Writing with Other Voices

Daniel Libertz

Let’s say you are trying to make plans with a group of friends. You receive a text from a friend who, maybe, is hard to make plans with sometimes. Let’s call him Mrugesh—a friend I grew up with has this name (hi, Mrugesh!):

“Yeah it would be great to get together, it’s been a while. I could make next Saturday work, but if not next Saturday then I don’t have any free weekends until November. Would a lunch on a weekday work or does that not work with everyone’s job? Everything is real busy. Really any day might be tough for a while.”

Here are some possible texts you write to the rest of the group of friends, excluding Mrugesh. Note my choices and what you think the pros and cons of them are.

• Text 1: Mrugesh said “I could make next Saturday work, but if not next Saturday then I don’t have any free weekends until November. Would a lunch on a weekday work or does that not work with everyone’s job?”
• Text 2: Mrugesh wants to do next Saturday or a lunch on a weekday. I feel like he’s saying he prefers something during the week because Saturday is on such short notice, not sure he wants to actually do that. Let’s just figure out a weekday? What do you think?
• Text 3: Mrugesh was reaching out to see if we could get together but he’s pretty busy. He wants to see if either next Saturday or a lunch on a weekday could work.
• Text 4: Mrugesh wants to meet up but he told me “Everything is real busy. Really any day might be tough for a while.” Could next Saturday work or maybe a lunch during a weekday? Not sure it will work out, but figured we could try.

Which version do you prefer? Why?

Text 1 involves direct quotation. A signal word of “said” (more on that later) helps connect the quotation from Mrugesh’s text into the next context of a new text.

Text 2 involves paraphrase in the first sentence with some analysis later. The central meaning of Mrugesh’s original language is maintained but the new author’s own language is used instead.

Text 3 involves a combination of summary and paraphrase. The first sentence summarizes the text message from Mrugesh. It captures the central focus of the entire text message (NOTE: see our analysis chapter for more on summarizing). The second sentence paraphrases Mrugesh, because it takes a smaller portion of the text message and rephrases it to fit the new context.

Text 4 involves a combination of summary, direct quotation, and paraphrase. A central focus of the entire message is captured with a direct quotation as part of the at summarizing in the first sentence. The direct quotation is set up with the signal phrase “told me.” The second sentence is a paraphrase of the sentence from the original text message. The final sentence is a little bit of analysis of what Mrugesh said. The writer here isn’t sure this is going to happen based on their interpretation of how Mrugesh talks about meeting up.

So why paraphrase? Why quote?

It depends on what you want to accomplish in your writing. Paraphrasing has the advantage of using your own words in the flow of your own writing. It will often read more smoothly than direct quoting. When you pull a direct quote from another context into your writing, you have to work harder to fit it into what is now a new context that it was not originally written for. However, a quote has the advantage of using the original writer’s own language. Perhaps changing the wording might drastically alter the writer’s meaning, or perhaps the original writer uses such poetic or impactful language that you want to maintain its force by quoting it directly. We might also quote to make a point based on subtle characteristics of the language a writer uses. Perhaps, like in Text 4 above, the language is a little ambiguous and you want to capture that ambiguity (i.e., does Mrugesh actually want to meet up or is he leaving open the possibility that plans will fall through even if we schedule something that he says works for him?).

If you ask me, Text 1 is my least favorite of the four options. It is a long direct quote but there is nothing about the language that is essential for accuracy or that is, especially notable. There’s no interesting ambiguity or peculiarities that are worth capturing. So I’m not sure there is anything in the quote that is better than a more efficient paraphrase.

Compare Text 1 with Text 4, where the quoted language reveals an interesting moment that might implicate Mrugesh in trying to get out of making plans! Classic Mrugesh move, of course. That language is worth capturing and a quote makes sense to me there.

We quote and paraphrase all of the time when we are writing with other voices. When you are writing in your college courses or in other contexts beyond college, it is good to be thoughtful about what advantages or disadvantages paraphrasing and quoting have for you. And, importantly, while there are similarities across any context (like with text messages to friends), there are also certain conventions and expectations in writing with other voices that are specific to contexts of writing in a given college course or academic discipline. There are four other strategies for both paraphrasing and quoting which are especially important in academic contexts:

• Introducing sources of the paraphrase or quote
• Using signal words and phrases to integrate quotes and paraphrase with your own writing
• Choosing how much or little to paraphrase or quote

Following conventions for citation that your audience expects. Typically, for papers you write in college, that means using a documentation style (e.g., APA, MLA, Chicago, IEEE).

Introducing sources of the paraphrase or quote

Introducing sources in academic contexts serves a few purposes: it gives readers a quick sense of who you are quoting/paraphrasing from and why they matter in the context of your argument, it makes reading smoother by providing a natural transition from your own ideas to the ideas of others, and it signals to readers how that other voice might fit with your argument.

Let’s look at an example. In Academic Ableism: Disability and Higher Education, a book by rhetoric and disability scholar Jay Timothy Dolmage, we see examples of introducing a source before exploring the paraphrase and quote used:

In the early 1970s, David Rothman, a social historian of medicine, wrote a highly influential book called The Discovery of the Asylum. The book showed not just how asylums developed but how they allowed society to impose order through their connections with factories, hospitals, schools, and other institutions. When Rothman lists the similarities between the asylums, prisons, mental hospitals, reformatories, and almshouses developed in North America, he suggests that “there is a consensus among historians about their major characteristics”: [he goes on to list these characteristics from Rothman on p. xxv in Rothman’s book] (Dolmage 3).

Dolmage shares a series of useful pieces of information to help readers understand why the source is a relevant and credible : the timeframe it was written (“the early 1970s”) to get a sense of history which is important in a first chapter of a book where you are citing lots of sources that influence the main argument of a book, the author’s background (“social historian of medicine”) to help establish their lens for analyzing subject matter as well as their background as an expert, and how the book was received (“a highly influential book”). The title is also included, which quickly gives the reader a sense of what the book is about. Moves like these are helpful for readers to know why they should take the source seriously (or not). Furthermore, they help to display Dolmage’s own credibility–that he has done his homework and knows the sources he is working with.

Using Signal Words and Phrases

Notice how the text message examples at the beginning of this chapter used “said” and “told me,” and how Dolmage above uses “suggests.” Words like these help blend another voice with your own.. There is a great trick for direct quotations to make sure the reading is smooth: after writing, cover the quotation marks and see if it still makes sense. If not, it might be a sign that you need better use of signal words and phrases to assist your readers. Let’s look at some examples: Try reading the text messages and Dolmage passage without the signal words and set-up:

Mrugesh said “I could make next Saturday work, but if not next Saturday then I don’t have any free weekends until November. Would a lunch on a weekday work or does that not work with everyone’s job?”

Mrugesh wants to meet up but he told me “Everything is real busy. Really any day might be tough for a while.” Could next Saturday work or maybe a lunch during a weekday? Not sure it will work out, but figured we could try.

Mrugesh was reaching out to see if we could get together but he’s pretty busy. He wants to see if either next Saturday or a lunch on a weekday could work.

When Rothman lists the similarities between the asylums, prisons, mental hospitals, reformatories, and almshouses developed in North America, he suggests that “there is a consensus among historians about their major characteristics”: [he goes on to list these characteristics from Rothman on p. xxv in Rothman’s book] (Dolmage 3).

Do you find it harder to see how the ideas are connected without the crossed-out phrases? Signal phrases also help to subtly suggest how you feel about the source. Compare words like:

• Newton proves the existence of gravity.
• Newton explains the concept of gravity.
• Newton argues for the existence of gravity
• Newton claims gravity exists.

The word “proves” is the strongest; it means that gravity absolutely exists. The word “explains” is a bit less certain - Newton is only explaining his idea. The word “argues” implies that Newton’s position is one of several (though, of course, in the context of being the first person to make an argument, his might be the only position). Finally, “claims” is the least certain of them all; it implies that Newton is making a statement without support. Now, you might think you should just always use the most certain signal words or phrases, but because so much knowledge is tentative many academic writers will use a bit more tentative language, like Dolmage does with “suggests” for the direct quote in his paragraph citing Rothman.

Newer academic writers can also struggle quoting or paraphrasing a text that is also quoting and paraphrasing. For instance, Dolmage writes elsewhere: “As Lennard Davis and other disability studies scholars have pointed out, the categories of normal and abnormal, able and disabled are invented and enforced in service of ‘a certain kind of society,’ in service of particular ideologies (Enforcing, 9-11)” (Dolmage 6). Because it can be confusing for readers to determine who is saying what if you include an entire quote like this, it is worth considering how you could use signal words and phrases to help clarify things for readers. So, for instance, you could do something like the below:

Citing disability studies scholar Lennard Davis and others, Dolmage argues that “the categories of normal and abnormal, able and disabled are invented and enforced” to serve “particular ideologies” (6).

There are lots of examples of signal words and phrases! Use a search engine to find examples. Here are some common ones: “according to,” “explains,” “argues,” “claims,” “writes,” “suggests.”

Choosing how much or how little to paraphrase or quote

Look again at the paragraph from Dolmage. Note that he is summarizing the book, paraphrasing a portion of the book, and finally using a short direct quote. It is very easy to just copy entire paragraphs and put some quotation marks on either side, but it will not usually serve you (and your readers) well to do that. The longer the quote, the harder it is to keep readers’ attention. So be thoughtful about what is and is not in service of what you are trying to do in your writing, like you can see in the Dolmage example above.

Other considerations include where you are paraphrasing and quoting. Make sure your own voice is not lost. We should usually hear from you first (at the start of the paper and each paragraph)) and last (e.g., if the end of a paragraph contains a quote, make sure your voice is prominent in analyzing it or connecting it back to your main argument in your own words).

Additionally, no matter how much or little you paraphrase or quote, the real work of writing with other voices is found in synthesis. To synthesize other voices with your own is to recognize what those voices have in common with your own argument. Here is an example from Abigail Bakke’s article on algorithmic literacy:

Further, misinformation and hateful content can rise to the top when there is a lack of high-quality information associated with certain search terms. Such data voids might passively represent cultural bias (Golbiewski & boyd, 2018), as in the case of the phrase “Romanians are. . .” returning biased autocomplete answers. Lavinia Hirsu (2015) describes how Romanians were able to change the search suggestions to positive ones via a campaign of digital production and tagging. But while such a campaign can be used for good, bad actors, including white supremacist groups, can just as easily weaponize data voids. A chilling example of the consequences is how the Charleston church shooter claimed in his manifesto that a Google search on “black on white crime” contributed to his beliefs (Noble, 2018).

Bakke’s overall argument is about consequences for when search algorithms are not adequately prepared to filter high-quality search results. Bakke effectively weaves together multiple voices about the nuance involved in low-quality information being privileged and how search results can be manipulated (for good and bad reasons). She does this by citing a source for a general point about cultural bias before moving into an example from another source about Romanians. She then uses the conjunction “But” to mark a point of contrast before getting into the negative example of manipulating search results by white supremacist groups with the third source cited in the paragraph. These three sources, along with Bakke’s own voice, work together to contribute to an overall argument in the paragraph.

Conventions of citation

For the the specific documentation style or styles you will use in your writing class (and in other classes), check with your instructors. Citation rules rules give readers an easy and familiar way to find the sources you cite. They may want to know where you got your information to check up on it. They might be curious to read more themselves. Perhaps they are curious, too, to see your reference list to get a sense of the kinds of scholars you are engaging with to get a sense of your perspective as a scholar. One of the big responsibilities of a writer in the U.S. university is to try to make reading an easier process for readers, and giving readers a way to find your sources is just a matter of following rules of a documentation style. And following citation rules makes your readers’ lives much easier.

Conclusion

You already use other voices all of the time, when you are talking, texting, posting, and writing papers, but you might now be getting used to new writing contexts with different purposes and expectations. Note how others make decisions: do they paraphrase? Do they quote? Why? How much do they paraphrase or quote? Why? What signal words and phrases do they use? Why? In your own writing, especially in revision, consider your own choices and how you might change them to best fit what you are trying to do in your own writing. Consult lists of signal words and phrases online. Find examples of well-written pieces of writing that use paraphrase and quotation. Keep working to cultivate what you already know how to do–but for the new contexts in your classes and beyond.

Works Cited

Bakke, Abigail. “Everyday Googling: Results of an Observational Study and Applications for Teaching Algorithmic Literacy.” Computers and Composition, vol. 57, 2020, pp. 1-16.

Dolmage, Jay Timothy. Academic Ableism: Disability and Higher Education. U of Michigan P, 2017.