Rewriting Paraphrasing Source Text

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (2012) 134–148

Rewriting and paraphrasing source texts in second language writing

Ling Shi *

University of British Columbia, Canada

Abstract

The present study is based on interviews with 48 students and 27 instructors in a North American university and explores whether

students and professors across faculties share the same views on the use of paraphrased, summarized, and translated texts in four

examples of L2 student writing. Participants’ comments centered on whether the paraphrases contained too much copying and could be

further paraphrased to incorporate one’s own thinking, whether a citation was necessary for background information summarized in an

introduction of the paper, and whether the translated text should be acknowledged to indicate either paraphrasing or copying of others’

words. The relevant comments highlight disciplinary differences rather than differences between students and instructors, though the

latter were more able to demonstrate further paraphrasing to incorporate one’s own thinking. The study illustrates that students have

difficulties in understanding how to paraphrase in order to avoid plagiarism because such apparently straightforward academic literacy

skills as paraphrasing or summarizing are in fact complex and depend on one’s knowledge of the content, the disciplinary nature of

citation practices, and the rhetorical purposes of using citations in a specific context of disciplinary writing.

# 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Use of source texts; University writing; Textual appropriation; Paraphrase; Summary; Translated texts

Introduction

There is some consensus among researchers that inappropriate textual borrowing in L2 student writing should be

viewed as a learning or developmental issue rather than an ill-intentioned illustration of plagiarism because of their

limited L2 language proficiency (e.g., Johns & Mayes, 1990; Keck, 2006); unfamiliarity with the Western concept of

plagiarism (e.g., Pennycook, 1994, 1996; Shi, 2006); and uncertainty about the expected target discourse conventions

(e.g., Abasi & Graves, 2008; Angelil-Carter, 2000; Petric, 2004). The underlying assumption is that there are standard

or fixed rules about how to use source texts. To explore whether or how students and professors across disciplines

understand or apply certain criteria when commenting on specific examples of student writing, the present study is

based on interview comments of 48 students and 27 instructors or professors on four examples of how some L2

undergraduates paraphrased, summarized, or translated source texts.

Literature review

Corresponding to the present data generated from examples of students’ paraphrased, summarized, and translated

texts from source materials when writing for different disciplinary courses, the following literature review focuses on

* Corresponding author.

E-mail address: [email protected].

1060-3743/$ – see front matter # 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.003

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10603743

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.003

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.003

L. Shi / Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (2012) 134–148 135

paraphrasing and inferential thinking, good versus bad paraphrasing, paraphrasing as an important skill in

summarizing and translating, and disciplinary differences in citation practices.

Paraphrasing and inferential thinking

An important process of rewriting source texts is paraphrasing or restating a source text in one’s own words with a

credit to the original author. Commenting on the art of paraphrasing, D’Angelo (1979) posits that the writer should

‘‘recast the passage into a freely formed version of the original’’ while preserving the essential meaning (p. 256). To

address the question of how substantially the original wording should be modified to avoid plagiarism, Keck (2006)

defines substantial paraphrases as containing only general words related to the topic and that appear repeatedly in the

source text, and Roig (1999) defines superficial paraphrasing as minor modifications (word substitutions/deletions or

rearrangement of sentence structures) containing an appropriation of five consecutive words or more from the source

text. Most of the superficial paraphrases in student writing, as Keck (2010) has noted, are based on a deletion/

addition/substitution strategy to replace words with synonyms, add additional words, or delete words in the borrowed

string. Although superficial modifications, also called patchwriting (Howard, 1995), might constitute inappropriate

textual borrowing even with an acknowledgment of the source, many L2 students take the risk of superficial

paraphrasing because of a lack of confidence in rephrasing source texts in their own words (e.g., Abasi & Akbari,

2008).

Substantial modification of the original text with a credit to the original author, however, does not seem enough to

make a good paraphrase. Based on her analyses of the exemplary paraphrases on some North American college

websites on plagiarism, Yamada (2003) has noted that good paraphrasing actually involves inferential thinking, either

deductive (making a conclusion based on statements or premises) or analogical (noticing similarities between two

domains). The idea of restating the original text to combine source information with one’s own thinking, as Yamada

(2003) points out, contradicts how students are instructed to paraphrase and present a faithful account of the source

text, and signals the mastery of good paraphrasing and academic literacy that distinguish experienced writers from

novice writers. In the same vein, Keck (2010) has observed that substantial paraphrases in student writing are achieved

not only by transforming the major components in original excerpt (subject, verb, and object) into different

grammatical forms to express the same idea (clause element revision) but also by adding a phrase or clause to convey

ideas that are not explicitly mentioned in the original text (clause element creation). However, apart from Yamada and

Keck, there has been little effort to clarify how incorporating one’s point of view into a paraphrase is accomplished.

Good versus bad paraphrasing

To explore how students and instructors distinguish between good and bad paraphrasing, several researchers have

asked university students and instructors to paraphrase a given text (Chandrasegaran, 2000; Roig, 1999, 2001) and/or

compare the original texts and various rewritten versions which were paraphrased by the researchers to various

degrees (e.g., minimally, moderately, and sufficiently) with or without citations (Chandrasegaran, 2000; Deckert,

1993; Hale, 1987; McCormick, 1989; Pennycook, 1994; Roig, 1997, 2001). Many participants, in either L1 (Hale,

1987; McCormick, 1989; Roig, 1997, 1999, 2001) or L2 contexts (Chandrasegaran, 2000; Deckert, 1993;

Pennycook, 1994), showed disagreement as to which paraphrased versions had been plagiarized. For example, many

students made a judgment based on the presence or absence of the citation and believed that it was acceptable to copy

long strings of words from a source text as long as the original author received credit (Roig, 1997). Some professors

also produced paraphrases that contained strings of words copied from source texts (Roig, 2001). The fact that

teachers had problems identifying incorrect paraphrasing led to the concern of whether what constituted plagiarism

had been clearly defined (Pennycook, 1994). Some scholars also highlight culture as an important factor and regard

copying in L2 writing as a resistance to the Western notion of textual plagiarism (e.g., Chandrasoma, Thompson, &

Pennycook, 2004; Pennycook, 1996). The question is: How much copying is too much? Explaining why teachers and

students might disagree on the appropriateness of textual borrowing, Pecorari (2008) states, ‘‘the problem may not be

that one group has a mistaken perception, but that two groups have different perceptions’’ (p. 10). The implication is

that students are likely to be confused if their understanding of good paraphrasing is different from that of their

professors.

L. Shi / Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (2012) 134–148136

Paraphrasing as an important skill in summarizing and translating

The idea that paraphrasing goes beyond faithful reporting to personal interpretation of the source text highlights the

role of paraphrasing in two other rewriting processes: summarizing source information and translating a source text

from another language. Like paraphrasing, both translating and summarizing require the writer not to copy the original

text, with the former focusing on rewriting single sentences and the latter on condensing sentences and paragraphs to

get to the gist. Just as one needs to mix in one’s own interpretation in paraphrasing, one needs to explore meaning

potential in summarizing (Hood, 2008). Similar to paraphrasing, translating ranges from accuracy (e.g., word for word

or faithful translation) to fluency (e.g., semantic or free translation) (Newmark, 1988). The latter highlights the fact

that the translator, being situated between the reader of the target language and the writer of the source language, needs

to first interpret the meaning of the original text and then restate the meaning in the target language. Since a text might

be interpreted in different ways, a translator forms his/her own voice in the translated text through how he/she

interprets the original text. Like paraphrasing and summarizing, translating is a meaning making process. If

paraphrasing and summarizing stretch the limited linguistic proficiency of L2 writers, the ability to translate source

text from another language suggests extra linguistic resources that L2 writers can use in their writing.

Exploring students’ challenges in summarizing source texts, previous researchers have reported how students

copied from the original text (e.g., Campbell, 1990; Keck, 2006; Shi, 2004), how they rarely included a summary of the

source information in their writing (Howard, Serviss, & Rodrigue, 2010), or how they chose to only paraphrase or

summarize two types of source texts: the early excerpt that defines the key concept and the concluding excerpt that

restates the thesis (Keck, 2010). Since summary writing requires one’s own thinking in selecting, combining, and

condensing information into its gist, it is important to explore how summarized texts should be acknowledged,

especially when they are used to present background information.

In addition, research needs to examine the role of translation in using source texts. There is a tendency for scholars,

especially English-speaking scholars, to neglect non-English materials because of the dominance of English in

academic scholarship (Line, 1971). The relevantly fewer citations from non-English language sources correspond to a

lack of attention on how L2 writers translate and cite sources in their writing. Although L2 writers have been observed

to translate materials retrieved from L1 while writing an L2 text (e.g., Liu, 2004) and some have been suspected of

plagiarism when translating texts from another language (Petric, 2004), no attention has been paid to the challenges in

translating and citing texts from another language as well as to the advantage of L2 writers being able to disseminate

information across national or language boundaries by translating and citing text from their L1.

Disciplinary differences in citation practices

The lack of understanding of and consensus on appropriate use of source texts accentuate disciplinary differences in

citation practices. Hyland (1999) has pointed out that citation language or conventions are influenced by ‘‘the

epistemological and social conventions of their disciplines’’ (p. 341). One major difference between science and

humanities communities lies in how scholars acknowledge the difference between the originality of content and its

wording or, as Bouville (2008) suggests, the difference between copying words and copying ideas. For example, people in

humanities value the originality of wording because language and meaning are inseparable to them (Bazerman, 1994). In

contrast, people in science tend to emphasize content rather than how it is worded as they rarely use direct quotations (e.g.,

Dubois, 1988) but often extract a string of words or phrases from sources and use them without acknowledgment (e.g.,

Dubois, 1988; St. John, 1987). Science students have also been reported to believe that it is OK to lift stretches of source

texts, for example, to describe a similar research procedure used in their own study (e.g., Flowerdew & Li, 2007). These

observations suggest that discipline writing means using the valued rhetoric and citation language accepted by the

disciplinary community to argue and construct knowledge (Li, 2006; Young & Leinhardt, 1998). It is therefore important

to investigate whether students understand how to use sources texts in a specific writing assignment and how professors

across disciplines expect their students to use and cite paraphrased, summarized, and translated texts.

The present study

Although scholars have suggested some underlying criteria about what constitutes good paraphrasing (Keck, 2006,

2010; Roig, 1999; Yamada, 2003), it is not clear whether and how students and professors across disciplines follow


certain criteria when evaluating student writing as they have been reported to make different judgments on some

paraphrased texts written by researchers (e.g., Deckert, 1993; Pennycook, 1994; Roig, 1997, 1999, 2001). Nor is it

clear whether and how students should incorporate their own thinking into a paraphrase. In addition, since

summarizing and translating also involve rewriting source texts with one’s own words and thinking, research needs to

explore how summarized and translated texts in student writing should be acknowledged. In response to the above

needs, the present study focuses on students’ and professors’ views on examples of students’ paraphrased,

summarized, and translated texts to answer the following three research questions:

1. H
ow do participating students and faculty across disciplines view the examples of paraphrasing in relation to the
amount of copying and the use of one’s own inferential thinking?

2. H
ow do participating students and faculty across disciplines view the example of the summarized text in terms of
how it should be acknowledged?

3. H
ow do participating students and faculty across disciplines view the example of the translated text in terms of how
it should be acknowledged?

Methods

Context and writing samples

Like many North American universities, the participating university has a website on plagiarism. Students are

instructed to cite when summarizing and paraphrasing source texts in a compulsory first-year course on university

writing. The present study is part of a larger study on students’ challenges in using source texts for which I first

collected examples of students’ textual borrowing from 16 students’ research paper assignments for different

disciplinary courses (Shi, 2010). Three of the 16 students were monolingual English speakers and the rest all spoke

a language other than English at home. After completing a research paper for either their first-year courses (English

writing = 8, History = 1, Film Studies = 1, Biology = 2) or second- or third-year courses (Women’s Studies = 1,

Political Science = 3), the 16 students were asked to identify words and ideas in their writing that were borrowed

from source texts and explain how and why the texts were appropriated. Together, the 16 students identified a total

of 187 examples of textual borrowing, from which I then randomly selected 17 examples as interview items to

solicit views from 48 students and 27 instructors. The purpose was to clarify disciplinary differences rather than to

identify general criteria for citation practices. Each example was presented to the interviewees with (a) information

about the source or the student writer’s description of the source; (b) the student-generated writing; and (c) the

writer’s self report on how and why the source text was appropriated with or without a reference. Analyses of the

interview data illustrate three interpretive grounds for textual borrowing: (a) the notion of common knowledge

based on participants’ comments on 7 of the 17 examples (Shi, 2011); (b) the complexity of original expressions

based on participants’ comments on 5 of the 17 examples (Shi, 2012); and (c) what constitutes good paraphrasing or

rewriting, a focus of the present study, based on participants’ comments on 4 of the 17 examples. Table 1 illustrates

the four examples rewritten, according to the original student writers, by paraphrasing, summarizing, or translating

the source texts.

Original student writers of the four examples

The four examples of appropriated texts analyzed in the present study were from research papers written by three

L2 students who spoke a language other than English at home. The writer of the first two examples (Table 1,

Paraphrase 1 about allergic reactions and Paraphrase 2 about side effects) was an 18-year-old freshman who

immigrated from China with his parents at the age of 12. Having attended junior school and high school in North

America, he belonged to ‘generation 1.5’ and experienced challenges as an L2 writer (CCCC Statement on Second

Language Writing and Writers, 2001; Harklau, Losey, & Siegal, 1999). The two examples were from his research

paper on a topic of his own choice submitted to a first-year English course. He said that he had chosen the topic on the

potential danger of antibiotics because he had learned about the topic from his parents who were doctors. Like all other

paraphrases the writer used in his paper, the two examples each contained a reference of the source. The writer

explained that he provided the sources for all his paraphrased sentences in order to avoid plagiarism.

L.

Sh

i /

Jou

rna

l o

f S

econ

d L

an

gu

ag

e W

riting

21

(20

12

) 1

34

–1

48

13

8Table 1

Four examples of appropriated texts.a

Example Source Student’s text The writer’s view

1. Paraphrase 1

(allergic reactions)

It used to be only five to ten percent of people

developed allergic reactions to antibiotics, mainly

penicillin. Now, as more and more individuals are

exposed to antibiotics more and more often, increasing

numbers of people are developing allergic reactions to

drugs. (From McKenna, J. (1998, p. 29))c

In the past, only 5–10% of the people are allergic

to antibiotics, primarily penicillin. Now, as

antibiotics are used more and more often,

increasing number of people are developing

allergic effects (McKenna, 1998, p. 29). (From an

English 100-level paper titled ‘‘The Danger of the

abuse of antibiotics and its safe alternative

herbs’’)

I did not use quotation marks because it was too

long. I paraphrased and changed a few words in

there. I did the same in other places in the paper

2. Paraphrase 2

(side-effects with

streptomycin)

Side-effects with streptomycin include

hypersensitivity reactions, renal and liver damage,

and disturbance of balance due to the drug affecting

the vestibular part of the 8th cranial nerve. The more

potent derivative, Dihydrostreptomycin, is not now

used because it affects the auditory part of the nerve

and may give rise to permanent deafness. (From

Harris, M. (1964, p. 161))b

However, streptomycin was later found to have

large side effects, including hypersensitive

reactions, renal and kidney damage and

disturbance of balance due to the drug affects

cranial nerve. One of the most potent derivative

of streptomycin, Dihydrostreptomycin, is no

longer used because it affects auditory nerve

and may cause permanent deafness. (Harris,

1964, p. 161) (From an English 100-level paper

titled ‘‘The Danger of the abuse of antibiotics and

its safe alternative herbs’’)

This is specific information. I paraphrased the

sentences and acknowledged the author at the

end

3. Summary

(Liberal

Democratic Party)

From several different unknown sources. Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) has dominated

Japanese politics for most of the post world war

period. Many scholars have been debating over

what are the key sources of LDP power to

marginalize other political parties. Since the case

in Japan is very rare compared to other democratic

countries – in fact it is the only political party in

the history to manage to stay in power without

being forced to join in any coalition for such a long

period of time – the search for its ability to stay in

power becomes essential. (From a Political

Science 300-level paper titled ‘‘Domination of the

Liberal Democratic Party in Japanese politics’’)

I remember reading it in so many different

places; so I thought that I should summarize

and highlight it in the introduction. I am not

sure if or how I should provide references

4. Translation

(Japanese economy)

From a Korean book on Japanese economy Japanese economic process the period of a high

growth in 1950–1977, and they experienced the

slowdown of growth and stable growth in 1978–

1990. (From a Political Science 200-level paper

titled ‘‘Japanese economic miracle: Industrial

policies of government’’)

I do not need to give references because I

copied and then translated these sentences from

a Korean book

a Identical words in students’ text and the source text are highlighted for the interviewees.b Harris, M. (1964). Pharmaceutical microbiology. London: Balliere, Tindall and Cox.c McKenna, J. (1998). Natural alternatives to antibiotics: Using nature’s pharmacy to help fight infections. New York: Avery.


The other two writers were international students taking political science courses as part of a 1-year exchange

program. Both were in their early 20s, the writer of the third example (Table 1, Summary of the Liberal Democratic

Party) was from Japan and the writer of the fourth example (Table 1, Translation about Japanese economy) was from

Korea. The Japanese student wrote a paper titled ‘Domination of the Liberal Democratic Party in Japanese politics,’ a

topic assigned by the instructor for a third-year political science course. The student writer tried, as she explained in

the previous study, to summarize what she read from multiple sources about the dominance of the Liberal Democratic

Party and used it without a reference in the introduction of the paper. However, she was not sure whether it was

necessary to cite multiple sources in her context and if so, how. In comparison, the Korean student wrote a paper titled

‘Japanese economic miracle: Industrial policies of government,’ one of the five topics provided by the instructor for a

second-year political science course. The student writer explained in the previous study that she relied on L1 books and

used many pieces of translated texts with no references throughout the paper. The translation example (Table 1) was

one of the many translated texts she used in that paper.

To provide the context of the examples, I informed the present interviewees about the backgrounds of the student

writers and the writing assignments. Since paraphrasing, summarizing, and translating are meaning making processes

that are context-specific (Mishler, 1979), I also kept the original papers handy for interviewees who wanted to check

the rhetorical context of the examples. The student writers of the four examples are referred to as original student

writers in this paper to distinguish them from student interviewees who participated in the present study.

Interviewees

A total of 48 interviewees (20 undergraduates, 28 graduates) and 27 instructors (21 faculty members, 5 sessional

instructors, 1 librarian) in a North American university responded to an advertisement for the study and volunteered to

participate in the interviews (Table 2). A large percentage (29, 60%) of the participating student interviewees spoke a

language other than English at home while most instructors were native-English speakers. About 65% (49) of the

interviewees were in arts and social sciences and the rest (26, 35%) were in science and applied sciences. Each

interviewee was assigned a pseudonym. The first letter of pseudonyms for instructors indicates faculty or institution

(A = Arts, S = Science, N = Nursing, E = Education, L = English Language Institute). For example, Anita is a

professor from the Arts Faculty. Similarly, the first letter of pseudonyms for students also indicates discipline

(A = arts/social sciences, S = science/applied sciences) but these names are followed by a letter in brackets indicating

the person’s status as a graduate student (G), or an undergraduate (U). For example, Amanda (U) is an undergraduate

majoring in arts/social sciences.

Coding of interview comments

To answer the three research questions, a coding scheme was developed to distinguish the interviewees’ citation

judgments as well as how they explained these decisions. A research assistant and I coded 10% of the data separately

and we reached an agreement of 85%. The differences were resolved by merging some of the categories. The final

coding scheme contained four types of citation decisions that the interviewees thought the examples should have

followed (cite, quote, not to cite, not sure) and five categories of comments illustrating how interviewees supported

their decisions, including (1) the nature or quality of the phrased, translated, and summarized texts, (2) a consideration

Table 2

Participating instructors and students.

Types of information Undergraduates

(n = 20)

Graduates

(n = 28)

Instructors

(n = 27)

Subtotal Total

First languagea English 10 9 22 41 75

Chinese 4 13 17

Other 6 6 5 17

Academic division Science and applied sciences 7 14 5 26 75

Arts and social sciences 13 14 22 49

a A small number of faculty members are bilingual/trilingual in which case one language (other than English) is presented as their first language.


of whether the examples could be cases of plagiarism or misconduct, (3) the learning and teaching of how to cite, (4)

interviewees’ similar experiences with those of the writers, and (5) suggestions about how to improve the citation

practices in the examples. (See Appendix A for the coding scheme and sample comments.) Using the coding scheme, I

identified a total of 300 citation decisions (75 participants commenting on 4 examples) and 467 types of comments

supporting the decisions. Over half of these comments focused on the nature and quality of appropriated texts (241,

52%), followed by general comments on learning and teaching (98, 21%), suggestions to improve the specific

examples (84, 18%), views on plagiarism or misconduct related to the specific cases (24, 5%), and similar experiences

of the interviewees (20, 4%). The small number of comments on plagiarism (24, 5%) suggests that many participants

avoided making general comments about the issue.

Findings and discussion

Participants’ comments were first compared in terms of whether the appropriated texts in the four examples should

be acknowledged by using citations or quotations (Fig. 1). Although the majority of interviewees believed that the

sources of all examples should be acknowledged, a good number of them believed that the two paraphrases should be

presented in quotations (35, 47% for Paraphrase 1 on allergic reactions and 23, 31% for Paraphrase 2 on side effects)

and that the source of the translated text (Japanese economy) did not need to be cited (27, 36%). These tendencies led

to the following analyses of participants’ views on the use of source texts in each example. The relevant comments on

learning and teaching challenges related to each example will also be discussed.

How do participating students and faculty across disciplines view the examples of paraphrasing in relation to the

amount of copying and the use of one’s own inferential thinking?

Most of the words in the student-generated texts in the two examples of paraphrasing (Paraphrases 1 and 2) were

identical to those in the original texts (24 out of 33 words or 73%, and 34 out of 50 words or 68% respectively). Many

participants noted that, compared to Paraphrase 2 (side effects) which contained many technical terms (e.g.,

streptomycin, side effects, hypersensitive reactions, renal and kidney damage, cranial nerve, dihydrostreptomycin, and

auditory nerve) that were hard to replace, Paraphrase 1 (allergic reactions) contained not only long strings of words

lifted from the source texts but also minor changes as the writer just switched words around and substituted ‘‘used to’’

with ‘‘in the past’’ and ‘‘mainly’’ with ‘‘primarily’’. Such superficial paraphrasing, as Keck (2010) points out, is a

common strategy used by students. Participants’ comments highlight some disciplinary differences in whether there

was too much copying in Paraphrase 1 and also illustrate, mostly based on comments of instructors, how further

paraphrasing can be accomplished using one’s extra content knowledge or inferential thinking.

First of all, participants’ comments on the use of quotations reveal a disciplinary pattern in citation practices.

Several interviewees in science/applied sciences explained that a citation was sufficient in both examples of

paraphrases, because they would focus on whether the content rather than the exact wording was acknowledged (2

undergraduates, 9 graduates, 3 instructors). Three science professors (Sam, Scott, and Simon) said that the overlapping

Fig. 1. Frequencies of the citation judgments.


of words in Paraphrase 1 (allergic reactions) did not bother them. As Sam explained, ‘‘It doesn’t matter to me whether

the person changed someone’s words or not. The idea is important, not the words.’’ Sara (G), a graduate student in

science, also recalled from her reading of science papers that it was common for authors to use the same words from

source text but did not put them in quotations. These comments echo those of the doctoral science students in

Flowerdew and Li (2007) about the legitimacy of copying sentences as long as the source is acknowledged.

In contrast, many students and professors in arts/social sciences believed that although the technical terms in

Paraphrase 1 (allergic reactions) might not need acknowledgment, the borrowed text in Paraphrase 1 should be in quotes

because it was too close to the original (7 undergraduates, 8 graduates, 13 instructors). ‘‘He lifted quite a bit of text so stick

quotes around it,’’ said Amy. Angel, Edwards, Elmer, and Leo believed that it had too many of the exact words from the

source to be counted as a true paraphrase. ‘‘That’s not really paraphrasing. That’s just choosing a different word,’’ said

Leo. Two other instructors, Alma and Louisa, argued that the example came close to plagiarism even with a reference.

Similarly, Emma stressed the need for a quotation when taking more than three words from the source and said:

Table 3

Sugges

Origina

Side-ef

hype

liver

bala

the v

The m

Dihy

used

audi

may

* Wo

(1) Particularly this part ‘‘more and more often. . .’’ should be in quotations. . . . the part ‘‘5–10 percent . . .’’ is a

quote as well. . . . This string here where they got more than three words should be in quotation marks. (Interview

with Emma).

The disciplinary differences expressed by the participants confirm previous observations on how the science

community and the community of humanities differ in their focus on the originality of the content/idea or its wording

(e.g., Bouville, 2008). Together with previous research, the present study suggests that understanding how to cite

involves learning what counts as a new text or knowledge in a specific discipline.

Apart from commenting on the use of quotations, participants also expressed their views about whether and how

Paraphrases 1 and 2 can be further paraphrased. There was an uncertainty about whether medical texts such as Paraphrase

2 (side effects) could be paraphrased beyond a certain point. Compared with students, especially the undergraduates, who

said that they had no idea about how to make the paraphrases in the two examples better, several instructors pointed out

that both examples could be further paraphrased. As a professor, Angel said she would prefer further paraphrasing

because it would give her a chance ‘‘to understand what students were thinking and how much of what they took out they

understood.’’ She would ask the writer of Paraphrase 2 questions such as, ‘‘Do you really understand that it’s this

particular cranial nerve that is where balance resides? Why does it disturb balance? Is it that it affects the cranial nerve?’’

These questions indicate how inferential thinking should or could be incorporated in paraphrasing. Compared with Angel

who believed that paraphrasing demonstrated reading comprehension, several other instructors or graduates argued that

good paraphrasing was about making something readable for readers (e.g., Aileen (G), Ester, Steven). One should not, as

Aileen (G) put it, ‘‘regurgitate the quotes but amalgamate or synthesize them.’’ To illustrate how Paraphrase 2 might be

paraphrased better, Nancy and Adam (G) made the following suggestions.

The paraphrases suggested by Nancy and Adam (G) shown in Table 3 were indeed less close to the original text. For

example, in both the original source and student text, damages of the kidney, liver and the cranial nerve were listed

together with hypersensitivity as a direct damage from streptomycin. In comparison, Nancy, a professor in Nursing,

ted paraphrases.*

l source text Student-generated text Suggested paraphrases

fects with streptomycin include

rsensitivity reactions, renal and

damage, and disturbance of

nce due to the drug affecting

estibular part of the 8th cranial nerve.

However, streptomycin was later found

to have large side effects, including

hypersensitive reactions, renal and

kidney damage and disturbance of

balance due to the drug affects

cranial nerve.

Hypersensitivity, in relation to

administration of streptomycin,

may cause damage to the kidney

and liver and the 8th cranial

nerve causing imbalance (Nancy).

ore potent derivative,

drostreptomycin, is not now

because it affects the

tory part of the nerve and

give rise to permanent deafness.

One of the most potent derivative of

streptomycin, Dihydrostreptomycin,

is no longer used because it affects

auditory nerve and may cause

permanent deafness.

The usage of Dihydrostreptomucin

is less now than before because of

the effect it has on the auditory

nerve and the possibility of

permanent deafness (Adam (G)).

rds identical in the original and paraphrased texts are highlighted.


was able to reshuffle the source sentence by indicating that the use of streptomycin would first cause hypersensitivity

which would then damage the kidney, liver and the 8th cranial nerve. This illustrates the important role of content

knowledge and, as both Yamada (2003) and Keck (2010) have noted, inferential thinking in paraphrasing. It also

indicates the importance of the context of disciplinary writing. The Nursing professor was clearly able to paraphrase

the source text further to demonstrate more expert knowledge.

In addition to the suggestion of using extra content in further paraphrasing, some participants in arts/social sciences

also indicated that the student writer could incorporate his own stance or voice by using reporting verbs in phrases such

as ‘‘as McKenna believes’’ or ‘‘Harris highlights the following’’ (e.g., Aaron (U), Ally (U), Alice (G), Arthur, Alma,

Allen, Ester). Using such an integral citation (Swales, 1990) with reporting verbs like ‘‘believe’’ and ‘‘highlight’’ and

the name of the source author as syntactic elements in the citing sentence, as these participants pointed out, would also

solve the problem in determining where exactly McKenna’s or Harris’ ideas began since there were two sentences in

each example. These suggestions resonate with Hyland’s (2009) call to improve bounding and documenting references

in student writing as well as the need to understand the ‘‘rhetorical effects that formal choices have on the text’’

(Pecorari, 2008, p. 49). Acknowledging the rhetorical purposes of using citations in a specific disciplinary writing

context, Scott, a science professor, called the issue of how to cite a stylistic debate and said the student’s practice in the

two examples was not a problem from a science point of view.

The participants’ comments and their examples of good paraphrasing suggest that the L2 writer obviously had

trouble paraphrasing. First of all, several participants pointed out that the student writer may not have understood the

original texts (Agatha (G), Alice (G), Angel, Lily). Lily believed that one needed to be a native speaker to paraphrase it

well and called the two examples of student paraphrasing a ‘‘noble attempt’’ that did not work. Some interviewees

noted that the writer’s language problem had affected the original meaning as he replaced ‘‘the auditory part of the

nerve’’ with ‘‘auditory nerve’’ (e.g., Ella), and ‘‘developed allergic reaction to antibiotics’’ with ‘‘are allergic to

antibiotics’’ (e.g., Adam (G)). ‘‘Everything that is not a language problem is copied,’’ as Lily noted. Being aware of the

linguistic challenges, Allen said that he would be ‘‘a little more flexible with L2 students who were struggling with the

language.’’ Several L2 student interviewees also expressed sympathy with the writer because they had similar

experiences when trying to paraphrase words that they did not really know the exact meaning (e.g., Amanda (U),

Amelia (U), Audrey (U), Stephanie (U), Adrienne (G), Sara (G)). The following was a typical comment from Sara (G):

(2) I totally understand this situation because I have this kind of feeling when I write my report. It’s really hard. You

have to understand the source and try to think how to explain it by your own sentence and by the very efficient and

very brief way. It’s difficult for L2 writers but you have to do it. You can’t totally copy. (Interview with Sara (G))

Together, the participants’ comments on Paraphrases 1 and 2 suggest that good paraphrasing means balancing

between a rigorous use of citations and a readable text with an integration of others’ words and ideas with those of

one’s own. However, such general criteria can be interpreted differently based on (a) disciplinary differences in

acknowledging wording versus content, (b) different levels of expert knowledge and inferential thinking expected by

content professors, and (c) individual understandings of the rhetorical effects of using citations in a specific

disciplinary context. The fact that many student interviewees were unable to further paraphrase the two examples

suggests that it is a daunting task for students to paraphrase well. Depending on their knowledge base in both language

and content, individual students, especially L2 students, may have trouble understanding what accuracy means and

how much room there is for interpreting the source content.

How do participating students and faculty across disciplines view the example of the summarized text in terms of


The student-generated text in the summary example (Table 1) was part of the introduction of the paper where thewriter

summarized information about the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) in Japan from multiple source materials for which

she did not provide references. According to Howard et al. (2010), such a summary of sources is rare in student writing

and should be encouraged. Commenting on the summarized text, most of the interviewees focused on whether a citation

was necessary with the majority favoring an acknowledgment of the sources (45, 60% vs. 27, 36%, Fig. 1). Since the

source texts were not available, the interviewees, based on the writer’s comment, voiced their opinions on whether it was

acceptable to present a summary statement without references in the introduction. The different views generated by the

summary example highlight the rhetorical purposes of using citation for genre- or discipline-specific writing.


A number of participants said that it was acceptable to not cite the summarized information in the introduction

because the rest of the paper could examine the different bits separately with acknowledgment (e.g., Angela (U),

Stephanie (U), Adela (G), Aileen (G), Angel, Scott). Adela (G) assumed ‘‘that all this will be talked about later on.’’

Compared with students, instructors expressed their views more elaborately. For example, Alma, a professor in

political science, said citations were rare in an introduction and, like some other participants, would only expect the

student to use citations later on the issues. In her words:

(3) An introduction is actually somewhat unusual for citations in that much of this may be clear later in the paper.

It’s actually not a citation issue. . . . The student needs to discuss what those debates are. . . . (Interview with Alma)

Arguing in the same line, a number of participants believed that the summary example contained information

summarized in the writer’s own words and with her own understanding (4 undergraduates, 9 graduates, 6 instructors).

For example, Louisa said one had to accept the fact that the writer was synthesizing what she read. The writer, as

Louisa emphasized, ‘‘was not copying the words.’’

In contrast, several participants (Aric (G), Laura, Nancy, Simon) commented on how important it was to cite the

sources when introducing ideas in the introduction of the paper. Aric (G) said there was no excuse for not using

citations in the introduction though one might get away with it in an abstract. Two instructors, Nancy and Laura, said

that the example illustrated the danger of teaching rules like ‘‘no citation was needed for a summary statement in the

introduction.’’ They believed that such a rule was not valid because it needed to be interpreted in a specific context.

Nancy said it would be only OK if one summarized studies without citations after one had reviewed them one by one.

Similarly, Simon believed that the introduction actually should have the highest citation rate. As he explained:

(4) The introduction is where you introduce big ideas so citation is even more important. As the paper evolves,

your citation frequency drops. . . . The reason for that is early in your research paper, you cite the context, you say

what other people thought, then you move on to your own ideas. (Interview with Simon)

Many interviewees also believed that the fact that the information was pulled together from several authors

warranted a citation itself (11 undergraduates, 12 graduates, 13 instructors). Since the topic had been debated among

scholars, a number of participants said they would like to know who those scholars were. The following was a typical

comment from Elmer:

(5) ‘‘Many scholars . . .’’ Who is that referring to? Who are the scholars? . . . We should encourage students to put

down like who the scholars are, where the information is coming from . . . at least give a reference to the fact that

somebody else had talked about. (Interview with Elmer)

The concern expressed by Elmer and other participants suggests that citation use in summary writing is closely

related to the rhetorical purposes within the genre or discipline that students are learning. Viewed from such a

perspective, several participants said they would not consider the summarized text as plagiarism but rather as a lack of

understanding of using citations to build on knowledge in the introduction paragraph when writing for the disciplinary

course (3 graduates, 4 instructors). Silva (U), an L2 student, expressed her uncertainty about how to cite because

professors might have different standards. Silva (U) found that some professors would catch students copying a

sentence without citing the source whereas others would not say anything even though students took sentences without

citations. Silva (U) said she would always find out the expectations of the individual instructors. As she concluded, ‘‘I

think it really depends who you are writing the paper for . . . I would ask the instructor because it is up to the instructors

to give you the mark and you want a high mark.’’ Silva’s (U) comment suggests not only teaching challenges but also

how students, especially L2 students, might develop their own learning strategies to deal with the complexity of

citation practices across disciplinary contexts. Compared to their comments on Paraphrases 1 and 2, participants’

comments on the summary example further emphasize the extent to which judgments about what constitutes ‘correct’

or ‘incorrect’ citation and appropriation of other peoples’ words and ideas are context- and discipline-specific.

How do participating students and faculty across disciplines view the example of the translated text in terms of


According to the writer of the translated text (Table 1), this excerpt came from her first research paper at the

participating university, and she had to rely on L1 books that she brought from her home university to cope with the


content demand. However, as the example illustrated, she did not cite the sources as she translated and used these

source texts. Commenting on the translated text about ‘‘the growth of Japanese economy in 1950–1977’’ and ‘‘its

slowdown in 1978–1990,’’ many interviewees, students and instructors alike, argued that a citation was crucial for such

a strongly factual and checkable statement (67, 89%, Fig. 1) because translating the source text did not make it one’s

own (19 undergraduates, 21 graduates, 19 instructors). As Lily commented, ‘‘translation is not an excuse for not using

a citation.’’ There should be, in Eve’s words, ‘‘a tip of the hat’’ to the original author since the writer obviously had not

done firsthand research. Although the original source text was not given, several participants called the example of the

translated text a case of plagiarism (2 undergraduates, 2 graduates, 2 instructors). As Adela (G) explained, ‘‘It’s

plagiarizing because the student is rewriting and taking material that is not her own.’’ Another student (Amanda (U))

singled out the word ‘‘copy’’ from the writer’s self-reflection and said, ‘‘When I hear the word ‘copy,’ I think of

plagiarism.’’

Arguing for the use of a citation, some students and instructors, however, voiced different views about the purpose

of citing the source for the translated text: whether to acknowledge the original words or to credit others’ ideas. At

issue was whether translating meant copying others’ words or paraphrasing others’ ideas. Sally (G) and Sandra (G)

claimed that translation meant copying others’ words in a different language. Following the same argument, several

participants (Adela (G), Adele (G), Sandra (G), Amy) believed that the translated text should actually be cited as a

quote. Juxtaposed with the above was the belief that translating meant rewriting others’ ideas in one’s own words. For

example, Aric (G) claimed that quoting was not necessary for a translated text which, by default, was a paraphrase in

one’s own words. Other participants also stressed that translating was just changing the language or the medium of

communication (e.g., Alan (U), Audrey (U), Sherrill (U), Sammy (G), Sara (G), Allen). As Sara (G) stated,

‘‘Translation is not the point, the point is others’ data and statistics.’’ Stressing the importance of citing ideas in

science, Steven said, ‘‘In science, we are citing the substance no matter whether it is translated from another language

or not.’’

The focus on content rather than translation expressed by Sara (G) and Steven suggests possible disciplinary

differences between science and arts. In fact, The Chicago Manual of Style (Turabian, 2007), a citation manual for all

disciplines and styles including science, contains no guidelines about how to cite a translated text. In contrast, a

citation manual for arts/social science, MLA (Modern Language Association of America, 2009), provides information

about how to cite and present a quotation in the original language and its translation:

If the quotation is run into the text, use double quotation marks around a translation placed in parentheses

following the quotation but single quotation marks around a translation that immediately follows without

intervening punctuation (p. 104).

The above guidelines suggest that the writer is advised to present the translation immediately following the

quotation. If the translation is not done by the writer him or herself, the writer also needs to give the source of the

translation in addition to the source of the quotation. These guidelines suggest that it is important to acknowledge

ownership of words and ideas of both the original and translated texts in arts/social sciences. However, many

participating students and instructors did not seem aware of these guidelines. If participants in science were not

concerned about the details because The Chicago Manual of Style (Turabian, 2007) provides no relevant information,

participants in arts/social sciences were not familiar with the guidelines perhaps because translated texts in student

writing, like the example in the present study, were presented mostly without references so the problems had slipped

the attention of the readers.

Apart from commenting on how the translated text should be acknowledged, several monolingual L1 interviewees

said that they were impressed with the extra effort of the L2 writer to use source materials in another language

(Adrienne (G), Alex, Edwards, Eric, Louisa). By not indicating that it was translated, Eric said that the student writer

was ‘‘in a sense denying herself the credit.’’ Several L2 student interviewees also said the writer, whom they were

proud of, should take the credit. These comments illustrate an awareness of the advantage of L2 writers over their L1

peers by being able to access extra resources in their L1. The access to more than one set of representational or cultural

resources, as Doloughan (2004) puts it, ‘‘permits the production of texts that are ‘marked’ in salient and systematic

ways’’ (p. 39). The present study suggests that L2 students should be encouraged to create text by using ideas or words

from readings in their L1 and be guided to use appropriate method of attribution for the translated texts. By exploiting

their L1 knowledge, L2 writers can become academic writers superior to monolingual L1 writers who, as Garfield and

Welljams-Dorof (1990) point out, risk being ignorant of information reported in other languages.


Summary and implications

Although the majority of participants believed that rewritten source texts in the four examples should be referenced,

they had different views about why and how. The relevant comments reveal disciplinary differences rather than differences

between students and instructors although the latter were more able to demonstrate further paraphrasing to incorporate

one’s own thinking and extra content knowledge. Some participants in science, in contrast to their counterparts in arts/

social sciences who emphasized acknowledging others’ words, believed that content rather than wording needed to be

acknowledged for both the paraphrased and translated texts. Participants across disciplines also expressed contrasting

views on whether it was appropriate to present a summary of the background information in the introductory paragraph

without a reference. This study, like the others in this issue, highlights the different beliefs and perceptions about citation

practices. Specifically, students have difficulties understanding how to paraphrase to avoid plagiarism because such

apparently straightforward academic literacy skills like paraphrasing or summarizing are in fact complex and depend on

one’s knowledge of the content, the disciplinary nature of citation practices, and rhetorical purposes of using citations in a

specific context of disciplinary writing. Understanding these issues, rather than knowing the general criteria for good

paraphrasing (Keck, 2006, 2010; Roig, 1999; Yamada, 2003), is essential for students to acquire academic literacy.

The disciplinary differences in citation practices suggest the danger of following some general rules about citations

that might not be valid in certain contexts. Participants’ comments on how many words can be borrowed in

paraphrasing, whether quotations are essential to indicate words borrowed, and how one should accurately document

summarized or translated source information across disciplines, suggest that students and instructors need to adopt an

exploratory approach to negotiate the competing perspectives and practices when teaching and learning to write

research papers for different disciplinary courses. Students and instructors should explore collaboratively, as Keck

(2010, p. 195) put it, ‘‘when, how, and for what purposes’’ paraphrases should be integrated into one’s own writing. As

the present data suggest, students, especially those in arts/social sciences, can be guided in using reporting verbs in

integrated citations. Only through such practices and explorations can paraphrasing and intertextuality be made

transparent and, therefore, teachable.

The study also highlights the role of inferential thinking in paraphrasing and rewriting source texts. The comparison

of the paraphrases done by the student writer and the nursing professor illustrates how paraphrasing can go beyond

restating the original information to express one’s own inferential thinking and demonstrate extra content knowledge.

Participants’ concern over how the L2 writer did superficial paraphrasing because he might not have understood the

original text suggest the importance of both linguistic and content knowledge in rewriting source texts. The study

suggests that for subject specific texts, a content expert could be consulted to model how content knowledge and

inferential thinking could be used to produce substantial paraphrasing.

The present study, however, is limited by the short excerpts of writing samples. Although the papers from which the

examples were selected were available, no participants expressed an interest to read them during the interview perhaps

because they found the interview situation not appropriate for extra time on reading. Since the majority of participants

found the information about the writing assignments and the backgrounds of the writers helpful in their reading of the

examples, it would be interesting to find out in future research whether contextualized examples in extended discourse

would generate fewer differences among participants. In addition, the gap between the student-generated text and the

paraphrased text produced by the interviewees also suggest future study to compare students’ paraphrased texts with

those of professional writers. To examine how content knowledge and analytical thinking influence one’s rewriting

skills, specific disciplinary writing at the graduate level, rather than the undergraduate level, would be more useful.

The present study, although it is limited and preliminary, is expected to lead to further research on how students and

instructors perceive the appropriate use of source texts.

Acknowledgments

This study is part of a larger project on textual appropriation funded by a Standard Research Grant of the Social

Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. I thank the students, instructors, and faculty members for their

participation and Mi-Young Kim and Sin Heng Celine Sze for transcribing and analyzing the data. I also thank the

anonymous reviewers, Lynne Earls, Charlene Polio, Christine Tardy, and Rosa Manchon for their valuable feedback on

earlier drafts of the paper. Preliminary findings of the study were presented at the 16th Conference of Association of

International Applied Linguistics (AILA) in Beijing, China.

L.

Sh

i /

Jou

rna

l o

f S

econ

d L

an

gu

ag

e W

riting

21

(20

12

) 1

34

–1

48

14

6Appendix A. Coding scheme for interviewees’ commentsa

Category Definition Comments

Cite Quote No need to cite Not sure

1. Nature and quality

of appropriated

texts

Whether citations are necessary

based on the nature and/or quality

of the paraphrased, translated,

and summarized texts

Translation does not negate

the need to reference

this particular information

(Ex. 3. Emile)b

If you’re not able

to paraphrase it, . . .

then you’d probably

be better to quote.

(Ex. 2. Emma)

The student has

already paraphrased

the source. I think

he need not use the

reference.

(Ex. 2. Adele (G))

I have trouble deciding whether

I want to cite this or not.

(Ex. 4. Silvia (U))

2. Plagiarism

or misconduct

Either a case or not a case

of plagiarism/misconduct

that the student can or cannot

be excused

Just because it’s translated

directly from somebody

else’s work? I would say

it is plagiarism.

(Ex. 3. Adrienne (G))

The student has

changed a few words

around but it is not

plagiarism. (Ex. 2. Eddy)

It’s OK but it’s

a bit lazy. I do not

think it’s dishonest.

(Ex. 4. Alex)

That can be an honest thing to

do or it may not be. Depends

on the context. (Ex. 4. Sam)

3. Learning and

teaching

Specific teaching and learning

context, problems

and implications

Put it in a quotation?

That may be so in

humanities. . . . but it’s not

wrong in my

opinion. (Ex. 1. Simon)

It’s better to quote

because it is hard

to change [paraphrase]

especially English is

your L2. (Ex 2. Adam (G))

I do not think he’s

missing a citation.

. . . What a political

science professor

would think, I do

not know.

(Ex. 4. Scott)

c

4. Similar

experiences

The interviewee’s experiences

with similar cases

I’ve done the same

so far. (Ex. 1. Sheldon (U))

c You integrated

them [others’ ideas]

into a specific

discourse so you

do not cite.

It happened to me

all the time.

(Ex. 4. Abby (G))

That’s what I do in India but

I do not know whether it’s

OK here. (Ex. 4. Samson, (G))

5. Suggestions Suggestions for the writer

about how to revise

He should have used

more of his own

words. (Ex. 1. Agnes (G))

I think they should

give the original Japanese

sentence because . . .

it is possible that he

mistranslated the

sentence. (Ex. 3.

Adele (G))

It’s OK . . . in the

introduction but

. . . I would write

later about the

specifics and cite

that information.

(Ex. 4. Angela (U))

I would go to the instructor and

ask how he wants me to do this

and this would be the best way.

. . . You want a higher and better

mark, so . . .. (Ex. 4. Silvia (U))

a Each sample comment is followed by the example number and the interviewee ID.b This comment also reveals the interviewee’s view on plagiarism but we decided not to code it as such to distinguish it from other explicit comments on plagiarism.c The type of comment can be imagined but not found in the data.


References

Abasi, A. R., & Akbari, N. (2008). Are we encouraging patchwriting? Reconsidering the role of the pedagogical context in ESL student writers’

transgressive intertextuality. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 267–284.

Abasi, A. R., & Graves, B. (2008). Academic literacy and plagiarism: Conversations with international graduate students and disciplinary professors.

Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 221–233.

Angelil-Carter, S. (2000). Stolen language: Plagiarism in writing. Harlow: Pearson Education.

Bazerman, C. (1994). Constructing experience. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.

Bouville, M. (2008). Plagiarism: Words and ideas. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14, 311–322.

Campbell, C. (1990). Writing with others’ words: Using background reading text in academic compositions. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language

writing (pp. 211–230). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

CCCC Statement on Second Language Writing and Writers. (2001). College Composition and Communication, 52, 669–674.

Chandrasegaran, A. (2000). Cultures in contact in academic writing: Students’ perceptions of plagiarism. Asian Journal of English Language

Teaching, 10, 91–113.

Chandrasoma, R., Thompson, C., & Pennycook, A. (2004). Beyond plagiarism: Transgressive and nontransgressive intertextuality. Journal of

Language, Identity, and Education, 3, 171–193.

D’Angelo, F. J. (1979). The art of paraphrase. College Composition and Communication, 30, 255–259.

Deckert, G. (1993). Perspectives on plagiarism from ESL students in Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 2, 131–148.

Doloughan, F. J. (2004). Writing with an accent: Components of style in the intercultural narrative. Language and Intercultural Communication, 4,

39–47.

Dubois, B.L. (1988). Citation in biomedical journal articles. English for Specific Purposes, 7, 181–193.

Flowerdew, J., & Li, Y. (2007). Language re-use among Chinese apprentice scientists writing for publication. Applied Linguistics, 28, 440–465.

Garfield, E., & Welljams-Dorof, A. (1990). Language use in international research: A citation analysis. AAPSS Annual, 511, 10–24.

Hale, J. L. (1987). Plagiarism in classroom settings. Communication Research Reports, 4, 66–70.

Harklau, L., Losey, K. M., & Siegal, M. (Eds.). (1999). Generation 1.5 meets college composition: Issues in the teaching of writing to US-educated

learners of ESL. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hood, S. (2008). Summary writing in academic contexts: Implicating meaning in processes of change. Linguistics and Education, 19, 351–365.

Howard, R.M. (1995). Plagiarism, authorships, and the academic penalty. College English, 57, 788–806.

Howard, R. M., Serviss, T., & Rodrigue, T. K. (2010). Writing from sources, writing from sentences. Writing & Pedagogy, 2, 177–192.

Hyland, K. (1999). Academic attribution: Citation and the construction of disciplinary knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 20, 341–367.

Hyland, T. A. (2009). Drawing a line in the sand: Identifying the borderline between self and other in EL1 and EL2 citation practices. Assessing

Writing, 14, 62–74.

Johns, A. M., & Mayes, P. (1990). An analysis of summary protocols of university ESL students. Applied Linguistics, 11, 253–271.

Keck, C. (2006). The use of paraphrase in summary writing: A comparison of L1 and L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 261–278.

Keck, C. (2010). How do university students attempt to avoid plagiarism? A grammatical analysis of undergraduate paraphrasing strategies. Writing

& Pedagogy, 2, 193–222.

Li, Y. (2006). Negotiating knowledge contribution to multiple discourse communities: A doctoral student of computer science writing for

publication. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 159–178.

Line, M. B. (1971). The information uses and needs of social scientists: An overview of infross. ASLIB Proceedings, 23, 412–434.

Liu, Y. (2004). The cognitive process of translation in L2 writing. PhD dissertation. ProQuest document ID: 888820651.

McCormick, F. (1989). The Plagiario and the professor in our peculiar institution. Journal of Teaching Writing, 8, 133–145.

Mishler, E. G. (1979). Meaning in context: Is there any other kind? Harvard Educational Review, 49, 1–19.

Modern Language Association. (2009). MLA handbook for writers of research papers (7th ed.). New York: Modern Language Association of

America.

Newmark, P. (1988). A textbook of translation. New York: Prentice Hall.

Pecorari, D. (2008). Academic writing and plagiarism. London: Continuum.

Pennycook, A. (1994). The complex contexts of plagiarism: A reply to Deckert. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 277–284.

Pennycook, A. (1996). Borrowing other’s words: Text, ownership, memory, and plagiarism. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 201–230.

Petric, B. (2004). A pedagogical perspective on plagiarism. NovELTy, 11(1), 4–18.

Roig, M. (1997). Can graduate students determine whether text has been plagiarized? The Psychological Record, 47, 113–122.

Roig, M. (1999). When college students’ attempts at paraphrasing become instances of potential plagiarism. Psychological Reports, 84, 973–982.

Roig, M. (2001). Plagiarism and paraphrasing criteria of college and university professors. Ethics and Behavior, 11, 307–323.

Shi, L. (2004). Textual borrowing in second language writing. Written Communication, 21, 171–200.

Shi, L. (2006). Cultural backgrounds and textual appropriation. Language Awareness, 15, 264–282.

Shi, L. (2010). Textual appropriation and citing behaviors of university undergraduates. Applied Linguistics, 31, 1–24.

Shi, L. (2011). Common knowledge, learning and citation practices in university writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 45, 308–333.

Shi, L. (2012). Originality of expressions and formal citation practices. Writing & Pedagogy 4(1).

St. John, M. (1987). Writing processes of Spanish scientists publishing in English. English for Specific Purposes, 6, 113–120.

Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Turabian, K. L. (2007). A manual for writers of research papers, thesis, and dissertation: Chicago style for students and researchers. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.


Yamada, K. (2003). What prevents ESL/EFL writers from avoiding plagiarism? Analyses of 10 North-American college websites. System, 31, 247–

258.

Young, K. M., & Leinhardt, G. (1998). Writing from primary documents: A way of knowing in history. Written Communication, 15, 25–68.

Ling Shi holds a PhD from the Ontario Institute of Education affiliated to the University of Toronto in Canada. She is currently Associate Professor

in the Department of Language and Literacy at the University of British Columbia. Her research focuses on second language writing and teaching

English as a second language.

Rewriting Paraphrasing Source Text

Documents

Transcript of Rewriting Paraphrasing Source Text