{"title":"语域变异解释了文体学作者分析","authors":"J. Grieve","doi":"10.1515/cllt-2022-0040","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract For centuries, investigations of disputed authorship have shown that people have unique styles of writing. Given sufficient data, it is generally possible to distinguish between the writings of a small group of authors, for example, through the multivariate analysis of the relative frequencies of common function words. There is, however, no accepted explanation for why this type of stylometric analysis is successful. Authorship analysts often argue that authors write in subtly different dialects, but the analysis of individual words is not licensed by standard theories of sociolinguistic variation. Alternatively, stylometric analysis is consistent with standard theories of register variation. In this paper, I argue that stylometric methods work because authors write in subtly different registers. To support this claim, I present the results of parallel stylometric and multidimensional register analyses of a corpus of newspaper articles written by two columnists. I demonstrate that both analyses not only distinguish between these authors but identify the same underlying patterns of linguistic variation. I therefore propose that register variation, as opposed to dialect variation, provides a basis for explaining these differences and for explaining stylometric analyses of authorship more generally.","PeriodicalId":45605,"journal":{"name":"Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory","volume":"38 1","pages":"47 - 77"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Register variation explains stylometric authorship analysis\",\"authors\":\"J. Grieve\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/cllt-2022-0040\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract For centuries, investigations of disputed authorship have shown that people have unique styles of writing. Given sufficient data, it is generally possible to distinguish between the writings of a small group of authors, for example, through the multivariate analysis of the relative frequencies of common function words. There is, however, no accepted explanation for why this type of stylometric analysis is successful. Authorship analysts often argue that authors write in subtly different dialects, but the analysis of individual words is not licensed by standard theories of sociolinguistic variation. Alternatively, stylometric analysis is consistent with standard theories of register variation. In this paper, I argue that stylometric methods work because authors write in subtly different registers. To support this claim, I present the results of parallel stylometric and multidimensional register analyses of a corpus of newspaper articles written by two columnists. I demonstrate that both analyses not only distinguish between these authors but identify the same underlying patterns of linguistic variation. I therefore propose that register variation, as opposed to dialect variation, provides a basis for explaining these differences and for explaining stylometric analyses of authorship more generally.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45605,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory\",\"volume\":\"38 1\",\"pages\":\"47 - 77\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2022-0040\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2022-0040","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract For centuries, investigations of disputed authorship have shown that people have unique styles of writing. Given sufficient data, it is generally possible to distinguish between the writings of a small group of authors, for example, through the multivariate analysis of the relative frequencies of common function words. There is, however, no accepted explanation for why this type of stylometric analysis is successful. Authorship analysts often argue that authors write in subtly different dialects, but the analysis of individual words is not licensed by standard theories of sociolinguistic variation. Alternatively, stylometric analysis is consistent with standard theories of register variation. In this paper, I argue that stylometric methods work because authors write in subtly different registers. To support this claim, I present the results of parallel stylometric and multidimensional register analyses of a corpus of newspaper articles written by two columnists. I demonstrate that both analyses not only distinguish between these authors but identify the same underlying patterns of linguistic variation. I therefore propose that register variation, as opposed to dialect variation, provides a basis for explaining these differences and for explaining stylometric analyses of authorship more generally.
期刊介绍:
Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory (CLLT) is a peer-reviewed journal publishing high-quality original corpus-based research focusing on theoretically relevant issues in all core areas of linguistic research, or other recognized topic areas. It provides a forum for researchers from different theoretical backgrounds and different areas of interest that share a commitment to the systematic and exhaustive analysis of naturally occurring language. Contributions from all theoretical frameworks are welcome but they should be addressed at a general audience and thus be explicit about their assumptions and discovery procedures and provide sufficient theoretical background to be accessible to researchers from different frameworks. Topics Corpus Linguistics Quantitative Linguistics Phonology Morphology Semantics Syntax Pragmatics.