Chapter 5 talked a lot about the essence of intertextuality and gave us definitions of what one had thought it was. I toot the liberty to look it up to see what specifically it was and what Wikipedia had said was that "Intertextuality was the shaping of texts' meanings by other texts." Seemed pretty simple to me, so why was a whole chapter about it? While reading I saw that Intertextuality isn't just about "texts." Kristeva states "any text is constructed as a mosaic of quotations; any text is an absorption and transformation of [other] texts" (pg. 79). I love how she had said "mosaic of quotations" because I have never really thought of "mosaic" without the use of art involved, but it makes perfect since. A text really is just something that is created out of pre-writings like questions, notes, and multiple ideas you have strung in your head to find the perfect mosaic masterpiece.
I think Intertextuality has more to do with how the audience experience certain texts. Certain language has the power to not only exceed individual control but also determine subjectivity and with this power it can significantly emphasize the uniqueness of both texts and authors that really get the audience to be more attentive to what they are being taught.