LINGUIST List 20.516
|
Wed Feb 18 2009
Disc: New: Representing paraphrases of paraphrases
Editor for this issue: Catherine Adams
<catherin linguistlist.org>
|
To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at
http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html.
|
Directory
1. Greg
Kochanski,
New: Representing paraphrases of paraphrases
Message 1: New: Representing paraphrases of paraphrases
|
Date: 18-Feb-2009
From: Greg Kochanski <greg.kochanski phon.ox.ac.uk>
Subject: New: Representing paraphrases of paraphrases
E-mail this message to a friend
Linguists spend a lot of paper describing what other linguists said about something. It's common so see a sentence like this in a publication: ''The idea that the syntactic frammistan was a co-paradigmatic member of the relational tier was first suggested by Smith (1924), and supported by...'' (All content has been surgically removed from the preceding quote.) In itself, this is fine. The trouble comes when someone reads that paraphrase and uses it as the basis for their own paraphrase. Now, no one should be doing that without reading the original source, but (a) people do cut corners occasionally, and (b) even if you read the original source, you may still be affected by the paraphrased version. (Especially, for instance, if the paraphrase is well-written and captures the main idea in a very compact form.) So, after several generations of this, it's easily possible for the original meaning to become lost. Or, more commonly, the original idea gets simplified and gently warped towards the dominant paradigm. If you keep your eyes open, it's not hard to find cases where -- by the time something gets into the textbooks -- it has changed quite a bit from the original research. So, to minimize this problem, you'd like to keep your paraphrase as close as possible to the original author's text. You'd even like to use some of his/her words and phrases, if possible. But, of course you need to make it clear that the words are a close paraphrase and not a quote or not your own. So, it seems like a new punctuation mark might be in order. I call it a semiquote, and suggest that we might use the little double angle-brackets that are used for quotes in many languages. A more detailed explanation can be found at http://kochanski.org/gpk/research/misc/2008/Semi_Quote.html Thoughts?
Linguistic Field(s):
Discipline of Linguistics
Discourse Analysis
Pragmatics
Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
|
|

Please report any bad links or misclassified data
LINGUIST Homepage | Read
LINGUIST | Contact us

While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.
|
|