چکیده:
This study reports on research article (RA) authors’ definitional understanding and sociocultural perceptions of intertextuality and plagiarism in academic writing. To meet this end, a questionnaire, consisting of three sections, was constructed and emailed to Iranian RA authors who have published in leading international and local applied linguistics journals. The findings of the first two sections suggest that authors recognized the crucial role intertextuality plays in RAs; however, they had a flimsy understanding of the concept and its cultural bearings. On the other hand, unacceptable, as most of these respondents may find it, plagiarism was seen as an unavoidable part of academic research at least in initial steps of academic writing. This was shown to be mainly the function of the authors’ sociocultural perceptions of plagiarism. The third section of the questionnaire addressed the authors’ departure from plagiarism and gradual proximization to intertextuality. The findings imply that plagiarism, intertextuality and their concomitant sociocultural perceptions ought to be discussed, re-examined, and put to trial in local contexts
خلاصه ماشینی:
candidate in applied linguistics, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Iran Received: 2017/12/30 Accepted: 2018/05/07 Abstract: This study reports on research article (RA) authors’ definitional understanding and sociocultural perceptions of intertextuality and plagiarism in academic writing.
All rights reserved Introduction Academic writing and research articles (RAs), in particular, must abide by certain agreed- upon conventions and practices which are sanctioned and recognized by members of discourse communities, who more or less pursue shared goals (Swales, 1990, 2004; Bhatia, 1993; Berckenkotter {View the image of this page} Huckin, 1995).
In fact, combination of different texts as intertextuality and different discourses as an interdiscursivity strategy (Fairclough, 1992, 1993) display appropriate social practices and ideologies (Momani, Badarneh {View the image of this page} Migdadi, 2010).
g. , Matalene, 1985; Deckert, 1993; Gu {View the image of this page} Brooks, 2008) have focused on perceptions of plagiarism and intertextuality in isolation, but their pendulum on a continuum of possibilities and the associated differences have not been examined in one single study, which is the driving thrust behind the current study.
These scenarios consisted of inappropriate and appropriate behaviors that were generated through discussions among the authors of the current study and also discussions with academic staff, as well as with reference to the existing literature (mainly Marshall {View the image of this page} Garry, 2005; Bazerman, 2004a).