There is an array of mistakes that writers often make when quoting. First, they fail to quote enough such that the quotes are too short (Graff, Birkenstein & Durst, 2006). Insufficient quoting results from the unwillingness of the authors to gather the entire phrases as stipulated in the original text. Secondly, some writer tends to over-quote. That means that there is an excess of quotes and deficit of the writer’s ideas. That makes the content more what the author wrote. Arguably, it is rational to argue that the writer often makes these mistakes because they assume that the audience or the readers will still understand the context of the writer. Hence, they either quote less or over quote (Graff, Birkenstein & Durst, 2006).
The authors argue that quotations are orphans. From an analytical point of understanding, a quote is retrieved from where it belongs and is introduced into a new environment without alteration (Graff, Birkenstein & Durst, 2006). As such, the phrase calls seek the introduction of the quotes and support them with statements that will have a close relationship with the quotes regarding meaning. Thus, quotes have to be connected with the theme.
There are two precise ways through which the writers can integrate quotations effectively into their paper. That includes ensuring that they are not just fixed to show that one has read the original context. The first way is through the framing of the quote (Graff, Birkenstein & Durst, 2006). One ought to insert a quotation and provide ample explanation that will support the presence of the quote in that particular text. It assists in ensuring that the quotations do not reflect dangling characteristics as far as the text and its meaning are concerned. The second one is that blending the authors’ words with the writer’s words. (Graff, Birkenstein & Durst, 2006) That means that the text retains its meaning in spite of the perspective that foreign material is inserted.
The authors exemplify their concern regarding the need to ensure that a quote is understood by the audience or the readers. Particularly, they insinuate that it is a “general rule” for the writers to explain the quotes they use in a bid to avoid dangling statements (Graff, Birkenstein & Durst, 2006). However, in the context of whether the writer should over explain the quotations used, the authors are in support of it. They believe that it is better to tell much about the quote rather than to leave it in a dangling position. The suggestion is mainly viable when a writer is not sure of the extent in which the readers will understand the context of the quote.
From a personal experience, quotations help in adding value to the text. I am an avid user of quotations especially when it comes to analyzing or reviewing a book, article or a movie (Graff, Birkenstein & Durst, 2006). I assess my understanding of these scholarly materials by using the quotes and using them well. Usually, I use quotes, but I have come to understand some additional facts that I have been failing to put into consideration frequently.
The most interesting thing about is the freedom proposed by the authors regarding the over analysis of the quotations. The argument is rational and can be applicable especially when one intends to make every statement or phrase as clear as possible in the text. However, I would wish to seek an explanation of whether a phrase whose punctuation marks and conjunctions are altered remains to be a quotation.
Graff, G., Birkenstein, C., & Durst, R. (2006). They say, I say. WW Norton.