This study examines how first language and the type of writing task affect undergraduates’ word usage from source readings in their English writing. Of 87 participating university undergraduates, 39 were native English speakers from a 1st-year writing course in a North American university, whereas 48 were 3rd-year Chinese students learning English as a second language in a university in China. Using two preselected source texts, half of the students in each group completed a summary task; the other half completed an opinion task. Students’ drafts and the source texts were compared to identify exact or near verbatim retention of strings of words from sources with or without acknowledgement. A two-way ANOVA indicated that both task and first language had an effect on the amount of words borrowed. The study found that students who did the summary task borrowed more words than those who wrote the opinion essays, and Chinese students used source texts mostly without citing references for either task.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Angélil-Carter, S. (2000). Stolen language? Plagiarism in writing. Essex, UK: Pearson Education Limited.
2.
Bashman, C., & Rounds, P. (1981). A discourse analysis approach to summary writing. TESOL Quarterly, 18, 527.
3.
Biskup, M., & Wekesser, C. (Eds.). (1992). Suicide: Opposing viewpoints. San Diego, CA: Green haven Press.
4.
Bloch, J., & Chi, L. (1995). A comparison of the use of citations in Chinese and English academic discourse. In D. Belcher & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy (pp. 231-274). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
5.
Brown, A. L., & Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 1-14.
6.
Campbell, C. (1990). Writing with others’ words: Using background reading text in academic compositions. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 211-230). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
7.
Cumming, A., Rebuffot, J., & Ledwell, M. (1989). Reading and summarizing challenging texts in first and second languages. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 201-219.
8.
Currie, P. (1998). Staying out of trouble: Apparent plagiarism and academic survival. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 1-18.
9.
Deckert, G. D. (1993). Perspectives on plagiarism from ESL students in Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 2, 131-148.
10.
Dong, Y. R. (1996). Learning how to use citations for knowledge transformation: Nonnative doctoral students’ dissertation writing in science. Research in the Teaching of English, 30, 428-457.
11.
Drum, A. (1986). Responding to plagiarism. College Composition Communication, 37, 241-242.
12.
Frankklyn-Stokes, A., & Newstead, S. E. (1995). Cheating: Who does what and why? Studies in Higher Education, 20, 159-172.
13.
Garner, R. (1982). Efficient text summarization: Costs and benefits. Journal of Educational Research, 75, 275-279.
14.
Garner, R., & McCaleb, J. L. (1985). Effects of text manipulations on quality of written summaries. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10, 139-149.
15.
Haines, V. J., Diekhoff, G. M., Labeff, E. E., & Clark, R. E. (1986). College cheating: Immature, lack of commitment, and the neutralizing attitudes. Research in Higher Education, 25, 342-354.
16.
Hale, J. L. (1987). Plagiarism in the classroom. Communication Research Reports, 4, 66-70.
17.
Howard, R. M. (1995). Plagiarisms, authorships and the academic death penalty. College English, 57(7), 788-806.
18.
Hull, G., & Rose, M. (1989). Rethinking remediation: Toward a social-cognitive understanding of problematic reading and writing. Written Communication, 6, 139-154.
19.
Hutcheon, L. (1986). Literary borrowing... and stealing: Plagiarism, sources, influences, and intertexts. English Studies in Canada, 12, 229-239.
20.
Johns, A. M. (1985). Summary protocols of “underprepared” and “adept” university students: Replication sand distortions of the original. Language Learning, 35, 495-517.
21.
Johns, A. M., & Mayes, P. (1990). An analysis of summary protocols of university ESL students. Applied Linguistics, 11, 253-271.
22.
Kennedy, M. L. (1985). The composing process of college students writing from sources. Written Communication, 2, 434-456.
23.
Kroll, B. M. (1988). How college freshmen view plagiarism. Written Communication, 5, 203-221.
24.
Leki, I., & Carson, J. (1997). “Completely different worlds”: EAP and the writing experiences of ESL students in university courses. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 39-69.
25.
LoCastro, V., & Masuko, M. (1997, March). Plagiarism and academic writing of NNS learners. Paper presented at the TESOL 1997 Meeting, Orlando, FL.
26.
Matalene, C. (1985). Contrastive rhetoric: An American writing teacher in China. College English, 47, 789-808.
27.
McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1993). Academic dishonesty: Honor codes and other contextual influences. The Journal of Higher Education, 64, 522-538.
28.
McCormick, F. (1989). The plagiario and the professor in our regular institution. Journal of Teaching Writing, 8, 133-145.
29.
Michaels, J. W., & Miethe, T. D. (1989). Applying theories of deviance to academic cheating. Social Science Quarterly, 70, 872-875.
30.
Miguel, R. (1997). Can undergraduate students determine whether text has been plagiarized? Psychological Record, 47, 113-123.
31.
Moore, T. (1997). From test to note: Cultural variation in summarization practices. Prospect, 12, 54-63.
32.
Murphy, R. (1990). Anorexia: The cheating disorder. College English, 52, 898-903.
