on Julia Kristeva again

I feel I have a better understanding of Julia Kristeva than I did in my original post about her. To reiterate what I said in class, the main things she is known for is her work with semiotics and intertextuality. Semiotics is how words get their meaning (signifier and signified). Saussure believed words pointed to a defined meaning. Kristeva disagrees, insisting instead that there is no absolute truth for a word, but the meaning lies instead in prosody (rhythm, stress) which comes from a person's feelings. An example of this is like the one I gave in class, you can answer yes to a question with its meaning actually meaning no depending on the stress put on it. This focus on a person's feelings in relation to meaning led to the coining of the phrase "semanalysis" which is a combination psychoanalysis and semiotics.
Intertextuality I think is a similar concept to semanalysis in the way that they both assert that there is no definite, absolute meaning. Intertextuality deals with the work as a whole and basically says that it "speaks" to other works and a full understanding is not possible without looking at the other texts as well. Structuralists say that the meaning of a work lies in the inherent structures it adheres to (similar to Frye's archetypal ideas). Kristeva and intertextuality disagree and instead say that the meaning exists outside of the text, in its relation to other texts. I hope this clears up a little what I said the other day, although I doubt it since I have only 4 people following my blog. I feel somewhat inadequate