Actually, I think you are right- saying all texts refer to others is pretty broad, perhaps so broad as to lack real meaning. What I was trying to say is that we categorize texts, whatever they are, in relation to other texts. So we recognize, for example, a tragedy or a comedy when we see it. Writers are conscious of either fitting or not fitting within paradigms or tropes, and either way, they are referencing other texts. Obviously, so does the reader.
A strength of intertexuality would be that by encouraging you to read texts as being in dialogue with other texts, or simply looking for references between texts, that you can find much deeper layers of meaning. All texts are full of allusions to others, and readers can't really make sense of them without understanding the concept of intertexuality.
I understood you now! Good point, thanks!
Thank you! I agree that intertextuality allows for greater depth of meaning, but would you argue that 'All texts are full of allusions to others' - is there anyway of knowing this for sure? I know a lot of texts contain some reference to another, but do all texts do this?