Intertextuality as mediation: On the analysis of intertextual relations in public discourse

This article analyzes intertextual relations in public discourse as a form of mediation through which claims produced within one domain are taken up in other domains and travel across domains. In the analysis, the concept of 'intertextual chains' is applied to an environmental debate on air pollution risks in the United Kingdom. The chain constructed for analysis includes contributions from science, government, the press, and an environmental pressure group. The chain is examined from two perspectives: What types of textual relations are set up between the four institutions, and what meaning shifts occur along the chain. A highly contested type of meaning, causality, is chosen for detailed analysis. The analysis of relations between the four institutions suggests that there are significant constraints on the textual interaction. For instance, media and pressure group texts are seldom explicitly taken up in texts by the government. The analysis of meaning shifts shows that the expression of causality varies greatly between different genres. For instance, causal claims are systematically strengthened when scientific antigovernment claims are embedded into news reports. The analysis thus supports the assumption that intertextual chains are not a neutral form of mediation, in the sense of acting simply as channels of transmission. The article closes by assessing the usefulness of the notion of intertextual chaining in this type of data.