Avoiding Plagiarism (From an article by Sharon Williams, www.hamilton.edu/academics)
Imagine you are an English teacher looking at students’ research papers. Determine which of the versions correctly paraphrases the original sources and which ones do not. For the incorrect versions, explain what the student did right and what needs improvement.
Original Source #1
If the existence of a signing ape was unsettling for linguists, it was also startling news for animal behaviorists (Davis, p. 26).
Version A: If the presence of a sign-language-using chimp was disturbing for scientists studying language, it was also surprising to scientists studying animal behavior (Davis, p. 26).
Version B: According to Flora Davis, linguists and animal behaviorists were unprepared for the news that a chimp could communicate with its trainers through sign language (p. 26).
Version C: The existence of a signing ape unsettled linguists and startled animal behaviorists (Davis, p. 26).
Original Source #2:
The joker in the European pack was Italy. For a time, hopes were entertained of her as a force against Germany, but these disappeared under Mussolini. In 1935 Italy made a belated attempt to participate in the scramble for Africa by invading Ethiopia. It was clearly a breach of the covenant of the League of Nations for one of its members to attack another. France and Great Britain, the Mediterranean powers, and the African powers were bound to take the lead against Italy at the league. But they did so feebly and half-heartedly because they did not want to alienate a possible ally against Germany. The result was the worst possible: the league failed to check aggression, Ethiopia lost her independence, and Italy was alienated after all (J.M. Roberts, History of the World. New York: Knopf, 1976, p. 845).
Version A: Italy, one might say, was the joker in the European deck. When she invaded Ethiopia, it was clearly a breach of the covenant of the League of Nations, yet the efforts of England and France to take the lead against her were feeble and half-hearted. It appears that those great powers had no wish to alienate a possible ally against Hitler’s rearmed Germany (Roberts, p. 845).
Version B: Italy was the Joker in the European deck. Under Mussolini in 1935, she made a belated attempt to participate in the scramble for Africa by invading Ethiopia. As J.M. Roberts points out, this violated the covenant of the League of Nations (845). But France and Britain, not wanting to alienate a possible ally against Germany, put up only feeble and half-hearted opposition to the Ethiopian adventure. The outcome, as Roberts observes, was “the worst possible: the league failed to check aggression, Ethiopia lost her independence, and Italy was alientated after all” (p. 845).
Version C:
Much has been written about German rearmament and militarism in the period 1933-39. But Germany’s dominance in Europe was by no means a fore gone conclusion. The fact is that the balance of power might have been tipped against Hitler if one or two things had turned out differently. Take Italy’s gravitation toward an alliance with Germany, for example. That alliance seemed so very far from inevitable that Britain and France actually muted their criticism of the Ethiopian invasion in the hope of remaining friends with Italy. They opposed the Italians in the League of Nations, as J.M. Roberts observes, “feebly and half-heartedly because they did not want to alienate a possible ally against Germany” (p. 845). Suppose Italy, France, and Britain had retained a certain common interest. Would Hitler have been able to get away with his remarkable bluffing bullying in the later Thirties?
(From an article by Sharon Williams, www.hamilton.edu/academics)
Imagine you are an English teacher looking at students’ research papers. Determine which of the versions correctly paraphrases the original sources and which ones do not. For the incorrect versions, explain what the student did right and what needs improvement.
Original Source #1
If the existence of a signing ape was unsettling for linguists, it was also startling news for animal behaviorists (Davis, p. 26).
Version A:
If the presence of a sign-language-using chimp was disturbing for scientists studying language, it was also surprising to scientists studying animal behavior (Davis, p. 26).
Version B:
According to Flora Davis, linguists and animal behaviorists were unprepared for the news that a chimp could communicate with its trainers through sign language (p. 26).
Version C:
The existence of a signing ape unsettled linguists and startled animal behaviorists (Davis, p. 26).
Original Source #2:
The joker in the European pack was Italy. For a time, hopes were entertained of her as a force against Germany, but these disappeared under Mussolini. In 1935 Italy made a belated attempt to participate in the scramble for Africa by invading Ethiopia. It was clearly a breach of the covenant of the League of Nations for one of its members to attack another. France and Great Britain, the Mediterranean powers, and the African powers were bound to take the lead against Italy at the league. But they did so feebly and half-heartedly because they did not want to alienate a possible ally against Germany. The result was the worst possible: the league failed to check aggression, Ethiopia lost her independence, and Italy was alienated after all (J.M. Roberts, History of the World. New York: Knopf, 1976, p. 845).
Version A:
Italy, one might say, was the joker in the European deck. When she invaded Ethiopia, it was clearly a breach of the covenant of the League of Nations, yet the efforts of England and France to take the lead against her were feeble and half-hearted. It appears that those great powers had no wish to alienate a possible ally against Hitler’s rearmed Germany (Roberts, p. 845).
Version B:
Italy was the Joker in the European deck. Under Mussolini in 1935, she made a belated attempt to participate in the scramble for Africa by invading Ethiopia. As J.M. Roberts points out, this violated the covenant of the League of Nations (845). But France and Britain, not wanting to alienate a possible ally against Germany, put up only feeble and half-hearted opposition to the Ethiopian adventure. The outcome, as Roberts observes, was “the worst possible: the league failed to check aggression, Ethiopia lost her independence, and Italy was alientated after all” (p. 845).
Version C:
Much has been written about German rearmament and militarism in the period 1933-39. But Germany’s dominance in Europe was by no means a fore gone conclusion. The fact is that the balance of power might have been tipped against Hitler if one or two things had turned out differently. Take Italy’s gravitation toward an alliance with Germany, for example. That alliance seemed so very far from inevitable that Britain and France actually muted their criticism of the Ethiopian invasion in the hope of remaining friends with Italy. They opposed the Italians in the League of Nations, as J.M. Roberts observes, “feebly and half-heartedly because they did not want to alienate a possible ally against Germany” (p. 845). Suppose Italy, France, and Britain had retained a certain common interest. Would Hitler have been able to get away with his remarkable bluffing bullying in the later Thirties?