James Porter in “Intertexuality and the Discourse Community”
covers a major point in writing. He starts with questioning the construct of
originality. What is originality when every text has a “trace” of plagiarism?
He believes that everyone is guilty of drawing some ideas from another text. He
is questioning how we should even define plagiarism when originality is so hard
to find.
Porter’s article to me has a different purpose than previous
articles that we have read. You can, however link it to Kantz’s article. They
both pertain to the usage of sources, but have a very different meaning and
audience.
Before You Read:
2. I get help from various books, websites, friends, and
teachers when it comes to my writing. I explore different views on the subject
in order to take my own stand.
QD:
4. I agree with Porter. I believe that when it comes to
evaluating writing they key focus should be on its “acceptability” rather than
its sources. Porter states “…choosing the “right” topic, applying the appropriate
critical methodology, adhering to standards for evidence and validity…” when
explaining what really is important in writing (96). I think that this relates
to the writing I have done in the past because the teachers are so focused on
how good I reworded the text than the actual text itself.
5. I think his own work reflects on the principles he’s
writing on very well. He’s explaining that nothing is really original! The fact
that everyone gets these ideas from somewhere just supports the claim that he
is trying to make.
AE:
2. I think they should rewrite plagiarism by telling
students you can’t copy a paper or take credit for work that isn’t your own. I don’t
think as a student is writing a research paper they need to re-word every
sentence that they come about in their research. I also don’t think the way you
word a sentence is crucial to plagiarism because hasn’t it all been worded
before? This differs than the original definition of plagiarism by eliminating
the need to change every word you come in counter with and just get your point
across without worrying about getting kicked out of school because you forgot
to paraphrase.
MM:
1. Porter’s idea has not changed the way I view writers. I
never really thought that good writers come up with brilliant ideas without any
help or all by their selves. Adopting his notion might be a relief to me. It
won’t necessarily change the way I write a lot, but I will be more comfortable
presenting ideas in the way they were meant to be written and not paraphrase so
much that it takes away from its own meaning.
I liked Porter’s argument, it made a lot of sense to me and I
support his ideas. I think that plagiarism is sort of a wall put up between the
writer and the information. If someone is going to steal someone else’s work
they should suffer the consequences, but don’t hold everyone’s work
accountable. Let the cheaters be aside from the writers who want to get their
point across.
Hey Jada, good work here. I really like how you re-imagine a plagiarism policy to put more emphasis on "cheating" rather than inadvertent mis-quoting or mis-paraphrasing. I think that is the beginning of an argument you might make in Prokect 1. I also like that you are trying out some quoting here.
ReplyDeletePorter states “…choosing the “right” topic, applying the appropriate critical methodology, adhering to standards for evidence and validity…” when explaining what really is important in writing (96)
You just want to make sure that the whole thing really flows as a single sentence. So you might try something like. Porter argues that "choosing the 'right' topic, applying the appropriate critical methodology, [and] adhering to standards for evidence and validity" depend on the writer's knowledge of the discourse community he/she is writing in.
Really good work. Keep it up.