quotes from published papers

Citation protocol | James Hobbs | December 1st, 2002

A quick question.

In my LEX assignment I'm including several quotations from a book that is a collection of previously published papers and extracts from other books. If I'm quoting something which Gutt originally published in 1991, but which I read on page 377 of a 2000 collection edited by Venuti, does that make it Gutt (1991:377), Gutt (2000:377), or Gutt (1991, in Venuti 2000:377)? Only the last one seems strictly accurate, but I don't usually see editors credited like this.

James Hobbs
Japan

Re: Citation protocol | Dominic Marini | December 2nd, 2002

James,

This is a tough one that I come up against all the time. The way I see it, the point of references in the text is to help readers follow your thoughts (Ah! He means it in Gutt's sense of the word) and to help them go to the original text if they are interested.

Gutt (1991:377) is patently false. If the reader gets hold of Gutt (1991) and turns to page 377 s/he won't find what they are looking for.

You could use Gutt (2000:377) and in the bibliography, in the Gutt 2000 citation include the information --- In Venuti etc. Gutt originally published in 1991. This is the book that you actually read.

If you want to indicate in the body of the essay that you are referring to Gutt's ideas as they stood in 1991 in contrast to latter developments (perhaps the Young Gutt's work was repudiated by himself (now older and wiser) in 2001!) you should use the longer Gutt (1991, in Venuti 2000:377) to show which year's thought you refer to (Ah! The Young Gutt, not the Old Gutt!) and which volume you actually read.

Not the last word on this I am sure.

Dominic

Re: Citation protocol | Steve Mann | December 2nd, 2002

Hi James,

I think Dominic has it right. The more information, the better. In fact, if there is a page ref for the original Gutt, then that should go in too.

So you could have:

(1991: 27, in Venuti 2000:377)

This way, if I get hold of the Gutt, I can go straight for the right page (to find the context for the quote in Venuti).

Best

Steve

Re: citation protocol | James Hobbs | December 2nd, 2002

Hi Dominic/Steve,

Thanks for the replies and advice. As I don't have the original publication, I guess I'll go with Gutt (1991, in Venuti 2000:377) then, as that's as much info as I can provide and, as Dominic points out, it allows for the possibility that Gutt may have adjusted his views since 1991.

Thanks again.

James

 

 

Archive Categories