Author identification from opposing perspectives in forensic linguistics

Abstract

In this article, two cases of crimen iniuria are reported in which the suspect could be identified, on the basis of a forensic linguistic analysis, as the author of defamatory documents – one which resulted in litigation and an eventual conviction, and one which was dealt with  intrainstitutionally by the authorities concerned subsequent to the submission of the analyst’s report. The investigations took the form of a  comparison, as is usual in cases of this nature, between documents known to have been authored by the suspect and contested documents, which were either anonymous or sent under a pseudonym. From a methodological perspective, the investigation was partly done deductively, by attempting to falsify the hypothesis of independent, or separate, authorship through a quantitative (stylometric) analysis, and partly inductively, by subsequently undertaking a stylistic analysis to compile a linguistic profile of the author concerned. In this way, the deduction that the texts for which separate authorship could not be proved, were indeed produced by one and the same author, could be corroborated. Finally, the reports of both cases are compared to determine to what extent the method of analysis was influenced by case-specific variables. It is hoped that the experience gained here will contribute to the principle of scientific rigour underlying the credibility and acceptance of expert evidence submitted by linguists in court.

Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2010, 28(2): 185–197