In Yuri Lotman’s terms intertextual relationships as active dialogues among texts and cultures should be the starting point for an analysis of the concepts of intermediality, cross-mediality and transmediality. This article considers adaptations and remakes as intermedial processes and remix practices as transmedial ones. The article demonstrates how the processes of transposition, remake and remix may sometimes be only partial, or in other instances they may shift towards entirely different textual systems/levels. At metasemiotic levels, the strategies that build the narrative worlds may either conceal or emphasize the interdependent relations between source and target texts, as well as between their cultural semiotic systems and their emergent ‘metatexts’ of self-description. In the second half of the article brief semiotic analyses will be presented in order to investigate mechanisms of the intermedial and transmedial networks that start from a literary text, Don Quixote by Cervantes, and continue to cinema and new digital media.
BakhtinMM (1963) Problemy poetiki Dostoevskogo. Moskva (It. trans. Dostoevskij. Poetica e stilistica. Turin: Einaudi, 1968).
4.
BolterJDGrusinR (1999) Remediation: Understanding New Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5.
BourriaudN (2002) Postproduction: Culture as Screenplay. How Art Reprograms the World. New York: Lukas & Sternberg.
6.
CasettiF (2008) Eye of the Century: Film, Experience, Modernity. New York: Columbia University Press.
7.
Cervantes Saavedra M de (2000 [1605–15]) Don Quixote of La Mancha, trans. OrmsbyJ.Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University.
8.
Cervantes Saavedra M de (2004 [1605–15]) Don Quijote de la Mancha. Edición del IV Centenario. Barcelona: Alfaguara, Real Academia Española, Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española.
9.
CostaA (2002) Il cinema e le arti visive. Turin: Einaudi.
10.
DavidsonD. (2010) Cross-media Communications: An Introduction to the Art of Creating Integrated Media Experiences. Pittsburgh, PA: ETC Press.
11.
DenaC (2009) Transmedia Practice: Theorising the Practice of Expressing a Fictional World across Distinct Media and Environments. PhD thesis, University of Sydney.
12.
DusiN (2000) Introduzione: per una ridefinizione della traduzione intersemiotica. Versus. Quaderni di studi semiotici85–7: 3–54.
FontanilleJZilberbergC (1998) Tension et signification. Sprimont: Mardaga.
24.
ForgioneAP (2005) Don Chisciotte al cinema. Naples: Giannini.
25.
GenetteG (1982) Palimpseste: la littérature au second degré. Paris: Seuil.
26.
GreimasAJ (1983) Du sens II: essais sémiotiques. Paris: Seuil.
27.
Giménez-FrontínJL (2005) De la pedagogía al signo. In: Visiones del Quijote: Hogart, Doré, Daumier, Picasso, Dalí, Matta, Ponç y Saura. Catalogue. Barcelona: Fundació Caixa de Catalunya.
28.
JakobsonR (1959) On linguistic aspects of translation. In: BrowerR (ed.) On Translation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 232–239.
29.
JakobsonR (1971) The dominant. In: MatejkaLPomorskaK (eds) Readings in Russian Poetics: Formalist and Structuralist Views. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 82–88.
30.
JenkinsH (2006) Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York University Press.
KattenbeltC (2008) Intermediality in theatre and performance. definitions, perceptions and medial relationships. Culture, Language & Representation6(5): 19–29.
34.
KristevaJ (1994) On Yuri Lotman. PMLA109(3): 375–376.
35.
LessigL (2008) Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy. New York: Penguin.
