In news discourse, the ideology that the writer intends to convey is highlighted through intertexuality, which conceptualizes the readers of news discourse, constrains the subjectivity of the readers and fulfills the purposes of increasing the trueness of the news. However, difference in perspective influences the result of readers’ cognition. This thesis makes a contrastive study of the intertexuality of two pieces of English news from New York Times and China Daily respectively, and hereby discusses the best viewing perspectives of the readers in the light of Figure / Ground Theory and Subjectivity Theory. Finally, it comes to a conclusion that the influence of intertextuality on the readers of news discourse is inversely correlated to the readers’ subjectivity. Therefore, to acquire an optimal perspective, the readers must bring into play their subjectivity.

Zheng Min, Cheng Jitang. Eliminating Interferences of Intertexuality—An Optimal Cognitive Perspective for News Discourse Readers. Academic Journal of Humanities & Social Sciences (2023) Vol. 6, Issue 14: 47-54. https://doi.org/10.25236/AJHSS.2023.061409.

[1] Xin Bin. Intertextuality, Unstable Meaning and Stable Meaning [J]. Journal of Nanjing Normal University, 2006(3): 114-120. 

[2] Kristeva, J. Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art [M]. Oxford: Blackwell, 1980: 146, 328.  

[3] Culler, J. The Pursuit of Signs, Semiotics, Literature, Deconstruction [M]. New York: Cornell University Press, 1981. 

[4] Makkonen, A. Onko interteskstuaalisuudella mitään rajaa? [A]. In A. Viikari (ed.). Interteskstuaalisuudella: suuntia ja sovelluksia [C]. Helsinki: SKS, 1991: 9-30. 

[5] Chandler, D. Semiotics: The Basics [M]. London / New York: Routledge. 2003. 

[6] Fairclough, N. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language [M]. London / New York: Longman, 1995. 

[7] Fairclough, N. Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research [M]. London/New York: Routledge, 2003. 

[8] Lemke, J. L. Ideology, Intertextuality and the Communication of Science [A]. In P. H. Fries, M. Cummings, D. Lockwood & W. Spruiell (eds.). Relations and Functions within and around Language [C]. London / New York: Continuum, 2002: 32-55. 

[9] Lemke, J. L. Intertextuality and Educational Research [A]. In N. Shuart- Faris & D. Bloome (eds. ). Uses of Intertextuality in Classroom and Educational Research [C]. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing, 2004: 257-267. 

[10] Xin Bin. Critical Linguistics: Theory and Application [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2005. 

[11] Xin Bin, Lai Yan. Theories and Methods of Intertextual Analysis in Discourse [J]. Contemporary Rhetoric, 2010(3): 32-39. 

[12] Goalty, A. The Language of Metaphor [M]. London / New York: Routledge. 1997. 

[13] Beaugrande, R. & Dressler, W. U. Introduction to text linguistics [M]. London: Longman, 1981. 

[14] Beatriz, P. The Intertextual Dimension of Discourse: Pragma - Linguistic - cognitive - hermeneutic Approaches [M]. Michigan: Universidad de Zaragoza, 1996. 

[15] Langacker, R. W. The Form and Meaning of the English Auxiliary [J]. Language, 1978 (54): 853 - 882. 

[16] Fillmore, Charles J. Topics in lexical semantics. In R. Cole (ed.). Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, Bloominton / London: Indiana University Press. 1977: 76-138. 

[17] Langacker, R. W. Observations and speculations on subjectivity[A]. In J. Haimen (ed.). Iconicity in Syntax [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1985:109-150. 

[18] Van Dijk, T. A. Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction [M]. London: Sage, 1997. 

[19] Li Fuyin. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics [M]. Beijing: Peking University Press, 2008: 361. 

[20] Langacker, R. W. Grammar and Conceptualization [M]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2000. 

[21] Lyons, J. Semantics: Volume 2 [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977: 739.