Introduction: “Presupposition and Intertextuality” by Jonathan Culler
“Presupposition and Intertextuality” by Jonathan Culler first appeared in MLN: Modern Language Notes, Volume 91, No. 6, in December 1976, under the Comparative Literature section, published by The Johns Hopkins University Press. This seminal essay explores the intricate relationship between presupposition and intertextuality, arguing that every text exists within a discursive space shaped by prior texts, conventions, and cultural codes. Culler emphasizes that understanding literary works involves recognizing their dependence on pre-existing discourse rather than treating them as isolated artifacts. The essay advances literary theory by reorienting the study of texts toward their intertextual dimensions, proposing that texts derive meaning not only from explicit references to earlier works but also from the implicit presuppositions they embed. This framework underscores the interconnectedness of literature, its historical and cultural sedimentations, and the interpretive practices that sustain it. By doing so, Culler’s work provides critical insights into the institutional nature of literature and challenges traditional notions of originality and influence, making it a cornerstone in modern literary and critical theory.
Summary of “Presupposition and Intertextuality” by Jonathan Culler
- Intertextuality as a Theoretical Construct
Culler posits that all texts exist within a “discursive space,” relying on previous texts, conventions, and codes for meaning. The concept of intertextuality challenges the autonomy of literary works by emphasizing their connections to prior discourse, making meaning contingent on shared cultural and textual practices. As he explains, “utterances or texts are never moments of origin because they depend on the prior existence of codes and conventions” (Culler, 1976, p. 1382). - Presupposition and Textual Significance
Presupposition, both logical and rhetorical, is central to Culler’s argument. Logical presupposition refers to the necessary truths implied by a sentence, while rhetorical presupposition involves broader interpretive contexts. For example, Baudelaire’s poetry presupposes a poetic tradition, treating it as a pre-existing discourse, which frames the reader’s interpretation (Culler, 1976, p. 1390). This highlights how literary texts depend on implicit references to prior works. - Literature as an Intertextual Dialogue
Culler’s essay underscores that literature is not a standalone creation but an “absorption, parody, and criticism” of prior texts. Writing and reading are acts that position texts within the larger context of cultural and historical discourse, aligning with Julia Kristeva’s view of intertextuality: “the notion of intersubjectivity is replaced by that of intertextuality” (Culler, 1976, p. 1383). - The Challenges of Intertextual Analysis
The vastness of intertextual connections makes it difficult to pinpoint specific influences, often leading critics to narrow their focus. For instance, while Harold Bloom compresses intertextuality into a poet’s struggle with a single precursor, Culler critiques this as reductive, favoring broader considerations of genre, conventions, and implicit discourse (Culler, 1976, pp. 1387-1388). - Practical Implications of Intertextuality
Intertextuality reshapes how literature is interpreted. Culler suggests that instead of tracing direct sources, critics should study the conventions and assumptions underlying a work’s intelligibility. This shifts focus from “source-hunting” to understanding the implicit codes that make texts meaningful (Culler, 1976, p. 1384). - Presupposition in Linguistics and Literature
Drawing on linguistic models, Culler distinguishes between logical presuppositions (e.g., grammatical structures) and pragmatic presuppositions (e.g., genre conventions). This dual approach reveals how presuppositions create intertextual spaces by embedding prior discourse within a text (Culler, 1976, pp. 1389-1390). - The Role of Rhetorical Presupposition
Rhetorical presupposition opens intertextual spaces where texts interact with prior assumptions and conventions. Culler uses examples from Baudelaire and Blake to illustrate how poems presuppose traditions or attitudes, shaping the interpretive process (Culler, 1976, p. 1391). - Avoiding Source Study and Canonical Limitations
Culler cautions against reducing intertextuality to direct influences or canonical relationships, as in Bloom’s model. Instead, he advocates for exploring the broader systems of conventions and practices that constitute literary production and interpretation (Culler, 1976, p. 1395). - Intertextuality’s Contribution to Poetics
Culler concludes that intertextuality contributes to the study of literature by focusing on conventions, genres, and the implicit assumptions underlying texts. It offers a framework for understanding literature as an institution shaped by cultural and historical discourse (Culler, 1976, pp. 1395-1396).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Presupposition and Intertextuality” by Jonathan Culler
| Term/Concept | Definition/Explanation | Significance |
| Intertextuality | The idea that texts derive meaning through their relationship to prior texts, discourses, and conventions. | Emphasizes the non-autonomous nature of texts and situates them within broader cultural systems. |
| Presupposition | Assumptions or implicit truths embedded within a text, which contribute to its meaning. | Highlights how texts rely on shared knowledge or prior discourse to be intelligible and significant. |
| Logical Presupposition | Propositions that must be true for a sentence to have meaning, based on linguistic structure. | Connects individual sentences to implicit assumptions, creating a foundational intertextual layer. |
| Rhetorical Presupposition | The broader interpretive contexts, such as genre or cultural assumptions, that shape how a text is understood. | Reflects the interaction between a text and its cultural and interpretive frameworks. |
| Discursive Space | The cultural and textual environment in which a text exists, encompassing shared codes and conventions. | Situates texts within a broader system of meaning, linking them to historical and cultural practices. |
| Genre Conventions | Rules and norms associated with specific literary forms or genres that influence interpretation. | Shows how genre provides a framework for both creating and interpreting texts. |
| Pragmatic Presupposition | Assumptions about the situational context that enable a text to function as a particular kind of discourse. | Explains the functional relationship between text, context, and reader expectations. |
| Deja Lu | A term by Roland Barthes referring to the sense that textual elements are already read, part of a shared cultural lexicon. | Reinforces the idea that texts are inherently intertextual and refer to pre-existing codes. |
| Intertextual Codes | The implicit conventions and references that make a text intelligible within its cultural context. | Identifies the underlying structures that connect texts to their intertextual networks. |
| Application | The act of interpreting one text by applying the framework or discourse of another. | Explores the dynamic interaction between texts in the interpretive process. |
| Antithetical Criticism | Harold Bloom’s concept of reading texts as engaged in a psychological struggle with their precursors. | Narrows intertextuality to a competitive relationship, contrasting with broader views like Culler’s. |
| Institution of Literature | The idea that literature operates within established systems of norms, practices, and expectations. | Positions literary texts as products and participants of cultural and institutional frameworks. |
Contribution of “Presupposition and Intertextuality” by Jonathan Culler to Literary Theory/Theories
1. Contribution to Intertextuality
- Definition Expansion: Culler refines Julia Kristeva’s concept of intertextuality by emphasizing its dependence not only on prior texts but also on shared conventions and discursive codes.
Reference: “The notion of intertextuality names the paradox… that utterances or texts are never moments of origin because they depend on the prior existence of codes and conventions” (Culler, 1382).
2. Relationship with Structuralism
- Text as a System: Aligning with structuralist theory, Culler asserts that texts derive meaning through their place in a larger system of conventions and codes.
Reference: “Writing itself is a similar activity: a taking up of a position in a discursive space” (Culler, 1383).
3. Pragmatic and Logical Presuppositions
- Integration with Linguistics: Culler borrows from linguistic theories, distinguishing between logical presuppositions (required for a sentence’s truth) and pragmatic presuppositions (contextual appropriateness).
Reference: “Logical presuppositions relate sentences of a text to another set of sentences… pragmatic presuppositions concern relations between utterance and the situation of utterance” (Culler, 1390-1391).
4. Development of Genre Theory
- Conventions as Key: Culler situates texts within the framework of genre, asserting that conventions govern interpretation.
Reference: “A poetics… relates a literary work to a whole series of other works, treating them not as sources but as constituents of a genre” (Culler, 1395).
5. Critical Engagement with Influence Theory
- Critique of Harold Bloom: Culler critiques Bloom’s “anxiety of influence,” arguing that it overly narrows intertextuality to relationships between individual authors. Instead, Culler emphasizes the role of anonymous and diffuse codes.
Reference: “Intertextuality is less a relationship between individuals… and more the anonymous discursive practices, codes whose origins are lost” (Culler, 1386).
6. Shift from Source Study to Discursive Practices
- Beyond Sources: Culler advocates moving past traditional source studies, focusing instead on the systemic conditions enabling textual production and interpretation.
Reference: “The study of intertextuality is not the investigation of sources and influences… it casts its net wider to include anonymous discursive practices” (Culler, 1384).
7. Application to Poetics
- Presupposition in Literature: Culler identifies presupposition as a key mechanism in literature, shaping how texts implicitly position themselves in relation to prior discourse.
Reference: “Logical presupposition is an intertextual operator which implies a discursive context” (Culler, 1391).
8. Reader-Response Implications
- Role of the Reader: Culler’s exploration of intertextuality and presupposition underscores the role of the reader in bringing shared codes to interpretation.
Reference: “Readers, in whom these conventions dwell, are the representatives of a general intertextuality” (Culler, 1382).
9. Contribution to Poststructuralism
- Decentralization of Meaning: By emphasizing the lost origins of conventions, Culler contributes to poststructuralist ideas about the instability and multiplicity of textual meaning.
Reference: “Conventions… have a lost origin… the intertextuality of texts evades description” (Culler, 1382).
10. Foundations for Interpretive Theories
- Strong Readings and Application: Culler’s discussion of “application”—the interaction of one discourse with another—provides a framework for robust interpretive strategies.
Reference: “The interpretive uses of the notion of intertextuality… contribute to that poetics of reading” (Culler, 1396).
Examples of Critiques Through “Presupposition and Intertextuality” by Jonathan Culler
| Literary Work | Critique Through Presupposition | Critique Through Intertextuality |
| Baudelaire’s “Bénédiction” | Presupposes the poet’s divine role by beginning with “Lorsque par un décret des puissances suprêmes,” placing this as a prior discourse. | Frames the poem as engaging with a mythical tradition about the poet, transforming and questioning these inherited narratives. |
| Blake’s “The Tyger” | Questions presuppose an immortal creator and the fearful symmetry of the tiger, referencing an implicit prior discourse. | Interacts with religious texts and Enlightenment ideals, positioning the tiger as a symbolic critique of divine creation. |
| T.S. Eliot’s The Waste Land | Presupposes familiarity with myths, historical events, and literary allusions to create a fragmented but coherent narrative. | Intertextually dialogues with works like Dante’s Inferno, the Bible, and fertility myths, constructing a layered text. |
| Joyce’s Ulysses | Presupposes knowledge of Homer’s Odyssey and Irish cultural identity, embedding its structure within prior epic narratives. | Rewrites and parodies the epic tradition, transforming classical themes into modernist explorations of everyday life. |
Criticism Against “Presupposition and Intertextuality” by Jonathan Culler
- Ambiguity of Intertextual Boundaries
Culler’s concept of intertextuality is criticized for its vagueness in defining the scope of intertextual references, as it can potentially encompass an infinite range of texts and discourses. - Overemphasis on Textual Networks
Critics argue that Culler’s focus on textual interrelations underplays the role of historical, cultural, and socio-political contexts in shaping literary meaning. - Neglect of Authorial Intention
Culler’s framework dismisses authorial intent as irrelevant, which some critics see as a limitation in understanding the nuanced motivations and creative decisions of writers. - Dependence on Reader Competence
The theory heavily relies on readers’ ability to recognize and engage with presuppositions and intertextual codes, which may not be universally accessible or evident. - Risk of Reductionism
By framing texts as primarily intertextual constructs, the theory risks reducing literature to a closed system of texts, ignoring the experiential and emotional aspects of literary engagement. - Challenges in Practical Application
Applying Culler’s theory to specific texts can lead to reductive source-hunting or speculative connections, undermining its broader theoretical claims. - Limited Consideration of Non-Canonical Texts
The focus on canonical works and their intertextual dialogues may marginalize non-canonical or culturally diverse literatures, which may not engage with established “codes” or conventions.
Representative Quotations from “Presupposition and Intertextuality” by Jonathan Culler with Explanation
| Quotation | Explanation |
| “A piece of writing presupposes … what must it assume to take on significance?” | Culler emphasizes that texts inherently rely on pre-existing knowledge or assumptions (presuppositions), without which their meaning cannot be constructed. This connects to intertextuality by rooting texts in broader discursive frameworks. |
| “The notion of intertextuality names the paradox of linguistic and discursive systems.” | Intertextuality, as per Culler, refers to the inevitable dependence of texts on prior conventions and codes, highlighting that no text is original in a vacuum. It exists as part of an ongoing system of textual relationships. |
| “Texts are never moments of origin because they depend on the prior existence of codes and conventions.” | This reflects the central idea that texts are constructed within a network of intertextuality, where meaning emerges through engagement with already established discourses and systems, not as standalone entities. |
| “To read is to place a work in a discursive space, relating it to other texts and to the codes of that space.” | Reading is seen as an act of contextualization, where the significance of a text is derived by positioning it within a broader literary and cultural system, emphasizing intertextuality as the lens for interpretation. |
| “A text refers to or cites bits of discourse which are ‘anonymes, irreperables, et cependant deja lus’.” | Borrowing from Roland Barthes, Culler notes that intertextual references in texts are often anonymous and irretrievable, yet they operate as if they have been previously read, creating a complex web of implicit connections. |
| “Logical presuppositions are what must be true for a proposition to be either true or false.” | Culler connects linguistic presuppositions to literature, where logical premises are embedded in the text, influencing its interpretation. This analytical tool helps unpack how texts signal prior knowledge without overt articulation. |
| “Presuppositions are what allow a work to identify itself with the already-read.” | Here, Culler underscores the role of presuppositions in connecting texts to prior literary or cultural knowledge, positioning them within a broader network of understanding, which is central to intertextuality. |
| “Intertextuality designates the domain common to writing and reading.” | Intertextuality bridges the act of writing and reading, emphasizing their shared dependence on existing texts, codes, and conventions. This challenges the notion of textual originality or autonomy. |
| “By presupposing sentences, works treat them as prior discourse.” | This statement shows how authors position certain ideas as already established, situating their work in relation to prior texts or discourses and relying on readers to recognize these implicit references. |
| “A poetics of this kind finds its raison d’être in the intertextual nature of literary works.” | Culler suggests that understanding the conventions and frameworks underpinning texts is crucial to literary theory, as intertextuality is fundamental to how literature functions as an institution and practice. |
Suggested Readings: “Presupposition and Intertextuality” by Jonathan Culler
- Culler, Jonathan. “Presupposition and Intertextuality.” MLN, vol. 91, no. 6, 1976, pp. 1380–96. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2907142. Accessed 13 Dec. 2024.
- Gorman, David. “Jonathan Culler: A Checklist of Writings on Literary Criticism and Theory to 1994.” Style, vol. 29, no. 4, 1995, pp. 549–61. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42946311. Accessed 13 Dec. 2024.
- Landwehr, Margarete. “Introduction: Literature and the Visual Arts; Questions of Influence and Intertextuality.” College Literature, vol. 29, no. 3, 2002, pp. 1–16. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25112655. Accessed 13 Dec. 2024.
- Alfaro, María Jesús Martínez. “INTERTEXTUALITY: ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONCEPT.” Atlantis, vol. 18, no. 1/2, 1996, pp. 268–85. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41054827. Accessed 13 Dec. 2024.
- Toyama, Jean Yamasaki. “Intertextuality and the Question of Origins: A Japanese Perspective.” Comparative Literature Studies, vol. 27, no. 4, 1990, pp. 313–23. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40246769. Accessed 13 Dec. 2024.