Abstract: The field and discourse of “intermediality” is very diverse.In the contribution a trial is made to structure the field and to describe different discourses of intermediality.All these discourses are reconstructed from relevant theoretical texts,so that the essay can be understood as a kind of meta-theoretical approach to the notion of “intermediality”.The question asked is:What relations do the different discourses poses between different “media”? At least four models are identified:synthetic intermediality,formal (or transmedial) intermediality,transformational intermediality and ontological intermediality.a) The model of synthetic intermediality is structured around the idea of a fusion of different media to super-media.This model has its roots in the Wagnerian concept of “Gesamtkunstwerk” in the nineteenth century and according to this intermediality is highly politically connoted.One problem of this model is the differentiation of inter- and multimediality.b) The model of formal (or transmedial) intermediality is structured around the concept that there are formal structures which are not “specific” to one medium but can be found in different media,e.g.when the narrative realization of a film and a novel are compared.This model of intermediality is centered around “transmedial” devices and has the problem that “media specificity” cannot be conceptualized any longer.c) The model of transformational intermediality is centered around the representation of one medium through another medium.Here the question is,if this fits to “intermediality” at all,because a represented medium is no longer a medium but a representation.However,insofar media are always contested terrains this form is important,because the definition of media depends on their inter-medial representations.d) ontological intermediality.Media always already exist in relation to other media.So at last the question has to be posed,if one should not reverse the relations.There are not single media and then intermedial relations take place.But intermediality is the ontological conditio sine qua non,which is always before “pure” and “specific” media,which have to be extracted from the arch-intermediality.

Key words: intermediality, synthetic intermediality, formal (or transmedial) intermediality, transformational intermediality, ontological intermediality

摘要： “跨媒介性”的领域和话语是非常多样的。本文尝试建构这个领域,并描述跨媒介性的不同话语。所有这些话语都是从相关的理论文本中重构的,因此本文可被视为对“跨媒介性”这个概念进行元理论探索的途径。我们要探究的问题是,不同的话语在不同媒介之间带来了怎样的联系？我们至少可以发现有四种模式:综合的跨媒介性、形式/超媒介的跨媒介性、转换的跨媒介性和本体论的跨媒介性。首先,综合的跨媒介性模式围绕着将不同媒介融合成一个超级媒介这一观念而建构起来。这种模式根源于19世纪瓦格纳关于“总体艺术作品”的概念,据于此,跨媒介性具有高度的政治内涵。该模式存在的一个问题是,如何对跨媒介性和多媒介性进行区分。其次,形式/超媒介的跨媒介性模式围绕着以下观念而建构,即存在着并非某种媒介“专属”而是在不同媒介中都可以找到的形式结构,比如,将一部电影和一部小说之间的叙事实践过程进行比较的情形。该模式围绕着“超媒介的”手段而展开。其问题在于,“媒介特殊性”已不再能被概念化。再次,转换的跨媒介性模式则围绕着这一中心而展开,即一种媒介的表征通过另一种媒介来实现。问题是,这是否完全符合“跨媒介性”,因为被表征的媒介就不再是一个媒介,而是一种表征。然而,鉴于媒介是充满争议的领域,这一形式是至关重要的,因为媒介的定义有赖于它们之间诸种跨媒介的表征。最后,本体论跨媒介性,即媒介总是在与其他媒介的关联中存在。所以,如果人们无法颠倒这些关联,那么最终我们不得不面对这个问题。并不是说先有单一媒介,然后跨媒介性才出现。但跨媒介性是本体论意义上不可或缺的条件,它总是先于“纯粹的”以及“特定的”媒介而存在,而这些媒介都必须从更具普遍意义的跨媒介性中提取出来。

关键词: 跨媒介性, 综合的跨媒介性, 形式/超媒介的跨媒介性, 转换的跨媒介性, 本体论的跨媒介性