Within the legal framework of copyright, the term plagiarism implies the right of an individual – or associated group of individuals – to assert ownership over textual forms of intellectual property. While I will not deny that citations and referencing in writing are essential to the ongoing development of academic disciplines (by which discourses of knowledge come to be more clearly defined in context to both date and authorship), it is certain that ideas themselves cannot be claimed as intellectual property. I suspect the notion of originality to be just as much an unattainable ivory tower as the notion of perfection. Ontologically, ideas cannot be original since the virtual subject is a multi-layered construct influenced through social factors in both the way it thinks as well as what it thinks of. Consequently, while we may say that Jimi Hendrix was an original guitarist, this originality can only be understood to exist in context to his reconfiguration of previous influences (such as Robert Johnson). Ideas put to text function on much the same principle. Writers can therefore freely express thought stripped of the creative constraint of the impossibility of originality. However, caution needs to be exercised in the way writers configure their words. This point is at the heart of the concept of plagiarism. Yamada’s assertion that a greater awareness of ‘inferential thought processes’ – often neglected in EFL enquiries into plagiarism – needs to be developed (2003, pp.254-255) is a valid one. Through inference the writer reconfigures information in a way that allows for the export of thoughts that carry the hallmark of his / her unique background and development. Therefore, all ideas can become original, yet only so through the interaction between socially-generated knowledge and the virtual subject.
Question: To what extent has the corporation influenced the contemporary understanding of plagiarism? In other words (and talk of authorial disputes aside), does the issue of plagiarism not serve the lucrative and profitable vested interests of book, music and film publishers excessively more than supposedly safeguarding rights to intellectual property? Is the concept of sharing really such a bad thing?
Yamada, K. (2003). What Prevents ESL/EFL Writers from Avoiding Plagiarism?: Analyses of 10 North-American College Websites. In System 31, 247-258.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
how do you feel about pragmatism? I was just reading about Richard Rorty in terms of action research, and his point is yes there is a technical fact that no words are completely new, yet language (re: wittgenstein) is mediating the whole thing . . . there has to be some safe middle ground here where we are working in the world.
ReplyDelete-e
Hi Eric.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I fully agree with the central pragmatic insight that nothing is intrinsic to itself . . . things are in a constant state of flux. Where this ties into Wittgenstein, as I understand, is that the world around us - and of which we form part - is constantly being "created" and "recreated" through our language based upon the quality of our perspective at the time. Our language does not "represent" the world as if the world is a static entity. Our language merely describes the world as we perceive and experience it at that particular moment in time (Rorty et al.).
When it comes to the implication of pragmatic thought in context to my previous remarks regarding copyright, I see no conflict here. Since the way we perceive the world is constantly changing - i.e our ideas are constantly mutating as they come into contact with other ideas - it follows that no idea can be regarded as complete, ideal and catalogued in and of itself. The particular idea may serve the purpose of the moment, however it will most likely not serve the purposes of the future. This is a pragmatic view to begin with, and it is also precisely why I maintain that ideas do not exist independent of other ideas (by which they are both influenced and which they exercise an influence upon).
Pragmatically, it may serve the current interests of the publishing conglomerates to maintain such a rigid stance in the copyright debate (after all, their livelihoods are at stake). However, pragmatically-speaking of course, it doesn't serve the interests of the world at large (in a digital age that is ripe for a greater level of sharing in intellectual commodities than ever before)! We live in a world where over half the global population cannot even afford a proper meal. What then to speak of overpriced books, texts, articles, and the information and knowledge these people require to provide them with the means towards greater social participation and social mobility? Pragmatically, copyright laws that restrict popular access to bolster corporate profit do not serve their interests.
Also, I don’t believe such a thing as a “safe middle ground” (as you put it) exists! For there to be a “safe middle ground” it would require that everybody come to consensus on what exactly would constitute such a “middle ground”, i.e. what would define its parameters. Yet, there is very little, if any, all-agreed-upon consensus within society regarding anything. And this is a good thing since the tension allows for an ongoing creativity and dynamic.
come down to earth, my friend. we are talking right now. you understand me: I understand you. that is the middle ground.
ReplyDeletethe word copyright is not in Yamada's article.
conflating copyright infringement and plagiarism is a lawyer's game not an academician's.
for academics the concern is that that you actually pay tribute to your influences . . . we want Jimmy to mention that he loved Robert Johnson. people who say that plagiarism is "stealing other's ideas" don't get it. since, as you rightly point out, all academic writing is inherently synthetic, the only way we can evaluate your understanding of the field is through how you interpret your references--which we who are also in the field are also familiar with.
if an author, in the TESOL-MALL case a student author, chooses to represent someone else's synthesis of the field as their own, by using their exact words egregiously, they have violated an intellectual compact that they undertake by presenting the writing under their name. when my student cuts and pastes a section of another author's work into their own paper, I am to evaluate their cutting and pasting? how do I know they understand anything? they did not even have to read the words to cut and paste them.
[you do write your name on your papers, right?]
so in some sense our arguments seem to be looking at opposite ends of the spectrum. I am looking at my students in the classroom and trying to know what they know. are you raising questions regarding how my concerns about the character of my students' knowledge benefits record labels and publishing houses?
cheers,
-e
Thanks for your reply.
ReplyDeleteI think we still have some way to go to find the "middle ground" on this one, Eric. Both my previous entries, from beginning to end, need to be taken into consideration . . . not merely a few scattered phrases.
Firstly, read my initial entry in paragraph 1 of the first entry: "I will not deny that citations and referencing in writing are essential to the ongoing development of academic disciplines (by which discourses of knowledge come to be more clearly defined in context to both date and authorship)". Exactly what I meant in reference to your more recent comment: "we want Jimmy to mention that he loved Robert Johnson". No problem here. In fact, my bibliographies for single papers tend to run anything between two and four pages, so I fully agree that to give credit to the sources that inspire our ongoing thinking is essential. Where I felt uncertain regarding the extended issue I had raised, I phrased this in the form of a question.
Secondly, while the word "copyright" does not appear in Yamada's article on plagiarism, my desire to go beyond the issue of physical plagiarism of text (discussed by Yamada) to the issue of the attempted copyright of ideas beyond words (whether these be intellectual in nature, or tied to film, or music - as recently occurred in the lawsuit between Satriani and Coldplay), should be seen in context. Words, like images and sounds, are symbols that are intertwined with the ideas they are attempting to describe. Consequently, checking for plagiarism would be one way of encouraging thinking in writing. My point is in fact a CONFIRMATION of the one Yamada is making in his article - text should not be copied word for word, however, through paraphrasing and inferential thinking previous synthetic ideas can be both drawn upon, digested, and recast as fresh thoughts in a constant process of intellectual development. THIS CANNOT BE DENIED! I draw your attention again to my first entry: "However, caution needs to be exercised in the way writers configure their words. This point is at the heart of the concept of plagiarism. Yamada’s assertion that a greater awareness of ‘inferential thought processes’ – often neglected in EFL enquiries into plagiarism – needs to be developed (2003, pp.254-255) is a valid one".
Consequently, I fully agree with the point you are making . . . the act of "copying and pasting" has no place in academic writing (or any writing for that matter). Learners need to demonstrate that they have indeed thought about - and digested - what they have read.
If there has been any confusion relating to what I have previously stated, it may have sourced from an inadequate elaboration on my part of the issue of copyright I introduced over-and-above the work presented in the research article (which I had already touched upon) - i.e. the need exists to elaborate more in future. I suppose one could say that whereas words (the authenticity of text) can be easily scrutinized for signs of plagiarism, the authenticity of ideas in-and-of-themselves cannot be reduced to a mere "he said..." / "she said...". This is the differentiation I was making.
Regards.
p