In search of a theory associating honest citation with a higher/deeper level of understanding than (dishonest) plagiarism

In response to my post, Plagiarism means never having to say you’re clueless, Gur Huberman writes:

Is plagiarism evidence of lack of understanding?

Compare & contrast situation A & B. In both somebody develops an argument, supports an assertion, evaluates dat etc. The following appears in both, Since X holds, Y is implied. [X & Y can be quite elaborate; in fact they are whole scientific structures.] In situation A we have, “As Z has shown, since X holds, Y is implied.” In situation B we find only “Since x holds, Y is implied.” Situation A is clean, situation B is a plagiarism. How/why can you argue that B reflects lack of understanding whereas A doesn’t?

My reply: I think that plagiarism is evidence of lack of understanding, in practice. In theory, sure, you can understand something perfectly and still plagiarize. In real life, plagiarists always seem to have a lack of understanding.

Gur responded:

I would still like to see some theory associating honest citation with a higher/deeper level of understanding than (dishonest) plagiarism. Perhaps, Clinton-style, it depends what one understands by “understand.”

I replied that I have no theory on this, only empirics, so I would put the topic up for discussion, kinda like Monopoly when nobody has the spare cash to buy Pennsylvania Avenue so it gets put up for auction.

Gur responded:

Good idea, especially if the post mentions a few cases of plagiarism in which the offender didn’t fully understand the material he was plagiarizing. Ideally the examples should be sufficiently different from each other so as to inspire theoretical on the association between plagiarism & lack of understanding.

OK, just search this blog for discussions of plagiarism or copying without attribution. I suspect that in all cases the offenders did not fully understand the material they were plagiarizing or copying.