tense.
The poem has no
explicit introduction. It starts when Wolf meets Grandma. (The narrator has
taken for granted that the readers know the beginning of the story, so he does
not need to refer to it.)
Development
Wolf eats Grandma
up, he is not satisfied, waits for Little Red Riding Hood, puts on Grandma’s
clothes, Little Red Riding Hood arrives, talks to the Wolf, Wolf makes
reference to traditional version (humorous effect).
Resolution
L.R.R.H. takes a
pistol from her knickers and shoots the Wolf dead. This part is in the Present
Tense whereas the rest of the story is in the Past. The Present Tense makes the
story more vivid and shows the most significant twist to the traditional story.
Coda: Narrator
meets her in the woods showing off her
wolfskin coat.
The big
difference between the two texts lies in the way LRRH is depicted. In the poem,
she is not the naive, defenceless girl of the short story. She takes action and kills the Wolf with a
pistol. In the story, she is eaten by the Wolf
and then rescued by the huntsman who cuts the wolf`s belly and rescues grandma, too. and the wolf dies after
the huntsman fills the wolf’s body with stones.
In the poem,
there is no explicit moral. (Students can provide a moral: If you are cautious,
nothing dangerous will happen to you). (To discuss)
Theme
The story and the
poem have the same theme in common: the triumph of good over evil. (To discuss)
Lexical
cohesion
Traditional
story:
Little Red Cap:
sweet girl, cap of red velvet, tasty bite, afraid, frightened, happy (in the
end)
Grandma: sick and weak, sick grandmother, sick and
weak (repetition), cake and wine, strength, too weak to get up, strange: big
ears, big eyes, big hands, big mouth, old woman.
The Wolf: wicked
animal, ate her up (repet. Grandma and L.R.Cap), snored very loudly, dark
inside the wolf`s body, fell down dead.
Poem:
Grandma:
terrified, right, small and tough, big ears, big eyes, old Grandmamma.
L.R.R.H.: Little
Miss Red R.H., this child, taste like caviare, the small girl, the little girl
in red , Miss Riding Hood, pistol, change: no cloak of red, no silly hood upon
her head, wolfskin coat.
The Wolf: decent
meal, white teeth, horrid grin, Wolfie, one big bite, frightful leer, lovely
great big furry coat, creature’s head, dead.
The vocabulary
associated to the different characters shows us how they are depicted in each
text.
In both versions,
the wolf is a wicked animal. In the tale, he eats both grandma and L.R.Cap. In
the poem, he eats only Grandma. In the tale, L.R.Cap is afraid of the Wolf, in
the Poem, she is not, she kills the Wolf and takes possession of his furry
skin.
Interpersonal
Function
In both versions
there is a narrator telling the story. The tale is aimed at children. The poem
is aimed at older children who have read or heard the fairy tale, and also to
teenagers and adults who can appreciate the author’s ingenuity at having turned
a classical story into a hilarious parody in verse.
In the poem, the
narrator becomes a character in the ending. Little Red Cap’s mother and the
huntsman do not appear.
It is clear that
in the poem the narrator wants not only to entertain his readers, but also to amuse
them. Examples of humour: Wolfie, of course he hadn`t eaten those (Grandma’s
clothes), she’s going to taste like caviare, L.R.R.H. praises the Wolf`s furry
coat, the wolf corrects her “That’s wrong. Have you forgot to tell me what big
teeth I’ve got?”, “one eyelid flickers, she whips a pistol from her knickers,
and bang, bang, bang, she shoots him dead”, “But what a change! No cloak of
red, no silly hood upon her head”. ( Silly hood: Does the narrator think that
the girl in the traditional version is silly? To discuss).
The exchanges in
the dialogue between the wolf (dressed
as Grandma) and LRRH are similar in both versions. In the traditional version,
Little Red Cap says“Oh, grandmother, what big ears you have!” The wolf answers
“All the better to hear you with, my child”. And in the modern version, “What
great big ears you have, Grandma.” “All
the better to hear you with”, the wolf replies. The adjective “great” acts as
an intensifier of the wolf’s big ears. (Perhaps by intensifying the wolf’s
features, she is displaying her courage to confront him).Notice how the girl
addresses her grandmother (formally), grandma (informally). (We tend to be more
informal in moders times). In the modern version, a new exchange was
included.“But Grandma, What a lovely furry coat you have on!” “That’s wrong”,
cried Wolf. “Have you forgot to tell me What BIG TEETH I’ve got?” The Wolf
expected a different question, the question that Little Red Cap asks in the
traditional version. This shows how the author is “playing” with the
traditional version.
There is also a
great deal of irony in the dialogue when the girl says “What great big eyes you
have, Grandma”. She knows that she is talking to the wolf. In the traditional
story, she thinks that she is talking to her grandmother. And she is surprised
at her big eyes! The irony in the poem reaches its highest point when the girl
says “But Grandma, what a lovely great big furry coat you have on!” She knows
what she is going to do with it! (Hidden intention: The furry coat is lovely.
She is going to wear it) It is too big for Grandma. LRRH pretends to be talking
to the old woman.
It is significant
to note in the short story how the Wolf persuades L.R.Cap to go into the woods and look at the flowers
and hear the birds singing. By using politeness strategies, he is hiding his
real intentions: to reach Grandma’s house before Little R.Cap.
From a critical
perspective, we can also refer to power relations.
In the short
story, the Wolf displays power over Grandma and over Little Red Cap, who are
afraid of the wolf.
In the poem, the
Wolf scares Grandma but he does not scare L.R.R.H. On the contrary, she is
prepared to cope with him. She proves to be more powerful than the wolf.
In the story,
Little Red Cap is naive, helpless, innocent, weak.
In the poem, she
is quick-thinking, resourceful (knows how to defend herself), clever, cautious.
Notice that when the narrator meets the girl in the woods, he does not call her
“Little” any more but “Miss” Red Riding Hood (Showing respect and admiration).
Politeness in the
story: “Good day to you, Little Red Cap” “Where are you going so early,
L.R.Cap”? Greeting the girl and addressing her by her name make the wolf’s
speech polite.
Politeness in the
poem “May I come in?” The Wolf is asking for permission.
By pretending to
be polite, the wolf is hiding his real intentions.
Ideational
Function
Considering the
Processes and the Participants, we analysed the clauses in which the characters
are involved.
Story
Grandmother is
sick and weak.
“I’m too weak to
get up”
Poem
Poor Gradmamma
was terrified.
But/ Grandma was
small and tough.
We find
relational processes with the verb to be, Carrier (the participant) and
Attribute.
There is a
description of grandma in both the story and the poem, and in the poem, there
is reference to her feelings.
Story
And then he (the
Wolf) immediately fell upon the good woman
(grandmother) and ate her up in a moment.
Poem
He ate her
(grandma) up in one big bite.
In these clauses
we find material processes with verbs of doing. The participants are the Wolf
as Actor and grandma as Patient.
Story
He (the Wolf)
jumped out of bed, jumped on top of Little Red Cap and ate her up.
So he (the
huntsman) took a pair of scissors and cut open his (the wolf’s) belly.
Poem
She whips a
pistol from her knickers
She aims it at
the creature’s head
And bang, bang,
bang
She shoots him
dead.
In these clauses
we also find material processes with verbs of doing but there is a change in
the participants’ roles.
In the Story, the
Actor is the Wolf and the Little Red Cap is the patient.
In the Poem, the
Actor is L.R.R.H. and the Wolf is the Patient.
If we apply the
categories of Villain, Hero and Victim
to the participants in these
material processes, we can say that in the tale, the Villain is the wolf,
the victims Grandma and Little Red Cap and the hero is the huntsman. The
huntsman is a hero because he has caught the wolf and rescued Grandma and
LRCap. In this way, he has drawn the story to a happy ending.
In the Poem, the
villain is the Wolf, the victim is grandma and the heroine is L.R.R.H. She is a
heroine because she has killed the wolf, acting in self defence.
Step
V
Write
• A detective story about a modern L.R.R.H.
(A girl being kidnapped)
• A fantastic story about a modern
Cinderella (A maid who is tired of cleaning houses- A fairy appears...)
• A story from the point of view of the
stepmother in the tale Snow White. (Show how wicked you are)
• A humorous play based on a fairy tale
By producing
their own writings based on traditional stories, my students established new links in the chain of textual
relations.
Conclusion
The author has
made use of a well known story to create another text. He has shown originality
in the way he has adapted the story to modern times. He has introduced the element
of humour into his text, turning the story into a parody. And he has created a
poem. The author seems to have been playing with the traditional version and
even laughing at it while producing the new version possibly because he may
have considered the traditional version “silly” (silly hood, silly girl? silly
version? To discuss)
The main
differences we have shown between the two versions are:
• In the genre (one is a short story and the other is a
poem)
• in the writer’s purpose (in the tale, to
entertain young children and teach them a moral; in the poem, to make readers
laugh- there is humour and irony)
• in the story itself (the author has
retained some of the events and has changed others, especially the ending) and
• in the characters (in the poem, the
girl’s mother does not appear, the huntsman does not appear either, the
narrator himself is a character and we find a different L.R.R.H.).
The comparison of
both texts has enabled us to establish intertextual relations. Following
Genette’s taxonomy, we can say that the poem stands in a hypertextual relation
with the traditional story, the hypotext.
I hope you may
find this work useful and I encourage you to put it into practice.Your students
will enjoy the experience as much as mine did.
Bibliography
• Bakhtin, M. “El problema de
los géneros discursivos” en Estética de
la creación verbal, Siglo XXI Editores, Méjico, 1982.
• Chandler, D, “Semiotics for beginners”,
http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/sem09.html
• Dahl, R., Revolting rhymes, Penguin
Books, London, 2001.
• Genette, G. Palimsestos, Taurus, Marid, 1989.
• Halliday, MAK, An Introduction to Functional Grammar, Arnold, London, 1994.
• Halliday, M. Cohesion in English, Longman, London, 1976.
• Kristeva, J, Semiótica I, (p.190), Espiral, Madrid,
1978.
Little
Red Riding Hood and the Wolf (by Roald Dahl)
As soon as Wolf
began to feel
That he would
have a decent meal,
He went and
knocked on Grandma’s door.
When Grandma
opened it, she saw
The sharp white
teeth, the horrid grin,
And Wolfie said,
“May I come in?”•
Poor Grandmamma
was terrified,
“He’s going to
eat me up!”, she cried.
And she was
absolutely right.
He ate her up in
one big bite.
But Grandmamma
was small and tough,
And Wolfie
wailed, “That’s not enough!
I haven’t yet
begun to feel
That I have had a
decent meal!”
He ran around the
kitchen yelping,
I’ve got to have
another helping!
Then added with a
frightful leer,
“I’m therefore
going to wait right here
Till Little Miss
Red Riding Hood
Comes home from
walking in the wood.”
He quickly put on
Grandma’s clothes,
(Of course he
hadn’t eaten those.)
He dressed
himself in coat and hat.
He put on shoes
and after that
He even brushed
and curled his hair,
Then sat himself
in Grandma’s chair.
In came the
little girl in red.
She stopped. She
started. And then she said,
“What great big
ears you have, Grandma.”
“All the better
to hear you with”, the Wolf replied.
“What great big
eyes you have, Grandma,”
said Little Red
Riding Hood.
“All the better
to see you with,” the Wolf replied.
He sat there
watching her and smiled.
He thought, I’m
going to eat this child.
Compared with her
old Grandmamma
She’s going to
taste like caviare.
Then Little Red
Riding Hood said, “But Grandma,
What a lovely
great big furry coat you have on.”
“That’s wrong!”
cried Wolf. “Have you forgot
To tell me What
BIG TEETH I’ve got?
Ah well, no
matter what you say,
I’m going to eat
you anyway.”
The small girl
smiles. One eyelid flickers.
She whips a pistol
from her knickers.
She aims it at
the creature’s head
And bang, bang,
bang, she shoots him dead.
A few weeks
later, in the wood,
I came across Miss Riding Hood.
But what a
change! No cloak of red
No silly hood
upon her head.
She said, “Hello,
and do please note
My lovely furry
WOLFSKIN COAT.”
You can find the
short story by the Grimm brothers following this link:
http://www.pitt.edudash/type0333.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------