References
Ainsworth, J., & Juola, P. (2018). Who wrote this: Modern forensic authorship analysis as a model for valid forensic science. Washington University Law Review, 96, 1161–89.
Argamon, S. (2009). Computational Methods for Counterterrorism. Springer.
Argamon, S. (2018). Computational forensic authorship analysis: Promises and pitfalls. Language and Law/Linguagem e Direito, 5(2), 7–37.
Argamon, S., & Koppel, M. (2013). A systemic functional approach to automated authorship analysis. Journal of Law and Policy, 21, 299–315.
Bailey, R. (1979). Authorship attribution in a forensic setting. In Ager, D. E., Knowles, F. E., & Smith, J. (eds.), Advances in Computer-Aided Literary and Linguistic Research: Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Computers in Literary and Linguistic Computing 1978 Conference (pp. 1–15). Department of Modern Languages, University of Aston in Birmingham.
Bali, A. S., Edmond, G., Ballantyne, K. N., Kemp, R. I., & Martire, K. A. (2020). Communicating forensic science opinion: An examination of expert reporting practices. Science & Justice, 60(3), 216–24.
Bamman, D., Eisenstein, J., & Schnoebelen, T. (2014). Gender identity and lexical variation in social media. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 18(2), 135–60.
Bloch, B. (1948). A set of postulates for phonemic analysis. Language, 24(1), 3–46.
Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2004). Language and identity. In Duranti, A., (ed.), A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology (pp. 369–94). Wiley.
Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4), 585–614.
Canter, D. (1992) An evaluation of the ‘Cusum’ stylistic analysis of confessions. Expert Evidence, 1(3), 93–9.
Cheng, E. K. (2013). Being pragmatic about forensic linguistics. Journal of Law & Policy, 21, 541–50.
Chiang, E., & Grant, T. (2017). Online grooming moves and strategies. Language and Law / Linguagem e Direito, 4(1), 103–41.
Coulthard, M. (1994). On the use of corpora in the analysis of forensic texts. International Journal of Speech Language and the Law, 1(1), 27–43.
Coulthard, M. (2004). Author identification, idiolect, and linguistic uniqueness. Applied Linguistics, 25(4), 431–47.
Coulthard, M., Johnson, A., & Wright, D. (2017). An Introduction to Forensic Linguistics: Language in Evidence. Routledge.
de Haan, P., & Schils, E. (1993) Characteristics of sentence length in running text. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 8(1), 20–6.
de Keijser, J., & Elffers, H. (2012). Understanding of forensic expert reports by judges, defense lawyers and forensic professionals. Psychology, Crime & Law, 18(2), 191–207.
Dror, I. E., Charlton, D., & Péron, A. E. (2006). Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Science International, 156(1), 74–8.
Eckert, P. (2012). Three waves of variation study: The emergence of meaning in the study of variation. Annual Review of Anthropology, 41, 87–100.
Ehrhardt, S. (2007). Forensic linguistics at the German Bundeskriminalamt. In Grewendorf, G. & Rathert, M. (eds.), Formal Linguistics and Law. Mouton de Gruyter.
Evans, C. (1998). The Casebook of Forensic Detection: How Science Solved 100 of the World’s Most Baffling Crimes. Wiley.
Evett, I. W., Berger, C. E. H., Buckleton, J. S., Champod, C., & Jackson, G. (2017). Finding the way forward for forensic science in the US: A commentary on the PCAST report. Forensic Science International, 278, 16–23.
Farringdon, J. M. (1996). Analysing for Authorship: A Guide to the Cusum Technique. University of Wales Press.
Finegan, E. (1990). Variation in linguists’ analyses of author identification. American Speech, 65(4), 334–40.
Finegan, E. (2021, 13–15 September). Bit Parts in Complex Litigation: Experts Need to Follow Up International Association of Forensic Linguists Bienniel Conference, Aston University, UK.
Fitzgerald, J. R. (2017). A Journey to the Center of the Mind Book III. Infinity.
Foster, D. (2000). Author Unknown: On the Trail of Anonymous. Macmillan.
Giménez, R., Elstein, S., & Queralt, S. (2021). The pandemic and the forensic linguistics caseworker’s wellbeing: Effects and recommendations. International Journal of Speech Language and the Law, 27(2), 233–54. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.19548 Grant, T. (1992). An evaluation of the Cusum analysis of the distribution of two and three letter words in a text as a forensic test of authorship [Unpublished MSc dissertation]. University of Birmingham, UK.
Grant, T. (2007). Quantifying evidence in forensic authorship analysis. International Journal of Speech, Language & the Law, 14(1), 1–25.
Grant, T. (2008). Approaching questions in forensic authorship analysis. In Gibbons, J. & Turell, M. T. (eds.), Dimensions of Forensic Linguistics (pp. 215–99). John Benjamins.
Grant, T. (2010). Txt 4n6: Idiolect free authorship analysis? In Coulthard, M. and Johnson, A. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics (pp. 508–22). Routledge.
Grant, T. (2013). Txt 4N6: Method, consistency and distinctiveness in the analysis of SMS text messages. Journal of Law and Policy, 21(2), 467–94.
Grant, T. (2020). Txt 4n6 revisited: Idiolect free authorship analysis? In Coulthard, M., May, A., & Sousa Silva, R. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics (2nd ed.) (pp. 558–75). Routledge.
Grant, T., & Baker, K. (2001). Identifying reliable, valid markers of authorship: A response to Chaski. Forensic Linguistics, 8, 66–79.
Grant, T., & Grieve, J. W. (2022). The Starbuck case: Methods for addressing confirmation bias in forensic authorship analysis. In Picornell, I., Perkins, R., & Coulthard, M. (eds.), Methods in Forensic Linguistic Case Work. Wiley.
Grant, T., & MacLeod, N. (2018). Resources and constraints in linguistic identity performance: A theory of authorship. Language and Law/Linguagem e Direito, 5(1), 80–96.
Grant, T., & MacLeod, N. (2020). Language and Online Identities: The Undercover Policing of Internet Sexual Crime. Cambridge University Press.
Grieve, J. (2007). Quantitative authorship attribution: An evaluation of techniques. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 22, 251–70.
Grieve, J., Clarke, I., Chiang, E., et al. (2019). Attributing the Bixby Letter using n-gram tracing. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 34(3), 493–512.
Hardcastle, R. A. (1993). Forensic linguistics: An assessment of the CUSUM method for the determination of authorship. Journal of the Forensic Science Society, 33(2), 95–106.
Harman, G. (1965). The inference to the best explanation. The Philosophical Review, 74(1), 88–95. doi:10.2307/2183532
Herring, S. C. (2004). Computer-mediated discourse analysis: An approach to researching online behavior. In Barab, S., Kling, R., & Gray, J. (eds.), Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning (pp. 338–76). Cambridge University Press.
Hilton, M. L., & Holmes, D. I. (1993). An assessment of cumulative sum charts for authorship attribution. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 8(2), 73–80.
Hockett, C. F. (1958). A Course in Modern Linguistics. Macmillan.
Hollinger, D. A. (1973). TS Kuhn’s theory of science and its implications for history. The American Historical Review, 78(2), 370–93.
Holmes, D. I., & Tweedie, F. J. (1995). Forensic stylometry: A review of the cusum controversy. Revue Informatique et Statistique dans les Sciences Humaines, 31(1), 19–47.
Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Ishihara, S. (2011). A forensic authorship classification in SMS messages: A likelihood ratio based approach using n-grams. In Molla, D. & Martinez, D. (eds.), Proceedings of the Australasian Language Technology Association Workshop 2011 (pp. 47–56).
Ishihara, S. (2017a). Strength of forensic text comparison evidence from stylometric features: A multivariate likelihood ratio-based analysis. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 24(1), 67–98.
Ishihara, S. (2017b). Strength of linguistic text evidence: A fused forensic text comparison system, Forensic Science International, 278, 184–97.
Jeanguenat, A. M., Budowle, B., & Dror, I. E. (2017). Strengthening forensic DNA decision making through a better understanding of the influence of cognitive bias. Science & Justice, 57(6), 415–20.
Johnstone, B. (1996). The Linguistic Individual: Self-Expression in Language and Linguistics. Oxford University Press.
Johnstone, B. (2009). Stance, style and the linguistic individual. In Jaffe, A. (ed.), Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Stance. Oxford University Press.
Juola, P., & Vescovi, D. (2011). Analyzing stylometric approaches to author obfuscation. In G.L. Peterson & S. Shenoi (eds.), IFIP International Conference on Digital Forensics (pp. 115–25). Springer.
Kaye, T. (1991). Unsafe and unsatisfactory? The report of the independent inquiry into the working practices of the West Midlands Serious Crime Squad. Civil Liberties Trust.
Kestemont, M. (2014). Function words in authorship attribution: From black magic to theory? In Feldman, A., Kazantseva, A. & Szpakowicz, S. (eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Computational Linguistics for Literature (CLfL) at EACL 2014 (pp. 59–66). Gothenburg, Sweden, 27 April 2014.
Kestemont, M., Luyckx, K., Daelemans, W., & Crombez, T. (2012). Cross-genre authorship verification using unmasking. English Studies, 93(3), 340–56.
Kniffka, H. (1981). Der Linguist als Gutachter bei Gericht: Uberlegungen und Materialien zu einer Angewandten Soziolinguistik. Bouvier.
Kniffka, H. (1990). Texte zu Theorie und Praxis forensischer Linguistik. Walter de Gruyter.
Kniffka, H. (1996). Recent Developments in Forensic Linguistics. Peter Lang.
Kniffka, H. (2007). Working in Language and Law. Palgrave Macmillan.
Koppel, M., Akiva, N., & Dagan, I. (2006a). Feature instability as a criterion for selecting potential style markers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(11), 1519–25.
Koppel, M., Schler, J., & Argamon, S. (2011). Authorship attribution in the wild. Language Resources and Evaluation, 45(1), 83–94.
Koppel, M., Schler, J., Argamon, S. & Messeri, E. (2006b). Authorship attribution with thousands of candidate authors. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (pp. 659–60). Association for Computing Machinery.
Kredens, K., Perkins, R., & Grant, T. (2019a). Developing a framework for the explanation of interlingual features for native and other language influence detection. Language and Law/Linguagem e Direito, 6(2), 10–23.
Kredens, K., Pezik, P., Rogers, L., Shiu, S. (2019b). Toward linguistic explanation of idiolectal variation: Understanding the black box. Conference presentation. IAFL 2019 Conference Melbourne, Australia.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
Labov, W. (1966). The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Larner, S. (2014). A preliminary investigation into the use of fixed formulaic sequences as a marker of authorship. International Journal of Speech Language and the Law, 21(1), 1–22.
Lindley, D. V. (1977). Probability and the law. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series D (The Statistician), 26(3), 203–20. www.jstor.org/stable/2987898 Litvinova, T., Seredin, P., Litvinova, O., Dankova, T., & Zagorovskaya, O. (2018, September). On the stability of some idiolectal features. In Karpov, A., Jokisch, O. & Potapova, R. (eds.), International Conference on Speech and Computer (pp. 331–6). Springer.
Locard, E. (1920). L’enquête criminelle et les méthodes scientifiques. Flammarion.
Love, H. (2002). Attributing Authorship: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press.
Lucy, D. (2013). Introduction to Statistics for Forensic Scientists. Wiley.
Martire, K. A., Kemp, R. I., Sayle, M., & Newell, B. R. (2014). On the interpretation of likelihood ratios in forensic science evidence: Presentation formats and the weak evidence effect. Forensic Science International, 240, 61–8.
Martire, K. A., Kemp, R. I., Watkins, I., Sayle, M. A., & Newell, B. R. (2013). The expression and interpretation of uncertain forensic science evidence: Verbal equivalence, evidence strength, and the weak evidence effect. Law and Human Behavior, 37(3), 197.
McMenamin, G. R. (1993). Forensic Stylistics. Elsevier.
McMenmain, G. R. (2002). Forensic Linguistics: Advances in Forensic Stylistics. Routledge.
Morrison, G. S. (2018). The impact in forensic voice comparison of lack of calibration and of mismatched conditions between the known-speaker recording and the relevant-population sample recordings, Forensic Science International, 283, e1–e7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2017.12.024 Morrison, G. S., Enzinger, E., Hughes, V., et al. (2021). Consensus on validation of forensic voice comparison. Science & Justice, 61(3), 299–309.
Morton, A. Q. (1991). Proper Words in Proper Places: A General Introduction to the Use of Cumulative Sum Techniques for Identifying the Source of Written or Spoken Utterance. Department of Computing Science, University of Glasgow.
Mosteller, F., & Wallace, D. L. (1964). Inference and Disputed Authorship: The Federalist. Addison-Wesley
Mosteller, F., & Wallace, D. L. (1989). Deciding authorship. In Tanur, Judith et al. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences (pp. 115–31) Wiley.
Narayanan, A., Paskov, H., Gong, N. Z., et al. (2012, May). On the feasibility of internet-scale author identification. In 2012 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (pp. 300–14). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
NAS: National Research Council of the [United States] National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community (2009). Strengthening forensic science in the United States: A path forward. www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228091.pdf Nathan, C. (2017). Liability to deception and manipulation: The ethics of undercover policing. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 34(3), 370–88.
Newton, R. G. (1997). The Truth of Science: Physical Theories and Reality. Harvard University Press.
Nini, A. (2015). Authorship profiling in a forensic context. PHD thesis. Aston University.
Nini, A., & Grant, T. (2013). Bridging the gap between stylistic and cognitive approaches to authorship analysis using systemic functional linguistics and multidimensional analysis. International Journal of Speech, Language & the Law, 20(2), 173–202.
Nisbet, R. (2009). History of the Idea of Progress. 2nd ed. Transaction.
Ross, D. Jr. (1977). The sue of word-class distribution data for stylistics: Keats sonnets and chicken soup. Poetics, 6, 169–95.
Ruder, S., Ghaffari, P., & Breslin, J. G. (2016). Character-level and multi-channel convolutional neural networks for large-scale authorship attribution. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.06686.
Saks, M. J., & Koehler, J. J. (2005). The coming paradigm shift in forensic identification science. Science, 309(5736), 892–5.
Sanford, A. I., Aked, J. F., Moxey, L. M., & Mullin, J. (1994). A critical cxamination of assumptions underlying the cusum technique of forensic linguistics. Forensic Linguistics, 1(2), 151–67.
Sankey, H. (2018). Rationality, Relativism and Incommensurability. Routledge.
Searle, J. R. (1975). A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. Language, Mind and Knowledge: Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. 344–69.
Siegel, H. (1987). Kuhn and relativism: Is he or isn’t he? In Relativism Refuted (pp. 47–69). Springer.
Solan, L. M. (2013). Intuition versus algorithm: The case of forensic authorship attribution. JL & Pol’y, 21, 551.
Song, C. (2010). The Washing Away of Wrongs: Collected Cases of Injustice Rectified (original work published 1247) [2010 edition Giles, H. A., translator; Hall, M. C., editor) Lulu Press].
Stamatatos, E. (2009). A survey of modern authorship attribution methods. Journal of the American Society for information Science and Technology, 60(3), 538–56.
Stoel, R. D., Berger, C. E. H., Kerkhoff, W., Mattijssen, E. J. A. T., & Dror, E. I. (2015). Minimizing contextual bias in forensic casework. In Strom, K. J. & Hickman, M. J. (eds.), Forensic Science and the Administration of Justice: Critical Issues and Directions (pp. 67–86). Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483368740.n5 Svartvik, J. (1968). The Evans Statements: A Case for Forensic Linguistics. University of Goteburg.
Swofford, H., & Champod, C. (2021). Implementation of algorithms in pattern & impression evidence: A responsible and practical roadmap. Forensic Science International: Synergy, 3, 100142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2021.100142 Theóphilo, A., Pereira, L. A., & Rocha, A. (2019). A needle in a haystack? Harnessing onomatopoeia and user-specific stylometrics for authorship attribution of micro-messages. In ICASSP 2019–2019 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) (pp. 2692–6). IEEE.
Thompson, W., Black, J., Jain, A., & Kadane, J. (2017). Forensic Science Assessments: A Quality and Gap Analysis–Latent Fingerprint Examination. American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Tiersma, P., & Solan, L. M. (2002). The linguist on the witness stand: Forensic linguistics in American courts. Language, 78, 221–239.
United States Department of Justice (DOJ) (2021). United States Department of Justice statement on the PCAST Report: Forensic science in criminal courts: Ensuring scientific validity of feature-comparison methods. www.justice.gov/olp/page/file/1352496/download Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge. Harvard Business Review Press.
Whittle, H., Hamilton-Giachritsis, C., Beech, A., & Collings, G. (2013). A review of online grooming: Characteristics and concerns. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18(1), 62–70.
Woodhams, J., Hollin, C. R., & Bull, R. (2007). The psychology of linking crimes: A review of the evidence. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 12(2), 233–49.
Wright, D. (2013). Stylistic variation within genre conventions in the Enron email corpus: Developing a text sensitive methodology for authorship research. International Journal of Speech, Language & the Law, 20(1).
Wright, D. (2017). Using word n-grams to identify authors and idiolects: A corpus approach to a forensic linguistic problem. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(2), 212–41.
UK Cases
R. v. Turner [1975] Law Reports, Queen’s Bench (Court of Appeal), 834–43
R. v. Hodgson appeal [2009] EWCA Crim 742
R. v. Dlugosz [2013] EWCA Crim 2
Young v. Her Majesty’s Advocate [2013] HCJAC 145
Criminal Practice Directions [2015] EWCA Crim 1567
Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd v. Zafar [2019] EWCA Civ 392
Federal Rules of Evidence 702
US Cases
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (509 U.S. 579 (1993))
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael (119 S.Ct. 1167 (1999))
Dale Brisco v. VFE corporation Superior Court of Fresno County, California, 1984
Brisco v. VFE Corp, and Related Cross-Action, 272028–2, Superior Court of Fresno County, California, 1984
The Hague Court of Appeal
