Authorship attribution under the rules of evidence: Empirical approaches - A layperson's legal system

International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 219-247

  Howald, Blake Stephen ^a  

^a GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Authentication; Authorship attribution; Experttestimony; Stylistics

Indexed keywords

EID: 62349106871     PISSN: 17488885     EISSN: 17488893     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1558/ijsll.vl5i2.219     Document Type: Article

References (97)

1. Abercrombie, D. (1969) Voice qualities. In N. Markel (ed.) Psycholinguistics: an introduction to the study of speech and personality. London: The Dorsey Press.
2. Ainsworth, J. (2006) Linguistics as a knowledge domain in the law. Drake Law Review 54: 651-669.
3. Aitken, C. and Stoney, D. (1991) The Use of Statistics in Forensic Science. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
4. Aitken, C. and Taroni, F. (2004) Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists. Indianapolis, IN: John Wiley and Sons Inc.
5. Baayen, H., van Halteran, H., Neijt, A. and Tweedie, F. (2002) An experiment in authorship attribution. 6th Journees Internationales d'Analyse Statistique des Donnees Textuelles.
6. Barber, A. (2001) Idiolectal error. Mind and Language 16(3): 263-283.
7. Beecher-Monas, E. (1998) Blinded by science: how judges avoid the science in scientific evidence. Temple Law Review 71: 55-102.
8. Beecher-Monas, E. (2003) Heuristics, biases, and the importance of gatekeeping. Michigan State Law Review 200: 987-1022.
9. Canter, D. and Chester, J. (1997) Investigation into the claim of weighted Cusum in authorship attribution studies. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 4(2): 252-61.
10. Chaski, C. (1997) Who wrote it? Steps toward a science of authorship identification. National Institute of Justice Journal 233: 15-22.
11. Chaski, C. (1998) A Daubert-inspired assessment of current techniques for language-based author identification. NCJ 172234.
12. Chaski, C. (2001) Empirical evaluation of language-based author identification techniques. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 8(1): 1-65.
13. Chaski, C. (2005a) Who's at the keyboard? Authorship attribution in digital evidence investigations. International Journal of Digital Evidence 4(1). Retrieved on 23 August 2007 at http://www.utica.edu/academic/ institutes/ecii/ijde/articles. cfm?action=issue&id=11
14. Chaski, C. (2005b) Discriminant function analysis in forensic authorship attribution. Classification Society of North America Proceedings, St Louis, MO.
15. Chaski, C. Howald, B. and Parker, J. (2006) Text-typing threat letters. Conference presentation, Law and Society Association, Baltimore, MD.
16. Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17. Chomsky, N. (1986) Knowledge of Language: its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.
18. Cotterill, J. (ed.) (2002) Language in the Legal Process. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
19. Coulthard, M. (1994a) On the use of corpora in the analysis of forensic texts. Forensic Linguistics 1: 27-44.
20. Coulthard, M. (1994b) Forensic discourse analysis. In M. Coulthard (ed.) Advances in Written Text Analysis 242-258. London: Routledge.
21. Coulthard, M. (2004) Author identification, idiolect, and linguistic uniqueness. Applied Linguistics 25(4): 43-47.
22. Coulthard, M. and Johnson, A. (2008) An Introduction to Forensic Linguistics: language in evidence. London: Routledge.
23. Crystal, D. (1995) Book review: Forensic Stylistics by Gerald R. McMenamin. Language 71(2): 381-85.
24. Davidson, D. (1984) Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. New York, NY: Oxlord University Press.
25. Davidson, D. (1986) A nice derangement of epitaphs. In E. Lepore (ed.) Truth and Interpretation: perspectives on the philosophy of Donald Davidson. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
26. Deason, E. (1998) Court-appointed expert witnesses: scientific positivism meets bias and deference. Oregon Law Review 77: 59-156.
27. Dillon, D. (1995) A review of Forensic Stylistics. Journal of Forensic Science 40: 325-26.
28. Ellegåd, A. (1962) Who was Junius? Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.
29. Faigman, D., Kaye, D., Saks, M. and Sanders, J. (2002a) Science in the Law: forensic science issues. St. Paul, MN: West Group.
30. Faigman, D., Kaye, D., Saks, M. and Sanders, J. (2002b) Science in the Law: standards, statistics and research issues. St. Paul, MN: West Group.
31. Farrell, M. (1994) Coping with scientific evidence: the use of special masters. Emory Law Journal 43: 927-993.
32. Farringdon, J. (1996) Analyzing for Authorship: a guide to the Cusum technique. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.
33. Feynman, R. (1974) Engineering and Science 37:7 (June): 10-13 .
34. Reprinted in Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! Norton (1985) 338-46.
35. Fodor, J. and Bever, T. (1965) The psychological reality of linguistic segments. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 4: 414-20.
36. Frantzeskou, G., Stamatatos, E., Gritzalis, S., Chaski, C. and Howald, B. (2007) Identifying authorship by byte-level n-grams: the Source Code Author Profile (SCAP) Method. International Journal of Digital Evidence. 6(1): Spring 2007.
37. Garman, M. (1990) Psycholinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38. Gibbons, J. (2003) Forensic Linguistics: an introduction to language in the justice system. United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing Limited.
39. Golanski, A. (2001) Why legal scholars get Daubert wrong: a contextualist explanation of law's epistemology. Whittier Law Review 22: 653-721.
40. Good, P. (2001) Applying Statistics in the Courtroom: a new approach for attorneys and expert witnesses. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC.
41. Graham, N., Hirst, G. and Marthi, B. (2005) Segmenting documents by stylistic character. Natural Language Engineering 11(3): 397-415.
42. Grant, T. (2005) Authorship Attribution in a Forensic Context. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Birmingham.
43. Grant, T. (2007a) Calculating TXTual Distance in Forensic Authorship Analysis. Conference presentation at International Association of Forensic Linguists 8 (IAFL 8). Seattle, Washington, July 2007.
44. Grant, T. (2007b) Quantifying evidence in forensic authorship analysis. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 14(1): 1-25.
45. Grant, T. and Baker, K. (2001) Identifying reliable, valid markers of authorship: a response to Chaski. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 8(1): 66-79.
46. Halliday, M. McIntosh, A. and Strevens, P. (1964) The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching. London: Macmillan.
47. Houck, M. and Siegel, J. (2006) Fundamentals of Forensic Science. London: Elsevier Academic Press.
48. Howald, B. (2006) Comparative and non-comparative forensic linguistic analysis techniques: methodologies for negotiating the interface of linguistics and evidentiary jurisprudence in the American judiciary. University of Detroit Mercy Law Review 83: 285-330.
49. Howald, B. (2007) Authorship attribution under the rules of evidence: Empirical approaches in a layperson's legal system. Conference presentation at the International Association of Forensic Linguists 8 (IAFL 8). Seattle, Washington, July 2007.
50. Howald, B. (2008) Cross-cultural and comparative jurisprudential perspectives on expert testimony: the role of linguist as educator and access to justice. Conference presentation at the International Association of Applied Linguistics (AILA), Essen, Germany, August 2008.
51. Imwinkelried, E. (2003a) Peer dialogue: the how and what of 'appropriate validation under Daubert: reconsidering the treatment of Einstein and Freud. Missouri Law Review 68: 43-52.
52. Imwinkelried, E. (2003b) The meaning of 'appropriate validation' in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., interpreted in light of the broader rationalist tradition, not the narrow scientific tradition. Florida State University Law Review 30: 735-766.
53. Kaye, D. (2005) On 'falsification' and 'falsifiability': the first Daubert factor and the philosophy of science. Jurimelrics Journal 45: 473-481.
54. Kiely, T. (2005) Forensic Evidence: science and the criminal law, 2e. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
55. Kim, H. (2001) Adversarialism defended: Daubert and the judge's role in evaluating expert evidence. Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems 34: 223-251.
56. Kesan, J. (1996) An autopsy of scientific evidence in a post-Daubert world. Georgetown Law Journal 84: 1985-2041.
57. Kniffka, LI. (2007) Working in Language and Law: a German perspective. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
58. Koppel, M. and Schler, J. (2003) Exploiting stylistic idiosyncrasies for authorship attribution. In Proceedings of IJCAI '03 Workshop on Computational Approaches to Style Analysis and Synthesis. Acapulco, Mexico.
59. Kredens, K. (2000) Forensic Linguistics and the Status of Linguistic Evidence in the Legal Selling. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Lodz.
60. Kredens, K. and Gozdz-Roszkowski, S. (eds) (2007) Language & Law: international outlooks. (Lodz Studies in Language, Vol. 16.) Berlin: Peter Lang Publishing Group.
61. Kuhn, T. (1996) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. (Third edition.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
62. Labov, W. (1987) How I got into linguistics and what I got out of it. Online essay. Retrieved on 23 August 2007 at http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~wlabov/ HowIgot.html
63. McMenamin, G. (2002) Forensic Linguistics: advances in forensic slylistics. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
64. McMenamin, G. (2004) Disputed authorship in US law. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 11(1): 73-82.
65. McMenamin, G. (2006) The Admission of Expert Linguistic Evidence in Cases of Disputed Authorship. Conference presentation at the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Seattle, Washington.
66. Mesthrie, R., Swann, J., Deumert, A. and Leap, W. (2000) Introducing Sociolinguistics. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
67. Michaelson, S. and Morton, A. (1990) The Qsum Plot. Internal Report CSR-3-90. Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh.
68. Moenssens, A. (1984) Admissibility of scientific evidence: an alternative to Frye. William and Mary Law Review 25: 545-568.
69. Moenssens, A., Starrs, J., Henderson, C. and Inbau, F. (1995) Scientific Evidence in Civil and Criminal Cases. (Fourth edition.) Westbury, New York: The Foundation Press, Inc.
70. Mosteller, F. and Wallace, D. L. (1984) Applied Bayesian and Classical Inference: the case of the Federalist Papers. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
71. Olsson, J. (2004) Forensic Linguistics: an introduction to language, crime and the law. United Kingdom: Continuum Press.
72. Olsson, J. (2008) Forensic Linguistics: an introduction to language, crime and the law. (Second edition.) United Kingdom: Continuum Press.
73. Popper, K. (2002) The Logic of Scientific Discovery. (Author's English translation of 1934 German edition.) London: Routledge.
74. Quinlan, J. (1993) C4.5: programs for machine learning. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
75. Robertson, B. and Vignaux, G. (1995) Interpreting Evidence: evaluating forensic science in the courtroom. Indianapolis, IN: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
76. Saks, M. and Koehler, J. (2005) The coming paradigm shift in forensic identification science. Science 309: 892-895.
77. Sanders, J., Diamond, S. and Vidmar, N. (2002) Legal perceptions of science and expert knowledge. Psychology Public Policy and Law 8: 139-153.
78. Spair, E. (1927) Speech as a personality trait. American Journal of Sociology 32: 892-905.
79. Schane, S. (2006) Language and the Law. London: Continuum Press.
80. Schiffrin, D. (1987) Discourse Markers. New York: Cambridge University Press.
81. Schwartz, A. (1997) Dogma of empiricism revisited: Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and the need to resurrect the philosophical insight of Frye v. United States. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology 10: 149-237.
82. Shuy, R. (1993) Language Crimes: the use and abuse of language evidence in the courtroom. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
83. Shuy, R. (1998) The Language of Confession, Interrogation, and Deception. California: Sage.
84. Shuy, R. (2002) Linguistic Battles in Trademark Disputes. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
85. Shuy, R. (2005) Creating Language Crime: how law enforcement uses (and misuses) language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
86. Shuy, R. (2006) Linguistics in the Courtroom: a practical guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
87. Solan, L. and Tiersma, P. (2004) Author identification in American courts. Applied Linguistics 25(4): 448-465.
88. Solan, L. and Tiersma, P. (2005) Speaking of Crime: the language of criminal justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
89. Svartvik, J. (1968) The Evans Statements: a case for forensic linguistics. Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksell.
90. Stamatatos, E., Fakotakis, N. and Kokkinakis, G. (2000) Automatic text categorization in terms of genre and author. Computational Linguistics 26(4): 471-495.
91. Stamatatos, E., Fakotakis, N. and Kokkinakis, G. (2001) Computer-based authorship attribution without lexical measures. Computers and the Humanities 35: 193-214.
92. Tiersma, P. and Solan, L. (2002) The linguist on the witness stand: forensic linguistics in American courts. Language 78: 229-230.
93. Vapnik, V. (1995) The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
94. de Vel, O., Anderson, A., Corney, M. and Mohay, G. (2001) Multi-topic E-mail Authorship Attribution Forensics. Conference presentation at the ACM Conference on Computer Security: Workshop on Data Mining for Security Applications. Philadelphia, PA.
95. Weinreich, U., Labov, W. and Herzog, M. (1968) Empirical Foundations for a 'Theory of Language Change. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
96. Winter, E. (1996) The statistics of analyzing very short texts in a criminal context. In H. Kniffka, M. CouIthard and S. Blackwell (eds) Recent Developments in Forensic Linguistics 141-179. New York, NY: Peter Lang Verlag.
97. Zipf, G.K. (1935) The Psychobiology of Language. Boston: Houghton-MiffIin.