Referencing is inseparable in the academic authorship which requires the pupils to, non merely present and describe thoughts, but to be cognizant of where they came from. However, it frequently leads to the pupils plagiarizing when it does non follow the criterion citing conventions accepted in their academic subject. In malice of the fact that most academic establishments have taught the citing conventions to back up their authorship accomplishments, jobs in citing are still found to be the ground for plagiarising ( Park, 2003 ; Juwah, Lal, & A ; Beloucif, 2006 )

Several findings show that most higher instruction have a job with referencing patterns ( JISC, 2005 ) . CAVAL ( as cited in JISC, 2005 ) , a university library in Australia found that 8.8 % from 1.770 pupils ‘ work of five higher instructions over a scope of subjects contained more than 25 % of unattributed stuff. A survey ( McCabe, Trevino, & A ; Butterfield, 2001 ) in Rutger University besides found that about 40 per centum of 800.000 higher instructions from 23 higher instruction admitted to plagiarise term documents by copying and gluing the stuff from the Internet. Another survey, by Dennis ( as cited in Neville, 2007 ) , of 80 undergraduate and graduate student on Computer Science pupils besides admitted to copy-paste stuff from a web site without crediting the beginning.

Looking for the grounds implicit in pupils ‘ job in citing patterns, the experts has stated their ain position toward it. Wilhoit ( 1994, p. 162 ) said that most pupils enter the higher instruction without to the full understanding the relationship between plagiarism and the recognized referencing convention. While Wilhoit implied on the deficiencies of experiences and opportunities of composing academic patterns in the pupils ‘ old educational establishment, Vessal & A ; Habibzadeh ( 2007 ) added particularly for pupils whom English is a foreign linguistic communication, they may make plagiarism for deficiency of consciousness and lingual aids. Since they have a challenge to believe in another linguistic communication when conveying the message, they may be tempted to copy a transition from English to their linguistic communication. Jude Carroll ( 2005, p. 1 ) , the class leader of Oxford Brookes University claimed that the jobs can besides caused by the complexness of academic authorship of referencing:

I have been composing for an academic audience for old ages yet can non be certain what to cite. How must it be for our pupils who are merely get downing their apprehension of the complexnesss of academic authorship, of citing and demoing it is your ain work?

While Hansen and McIntire ( 1994 ) believed that force per unit areas to acquire good Markss in composing have lead pupils to mention and cite inaccurately. McCall ( 2006 ) added that force per unit area is besides used by some pupils as incrimination to copy-paste:

“ We ‘re expected to mention as many mentions as possible to derive maximal Markss but maintain our word bound to 1500. Well, it is about impossible to utilize so many mentions every bit good as our ain words, without it looking like a copy-and-paste occupation. ”

In fact, citing is non chiefly to avoid plagiarism ; it has many maps in the academic authorship as Hunt ( 2002 ) pointed out:

Scholars – authors by and large – usage commendations for many things: they set up their ain bona fides and currency, they advertise their commitments, they bring the work of others to the attending of their readers, they assert ties of collegiality, they exemplify postulating places or define niceties of difference among viing theories or thoughts aˆ¦

Since the line between hapless referencing and plagiarism is really thin, it is regretted if abuse or misinterpretation of citing coventions is used as an alibi to make plagiarism.

Several surveies have been undertaken to look into the extent of pupil understanding toward plagiarism and the commendation patterns underlying it, nevertheless there is a really limited survey undertaken in EFL pupils, specifically in Indonesian scene as Imam Santosa ( 2010 ) and Putri Handayani ( 2010 ) did among English Department pupils at State University of Jakarta. It is interesting to observe that the troubles of EFL pupils have in authorship, non merely grammar and discourse constructions but besides in the ways they cite the information. However, farther surveies needs to be undertaken to find the existent extent of pupils understanding of citing patterns in avoiding plagiarism and what can be done by the talks and the establishment to deter it. Relevance to this, the following survey efforts to look into to what extent concluding twelvemonth pupils understanding at English Department of State University of Jakarta toward citing patterns as an attack to avoid the issue of plagiarism.

Designation of Problems

Referred to the background above, some jobs are identified as follows:

To what extent do concluding twelvemonth English Department Students understand citing patterns decently?

Does their understanding lucifer with their perceptual experiences and attitudes toward citing patterns?

What are the grounds underlying their attitudes and perceptual experiences?

Research inquiries

Based on the jobs identification above, the survey merely focuses on “ To what extent do concluding twelvemonth English Department Students understand citing patterns? ”

Restrictions

In order to restrict the range, the survey will concentrate on the consequences of the survey: the concluding twelvemonth English Department pupils ‘ understanding toward citing patterns in avoiding plagiarism. Then, the findings can non be used as a representation of English Department Students in general.

Purpose of the survey

To happen out to what extent concluding twelvemonth English Department pupils understanding toward citing patterns.

Significance of the survey

First, the survey can assist the author to hold more apprehension of the citing conventions in the author ‘s subject and so make the others who may read this thesis. Second, it besides provides the chance for all the stakeholders in the establishment where the survey is conducted to take the best determinations sing the consequences, thereby it is hoped to potentially cut down the plagiarism issue.

Chapter II

LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter will first expression at the some old related surveies on citing patterns. It so explores the construct of plagiarism in the academic context by discoursing the definition, the grounds, the signifiers and the manner avoiding it. Finally, it presents the referencing conventions which are perchance used in English Department.

Previous Related Studies on Students ‘ Understanding toward Referencing Practices

There have been several surveies associating with the pupils ‘ understanding toward the referencing patterns in assorted topographic points and Fieldss.

In the State University of Jakarta where the survey conducts, a survey of Putri Handayani ( 2010 ) about “ consistence of citing in English Department pupils ‘ skripsi ” showed that from 2.716 mentions, 33 % was considered as a low consistence since it does n’t accommodate to any referencing manners. It suggested that the unregulated criterion citing convention for academic authorship in English Department and the deficiencies of experiences and opportunities of composing academic patterns could be the possible ground underlying it.

Another survey conducted in English Department by Imam Santosa ( 2010 ) demonstrated that 79.19 % thesis graduated from 2006 to 2010 was considered as plagiarism. Looking for the grounds underlying it, it indicated that beside the hapless clip direction accomplishments, most pupils misused and misunderstood the referencing conventions used in their thesis, although some pupils do non acknowledge it in the interview.

A: Jelaskan apa yang anda ketahui tentang paraphrasis, commendation, dan

quoted?

Bacillus: Paraphrase: menuangkan ide Pongo pygmaeus lain dengan Indonesian sendiri,

commendation: sama kan

quoted: mengutip kutipan langsung

A: Apakah anda ragu dalam menentukan apakah kutipan anda

harus di paraphrasis atau di quoted?

Bacillus: Saat itu tidak

A: Gaya penulisan apa yang anda pakai dalam mengutip di dalam

penelitian anda?

Bacillus: Saya lupa, MLA kayaknya deh

A: Apakah yang anda ketahui tentang gaya kutipan yang anda pakai

dalam mengutip sebuah sumber?

Bacillus: Yah sesuai dengan skripsi sebelumnya saja

A: Apakah anda yakin dengan cara anda mengutip sebuah sumber?

Yakin

Bacillus: Bagaimana cara anda mengambil kutipan Dari cyberspace?

Copy paste, kasih tangal, sama linknya

A: Apakah anda menyaring kebenaran Dari sebuah web yang anda

cari?

Bacillus: Tidak

( Santosa, 2010 )

In University of Kristen Maranatha Indonesia, a survey by Yugianingrum ( 2008 ) at the English Department refering “ mentioning behaviours in the thesis ” besides suggested that most of the thesis at that place contained hapless commendation or inappropriate mentioning behaviour. Based on the author ‘s interpretion of the findings, it can be attributed by the pupils ‘ deficiencies of experiences and opportunities of composing academic patterns and the section ‘s depression of attending toward the appropriate mentioning patterns.

Comparing to a similar survey in Singapore, a survey of Peter A. Todd, Darren C. J. Yeo, Daiqin Li and Richard J. Ladle ( 2007 ) analyzing the rightness and truth of commendations employed in ecology showed that from 306 documents, the commendation which “ clearly supported ” is 76.1 % ; the commendation which “ equivocal ” is 11.1 % ; and the commendation which did “ non back up ” the original statement is 7.2 % . The staying 5.6 % were classified as “ empty ” .

Another survey from natural philosophies and technology concluded that 80 % of the resources cited in the paper were non read by the pupils ( Simkin & A ; Roychowdhury, 2003 ) . aˆ¦

In Computer Science grade programmes, another survey by Dennis ( as cited in Neville, 2007 ) , of 80 undergraduate and graduate student pupils besides found that 25 % pupils admitted to make copying from book or cyberspace beginnings without admiting the writers.

Finally, similar with the old findings, a study by Dordoy ( 2002 ) at Northumbria University, of 140 pupils suggested that 70.9 % of pupils believed that it was a common pattern for them to copy a few paragraphs from a written stuff or web-based stuff without mentioning the beginnings.

In short, several findings have shown abuse and misinterpretation of referencing patterns are still being a job for pupils of higher instructions in assorted topographic points and Fieldss. They suggest the following stairss to turn to the issue of plagiarism.

Specifying Plagiarism

Because there is no individual universally agreed, specifying plagiarism is non ever easy to be formed. It is clear that there are many different readings from one state to another on the pattern of citing in academic authorship. What is unacceptable pattern in Britain, for illustration, citing from beginnings without citing them, can be regarded as normal patterns in other states, even within Europe ( Sherman, 1992 ) . Then, it may helpful to see the definitions from some universities:

aˆ¦ is the act of stand foring as one ‘s ain original work the originative plants of another, without appropriate recognition of the writer or beginning ( University of Melbourne )

aˆ¦ is the larceny of person else ‘s thoughts and work. Whether a pupil copies verbatim or merely rephrases the thoughts of another without decently admiting the beginning, the larceny is the same ( Harvard Extension School )

aˆ¦ is the copying or rephrasing other ‘s people work or thoughts onto your ain work without full recognition ( University of Oxford ) A

Although in pattern, there can be different readings of what it is included in plagiarism and what is non, the pick of written words is about indistinguishable, common phrase “ without recognition ” is found from those university positions. Therefore, in general, plagiarism is a term used to depict a pattern which involves taking another ‘s work or thoughts without recognition. However, to avoid plagiarism, it is of import that pupils are cognizant of their university ‘s reading of plagiarism and the practical cognition about how to admit other plants decently.

Forms of Plagiarism

After researching the definition of plagiarism from the academic positions, it may helpful to observe what is included in the term of plagiarism. Although plagiarism can take many signifiers, there are two major signifiers of plagiarism in the academic authorship: “ plagiarism of thoughts ” and “ plagiarism of words ” ( Roig, 2003 ) .

It is merely understood the definition of “ plagiarism of thoughts ” given by Roig ( 2003 ) “ Allowing an thought in whole or in portion, or with superficial alterations without giving recognition to its conceiver ” . However, there has been a argument whether the thoughts can be owned and thieved since it seems hard to separate one thought with another, every bit good hard to be detected. In some context, plagiarism of thoughts may non be, for illustration, in the co-op acquisition when each members portion their thoughts to discourse something, the procedure of incorporating one thoughts to another ‘s is regarded as a acquisition procedure instead than a thievish thoughts.

Furthermore, pupils frequently get trouble in finding whether the thought is an writer ‘s thought or a general cognition ( Anyanwu, 2004 ; Devlin & A ; Gray, 2007 ) . However, Pfeiffer ( 2000, p. 517 ) said when there is an diffident whether the stuff is common cognition or non, it is better to merely mention it.

Rennie ( Rennie, … ) besides argued that plagiarism of thoughts is more serious than wrong ascription since the plagiarizers sometimes merely rephrase the writers ‘ words and deliberately admit it as their ain instead than analyse all the literature and synthesise them into a new thought creatively. Finally, the attitudes toward plagiarism of thoughts may be greatly depended on the context, civilization and the recognized regulations where the pupils live.

Another signifier of plagiarism, “ plagiarism of words ” is defined by Roig ( 2003, p. 7 ) as “ copying a part of text from another beginning without giving recognition to its writer ” . Both “ plagiarism of thoughts ” and “ plagiarism of words ” constitute academic misconduct, but plagiarism of words is easier to observe and turn out than plagiarism of thoughts. It is frequently seen as the most common signifier of plagiarism because sometimes the borrowed words which excessively near with the original words are non quoted or merely left without cited ( Roig, 2003, p. 8 )

Plagiarism of words and thoughts can happen in a assortment of signifiers. As ( Wilhoit, 1994 ) stated, they are:

“ ( 1 ) Stealing stuff from another beginning and go throughing it off as their ain, ( 2 ) Submiting a paper written by person else, ( 3 ) Copying subdivisions of stuff from one or more beginning texts, providing proper certification ( including the full mention ) but go forthing out citation Markss, therefore giving the feeling that the stuff has been paraphrased instead than straight quoted. ( 4 ) Paraphrasing stuff from one or more beginning texts without providing appropriate certification. ”

From four signifiers of plagiarism above, Roig ( 2003 ) added one more signifier of plagiarism, that about impossible to happen, self-plagiarism. When plagiarism is conseptualized as a larceny, it is about impossible to steal from oneself. However, Hexam ( as cited in Roig, 2003 ) argued that self-plagiarism is possible to happen when the auhors reuse their antecedently written work without allowing the reader know that that stuff is non new any longer. He added “ aˆ¦ the kernel of self-plagiarism is the writer effort to lead on the reader ” . Furthermore, although Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association ( 2001 ) does non incorporate the term “ selfaˆ?plagiarism ” within its subdivision on the “ Ethical motives of Scientific Publication ” , that subdivision includes a term “ Duplicate publication of informations ” ( pp. 351aˆ?354 ) . Roig ( 2003 ) so suggested four types of self-plagiarism: “ double publication of a paper, breakdown of a big survey into smaller surveies, text recycling, and copyright violation ” .

Although in pattern, all signifiers of plagiarism above is rather similar, the punishments given is frequently different, depend on the step of purpose ( .. ) . Then, plagiarism is besides classified into knowing or calculated plagiarism and unwilled or inadvertent plagiarism.

Intentional or consider plagiarism appears when the pupils know that they submit or use person ‘s work. An illustration of knowing plagiarism can be entry of a term paper purchased from the Internet as original work. In the contrary, unwilled or inadvertent plagiarism occurs when pupils do non to the full understand what certification is and how to make it ( Bauer and Moriyama, 2004 ) . An illustration of unwilled plagiarism can be a failure to mention a beginning wholly or accurately and a failure to cite. Although sometimes pupils who admit to plagiariaze unitentionally non ever genuinely unwilled ( Howard, 1995 ) , intending that it is merely used as an alibi for pupils to be regarded as making a minor plagiarism. Then, to find the step of purpose, the deep reviews need to be held carefully.

Reasons Underliing Plagiarism

Understanding non merely what plagiarism is, but why pupils plagiarize is necessary to turn to the issue of plagiarism efficaciously.

Plagiarism occurs for a assortment of grounds. It may stem from knowing Acts of the Apostless, possibly due to coerce to win as Carroll ( 2002 ) claimed that the alteration from scrutiny to project-based appraisal has resulted non merely “ in over-assessment ” but besides “ in pupils being under force per unit area ” to achieve high Markss. This may logic if the instructor frequently gives them a figure of different pieces of class work in the same entry day of the months that they can non carry through.

The easy entree to the information available in the cyberspace can be besides the ground why pupils plagiarize deliberately. The chief cause of this is the premise that the cyberspace is a public sphere and hence, pupils think that information on the cyberspace can be used freely without ascription ( Groark, Oblinger & A ; Choa, 2001 ) .

However, non all plagiarism is attributed to the increased usage of the Internet. In a Rutger ‘s survey of 4,500 pupils from 25 high schools, 54 per centum had used the Internet to plagiarise. But the research besides showed that the bulk of those rip offing would hold plagiarized without the Internet. Merely 6 per centum of those who submitted plagiaristic work had relied entirely on the Internet ( Branigan, 2001 ) .

While plagarism occurs deliberately, it may be possible that pupils who are accused of plagiarism are non cognizant of all of the academic conventions they are expected to follow ( Carroll, 2002 ; Howard, 2001, p.5 ) . Although they claimed to understand academic conventions, they who claimed that understanding frequently demonstrated that they did non cognize how to impute beginnings decently ( Sutherland, 2005, Armstron, 2008, Santosa, 2010 ) . There are many differences between subjects on certification guidelines ( Ercegovac and Richardson, 2004 ) . If these differences are non communicated clearly, pupils might non recognize what the establishments ‘ outlooks.

Different apprehensions of academic conventions are besides evident with pupils who were educated in non-Western civilizations. The belief that thoughts and words can be owned by a individual can be hard for them to understand ( Introna, 2001 ) . In add-on, it is common in many states for pupils to compose documents by merely copying big sums of text from Hagiographas by experts in the field, if they write it in the mentions. In some states, pupils are besides non taught or expected to mention beginnings until they are in maestro or doctorial degree classs ( Nanda and Power, 2005 ) .

In other instances, pupils understand and try to avoid plagiarism, but are non sufficiently skilled in authorship ( Howard, 2001 ) . Some fail to take notes carefully, others fail to repeat the stuff so taking to utilize excessively much of the original words, a pattern referred as patchwriting.

Whatever the grounds, eventually they can non be alibis to legalize plagiarism. Knowing from the statistics that plagiarism is increasing, the grounds above can expectantly assist to turn to the issue of plagiarism.

Avoiding Plagiarism

Althought most of universities have taught how to avoid plagiarism in their academic authorship classs, pupils seems do non internalise the classs until they have experienced themselves ( Barrett & A ; Malcolm, 2006 ) . Then the treatment about avoiding plagiarism from some resources is needed to turn to the plagiarism issue.

WPA Council ( 2003 ) suggests avoiding plagiarism is a shared duty for all stakeholders within an establishment ( pupils, instructors and decision makers ) . For pupils, it is needed for them to understand research assignment as their opportunity to develop their originative and critical thought by analysing what they are look intoing, larning the recognized referencing convention, and confer withing their teachers when they are diffident about what, when, and how to admit another ‘s plants and thoughts. For module, it is needed to plan contexts and assignments for larning that encourage pupils non merely to recycle information but to look into and analyse its beginnings, learning pupils the referencing conventions, prosecuting pupils in the procedure of authorship, discoursing the jobs encountered by the pupils in analysing and admiting the beginnings, and discoursing documents suspected plagiarism with the pupils so describing it to the right decision makers. While for the decision makers, it is a demand to further a plan which supports the academic honestness by supplying support services like composing centres or web pages to reply pupils ‘ inquiries about how to mention the beginnings, back uping module and pupil treatments of issues refering academic honestness, and supplying chances for teachers to reflect on and, if appropriate, alter the ways they work with composing in their classs.

While some other resources ( Hacker, 2003, Rampolla, 2004, Guidelines of Catholic University of America, aˆ¦ , and Leary & A ; Bent, 2007 ) discuss avoiding plagiarism merely from the positions of the pupils. They suggest that in order to avoid plagiarism, the pupils need to utilize their ain words and thoughts, give recognition for another ‘s work or thoughts they borrow, avoid rephrasing another ‘s so claim it as their ain, notice some common cognition which does non necessitate to be cited, nevertheless when they are in uncertainty, it is better for them to mention it.

Therefore, avoiding plagiarism which is done by all the stakeholders within an establishment even within a state is needed to turn to the issue of plagiarism

Specifying Referencing

Before researching assorted citing conventions which are most normally used in the higher instruction, specifying referencing is needed to acquire a complete apprehension about citing which eventually can decrease pupils ‘ plagiarism accidentally due to miss of citing accomplishments.

Referencing which is besides sometimes called as commendation is defined by Reitz ( 2004, p.142 ) as:

“ a written mention to a specific work or part of a work ( book, article, thesis, study, musical composing, etc. ) by a peculiar writer, editor, composer, etc. , that clearly identifies the papers in which the work is to be found ” .

Then, citing a beginning means to supply a mention for admiting a beginning of information.

However, the term “ mention ” is sometimes associated likewise with the term “ bibliography ” . In fact, both footings is used otherwise. Mention refers to the point which read and cited in a written work, while bibliography refers to a list of everything read when composing a written work, whether or non it is cited. ( Bradford Booklet ) . Therefore, bibliography contains beginnings which are included in the mention, while mention does non ever incorporate beginnings which are included in the bibliography.

Types of Referencing Conventions

Referencing conventions vary largely in the location, order, and composing of information referenced. The figure and fluctuation of citing conventions reflect different precedences in a higher instruction establishment with regard to conciseness, readability, day of the months, writers, publications, and, of class, conventions.

There are assorted citing conventions which are used within higher instruction establishments. However, since in English Department where the survey is conducted refering on linguistic communication instruction and humanistic disciplines, the treatment of citing conventions is limited on APA and MLA convention as presented briefly below:

APA Convention

This is the criterion used for composing in the societal scientific disciplines, psychological science, sociology, criminology, wellness scientific disciplines, concern, economic sciences, and instruction ( Sparkcharts, 2004 ) . The usage of APA convention for in-text-citation and mention list which taken from Sparkcharts ( 2006 ) can be seen below:

In-text Citations

APA convention uses the author-date format for in-text commendations.

One writer

aˆ¦ the photoelectric consequence ( Einstein, 1906 )

Einstein ‘s description of the exposure electric consequence

In 1906, Einstein published a paper on the photoelectric consequence.

Two to five writers

First usage in a paper: Barrett, Waters, and Tang ( 1997 ) found aˆ¦

First usage in a paragraph after already used in a paper: Barrett et Al. ( 1997 ) found aˆ¦

Further utilizations within the same paragraph: Barrett et Al. found aˆ¦

Within parentheses, use an ampersand: aˆ¦ ( Barrett, Waters, & A ; Tang, 1997 )

More than five writers

First usage in a paper:

Zukckerman et Al. ( 1987 ) found aˆ¦

Further utilizations within the same paragraph:

Zuckerman et Al. found aˆ¦

If two or more documents would hold the same abbreviation under APA regulations ( e.g. , Einstein, Rush, and Oppenheimer, 1950, both would abbreiate to Einstein et al. , 1950 ) , provide as many names as are needed to separate between the documents:

Einstein, Rush, et Al. ( 1950 ) and Einstein, Bohr, et Al. ( 1950 ) found aˆ¦

No writer

Include the rubric and day of the month:

aˆ¦ the book Pregnancy and Poverty ( 1979 )

For articles or book chapters, put the rubric in dual citation Markss:

aˆ¦ the survey on wellness attention ( “ America suffers, ” 1997 )

If the author is listed as “ Anonymous ” , cite consequently: ( Anonymous, 1956 )

Multiple plants within the same commendation

To mention two or more plants by the same writer, list the writer ‘s name one time, followed by the day of the months of publication in chronological order:

aˆ¦ as has been shown ( Hewlett 1989, 1993, 1994 )

To mention different writer, separate in the writers utilizing semicolon and name them in the order in which the plants appear in the mention list:

Seminal documents in natural philosophies ( Einstein, 1905a, 1905b ; Oppenheimer and Bohr, 1940 ; Teller, 1951 )

To divide a major commendation from other commendations, list the primary beginning foremost, followed by a semicolon, so infix a “ see besides ” before naming the staying commendations in alphabetical order:

Surveies suggest ( Strickley, 1997 ; see besides Blake, 1955 ; Masters, 1986 )

Cross-listings

To mention two or more plants published in a individual twelvemonth by the same writers, distinguish between them in the text and in mentions by adding a missive to the twelvemonth:

If two writers cited have the last name, give their initials in all mentions:

A. J. Einstein and Wilson ( 1905 ) and J. C. Einstein and Hartley ( 1961 ) found aˆ¦

Classical plants

Classical plants, such as the bible and Grecian and Roman texts, need to be cited in the text but do non necessitate to be included in the list at the terminal of the paper.

Translations of classical work demand to be noted: ( Plato, trans. 2001 ) . Translations besides need to be included in the mention list.

When mentioning specific subdivisions of classical plants, use line Numberss, chapters, and so on alternatively of page Numberss, which typically apply merely to a individual edition.

When mentioning a reissue of an older, indicate bothe the day of the month of the original publication and the day of the month of the reissue, separated by a cut: ( Freud, 1901/ 1961 )

Personal communicating ( such as electronic mail, letters, or conversations )

Cite in the text but do non include in the mention list: ( J. M. Hamilton, personal communicating, December 17, 2003 )

Indirect mentions ( works non referenced straight but discussed in a secondary beginning )

If the plants did non learned straight but learned about in a book by Adamson, citation as follows: Jones ‘s survey ( as cited in Adamson, 1994 )

Include the secondary beginning ( in supra illustration, Adamson ) in the mention list.

Plants still in imperativeness

Rather than mention a predicted publicatin day of the month, indicate that the work is still in imperativeness: ( Horace, in imperativeness )