Our work with the Citation Project has led to a deep exploration of intertextual writing and the responses to it, and especially of the moments where intertextuality fails (sometimes considered plagiarism). We first explored this form of intertextuality in “The Ethics of Teaching Rhetorical Intertextuality” (2021). In that article, published in the Journal of Academic Academic Ethics, we argue that three approaches to intertextual writing are available to college instructors: mechanical, ethical, and rhetorical.
- The mechanical approach, a staple of writing instruction, teaches the use of citation styles such as MLA or APA; methods of citing sources; and the conventions of quotation.
- The ethical approach is primarily concerned with the character of individual writers and their adherence to community standards categorized as “academic integrity.”
- A third approach, rhetorical intertextuality, is overshadowed by the ethical concerns that currently permeate educational institutions. Rhetorical intertextuality does promote textual ethics, but in a positive way, through instruction in building meaning in a target text through collaboration with source texts. Rhetorical intertextuality brings the source texts themselves to life rather than merely mining them for information; it aims to engage the audience in a conversation with target text and source texts.
Drawing on Citation Project data, we advocate instruction in intertextual writing that hails students as authors, not transgressors. We name this Rhetorical intertextuality. Instruction in Rhetorical Intertextuality can provide a positive frame that facilitates deep engagement with texts, intellectual approaches to paraphrasing and summarizing, and an emphasis on the rhetorical choices that writers make as they encounter and respond to the ideas of others. The objective of such instruction is a dialogic interface between writer, audience, and sources—a conversation.
Rhetorical intertextuality creates a collaborative conversation between writers, sources, and readers that generates new perspectives and expands understanding.
The six Characteristics of Rhetorical Intertextuality
Connection: Creating and citing connections between authors and readers, between authors and source texts, and among the ideas within and across texts brings life and movement to writing.
Curiosity: Asking exploratory questions, following information trails, making connections, and paying critical attention to which data, voices, and interpretations are included (or absent) provides rich perspectives for both the writer and the audience.
Engagement: Refusing to settle for superficial answers and instead searching out different perspectives and exploring the complexity of ideas engages the writer in a deeper and more nuanced understanding of the material.
Authority: Establishing that the sources they have chosen are trustworthy, as well as that the writer has interpreted them fairly and knows what they’re talking about encourages audiences to believe in and rely on what’s being written.
Reflection: Reflecting on what one has thought about and read enables writers to see patterns and arguments, make connections, and make meaning.
Conversation: Listening to and responding to the ideas and arguments of others positions all writing as a conversation — between writers and texts, writers and readers, and writers and themselves.
PUBLICATIONS
Howard, Rebecca Moore & Sandra Jamieson. “The Ethics of Teaching Rhetorical Intertextuality” Journal of Academic Ethics, 19. June 2021. 385-405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-021-09424-2
We hope a second will be forthcoming in 2026-2027
(last updated 10/1o/26)