Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (2012) 134148

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 ones 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 ones 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 ones 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: ling.shi@ubc.ca.
1060-3743/$ see front matter # 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.003

L. Shi / Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (2012) 134148

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 ones own words with a
credit to the original author. Commenting on the art of paraphrasing, DAngelo (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 ones 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 ones 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.

136

L. Shi / Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (2012) 134148

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 ones 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 ones 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

L. Shi / Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (2012) 134148

137

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 ones 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. How do participating students and faculty across disciplines view the examples of paraphrasing in relation to the
amount of copying and the use of ones own inferential thinking?
2. How do participating students and faculty across disciplines view the example of the summarized text in terms of
how it should be acknowledged?
3. How 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 (Womens 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 writers description of the source; (b) the student-generated writing; and (c) the
writers 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.

138

Table 1
Four examples of appropriated texts.a
Source

Students text

The writers 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

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

3. Summary
(Liberal
Democratic Party)

From several different unknown sources.

4. Translation
(Japanese economy)

From a Korean book on Japanese economy

In the past, only 510% 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)
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)
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)
Japanese economic process the period of a high
growth in 19501977, 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)

a
b
c

Identical words in students text and the source text are highlighted for the interviewees.
Harris, M. (1964). Pharmaceutical microbiology. London: Ballie`re, Tindall and Cox.
McKenna, J. (1998). Natural alternatives to antibiotics: Using natures pharmacy to help fight infections. New York: Avery.

This is specific information. I paraphrased the

sentences and acknowledged the author at the
end

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

I do not need to give references because I

copied and then translated these sentences from
a Korean book

L. Shi / Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (2012) 134148

Example

L. Shi / Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (2012) 134148

139

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 persons 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
75

75

First languagea

English
Chinese
Other

10
4
6

9
13
6

22
5

41
17
17

Academic division

Science and applied sciences

Arts and social sciences

7
13

14
14

5
22

26
49

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

140

L. Shi / Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (2012) 134148

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 ones 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 ones 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.

L. Shi / Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (2012) 134148

141

of words in Paraphrase 1 (allergic reactions) did not bother them. As Sam explained, It doesnt matter to me whether
the person changed someones 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. Thats not really paraphrasing. Thats 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:
(1) Particularly this part more and more often. . . should be in quotations. . . . the part 510 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 its 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,

Table 3
Suggested paraphrases.*
Original source text

Student-generated text

Suggested paraphrases

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.

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.

Hypersensitivity, in relation to
administration of streptomycin,
may cause damage to the kidney
and liver and the 8th cranial
nerve causing imbalance (Nancy).

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.
*

Words identical in the original and paraphrased texts are highlighted.

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)).

142

L. Shi / Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (2012) 134148

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 McKennas or Harris ideas began since there were two sentences in
each example. These suggestions resonate with Hylands (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 students 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 writers 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. Its 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. Its difficult for L2 writers but you have to do it. You cant 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
ones 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
how it should be acknowledged?
The student-generated text in the summary example (Table 1) was part of the introduction of the paper where the writer
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 writers 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.

L. Shi / Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (2012) 134148

143

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.
Its 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 writers 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. Silvas (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
how it should be acknowledged?
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

144

L. Shi / Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (2012) 134148

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 19501977 and its
slowdown in 19781990, 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 ones
own (19 undergraduates, 21 graduates, 19 instructors). As Lily commented, translation is not an excuse for not using
a citation. There should be, in Eves 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, Its
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 writers 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 ones own words. For
example, Aric (G) claimed that quoting was not necessary for a translated text which, by default, was a paraphrase in
ones 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.

L. Shi / Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (2012) 134148

145

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
ones 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
ones 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 ones 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 ones 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 ones 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.

146

Appendix A. Coding scheme for interviewees commentsa

Category

Definition

Comments
Quote

No need to cite

Not sure

The student has

already paraphrased
the source. I think
he need not use the
reference.
(Ex. 2. Adele (G))
Its OK but its
a bit lazy. I do not
think its dishonest.
(Ex. 4. Alex)

I have trouble deciding whether

I want to cite this or not.
(Ex. 4. Silvia (U))

I do not think hes

missing a citation.
. . . What a political
science professor
would think, I do
not know.
(Ex. 4. Scott)
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))
Its OK . . . in the
introduction but
. . . I would write
later about the
specifics and cite
that information.
(Ex. 4. Angela (U))

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 youre not able

to paraphrase it, . . .
then youd probably
be better to quote.
(Ex. 2. Emma)

2. Plagiarism
or misconduct

Either a case or not a case

of plagiarism/misconduct
that the student can or cannot
be excused

The student has

changed a few words
around but it is not
plagiarism. (Ex. 2. Eddy)

3. Learning and
teaching

Specific teaching and learning

context, problems
and implications

Just because its translated

directly from somebody
elses work? I would say
it is plagiarism.
(Ex. 3. Adrienne (G))
Put it in a quotation?
That may be so in
humanities. . . . but its not
wrong in my
opinion. (Ex. 1. Simon)

4. Similar
experiences

The interviewees experiences

with similar cases

Ive done the same

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

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))

a
b
c

Its better to quote

because it is hard
to change [paraphrase]
especially English is
your L2. (Ex 2. Adam (G))

That can be an honest thing to

do or it may not be. Depends
on the context. (Ex. 4. Sam)

Thats what I do in India but

I do not know whether its
OK here. (Ex. 4. Samson, (G))

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))

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

L. Shi / Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (2012) 134148

Cite

L. Shi / Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (2012) 134148

147

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, 267284.
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, 221233.
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, 311322.
Campbell, C. (1990). Writing with others words: Using background reading text in academic compositions. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language
writing (pp. 211230). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
CCCC Statement on Second Language Writing and Writers. (2001). College Composition and Communication, 52, 669674.
Chandrasegaran, A. (2000). Cultures in contact in academic writing: Students perceptions of plagiarism. Asian Journal of English Language
Teaching, 10, 91113.
Chandrasoma, R., Thompson, C., & Pennycook, A. (2004). Beyond plagiarism: Transgressive and nontransgressive intertextuality. Journal of
Language, Identity, and Education, 3, 171193.
DAngelo, F. J. (1979). The art of paraphrase. College Composition and Communication, 30, 255259.
Deckert, G. (1993). Perspectives on plagiarism from ESL students in Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 2, 131148.
Doloughan, F. J. (2004). Writing with an accent: Components of style in the intercultural narrative. Language and Intercultural Communication, 4,
3947.
Dubois, B.L. (1988). Citation in biomedical journal articles. English for Specific Purposes, 7, 181193.
Flowerdew, J., & Li, Y. (2007). Language re-use among Chinese apprentice scientists writing for publication. Applied Linguistics, 28, 440465.
Garfield, E., & Welljams-Dorof, A. (1990). Language use in international research: A citation analysis. AAPSS Annual, 511, 1024.
Hale, J. L. (1987). Plagiarism in classroom settings. Communication Research Reports, 4, 6670.
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, 351365.
Howard, R.M. (1995). Plagiarism, authorships, and the academic penalty. College English, 57, 788806.
Howard, R. M., Serviss, T., & Rodrigue, T. K. (2010). Writing from sources, writing from sentences. Writing & Pedagogy, 2, 177192.
Hyland, K. (1999). Academic attribution: Citation and the construction of disciplinary knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 20, 341367.
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, 6274.
Johns, A. M., & Mayes, P. (1990). An analysis of summary protocols of university ESL students. Applied Linguistics, 11, 253271.
Keck, C. (2006). The use of paraphrase in summary writing: A comparison of L1 and L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 261278.
Keck, C. (2010). How do university students attempt to avoid plagiarism? A grammatical analysis of undergraduate paraphrasing strategies. Writing
& Pedagogy, 2, 193222.
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, 159178.
Line, M. B. (1971). The information uses and needs of social scientists: An overview of infross. ASLIB Proceedings, 23, 412434.
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, 133145.
Mishler, E. G. (1979). Meaning in context: Is there any other kind? Harvard Educational Review, 49, 119.
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, 277284.
Pennycook, A. (1996). Borrowing others words: Text, ownership, memory, and plagiarism. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 201230.
Petric, B. (2004). A pedagogical perspective on plagiarism. NovELTy, 11(1), 418.
Roig, M. (1997). Can graduate students determine whether text has been plagiarized? The Psychological Record, 47, 113122.
Roig, M. (1999). When college students attempts at paraphrasing become instances of potential plagiarism. Psychological Reports, 84, 973982.
Roig, M. (2001). Plagiarism and paraphrasing criteria of college and university professors. Ethics and Behavior, 11, 307323.
Shi, L. (2004). Textual borrowing in second language writing. Written Communication, 21, 171200.
Shi, L. (2006). Cultural backgrounds and textual appropriation. Language Awareness, 15, 264282.
Shi, L. (2010). Textual appropriation and citing behaviors of university undergraduates. Applied Linguistics, 31, 124.
Shi, L. (2011). Common knowledge, learning and citation practices in university writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 45, 308333.
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, 113120.
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.

148

L. Shi / Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (2012) 134148

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, 2568.
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.