| 摘要: | 在英文學術寫作中，改述(paraphrasing)為一重要的寫作技巧。在學術寫作中，改述常與作者引用(citations)以及內文引用(quotations)搭配使用，主要目的為避免剽竊。但文獻顯示出，學術寫作者常常無法清楚的定義合法的改述。此外，自然科學領域與社會領域的學者對於原文改述的程度常常抱持著不同的標準與意見。正因為合法的改述定義不明，本研究旨在探索南台灣一所私立大學中不同領域的教師對於四個改述種類的意見。改述辨認測驗與訪談為本研究主要的兩種研究工具。該私立大學的自然科學與社會科學領域的各十位老師為本研究的研究對象。研究者將比較自然科學與社會科學領域教師對於這四種改述種類的意見，用以判斷兩個領域的教師對於改述中的剽竊是否有認知上的落差。此外，研究者將訪談所有二十位教師，以探詢他們對於剽竊的定義，以及他們如何教導學生避免剽竊。研究結果顯示不同領域教師對於四種改述種類觀感並無明顯差異，完整改寫(Substantial Revision)、適度改寫(Moderate Revision)與小幅改寫(Minimal Revision)皆為可接受的改述種類，而大幅照抄(Near Copy)則不可接受。而有許多大學教師甚至認為即使改述中含有大量原文中的文字，只要有作者引用(citations)就不算抄襲。兩個領域的教師對於作者引用的使用時機有不同意見。社會科學老師認為當使用了其他作者的概念(ideas)與文字(words)時，必須使用作者引用，而自然科學教師則認為只有當使用了其他作者的概念(ideas)時才需要引用。除了使用引用之外，大學老師亦會教導學生改述與其它方式以避免剽竊。但絕大多數老師對於改述並沒有一個準則，而有些老師的準則過於寬鬆，甚至可以接受在改述中照抄原文一個段落。缺乏改述準則的結果，可能導致大學教師過度仰賴引用來避免剽竊。
Paraphrase is an essential skill in writing for academic purposes. When properly used, paraphrasing is a means to avoid plagiarism, along with citations and quotations. However, paraphrasing is notoriously known as lacking commonly criteria for evaluating the acceptability. Also, scholars from the fields of natural sciences and social sciences might hold different opinions on the extent to which a source text should be paraphrased. Due to the ambiguous nature of paraphrases, the study attempts to explore how college teachers of different disciplines in a private university in Southern Taiwan perceive four paraphrase types. Data were collected from two sources, including an identification task and a semi-structured interview. Specifically, 10 college teachers of natural sciences and 10 teachers of social sciences were invited to identify the four paraphrase types, including Near Copy, Minimal Revision, Moderate Revision, and Substantial Revision. After the identification task, all the teachers were interviewed to express their opinions on paraphrasing and plagiarism. The results showed that no obvious disciplinary differences were found in the teachers' perceptions of plagiarism in the four paraphrase types. Most of them agreed that Substantial Revision, Moderate Revision and Minimal Revisions are acceptable paraphrase types, while Near Copy is unacceptable. Many of the teachers, regardless of their disciplines, stated that poorly paraphrased texts are excused from plagiarizing, as long as citations are given. With citations provided, one has no deliberate intention to plagiarize. The disciplinary differences were found in how teachers of different disciplines viewed the borrowing of ideas and words from some source texts. Teachers of social sciences believe that both the words and ideas borrowed from a source text should be acknowledged, while teachers of natural sciences insist that only ideas, not words, borrowed from someone's work should be acknowledged. That is, citations are needed only when one borrows someone else's ideas. Further analysis of the interview transcripts showed that citing is the primary means for the teachers to prevent students from plagiarizing, followed by paraphrasing and raising the awareness of plagiarism. However, teachers had either no criteria or loose criteria for the acceptability of paraphrases, ranging from copying one complete sentence to a whole paragraph. It is therefore assumed that the teachers' overreliance on citations to avoid plagiarism might be due to the lack of a complete and thorough understanding about paraphrasing. Thus, it is suggested that the role of paraphrasing in academic writing in Taiwan needs to be reevaluated and foregrounded. |
