Using a corpus of twenty-four lectures drawn from The BASE corpus, this study is an analysis and inter-disciplinary comparison of the management of Intertextuality in the genre of the undergraduate lecture. Theorising Intertextuality as central within the discursive (re-)construction of disciplinary knowledge, the investigation of Intertextuality is viewed as the investigation of the discursively-mediated interaction(s) of a current lecturer with original knowledge-constituting discourses, and with their agents too, of an academic community.
As there is no holistic and comprehensive methodology for assessing the management of Intertextuality in academic discourse both qualitatively and quantitatively, this study uses two further lectures to devise such a methodology. This involves segregating lecture discourse into consistent independent units and then coding each unit according both to its function in the discourse and the participant voice(s) behind it. Applying this comprehensive scheme shows that independent units in lecture discourse are classifiable under three broad functional areas, Intertextuality (units realising propositional input), Intratextuality (units realising the mechanics of text and discursive interaction), and Metatextuality (units realising unit-length evaluation of emerging discourse). These functional areas and the functions within them are manageable via different participant voice(s), the manifestations and pragmatic effects of which in discourse vary, meaning the
management of Intertextuality can be assessed qualitatively and quantitatively using the coherent, consistent and data-driven coding scheme derived from these analyses. This methodology, applied qualitatively and quantitatively to the corpus, reveals management similarities broadly between Arts & Humanities and Social Sciences lectures, typically a dialogic management, and management differences broadly between these two groupings and Physical Sciences lectures, typically a
monophonic management. These management choices are understood as both constituted by and as reconstitutive of the social and epistemological landscapes behind lectures, meaning the management of Intertextuality is viewed as the dominant influence in shaping disciplinary discourse
