nach

18:34 Jan 27, 2017 

model.....

18:30 Jan 27, 2017 

Here is what I got to the question about the difference:

"In my opinion NACH means that they used a model by someone else in order to give information specific to the WZL text."
WZL refers to the textbook.
Not the author, but my contact.
So this is not paraphrasing, summarizing or citing, but using someone's model with the author's new data, I suppose.

19:39 Jan 26, 2017 

Thany you JC. The examples are very helpful, indeed, and confirm the importance of the context (what Ramey did first thing).

Yes, "based on" is an alternative for figures, I have in my database, too :-)

19:31 Jan 26, 2017 

The only other suggestion I can think of is using "based on" (you'll find some ENS examples of "based on figures" when googling), considering that the first looks like the figure is based on some description in German standards (VDI).

19:21 Jan 26, 2017 

Thank you.

After looking at the examples, I think Katja's suggestion is what you're looking for (@Katja: sorry I missed that last sentence after your second link). From the first of the two most recent links I posted:

"Table components consist of Table & number, title in italics, the table of information, and the caption. The caption begins with the word Note in italics, followed by descriptive note(s) for the table, then the source of the table (if not created by the author). The caption appears immediately underneath the table proper. Everything is double-spaced."

Example below that description:
Note. Descriptive note. Adapted [or Reprinted] from “Title of Article,” by F. M. Author and C. D. Author, year, Title of

Journal, volume, p. xx. Copyright year by the Name of Copyright Holder. Adapted with permission.

Figure example:
Figure #. Description/Note. Adapted from “Title of Article,” by F. M. Author and C. D. Author, year,

Title of Journal, volume, p. xx. Copyright year by the Name of Copyright Holder. Adapted [or Reprinted] with permission

19:13 Jan 26, 2017 

I have also put the question to my contact to see whether there is a difference or not. I will let you know when I get a response.

19:13 Jan 26, 2017 

OK, folks. I will give you some examples.
Under a figure, we have:
Bild 4.16 Belastungsgrenzwerte der Beschleunigung auf den Menschen in Abhängigkeit von der Einwirkzeit. Nach [VDI01]

I do not have VDI01, so I cannot see whether the figure is an exact copy or not.

In another, we have
Bild 4.12 Einfluss verschiedener Aufstellbedingungen auf das dynamische Verhalten einer Futterdrehmaschine. Nach [WECK77]

Then, just below this figure, we have:
... Der Maximalwert der dynamischen Nachgiebigkeit sinkt von 0,15 μm/N bei fester Fundamentierung auf 0,1 μm/N bei Verwendung weicher Aufstellelemente [WECK77].

And something that *I* just noticed. All the 'nach' usage in this chapter is below figures of some sort, never in the text itself. The text just uses "[XXX1999].
Some other figures use "... Quelle: [XXX1999] and other figures cite nothing at all (so the author came up with those).
Now you all have what I have.

18:48 Jan 26, 2017 

Thank you for the further examples, Björn. As I ended in my last discussion entry: If it is a reference for a paraphrase: no equivalent for "nach"

I would love to get to concrete examples of the use with and without "nach" in JC's text. It has started to feel like poking around in the dark to me...

18:13 Jan 26, 2017 

I think the link was somehow cut off in the discussion box.

I am a bit hesitant when it comes to "adapted from": As you say, it's used with figures (not with simple in-text citations). Asker said: "cite quite a few reference papers, books and article," so I don't know whether this is applicable here.

Here's the entry about "tables & figures":
http://library.nmu.edu/guides/userguides/apacitingtables.htm

PS
Even if you use "adapted from" for things besides tables & figures, you do not include the words in in-text citations:
"Citations of adaptive documents in the text of a research paper are done with the parenthetical elements of author and year. If you were citing the author of the works listed above, your sentence would read 'According to Weber (2012),' followed by a direct quote; a simpler version would read 'Weber (2012),' followed by quoted material. If you do not directly name the author, or if you paraphrase the quote, add author, year and page number in parenthesis. The citation sentence would read 'She has stated that negotiations break down on this point (Weber, 2012, p. 213).'"
http://penandthepad.com/cite-adaptive-document-apa-format-78...

18:10 Jan 26, 2017 

This is the text in the link you can't open:

I. APA recommendation regarding referencing figures:
If you adapt a figure to illustrate your work, credit the original source in full at the bottom of the figure but add the words 'Adapted from' to indicate it has been changed by you, and cite the source in full in your reference list:

Figure 3. A credibility judgment is arrived at within the larger context of one's background, prior knowledge, assumptions and biases, as one makes interim decisions based on one's defined need, ... Adapted from "Evaluation techniques," by D. Cunningham, 2008, Annals of Psychiatry 36, p. 35. Copyright 2008 by David Cunningham.

II. Use on http://libraryguides.vu.edu.au/apa-referencing/getting-start... itself
A DOI, or digital object identifier, is a unique, permanent identification number that will take you straight to a document no matter where it is located on the Internet....
(Adapted from: Lee, C. (2009, September 21). APA Style Blog: A DOI primer [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2009/09/a-doi-primer.html
If the paraphrasing in JC's text refers to just a sentence: Agree with you & Ramey: no "nach

18:09 Jan 26, 2017 

...there's another kind of "nach":
"In absoluten Ausnahmefällen ist das ursprüngliche Werk nicht mehr verfügbar
oder Ihnen mit angemessenem Aufwand (ausländische Bibliothek) nicht zugänglich und ein direkter Bezug auf die Originalquelle nicht möglich. In diesem Fall können Sie auch auf den Sekundärtext als Quelle zurückgreifen und diesen angeben. Hier ist aber der Hinweis auf die ursprüngliche Autorin bzw. den Autor zwingend notwendig. Also in diesem Fall:
(Vorname Nachname zitiert nach XX Jahr: Seite)

und als Beispiel:

(Beatrice Webb zitiert nach Meier 2010: 45f.)."

"Give the secondary source in the reference list; in text, name the original work and give a citation for the secondary source.
For example, if Allport's work is cited in Nicholson and you did not read Allport's work, list the Nicholson reference in the reference list. In the text, use the following citation:
Allport's diary (as cited in Nicholson, 2003)."
http://www.apastyle.org/learn/faqs/cite-another-source.aspx

This may be a longshot, but I could imagine it to be the reason why the author is getting a bit nervous about your removal of "nach."

18:01 Jan 26, 2017 

17:56 Jan 26, 2017 

To be fair, a lot of research papers nowadays are written by non-native speakers, which may muddy the waters a bit.

Can't open your first link, Katja, but this is what an APA in-text citation looks like for paraphrased content:
"If you are paraphrasing an idea from another work, you only have to make reference to the author and year of publication in your in-text reference, but APA guidelines encourage you to also provide the page number (although it is not required.)

According to Jones (1998), APA style is a difficult citation format for first-time learners.
APA style is a difficult citation format for first-time learners (Jones, 1998, p. 199)."
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/02/

What Brigitte describes is in English the difference between the use of quotation marks and no quotation marks for either direct quotes or paraphrasing.

So I agree with Ramey: There should be no "nach" in the English version.

Not too long ago, we had a similar question about legal citations. Unfortunately, the issue wasn't really dealt with, as the asker opted for an almost literal translation. But even there, English does not allow for the wealth of options available in German.

13:16 Jan 26, 2017 

@JC: I would think the distinction between with and without the word "nach" is made on purpose by the author.
Maybe the following information - together with your context (direct quotes or paraphrases or graphs) - makes it a little clearer whether to use any word in front of the reference or not.

There are different referencing systems (with slightly varying recommendations), authors can adhere to, e.g. English: APA, Harvard, Vancouver, in Germany DIN.

The guides for English seem to agree on using "Adapted from" to reference a diagram, chart etc. (e.g. http://libraryguides.vu.edu.au/apa-referencing/getting-start... I have come across that use very often myself when translating English medical documents (into German).

"Adapted from" is recommended this way in the Harvard guide: "The following list of seven points is adapted from Mintzberg (2007)" and used this way in the guide itself "Use the following conventions to ensure that your referencing is correct (adapted from Lewis, 1999: 26)." (http://education.exeter.ac.uk/dll/studyskills/harvard_refere...

10:14 Jan 26, 2017 

(PDF) Examples of Using Direct Quotes, Paraphrasing, and Summarizing
I found it under "Paraphrasing indications"

There is no 'nach' or 'according to' or 'taken from' preceding the paraphrased quotation.

09:17 Jan 26, 2017 

Good morning, Ramey,
obviously, I cannot answer for JC but as I see it, there are direct quotes (those without "nach") and other quotes (the author uses his/her own words to provide the content of whatever the person wrote who is responsible for the text in Question [XX1999]).

08:47 Jan 26, 2017 

Have you asked the client why there is NO 'nach' before the other quotes? Are the quotes different in content or paraphrased? Why the nach here and not there?

07:55 Jan 26, 2017 

PS I'm UK English, but nach was one of the first things I was taught when learning to write academic German. To be honest, I think you could use whatever fits in best with your style. "On the lines suggested by [XXX]", "[XXX] writes". "according to [XXX]". "Adapted from", where appropriate.

07:42 Jan 26, 2017 

I have always used nach (subject to context) as "according to". Adapted from would also mostly be fine, although it seems narrower to me.

07:07 Jan 26, 2017 

No, I don't have any proof, but this is how I understand the term in this context.