Paraphrasing Techniques: Applied to "Transformation of the Nile River Basin"

Not the Nile Basin?

(Image from Free Dictionary)

I had thought that a couple more of these paraphrasing lessons still loomed for next week's final two sessions of the writing study in which I'm taking part, but this is the last one, as I learned to my relief. I've learned a lot from the process of teaching students how to go about paraphrasing, and I've even enjoyed some of the work, but I've about reached the end of what I can put to pedagogical use, so the time to move on to other projects has arrived. Anyway, here's what I've prepared for Monday, but without some of the red-fonted signals of changes:

Paraphrase of "Transformation of the Nile River Basin"

Transformation of the Nile River Basin

The Egyptian landscape has been changing for centuries. One area which has undergone dramatic change over the last 7,000 years is the Nile River basin. One of the most notable aspects of this transformation is the year-round irrigation of land for agricultural purposes, rather than a strict reliance on the annual flood. Conversion to continuous irrigation, which began around 1500 and was limited only by the level of technology, led to improved agricultural productivity. This in turn contributed to an increase in the population of the areas. Large-scale conversion of agricultural land involving perennial irrigation began in 1800 with the availability of more modern technology. (Swales & Feak, 2004, p. ?) [105 words]

Note the long-quote (block-quote) form of the above quote, and in what follows, note the special indentation for "References" [not reproducible on Blogspot]:

Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2004). Academic writing for graduate students. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

Before we start paraphrasing this time, let’s see if we can first delete anything, for we then will have less to paraphrase. If we read closely to understand the passage, we find that much can be cut:

[The] Egypt[ian landscape] has been changing for centuries. One area [which has undergone] (of) dramatic change over [the last] 7,000 years is the Nile [River] basin. [One of the most] notable [aspects of this transformation] is [the] year-round irrigation [of land for agricultural purposes], rather than [a strict] reliance on the annual flood. Conversion [to continuous irrigation, which] began around 1500(,) [and] was limited only by [the level of] technology, (and) led to improved [agricultural] productivity. This [in turn] contributed to an increase in [the] population [of the areas]. Large-scale conversion [of agricultural land involving perennial irrigation] began in 1800 with [the availability of more] modern technology.

How did I do this? Let's look:

[The] Egypt[ian landscape] has been changing for centuries.

The first cut is easy, for "The Egyptian landscape" can clearly be replaced by "Egypt."

What about the next sentence:

One area [which has undergone] (of) dramatic change over [the last] 7,000 years is the Nile [River] basin.

We can cut "which has undergone" if we add "of." We also notice that "the last" is not absolutely necessary, especially in the context, nor is "River" required, for everyone knows that the Nile is a river.

And what of the next sentence:

[One of the most] notable [aspects of this transformation] is [the] year-round irrigation [of land] [for agricultural purposes], rather than [a strict] reliance on the annual flood.

We can drop "One of the most," for "notable" by itself is sufficient in the context. We've previously noted (on other days) that "aspects" is a term often easy to drop. The prepositional phrase "of this transformation" can be excised in the context, for the expression "dramatic change" in the prior sentence has already established that we’re talking about transformation. The prepositional phrase "of land" can also be dropped since "irrigation" is always of land, and that takes with it that definite article "the" (before "year-round irrigation"). For much the same reason, we can also drop "for agricultural purposes." And "a strict" is unnecessary since "reliance" alone suffices.

And the next sentence:

Conversion [to continuous irrigation][, which] began around 1500(,) [and] was limited only by [the level of] technology, (and) led to improved [agricultural] productivity.

We can probably delete "to continuous irrigation" since we already know from the context that we talking about the change to year-round irrigation. Next, we see that we can get rid of a relative clause and thereby turn a complex-compound sentence into a compound sentence alone by deleting "which" and its antecedent comma, cutting "and" (but slipping in a comma), and adding "and" before "led." We can also delete "the level of" in the expression "by the level of technology," for little is lost, and certainly nothing significant. We can then drop "agricultural," for we know this from the fact of irrigation.

And the penultimate sentence:

This [in turn] contributed to an increase in [the] population [of the areas].

The "in turn" needs no turn, and I think that we can simply drop "of the areas," which takes "the" along with it.

Finally, the last sentence:

Large-scale conversion [of agricultural land involving perennial irrigation] began in 1800 with [the availability of more] modern technology.

That long phrase "of agricultural land involving perennial irrigation" can be cut since this is implicit, and "the availability of more" can probably be trimmed as well.

The result:

. . . Egypt . . . has been changing for centuries. One area . . . (of) dramatic change over . . . 7,000 years is the Nile . . . basin . . . . Notable . . . is . . . year-round irrigation . . . , rather than . . . reliance on the annual flood. Conversion . . . began around 1500(,) . . . was limited only by . . . technology, (and) led to improved . . . productivity. This . . . contributed to an increase in . . . population . . . . Large-scale conversion . . . began in 1800 with . . . modern technology.

Note that this would still be a block quote, for we’ve changed no words, but merely deleted them. Note the ellipses (three dots). These indicate missing words. Note the one-time use of four dots. The extra dot indicates that the end of a sentence has been cut, one of the dots being the period.

Let's try some restructuring, beginning with the first two sentences:

. . . Egypt . . . has been changing for centuries. One area . . . (of) dramatic change over . . . 7,000 years is the Nile . . . basin . . . .

By moving "Nile basin" and making "Egypt" possessive, we can combine the two sentences if we delete "changing for centuries" and "is the," the result being this:

Egypt's Nile basin has been one area of dramatic change over 7,000 years.

Let's look at the next two sentences:

Notable . . . is . . . year-round irrigation . . . , rather than . . . reliance on the annual flood. Conversion . . . began around 1500(,) . . . was limited only by . . . technology, (and) led to improved . . . productivity.

We see that we can combine the two if we delete "is" (adding a comma after "Notable"), delete the comma before "rather," cut out "Conversion" (excising the period after "flood"), and drop "was":

Notable, year-round irrigation rather than reliance on the annual flood began around 1500, limited only by technology, and led to improved productivity.

We now see that the penultimate sentence can be shortened:

This . . . contributed to an increase in . . . population . . . .

How? Just change the verbal construction "contributed to an increase in" to "increased":

This increased population.

And the last sentence:

Large-scale conversion . . . began in 1800 with . . . modern technology.

For now, it doesn't change:

Large-scale conversion began in 1800 with modern technology.

Let's see the result:

Egypt's Nile basin has been one area of dramatic change over 7,000 years. Notable, year-round irrigation rather than reliance on the annual flood began around 1500, limited only by technology, and led to improved productivity. This increased population. Large-scale conversion began in 1800 with modern technology.

We now notice that "has been one area of" can be changed to "has had" and that "Notable" can probably be dropped. We also see that we can combine the second and third sentences by excising "This" and replacing it with "and."

Let's look:

Egypt's Nile basin has had dramatic change over 7,000 years. Year-round irrigation rather than reliance on the annual flood began around 1500, limited only by technology, and led to improved productivity and increased population. Large-scale conversion began in 1800 with modern technology.

We are now ready to find synonyms. Let's take "basin": valley, hollow, gorge, or ravine. If we check the meanings, we find that "hollow," "gorge," and "ravine" are all rather narrow, but the Nile is not in a narrow channel, so let's choose "valley." (Note in passing that "has had" can be altered to "has seen" in this context.) Let's now take "dramatic": drastic, radical, extreme, or harsh. The terms "drastic" and "harsh" are negative, but that doesn't fit. Of the two remaining, "radical" and "extreme," the former fits better, for the change goes to the root -- it's not just an extreme version of what had been used. Let's take "change": alteration, innovation, transformation, modification, or revolution. Of these, "modification" doesn't fit "radical," and "revolution" is always "radical," so these are out. We started with "transformation," so let's avoid that. Of the two remaining, "innovation" might suggest conscious change, but we can't know that, so let's choose "alteration." The "7,000 years" can be "seven millennia." The expression "year-round" can be "constant." The expression "rather than" can be "instead of." Those three were easy, but let's now check "reliance": dependency, dependence, or leaning. The word "leaning" doesn't fit because a flood can provide a structure to lean against. The other two are equivalent, so let's use the more basic form: "dependence." As for "annual," it clearly means "yearly," the term "flood" can be altered to "flooding," and "began" can be replaced by "started." As for "limit," it can mean: check, fix, bound, confine, specify, curb, or restrain. If we check the dictionary for each of these, we see that "fix" and "specify" don't work very well at all, but that the rest are possible, with "restrain" perhaps the best. The word "only" can be replaced by "merely." Let's leave "technology" in the passage and move to "lead": result in, contribute, generate, bring about, or give rise to. Of these, let's choose “generate” because it fits well enough and obviates the need for "to." For the remaining changes, see the passage for the red-fonted terms [but not in this blog entry], and note that the final sentence has been restructured (with "initiated" replacing "started"):

Egypt's Nile valley has seen radical alteration over seven millennia. Constant irrigation instead of dependence on the yearly flooding started around 1500, restrained merely by technology, and generated better productivity and larger population. Modern technology initiated full-scale irrigation in 1800.

Let's compare the original and the altered version:

The Egyptian landscape has been changing for centuries. One area which has undergone dramatic change over the last 7,000 years is the Nile River basin. One of the most notable aspects of this transformation is the year-round irrigation of land for agricultural purposes, rather than a strict reliance on the annual flood. Conversion to continuous irrigation, which began around 1500 and was limited only by the level of technology, led to improved agricultural productivity. This in turn contributed to an increase in the population of the areas. Large-scale conversion of agricultural land involving perennial irrigation began in 1800 with the availability of more modern technology. (Swales & Feak, 2004, p. ?) [105 words]

The altered version:

Egypt's Nile valley has seen radical alteration over seven millennia. Constant irrigation instead of dependence on the yearly flooding started around 1500, restrained merely by technology, and generated better productivity and larger population. Modern technology initiated full-scale irrigation in 1800. (Swales & Feak, 2004, p. ?) [40 words]

Fewer than half as many words. Not bad. The result is beginning to sound more like a summary, which is one stellar aim of paraphrase.

Note also the citation, and don't forget the "References":

Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2004). Academic writing for graduate students. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

And that's the way it's done!

And am I ever glad to be done with it! Back tomorrow with something completely different.

Paraphrasing Techniques: Applied to Critical Period Hypothesis

Human Brain

Two Areas with Critical Role in Language

(Image from Wikipedia)

Again appearing on this blog are the paraphrasing techniques and strategies that I've been demonstrating to students and am planning to present this week on a new passage provided to me, but this time, I'll put even more emphasis upon excising words, phrases, and clauses. Let's therefore get started on reworking a passage on language acquisition:

The Critical Period Hypothesis: Original Passage:

Here is the passage prior to paraphrasing:

The age-related differences have been explained in terms of a biological mechanism known as the 'critical period.' This construct refers to a limited period of time in the development of an organism during which a particular behavior can be acquired. Psycholinguists have looked for evidence of the critical period in both first- and second-language acquisition. It has been argued that the optimum age for acquiring another language is in the first ten years of life because it is then that the brain retains its maximum plasticity or flexibility (Penfield & Roberts, 1959). It is suggested that, at around puberty, the brain loses its plasticity, the two hemispheres of the brain become much more independent of one another, and the language function is largely established in the left hemisphere. [128 words]

Note the long-quote (block-quote) form of the above quote, and in what follows, note the special indentation for "References" [Not reproducible on Blogspot]:

Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

Before we start paraphrasing this time, let's see if we can first delete anything, for we then will have less to paraphrase. If we read closely to understand the passage, we find that much can be cut:

[The] age-related differences have been explained in terms of a [biological mechanism known as the] 'critical period.' This [construct] refers to a limited period [of time] in [the] development [of an organism] during which a [particular] behavior can be acquired. Psycholinguists have looked for evidence [of the critical period] in [both first- and second-]language acquisition. It has been argued that the optimum age for acquiring another language is [in] the first ten years [of life] because [it is then that] the brain retains [its] maximum [plasticity or] flexibility (Penfield & Roberts, 1959). It is suggested that, [at] around puberty, the brain loses [its] plasticity, the two hemispheres [of the brain] become much more independent [of one another], and [the] language [function] is [largely] established in the left [hemisphere].

How did I do this? Let's look:

[The] age-related differences have been explained in terms of a [biological mechanism known as the] 'critical period.'

The definite article "The" can sometimes be deleted, and this is one of those times, perhaps because the noun "differences" is already made definite by "age-related." As for "biological mechanism," it is not necessary because the passage mentions the brain soon enough for us to understand that this concept of a "critical period" is biological.

What about the next sentence:

This [construct] refers to a limited period [of time] in [the] development [of an organism] during which a [particular] behavior can be acquired.

The term "construct" refers back to "critical period," but "This" refers back well enough. The phrase "of time" adds nothing to "period." The phrase "of an organism" can be assumed, and its deletion removes "the." The word "particular" does not make "a . . . behavior" any more specific.

And what of the next sentence:

Psycholinguists have looked for evidence [of the critical period] in [both first- and second-]language acquisition.

The phrase "of the critical period" can be assumed from the context. The expression "both first- and second-" is not necessary to specify.

And the next sentence:

It has been argued that the optimum age for acquiring another language is [in] the first ten years [of life] because [it is then that] the brain retains [its] maximum [plasticity or] flexibility (Penfield & Roberts, 1959).

The preposition "in" can sometimes be deleted, and this is one of those times, perhaps because "the first ten years" is identical with "the optimum age." The phrase "of life" is unnecessary because assumed. The clause "it is then that" adds no information and can be deleted. As for the pronoun "its," this possessive is close enough to "brain" to be deleted. Since "plasticity" means the same as "flexibility," the expression "plasticity or" can be deleted.

And the last sentence:

It is suggested that, [at] around puberty, the brain loses [its] plasticity, the two hemispheres [of the brain] become much more independent [of one another], and [the] language [function] is [largely] established in the left [hemisphere].

The extra preposition "at" adds nothing to "around." The pronoun "its" is unnecessary since "brain" is so close. The phrase "of the brain" can be assumed. The expression "of one another" can be assumed since the brain has two hemispheres. As for "the language function," why not just say "language"? The adverb "largely" can be dropped, for it is vague anyway. Finally, the word "hemisphere" can be dropped because it is understood from the context.

The result:

Age-related differences have been explained in terms of a . . . 'critical period.' This . . . refers to a limited period . . . in . . . development . . . during which a . . . behavior can be acquired. Psycholinguists have looked for evidence . . . in . . . language acquisition. It has been argued that the optimum age for acquiring another language is . . . the first ten years . . . because . . . the brain retains . . . maximum . . . flexibility (Penfield & Roberts, 1959). It is suggested that, . . . around puberty, the brain loses . . . plasticity, the two hemispheres . . . become much more independent . . . , and . . . language . . . is . . . established in the left . . . .

Note that this would still be a block quote, for we've changed no words, but merely deleted them. Note the ellipses (three dots). These indicate missing words. Note the one-time use of four dots. The extra dot indicates that the end of a sentence has been cut, one of the dots being the period.

Let's try some restructuring, beginning with the first two sentences:

Age-related differences have been explained in terms of a . . . 'critical period.' This . . . refers to a limited period . . . in . . . development . . . during which a . . . behavior can be acquired.

By moving "limited" and adding "of" (and eliminating the ellipses), we get this:

Age-related differences have been explained in terms of a limited 'critical period' of development during which a behavior can be acquired.

Let's look at the next sentence:

Psycholinguists have looked for evidence . . . in . . . language acquisition.

We see that we can join it to the previous sentence and thereby delete "in . . . language acquisition" since it is inherent in "acquired" and "psycholinguists":

Age-related differences have been explained in terms of a limited 'critical period' of development during which a behavior can be acquired, and psycholinguists have looked for evidence.

Now, consider the next sentence:

It has been argued that the optimum age for acquiring another language is . . . the first ten years . . . because . . . the brain retains . . . maximum . . . flexibility (Penfield & Roberts, 1959).

We can change the passive "has been argued" to active "have argued" by replacing "It" with "Penfield and Roberts (1959)":

Penfield and Roberts (1959) have argued that the optimum age for acquiring another language is the first ten years because the brain retains maximum flexibility.

Let's look at the last sentence:

It is suggested that, . . . around puberty, the brain loses . . . plasticity, the two hemispheres . . . become much more independent . . . , and . . . language . . . is . . . established in the left . . . .

A suggestion is a possibility, so we can drop "It is suggested that" and insert "Perhaps":

Perhaps around puberty, the brain loses plasticity, the two hemispheres become much more independent, and language is established in the left.

Let's see the result:

Age-related differences have been explained in terms of a limited 'critical period' of development during which a behavior can be acquired, and psycholinguists have looked for evidence. Penfield and Roberts (1959) have argued that the optimum age for acquiring another language is the first ten years because the brain retains maximum flexibility. Perhaps around puberty, the brain loses plasticity, the two hemispheres become much more independent, and language is established in the left.

We now notice that "limited" can be dropped, the clause "during which a behavior can be acquired" can be altered to the phrase "for behavior acquisition," the phrasal verb "looked for" can be replaced by the simple verb "sought," the present perfect "have argued" can be changed to "argue" since their publication still does "argue" their view, the word "that" introducing the noun clause can be deleted (as so often in English), the expression "ten years" can be replaced by "decade," the opening clause "Perhaps around puberty, the brain loses plasticity" can become "It perhaps loses plasticity around puberty," the "two" can be dropped because there are only two hemispheres, the expression "much more" can be replaced by "largely," and the clause "language is established in the left" can be altered to "the left controls language." Let's look:

Age-related differences have been explained in terms of a 'critical period' of development for behavior acquisition, and psycholinguists have sought evidence. Penfield and Roberts (1959) argue the optimum age for acquiring another language is the first decade because the brain retains maximum flexibility. It perhaps loses plasticity around puberty, the hemispheres become largely independent, and the left controls language.

We are now ready to find synonyms. For "difference": distinction, diversity, discrepancy, deviation, or peculiarity. If we check the dictionary, we see that the term "distinction" seems the closest in meaning. For "explain": describe, demonstrate, define, interpret, or elucidate. The word "describe" seems too loose, "demonstrate" seems too strong, "define" seems too arbitrary, and "elucidate" seems too clear, but "interpret" seems a nice synonym, for it suggests explanation while hinting at uncertainty, which is good because this really is uncertain. For "development": growth, maturation, increase, progress, expansion, or evolution. The words "growth," "increase," and "expansion" suggest getting larger, which is perhaps not quite what we're looking for. The term "progress" has the wrong connotation (too optimistic?), and "evolution" might be misunderstood. That leaves "maturation," which might work. For "evidence": proof, confirmation, verification, corroboration, or substantiation. In the context, any of these would work, but let's take "confirmation" for its sense of firmness without overcertainty. For other terms, see the changes in red font below:

Age-related distinctions have been interpreted in terms of a 'critical period' of maturation for behavior acquisition, and psycholinguists have sought confirmation. Penfield and Roberts (1959) argue the best age for learning another language is the first decade because the brain retains greatest flexibility. It perhaps loses this around puberty, the hemispheres become largely independent, and the left controls language.

Let's compare the original and the altered version:

The age-related differences have been explained in terms of a biological mechanism known as the 'critical period.' This construct refers to a limited period of time in the development of an organism during which a particular behavior can be acquired. Psycholinguists have looked for evidence of the critical period in both first- and second-language acquisition. It has been argued that the optimum age for acquiring another language is in the first ten years of life because it is then that the brain retains its maximum plasticity or flexibility (Penfield & Roberts, 1959). It is suggested that, at around puberty, the brain loses its plasticity, the two hemispheres of the brain become much more independent of one another, and the language function is largely established in the left hemisphere. [128 words]

The altered version:

Age-related distinctions have been interpreted in terms of a 'critical period' of maturation for behavior acquisition, and psycholinguists have sought confirmation. Penfield and Roberts (1959) argue the best age for learning another language is the first decade because the brain retains greatest flexibility. It perhaps loses this around puberty, the hemispheres become largely independent, and the left controls language (Nunan, 1999, p. ?). [59 words]

Fewer than half as many words. Not bad. The result is beginning to sound more like a summary, which is one stellar aim of paraphrase.

Note also the citation, and don't forget the "References" [though, as noted above, the special indentation is not reproducible on Blogspot]:

Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

Penfield, W. and L. Roberts (1959). Speech and brain mechanisms. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

The Penfield and Roberts citation and reference could probably be paraphrased out of the passage. For example:

Some argue the best age for learning another language is the first decade because the brain retains greatest flexibility.

But let's leave them in for now.

And that, once again, is how it's done!

Paraphrasing Techniques: Applied to "Top-Down Listening"

Top Down?

Or Bottom Up?

(Image from Wikipedia)

I'm once again preparing materials to teach Korean students how to paraphrase. Though I'm still making use of the rather mechanical method called "paraphrasing techniques" that I was using several days ago, I'm also continuing the strategy of "Thorough Rewriting," aided in this by cutting away words -- a lot of words -- as you'll see in this lesson plan:

Top-Down Listening (Processing): Original Passage:

The top-down facet of listening involves the listener's ability to bring prior information to bear on the task of understanding the "heard" language. This internal resource includes a bank of prior knowledge and global expectations about language and the world. It is used by the listener to make predictions about what the incoming message is expected to be at any point, and how the pieces fit into the whole. Chaudron and Richards (1986) note, "Top-down processing involves prediction and inferencing on the basis of hierarchies of facts, propositions, and expectations, and it enables the listener or the reader to bypass some aspects of bottom-up processing." (pp. 114-115) [105 words]

Note the long-quote (block-quote) form of the above quote, and in what follows, note the special indentation [not visible on Blogspot] for "References":

Chaudron, C., & Richards, J. C. (1986). The effect of discourse markers on the comprehension of lecture. Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 112-127.

Morley, J. (2001). Aural comprehension instruction: Principles and practices. In M. Celce-Muricia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp.69-85). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Before we start paraphrasing this time, let's see if we can first delete anything, for we then will have less to paraphrase. If we read closely to understand the passage, we find that much can be cut [as shown by the brackets]:

[The] top-down [facet of] listening involves the [listener's] ability to bring prior information to [bear on the task of] understanding the "heard" language. This [internal resource] includes [a bank of prior knowledge and global] expectations about language and the world. It is used by the listener to make predictions about [what] the incoming message [is expected to be at any point,] and how the pieces fit [into the whole]. Chaudron and Richards (1986) note, "Top-down processing involves [prediction and] inferencing on the basis of hierarchies of facts, propositions, and expectations, and [it] enables [the listener or the reader] to bypass some [aspects of] bottom-up processing." (pp. 114-115)

How did I do this? Let's look:

[The] top-down [facet of] listening involves the [listener's] ability to bring prior information to [bear on the task of] understanding the "heard" language.

The word "facet" adds almost nothing to the meaning of "top-down . . . listening," so we can delete it, and this deletion takes along "The" and "of" since "of" belongs to "facet" and "The" is required by "of." The possessive "istener's" is implied in "top-down . . . listening," so let's cut it. The words "bear on the task of" also add little. They mean something like "use in," and what's the difference between saying "to bring prior information to bear on the task of understanding" and "to bring prior information to use in understanding"? There’s not much difference, and there's likewise little difference between "to bring prior information to use in understanding" and "to bring prior information to understanding." We can therefore cut "bear on the task of."

What about the next sentence:

This [internal resource] includes [a bank of prior knowledge and global] expectations about language and the world.

These deletions are not so hard to understand. We know from the previous sentence that prior information must be internal since it contributes to understanding, so we can cut "internal," and since prior information is also the resource, we can cut "resource." Similarly, prior information implies "a bank of prior knowledge," so we can cut that as well. Since "global" means "general" and since "expectations about language and the world" must be rather general, we can cut "global."

And what of the next sentence:

It is used by the listener to make predictions about [what] the incoming message [is expected to be at any point,] and how the pieces fit [into the whole].

Since "predictions" are always about what is expected, then we can surely cut "what . . . is expected to be," and since "predictions" is plural, we can assume that one prediction follows another, so we can also cut "at any point." Similarly, since "pieces" make up a "whole," we can cut "into the whole."

But what can we do with the quote? We can also trim it:

Chaudron and Richards (1986) note, "Top-down processing involves [prediction and] inferencing on the basis of hierarchies of facts, propositions, and expectations, and [it] enables [the listener or the reader] to bypass some [aspects of] bottom-up processing."

Since "prediction" and "inferencing" are nearly identical, we can cut one. Let's cut "prediction" since "inferencing" sounds more rational. The pronoun "it" is easy to cut, for it clearly changes nothing, simply referring back to "Top-down processing." As for "the listener or the reader," this can be assumed in the context of the passage, for we have been explicitly speaking of top-down listening and top-down processing. And "aspects of" adds very little to the expression "some . . . bottom-up processing."

Let's look at the result:

Top-down . . . listening involves the . . . ability to bring prior information to . . . understanding the "heard" language. This . . . includes . . . expectations about language and the world. It is used by the listener to make predictions about . . . the incoming message . . . and how the pieces fit . . . . Chaudron and Richards (1986) note, "Top-down processing involves . . . inferencing on the basis of hierarchies of facts, propositions, and expectations, and . . . enables . . . to bypass some . . . bottom-up processing." (pp. 114-115)

Note that this would still be a block quote, for we've changed no words, but merely deleted them. Note the ellipses (three dots). These indicate missing words. Note the one-time use of four dots. The extra dot indicates that two sentences have been combined by deleting words or that the beginning of a sentence has been cut (and possibly the end of a sentence as well).

We can now begin to paraphrase. Take the first sentence:

Top-down . . . listening involves the . . . ability to bring prior information to . . . understanding the "heard" language.

Top-down listening is the concept under consideration, so we can simply drop the ellipses there. Let's find a synonym for "involves." We have, for instance: includes, contains, embraces, covers, incorporates, and comprises. The word "contains" doesn't work because "listening" is not a container. Nor does "incorporates" work, for the listener is not incorporating an ability, but using an ability already present. Nor -- for similar reasons -- is the listener covering an ability. The remaining three could work: includes, embraces, or comprises. But "embraces" sounds a bit too 'emotional'. Of the remaining two, "comprises" works somewhat better than "includes" because top-down listening means the ability to use prior information, and "comprises" suggests equivalence, whereas "includes" suggests one of several. We could do much the same with "ability": capability, power, potential, facility, capacity, qualification, competence, proficiency, competency, or potentiality. Of these, all work except for "qualification," which sounds as if one must 'qualify', and "proficiency," which sounds as if one must be especially skilled to have the ability. Of the remaining synonyms, let's use the simplest since simpler is often more clear: "power." By a similar process and a bit of imagination, we could replace "bring" with "use," "prior" with "previous," "information" with "knowledge," and "understanding" with "interpret." This process results in the following:

Top-down listening comprises the power to use previous knowledge to interpret the "heard" language.

But if we use our imagination, we can simplify this:

Top-down listening uses previous knowledge to interpret "heard" language.

What about the next sentence:

This . . . includes . . . expectations about language and the world.

We've already seen that "includes" is a synonym for "involves." If we looked for synonyms of "expectations," we could come to use "anticipation" (the singular form, since the word is usually noncount). We might note that "the world" could be replaced by "everything." The result:

This involves anticipation about language and everything.

As for the next sentence:

It is used by the listener to make predictions about . . . the incoming message . . . and how the pieces fit . . . .

The pronoun "It" refers back to "anticipation about language and everything," so if we cut it, we can combine what remains with the previous sentence in this way:

This involves anticipation about language and everything, used by the listener to make predictions about . . . the incoming message . . . and how the pieces fit . . . .

We can cut "by the listener" since this is surely understood. We can change the form of "make predictions about" to "predict," and we can rearrange "the incoming message . . . and how the pieces fit" as follows: "how the pieces of the incoming message fit." The result:

This involves anticipation about language and everything, used to predict how the pieces of the incoming message fit.

Let's quickly alter the last sentence, the quote from Chaudron and Richards:

Chaudron and Richards (1986) note that it uses inferencing based on "hierarchies of facts, propositions, and expectations" enabling one to avoid some bottom-up processing (pp. 114-115).

We've kept part of the quote, at least for now, and we don't need to use quotes on "bottom-up processing" since it's a well-known concept. And incidentally, since the top-down concept is broader than just top-down listening, let's use top-down processing, and let's also exchange "received" for "heard." Finally, let's smooth out the passage by using "which is" between "everything" and "used" and also rearrange the last sentence. Here's the entire rewritten passage:

Top-down processing comprises the power to use previous knowledge to interpret the received language. This involves anticipation about language and everything, which is used to predict how the pieces of the incoming message fit. Chaudron and Richards (1986) note that it avoids some bottom-up processing by using inferencing based on "hierarchies of facts, propositions, and expectations" (pp. 114-115).

But we still have one more thing to do. We must adjust the citation:

Top-down processing comprises the power to use previous knowledge to interpret the received language. This involves anticipation about language and everything, which is used to predict how the pieces of the incoming message fit. Chaudron and Richards (1986) note that it avoids some bottom-up processing by using inferencing based on "hierarchies of facts, propositions, and expectations" (pp. 114-115) (Morley, 2001, p. ?). [55 words]

Note that "pp. 114-115" is the citation for Chaudron and Richards, which is necessary because their words "hierarchies of facts, propositions, and expectations" are quoted. Note also that Morley is cited for the larger paraphrase, but the specific page is not known (and one would need to find this information before publication of one's article). Note the period. Compare to the original, taking note of the word counts (105 to 55):

The top-down facet of listening involves the listener's ability to bring prior information to bear on the task of understanding the "heard" language. This internal resource includes a bank of prior knowledge and global expectations about language and the world. It is used by the listener to make predictions about what the incoming message is expected to be at any point, and how the pieces fit into the whole. Chaudron and Richards (1986) note, "Top-down processing involves prediction and inferencing on the basis of hierarchies of facts, propositions, and expectations, and it enables the listener or the reader to bypass some aspects of bottom-up processing." (pp. 114-115) [105 words]

Note the period in this block quote. Here are the two references for the paraphrased version [though note that Blogspot does not allow for proper formatting]:

References

Chaudron, C., & Richards, J. C. (1986). The effect of discourse markers on the comprehension of lecture. Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 112-127.

Morley, J. (2001). Aural comprehension instruction: Principles and practices. In M. Celce-Muricia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp.69-85). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

And that's the way that it's done . . .

I have to admit to a bit of irony in this, given my remarks yesterday on how a good scholar goes about paraphrasing, for I then emphasized that no good scholar paraphrases in this manner. What I should note here is that I'm gradually moving my students toward the method of summarizing.

But they also need to know how to replace words with synonyms and restructure to avoid parallels that are too close.

A Question of Paraphrase . . .

Issue of Dependence?

(Image from JNS)

In addition to my usual interests as displayed on this blog, I have a long-held interest in philosophy, though I generally manage to pursue it only sporadically.

Yesterday, an article that ties in with my current posts on paraphrase came to my attention. The article, "Telling the Same Story of Nietzsche's Life," is by Mark Anderson and appears in The Journal of Nietzsche Studies (Vol. 42, Autumn 2011). In this article, Anderson compares Julian Young's recent Friedrich Nietzsche: A Philosophical Biography (2010) to the late Curtis Cate's biography, Friedrich Nietzsche (2005), beginning with the following two parallel passages describing Nietzsche's boarding school, the first passage from Cate's 2010 biography:

Originally a Cistercian monastery bearing the Latin name, Porta coeli (Gate of Heaven), it had been transformed in 1543 into a 'Prinzenschule' by the Protestant Prince-Elector Moritz of Saxony. Situated slightly south of the Saale river in a wooded valley extending from the western edge of Naumburg to the narrow gorges of Kösen, Pforta or Schulpforta, as it is known to this day, consisted of some sixty acres of gardens, orchards, groves, buildings and cloisters, protected from the outer world by a thick twelve-foot-high wall, which formed an almost perfect rectangle. A branch canal of the Saale flowed through the middle of the enclosure, separating the vegetable and other gardens, the 'household' barns and workshops and most of the teachers' houses from the school buildings and quadrangles. (Cate 2005, 17)

Then from Young's biography of five years later, in 2010:

Originally a Cistercian abbey called Porta Coeli (Gate of Heaven), Pforta ('Gate' -- now to education rather than heaven) had been transformed into a school in 1543 by the Prince-Elector Moritz of Saxony . . . Pforta, or Schulpforta (Pforta School), as it is known today, is about an hour's walk from Naumburg -- Fritz sometimes walked home for the holidays. It lies just south of the ambling Saale River in a wooded valley that extends from the western edge of Naumburg to the narrow gorge of Kösen. The school estate comprises some seventy-three acres of gardens, orchards, groves of trees, buildings, and cloisters, protected from the outer world by a thick twelve-foot-high wall, which forms an almost perfect rectangle. A branch canal of the Saale flows through the middle of the enclosure, separating the work buildings and gardens and most of the teachers' houses from the school itself. (Young 2010, 21-22)

A cursory reading might not notice the particularly close parallels, so let's detail them, the earlier Cate's followed by later Young's:

Cate: "Originally a Cistercian . . . Porta coeli (Gate of Heaven)"
Young: "Originally a Cistercian . . . Porta Coeli (Gate of Heaven)"

Cate: "had been transformed in 1543 . . . by the . . . Prince-Elector Moritz of Saxony"
Young: "had been transformed . . . in 1543 by the Prince-Elector Moritz of Saxony"

Cate: "Pforta or Schulpforta, as it is known [to this day]"
Young: "Pforta, or Schulpforta . . . , as it is known [today]"

Cate: "south of the Saale river in a wooded valley [extending] from the western edge of Naumburg to the narrow [gorges] of Kösen"
Young: "south of the . . . Saale River in a wooded valley [that extends] from the western edge of Naumburg to the narrow [gorge] of Kösen"

Cate: "acres of gardens, orchards, groves, buildings and cloisters, protected from the outer world by a thick twelve-foot-high wall, which [formed] an almost perfect rectangle"
Young: "acres of gardens, orchards, groves . . . , buildings, and cloisters, protected from the outer world by a thick twelve-foot-high wall, which [forms] an almost perfect rectangle"

Cate: "A branch canal of the Saale [flowed] through the middle of the enclosure, separating the . . . gardens . . . and most of the teachers' houses from the school"
Young: "A branch canal of the Saale [flows] through the middle of the enclosure, separating the . . . gardens and most of the teachers' houses from the school"

These are remarkable parallels, so close that they raise the question as to how this might have happened. Since Young does not cite Cate as a source here or for the many similar cases elsewhere, Anderson considers the possibility of a common source used by both Cate and Young, but he finds none, which leaves us all still greatly puzzled.

Fortunately, Julian Young comes to our aid in a "Reply to Professor Anderson":

In the course of writing a very long book, and in taking notes from many different sources, it appears that I have incorporated some material from Curtis Cate's biography without adequate acknowledgement. I regret this and will ensure it is corrected in subsequent editions. I hasten to add that none of this incorporation was deliberate. Over the years, bodies of material, as they moved from notes to notes and drafts to drafts, sometimes lost contact with their sources. With respect to the sequencing of events, some sequences, as well as certain phrases ('rabid Wagnerians', for instance), lodged themselves in my mind without my retaining any memory of their original source, or indeed that their source was anyone other than myself. I am grateful to Professor Anderson for pointing out these scholarly lapses and for the opportunity to rectify them.

The answer is that "some sequences, as well as certain phrases . . . lodged themselves" in Young's mind and "lost contact with their sources." In other words, the parallels are due to Young's excellent, faulty memory, which is very retentive but also not so. That is good to know.

I have often had students who paraphrase in this manner. They borrow a useful passage and alter it through deletion of words, phrases, or clauses, through rearrangement of words, phrases, or clauses, and through insertion of words, phrases, or clauses. Confronted by such a paraphrase, I have to gently explain that what they have done is, technically, plagiarism, even if they have cited the source, for they have retained too much of the original author's own wording. Many of my students don't realize this, but some do know what they are doing and are willfully copying. These latter students either give no source or offer a false source, thereby covering their tracks, which is how I know -- with a fair degree of certainty -- that they are intentionally copying. However, I have found that the best approach is to make no accusation of intent but simply allow the student to plead incompetence.

Most of my students have been undergraduates, but I have taught an occasional graduate course and encountered similar problems. I have learned to explain to such graduate students that no good scholar would take notes on a passage by altering it through deletion, rearrangement, or insertion of words, phrases, or clauses. A good scholar takes notes that quote exactly or that summarize carefully, not notes that rework the text in the way described, for that would be a waste of time, effort, energy, and intellect serving no legitimate purpose.

It is an academic detour best untaken.