| A number of studies have been conducted to investigate citation practices and source borrowing strategies in second language writing. Some of these studies have investigated L1 and L2 writing along these mentioned themes (Shi, 2004; Keck, 2006; Petric, 2007; Shi, 2008; McInnis, 2009; Harwood & Petric, 2012; Petric, 2012; McCullogh, 2012; Hirvela & Du, 2013), while others have compared disciplinary differences as a major variable (Harwood, 2009). In the same vein, other studies have looked into differences in expert and novice writing (Mansourizadeh & Ahmad, 2011). However, many, if not all of these studies, have investigated citation functions, motivations, and textual borrowing in separate or discrete terms and relied heavily on textual analysis and interviews. Filling the literature gap, the present study frames citation and source writing within a process-oriented approach in which data collection relies upon a triangulation technique that involves the use of think aloud protocols, referencing logs, and discourse-based interviews. Considering citations and the representation of borrowed ideas in the forms of paraphrases and summaries, the study has taken these elements as a single unit of analysis to explore the rhetorical functions, motivations, and textual borrowing strategies of the respondents. Indeed, the study paves the way for an exploration of source use using concurrent verbal reports in a cognitivist framework aside from the oft-favored textual and interview analyses. The results of the study reveal that 1) the respondents of the study used a limited range of citation functions such as the following: definition, extended definition, information, support, explanation, and exemplification. The present study suggests that student writers need to be more critical of citation use in the light of achieving certain rhetorical effects in writing output. 2) The respondents of the study were largely motivated by their own writing goals, source- and text- related reasons, and beliefs and fears. It can be deduced that these compelling reasons for citation use emanate from the respondents’ authoritative view of source texts, oftentimes resulting in superficial source engagement which this study labels as patchciting. 3) The respondents used the following cognitive strategies for paraphrasing: references to synonymy or synonym use, references to gist or the main idea, references to syntax, references to knowledge of the topic, references to awareness of the audience, and references to style. A textual analysis of the paraphrasing and summarizing output of the respondents revealed that the respondents relied heavily on mechanical manipulations of texts rather than meaning negotiation through inferential thinking, which in certain instances, did not reflect the intention of the original text. The present study highlights the complexity of citation and source use and proposes a pedagogical approach to address the issues that have been identified. In addition, it suggests that the research approach taken by the study be further explored and sharpened to provide better insights into the citation and source writing practices of student writers and possibly all other cohorts of writers across a variety of contexts. |