It’s quite impressive how Eyman was able to provide a lot in just two paragraphs (under the Intertextuality section). Although, he did mention the word ‘intertextuality’ a lot, so had to hit up the old google and figure out what it meant. So now that I know it’s a “textual reference within a body of a text”, I started piecing together what Eyman meant in the two paragraphs. One sentence I don’t really understand was when he quoted one of the authors (think it was Warnick),
“One key point that is made in the conclusion is that there is a significant need for scholars to consider ‘preservation and a sense of the historical trajectory of the Web’s development”.
Oh, by the way, Eyman uses a lot of references and it’s from two authors named Kristeva and Warnick- heck Eyman used a reference as his introduction to the ‘Intertextuality’ portion of the chapter. From what I’m trying to understand, Eyman is bringing in both authors into the chapter and has them argue about the word mentioned earlier. That’s one way of explaining the definition, but it took me awhile to figure it out. Another thing I want to bring up is how well Eyman uses punctuation, using them at the best time to give a sentence more impact (that’s the best explanation I can give). But I do have a hunch, remember when Eyman was explaining about how some authors use intertextuality as a rhetorical effect to have readers fetch for an answer? I think Eyman was using the same tactic the entire time.
If you want more information about the text and its overall meaning, I suggest reading Kait Nemeth’s blog post. They do an amazing job of providing their interpretation of the text. Plus, Kait gives out more opinions on the passage than I did in this blog post.
Leave a Reply