Well, assuming that one has an abundance of faith in stylistics (which I don't at present, .
So the prophecy says. PR-RN Shatterpoint. For your own good, stay out of this affair. I sense a great deal of confusion in you, there is much fear that clouds your judgment.
Forensic stylistics is the application of the science of linguistic stylistics to forensic contexts. The focus of forensic stylistics is written language and, sometimes, spoken language represented in writing, e.g., transcripts of tape recorded conversations, depositions, interviews, etc. The primary application of forensic stylistics is in the area of questioned authorship. Other frequent applications relate to the analysis of meaning in documents such as wills, insurance policies, contracts, agreements, laws, and the analysis of meaning in spoken discourse.
9.1.1 Questioned Authorship
Forensic authorship identification is accomplished through the analysis of style in written language, i.e., linguistic stylistics. Stylistics exploits the two principles of inherent variability in language (see Chapter 3): no two writers of a language write in exactly the same way, and no individual writer writes the same way all the time.
Forensic stylistic analysis makes use of stylistic analysis (stylistics) to reach a conclusion and opinion related to the authorship of a questioned writing within the context of litigation. Stylistics is the scientific study of patterns of variation in written language. The object of study is the language of a single individual (idiolect), resulting in a description of his or her identifying linguistic characteristics.
Typical cases of questioned authorship present a questioned writing to be compared or contrasted to the known reference writings of one or more can- didate authors. Such an analysis is accomplished by examining the writing style of all available questioned and known writings. The writing style is exhibited in underlying linguistic patterns internal to the habitual language used by the author. Results of this analysis may be 1) determination of resemblance of ques- tioned writings to a common cannon of known writings, 2) elimination or identification of one or more suspect authors, or 3) inconclusive with respect to data that support neither elimination nor identification. Models for the study of questioned authorship are presented in Chapter 6. Various types of author- ship cases are summarized in Chapter 11, and examples of style-markers from various authorship cases are provided there also.
This approach to author identification is based on two well-documented facts: author-specific linguistic patterns are present in unique combination in the style of every writer, and these underlying patterns are usually estab- lished enough to be empirically described and measured by careful linguistic observation and analysis, making author identification possible.
A language is at one and the same time owned by its whole group of speakers and uniquely used by individuals from that group. Why one writer chooses one linguistic form over another is the result of differences in what each individually knows of the language, as well as differences in how each one uses the core linguistic knowledge shared by speakers and writers of English.
Individual differences in writing style are, therefore, due to the writers choice of available alternatives within a large, shared common stock of lin- guistic forms. At any given moment, a writer picks those elements of language that will best communicate what he or she wants to say. The writers choice of available alternate forms is often determined by external conditions and then becomes the conscious, semiconscious, subconscious, or (usually) unconscious result of habitually using one form instead of another.
Individuality in writing style results from a given writers own unique set of habitual linguistic choices. Identification and analysis of a writers choices, i.e., of his or her style-markers, constitute stylistic analysis, which is well established as a method of author identification in literary and forensic contexts.
9.1.2 Semantic and Pragmatic Interpretation of Meaning
The analysis of semantic meaning in words relates to the sense of a word vis- à-vis other words in the language, or to a words reference to things, actions, and situations in the world. The analysis of pragmatic meaning in words and sentences is the study of intended meaning, which is distinct from semantic meaning in that a given utterance is interpreted based on the intention of the speaker or writer.
Disputes about the meanings of words and phrases arise when different readers of the same document do not agree as to one or more of the following:
1. The relationship between a word and its defined sense
2. The relationship between a word and its referent
3. The meaning of a word in the context of the phrase, clause, or sentence
4. The meaning of words and phrases in language units beyond the sentence
5. The intended meaning of a word or phrase as different from its lin- guistic meaning
9.2 Legal Definitions of Stylistics
Definitions of forensic stylistics are found in Chapter 4 of McMenamin (1993), which cites two principal sources: Black et al. (1990) and Moenssens et al. (1986:579), both of which are based on the linguistic principle stated by Moenssens et al. that,
while
a common language is very much rule- governed, there are a great number of underlying parts of the use of language that are characterized by idiosyncratic and individualistic factors and habits (1986). (Note that the naming confusion between the overarching field of forensic linguistics and one of its subareas, forensic stylistics, is unfortunately reflected in these sources.)
Black et al. define comparative stylistics, and forensic linguistics:
Comparative stylistics. An evidential technique focusing on nonidentity of typist of questioned writings. Matter-of-fact solutions are premised on com- parisons of the numerous stylistic alternatives in grammar and format, and the individualized habits and routine practices inherent in the repetitive reduction of like writings to paper, with emphasis on typewritings. (Black et al., 1990:282)
Forensic linguistics. A technique concerned with in-depth evaluation of linguistic characteristics of text, including grammar, syntax, spelling, vocab- ulary and phraseology, which is accomplished through a comparison of textual material of known and unknown authorship, in an attempt to dis- close idiosyncrasies peculiar to authorship to determine whether the authors could be identical. (Black et al., 1990:648)
Moenssens et al. define forensic linguistic analysis based on United States v. Clifford (1983):
The discipline consists of an evaluation of linguistic characteristics of communications either written text or the spoken word, including the grammar, syntax, spelling, vocabulary, and phraseology. The evaluation involves a comparison of one or more texts, or one or more samples of speech, that are of known origin for the purpose of disclosing idiosyncrasies peculiar to individuals in order to determine whether the authors or speak- ers could be identical. (Moenssens et al., 1986:578)
Legal precedents related to authorship identification and stylistic analysis may be found in McMenamin (1993, Chapter 5) and at 36 ALR4th 598 (1985).
9.3 Linguistic Stylistics as Evidence
To determine whether a theory or technique is scientific knowledge that will assist the trier of fact so as to be the basis of admissible evidence under Rule
702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993) proposes key questions to be answered, but the inquiry is a flexible one, and the focus must be solely on principles and methodology
. The questions are:
1. Can the theory or technique be tested?
2. Has it been tested?
3. Has the theory or technique been subjected to peer review and pub- lication?
4. Is the known or potential rate of error of the particular scientific technique known?
5. Can a relevant scientific community be identified?
6. Is there an expressed degree of acceptance of the theory or technique within that community?
The answer to these questions as they relate to linguistic stylistics is yes, with some qualification: the process of testing the theory and practice of authorship identification is continuous (e.g., Brengelman and McMenamin,
2000), and the study of error rates is just beginning, with the first serious attempt in a forensic context to be Chaski (2001).
Since the appearance of Daubert, there have been many interpretations of exactly how to apply it to particular sciences and cases. One example is Risinger and Saks (1996:31) specification of questions for the field of forensic document examination. What follows is an adaptation of this list of questions to language and linguistic stylistics, most of which have been discussed in other parts of this book:
1. What characteristics of the language are relevant to specific identifi- cation (individuation)?
2. Which of these characteristics can be separated one from another?
3. Is it possible to assess interdependence among characteristics that are not separable?
4. Is it possible to assess interdependence among those that are separable?
5. Have base-rate incidences been established for each of those charac- teristics in the population of candidates for the source of the writing?
6. Is it possible to distinguish intra- from intersource variation, given: source variation, i.e., that writings from the same source may differ each time, and intercandidate similarity, i.e., different sources may be capable of producing a writing indistinguishable from the writing in question?
7. Can the linguist separate important from unimportant characteristics?
How is this done?
8. Is there a means for gathering and publishing observations?
9. Is there an established taxonomy for organizing observations that lends itself to their systematic description and quantification?
10. Is there a process for generating new hypotheses (to answer the above questions) consistent with all known observations, and potentially able to be falsified through empirical observation?
11. Is there an established protocol for attempting to empirically falsify new hypotheses?
12. Do the linguists who perceive similarities and differences in writings use standardized measurements of some precision?
13. Is the database of examples that defines which characteristics are com- mon and which are unusual open for inspection and evaluation by other linguists or by any interested person?
14. How do linguists explain their findings? (The authors note that describing similarities and differences, asserting that they are common or uncommon, and assigning some to interwriter difference and oth- ers to intrawriter variation do not suffice as a scientific explanation of these same phenomena.)
There are three possible reactions to Daubert; the last of these is the most responsible and constructive direction to follow at present:
1. Settle for the status of linguistic stylistics in federal court to simply be expert nonscientific testimony and continue professional and research activities as currently practiced.
2. Resist the suggestions that accompany Dauberts very narrow defini- tion of science, then attempt to change (broaden) the federal courts notion of science to include as sufficiently scientific the traditional activities of observation, identification, classification,description, and demonstration, in addition to experimental investigation and theo- retical explanation.
3. Take the position that this is a call to action for forensic linguists, which would mean examining closely the Daubert test with questions like those posed by Risinger and Saks (1996), and setting about doing the research necessary to completely meet the test.
It is also important to take advantage of every possible case that would serve to demonstrate the increasing scientific reliability and validity of lin- guistic stylistics. At present, U.S. v. Van Wyk has been cited as a case demon- strating the weakness of forensic stylistics, so it bears examination.
In Van Wyk, it is clear that the principal focus of the Courts objections to forensic stylistics was on the witness, an FBI agent who: 1. was not a
linguist, 2. had no undergraduate or graduate degree in anything related to language, 3. had no training in linguistic stylistics, 4. had experience only in Fosters (2000) text analysis, rejected as nonscientific by linguists, 5. was pointedly proffered as an expert in text analysis, not forensic stylistics, 6. had attended threat assessment, psychotherapy assessment, and risk assessment seminars that have involved matters related to the assessment of text, taught and conducted research in text analysis, analyzed text
i.e., all unrelated to stylistics, 7. and in the judges words, relie[d] on external and back- ground information, the sum of which is to cast Defendant as a terrorizer of women, or as a very bad person. [The agent] in effect states that Van Wyk is the author because he is the aggressor, whereas the issue is whether he is the aggressor because he is the author.
[his] testimony regarding these external or extratextual factors is barred.
It is also important to note that, while the witness was not permitted to testify to his conclusion as to the identity of the author of the unknown writings in U.S. v. Van Wyk, the Court did in fact admit his testimony regarding the comparison of characteristics or markers between writings known to have been authored by Defendant and the writings in which authorship is questioned or unknown.
Allowing such testimony has been repeated in at least one other recent case, U.S. v. Spring (2001), wherein the Courts response to a request for a Daubert hearing was as follows:
The distinctiveness of any individual, whether its a term of expression, tone of voice, accent, vehicles of expression, peculiar words, words attributable to his or her profession or peculiar expertise, all of those
are things that can be considered by a jury in determining the identity of a person
I think its absolutely legitimate, and thats what Im going to rule.
There will be more opportunities to present the scientific strength of linguistic stylistics, but it must be done by experienced linguists who have a strong background in the analysis of linguistic variation and in the require- ments (discussed here) for scientific evidence (McMenamin, 2001b).
