Plagiarism is the unacknowledged use of someone else’s work. The word comes from a Latin word for “kidnapping,” and plagiarism is indeed the stealing of something engendered by someone else. We won’t deliver a sermon on the dishonesty (and folly) of plagiarism; we intend only to help you understand exactly what plagiarism is. The first thing to say is that plagiarism is not limited to the unacknowledged quotation of words.
276
A paraphrase is a sort of word-by-word or phrase-by-phrase translation of the author’s language into your own language. Unlike a summary, then, a paraphrase is approximately as long as the original. Why would anyone paraphrase something? There are two good reasons:
You may, as a reader, want to paraphrase a passage in order to make certain that you are thinking carefully about each word in the original.
You may, as a writer, want to paraphrase a difficult passage in order to help your reader.
Paraphrase thus has its uses, but writers often use it unnecessarily, and students who overuse it may find themselves crossing the border into plagiarism. True, if you paraphrase you are using your own words, but
you are also using someone else’s ideas, and, equally important,
you are using this other person’s sequence of thoughts.
Even if you change every third word in your source, you are plagiarizing.
Here is an example of this sort of plagiarism, based on the previous sentence:
Even if you alter every second or third word that your source gives, you still are plagiarizing.
Further, even if the writer of this paraphrase had cited a source after the paraphrase, he or she would still have been guilty of plagiarism. How, you may ask, can a writer who cites a source be guilty of plagiarism? Easy. Readers assume that only the gist of the idea is the source’s and that the development of the idea — the way it is set forth — is the present writer’s work. A paraphrase that runs to several sentences is in no significant way the writer’s work: The writer is borrowing not only the idea but the shape of the presentation, the sentence structure. What the writer needs to do is to write something like this:
Changing an occasional word does not free the writer from the obligation to cite a source.
And the source would still need to be cited, if the central idea were not a commonplace one.
We cannot overemphasize the point that even if you cite a source for your paraphrase you are nevertheless plagiarizing — unless you clearly indicate that the entire passage is a paraphrase of the source.
You are plagiarizing if, without giving credit, you use someone else’s ideas — even if you put these ideas entirely into your own words. When you use another’s ideas, you must indicate your indebtedness by saying something like “Alperovitz points out that . . .” or “Secretary of War Stimson, as Martin Sherwin notes, never expressed himself on this point.” Alperovitz and Sherwin pointed out something that you had not thought of, and so you must give them credit if you want to use their findings.
277
Again, even if after a paraphrase you cite your source, you are plagiarizing. A reader assumes that the citation refers to information or an opinion, not to the presentation or development of the idea; and of course, in a paraphrase you are not presenting or developing the material in your own way.
In my notes did I always put quoted material within quotation marks?
In my notes did I summarize in my own words and give credit to the source for the idea?
In my notes did I avoid paraphrasing, that is, did I avoid copying, keeping the structure of the source’s sentences but using some of my own words? (Paraphrases of this sort, even with a footnote citing the source, are not acceptable, since the reader incorrectly assumes that the writing is essentially yours.)
If in my paper I set forth a borrowed idea, do I give credit, even though the words and the structure of the sentences are entirely my own?
If in my paper I quote directly, do I put the words within quotation marks and cite the source?
Do I not cite material that can be considered common knowledge (material that can be found in numerous reference works, such as the date of a public figure’s birth or the population of San Francisco or the fact that Hamlet is regarded as a great tragedy)?
If I have the slightest doubt about whether I should or should not cite a source, have I taken the safe course and cited the source?
Now consider this question: Why paraphrase? Often there is no good answer. Since a paraphrase is as long as the original, you may as well quote the original, if you think that a passage of that length is worth quoting. Probably it is not worth quoting in full; probably you should not paraphrase but rather should drastically summarize most of it, and perhaps quote a particularly effective phrase or two. As we explained in Summarizing and Paraphrasing, the chief reason to paraphrase a passage is to clarify it — that is, to ensure that you and your readers understand a passage that — perhaps because it is badly written — is obscure.
Generally, what you should do is
Take the idea and put it entirely into your own words, perhaps reducing a paragraph of a hundred words to a sentence of ten words, but you must still give credit for the idea.
If you believe that the original hundred words are so perfectly put that they cannot be transformed without great loss, you’ll have to quote them in full and cite your source. You may in this case want to tell the reader why you are quoting at such great length.
In short, chiefly you will quote or you will summarize, and only rarely will you paraphrase, but in all cases you will cite your source. There is no point in paraphrasing an author’s hundred words into a hundred of your own. Either quote or summarize, but cite the source.
Keep in mind, too, that almost all generalizations about human nature, no matter how common and familiar (e.g., “males are innately more aggressive than females”) are not indisputable facts; they are at best hypotheses on which people differ and therefore should either not be asserted at all or should be supported by some cited source or authority. Similarly, because nearly all statistics (whether on the intelligence of criminals or the accuracy of lie detectors) are the result of some particular research and may well have been superseded or challenged by other investigators, it is advisable to cite a source for any statistics you use unless you are convinced they are indisputable, such as the number of registered voters in Memphis in 1988.
278
In contrast, there is something called common knowledge, and the sources for such information need not be cited. The term does not, however, mean exactly what it seems to. It is common knowledge, of course, that Ronald Reagan was an American president (so you don’t cite a source when you make that statement), and under the conventional interpretation of this doctrine, it is also common knowledge that he was born in 1911. In fact, of course, few people other than Reagan’s relatives know this date. Still, information that can be found in many places and that is indisputable belongs to all of us; therefore, a writer need not cite her source when she says that Reagan was born in 1911. Probably she checked a dictionary or an encyclopedia for the date, but the source doesn’t matter. Dozens of sources will give exactly the same information, and in fact, no reader wants to be bothered with a citation on such a point.
Some students have a little trouble developing a sense of what is and what is not common knowledge. Although, as we have just said, readers don’t want to hear about the sources for information that is indisputable and can be documented in many places, if you are in doubt about whether to cite a source, cite it. Better risk boring the reader a bit than risk being accused of plagiarism.
Your college or your class instructor probably has issued a statement concerning plagiarism. If there is such a statement, be sure to read it carefully.