In framing this transtextuality it is necessary to draw on Barthes’ distinction between the linear and the literary. Not all works are ‘texts’: many have a functional or explanatory priority and do not multiply out and unfold in complexity in the mind of the viewer-reader. This distinction is also made by Riffaterre (cited in Genette, 1997: 2) between ‘linear reading’ of non-literary text which produces only meaning, and ‘intertextuality’ which is specific to ‘literary’ reading, and produces ‘significance’ (ibid). ^{16 16.} Mukařovský (1984: 156) makes this distinction as one between poetry and ‘information language’. ‘Poetic reference is primarily determined, then, not by its relationship to the reality indicated, but by the way it is set into the verbal context.’ I am then, taking this as a qualitative distinction and thus claiming my outputs to have this same ‘literary’, transtextual charge.>>> The outputs of my thesis are ‘texts’, and as such all texts are intertexts.>>> I employ various intertextual modalities in each output, typically with a dominant modality, but other modalities are always drawn upon in support of this. Through exemplars I am discussing each of these modalities as I apply them in my practice.