Skip to main content

Consider these three sentences:

(1) "I sidestep debates about the nature of virtues and merely presume that virtues are character traits and skills that promote the epistemic ends of debate and discussion"

(2) "I have argued that dogs are great pets"

(3) "I have suggested that dogs are great pets"

Can you paraphrase the sentences as follows without stepping out of bounds semantically?

(1P) " virtues are character traits and skills that promote the epistemic ends of debate and discussion"

(2P) "dogs are great pets"

(3P) "dogs are great pets"

In the case of (2) and (3), I'll constantly see an author say "I have argued" or "I have suggested". I'm curious if you can strip away the preamble and just give the assertion; it's taken for granted that the author is asserting it, though you lose the distinction between whether the author "argued" vs. "asserted" vs. "suggested" the thing in question.

As for (1), I'm not sure; not sure how much license a paraphraser has to strip away the preamble when the preamble is saying "all debates on X aside, I'll merely presume Y".

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Are you aware that a paraphrase is not a quotation, Andrew? Whenever you quote someone, you are not paraphrasing. Every time you use the term "paraphrase" on this forum, you misuse it. To paraphrase is to rephrase someone's words in your own words; it is not to duplicate that person's words. Duplication of someone's exact words, in part or in full, is either quotation or plagiarism, depending on whether quotation marks are used.

Last edited by David, Moderator

Just noticed that this post has an irrelevant title; sorry about that. The title should've been something else.

On the issue of what "paraphrasing" is, you could have a block quote and that would obviously be 100% their words. But what if did something like this:

Bob said: of all the major economic crisis of the last decade, "three were due to bad policy"; there were various important metrics in Joe's report that "didn't make sense to use"; and there was a very good reason to "not go back to the old policies".

In this notice that there's a "said" before the colon that applies to the black text but that the black text isn't Bob's words. How would you describe this kind of situation, then?

On the issue of what "paraphrasing" is, you could have a block quote and that would obviously be 100% their words. But what if did something like this:

Bob said: of all the major economic crisis of the last decade, "three were due to bad policy"; there were various important metrics in Joe's report that "didn't make sense to use"; and there was a very good reason to "not go back to the old policies".

In this notice that there's a "said" before the colon that applies to the black text but that the black text isn't Bob's words. How would you describe this kind of situation, then?

If the words which follow "said" and which are not enclosed in quotation marks rephrase—in your own words—aspects of what he said, without changing the meaning or adding or subtracting from it, then what you have done is to use a combination of quotation and paraphrase.

That is quite different from what you did in your opening post. In that post, you did not paraphrase at all. All you did was take some quotations and omit some words from them. What I want to make sure you understand is that merely deleting words from quotations does not make the quotations paraphrases!

Last edited by David, Moderator

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×