Applied Linguistics 31/1: 1–24 ß Oxford University Press 2008 doi:10.1093/applin/amn045 Advance Access published on 4 December 2008 Textual Appropriation and Citing Behaviors of University Undergraduates LING SHI University of British Columbia This article explores the citing behaviors of 16 undergraduates in a North American university. After completing a research paper for their disciplinary courses, each participating student was interviewed to identify in his/her writing words and ideas borrowed from source texts and to explain why and how the relevant texts were appropriated with or without citations. Analysis of students’ writing and comments illustrates how they relied on source texts for various aspects of their essays, some of which they believed required citations while some of which did not. Results showed that they tried to strike a balance between the need to cite published authors to gain credit for the scholarly quality of their writing and the desire to establish their own voice by limiting the extent to which they cited other texts. Some students also reported how they chose between quoting and paraphrasing (though the latter sometimes contained direct copying) on the basis of their ability to rephrase other’s words and their understanding of the different roles played by the two. The study indicates the degree to which citational acts are discursive markings of learning and knowledge construction. INTERTEXTUALITY One theoretical perspective for research on students’ citing behaviors is the concept of intertextuality which suggests that each academic text is populated with other texts organized to generate new knowledge claims (Fairclough 1992). Researchers have found the concept useful in interpreting how stu- dents acquire academic literacy. For example, Starfield states that university students need to learn to interact with various texts which ‘circulate as currency’ (2002: 125) and develop citation skills to accumulate their own ‘textual capital’ (2002: 126). Young and Gaea (1998) suggest that citation skills develop along with one’s disciplinary knowledge and students achieve knowledge transformation by integrating content as interpreted evidence. While working with multiple source texts, many students, however, have produced ‘patchwriting’ by copying from a source text and then deleting or changing a few words and altering the sentence structures, a textual strategy that leads to accusations of plagiarism (Howard 1992, 1995). Such accusations, as Pennycook (1996: 226) states, are ‘inadequate and arrogant’ especially to L2 students from a culture that views borrowing and memorizing others’ words as a legitimate learning strategy. In order to understand issues embedded in students’ citation practices, Chandrasoma et al. (2004: 171) at Islamic Azad University on September 3, 2010 applij.oxfordjournals.org Downloaded from
Transcript
Applied Linguistics 31/1: 1–24 � Oxford University Press 2008
doi:10.1093/applin/amn045 Advance Access published on 4 December 2008
Textual Appropriation and Citing Behaviorsof University Undergraduates
LING SHI
University of British Columbia
This article explores the citing behaviors of 16 undergraduates in a North
American university. After completing a research paper for their disciplinary
courses, each participating student was interviewed to identify in his/her writing
words and ideas borrowed from source texts and to explain why and how the
relevant texts were appropriated with or without citations. Analysis of students’
writing and comments illustrates how they relied on source texts for various
aspects of their essays, some of which they believed required citations while
some of which did not. Results showed that they tried to strike a balance
between the need to cite published authors to gain credit for the scholarly
quality of their writing and the desire to establish their own voice by limiting
the extent to which they cited other texts. Some students also reported how
they chose between quoting and paraphrasing (though the latter sometimes
contained direct copying) on the basis of their ability to rephrase other’s
words and their understanding of the different roles played by the two.
The study indicates the degree to which citational acts are discursive markings
of learning and knowledge construction.
INTERTEXTUALITY
One theoretical perspective for research on students’ citing behaviors is the
concept of intertextuality which suggests that each academic text is populated
with other texts organized to generate new knowledge claims (Fairclough
1992). Researchers have found the concept useful in interpreting how stu-
dents acquire academic literacy. For example, Starfield states that university
students need to learn to interact with various texts which ‘circulate as
currency’ (2002: 125) and develop citation skills to accumulate their own
‘textual capital’ (2002: 126). Young and Gaea (1998) suggest that citation
skills develop along with one’s disciplinary knowledge and students achieve
knowledge transformation by integrating content as interpreted evidence.
While working with multiple source texts, many students, however, have
produced ‘patchwriting’ by copying from a source text and then deleting or
changing a few words and altering the sentence structures, a textual strategy
that leads to accusations of plagiarism (Howard 1992, 1995). Such accusations,
as Pennycook (1996: 226) states, are ‘inadequate and arrogant’ especially to
L2 students from a culture that views borrowing and memorizing others’
words as a legitimate learning strategy. In order to understand issues
embedded in students’ citation practices, Chandrasoma et al. (2004: 171)
The dominant party is generally able to get its own way in policy-making issues in the parliament. (Stockwin 1998: 121)
Jane’s reason for citing, which has been classified as an instance of support:
This is something else that I got from the textbook . . . I have to findwhat was said previously to back up my writing. So that’s whyI keep putting in references. . . . I had this idea that if you havedominance in the Diet, you must have big influence in the par-liament. I just assume that it should be the case but I was justworried because it might not be the case. So I just went throughall the books trying to find if somebody was actually saying thesame thing. . . . So those are the little things that I went throughand made me so tired.
The fatigue Jane expressed at the end shows the enormous time and energy
she had spent searching for citations that would support her basic intuition
about parliamentary influence. Jane’s comment suggests that she had learned
to both trust and check her insights, even as she realized that further evidence
beyond her own hunches needed to be found and included in her work. This
contrasts markedly with the participant in Thompson (2005) who felt that it
was necessary to always find a support because, as a student, he had nothing
original to contribute, Jane seemed to have a scholarly sense of following one’s
hunches, with enough confidence that one did not give up until either finding
the evidence or realizing it was not there.
The students’ interest in securing support from source texts was also evident
when in 12 instances participants commented on how they presented a key
point through the voice of a cited author. For example, in explaining how she
argued for the importance of parents’ encouragement for kids learning to play
the piano, Cathy said that she decided to use the citation ‘to show it was an
important factor’. The reliance on source texts to frame important points was
also shown in five instances of students citing research findings and 15 instances
of drawing information from a credible source. Martin believed that citations
‘gave some authenticity or authority over [his] essay’. Like Martin, Carol
explained that she cited from Milroy and Milroy (1999) about how English
was an essential tool for working-class children because ‘quotes or cita-
tions . . . [had] been proven and recognized’. By using such a citation, Carol
said her message was that ‘[i]t is not just what I am saying, it is from a
published author’. These comments reveal how students draw on others to
show that they are not alone in thinking and thus to gain credit for their own
writing.
Learning to cite
Students were also motivated to cite materials for two additional reasons
related to what I am terming learning (Figure 1). As learners, the participants
chose to cite when they recalled teachers’ preference for extensive citation (5) or
12 STUDENT’S TEXTUAL APPROPRIATION AND CITING BEHAVIORS
when they saw source texts as others’ words and ideas that were worth quoting
directly (37). In the following example, Edward explained how he attributed
the ownership of the word ‘localization’ to an author (the co-authors of the
original text were missing in both his writing and comment):
Example 2
A unit of textual appropriation in Edward’s paper titled ‘Nowhere to Turn:
Drug Abuse as a Cause of Homelessness and Poverty in Vancouver’:
In his essay ‘‘Drug Dealers,’’ Caulkins describes the ‘‘localization’’of certain areas of the city for drug use as a major problem lead-ing to the augmented organization of drug dealers in Vancouver(Caulkins 326).
Edward’s reason for quoting, which has been classified as an instance of
other’s words:
I used quotations for ‘‘localization’’ because it’s a word Caulkinsused. It is his word. . . . He describes the ‘‘localization’’ of certainareas of the city for drug use . . . I usually cite if it’s something thatmost people wouldn’t use. . . . Just like if I was to hear ‘‘localization’’before, I probably wouldn’t know it means that much beforereading.
It is interesting to note that Edward felt that the original author owned the
word because any average person like himself would not have used the
word in such a context. Also regarding themselves as average people, Martin
and Mark said that citing words from published authors would save them
the trouble of providing supporting details. As a student, Martin said that
instructors always cast doubt on ideas he claimed as his own. For example,
in explaining why he cited Hirsch (1990) when writing about Woody Allen’s
family, Martin said ‘If I didn’t cite that, the instructor would say, ‘‘Where did
you get this? Who said this? How did you know who said this?’’’ In compar-
ison, Mark acknowledged the sources when ‘the language is powerful’
because, as he explained, ‘If you just present something really stunning
people won’t believe you’. Mark’s lack of confidence in using his own words
echoed that of L2 students in previous studies (e.g. Angelil-Carter 2000;
Chandrasoma et al. 2004).
Learning ‘facts’ and ‘new information’ in various academic disciplines
Compared with the above reasons, students were divided on whether fact
and new information required citing, although they favored citing (Figure 1).
The participants distinguished facts (things exist or performed) from ideas
and opinions. For example, Edward interpreted chemical characteristics of
drugs as facts that had to be cited, whereas Eddy regarded current or historical
events as facts that needed no acknowledgement. The different decisions made
by students imply that the debt owed to authors for facts differs across
disciplines. If facts about drugs are derived from scientific research, facts of
current or historical events are public knowledge. Students’ citing behaviors
are thus connected to their variable learning and practices in different disci-
plinary communities.
Like the notion of fact, the concept of new information reveals the role
of individual learning experiences. For example, the present students cited
such new information as:
� ‘Influences from early in our lives such as childhood trauma . . . or alcoholabuse can contribute to initial experimentation with a drug’ [a citationgiven by Edward and the material to which the citation applied camefrom Jones (1998)];
� ‘The most significant side effects of antibiotics, however, is [sic] thedepression of the immune system’ [a citation given by Mark andthe material to which the citation applied came from Hauser andReminngton (1982)]; and
� that the reformed Indian Constitution ‘articulated the principle of equalityof all citizens irrespective of caste, community, race or sex’ [a citationgiven by Rose and the material to which the citation applied camefrom Desai (1973)].
One can easily imagine that, on the one hand, some of these students’ peers
might not consider such information as new knowledge and, on the other
hand, the same students might choose not to cite later when they become
acquainted with such information. By comparing students’ citing behaviors,
the present study suggests a dynamic process of learning and claiming owner-
ship of knowledge. Judgements on textual appropriation, whether appreciated
or illegitimate, are grounded in the context of epistemologically and socially
constructed academic literacies.
Reasons mentioned more frequently for not citingtexts borrowed
Since all of the reasons were offered to explain chunks of texts which the
students identified as appropriated, a citation would be expected in every
case. It is, therefore, highly significant to examine cases when students
did not give a citation. Of the 14 reasons for using source texts, five were
mentioned more often for not citing than citing (Figure 2).
Interpreting source information as common knowledge/term
In 15 instances, the present students interpreted source texts as common
knowledge/term and, therefore, did not cite them in their writing (Figure 2).
For example, Cathy said that she did not cite the statement that ‘musical suc-
cess is an innate gift’ which she read from a book because it was ‘something
that [she had] grown up with’. Other appropriated texts that students
14 STUDENT’S TEXTUAL APPROPRIATION AND CITING BEHAVIORS
considered common knowledge included statements that ‘the industrial policy
[of the government] is the driving force for economic growth [of Japan]’
(Kate); that ‘[t]he baby boom that took place from the mid 1940s throughout
France had created, by the middle of the 1960s, many thousands of new
undergraduates’ (Carl); and that ‘the human use of antibiotics helped the
natural selection of bacteria’ (Mark). The following example illustrates how
May generalized Starbucks’ way of preparing coffee to a common sense of
how to keep food fresh:
Example 3
A unit of textual appropriation in May’s paper titled ‘Starbucks Coffee’:
Moreover, Starbucks prepare the coffee beans in a sanitary and safeenvironment that keeps the coffee fresh.
May’s reason for not citing, which has been classified as an instance of
common knowledge:
I got this from the book. . . . But actually it’s kind of common sensebecause you have to put food in a bag or something so it doesn’tgo stale. I think it’s just kind of related to all the food.
Compared with May and those students who distinguished common knowl-
edge based on their own understandings and interpretations, other students
made similar decisions based on whether the source information was intro-
duced in a textbook (Eddy) or a lecture (Mark), or frequently mentioned in
reading materials (Jane). Jane, for example, did not cite the appropriated text
about the dominance of the Liberal Democratic Party in Japan because, in her
words, ‘I read them in so many places and textbooks so I thought that was
just like a general understanding of this whole issue.’ Such comments illus-
trate that when certain information is recognized by students as public or
owned by many, it becomes base knowledge of which students would claim
ownership. Although previous research has also reported how one student
did not cite common knowledge acquired through personal experiences
(Chandrasoma et al. 2004), the present study provides insights of how a
group of students across disciplines arrive at such an interpretation in each
specific case.
Learning not to cite
Students also attributed some of their decisions not to cite to various learning
experiences (Figure 2). Specifically, they chose not to cite when the appro-
priated texts matched their knowledge accumulated as a result of learning (18)
or was something they believed not worth citing otherwise they had to cite every-
thing (11). To avoid using too many citations, three students (Carol, Cary, and
Martin) said that they did not cite a reference cited earlier in the paper or included
in the reference list. As an example, Cary referred to her learning experiences
when commenting on the following unit of textual appropriation:
Example 4
A unit of textual appropriation in Cary’s paper titled ‘One Type of Spontaneous
Mutations is Point Mutation’:
However, spontaneous mutation occurs more frequently thaninduced because spontaneous mutations can occur simply due tonatural radiation, and during replication in DNA.
Cary’s reason for not citing, which has been classified as instances of the result
of learning and no need to cite everything:
Well, I didn’t cite these because I know that there is naturalradiation. . . . I got it from lecture and the books I used. . . . I learnedsince I was in high school. . . . I don’t think we really have tocite everything, right?
Although the above comment might be interpreted as common knowledge, it
is coded as result of learning based on Cary’s own account of how she learned
the information in high school. Like Cary, Eddy explained that he did not cite
the term ‘unitary actors’ because it was ‘a part of lingo of political science
[he had] been studying for a number of years’. Also commenting on the
development of one’s own knowledge based on learning, Carol said, ‘When
you read an article, you absorb the ideas then it becomes your own’. The
participants believed that they were entitled to claim ownership of words
and ideas learnt previously or internalized. As two other students explained
explicitly when commenting on certain texts appropriated, ‘I’ve learned this
in class so it is considered personal knowledge’ (Carmen); ‘I know it before
then I don’t think I really have to cite it’ (Cary). These explanations for not
citing illustrate how citation practices go hand in hand with students’ learning
and accumulation of knowledge.
Claiming authorship of ideas and learning to construct knowledge
Compared with the above reasons, the reason to use course texts to form one’s
own point was bidirectional (for both citing and not citing) though it was men-
tioned more often for not citing than citing (Figure 2). Among those who
mentioned how they appropriated texts to form their own points, Carmen,
in his Biology research paper, explained how he came up with the statement
about ‘a direct relationship between light intensity and accumulation of
newrosecretions’ based on the information from Cymborosky (1983) that
‘accumulation of neurosecretions is the highest during the night when crickets
are supported to move at the highest levels’. In Carmen’s words, ‘I came up
with this based on what this person found. . . . So it was what I inferred from
the study. This was what I came up with myself’. Although it was arguable
16 STUDENT’S TEXTUAL APPROPRIATION AND CITING BEHAVIORS
how different the two statements were, Carmen believed that, as a legitimate
process of learning and constructing knowledge, he was entitled to take the
ownership of the inference he made. Carmen’s choice also reveals, as one
anonymous reviewer of the paper noted by citing from Sinclair (1986) and
Tadros (1993), an intention to aver or to put forward a claim on the basis of
one’s own authority.
Unlike Carmen, other students mentioned how they appropriated texts to
form their own points together with other reasons for either citing or not
citing. The relevant cases further illustrate how students support or claim
their ownership of ideas in the context of learning. For example, Mark cited
a reliable or credible source to support his understanding that antibiotics can be
harmful. In comparison, Cary, in the following example, claimed ownership of
the knowledge of point mutation in DNA as a result of learning and, therefore,
did not cite the source:
Example 5
A unit of textual appropriation in Cary’s paper titled ‘One Type of Spontaneous
Mutations is Point Mutation’:
Point mutation also divides into different categories that includebase-pair substitution in the DNA, and insertion of deletion in abase pair. Base pair mutation happens when there is a replacementof one nucleotide in a chain of amino acids. . . .
Cary’s reasons for not citing, which have been classified as instances of forming
one’s own point and result of learning:
I know it from a course last term. I just vaguely remember it.I think it’s mine, the idea and wording. I think it’s just my idea.
The above examples illustrate how students might make different citation
decisions when appropriating source texts to form their own points. If students’
citation decisions are based on various combinations of reasons related to
their complex process of learning and constructing knowledge, the present
findings highlight the important role of self-reflections in exploring the
subjective act of citing.
Quotations, paraphrases and summaries
A total of 122 (out of 236) mentions of reasons were accompanied with students’
explanations of whether the relevant units of textual appropriations were pre-
sented as quotes, paraphrases or summaries. Most of these identifications
referred to texts cited (Table 4). Of the 122 mentions, only 14 (3 for paraphrases,
11 for summaries) were for texts not cited, which was about 18 per cent of total
mentions (77, Table 3) for not citing. In addition, probably because quotations
were visible, about 86 (out of 122) mentions were for textual borrowing quoted,
leaving only 36 for texts either paraphrased (17) or summarized (19).
following account, Polly said she decided to paraphrase because she believed
that quoting was not appropriate at the beginning of the paper:
Example 6
Polly’s reason for paraphrasing a unit of textual borrowing
I rephrased these from the article. . . . I think I maybe copied thatword for word and then rephrased it. I changed the wording arounda bit and then cited it. Because it’s really early in the paper, andI figure it would have looked really silly to start quoting . . . It doesn’tlook as nice, I think. It’s really a general introduction andbackground.
Concern for plagiarism
While explaining their choices between paraphrasing and quoting, some stu-
dents expressed a concern for plagiarism or an uncertainty about whether they
had paraphrased some source texts enough. Although they believed that quot-
ing was irrelevant when they changed the source text slightly, these students
were uncomfortable when they noted a close resemblance between the source
texts and their writing. As an example, the following is a comparison of the
source text and the unit of textual borrowing that Polly commented on in the
previous quote (words identical in Polly’s text and source text are highlighted):
Example 6 (continued)
A unit of textual appropriation in Polly’s paper titled ‘GM Crops or Franken
Foods: An analysis of the Rhetoric of Activis’:
The first successful cross-species gene transfer to plants took placein the early 1980’s, and by 1998 more than 26 percent of the cottonand 40 percent of the soybean acreage in the US was planted withGM crops. (Shields 2000)
The corresponding source text from Shields (2000: 18):
The first successful gene transfers in plants took place in theearly 1980’s, and by 1998 more than 26 percent of the cottonand 40 percent of the soybean acreage in the US was plantedwith GM crops containing a gene for herbicide resistance.
Noticing the direct copying in their writing such as the above, Polly and other
students (e.g. Carmen, Eddy, Mark), wondered whether they should have
quoted the source texts. In the following comment, Eddy also expressed
uncertainty about whether he should have acknowledged the source when
summarizing the information about how an Iraqi citizen would be eliminated
if he/she openly criticized Saddam Hussein:
I got my idea from The Economist. . . . I mean, I took it from theirargument but incorporated it into my own . . . overarching
20 STUDENT’S TEXTUAL APPROPRIATION AND CITING BEHAVIORS
description of the situation. . . . And I guess that’s sort of a border-line. If you really want to be strict, then I probably should havequoted or cited that. . . . Use the judgment call. ‘Am I plagiarizing ornot?’ Maybe I should have cited that.
The concern about plagiarism expressed by Eddy and others further explains
the limited identifications of the format of textual borrowing among the pres-
ent students. Participants might be reluctant to identify how they borrowed
source texts because they were not sure how much to paraphrase, so the
relevant text did not need to be quoted, nor were they sure if it was OK not
to cite when certain information was summarized using entirely one’s own
words. In addition, they might not want to talk about their plagiarized texts
with the researcher who might disagree with them on this sensitive issue. The
epistemological status of the data complicates the findings of a dynamic learn-
ing process of choosing between not only citing and not citing but also quoting
and paraphrasing. As the process is a blind spot for teachers, students have to
rely on their own judgement call in making these choices.
CONCLUSION
The present study illustrates the sophistication and range of the participating
students’ understanding of the role of textual borrowing and citation by ana-
lyzing students’ self-reflections on not only units of textual appropriation cited
but also those not cited. Results show that the citing behaviors of novice
scholarly writers (in the case of undergraduates) are guided by a complex set
of factors including functional uses of cited works, citers’ interpretations of
source texts, a learning process to accumulate one’s own knowledge and tex-
tual capital, as well as a choice between quoting and paraphrasing. The study
indicates the extent to which students attempt to maintain a balance between
a reliance on source texts for support and an attempt to establish their own
voice by choosing not to cite. On the one hand, the participants cited source
texts that contained similar ideas so that their opinions were bolstered and
secured. On the other hand, the participants understood that not everything
needed to be cited and would simply draw on, rather than cite directly, source
texts that matched either common knowledge or what they had learnt pre-
viously. Students’ citational acts are situated in a learning context where cer-
tain information seems supportive or irrelevant, new or learnt, owned by a
particular author or shared by many others. As there are no fixed rules, some
participants wondered when a citation would be appropriate and whether they
should quote or paraphrase texts borrowed.
Citing a source text is more than providing a name and a date; it is a
subjective process of deciding how to make meaning out of the available
resources. Students are still learning the general principles and guidelines.
As they learn the parameters of appropriate use, students can easily go
across the unmarked borders of appropriate borrowing and lapse into
![Composting toilet full plans[1] 1](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/55546332b4c905aa798b4c33/composting-toilet-full-plans1-1.jpg)
