Aarsand, P. (2008). Frame switches and identity performances: Alternating between online and offline. Text and Talk 28:2, pp. 147–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Al-Sa’Di, R. and Hamdan, J. (2005). ‘Synchronous online chat’ English: Computer-mediated communication. World Englishes 24:4, pp. 409–424.Google Scholar

Androutsopoulos, J. (2006). Introduction: Sociolinguistics and computer-mediated communication. Journal of Sociolinguistics 10:4, pp. 419–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Androutsopoulos, J. and Georgakopoulou, A. (2003). Discourse constructions of youth identities: Introduction. In Androutsopoulos, J. and Georgakopoulou, A. (eds.), Discourse Constructions of Youth Identities. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–25.Google Scholar

Angouri, J. (2016). Online communities of practice. In Georgakopoulou, A. and Spilioti, T. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Language and Digital Communication. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 323–338.Google Scholar

Antaki, C. and Widdicombe, S. (1998). Identity as an achievement and as a tool. In Antaki, C. and Widdicombe, S. (eds.) Identities in Talk. London: Sage, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar

Antaki, C. and Widdicombe, S. (eds.) (2008). Identities in Talk. London: Sage, p. 1.Google Scholar

Argamon, S. and Koppel, M. (2012). A systemic functional approach to automated authorship analysis. Journal of Law and Policy 21, pp. 299–315.Google Scholar

Argamon, S., Koppel, M., Fine, J. and Shimoni, A. R. (2003). Gender, genre, and writing style in formal written texts. Text 23:3, pp. 321–346.Google Scholar

Argamon, S., Koppel, M., Pennebaker, J. W. and Schler, J. (2009). Automatically profiling the author of an anonymous text. Communications of the ACM 52:2, pp. 119–123.Google Scholar

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar

Babchishin, K. M., Hanson, R. K. and Hermann, C. A. (2010). The characteristics of online sex offenders: A meta-analysis. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 23:1, pp. 92–123.Google Scholar

Baker, P. (2001). Moral panic and alternative identity construction in Usenet. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 7:1. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2001.tb00136.xGoogle Scholar

Bamman, D., Eisenstein, J. and Schnoebelen, T. (2014). Gender identity and lexical variation in social media. Journal of Sociolinguistics 18, pp. 135–160.Google Scholar

Barber, C. S. and Bettez, S. C. (2014). Deconstructing the online grooming of youth: Toward improved information systems for detection of online sexual predators. Thirty Fifth International Conference on Information Systems, Auckland 2014.Google Scholar

Baron, N. (2004). See you online: Gender issues in college student use of instant messaging. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 23, pp. 397–423.Google Scholar

Baron, N. (2010). Discourse structures in instant messaging: The case of utterance breaks. Language @Internet 7. www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2010/2651Google Scholar

Baron, N. (2013). Instant messaging. In Herring, S., Stein, D. and Virtanen, T. (eds.), Pragmatics of Computer-Mediated Communication. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 135–162.Google Scholar

Barton, D. and Lee, C. (2013). Language Online: Investigating Digital Texts and Practices. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar

Beech, N. (2008). On the nature of dialogic identity work. Organization 15:1, pp. 51–74.Google Scholar

Benwell, B. and Stokoe, E. (2006). Discourse and Identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Bergen, E., Davidson, J. Schulz, A., Scuhmass, P. Johansson, A., Santtila, P. and Jern, P. (2014). The effects of using identity deception and suggesting secrecy on the outcomes of adult-adult and adult-child or -adolescent online sexual interactions. Victims and Offenders 9:3, pp. 276–298.Google Scholar

Bernstein, B. (1971). Class, Codes and Control. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Biber, D. (1988). Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Biber, D. and Conrad, S. (2009). Register, Genre and Style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Black, P., Wollis, M., Woodworth, M. and Hancock, J. (2015). A linguistic analysis of grooming strategies of online child sex offenders: Implications for our understanding of predatory sexual behavior in an increasingly computer-mediated world. Child Abuse and Neglect 44, pp. 140–149.Google Scholar

Block, D. (2013). Issues in language and identity research in applied linguistics. ELIA 13, pp. 11–46. http://institucional.us.es/revistas/elia/13/art_1.pdfGoogle Scholar

Briggs, P., Simon, W. T. and Simonsen, S. (2011). An exploratory study of Internet-initiated sexual offenses and the chat room sex offender: Has the Internet enabled a new typology of sex offender? Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 23, pp. 72–91.Google Scholar

Brubaker, R. and Cooper, F. (2000). Beyond ‘identity’. Theory and Society 29, pp. 1–47.Google Scholar

Bryce, J. (2010). Online sexual exploitation of children and young people. In Jewkes, Y. E. and Yar, M. E. (eds.), Handbook of Internet Crime. Cullompton, UK: Willan Publishing, pp. 320–342.Google Scholar

Bucholtz, M. (1999). ‘Why be normal?’: Language and identity practices in a community of nerd girls. Language in Society 28:2, pp. 203–223.Google Scholar

Bucholtz, M. and Hall, K. (2004). Language and identity. In Duranti, A. (ed.), A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 369–394.Google Scholar

Bucholtz, M. and Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociolinguistic cultural approach. Discourse Studies 7:4–5, pp. 585–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Burger, J. D., Henderson, J., Kim, G. and Zarrella, G. (2011). Discriminating gender on Twitter. Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing 2011, Edinburgh, UK, pp. 1301– 1309.Google Scholar

Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Butters, R. (2010). The forensic linguist’s professional credentials. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 16:2, pp. 237–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chaski, C. (2001). Empirical evaluations of language-based author identification techniques. Forensic Linguistics: The International Journal of Speech Language and the Law 8:1, pp. 1–65.Google Scholar

Cheng, E. (2013). Being pragmatic about forensic linguistics. Journal of Law and Social Policy 2:1, pp. 541–550.Google Scholar

Chiang, E. (2018). Rhetorical moves and identity performance in online child sexual abuse interactions. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Aston University, Birmingham, UK.Google Scholar

Chiang, E. and Grant, T. (2017). Online grooming: Moves and strategies. Language and Law/Linguagem e Direito 4:1, pp. 103–141.Google Scholar

Chiang, E. and Grant, T. D. (2019). Deceptive identity performance: Offender moves and multiple personas in online child abuse conversations. Applied Linguistics 40:4, pp. 675–698.Google Scholar

Clevenger, S. L., Navarro, J. N. and Gilliam, M. (2018). Technology and the endless ‘cat and mouse’ game: A review of the interpersonal cybervictimization literature. Sociology Compass 12:12, p. e121639.Google Scholar

Coulthard, M. (2004). Authorship identification, idiolect and linguistic uniqueness. Applied Linguistics 25:4, pp. 431–447.Google Scholar

Coulthard, M., Grant, T. and Kredens, K. (2011). Forensic linguistics. In Wodak, R., Johnstone, B. and Kerswill, P. (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Sociolinguistics. London: SAGE, pp. 529–544.Google Scholar

Coupland, N. (2007). Style: Language Variation and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Cover, R. (2016). Digital Identities: Creating and Communicating the Online Self. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar

CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) (2014). Expert Evidence: Legal Guidance. www.cps.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/legal_guidance/expert_evidence_first_edition_2014.pdfGoogle Scholar

CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) (2015). Annual Report and Accounts 2014–15. www.cps.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/publications/annual_report_2014_15.pdfGoogle Scholar

Craven, S., Brown, S. and Gilchrist, E. (2006). Sexual grooming of children: Review of literature and theoretical considerations. Journal of Sexual Aggression 12:3, pp. 287–299.Google Scholar

Crystal, D. (2001). Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Danet, B. (1998). Text as mask: Gender, play and performance on the internet. In Jones, S. G. (ed.), Cybersociety 2.0: Revisiting Computer-Mediated Communication and Community. London: Sage, pp. 129–158.Google Scholar

Darics, E. (2014). The blurring boundaries between synchronicity and asynchronicity: New communicative situations in work-related instant messaging. International Journal of Business Communication 51:4, pp. 337–358.Google Scholar

Darics, E. (2017). E-leadership or ‘how to be a boss in instant messaging?’: The role of nonverbal communication. International Journal of Business Communication. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488416685068Google Scholar

Davies, B. (2005). Communities of practice: Legitimacy not choice. Journal of Sociolinguistics 9:4, pp. 557–581.Google Scholar

de Fina, A. (2010) The negotiation of identities. In Locher, M. and Graham, S. L. (eds.), Interpersonal Pragmatics. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 205–224.Google Scholar

de Fina, A. (2011). Discourse and identity. In van Dijk, T. (ed.), Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. London: Sage, pp. 263–282.Google Scholar

de Siqueira, A. and Herring, S. C. (2009). Temporal patterns in student-advisor instant messaging exchanges: Individual variation and accommodation. Proceedings of the Forty-Second Hawai’i International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-42). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Press.Google Scholar

Dombrowski, S. C., Le Masney, J. W., Ahia, C. E. and Dickson, S. A. (2004). Protecting children from online sexual predators: Technological, psychoeducational, and legal considerations. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 35, pp. 65–73.Google Scholar

Donath, J. (1999). Identity and deception in the virtual community. In Smith, M. and Kollock, P. (eds.), Communities in Cyberspace. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 29–59.Google Scholar

Dresner, E. and Herring, S. C. (2010). Functions of the non-verbal in CMC: Emoticons and illocutionary force. Communication Theory 20:1, pp. 249–268.Google Scholar

Drummond, R. (2017). (Mis)interpreting urban youth language: White kids sounding black? Journal of Youth Studies 20:5, pp. 640–660.Google Scholar

Eckert, P. (2000). Linguistic Variation as Social Practice. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Eckert, P. (2006). Communities of practice. The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 683–685.Google Scholar

Eckert, P. and McConnell-Ginet, S. (1992). Think practically and look locally: Language and gender as community–based practice. Annual Review of Anthropology 21, pp. 461–490.Google Scholar

Edwards, J. (2009). Language and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Eysenck, M. (2014). Fundamentals of Psychology. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fadden, L. and Solan, L. (2015). Expert witness communication. In Oxburgh, G., Myklebust, T., Grant, T. and Milne, R. (eds.), Communication in Investigative and Legal Contexts: Integrated Approaches from Forensic Psychology, Linguistics and Law Enforcement. Chichester: Wiley, pp. 209–228.Google Scholar

Georgakopoulou, A. (2006). Small and large identities in narrative (inter)action. In de Fina, A., Schiffrin, D. and Bamberg, M. (eds.), Discourse and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 83–102.Google Scholar

Georgakopoulou, A. (2011). ‘On for drinkies?’: Email cues of participant alignments. Language@Internet 8. www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2011/GeorgakopoulouGoogle Scholar

Giles, H. and Powesland, P. F. (1975). Speech Style and Social Evaluation. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Gillespie, A. A. (2008). Cyber-stings: Policing sexual offences on the internet. The Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles 81, pp. 196–208.Google Scholar

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. London: Harper and Row.Google Scholar

Goffman, E. (1978). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. London: Harmondsworth.Google Scholar

Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar

Graham, S. L. (2016). Relationality, friendship and identity. In Georgakopoulou, A. and Spiloti, T. (eds.), Handbook of Language and Digital Communication. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 305–319.Google Scholar

Grant, T. (2010). Text messaging forensics: Txt 4n6: idiolect free authorship analysis? In Coulthard, M. and Johnson, A. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 508–522.Google Scholar

Grant, T. (2013). TXT 4N6: Method, consistency, and distinctiveness in the analysis of SMS text messages. Journal of Law and Policy 21:2, pp. 467–494.Google Scholar

Grant, T. (2017). Duppying yoots in a dog eat dog world, kmt: Determining the senses of slang terms for the Courts. Semiotica 2017:216, pp. 479–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grant, T. and Baker, K. (2001). Identifying reliable, valid markers of authorship: A response to Chaski. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 8:1, pp. 66–79.Google Scholar

Grant, T. and MacLeod, N. (2016). Assuming identities online: Linguistics applied to the policing of online paedophile activity. Applied Linguistics 37:1, pp. 50–70.Google Scholar

Grant, T. and MacLeod, N. (2018). Resources and constraints in linguistic identity performance – A theory of authorship. Language and Law/Linguagem e Direito 5:1, pp. 80–96.Google Scholar

Grant, T., and Woodhams, J. (2007). Rape as social activity: An application of investigative linguistics. In Cotterill, J. (ed.), The Language of Sexual Crime. Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 1–15.Google Scholar

Grieve, J. (2017). Spatial statistics for dialectology. In Boberg, C., Nerbonne, J. and Watt, D. (eds.), The Handbook of Dialectology. Chichester: Wiley, pp. 415–433.Google Scholar

Grieve, J., Clarke, I., Chiang, E., Gideon, H., Heini, A., Nini, A. and Waibel, E. (2019). Attributing the Bixby Letter using n-gram tracing. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities. 34:3, pp. 471–706Google Scholar

Gumperz, J. (1964). Linguistic and social interaction in two communities. American Anthropologist 66:6(Part 2), pp. 137–153.Google Scholar

Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hård af Segerstad, Y. (2002 ). Use and adaptation of written language to the conditions of computer-mediated communication. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Göteborg University, Sweden.Google Scholar

Hardaker, C. and McGlashan, M. (2016). ‘Real men don’t hate women’: Twitter rape threats and group identity. Journal of Pragmatics 91, pp. 80–93.Google Scholar

Hepburn, A. and Wiggins, S. (2007). Discursive research: Themes and debates. In Hepburn, A. and Wiggins, S. (eds.), Discursive Research in Practice: New Approaches to Psychology and Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–28.Google Scholar

Herring, S. C. (1993). Gender and democracy in computer-mediated communication. Electronic Journal of Communication 3:2, pp. 1–17.Google Scholar

Herring, S. C. (1999). Interactional coherence in CMC. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 4:4. 1 June 1999, JCMC444, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1999.tb00106.xGoogle Scholar

Herring, S. C. (2001). Computer-mediated discourse. In Tannen, D., Schiffrin, D. and Hamilton, H. (eds.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 612–634.Google Scholar

Herring, S. C. (2003). Gender and power in on-line communication. In Holmes, J. and Meyerhoff, M. (eds.), Handbook of Language and Gender. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 202–228.Google Scholar

Herring, S. C. (2004). Computer-mediated discourse analysis: An approach to researching online behavior. In Barab, S. A., Kling, R. and Gray, J. H. (eds.), Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 338–376.Google Scholar

Herring, S. C. (2007). A faceted classification scheme for computer-mediated discourse, Language@Internet www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2007/761Google Scholar

Herring, S. C. (2012). Discourse in Web 2.0: Familiar, reconfigured and emergent. In Tannen, D. and Tester, A. M. (eds.), Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 2011: Discourse 2.0: Language and New Media. Washington, DC, pp. 1–29.Google Scholar

Herring, S. C. (2013). Relevance in computer-mediated conversation. In Herring, S. C., Stein, D. and Virtanen, T. (eds.), Pragmatics of Computer-mediated Communication. Berlin: Mouton, pp. 245–268.Google Scholar

Herring, S. C. (2014). Research: Computer-mediated communication. ASIS&T Bulletin, 40:3. www.asis.org/Bulletin/Feb-14/FebMar14_Herring.htmlGoogle Scholar

Herring, S. C., Johnson, D. A. and DiBenedetto, T. (1998). Participation in electronic discourse in a ‘feminist’ field. In Coates, J. (ed.), Language and Gender: A Reader. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 197–210.Google Scholar

Herring, S. C. and Kapidzic, S. (2015). Teens, gender, and self-presentation in social media. In Wright, J. D. (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed, Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 146–152.Google Scholar

Herring, S. and Nix, C. (1997). Is serious chat an oxymoron? Academic vs. social uses of internet relay chat. Paper presented at the American Association of Applied Linguistics, Orlando, FL, 11 March.Google Scholar

Herring, S. C., Stein, D. and Virtanen, T. (2013). Introduction to the pragmatics of computer-mediated communication. In Herring, S. C., Stein, D. and Virtanen, T. (eds.), Pragmatics of Computer-Mediated Communication. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 3–32.Google Scholar

Hine, C. (2000). Virtual Ethnography. London: Sage.Google Scholar

HMIC. (2014). An inspection of undercover policing in England and Wales. www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmic/publications/an-inspection-of-undercover-policing-in-england-and-wales/Google Scholar

Home Office. (2002). Protecting the public: strengthening protection against sex offenders and reforming the law on sexual offences. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20131205101157/http://www.archive2.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm56/5668/5668.pdfGoogle Scholar

Home Office. (2010). Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP): The Way Forward. https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/10569/1/7785.pdfGoogle Scholar

Hockett, C. F. (1958). A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar

Howald, B. (2008). Authorship attribution under the rules of evidence: empirical approaches in the layperson legal system. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 15:2, pp. 219–247.Google Scholar

Isaacs, E., Walendowski, A., Whittaker, S., Schiano, D. J. and Kamm, C. (2002). The character, function and styles of instant messaging in the workplace. Proceedings of the 2002 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Co-operative Work. ACM: New York City.Google Scholar

Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Johnson, A. and Wright, D. (2014). Identifying idiolect in forensic authorship attribution: an n-gram textbite approach. Language and Law/ Linguagem e Direito 1:1, pp. 37–69.Google Scholar

Johnstone, B. (1996). The Linguistic Individual: Self Expression in Language and Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Johnstone, B. (2000). The individual voice in language. Annual Review of Anthropology 29:1, pp. 405–424.Google Scholar

Johnstone, B. (2009). Stance, style and the linguistic individual. In Jaffe, A. (ed.), Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 29–52.Google Scholar

Johnstone, B. (2010). Indexing the local. In Coupland, N. (ed.), Handbook of Language and Globalization. Chichester: Wiley, pp. 386–405.Google Scholar

Juola, P. (2006). Authorship attribution. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval 1, pp. 233–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kachru, B. B. (1990). World Englishes and applied linguistics. World Englishes 9:1, pp. 3–20.Google Scholar

Kesseler, A. and Bergs, A. (2003). Literacy and the new media. In Aitchison, J. and Lewis, D. M. (eds.), New Media Language. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 75–84.Google Scholar

Kloess, J. A., Beech, A. R. and Harkins, L. (2014). Online child sexual exploitation: Prevalence, process, and offender characteristics. Trauma, Violence and Abuse 15:2, pp. 126–139.Google Scholar

Koppel, M., Argamon, S., Shimoni, A. R. (2002). Automatically categorizing written texts by author gender. Literary and Linguistic Computing 17:4, pp. 401–412.Google Scholar

Koppel, M., Schler, J. and Argamon, S. (2009). Computational methods in authorship attribution. Journal of the American Society for information Science and Technology 60:1, pp. 9–26.Google Scholar

Koppel, M., Schler, J. and Argamon, S. (2013). Authorship attribution: What’s easy and what’s hard? Journal of Law and Policy 21, pp. 317–331.Google Scholar

Kopppel, M., Schler, J. and Zigdon, K. (2005) Determining an author’s native language by mining a text for errors. Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery in Data Mining, pp. 624–628.Google Scholar

Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Boneva, B. Cummings, J., Helgeson, V. and Crawford, A. (2002). Internet paradox revisited. Journal of Social Issues 58:1, pp. 49–74.Google Scholar

Kredens, K. (2002). Idiolect in authorship attribution. Folia Linguistica Anglica 4, Lodz University Press, Lodz.Google Scholar

Le Page, R. B. and Tabouret-Keller, A. (1985). Acts of Identity: Creole-Based Approaches to Language and Ethnicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lee, C. (2014). Language choice and self-presentation in social media: The case of university students in Hong Kong. In Seargeant, P. and Tagg, C. (eds.), Language of Social Media: Identity and Community on the Internet. Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 91–111.Google Scholar

Lemke, J. L. (2008). Identity, development and desire: Critical questions. In Caldas-Coulthard, C. R. and Iedema, R. (eds.), Identity Trouble. Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 17–42.Google Scholar

Leonard, R. (2005). Forensic linguistics: Applying the scientific principles of language analysis to issues of the law. International Journal of the Humanities 3:7, pp. 65–70.Google Scholar

Lowe, P. (2015). Lessening sensitivity: Student experiences of teaching and learning sensitive issues. Teaching in Higher Education 20:1, pp. 119–129Google Scholar

MacLeod, N. and Grant, T. (2012). Whose tweet?: Authorship analysis of micro-blogs and other short form messages. Electronic Proceedings of the International Association of Forensic Linguists’ 10th Biennial Conference, Aston University, Birmingham, UK, July 2011. www.linguisticaforense.ufsc.br/tiki-index.php?page=IAFL+2011Google Scholar

MacLeod, N. and Grant, T. (2016). ‘You have ruined this entire experiment … shall we stop talking now?’ Orientations to being recorded as an interactional resource. Discourse, Context & Media 14, pp. 63–70.Google Scholar

Madsen, L. M. (2015). Fighters, Girls and Other Identities: Sociolinguistics in a Martial Arts Club. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Martellozzo, E. (2012). Online Child Sexual Abuse: Grooming, Policing and Child Protection in a Multi-Media World. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

McKeown, J. and Zhang, Q. (2015). Socio-pragmatic influence on opening salutation and closing valediction of British workplace email. Journal of Pragmatics 85, pp. 92–107.Google Scholar

McMenamin, G. R. (2001). Style markers in authorship studies. International Journal of Speech, Language & the Law 8:2, pp. 93–7.Google Scholar

McMenamin, G. R. (2002). Forensic Linguistics: Advances in Forensic Stylistics. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar

McMenamin, G. R. (2010). Forensic stylistics: Theory and practice of forensic stylistics. In Coulthard, M. and Johnson, A. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 487–507.Google Scholar

Miranda-García, A. and Calle-Martín, J. (2005). The validity of lemma-based lexical richness in authorship attribution: A proposal for the Old English Gospels. ICAME Journal 29, pp. 41–55.Google Scholar

Mosteller, F. and Wallace, D. (1964). Inference and disputed authorship: The Federalist. Boston: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Nastri, J., Pena, J. and Hancock, J. T. (2006). The construction of away messages: A speech act analysis. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 11:4, pp. 1025–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nathan, C. (2017). Liability to deception and manipulation: The ethics of undercover policing. Journal of Applied Philosophy 34:3, pp. 370–388.Google Scholar

Newon, L. (2011). Multimodal creativity and identities of expertise in the digital ecology of a World of Warcraft guild. In Thurlow, C. and Mroczek, K. (eds.), Digital Discourse: Language in the New Media. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 131–153.Google Scholar

Nini, A. (2015). Authorship profiling in a forensic context. PhD dissertation. Aston University, Birmingham, UK.Google Scholar

Nini, A. and 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 and the Law 20:2, pp. 173–202.Google Scholar

Ochs, E. (1990). Indexicality and socialization. In Stigler, J. W., Shweder, R. A. and Herdt, G. (eds.), Cultural Psychology: Essays on Comparative Human Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 287–308.Google Scholar

Omoniyi, T. (2006). Hierarchy of identities: A theoretical perspective. In Omoniyi, T. and White, G. (eds.), The Sociolinguistics of Identity. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 11–33.Google Scholar

Paolillo, J. C. and Zelenkauskaite, A. (2013). Real-time chat. In Herring, S., Stein, D. and Virtanen, T. (eds.), Pragmatics of Computer-Mediated Communication. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 109–134. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v14i3.2162Google Scholar

Pearson, E. (2009). All the World Wide Web’s a stage: The performance of identity in online social networks. First Monday 14: 3.Google Scholar

Petriglieri, G. and Stein, M. (2012). The unwanted self: Projective identification in leaders’ identity work. Organization Studies 33:9, pp. 1217–1235.Google Scholar

Postmes, T., Spears, R. and Lea, M. (2000). The formation of group norms in computer-mediated communication. Human Communication Research 26:3, pp. 341–371.Google Scholar

Potter, J. (1997). Discourse analysis as a way of analysing naturally occurring talk. Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice 2, pp. 200–222.Google Scholar

Preece, S. (2016). Introduction. In Preece, S. (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Language and Identity. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 1–16.Google Scholar

Quayle, E. and Ribisl, K. M. (eds.) (2012). Understanding and Preventing Online Sexual Exploitation of Children. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Raclaw, J. (2008). Two patterns for conversational closings in instant messaging discourse. Colorado Research in Linguistics 21:1, pp. 34–54.Google Scholar

Radin, P. (2006). ‘To me, it’s my life’: Medical communication, trust, and activism in cyberspace. Social Science and Medicine 62, pp. 591–601.Google Scholar

Randall, N. (2002) Lingo online: A report on the language of the keyboard generation. www.arts.uwaterloo.ca/~nrandall/LingoOnline-finalreport.pdfGoogle Scholar

Ribeiro, B. T. (2006). Footing, positioning, voice. Are we talking about the same thing? In de Fina, A., Schiffrin, D. and Bamberg, M. (eds.), Discourse and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 48–82.Google Scholar

Rintel, E. S., Mulholland, J. and Pittam, J. (2001). First things first: Internet Relay Chat openings. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 4:4. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol6/issue3/rintel.htmlGoogle Scholar

Roberts, C. (2003). Applied linguistics applied. In Sarangi, S. and van Leeuwen, T. (eds.), Applied Linguistics and Communities of Practice. London: Continuum, pp. 132–149.Google Scholar

Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on Conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. and Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50:4, pp. 696–735.Google Scholar

Saville-Troike, M. (1982). The Ethnography of Communication: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Categories in action: Person-reference and membership categorization. Discourse Studies 9:4, 433–461.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. and Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica 8:4, pp. 289–237.Google Scholar

Schler, J., Koppel, M., Argamon, S. and Pennebaker, K. J .W. (2006). Effects of age and gender on blogging. AAAI spring symposium: Computational approaches to analyzing weblogs 6, pp. 199–205.Google Scholar

Schmid, M. (2011). Language Attrition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Schneevogt, D., Chiang, E. and Grant, T. (2018). Do Perverted Justice chat logs contain examples of overt persuasion and sexual extortion? A research note responding to Chiang and Grant (2017, 2019). Language and Law/ Linguagem e Direito 5:1, pp. 97–102.Google Scholar

Seargeant, P. and Tagg, C. (2011). English on the internet and a ‘post-varieties’ approach to language. World Englishes, 30:4, pp. 496–514.Google Scholar

Seargeant, P. and Tagg, C. (2014) Introduction: The language of social media. In Seargeant, P. and Tagg, C. (eds.), The Language of Social Media: Identity and Community on the Internet. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–20.Google Scholar

Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sebba, M. (2007). Spelling and Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sentencing Council. (2013). Sexual Offences Guideline Consultation. https://consult.justice.gov.uk/sentencing-council/indecent-images-children/supporting_documents/sexual%20offences_Indecent%20images%20of%20children.pdfGoogle Scholar

Smith, J. A. and Kelly, C. (2002). Stylistic consistency and change across literary corpora: Using measures of lexical richness to data works. Computers and the Humanities 36:4, pp. 411–431.Google Scholar

Smith, D. J., Spencer, S. and Grant, T. (2009). Authorship analysis for counter terrorism. Unpublished Research Report, QinetiQ/Aston University, Birmingham, UK.Google Scholar

Sorrell, T. (2016a). The scope of serious crime and preventive justice. Criminal Justice Ethics 35:3, pp. 163–82.Google Scholar

Sorrell, T. (2016b). Online grooming and preventive justice. Criminal Law and Philosophy 11:4, pp. 705–24.Google Scholar

Sousa-Silva, R., Laboreiro, G., Sarmento, L., Grant, T., Oliveira, E. and Maia, B. (2011). ‘twazn me!!! ;(‘Automatic authorship analysis of micro-blogging messages. Proceedings of the Natural Language Processing and Information Systems – 16th International Conference on Applications of Natural Language to Information Systems, pp. 161–168.Google Scholar

Swales, J. (1981). Aspects of Article Introductions. Aston ESP Research Reports No. 1. Language Studies Unit, Aston University, Birmingham.Google Scholar

Tagg, C. (2015). Exploring Digital Communication: Language in Action. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar

Tagliamonte, S. and Denis, D. (2008). Linguistic ruin? Lol! Instant messaging and teen language. American Speech 83:1, pp. 3–34.Google Scholar

Tardini., S. and Cantoni, L. (2005). A semiotic approach to online communities: Belonging, interest and identity in websites’ and video games’ communities. Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference e-Society, pp. 371–378.Google Scholar

Thurlow, C. (2003). Teenagers in communication, teenagers on communication. Journal of Language & Social Psychology 22:1, pp. 50–57 .Google Scholar

Thurlow, C. (2006). From statistical panic to moral panic: The metadiscursive construction and popular exaggeration of new media language in the print media. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 11:3, pp.66–701.Google Scholar

Thurlow, C. and Mroczek, K. (2011). Digital Discourse: Language in the New Media. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Tiersma, P. and Solan, L. (2002). The linguist on the witness stand: Forensic linguistics in American courts. Language 78:2, pp. 221–239.Google Scholar

Tucker, G. (1999). A global perspective on bilingualism and bilingual education. ERIC digest ED435168. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED435168Google Scholar

Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar

Turell, M. T. (2010). The use of textual, grammatical and sociolinguistic evidence in forensic text comparison. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 17:2, pp. 211–250.Google Scholar

Urbas, G. (2010). Protecting children from online predators: The use of covert investigation techniques by law enforcement. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 26:4, pp. 410–425.Google Scholar

Vásquez, C. (2014) ‘Usually not one to complain but …’: Constructing identities in user-generated online reviews. In Seargeant, P. and Tagg, C. (eds.), The Language of Social Media: Identity and Community Online. Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 65–90.Google Scholar

Vallis, R. (1999). Members’ methods for entering and leaving #IRCbar: A conversation analytic study of internet relay chat. In Chalmers, K., Bogitini, S. and Renshaw, P. (eds.), Educational Research in New Times. Flaxton: Post Pressed, pp. 117–127.Google Scholar

Vendler, Z. (1972). Res cogitans. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Waldvogel, J. (2007). Greetings and closings in workplace email. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 12:2, pp. 456–477.Google Scholar

Watson, D. R. (1978). Categorization, authorization and blame-negotiation in conversation. Sociology 12: 105–113.Google Scholar

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Wenger, E., McDermott, R. and Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge. Harvard Business Review Press.Google Scholar

Whittle, H., Hamilton-Giachritsis, C., Beech, A. and Collings, G. (2013a). A review of young people’s vulnerabilities to online grooming. Aggression and Violent Behaviour 18:1, pp. 135–146.Google Scholar

Whittle, H., Hamilton-Giachritsis, C., and Beech, A. (2013b). Victim’s voices: The impact of online grooming and abuse. Universal Journal of Psychology 1, pp. 59–71.Google Scholar

Widdicombe, S. (1998). ‘But you don’t class yourself’: The interactional management of category membership and non-membership. In Antaki, C. and Widdicombe, S. (eds.), Identities in Talk. London: Sage.Google Scholar

Widdicombe, S. and Wooffitt, R. (1995). The Language of Youth Subcultures: Social Identity in Action. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar

Woodhams, J., and Grant, T. (2006). Developing a categorization system for rapists’ speech. Psychology, Crime & Law 12:3, pp. 245–260.Google Scholar

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 and the Law 20:1, pp. 45–75.Google Scholar

Wright, D. (2014). Stylistics versus statistics: A corpus linguistic approach to combining techniques in forensic authorship analysis using Enron emails. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Leeds, UK. http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/8278/Google Scholar

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, pp. 212–241.Google Scholar