IB DP Language A: Literature -- Intertextuality: Connecting Texts

This guide covers Intertextuality: Connecting Texts, one of three syllabus components for IB Diploma Programme Language A: Literature, first assessment 2021. The full syllabus guide confirms this exclusively literary course draws comparisons across a wide span of literary history and form under this component, alongside Readers, Writers and Texts.

Where this fits in the syllabus

Intertextuality is where this course’s exclusively literary scope is put to direct use: rather than analysing a single text in isolation, this component asks how one literary work relates to another – echoing, responding to, or subverting it. Because Paper 2’s comparative essay draws directly on this component’s skills, it should not be treated as a secondary or optional part of preparation relative to close reading of individual texts.

What “intertextuality” actually means

At its simplest, intertextuality is the idea that no literary work exists in isolation – every text is written and read against a backdrop of other texts, whether the writer is deliberately echoing, responding to, subverting, or unconsciously working within a tradition established by earlier works. These relationships are distinct and worth naming precisely: an echo or homage borrows form or content admiringly; a response engages critically or in dialogue with an earlier work’s ideas; a subversion deliberately overturns or undermines the conventions or assumptions of an earlier work or genre.

Building a genuine intertextual comparison

A weak comparative answer places two works side by side and describes each separately. A strong one identifies a specific, genuine point of connection – shared theme, shared form, one work deliberately referencing or reacting against the other – and uses that connection to say something neither work would reveal fully on its own. Structure comparative practice around three questions: what specifically connects these two works, not just “both deal with loss” but a more precise shared concern or technique; how does each work treat that shared element differently; and what does comparing them reveal that reading either work alone would not?

Worked example: naming the specific relationship

Consider comparing a modern novel that reimagines events from a much older epic poem’s minor character’s point of view. A surface-level comparison might simply note that “both works deal with war and its aftermath.” A stronger intertextual comparison identifies the specific relationship: the modern novel is a deliberate response to the epic, deliberately subverting whose perspective is centred – shifting attention from the epic’s celebrated hero to a figure the original text treats as peripheral. This shift is not just thematic overlap; it is the modern work actively arguing with the older one about whose experience of war deserves narrative attention. A comparative essay that names this specific relationship, rather than a generic shared topic, demonstrates exactly the kind of analysis this component and Paper 2 both reward.

Working across literary traditions and periods

Because this course draws from a genuinely international range of literary traditions, and often includes works originally written in languages other than the one being studied (read in translation), intertextual comparison here can span very different historical periods and cultural contexts – a modern novel read alongside a much older play, for instance. Account for context explicitly in a comparison: two works can share a theme while treating it very differently because of when, where and in what literary tradition each was written, and a strong comparative answer accounts for that difference rather than treating both works as though they were produced in the same cultural moment.

Connecting this component to Time and Space

Intertextuality and Time and Space are not separate skills to prepare in isolation – understanding a work’s own historical and cultural context is often the key to explaining why it echoes, responds to or subverts another work in the specific way it does. Preparing these two components together, rather than as unconnected blocks, produces stronger comparative essays.

How this feeds Paper 2 and the individual oral

Paper 2’s comparative essay draws directly on the skill this component develops – structured, evidence-based comparison across two studied literary works. Practising timed comparative writing specifically, not just single-text close reading, is essential preparation, since comparing under time pressure is a distinct skill. For the individual oral, which pairs a work originally written in the studied language with a work studied in translation, this component’s comparative habits transfer directly – the oral itself is, in effect, a spoken intertextual and contextual analysis of two works connected around a common global issue.

Common exam pitfalls

Describing two works separately and stopping, without ever stating the specific relationship between them, is the most common way marks are lost on this component – a comparative essay is not two single- text essays placed side by side. Naming only a broad shared theme (“both are about love,” “both are about power”) without identifying how each work treats that theme differently, or why the difference matters, is a second common gap. A third is treating context as irrelevant to the comparison: assuming two works can be compared as though produced in the same moment, when in fact part of what makes the comparison interesting is that they were not.

How to approach it

Practise naming the specific relationship between two works – echo, response, or subversion – rather than settling for a generic shared theme. Build comparative practice around the three-question structure (what connects them specifically, how each treats it differently, what comparing them reveals) under timed conditions, since Paper 2 rewards fluency in this structure over recalling a memorised comparison of two particular works. Keep the individual oral’s paired-text comparison in mind while preparing this component, since the two are the same analytical skill applied in different formats.

Official syllabus

International Baccalaureate Organization, Diploma Programme Subject Brief – Language A: Literature, first assessment 2021, (c) 2019 – the same source already cited by the full syllabus guide and the revision notes already on the site. Verified 2026-09-06.