top of page
Search

Is the term ‘plagiarism’ easy to define? Does its meaning change depending on the context?

Writer's picture: Rebecca Kate HodgeRebecca Kate Hodge
Jul 31, 20219 min read

The term ‘plagiarism’ is somewhat of an umbrella term covering an array of language crimes of similar nature. There are many general definitions of ‘plagiarism’ but the concept can be explained simply by Carter and Corbin as “the theft of literary property without attribution” (2007). The original usage of the term dates back to a first century AD Roman poet who used the word in adjectival form to describe a “literary thief” as ‘plagiarus’ (Bailey, 2011). The term has broadened somewhat over the centuries, with plagiarism today not only associated with the written word, but encompassing the likes of graphics and other visual and auditory productions, as well as more commonly expected examples involving academic texts and research (Gasparyan et al, 2017: 1220). Although general and more specified definitions exist, the task of defining the unlawful act of plagiarism whilst covering all possible contexts and circumstances of its occurrence is complex. This essay critically evaluates whether plagiarism ought to be treated as a collective crime- whether a one-size-fits all approach is always appropriate within the law- or whether in fact considering plagiarism to have separate classifications, with different ‘types’ of plagiarism sitting in different positions along a scale of severity and consequence, would be more appropriate. This essay evaluates whether or not it seems fair to define and discipline different examples of plagiarism in the same way.

Carter and Corbin point out that “plagiarism is elusive” in both its “conceptualisation and detection” (2007). They also specify that the greatest issue surrounding plagiarism and its identification comes from the ambiguity of its definition (Carter & Corbin, 2007). This awareness of ambivalence in the term’s meaning is not a recent recognition; in the early eighties Hawley stated that “definitional precision constitutes one of the most salient problems” in discussing what is acceptable and unacceptable in literary documentation (1984: 35). The issue of plagiarism definitions being somewhat open to interpretation could arguably be attributed to the continued development of means of communication, considering technological advancements and the wider availability of published work as a result of the internet. One article accuses the internet of facilitating plagiarism- “Thanks to the internet, plagiarism has never been easier” (UpCounsel, 2020). Perhaps by considering the etymology of the term, its evolution and adaptation to today’s modernised processes of literary production will become more evident. The term derives from the Latin words ‘plagiarius’ (meaning ‘kidnapper’) and ‘plaga’ (meaning ‘hunting net’). ‘Plagiarius’ is taken from Ancient Greek, with the root word ‘plekein’ as its stem meaning ‘to weave’ or ‘to braid’. In Modern Greek, the term ‘logoklo pia’ can be broken down into its derivatives- ‘logo’ meaning ‘word’ and ‘klepto’ meaning ‘steal’ (Gasparyan et al, 2017). The combination of these individual meanings forms the idea of plagiarism essentially being the interlacing of stolen words into one’s own work. Gasparyan at al phrases it as “the wrongful appropriation of words” (2017). This original, etymological interpretation, however, is not clear on a number of aspects related to plagiarism today. For instance, important factors in the avoidance of plagiarism must be considered, like the matter of owner acknowledgement and the concern of proper referencing. In this sense, the etymological definition alone is not sufficient enough for understanding the full concept of plagiarism.

The question as to whether plagiarism should be considered a matter of morals or legality has been debated in depth, with Garner suggesting that plagiarism has often tilted more towards the side of immorality than illegality (2009; cited in Sousa-Silva, 2015: 305). Goldstein also believes that it should be considered an ethical issue instead of a legal one due to the type of work eligible for protection being “immaterial and ubiquitous” (2003; cited in Sousa-Silva, 2015: 305). Finnis, however, points out that plagiarism can fall under both categories of misconduct (1991; cited in Sousa-Silva: 2015: 306). In terms of moral concern, plagiarism can have substantial social implications, with potential to destroy the offender’s reputation, but legally speaking, plagiarism indicates violation of moral and financial rights which is disciplinable under law (Sousa-Silva, 2013: 61, cited in 2015: 306). It has been brought to attention that most plagiarism cases are not legally confronted but rather challenged by the institution to which the plagiarist associates with (for example, within a publishing house through which an author is contracted with), thus suggesting a moral judgement “settled outside the courts of law” (Sousa-Silva, 2015: 319). Therefore, the outcome of this definitional argument must settle somewhere in the middle, with plagiarism covering reasons for both moral and legal classifications of misconduct.

Considering plagiarism as both an issue of moral and legal integrity can be problematic, particularly in the sense of deciding whether or not an occurrence is intentional (Sousa-Silva, 2014: 32). Intent is an aspect considered necessary by many scholars in order for a case to be described as plagiarus. The opposite would be to simply accept negligence as an explanation or defense for plagiarism cases. (Carter & Corbin, 2007). Intent is an aspect that is often neglected in independent definitions of plagiarism, but appears as a major factor in others. This lack of universal clarity can cause issues when it comes to defining instances of suspicious literary similarity. An example of a case that demonstrates the issue of intent is the Re Humzy-Hancock Supreme Court case of 2007. A prospective legal practitioner had been punished for displaying “academic misconduct” throughout his degree, however, Philip McMurdo, the Honourable Justice, found that these instances could not be classed as acts of plagiarism because they were not deliberate, but rather acts of “carelessness and misunderstanding of what was required” (Carter & Corbin, 2007). The definition of plagiarism provided by the Griffith Law School did not explicitly consider intention a factor in plagiarism, meaning the court had to discipline Humzy-Hancock for his breach of conduct as it was stated (Carter & Corbin, 2007).

Approaches to dealing with plagiarism can be divided into two types: objective and subjective. An objective analysis involves proving text has been plagiarised through inspection of the work in question and the potential source. A subjective analysis involves the determination of whether or not the producer of the text was intentional about their action of plagiarising (Carter & Corbin, 2007). Mawdsley explains that cases based around definitions that do not clearly state a requirement of intention result in the court taking an objective analytical approach (2009: 266). An example of the opposite, where intention is strongly implied, comes from the University of Birmingham’s definition in the 1990’s which stated that “Plagiarism is a form of cheating in which the student tries to pass off someone else’s work as his or her own” (Coulthard et al, 2010: 523). The verb phrase “tries to pass off” strongly suggests the intention to cheat rather than accidental deception (Coulthard et al, 2010: 524). Even though this definition would demand a subjective approach in dealing with suspected plagiarism, it would not necessarily be a simple process. As much as it has been stated that the motivation behind an instance of plagiarism will determine the “severity of the penalty” (Gasparyan et al, 2010), examiners and even forensic linguists cannot always, if not ever, determine intention definitely (Coulthard et al, 2010: 524). Honesty is a significant factor with the ability to affect the outcome of case; writers under investigation of plagiarism have the ability to lie in regards to the aspect of intention behind their work. There is not a set formula for deciding whether or not the truth is being told, instead the examiner can only rely on the written and spoken words of the accused. Eggington makes the conclusion that “deception can hardly be detected linguistically” (Sousa-Silva, 2014: 33). This is problematic when it comes to punishment, as one defendant might have been unintentional with their misuse but, due to their institute’s definition lacking the aspect of intent, be prosecuted harshly, where another accused might have been deliberate in plagiarising and receive the same punishment. This could cause disorder and general upset as believe unintentional plagiarism to be less severe than intentional plagiarism (Gasparyan et al, 2017) and are therefore likely to believe the punishments should reflect this.

Plagiarism can also be categorised by level of intention or consciousness. Beasley describes four broad categories: Accidental, Unintentional, Intentional and Self-plagiarism. Accidental plagiarism is explained as a result of absence of knowledge on plagiarism and/or understanding of the referencing style used by the institute. Unintentional plagiarism accuses the “vastness of available information” of influencing one’s own thoughts such that ideas are copied subconsciously, disguising themselves as original thoughts. Intentional is described as deliberate duplication of another’s work without providing accreditation to the original author. Self-plagiarism involves the act using of one’s own previously published work in a new text and failing to cite the original piece (2006; cited in Kappe, 2006: 1051). Self-plagiarism is arguably less to do with level of intention and more often an issue of actual plagiarism classification. Mawdsley mentions that there is “an emerging controversy” over the classification of self-plagiarism as actual plagiarism (2009: 247). It stands further away from the other categories in its definition as it does not involve the use of others’ work. Referring back to previously presented descriptions of plagiarism, one of the recurring aspects is the misuse of “another’s work”, although, this is not always stated explicitly. The lack of explicit statement causes ambiguity and subsequently the questioning of whether or not recycling one’s own words constitutes as plagiarism. Whether or not an institution classes this as plagiarism, the fact that it is an ongoing debate might suggest punishment should be different, arguably lesser, than for instances involving the misuse of others’ work.

Another way in which categorising plagiarism has been explored relates more directly to level of severity. Wager suggested a separation of plagiarism into ‘major’ and ‘minor’ instances and provided a list of characteristics for both types. ‘Major plagiarism’ could involve “unattributed copying of another person’s data/findings”, republication of a document “under another author’s name”, “verbatim copying of >100 words” without reference to or citation of the source and the use of published text, “structure, argument, or hypothesis/idea”, of a group, or someone else altogether without attribution (2014:41). ‘Minor plagiarism’ could involve “verbatim copying of <100 words” without quotation “whether or not the source is cited”, unless it is general, widely used information, and “close copying of significant sections” of text, cited or not (Wager, 2014: 41). This system of separating plagiarism into types begs the question of whether it seems appropriate to view and punish all instances in the same way. This idea of plagiarism having ‘types’ is not necessarily recent. Hawley, writing in the eighties, believed that plagiarism would be most fairly “conceptualised as existing along a continuum of behaviours” ranging from acts of laziness to deliberate literary stealing (1984: 35).


Civil and criminal cases of plagiarism are charged differently depending on the perceived seriousness of the crime by the judge, although plagiarism court cases in the United Kingdom are generally rare. (Plagiarism.org, 2017). Criminal cases do occur more frequently outside of the United Kingdom and are commonly linked to a country’s copyright law (Plagiarism.org, 2017). An example of this comes from the 2012 case of former vice-chancellor of Delhi University, India, Deepak Pental. He was proved guilty of plagiarising the research of another professor and faced time in jail (Plagiarism.org, 2017). Another example of imprisonment punishment happened when a Polish university professor plagiarised a book and saw “three years in prison” (Plagiarism.org, 2017).

Defining plagiarism continues to be a difficult task today, as discussed throughout this essay, there are several significant aspects that must be considered in order to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the term as an immoral and illegal offense. Plagiarism can occur in many different contexts and the motivations and circumstances surrounding it can vary from a student’s lack of understanding or neglectful conduct to deliberate theft by a professional. The matter of intention brings to light the potential subjectivity when it comes to the judging of suspected plagiarism, however; it also highlights the need for understanding an individual’s motive behind the offense. Occurrences of plagiarism not only disrespect the original authors of stolen texts, but question the integrity of the ‘thieves’, with potential to permanently damage reputations. Furthermore, it appears that considering plagiarism to have distinctive types of different severity levels with proportional consequences would be fairer and more appropriate than disciplining all cases identically. References:

 
 
 

Comments

Subscribe Form

Thanks for submitting!

  • Twitter

@RebeccaWrites Proudly created with Wix.com

bottom of page