A Study Of Plagiarism And Patchwriting In Chinese Postgraduate Students Dissertations In Applied Linguistics

MAE 814 Research Proposal by Kang Shuang Juan
1
A Study of Plagiarism and Patchwriting in Chinese Postgraduate Students’
Dissertations in Applied Linguistics
Background
Given the growing seriousness of plagiarism across discipline inside the institutes of higher
learning, ‘antiplagiarism movements’ of varying levels (Flowerdew & Li, 2007, p.161)
encompassing antiplagiarism discourse, antiplagiarism pedagogy or detection software, have
been initiated and developed along the time to cope with such ‘problem’ (e.g., Flowerdew &
Li, 2007; Howard, 1999; Matalene, 1985; Pecorari, 2003, 2006 Pennycook, 1996). Despite
the launches of these resolute and wide-ranging antiplagiarism movements, the prevalence of
plagiarism remains unabated. As a result, the research area on plagiarism in the field of
academic literacies has gained great momentum in recent years.
Following such a growing interest, a substantial body of well-cited research has been
particularly devoted to the discussion of textual plagiarism among L2 (second language)
writers (Angelil-Carter, 2000; Ercegovac & Richardonson, 2004; Flowerdew & Li, 2007;
Howard, 1999; Pecorari, 2003, 2006). Textual plagiarism, as Pecorari (2003, p. 318) defines,
“language and ideas repeated from a source without (sufficient) attribution.” is raised to
differentiate from the ‘prototypical plagiarism’ (with intention to cheat). Various factors have
been reported to have a say in the abundance of textual plagiarism among the L2 writers.
Among them, cultural difference (cultural stereotypes) and developmental perspective (e.g.,
Patch writing model) are two influential explanations. Specifically, the previous literature
observes that different cultures see plagiarism differently. In this respect, the difference of L2
writers’ (Chinese students’ in particular) view and practice of plagiarism with respect to

2
western styled plagiarism have been enormously highlighted and overgeneralized ((Deckert
1993; Pennycook 1994, 1996). As a result, a cultural stereotyping (it claims that since
Chinese culture values memorization, naturally Chinese students are more inclined to copy
from source) on Chinese students’ writing practice has been frequently aired in the existing
literature (e.g., Barker, 1997; Kirkland & Saunders, 1991; Matalene, 1985).
Although such cultural explanation does inspire us to realize the existence of cultural
difference in the perception and practice of plagiarism in China as well as other L2
backgrounds and the existence of ‘alternative text-making practice’ (Flowerdew & Li, 2007b,
p.442), it still seems inadequate to fully address the textual plagiarism. As noted in other
literatures (e.g. Howard 1993; Prior 1998), cases of textual plagiarism are also identified in
English-L1 students’ writing. Moreover, concerning the stereotyping view towards Chinese
students’ writing practice, instances of textual plagiarism are also found among students from
other cultural backgrounds such as Italian, African, Greek background (e.g. Ange´ lil-Carter
2000; Currie 1998; Ivanicˇ 1998; Pecorari 2003).
In view of this limitation, another influential explanation-a developmental view upon
plagiarism has been offered by Howard (1995) in her patchwrting model. The patchwriting
model contends that textual reuses identified among L2 writers are “not necessarily always a
form of academic dishonesty” (1995, p.799) but rather an obliged developmental process in
gaining membership in a new discourse. If necessary support has been provided, today’
patchwriter may become tomorrow’ competent academic writer.
As concurred by numerous researchers such as Casanave (2004), Liu (2005) and Pecorari
(2003), Howard’s (1995), patchwritng model indeed provides an intuitive and appealing

3
explication for widely observed L2 writers’ plagiaristic behavior. However, as rightly noted
by Pecorari (2003), few empirical evidence have been generated to verify such model
(Angelil-Carter, 2000; Campbell, 1990; Pecorari, 2003). Even less scholarship have been
initiated to examine particularly the existence and nature of patchwriting in Chinese mainland
students’ writing practice. Given the conditioned cultural stereotype that Chinese students
have been frequently endured, the exploration of empirical evidence of patchwriting in
Chinese student’s academic writing seems to point out a promising direction for removing
such cultural stereotype.
The third potential factor suggested to have a say in the textual plagiarism is the difference
in the perception and identification of plagiarism across discipline and the variation of the
institution culture toward notion of plagiarism (Hu & Lei, 2011, Flowerdew & Li, 2007b).
Previous literature in this respect has also suggested the existence of discipline difference in
the perception and practice of textual plagiarism within China (Flowerdew & Li, 2007a,
2007b; Hu & Lei, 2011). Concerning this, Flowerdew and Li (2007a, 2007b) cautioned that
the perception and identification of plagiarism in hard science discipline might be different
from that of the soft science. While an extensive review of previous literature readily reveals
a gap that in the previous investigation toward textual plagiarism, an inadequate attention
have been given to the exploration of the perceptual difference of plagiarism in soft science.
As such, studies exploring the specific nature of perception of plagiarism in soft science seem
to be called for.
Regarding the variation of institution culture in the approach of textual plagiarism, as
concisely summarized by Jameson in his study (1993, p.20) that “what would constitute

4
culpable plagiarism in one context might constitute proper use of sources in another context
depending on the group whose expectations defined ‘misappropriation.’” Moreover, Hu and
Lei (2011) also found that institute culture did have a say in the difference of Chinese
university students’ knowledge of and attitudes towards textual plagiarism.
Furthermore, in the wake of globalization of scholarship, nowadays more and more
universities from China have been ascribed to a western standard of academic conduct, it is
argued that a difference toward textual plagiarism may be therefore occur. As revealed from
Buranen’s (1999) study, Chinese scholar increasingly has been adopting a western styled
conduct in their thesis writing. Meanwhile, as Chinese universities continuously go through
various rounds of teaching and assessing reform, the level of the awareness of textual
plagiarism may be different from the observation made in previous studies.
In view of all the above discussion in mind, little is known about the scenarios of textual
plagiarism and patchwrting among students from humanities and social sciences disciplines.
Concerning students in applied linguistics at postgraduate level, it seems there has hardly any
focused analysis of their textual practice except the anecdotal mention of the practice or brief
sampling of textual evidence (Pecorari, 2003). Nonetheless, a growing emphasis and call for
postgraduate students in applied linguistics to publish in prestigious international journals has
been aired among more and more key universities in Chinese, It is really worth investigating
those students’ text writing practices if we want to scaffold them into developing a competent
academic writer.
Previous Research
Conceptualizing plagiarism

5
The concept of plagiarism is originated in the wake of the Utilitarian ideology in
Anglo-Saxon society during Enlightment period (Howard, 2003; Pennycook, 1996;
Sutherland-Smith, 2005). Because of such a long history of concern with textual ownership,
as asserted by Swale and Feak (1994, p.125), “the concept of plagiarism has nearly become
an integral part of North American and western European academic culture.” Similarly, with
its wide-reaching influence and long history, naturally the concept of plagiarism itself is
subject to variation and change constantly. Such nature, according to Price’s (2002, p.90)
elucidation: “plagiarism is not ‘not stable,’ but ‘shifts across historical time periods, across
cultures, across work places, even across academic disciplines.’” So far, there is no broad
consensus either on the theoretical definition or on the practical identification of plagiarism.
However, according to an international survey result conducted by Pecorari (2002),
university policies in western-based society do share a general agreement on the following
definition, that is, “taking words and ideas from a source without appropriate attribution”(p.
235). Since there is always a question of which degree of inappropriate source use can be
deemed as plagiarism, thus such broad discussion still does not provide a workable ‘ruler’ to
resolve the practical uncertainty on this issue.
Given the fact that the present paper is mainly concerned with the identification of
plagiarism and patchwriting, thus it is necessary to map up a workable standard of textual
plagiarism beforehand. As a direct reflection of the complexity involved in plagiarism,
currently no consensus is reached broadly on what degree of inappropriate source misuse will
be judged as plagiarism (as see Flowerdew & Li, 2007; Howard, 1999; Pecorari, 2003, 2006;
Pennycook, 1994). As an alternative, as raised by Pecorari (2003, p.324), in the course of

6
operationalizing plagiarism, it seems useful to consider the fully appropriate source use.
Through an extensive review of related literature, one aspect of appropriate source, as Groom
rightly (2000, p.15, cited from Pecorari, 2003) summarized, should be that its readers are
“clear at any given point whose ‘voice’ is ‘speaking’ in that text.” Put simply, writers need to
depict accurately the nature of the relationship between the citing texts and its source use to
readers whenever necessary.
The underlying reason for such emphasis on appropriate presentation of citing relation lies
in the occluded nature of citation (Swales, 1996). That is, the real nature of source use is only
resided within the writer’s mind, the only source available for reader to infer the citing
relationship is through decoding the conventional metatextual devices that writer have
inserted. Once there is no presence of citation, then the reader automatically decodes the
segment that he is reading as the text writer’ originality. Consequently, the real nature of the
source use will be obscured from readers.
From the above disccusion, it is easy to arrive at such a definition of plagiarism that once
the relationship between source and citing text is not accurately signaled, then the one in
question can be categorized as plagiarism.
Thus, the clear and accurate reflection of the relationship between source and citing text, as
argued by Pecorari (2003) can be demonstrated at least in three (sometimes overlapping)
areas by writers: “(a) the identity of the text’s origins; (b) the language of the text; and (c) the
content of a source” (p.324). Simply put, based on the decoding of metatextual devices,
reader can make at least three interpretations on the relationship between the citing text and
source use. Firstly, language that is not signaled as quotation is the writer’ originality;

7
secondly, if no citation is present, both the content and the form are the writer’s originality;
thirdly, the writer have consulted the source that is cited. With regard to these three
assumptions, in the present study, if students’ actual source uses are not in accordance to one
of these assumptions, then their source uses will be coded as plagiarism.
Relevant Literature on Chinese Students’ Textual Plagiarism
Literature and anecdotes on Chinese Students’ source misuse abounds, however, few have
been examined the nature, frequency or characteristics of source misuse among Mainland
Chinese student. Even less has been conducted with a conscious consideration of the
disciplinary difference and immediate institute culture in the perception and practice of
textual plagiarism. Most of the existing literature are mainly concerned with the Chinese
students in oversea context, limited number of studies have examined the Chinese student’s
citing behavior in Hong Kong based university. Since Hong Kong based university have been
rigorously stipulating a western-styled conduct for so long a time, whereas Universities in
Mainland China is still at its initial stage in adopting western valued conduct, thus how
representative of those Hong Kong Chinese students’ plagiaristic behavior towards the
mainland Chinese students is therefore questioned. Since there are few studies that have been
examined the nature and frequency of plagiarism and patchwriting in Chinese Mainland
students’ writing, thus the following would be a review of the researches that are particularly
illuminating for the formation of the present study.
Li and Flowerdew (2007b) through adopting a combination of “reflexive” interview and
comparison textual analysis method, they investigated a particular group of nine doctoral
science students’ practices and beliefs on language re-use in writing for publication in

8
English in mainland China. By investigating the nature or characteristics of different
language reuse and copying practice as well as underlying ‘testimonial evidence on the part
of these students writer’ with respect to the different sections of IMRD structures of scientific
article, they found that evidences of the students’ language re-use or textual plagiarism are
richly present in also all sections of their sample texts. Language reuse from student texts can
vary from short phrases to stretches of sentences in a row. By relying on the intraview gained
from their interview on their participants’ and specialists’ observation in the science field,
they proceeded to propose that a different yardstick for plagiarism should be considered
concerning the separatability of content and form inside the science circle. They concluded
that when deal with plagiarism in science, a disciplinary perspective needs to be taken.
Specifically a distinction needs to be made between plagiarizing of the form and of the ideas.
As in science, when a text contains a borrowed fragments that do not affect the originality of
the work reported, it may not be perceives as a focus of condemning in the science
community.
While such discourse based interview study enable us a deeper, more contextualized
understanding of the general practices and beliefs of science students’ language reuse
activities. Nevertheless, the extent of such result echoes with the general experience of
science students’ is nowhere to know. Meanwhile, as researches suggest disciplinary
difference may exist even in the genre structure of the subfield of science ( Hu & Lei, 2011).
Since the students involved in this study are different in terms of sub-discipline, thus it is
reasonable to question the representativeness of such result. Moreover, due to the small
sample size and inherent limitation of research design, no quantitative measure of the

9
scenario of language reuse or textual plagiarism have been provided for us to generalize the
nature or frequency and characteristics of such source misuses. Thus, the aforementioned
study provides limited or a less comprehensive picture of science students’ source misuse.
Although the corpus that Pecorari (2003) investigated is not necessarily including Chinese
students, its analyzing framework of plagiarism is quite comprehensive and thus illuminating
for present study. By using a mixed method design, namely quantitative orientated textual
analysis is supplemented by interview data gained from the student writers and their
respective supervisors, Pecorari (2003) examined a corpus of 17 NNES (non-native speakers
of English (NNSE)) postgraduate students writing from three universities in Britain.. By
closely examining the relationship between the source reports in student-generated texts and
the original sources, she intended to map up the nature, frequency and underlying causes of
textual plagiarism. The finding revealed that most of these students’ writing exhibit features
of textual plagiarism of varied degrees, but the writers’ accounts of their work and the textual
analysis strongly suggest absence of intention to plagiarize, thus providing empirical
verification for Howard’s (1996) patchwriting model. Drawing on the interview data and
context knowledge of these students writers, Pecorari concluded that cultural interpretation of
plagiarism is generally inapplicable to her sample of students. Instead, patchwriting and
competing concerns experienced by writers seem to be reasonable explanation. However,
since three universities have been involved, thus the potential intervening effects of the
difference towards the textual plagiarism among institutes are not eliminated. Thus, we still
do not know whether there will be the same nature of plagiarism if the institution culture
factor has been controlled.

10
Remaining issue
Due to the current situation, most researchers and teachers who are researching on the topic
of plagiarism in academic writing are mostly from English for academic purpose background.
As a result, texts or corpuses investigated are mainly taken from writing in EAP classes. Not
many empirical studies have examined students’ writing from other disciplines. Even less
have examined with an integrative perspective that is the mixture of quantitative and
qualitative analysis.
Research Questions
What are the nature, frequency, and causes of plagiarism and patchwriting in Chinese
postgraduate students’ writing in applied linguistics?
Methods
Research design
To address the question raised above, a mixed method design is hereby conceptualized.
Specifically, a quantitative orientated textual analysis of plagiarism will be supplemented by
a qualitative analysis of “discourse-based interview” data (Odell et al, 1983; Hyland, 2000)
accessed from sample providers and professors in the said discipline.
Implementation
The study is implemented sequentially in two phases.
In the first phase, an invitation letter is to be sent out to all potential candidates in the said
university who are working toward master degree in applied linguistics. Among those who
agree to participate, a sample of 13-18 students will be finalized. Then a briefing will be held
to those participants regarding the study’s purpose, duration and necessary involvement. As
for the explanation of the present research purpose, to avoid any anxiety or mistrust thereby

11
arisen among sample providers with the mention of the sensitive term-plagiarism, the notion
of plagiarism is carefully avoided (as cautioned in Flowerdew and Li’s (2007) and Pecorari’s
(2003) articles). Instead, the purpose is generally explained as a study on writing and citation
strategies in academic writing. Afterwards, participants will be asked to supply their draft MA
dissertations with references or a portion of them for the researcher’s compilation of corpus
and subsequent quantitative analysis.
The emphasis on selecting drafts is a precaution taken to avoid the discovery of some
plagiaristic features in the sample that the writers and supervisors would later consider
uncomfortable and unacceptable. As informed by Flowerdew and Li (2007) and Pecorari
(2003, 2006), it seems easier to resolve these issues in a draft than in a completed dissertation.
That said, a corpus of 13-18 sample texts which consist of randomly selected 10 consecutive
pages from early citation-dense chapters of the each dissertation will be compiled (the
specific procedure of which I shall explicate in the sample data analysis section).
After the quantitative analysis of plagiarism in the sample (any pertinent ambiguities or
occluded features aroused during the process will be marked), the second phase-discourse
based interview will be conducted individually with text providers and some professors (from
the same discipline) in the said university. To tag the necessary information more efficiently,
a master interview guide prepared beforehand and a marked text sample will be used to
structure the interview. Besides the focused clarification of the ambiguities or occluded
features marked after initial quantitative analysis, the interview will also include questions on
student’s other writing and citing strategies used in the writing process; their opinion on those
strategies; where did these strategies come from and their felt difficulty in writing and citing.
To encourage open discussion, meanwhile, to maximize the collected data’s authenticity

12
(Seliger & Shohamy, 1989), each interview will be conducted in Chinese at a
participant-preferred location.
For sake of coherence, the data collection and analysis will be explicated in the sample data
analysis section.
Sample Data Analysis
Data Collection
The data collected for first phase are the corpus of sample texts. The data collected for the
second phase are transcription of interview data together with the field notes taken by the
researcher during the interview and excerpts of follow-up discussion held via email and
online chatting software-QQ with the sample providers.
Data Analysis
The textual data will subject to quantitative analysis and interview data to qualitative
analysis. Notably, during the analyzing process, the quantitative analysis of the plagiarism
from textual data will be supplemented and triangulated by qualitative analysis of interview
data.
Two analyzing frameworks will be used, namely, a comparative approach for textual data,
an inductive approach for interview data. For the textual data, a comparative approach used
by Pecorari’s (2003) study will be adopted to quantitatively depict the nature and frequency
of source misuses at three levels.
Firstly, plagiarizing language: if the sample passage is identified as having shared words or
phrases with the source, whereas the sample author did not clearly signal it by giving an
appropriate citation, then it is calculated as an instance of plagiarism. As shown in the

13
Appendix A, the sample passage shares 51 % of words with its source.
Secondly, plagiarizing with the presence of an unclear citation: the sample passage is
inserted with a source’s author (like the presence of Webb’s (2002) in sample passage in
appendix B) at the beginning. However, no quotation marks is used to clearly signal readers
what language is cited from source (see language segments bracket in Appendix B) and what
part is the sample writer’s language, and then it is calculated as an instance of unclear-citation
plagiarism
Thirdly, plagiarizing from secondary citation: if samples is identified as having copied and
adopted citation on the basis of an account from a secondary source and the author did not
acknowledge it (e.g. ‘Smith, quoted in Jones’), then it is also calculated as an instance of
plagiarism. For example, with respect to the sample passage in Appendix B, since Webb
(2002) has included precisely the same authors, thus the original act of collecting these two
authors’ observations together belongs to Webb, but the sample passage in the Appendix B
fails to acknowledge this secondary citation act.
For interview data, the audiotyped interview will be transcribed in Chinese and then
translated into English1
. When it comes to code the data, the researcher will repeatedly read
Chinese transcript and strive to ‘find codes from data’ (Punch, 2005, p.200). Basing on initial
codes summarized from the first instance, she will proceed to read until she discovers
patterns that will finally emerge as theme, which will then be transformed into categories
through the techniques suggested by Grounded Theory ( Strauss & Corbin, 2000).
Measurement
1
To ensure the quality of translation, the English version of transcript will be translated back
into Chinese.

14
For the sake of facilitating measurement, the original passage boundary in each sample text
will be rearranged according to one single source use criterion. The format can be seen in the
appendix A.
To report the nature and frequency of plagiarism in each sample text and the whole corpus,
the researcher first compared each text to as many as possible sources it cited. Clearly quoted,
cited passages and ones with unidentified sources will be excluded. Then, repetition words
between the sample and source will be counted for each compared passage, each text and the
corpus respectively. On basis of it, the percentages of words in common with source for each
compared passage, text and the corpus will be calculated according to the following formula.
For one passage in a sample text, the number of the words found in both students and source
passages will be divided by the total number of the words in the student passage.
For one sample text, the interval figure (the minimum to the maximum) will be computed
due to the inference of the uncompared passage whose source uses are unknown to the
researcher. The two formulas are as follows: the number of all shared words in each sample is
divided by the total number of words in the sample (minimum); the number of all shared
word in each sample is divided by the total number of words in compared passages
(maximum).
Missing or unclear citation cases in each sample text will also be computed and reported.
Cases of unattributed secondary citation will also be located, counted and reported with
reference to a larger context of the sample text.
(Word count: 2567 /471 / 732).
References

15
Ange´lil-Carter, S. (2000). Stolen Language? Plagiarism in Writing. Longman: Pearson
Education.
Campbell, C. (1990). Writing with others’ words: Using background reading text in academic
compositions. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing (pp. 211–230). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Connor, U. M., & Kramer, M. G. (1995). Writing from sources: Case studies of graduate
students in business management. In D. Belcher & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a
second language: Essays on research and pedagogy (pp. 155–182). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Crocker, J., & Shaw, P. (2002). Research student and supervisor evaluation of intertextuality
practices. Hermes Journal of Linguistics, 28, 39–58.
Currie, P. (1998). Staying out of trouble: Apparent plagiarism and academic survival. Journal
of Second Language Writing, 7, 1–18.
Dong, Y. R. (1998). Non-native graduate students’ thesis/dissertation writing in science:
Self-reports by students and their advisors from two US institutions. English for Specific
Purposes, 17, 369–390.
Flowerdew, J., & Li, Y. (2007a). Plagiarism and second language writing in an electronic age.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 161–183.
Flowerdew, J., & Li, Y. (2007b). Language re-use among Chinese apprentice scientists
writing for publication. Applied Linguistics, 28, 440-465.
Groom, N. (2000). Attribution and averral revisited: Three perspectives on manifest
intertextuality in academic writing. In P. Thompson (Ed.), Patterns and perspectives: Insights
into EAP writing practice (pp. 14–25). Reading: Center for Applied Language Studies.
Howard, R. M. (1995). Plagiarisms, authorships, and the academic death penalty. College
English, 57, 788–805.
Matalene, C. (1985). Contrastive rhetoric: An American writing teacher in China. College
English, 47, 789–807.
Pecorari, D. (2001). Plagiarism and international students: How the English-speaking
university responds. In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2
readingwriting connections (pp. 229–245). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Pennycook, A. (1996). Borrowing others’ words: Text, ownership, memory and plagiarism.
TESOL Quarterly, 30, 201–230.

16
Punch, K. F., (2005). Introduction to Social Research, second ed. Sage, London.
Prior, P. A. (1998). Writing/disciplinarity: A sociohistoric account of literate activity in the
academy. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Strauss, A. L., & J. Corbin. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory
procedures and techniques. London: Sage.
Swales, J. M. (1996). Occluded genres in the academy: The case of the submission letter. In
E. Ventola & A. Mauranen (Eds.), Academic writing: Intercultural and textual issues (pp.
45–58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Appendix A
Plagiarizing language
Sample Provider S p. 36: 2nd
passage Source Stuart Webb, 2002, p.119
In Waring’s (1997b) study, 60
Japanese learners majoring in English
were presented with two sets of 15 low
frequency words, one of which they
learned receptively, and the other
learned productively. This study
employed the within subject design in
which one experimental group finished
two types of learning accordingly, in
doing so, the intervening variable of
individual difference was eliminated.
Subjects were given unlimited time to
complete two tasks sequentially, and
the time it took to learn receptively and
productively was recorded. The effects
of sets of words being learned first, and
order of learning were eliminated by
the experiment design to ensure that
there was not a significant interference
for the final result. The task was
completed when the subjects were able
to recall one set of words twice
receptively and the other twice
productively without mistakes. After
the completion of the two tasks, a 10
minutes distracter exercise that aimed
to reduce learning effect to the test,
In Waring's (1997b) study, EFL
learners were presented with two sets
of 15 low frequency words, one of
which they learned receptively, and the
other they learned productively.
Subjects were given as much time as
they needed, and the time it took to
learn receptively and productively was
recorded. The sets of words, and the
order of learning were controlled to
ensure that there was not a learning
effect. The task was completed when
the subjects were able to recall one set
of words twice receptively, and the
other twice productively without
mistakes. After the treatment was
completed, there was a l0 minute
distracter exercise, followed by the two
translation tests. In this study, subjects
completed both the receptive and the
productive tests with the productive
measure always administered first.
Three delayed post-tests were given
one day, one week, and three months
after the treatment.

17
followed by two translation tests.
Subjects completed both the receptive
and the productive tests with the
productive measure always
administered first. Three delayed
post-tests were given one day, one
week, and three months after the
immediate testing. For post-tests 2, 3, 4
the order of words was changed from
the immediate test 1 on the answer
sheets to offset the possibility that
subjects may remember which words
goes where on the answer sheet from
the test before. (233 words)
Note. 118 ÷233=0.51 51% of words from the above sample is in common with its source.
Appendix B
Plagiarizing with the presence of unclear citation
Plagiarizing on secondary citation
Sample Provider S p. 22: 1st
passage Source Stuart Webb, 2002, p.119
As suggested by Schmitt and
McCarthy (1997) and Schmitt (1998,
2000) and Webb (2002), it seems that
(the knowledge of form, and meaning
may be gained before some of the other
aspects such as collocation and
register.)
The present finding is in accordance
with what Schmitt and McCarthy
(1997) and Schmitt (1998, 2000) have
suggested that the knowledge of form,
and meaning may be gained before
some of the other aspects such as
collocation and register.
Note. Although the provider S does acknowledge that Webb
˄2002˅
has similar observation, but
he or she fails to acknowledge that the segments in above brackets is Webb’s (2002) originality.
As a result readers is misled to believe that the segments in brackets is provider S’s originality.

A Study Of Plagiarism And Patchwriting In Chinese Postgraduate Students Dissertations In Applied Linguistics

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to A Study Of Plagiarism And Patchwriting In Chinese Postgraduate Students Dissertations In Applied Linguistics

Similar to A Study Of Plagiarism And Patchwriting In Chinese Postgraduate Students Dissertations In Applied Linguistics (20)

More from Don Dooley

More from Don Dooley (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

A Study Of Plagiarism And Patchwriting In Chinese Postgraduate Students Dissertations In Applied Linguistics