“I didn’t mean to steal someone else’s words!”:a forensic linguistic approach to detecting intentional plagiarism

The concept of plagiarism is not uncommonly associated with the concept of intellectual property, both for historical and legal reasons: the approach to the ownership of ‘moral’, nonmaterial goods has evolved to the right to individual property, and consequently a need was raised to establish a legal framework to cope with the infringement of those rights. The solution to plagiarism therefore falls most often under two categories: ethical and legal. On the ethical side, education and intercultural studies have addressed plagiarism critically, not only as a means to improve academic ethics policies (PlagiarismAdvice.org, 2008), but mainly to demonstrate that if anything the concept of plagiarism is far from being universal (Howard & Robillard, 2008). Even if differently, Howard (1995) and Scollon (1994, 1995) argued, and Angèlil-Carter (2000) and Pecorari (2008) later emphasised that the concept of plagiarism cannot be studied on the grounds that one definition is clearly understandable by everyone. Scollon (1994, 1995), for example, claimed that authorship attribution is particularly a problem in non-native writing in English, and so did Pecorari (2008) in her comprehensive analysis of academic plagiarism. If among higher education students plagiarism is often a problem of literacy, with prior, conflicting social discourses that may interfere with academic discourse, as Angèlil-Carter (2000) demonstrates, we then have to aver that a distinction should be made between intentional and inadvertent plagiarism: plagiarism should be prosecuted when intentional, but if it is part of the learning process and results from the plagiarist’s unfamiliarity with the text or topic it should be considered ‘positive plagiarism’ (Howard, 1995: 796) and hence not an offense. Determining the intention behind the instances of plagiarism therefore determines the nature of the disciplinary action adopted. Unfortunately, in order to demonstrate the intention to deceive and charge students with accusations of plagiarism, teachers necessarily have to position themselves as ‘plagiarism police’, although it has been argued otherwise (Robillard, 2008). Practice demonstrates that in their daily activities teachers will find themselves being required a command of investigative skills and tools that they most often lack. We thus claim that the ‘intention to deceive’ cannot inevitably be dissociated from plagiarism as a legal issue, even if Garner (2009) asserts that generally plagiarism is immoral but not illegal, and Goldstein (2003) makes the same severance. However, these claims, and the claim that only cases of copyright infringement tend to go to court, have recently been challenged, mainly by forensic linguists, who have been actively involved in cases of plagiarism. Turell (2008), for instance, demonstrated that plagiarism is often connoted with an illegal appropriation of ideas. Previously, she (Turell, 2004) had demonstrated by comparison of four translations of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar to Spanish that the use of linguistic evidence is able to demonstrate instances of plagiarism. This challenge is also reinforced by practice in international organisations, such as the IEEE, to whom plagiarism potentially has ‘severe ethical and legal consequences’ (IEEE, 2006: 57). What plagiarism definitions used by publishers and organisations have in common – and which the academia usually lacks – is their focus on the legal nature. We speculate that this is due to the relation they intentionally establish with copyright laws, whereas in education the focus tends to shift from the legal to the ethical aspects. However, the number of plagiarism cases taken to court is very small, and jurisprudence is still being developed on the topic. In countries within the Civil Law tradition, Turell (2008) claims, (forensic) linguists are seldom called upon as expert witnesses in cases of plagiarism, either because plagiarists are rarely taken to court or because there is little tradition of accepting linguistic evidence. In spite of the investigative and evidential potential of forensic linguistics to demonstrate the plagiarist’s intention or otherwise, this potential is restricted by the ability to identify a text as being suspect of plagiarism. In an era with such a massive textual production, ‘policing’ plagiarism thus becomes an extraordinarily difficult task without the assistance of plagiarism detection systems. Although plagiarism detection has attracted the attention of computer engineers and software developers for years, a lot of research is still needed. Given the investigative nature of academic plagiarism, plagiarism detection has of necessity to consider not only concepts of education and computational linguistics, but also forensic linguistics. Especially, if intended to counter claims of being a ‘simplistic response’ (Robillard & Howard, 2008). In this paper, we use a corpus of essays written by university students who were accused of plagiarism, to demonstrate that a forensic linguistic analysis of improper paraphrasing in suspect texts has the potential to identify and provide evidence of intention. A linguistic analysis of the corpus texts shows that the plagiarist acts on the paradigmatic axis to replace relevant lexical items with a related word from the same semantic field, i.e. a synonym, a subordinate, a superordinate, etc. In other words, relevant lexical items were replaced with related, but not identical, ones. Additionally, the analysis demonstrates that the word order is often changed intentionally to disguise the borrowing. On the other hand, the linguistic analysis of linking and explanatory verbs (i.e. referencing verbs) and prepositions shows that these have the potential to discriminate instances of ‘patchwriting’ and instances of plagiarism. This research demonstrates that the referencing verbs are borrowed from the original in an attempt to construct the new text cohesively when the plagiarism is inadvertent, and that the plagiarist has made an effort to prevent the reader from identifying the text as plagiarism, when it is intentional. In some of these cases, the referencing elements prove being able to identify direct quotations and thus ‘betray’ and denounce plagiarism. Finally, we demonstrate that a forensic linguistic analysis of these verbs is critical to allow detection software to identify them as proper paraphrasing and not – mistakenly and simplistically – as plagiarism.

Forensic contact trace characterization

DUE TO COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS ONLY AVAILABLE FOR CONSULTATION AT ASTON UNIVERSITY LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SERVICES WITH PRIOR ARRANGEMENT

An introduction to forensic linguistics:language in evidence

From the accusation of plagiarism in The Da Vinci Code, to the infamous hoaxer in the Yorkshire Ripper case, the use of linguistic evidence in court and the number of linguists called to act as expert witnesses in court trials has increased rapidly in the past fifteen years. An Introduction to Forensic Linguistics: Language in Evidence provides a timely and accessible introduction to this rapidly expanding subject. Using knowledge and experience gained in legal settings – Malcolm Coulthard in his work as an expert witness and Alison Johnson in her work as a West Midlands police officer – the two authors combine an array of perspectives into a distinctly unified textbook, focusing throughout on evidence from real and often high profile cases including serial killer Harold Shipman, the Bridgewater Four and the Birmingham Six. Divided into two sections, 'The Language of the Legal Process' and 'Language as Evidence', the book covers the key topics of the field. The first section looks at legal language, the structures of legal genres and the collection and testing of evidence from the initial police interview through to examination and cross-examination in the courtroom. The second section focuses on the role of the forensic linguist, the forensic phonetician and the document examiner, as well as examining in detail the linguistic investigation of authorship and plagiarism. With research tasks, suggested reading and website references provided at the end of each chapter, An Introduction to Forensic Linguistics: Language in Evidence is the essential textbook for courses in forensic linguistics and language of the law.

Authorship profiling in a forensic context

There are several unresolved problems in forensic authorship profiling, including a lack of research focusing on the types of texts that are typically analysed in forensic linguistics (e.g. threatening letters, ransom demands) and a general disregard for the effect of register variation when testing linguistic variables for use in profiling. The aim of this dissertation is therefore to make a first step towards filling these gaps by testing whether established patterns of sociolinguistic variation appear in malicious forensic texts that are controlled for register. This dissertation begins with a literature review that highlights a series of correlations between language use and various social factors, including gender, age, level of education and social class. This dissertation then presents the primary data set used in this study, which consists of a corpus of 287 fabricated malicious texts from 3 different registers produced by 96 authors stratified across the 4 social factors listed above. Since this data set is fabricated, its validity was also tested through a comparison with another corpus consisting of 104 naturally occurring malicious texts, which showed that no important differences exist between the language of the fabricated malicious texts and the authentic malicious texts. The dissertation then reports the findings of the analysis of the corpus of fabricated malicious texts, which shows that the major patterns of sociolinguistic variation identified in previous research are valid for forensic malicious texts and that controlling register variation greatly improves the performance of profiling. In addition, it is shown that through regression analysis it is possible to use these patterns of linguistic variation to profile the demographic background of authors across the four social factors with an average accuracy of 70%. Overall, the present study therefore makes a first step towards developing a principled model of forensic authorship profiling.

Handwriting in Forensic Investigations

The process of automatic handwriting investigation in forensic science is described. The general scheme of a computer-based handwriting analysis system is used to point out at the basic problems of image enhancement and segmentation, feature extraction and decision-making. Factors that may compromise the accuracy of expert’s conclusion are underlined and directions for future investigations are marked.

Communication in investigative and legal settings:integrated approaches from forensic psychology, linguistics and law enforcement

Communication in Forensic Contexts provides in-depth coverage of the complex area of communication in forensic situations. Drawing on expertise from forensic psychology, linguistics and law enforcement worldwide, the text bridges the gap between these fields in a definitive guide to best practice. •Offers best practice for understanding and improving communication in forensic contexts, including interviewing of victims, witnesses and suspects, discourse in courtrooms, and discourse via interpreters •Bridges the knowledge gaps between forensic psychology, forensic linguistics and law enforcement, with chapters written by teams bringing together expertise from each field •Published in collaboration with the International Investigative Interviewing Research Group, dedicated to furthering evidence-based practice and practice-based research amongst researchers and practitioners •International, cross-disciplinary team includes contributors from North America, Europe and Asia Pacific, and from psychology, linguistics and forensic practice

Communication in forensic contexts:future directions and conclusions

This chapter reviews the important areas that psychology, linguistics and law enforcement have impacted upon in terms of rigorous and collaborative scientific endeavours. Important areas that will be of interest to both researchers and practitioners for research relating to communication in forensic contexts are discussed in detail, including vulnerability, the use of intermediaries and interpreters in forensic interviews and questioning techniques.

Expert report writing in toxicology:forensic, scientific and legal aspects

Every year throughout the world, individuals' health is damaged by their exposure to toxic chemicals at work. In most cases these problems will resolve, but many will sustain permanent damage. Whilst any justified claim for compensation requires medical and legal evidence a crucial and often controversial component of this process is the establishment of a causal link between the individual's condition and exposure to a specific chemical or substance. Causation, in terms of how a substance or substances led the claimant to his or her current plight, can be difficult to establish and the main purpose of this book, is to provide the aspiring expert report writer with a concise, practical guide that uses case histories to illuminate the process of establishing causation in occupational toxicity proceedings. In summary: A practical, accessible guide to the preparation of balanced, scientifically sound expert reports in the context of occupational toxicology. Focuses on the scientist's role in establishing a causal link between exposure to toxins and an individual's ill health. Includes real-life case histories drawn from the Author's 15 years experience in this area to illustrate the principles involved. Expert Report Writing in Toxicology: Forensic, Scientific and Legal Aspects proves invaluable to scientists across a range of disciplines needing guidance as to what is expected of them in terms of the best use of their expertise and how to present their findings in a manner that is authoritative, balanced and informative.

Native language identification (NLID) for forensic authorship analysis of weblogs

This chapter introduces Native Language Identification (NLID) and considers the casework applications with regard to authorship analysis of online material. It presents findings from research identifying which linguistic features were the best indicators of native (L1) Persian speakers blogging in English, and analyses how these features cope at distinguishing between native influences from languages that are linguistically and culturally related. The first chapter section outlines the area of Native Language Identification, and demonstrates its potential for application through a discussion of relevant case history. The next section discusses a development of methodology for identifying influence from L1 Persian in an anonymous blog author, and presents findings. The third part discusses the application of these features to casework situations as well as how the features identified can form an easily applicable model and demonstrates the application of this to casework. The research presented in this chapter can be considered a case study for the wider potential application of NLID.

Adversarial interpreting – a forensic linguistic perspective

Interactions with second language speakers in public service contexts in England are normally conducted with the assistance of one interpreter. Even in situations where team interpreting would be advisable, for example in lengthy courtroom proceedings, financial considerations mean only one interpreter is normally booked. On occasion, however, more than one interpreter, or an individual (or individuals) with knowledge of the languages in question, may be simultaneously present during an interpreted interaction, either monitoring it or indeed volunteering unsolicited input. During police interviews or trials in England this may happen when the interpreter secured by the defence team to interpret during private consultation with the suspect or defendant is present also in the interview room or the courtroom but two independently sourced interpreters need not be limited to legal contexts. In healthcare settings for example, service users sometimes bring friends or relatives along to help them communicate with service providers only to find that the latter have booked an interpreter as a matter of procedure. By analogy to the nature of the English legal system, I refer to contexts where an interpreter’s output is monitored and/or challenged, either during the speech event or subsequently, as ‘adversarial interpreting’. This conceptualisation reflects the fact that interpreters in such encounters are sourced independently, often by opposing parties, and as a result can rarely be considered a team. My main concern in this paper is to throw spotlight on adversarial interpreting as a hitherto rarely discussed problem in its own right. That it is not an anomaly is evidenced by the many cases around the world where the officially recorded interpreted output was challenged, as mentioned in for example Berk-Seligson (2002), Hayes and Hale (2010), and Phelan (2011). This paper reports on the second stage of a research project which has previously involved the analysis of a transcript of an interpreted police interview with a suspect in a murder case. I will mention the findings of the analysis briefly and introduce some new findings based on input from practising interpreters who have shared their experience of adversarial interpreting by completing an online questionnaire. I will try to answer the question of how the presence of two interpreters, or an interpreter and a monitoring participant, in the same speech event impacts on the communication process. I will also address the issue of forensic linguistic arbitration in cases where incompetent interpreting has been identified or an expert opinion is sought in relation to an adversarial interpreting event of significance to a legal dispute. References Berk-Seligson (2002), The Bilingual Courtroom: Court Interpreters in the Judicial Process, University of Chicago Press. Hayes, A. and Hale, S. (2010), "Appeals on incompetent interpreting", Journal of Judicial Administration 20.2, 119-130. Phelan, M. (2011), "Legal Interpreters in the news in Ireland", Translation and Interpreting 3.1, 76-105.