6 consider linguistic evidence
Using Word
Consultancy
All texts have
a particular style that may be thought of as a ‘signature’
or ‘fingerprint’. This style will depend on the purpose of
the text and the expertise of the author, both as a writer and as an authority.
Any discrepancy of styles between work submitted and the student’s
known ability is grounds for suspicion.
Consider two passages from an independent study task submitted for year
12 Design. The first is from the introduction and the second is from the
fifth paragraph
Computer chairs are among the most abundantly used
article of office furniture to date (along side desks and shelving). With
more and more jobs involving computers arise so does the demand for an
ergonomic computer chair. ...
…. Backrest angle adjustability allows the
chair to support different degrees of recline, which in turn transfers
some upper-body weight to the chair backrest and lightens the load on
the lower back’s intervertebral discs.
The style of first passage is everyday, conversational language with simple
structures typical of an inexperienced writer. The second, in contrast,
is far more precise and complex with a sequence of consequences and use
of specialist language. You do not need to be a forensic linguist to deduce
two authors. The teacher who set the task seems oblivious however and
made the following comments: ‘sound research – reflection
evident – clear understanding’, awarding it 9 marks out of
10! A quick search revealed that, except for the poorly written introductory
and concluding paragraphs, the 8 pages were taken verbatim from 3 unattributed
websites.
The teacher does not seem to have followed any of the strategies raised
in this paper but the real reason this has not been challenged is probably
more complex. There is a tendency for some teachers to confine themselves
within their specialist area. The belief that language is the sole and
exclusive preserve of the English faculty is not uncommon. This manifestly
should not be the case as all teachers, whether they acknowledge it or
not, are literacy teachers, having a responsibility to teach students
to communicate in ways that are powerful, particular and appropriate to
their subject. A carryover of this mindset is that many specialist teachers
ignore the way content is communicated and linguistics triggers that are
clear indicators of blatant plagiarism are missed.
There is a need for teachers generally to increase their awareness of
the linguistic markers that are the ‘smoking gun’ of plagiarism.
There are a number of features that experienced teachers look for. Plagiarised
texts may be taken from authorities including textbooks, journals and
reputable sites on the internet. These ‘encyclopaedic’ texts
are well structured at the clause, sentence, paragraph and whole text
level and are typified by lexical density, extended sentence length, complexity
and consistency. Notably, they contrast to the way most students write.
ESL learners in particular may have their own patterns of apparently quirky
English structures, often influenced by their first language, which can
contrast starkly with the flow of ‘borrowings’.
Links to the homepage of this website is permitted for educational purposes.