Not much of anything in disagreements or new but something on 'plagiarism' has been much of the issue lately. It may well be for the reason that the new academic session is on the way and teachers are a bit concern about how to handle.
Certainly we all do plagiarism regardless of whether we are teachers or students, understood though at the same time that plagiarism must be under the strict discipline without regard to whether writings of students without some sorts of plagiarisms can be of too boring or not for teachers just as a fully patched plagiarized paper without any consideration to it at all. It is also understood that it is hard for a student to lose a course because a paper cannot be done accordingly. A complicated issue--the educational pedagogy here, one would possibly want to add in the common interest of all, is then that the academic discipline to serve as the conditioning apparatus is to be understood.
Academic language, in general, and the writing in particular, certainly consists of a quite complex structures and is more formal and impersonal in style than other writings, and academic writers of course communicate mainly with other academics and can therefore refer things the ways in which their readers share the grammatical conventions and contextual frames of references. Then, there is to the issue of more to students’ plagiarisms than plagiarisms in general.
Here is a little dilemma on the ‘the issue is then more than just students’ plagiarism’ that I received when I had little chat the other day (for a some while ago now actually) with a linguist whose specialty is English and grammar:
Adjunct realized by a noun phrase
We subject |are celebrating verb| our silver wedding object |this year. adjunct
This quotation example above from a popular book was actually to back up for something against my disagreement with her at that time, but it is now eventually illustrates various aspects of a plagiarism and how it should be understood by both teachers for teaching purposes and for students for receiving a mark for the correct answer.
At the level of definitions specific to English syntax however, the adjunct defined on the example above by the reference to the lexical paradigm (regardless of whether it is of the same lexeme or not) is in part vitiated by the failure to give proper recognition to the nature of the relation between grammaticalized form and content, for example.
It is then also to say that the form (of functional potential) and content (of lexical potential) abstract away the difference between them to differentiate what is otherwise common to both that would indicate the assertion of the contextual remoteness in time.
Something else in place of this for the purpose of creating an extract abstraction from the categorical paradigm of the example above and for the purpose of providing an alternative obsolescent contrast from traditional grammar analyses is, I would say, to allow it for a polysemy--as in here, extracting a related sense content that would indicate the assertion of the contextual remoteness in appositeness than remoteness in time that can indicate how an adjunct is possible by a noun phrase:
We subject |are celebrating verb| our convocation object |this year. adjunct
Moreover, while the definitions of adjectives and adjuncts make reference to nouns and verbs respectively, an adjunct pursuant to the undertaking of a noun phrase can only be realized as an adjective that complements a noun, as in here above when the lexical adverb ‘this year’, for example, converse to its lexical potential and loses its nominal property in order to serve the constituent of the head of the noun phrase.
But no doubt that the book from where the first example came from is a good book for so many analyses just as the linguist with whom I have spoken is with her analyses. I just beat one or two issues.
To get back to the track on literature reviews and for rhetorical elements of wider readers, I should perhaps add a bit of personal sides and a few other things here and there, I guess. But it is already a lot for a blog post. Here bellow is something very personal on plagiarism, anyway.
When I was a student, there was a few incidents personally which is analogically similar to that of someone to be got charged for coughing loudly in a park but not got charged for murders actually committed. The latter analogy is maybe an extreme example as to why one is not got charged for it. It was perhaps for the reason on the understanding sometimes that many of us are having great difficulties to make up things correctly but our trying to come up with something would eventually do the fix soon or later, or sort of that, I would guess. The professors at the time were Scots by origins, so the language and preciseness of students wasn't really that the main issue for them. The former case, however, is a bit shame. I still shame myself (even after 20 years now) for that sort of things, though not for what i did but for the things to which I had to do the copy to get the credit—very small issue for anything meaningful. Apprantely I was in the bad eye at that time for the prof to take the push to do something—and i lost the expected Commonwealth Scholarship (money to students from commonwealth countries on the first year completion with the above GPA for the short period) with it.