Center for Academic Writing

The embedding of arguments in networks of references not only suggests an appropriate disciplinary orientation but reminds us that statements are invariably a response to previous statements and are themselves available for further statements by others. Ken Hyland(1)

Writing is the principal means of communication in the academic community, with ideas and evidence being exchanged through the publication of articles and books. The rules of discourse in this academic community require that you, the writer, situate yourself in relation to the existing body of published knowledge, whether in order to use it as support, to exemplify a point, to build on it, or to take issue with it. The term for this reference to the works of other authors is citation. In order to be accepted as an academic, you have to fulfil two requirements: you have to show some sort of original contribution to the discipline, and at the same time you have to demonstrate that you are, as Phillips and Pugh (2) put it, 'aware of what is being discovered, argued about, written and published by your academic community across the world'. Academic writing is often seen as a kind of balancing act between these two contradictory aims, and this balance is certainly something that many students find difficult to achieve. As one former CEU student put it: 'if you use too many sources, your own ideas get lost, but if you write on your own, it's like 'who's interested? - where's the authority?' Making reference to published authors who have said something similar or discussed similar questions is the key way of increasing your own 'authority' - establishing your credentials as someone who is entitled to contribute to the academic dialogue.

How is citation used?

The different purposes for which citation can be used are numerous and too complex to go into exhaustively, but a few examples are mentioned here:

Presenting the literature in the field

Britten (1998), in discussing preliminary training for non-native speaker teachers, argues for a progression from an initially more trainer-centred approach which will be able to cope with a high input and trainees' inexperience of trainee-based approaches, gradually moving towards a more developmental, self-help approach.(3)

Here, the writer is simply presenting an argument put forward by an established author. The word 'argues' tells us that this is Britten's main idea and that he might therefore be assumed to be an authority whose opinion must be considered. Several lines later, in fact, the writer goes on to say that Britten's approach is suitable to apply to his (the writer's) particular situation.

Comparison of existing views

One of Schön's key arguments in his critique of the applied science model is ... (several lines omitted) This view is not at odds with Widdowson's (1984:89) comment that teachers who do not analyse the principles behind their teaching suffer from haphazard methodology. On the contrary, Schön's second requirement for effective education (1983:50) is precisely that ...

Again here in comparing two views of established authors and showing how they complement each other, the writer is adding authority to his argument. Note the phrases in (added) italics which the writer uses to make the cited authors, Schön and Widdowson, 'do what he wants' - in other words, it is in these phrases that we can hear the writer's own voice.

Support of the writer's view

A common lexical marker in using sources for support of your own view is the word 'as' before the cited author's name:

This traditional teaching cannot, moreover, serve as an ideal model for students to experience what they might later put into practice in their own classes; on the contrary, as Britten points out (1988:3), it is more likely... to encourage student teachers to go out and teach the way they were taught.

By using 'as', the writer claims ownership of the idea expressed but uses a citation of Britten who has said the same thing to lend greater authority.

Referring

It is common for researchers not to reiterate the basic details of a study related to what they are writing about, but simply to refer the reader to read the study themselves if they want more information. In these cases, the reference is often preceded by 'see' or 'cf.' For example:

Thus, Americans speaking at normal volume might be considered rather quiet in some parts of Africa and rather loud in some parts of the Far East (cf. Applegate, 1975).(4)

Exemplifying/providing evidence

Often a writer will present an argument or outline a general position, then follow it up with evidence from the research of others. For example:

Critics also question whether the process approach realistically prepares students for academic work. According to Horowitz (1986a), the approach "creates a classroom situation that bears little resemblance to the situations in which [students' writing] will eventually be exercised" (p.144). He goes on to suggest that...(5)

Thus the first sentence is the writer's own assessment that (many or at least some) critics question the approach. In the second sentence, Horowitz is then brought in as one example of a critic, and his criticisms of the approach under discussion are outlined. Having started like this, the writer could now easily go on to mention other authors and their criticisms, so as to fully show the weaknesses of the approach.

The exact role of citation and its interrelation with voice in academic writing is very complex, and limited research has been done. The best way to improve your understanding of how to use citation without losing your own voice as writer is to pay attention as you do your reading to how established writers cite others, and how they distinguish the ideas of other authors from their own so as to maintain their own voice.

To quote or not to quote?

Having decided that research you have done is helpful in presenting your position, and that you want to cite that author, you still have to make a choice as to the best way of doing this. There are basically three issues to consider when using the work of others writers:

whether or not to quote a writer's words
how to paraphrase or summarise a writer's words if you decide not to quote
whether or not to use the writer's name in your sentence, together with a reporting verb such as 'notes' or 'suggests' to distinguish their ideas from your own

These three issues will be dealt with in more detail below.

a) Using Direct Quotation

In general, when writers choose to quote rather than paraphrase, they usually do so because the language in the text is vivid, provocative, unusual, or because the exact wording is historically or legally important; and this could possibly be lost in a paraphrase or summary.

For example:

"Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life." (6)

In such cases, especially where the original to be quoted is short and pithy, it is probably better not to paraphrase.

How do you know when and how much to quote?

Research by Hyland(7) into the use of citation in research articles in both sciences and humanities suggests that quotations are relatively rare compared to summary or paraphrase. Hyland's figures suggest that even in the humanities, only 8-12% of citations involve quotation. If your paper focuses on some primary source such as a significant speech, an important manuscript, or some government document or legislation, you may need to quote more extensively from the original, explaining such matters as the content, tone, wording, and structure of that work. Secondary sources, however, such as critics who have commented on the primary source or experts in related fields, should be quoted much less frequently. Again, to maintain your own voice, if you quote someone, don't just leave your reader to work out for themselves why you quoted that person; follow up the quotation with a comment of your own which ties it into your argument.

How to incorporate quotation into your writing

Your department will be able to advise you on the exact techniques it requires for quotation and referencing. Some basic guidelines are given here:

Always quote accurately.
Enclose all quoted material in quotation marks (" ") and cite the exact source immediately after the quotation, even if you have mentioned this source earlier. If you need to quote longer passages (usually more than four lines), set the quotation off in an indented, single-spaced block (called a 'block quotation'). If you do this, you no longer need to use quotation marks.
Sometimes, for the sake of clarity or length, you may want to alter a direct quotation in some way to eliminate unnecessary detail. If so, enclose any changed or added words in square brackets [ ], and indicate any deletions with three ellipsis points (...). Be especially careful that any changes you make in a quotation do not alter its essential meaning. In addition, use these marks sparingly: too many brackets and ellipsis points make for difficult reading.
When you quote less than a full sentence, be careful to match the grammar of your own words to those of the quotation so that the two fit together as if they were one sentence. If you have to change the grammar of the original quotation, you should put any altered words in square brackets [ ].

b) Using Paraphrase and Summary

Usually, not all of the piece you want to quote may be relevant, or it may say what you want to say in a rather lengthy way. In such cases, it is usually a better idea to paraphrase or summarise the author's words instead of quoting. Similarly, when you want to cite an author's ideas but you feel that his or her argument would not benefit from the inclusion of the exact words, it is sensible to paraphrase or summarise. Secondary sources used to lend authority to your own voice should usually be paraphrased or summarised.

Summary and paraphrase are similar, in that both entail using your own words rather than those of the author; however, while summary involves shortening the original and capturing the key ideas, paraphrasing usually means keeping the same length as the original idea but expressing it in other words.

i) Paraphrasing

When you want to include all the ideas of another author from a particular sentence or paragraph, but do not feel the need to include the author's actual words, you will probably choose to paraphrase. In this sense, you are not changing the essential content, but rather rewording the original. There are a number of ways of approaching paraphrasing, but most techniques include the following three steps:

Isolate the essential ideas in the text
Restructure the sentences, changing the syntax and form of words
Use close synonyms or related words where suitable

ii) Summarising

When you want to include only the main ideas from another author's work, it will probably be appropriate to summarise the information. This normally happens when you want to include the main ideas from whole pages of another author's work. As with paraphrasing, it is important that you use your own words in presenting information. This means that the techniques mentioned above can also be employed in summarising. It is often helpful to take notes and then write a summary from your notes rather than from the original text.

As with quotation, indicating the sources of paraphrase and summary is important. Failure to cite sources for material that is not in quotation marks but that you could not have arrived at by yourself, even if you do it unintentionally, constitutes plagiarism. As you are carrying out research reading, it is helpful to add under any notes you make the exact source that they come from. If your notes are incomplete or your source is unclear, relocate the original to clarify the information. Resist the temptation to write your paper without adding any references to your reading and then put these in later at the editing stage; working in this way leaves you open to the danger of unintentional plagiarism.

c) Using reporting verbs (integral citation)

You can refer to an author's work in two ways: by integral or non-integral citation. In integral citation, the author's name is integrated in your sentence, usually with a reporting verb like 'suggests' or 'argues', while in non-integral citation it only appears in footnote or in brackets Especially if you are using a footnoting system, non-integral citation has the disadvantage that the original author is almost invisible in your text, therefore there is a greater risk of the reader confusing the author's ideas with your comments and interpretations. Integral citation avoids this problem by giving prominence to the author's name.

Compare these two examples:

Non-integral

There were distinct perceptions of family and caste in 19^th century accounts of bathing resorts⁽¹⁾, which on closer analysis can reveal a great deal about the nature of perceptions of caste in society generally.

⁽¹⁾Somloi, G. "Spa Resorts in 19^th Century Hungary", Hungarian Historical Journal Vol.23, no.4 Budapest 2001

Integral

There were, as Somloi has rightly pointed out, distinct perceptions of family and caste in 19^th century accounts of bathing resorts(¹⁾. Closer analysis of these perceptions can reveal a great deal about the nature of perceptions of caste in society generally.

⁽¹⁾Somloi, G. "Spa Resorts in 19^th Century Hungary", Hungarian Historical Journal Vol.23, no.4 Budapest 2001

In the first example, although technically the placement of the footnote correctly identifies the end of the material from the source, the reader might easily overlook this and attribute both points to the original author. In the second example, it is much clearer that the second sentence is the writer's comment on the source.

The addition of a reporting verb also gives you the chance to tell the reader how you relate to this source. In the second example above, the phrase 'has rightly pointed out' does two things: first, it shows the writer's positive evaluation of the source - that the writer shares this opinion; secondly, it shows, by the choice of verb, that the information taken from the source was not the author's main hypothesis but something that was made clear on the way to the main hypothesis, and is therefore perhaps less contentious. Hyland's research showed that in the humanities, around 50% of citations used reporting verbs (ranging from 34% in Marketing to 67% in Philosophy), the most popular being suggest, argue, claim, note, point out, discuss, show and explain.(8)

Plagiarism

There are several good reasons for crediting sources. First, it increases your authority, showing that you have read and are familiar with the existing research in your field. Second, it places your research in the broader debate and indicates where more information can be obtained about the topic. Lastly, giving credit to your sources is a way of paying the intellectual debt you owe to those scholars whose work you used. Failure to pay this debt is called plagiarism and is punished in the academic world.

CEU's policy document, "Academic Dishonesty and Plagiarism"(9), defines plagiarism like this:

Plagiarising, that is, the offering as one's own work the words, ideas, or arguments of another person without appropriate attribution by quotation, reference or footnote [is a violation of the academic integrity code]. Plagiarism occurs both when the words of another are reproduced without acknowledgement, or when the ideas or arguments of another are paraphrased in such a way as to lead the reader to believe that they originated with the writer. It is the responsibility of all University students to understand the methods of proper attribution and to apply those principles in all materials submitted.

In CEU, and throughout the English academic community, plagiarism is taken very seriously. Indeed, there have been recent cases in CEU where students have had to leave the university because they had failed to mention their sources. It is also worth noting that in the eyes of the university you have committed just as serious a crime if you accidentally forget to add a reference as if you deliberately try to pretend that someone else's theory is your invention. Following the guidelines in this pre-read should help you to avoid these dangers. A few commonly asked questions are given below to help clarify certain cases.

Q: If I paraphrase the source materials completely into my own words, is reference necessary?

A: Remember that it is not only an author's words that are intellectual property, but also their ideas. If you have reclothed their ideas in your own words, you are just as guilty as someone who steals a car and resprays it in a different colour to make it look like their own car.

Q: I've heard the particular idea that I want to express in so many different places that I don't know who first said it. Do I have to provide a reference, and if so, how do I do it?

A: Some ideas belong to what is called 'common domain'. This means that they are generally known and accepted in the field as common knowledge, perhaps because they have been around for a very long time, or because many authors have independently mentioned or assumed them. Of course, it is hard to know when something is common domain. When in doubt, it is often safest to do a little research and see if you can find, if not the original source of an idea, then at least someone who mentions it in their writing.

Q: What if the information I found in one of my sources is purely factual, like who won an election, or the amount of pollution in a river?

A: When we are talking about generally known facts like election results, this is definitely common domain and does not need to be credited. However as soon as you move from fact to interpretation (for example why the election result happened the way it did), you need to cite the author who interprets the fact in that way. When you are talking about something like pollution levels, however, the situation is quite different: we don't all know how dirty a river is just by looking at it; someone had to do the research to find out just what is in there, and their research needs to be cited to give them credit.

Q: How many words in a row can I take from the original before it will be considered plagiarism?

A: There is no formula or calculation that can or should be applied to the number of words taken from the original. It would not be unusual for two papers to contain the same four or five consecutive words; however, where key words or unique phrases are repeated word for word from a previously written text without acknowledgement, the writer's work will undoubtedly be rejected for reasons of plagiarism.

Conclusion

Using the work of other authors in your own writing, then, is a key feature, some might say the key feature of academic writing, and as has been shown here, in the English academic community, it is not only important to acknowledge the sources you have used so as to avoid plagiarism, but also so as to lend greater authority to your own words. As regards the technical details of citation, your department will have its own special requirements regarding issues such as whether to use footnotes or embedded references, and you should always consult your departmental writing instructor or a professor in your department to find out exactly what is required.

References
1. Ken Hyland, Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing (Harlow: Pearson Education, 2000), 21.
2. E. Phillips and D. Pugh, 1994. How to get a PhD. Quoted in D. Silverman, Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook (London: Sage Publications), 2000.
3. This and the next two examples are taken (with kind permission) from a student thesis.
4. Terence Odlin, Language Transfer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 1989.
5. Tony Silva, "Second Language Composition Instruction," in Second Language Writing, ed. Barbara Kroll, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 16.
6. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The German Ideology, 1845.
7. Hyland op.cit p.26.
8. Ibid. p.27.
9. "Academic Dishonesty and Plagiarism," as printed in Administrative Policy Papers, (Central European University, 1996) no.25 (italics added for emphasis).

[Other examples cited are taken from unpublished work of CEU students with the authors' permission or are invented]