The fine line between phrasal allusion and plagiarism
« previous post | next post »
As linguistic metaphors go, I thought Surya Prakash chose very well for the title of his op-ed piece in The Daily Pioneer in India, which concerned the way in which bygone sins of American politicians rise up to blight their hopes and make them anxious about their prospects. He called it "Past imperfect, future tense." Nicely suited to its topic. But of course the tempting juxtaposition of grammatical terms with a double meaning is too nice not too have been used before, as I'm sure Surya knew. There are 560 Google hits for the phrase, and they range from a museum exhibit to journal articles to an article about the U.N. to articles about libraries… It seems almost a cliché if you start browsing around looking for it.
But that's the way language use is: we do not constantly create brilliant jewels of originality in every few words we string together in speech or writing. We mouth clichés, we borrow snowclones, we cite famous phrases and sayings intending them to be recognized. George Orwell seemed to think this was disastrous, a terrible sign of corruption in thought. I think Orwell was utterly misguided on almost everything he said about language. But in any case, I would have thought we could agree, whatever our feeling about re-using phrases we've enjoyed before, that it only becomes plagiarism when an unattributed passage of non-trivial length is used with the dishonest intent that the borrowed passage should be incorrectly thought to be original. The conjunction of those boldfaced elements should be regarded as definitional, I think. (See my earlier ruminations on plagiarism here and here and here.) Surya's use (or the headline-writer's use) exhibits only the first element: he doesn't try to attribute the phrase to anyone (you can't, in a headline).
Sure, the line between phrase-borrowing and plagiarism is perhaps subtle and fluid in some cases. But then the boundary of the ocean and the beach at Santa Cruz is likewise subtle and fluid. That doesn't mean you can't still tell when you're walking on the sand and when you're ankle-deep in the Pacific Ocean.
Stephen Judd said,
June 4, 2008 @ 4:07 am
For many years, Radio New Zealand had a weekly programme about people with disabilities and their issues. It was called "Future Indicative". Either "Present Imperfect" or "Past Imperfect", I forget which, had been suggested but discarded.
I listened to that programme for a long, long time, before I acquired enough grammatical knowledge to understand the pun.
(The programme is still running but it has been renamed "One In Five".
Mo vander Lism said,
June 4, 2008 @ 4:53 am
…subtle and fluid. That doesn't mean you can't still tell…
But you need the rules. Otherwise you're unable to say how someone else is breaking them.
Which Tyler said,
June 4, 2008 @ 5:35 am
I don't quite understand. Has anyone actually accused Surya Prakash of plagiarism? If not, what are you getting at?
Peter said,
June 4, 2008 @ 6:08 am
"I think Orwell was utterly misguided on almost everything he said about language."
Most egregiously, his argument that speakers and writers of English should avoid words of non-Anglo-Saxon origin, a position which is certainly xenophobic and arguably racist.
JJM said,
June 4, 2008 @ 10:16 am
"Most egregiously, his argument that speakers and writers of English should avoid words of non-Anglo-Saxon origin, a position which is certainly xenophobic and arguably racist."
Racist possibly but, if so, in the older sense of the term (each "race" somehow possesses its own discrete and intrinsic set of traits and abilities) rather than the more general concept we use today (implying the superiority of one race over another).
Orwell believed that Anglo-Saxon words were somehow better suited to English than "foreign" ones simply because they were "native" to the language.
Dotty as hell, I know, and I'd certainly agree that Orwell was misguided in this area.
Ralph Hickok said,
June 4, 2008 @ 10:32 am
There's nothing xenophobic or racist about Orwell's argument. Along with many other writers on language, he believed that using the generally shorter, quickly understandable words of Anglo-Saxon origin was preferable to using longer, pretentious words of foreign origin.
Dan T. said,
June 4, 2008 @ 11:46 am
Calling somebody's position regarding borrowed words in a language "racist" implies that there's an inherent race to a language or its speakers.
Eli Morris-Heft said,
June 4, 2008 @ 11:59 am
@Ralph: Words of Anglo-Saxon origin are not inherently more quickly understandable: if two words with equivalent meaning have been borrowed into English, then most speakers with exposure to both words will understand them in equal time and with equal ease.
Words of foreign origin are not pretentious – that's a value judgement (or social stigma) you have placed on them. What about the word 'wiki'? I don't think I know anyone who would claim that to be pretentious, but it is borrowed, from Hawai'ian. Or any of the wonderful words borrowed from Yiddish? How might 'klutz' be more or less pretentious than 'oaf'?
There's nothing racist, I think, but there is real xenophobia here. And since languages are connected so closely with political or ethnic membership in the mind, proposing to eschew all words of foreign origin would be akin to ethnic cleansing.
Jonathon said,
June 4, 2008 @ 12:10 pm
Ralph: Except that it's a mistake to assume there's such a clean divide between native words and words of foreign origin. And since most writers who say things like "Writers should avoid using words of foreign origin" apparently don't realize that they've just composed a sentence that's only 50 percent native English, I think we can say that there's not much merit to the idea that native English words are short and easy to understand while those of foreign origin are longer and more difficult or pretentious.
linda seebach said,
June 4, 2008 @ 12:21 pm
@Ralph said *Orwell* believed words of English origin were more quickly understandable; how does it follow that *Ralph* believes it? Is he wrong about what Orwell believed?
R. Gatwood said,
June 4, 2008 @ 12:35 pm
I've often thought writers would benefit from a program that plucks out all the idiosyncratic phrases from a document, runs them through a search engine, and determines how unique they are. I don't mean in order to flag cliches; I know there are programs that can identify those (maybe even complex snowclone-style cliches, for all I know), and besides, any native speaker can recognize a common cliche without help. What writers could use help with is finding out whether some terribly clever or evocative turn of phrase we've written has been invented independently by some other genius, and if so, how many times. "Abject joy" gets 606 Google hits, for instance, making it even more of a cliche than your headline example. "Decidedly undecided" gets 4,070. "Potential on a stick" gets just one. (Which doesn't count, because it's not in the intended slangy snowclone sense of "X on a stick," meaning "lots of X available at great convenience" — e.g. "cuteness on a stick," "stupidity on a stick," etc.)
I imagine that for most writers, running a verbally inventive piece through such a program would be an ego-racking experience (no relevant hits for "ego-racking," at least). Does anyone know if software of this kind exists? Or if plagiarism detection software is usable for this purpose?
Kassy said,
June 4, 2008 @ 12:45 pm
What on earth is a word of foreign origin, anyway? Where does one draw the divide? Old English itself borrowed heavily from Latin, and even more "foreign" words crept in during the Norman invasion. If you leave only words of germanic origin, you lose half the language.
Besides, not only is origin no guarantee of a word's being more efficient, but as Arnold Zwicky pointed out efficiency is only determined by what the reader/listener is accustomed to.
Language is meant to evolve.
Mateo Crawford said,
June 4, 2008 @ 1:22 pm
If you leave only words of germanic origin, you lose half the language.
Obligatory reference to Uncleavish Truethinking.
Andy J said,
June 4, 2008 @ 1:59 pm
"The conjunction of those boldfaced elements should be regarded as definitional, I think." Is there such a word as definitional? I don't have my OED to hand :). What's the difference between this unlovely word and "definitive"?
John Cowan said,
June 4, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
Uncleftish Beholding (i.e. "atomic theory"), rather. It's rather fun writing in Ander-Saxon, and there's a fine translation of the beginning of Orwell's little screed at http://anglish.wikia.com/wiki/Rikecraft_and_the_English_Tung (part of a whole wiki written in Anglish, as they call it).
Mo vanderLism said,
June 4, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
Peter said, "…a position which is certainly xenophobic and arguably racist."
Anyone who argues that George Orwell was certainly xenophobic and arguably racist should probably read George Orwell's essays. What a sad and stupid comment, Peter.
Benjamin Zimmer said,
June 4, 2008 @ 2:48 pm
Andy J: OED defines definitional as: "Of, pertaining to, or of the nature of a definition." You can also find it in Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, the Compact OED, and Encarta as an undefined adjectival form of definition. Unlovely though it may sound to you, it's distinct from definitive.
Andy J said,
June 4, 2008 @ 2:54 pm
Thanks Benjamin. I'm afraid it still grates as much as "societal" does. Thus our language grows and blossoms!
Bev Rowe said,
June 4, 2008 @ 3:10 pm
Perhaps it is more complex than this thread suggests.
Although "brave" is a late borrowing, not even the most eager AngloSaxonist would comment on its use. But most writers would now hesitate to use "manly", one of its AS (near-)synonyms; while "dreadless" (another near-synonym that is not a borrowing) is probably rare enough to actually be pretentious.
When writing, I often find myself striving for short words. Particularly writing poetry, you pack so much more meaning into a line using them. Has such a profound thought ever been expressed in six short words: "to be or not to be"?
Because short words are more likely to be AS than longer words – no I haven’t run the numbers – it is easy to confuse the issue. So Orwell wasn’t completely wrong. And he would never have said that longer words aren’t a necessary foil. The last word of Shakespeare’s line has only two syllables but "question" is very lingering and heavy in the mouth, and French.
Peter said,
June 4, 2008 @ 3:36 pm
Well, Orwell was writing a full two millenia after Latin was introduced into English, and one millenium after French, so I find it hard to believe he could seriously have imagined his strictures against the use of foreign words would have any appreciable affect on usage in any real-existing English-speaking society. A little late to be closing stable doors, I should think. That being the case, one has to wonder about his motives in arguing against the use of foreign words.
But, like the venal politicians he liked to criticize, Orwell gave himself an escape clause: "Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent." What are the everyday English equivalents of "antidisestablishmentarianism" or "epideictic" or "sous-sherpa" or "protocol". Even without resort to esoterica, I doubt anyone in a modern, western society could sustain a conversation for very long using only words of anglo-saxon origin, even if they wanted to.
I am always astonished at the prickliness of the reactions generated whenever Orwell is criticized, as if one had criticized motherhood. It is odd, and rather ironic given his own contrarian political positions, that his writings should be treated with unthinking reverence.
Les VanderLism said,
June 4, 2008 @ 5:48 pm
Peter said, I am always astonished at the prickliness of the reactions generated whenever Orwell is criticized, as if one had criticized motherhood. It is odd, and rather ironic given his own contrarian political positions, that his writings should be treated with unthinking reverence.
I don't know why you are always astonished. You say, out of the blue, that George Orwell was certainly xenophobic and arguably racist. And then you stop. I think it is sad and depressing that someone – someone maybe halfway well-educated – would write something so ill-informed. That's all. But since you are 'always' astonished you may be wanting the 'prickly reaction'. So bitteschoen, enjoy, sweetie! Oh, by the way, irony: try not to mention irony. Irony is so out of style, and you wouldn't know irony. If you are desperate, try for a tiny paradox.
Bloix said,
June 4, 2008 @ 5:57 pm
If you want to see a truly idiotic discussion of plagiarism, go to the Amherst College website, https://cms.amherst.edu/campuslife/deanstudents/acadhonesty/sources
which first sternly admonishes that "plagiarism is fraud" and then proceeds to explain that there is such a thing as "unintentional plagiarism" which is "still treated as plagiarism" – that is, as "fraud." Anyone who cannot understand that fraud requires intent has no business having any power at all over the lives of young people.
Brett Dunbar said,
June 4, 2008 @ 6:53 pm
Unintentional plagiarism does exist in law. George Harrison was successfully sued in 1976 for infringing the copyright on the melody of the Chiffon's single He's So Fine when he wrote My Sweet Lord. He denied deliberately copying the song the court accepted that he might have "subconsciously copied" the melody.
JJM said,
June 4, 2008 @ 8:17 pm
Me: "Orwell believed that Anglo-Saxon words were somehow better suited to English than 'foreign' ones simply because they were 'native' to the language."
Ralph: "[Orwell] believed that using the generally shorter, quickly understandable words of Anglo-Saxon origin was preferable to using longer, pretentious words of foreign origin."
Quod erat demonstrandum.
JJM said,
June 4, 2008 @ 8:21 pm
"I am always astonished at the prickliness of the reactions generated whenever Orwell is criticized, as if one had criticized motherhood. It is odd, and rather ironic given his own contrarian political positions, that his writings should be treated with unthinking reverence."
Amen to that.
dr pepper said,
June 4, 2008 @ 9:28 pm
"Most —, his — that speakers and writers of English should — words of non-Anglo-Saxon —, a — which is — — and — –."
I've tried that ocassionally. It's an exercise i call "The Naked Saxon". But i wouldn't try to do for general communications.
Rick W. said,
June 4, 2008 @ 11:28 pm
In Orwell's defense, I don't believe his intent was to purge English of every imported word since the Angles and the Saxons met the continental Catholic clergy, the Norman French, and the phenomena called the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. What he was opposing was the trend of dressing up common-place thoughts in polysyllabic regalia to make them sound impressive. Do recall that he was writing in the first generation to have mass media, and two immediate effects were nationalistic propaganda and relentless advertising. Both of them used pseudoscientific verbiage to make their claims sound more authoritative, and there's no better way to sound scientific than to string together Greek and Latin roots. Orwell, as I understood him, wanted his readers to break the habit of thinking in the commercial and pseudoscientific cant of the day. (That at least is my recollection of an essay which I admit I haven't read in at least ten years.) Orwell's thought is also a populist one, of course, which is not the same as saying it was 'racist' or 'xenophobic.'
However, none of the preceding, IMO, can deny the existence of the mot juste. :)
Moving to the matter of Prakash's clever headline and whether it is original to him, another possibility besides "subconscious borrowing" is independent discovery. There have been times when I have thought up what I am sure is an original phrase, only to go to Google to see dozens if not hundreds of attestations. Pereant qui ante nos nostra dixerunt. On the other hand, this could make a sort of parlor game for a group with a computer and Internet access!
Mo vanderLism said,
June 5, 2008 @ 3:41 am
@ Peter & JJM:
George Orwell was a very able writer. He was so good at getting his points across it's worth analyzing how he managed it, but don't be so literal in your reading. One of the problems with Orwell is that he writes so vividly that it's hard to believe he died sixty years ago. If he wanted to use Anglo-Saxon rather than Latin rooted words it's interesting to consider why that might be useful. It doesn't mean you have to do it too — I certainly don't. But to just go ahead and label Orwell a xenophobic racist because he wanted to avoid Anglo-Saxon words begs the question (and, worse, it trivializes racism).
Mo vanderLism said,
June 5, 2008 @ 3:49 am
I now see that also JJM wrote, 'Racist possibly but, if so, in the older sense of the term (each "race" somehow possesses its own discrete and intrinsic set of traits and abilities) rather than the more general concept we use today (implying the superiority of one race over another).' I don't agree, but I certainly don't mean to accuse you of trivializing the subject.
Jay Lake said,
June 5, 2008 @ 8:38 am
Plagiarism is an interesting problem in fiction, too, where standards of reference and citation are non-existent. (I'm a professional novelist, so I live this every day.) Reference and allusion are core tools of a short story writer or a novelist, especially in a genre such as science fiction which explicitly recognizes itself as a long-term conversation among stories, ideas and authors. Larry McCafferty's STORMING THE REALITY STUDIO includes a long discussion of how wonderful Cathy Acker's recontenxtualization of William Gibson was, when the cited text looked even to me like pure plagiarism. Likewise, see the fate of Pat Murphy's THERE AND BACK AGAIN, a book which nearly killed her career and is now officially non-existent. (Though I still have a copy.) As we say in my business, steal from the best.
jamessal said,
June 5, 2008 @ 11:09 am
A really nice essay on Orwell:
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/01/27/030127crat_atlarge
Martyn Cornell said,
June 6, 2008 @ 8:19 am
In 2003 I wrote a book where, referring to the Ticket Porters and Fellowship Porters who appear in some of Dickens's works, and the beer they gave their name to, I coined the phrase "the street and river porters of London". Subsequently I have seen my phrase used by other writers on more than a dozen occasions when people are writing about porter, the beer – it's even made it into the Wikipedia entry on porter. Should I accuse them of plagiarism or be proud that my phrase is being re-used?
speedwell said,
June 6, 2008 @ 2:31 pm
R. Gatwood: There are six hits for "ego-wracking."
Jeremy H. said,
June 7, 2008 @ 7:32 am
@Martyn Cornell,
In this case you don't have much choice, but in general for goodness sake be generous. You're not losing money from people using your phrase, and anyone with one bright idea is likely to have another, it's not analogous to a water shortage. You could always add a citation in the Wiki entry.
R. Gatwood said,
June 8, 2008 @ 7:12 pm
speedwell: Good catch. I didn't realize "nerve-wracking" (1,150,000) was winning out over "nerve-racking" (865,000).
John Cowan said,
June 14, 2008 @ 12:59 pm
R. Gatwood: People tend to prefix a "w" to every "rack" just for insurance against rabid prescriptivists.
Mo vanderLism: To denounce a position is not necessarily to denounce the people who hold it.
Rick W.: When we call language "productive", we are referring to how easy it is to reinvent.
Bev Rowe: I'll see your "To be or not to be" and raise you "And ten low words oft creep in one dull line", from Pope's Essay on Criticism.