Print

Print


Classically, to situate an utterance rhetorically, one must
understand "purpose, audience, and occasion."  As research into
citations patterns has demonstrated, I believe (not that I can cite
much of it), the purposes for which we cite are multiple.  To
approach the issue of referencing (which is perhaps a positive term
for the contrary of plagiarism) rhetorically, one should think about
purposes (and occasions) as well as readers.  As Russ points out, we
often reference to borrow authority, to locate our writing
intertextually, and for various other reasons that don't involve
"ownership" or giving "credit."  How many of us--experts,
teachers--can list the main purposes for which academic writers
reference?  Not me, tho I can list a  few more than the handbooks do.
        I guess I do believe that telling students referencing (and,
for that matter, effective writing) is a rhetorical variable, which
can be explored by asking about rhetorical situations and contexts of
situation, is a minimal first step.  It saves them from trying to
understand in ways that are bound to prove inadequate.  How much more
we need to do before they believe this--I mean, it would be much
simpler if there were a few simple, hard-and-fast rules--and are able
to apply it in a particular situation . . . well, that takes us back
to the whole question of authenticity and learning we were discussing
in the fall.  [I think that last clause is a "cf.")
        As for the kind of "plagiarism" that my university's policy
on "academic dishonesty" is supposed to regulate (i.e., immorality,
cheating, trying to gain an academic credential without learning all
the stuff that credential signifies--or, in some cases, just trying
to survive in a mystifying situation), in my experience it is
considerably less frequent, occurs mostly in required courses
(there's that word again, Russ, REQUIRE), and is best dealt with by
knowing my students and asking them to write stuff that can't easily
be copied.
        Anyhow, I do agree with Russ:  for me to talk about
"plagiarism" without offsetting the dominant tendency to think of it
as a moral issue was dangerous rhetoric (i.e., likely to allow
misunderstanding, which according to IA Richards is what rhetorical
studies should help us reduce).
        (I've noticed that the less awake I am the more complex my
syntax is.)