When and how to quote: ten rules Usually in a thesis there are many quotes: quotes from the subject of your diploma and quotes from critical literature on the subject. Consequently, citations come in two varieties: a) texts are cited and then interpreted; b) texts are cited in support of the stated judgment. It is difficult to say whether it is preferable to quote abundantly or sparingly. It depends on the nature of the diploma. A critical analysis of any author naturally assumes that large pieces of his works will be rewritten and then dismantled. In other cases, a quotation is a sign of negligence: 177 V. How to write a text is when a graduate student does not want or cannot summarize a certain amount of data and puts all the work on the shoulders of a diploma reader.
We give ten rules of quoting. Rule 1. The passages intended for interpretation should not be too short and not too long. Rule 2. Excerpts from critical literature are quoted only when they authoritatively confirm or authoritatively supplement the opinion expressed by us. According to the first rule, if the quotation for analysis is longer than half a page, then something is wrong. Probably, you have chosen an overly extensive passage for analysis and, therefore, do not master a thorough analysis of it. Or maybe you are not interested in a passage, but the entire text, that is, not analysis, but a general assessment In such cases, that is, when the text is important, but too voluminous, it is better to send it entirely to the application, and quote in the text of chapters only individual phrases.
According to the second rule, quotations from critical literature do not have the right to life, unless they introduce a new meaning or do not confirm what you said before, and they must confirm it authoritatively. I will show two useless quotes. Mass communication is, as McLuhan says, “one of the central phenomena of our time.” We should not forget that, according to Savoy, in our country two out of three people spend the third part of the day in front of the TV screen. What is wrong or naive in these two examples? Firstly, mass communication is one of the central phenomena of our time, not only in McLuhan’s opinion, but also in the opinion of any normal person. It is not excluded that McLuhan also thinks so (I, however, did not look at McLuhan, but at random invented a quote).
But for the obvious, 178 V.3. Citing there is no need to rely on someone’s authority. Secondly, the statistics on the TV viewers seem to be correct, but Savoy is not an authority for anyone (I invented Savoy on the go), meanwhile you should look at the results of surveys of a famous statistical agency or publish figures collected by you personally. moreover, it would be necessary to reproduce the survey criteria, its methodology, publish specific calculations in the “Supplement” and not attract some Savoy by the ears. It would have been better written “I think two of the three in our country spend at least a third of the day watching television”.