Authors<\/p>\n
Julien Longhi <\/a><\/span>University Professor of Linguistics, CY Cergy Paris University <\/span><\/p>\n Alexandra Freeman <\/a><\/span>Ph.D. candidate in linguistics, CY Cergy Paris University <\/span><\/p>\n C\u00e9cile Jacob <\/a><\/span>Handwriting Comparison Specialist, Criminal Research Institute of the National Gendarmerie (IRCGN) <\/span><\/p>\n The issue of authorship is not a new one, particularly in the field of literary studies. It has been widely debated and has been the subject of renewed debate since the rise of digital technologies<\/span><\/a>) and is certainly relevant today, particularly in the field of literary studies. Currently, the DIM Textual Studies and New Knowledge<\/span><\/a>is leading a project (directed by Pierre Glaudes and Catherine Mayaux) on the critical works of Barbey d\u2019Aurevilly (PRADA project: Research Project on Author Attribution<\/span><\/a>).<\/span><\/p>\n One of the best-known controversies in France concerns the work of Dominique Labb\u00e9, a researcher specializing in textual statistics, who has published, among other things, <\/span>If two plus two equals four<\/span>, <\/span>Moli\u00e8re did not write *Don Juan*<\/span>, or the article \u00ab\u00a0Corneille in Moli\u00e8re\u2019s Shadow: How Do We Identify an Author?<\/span><\/a>\u00a0\u00bb.<\/span><\/p>\n According to the Wikipedia page on the authorship of Moli\u00e8re's works<\/span><\/a>(and more specifically the section on the\u2019A Statistical Study by Cyril and Dominique Labb\u00e9<\/span><\/a>), Dominique Labb\u00e9 would have concluded that Corneille was the author of sixteen of the eighteen comedies attributed to Moli\u00e8re.<\/span><\/p>\n More recently, two researchers, Florian Cafiero and Jean-Baptiste Camps, published an article titled \u00abWhy Moli\u00e8re Most Likely Did Write His Plays\u00bb in the journal Science Advances<\/span><\/a>. This article generated significant buzz within the community and in the media, so much so that France Culture, for example, ran an article titled \u00abTwo researchers prove that Corneille did not write Moli\u00e8re's plays\u00bb<\/span><\/a>). The conclusion of the article is indeed unequivocal: \u00abIt is very unlikely that P. Corneille or his brother Thomas would have been Moli\u00e8re\u2019s ghostwriters. Since they were, after a century-long debate, the only option deemed plausible, these conclusions strongly support the idea that Moli\u00e8re did indeed write his own plays.\u00bb (\u00abIt is highly unlikely that P. Corneille or his brother Thomas were Moli\u00e8re\u2019s ghostwriters. Since they were, according to a 100-year-old debate, the only other plausible authors, these conclusions seem to support the idea that Moli\u00e8re is indeed the author of his works.\u00bb).<\/span><\/p>\n But the controversy doesn\u2019t end there, since following that article, Dominique Labb\u00e9 published a new piece titled \u00abResponse to Florian Cafiero and Jean-Baptiste Camps. Why Moli\u00e8re Most Likely Did Write His Plays,\u00bb in which he questions the methods used by Cafiero and Camps.<\/span><\/p>\n The debate over the authorship of these works<\/span><\/a> is therefore not yet resolved, but it may be of interest to us, since the methods and tools used in this context can be useful in other areas of society. Furthermore, the issue of attributing authorship to a text is no longer limited to the literary field. In particular, this area of research, combined with new techniques and the development of specialized studies, can be adapted to the needs of the judicial system.<\/span><\/p>\n From Linguistics to Forensic Science<\/span><\/p>\n Forensic linguistics is a field of research within applied linguistics dedicated to the needs of the justice system. It studies language used in various contexts, including the language of normative texts (laws, codes, regulations), the language of legal proceedings (court transcripts, pleadings, jury trials), and language as a trace or as evidence. The latter includes, in particular, language samples resulting from \u00ablanguage-related offenses\u00bb (such as threats, harassment, plagiarism, defamation, or perjury) as well as any other language samples presented as traces or evidence. Well known in common law countries, where these techniques have been used since the 1960s (Jan Svartvik, 1968), forensic linguistics is gaining more and more ground in France.<\/span><\/p>\n Style as a Source of Variation<\/span><\/p>\n Language production, like all communication, is a social phenomenon that adapts to the context in which it occurs. It is a creative, highly personal task that takes shape not only through the characteristics of the author (their profile, preferences, and habits), but also through elements specific to the communicative event itself: the purpose of the message, the nature of the relationship between the author and the recipient(s), the social conventions of the given situation, and the conditions under which the production takes place.<\/span><\/p>\n The result is therefore a text that has been meticulously tailored by the author (consciously or unconsciously) according to their habits and idiosyncrasies within the context of a specific communicative scenario. This calibration\u2014made possible by the richness and flexibility inherent in any natural language\u2014allows the same idea to be expressed in different ways without altering the essence of the message. Examples of \u00abnon-essential\u00bb changes include register markers (the use of \u00abtu\u00bb instead of \u00abvous\u00bb), dialectal markers (the use of \u00abpain au chocolat\u00bb instead of \u00abchocolatine\u00bb), and even stylistic devices such as paraphrase or metaphor. These adaptations\u2014whether semantic, grammatical, morphological, or otherwise\u2014can contribute to the differences between two samples without affecting the central idea of the message. It is these differences that are referred to, in the broadest sense, as elements of linguistic variation.<\/span><\/p>\n In the case of stylistics, we are primarily interested in \u00abmarked\u00bb elements of variation\u2014that is, variations that deviate from the expected norm in a specific context. For example, the use of a less common word when other synonyms\u2014which are more common in the context in question\u2014are available. Other interesting markers include turns of phrase influenced by knowledge of a foreign language (the use of the word \u00abexpectative\u00bb instead of \u2018attente\u2019 is fairly common among Spanish speakers, for example) or regional and dialectal variants that differ from the standard form. The degree of dissonance between the \u00abnorms\u00bb of usage and the forms used in the sample determines the degree of \u00abmarkedness\u00bb of the words.<\/span><\/p>\n When a \u00abdistinctive\u00bb variation becomes habitual and inherent to a specific author, it also becomes part of what is known as an idiolect. An idiolect is a \u00abpersonal dialect\u00bb unique to an individual. It consists of a person\u2019s entire set of linguistic habits, whether spoken or written, and thus represents the expressive characteristics unique to that person.<\/span><\/p>\n Although idiolect is inherent to each person, many of its elements are far from fixed. Just like language, an idiolect is a \u00abliving\u00bb phenomenon. It evolves over time, adapts to its context, and is influenced by social phenomena and even by the individual\u2019s cognitive development.<\/span><\/p>\n An author\u2019s style, for its part, is the written manifestation of this idiolect. Defined by a set of distinct and recurring elements of variation, it is an author\u2019s stylistic elements that make their texts unique and original compared to other texts of the same nature: the recurring use of a particular word when synonyms exist, the use of specific figures of speech in particular contexts, or an expression that always appears in the same context. Style is therefore the primary focus of the forensic linguist.<\/span><\/p>\n Challenges in Style Analysis<\/span><\/p>\n The style of a text is often idealized as the equivalent of a fingerprint. However, since an author\u2019s style is not a physical entity, it is not appropriate to equate the comparison of fingerprints with that of textual samples. For example, since style is defined by the \u00abmarked\u00bb and habitual linguistic choices a person has made in the past, it is virtually impossible to analyze it in its entirety (since it would be unlikely to have a comprehensive inventory of all the linguistic choices a person has made). A style comparison will therefore always be a \u00abcomparison of partial fingerprints.\u00bb.<\/span><\/p>\n Beyond this issue of fragmented samples, style analysis presents many other challenges, including problems related to the comparability and representativeness of the samples. Although an author\u2019s style is meant to be unique and singular, the elements that contribute to this singularity are far from static. An author\u2019s idiolect evolves over time and varies depending on the communicative context. This temporal and contextual variation means that samples from the same author are not always comparable (how can one compare an anonymous letter written 20 years ago to a recently published book?) or representative (what stylistic elements are present in a grocery list?).<\/span><\/p>\n Similarly, identifying the sources of variation is no easy task. Some variations are more closely tied to the specific communicative needs and conventions of the linguistic event than to the style of a particular author. This is true of thematic variations, contextual variations, and variations related to social conventions. For example, an author\u2019s style may be constrained by a style guide. Similarly, while an overrepresentation of the word \u00absociety\u00bb in a short, informal message might be noteworthy, the overrepresentation of the same word in a financial text would not be surprising. It is clear, therefore, that an element of variation does not always constitute an element of style. For these reasons, variation is a much-discussed topic in forensic linguistics.<\/span><\/p>\n Attribution of Authorship in a Legal Context<\/span><\/p>\n Although authorship attribution is rarely used by French courts, it can be useful. Its methods make it possible to verify the authorship of a suicide note, analyze texts suspected of being plagiarized, or compare the style of anonymous letters or texts claiming responsibility for terrorist acts to those of known authors. In this context, the role of the forensic linguist is to identify, whenever possible, the elements that can help determine the authorship of a text.<\/span><\/p>\n Today, French forensic laboratories analyze documents by examining the materials (e.g., the type of paper), inks, and printing techniques. For example, the technicians in the Documents Department<\/span><\/a> Scientists at the National Gendarmerie\u2019s Criminal Research Institute (IRCGN) conduct physical and chemical analyses to determine the composition of paper substrates and inks and, when necessary, perform comparative analyses. They search for latent traces of pressure marks, identify printing techniques, and authenticate documents. They may also attempt to determine what type of equipment\u2014and sometimes which printer\u2014was used to produce the print.<\/span><\/p>\n Par technique d\u2019impression, nous pensons g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement aux impressions faites par des machines. Toutefois, l\u2019\u00e9criture et la signature manuscrites rentrent dans cette cat\u00e9gorie. Contrairement aux autres techniques d\u2019impression, il s\u2019agit donc de productions humaines personnelles et circonstanci\u00e9es.<\/span><\/p>\n C\u2019est sans doute, avec la voix, un des objets d\u2019\u00e9tude criminalistique qui s\u2019approche le plus de la production linguistique. Chacun personnalise le mod\u00e8le d\u2019\u00e9criture qui lui a \u00e9t\u00e9 enseign\u00e9 et d\u00e9veloppe une \u00e9criture qui lui est propre. Cette \u00e9criture \u00e9volue dans le temps et selon les circonstances. Il n\u2019est pas possible de d\u00e9terminer a priori le degr\u00e9 de variabilit\u00e9 de l\u2019\u00e9criture d\u2019une personne. Ce dernier peut \u00eatre plus ou moins important et seul l\u2019examen approfondi d\u2019un \u00e9chantillon suffisant et comparable peut permettre au technicien de d\u00e9terminer si un \u00e9crit litigieux a \u00e9t\u00e9 produit par une personne donn\u00e9e (le scripteur).<\/span><\/p>\n La question de l\u2019\u00e9chantillonnage<\/span><\/p>\n Une probl\u00e9matique commune aux deux disciplines concerne l\u2019\u00e9chantillonnage, en particulier la quantit\u00e9 et la qualit\u00e9 des \u00e9chantillons. En effet, afin de d\u00e9terminer l\u2019\u00e9tendue des examens possibles il est n\u00e9cessaire de mettre en lumi\u00e8re toutes les limites qui pourraient emp\u00eacher le technicien de se prononcer, ou limiter son avis.<\/span><\/p>\n Les variations de l\u2019\u00e9criture d\u2019une personne peuvent \u00eatre le r\u00e9sultat de facteurs multiples, dont certains contextuels (par exemple, l\u2019espace disponible sur le support ou l\u2019instrument d\u2019\u00e9criture utilis\u00e9) et d\u2019autres propres au scripteur. Ces derniers sont vari\u00e9s et peuvent aussi bien comprendre des pathologies, ou encore l\u2019\u00e9tat d\u2019esprit. De plus, les techniciens sont confront\u00e9s \u00e0 des d\u00e9guisements ou \u00e0 des imitations ce qui peut \u00eatre source de limites consid\u00e9rables \u00e0 l\u2019analyse. Il n\u2019en demeure pas moins qu\u2019il est parfois impossible de constituer un \u00e9chantillon adapt\u00e9.<\/span><\/p>\n Les approches \u00e0 l\u2019attribution d\u2019auteur<\/span><\/p>\n L\u2019attribution d\u2019auteur est avant tout un probl\u00e8me de comparaison de style. Le linguiste identifie les \u00e9l\u00e9ments \u00ab marqu\u00e9s\u00bb et r\u00e9currents d\u2019un texte et les compare ensuite \u00e0 des \u00e9chantillons dont la paternit\u00e9 est connue. Pour ce faire, plusieurs approches sont possibles, dont deux tr\u00e8s utilis\u00e9es actuellement : l\u2019analyse ax\u00e9e sur l’expertise et la classification bas\u00e9e sur la reconnaissance de formes. Dans l’approche dite \u00ab d’expertise \u00bb, le linguiste fait appel \u00e0 son exp\u00e9rience et ses connaissances th\u00e9oriques pour identifier les \u00e9l\u00e9ments potentiellement \u00ab marqu\u00e9s \u00bb de chaque \u00e9chantillon. Les donn\u00e9es ainsi obtenues passent ensuite par une \u00e9tape de v\u00e9rification et d\u2019\u00e9tayage o\u00f9 elles sont v\u00e9rifi\u00e9es ou rejet\u00e9es selon les informations recueillies. Enfin, les \u00e9l\u00e9ments v\u00e9rifi\u00e9s de chaque ensemble de textes sont compar\u00e9s et un avis sur la similarit\u00e9 ou dissimilarit\u00e9 des \u00e9chantillons est donn\u00e9. Anciennement ces analyses \u00e9taient effectu\u00e9es de mani\u00e8re compl\u00e8tement manuelle. Aujourd\u2019hui les linguistes se servent souvent d\u2019outils informatiques tels que les concordanciers ou les corpus informatis\u00e9s pour faciliter l\u2019exploration des \u00e9chantillons.<\/span><\/p>\n Le probl\u00e8me de l\u2019attribution d\u2019auteur peut \u00e9galement s\u2019aborder comme un probl\u00e8me de reconnaissance de formes<\/span><\/a> \u2013 sp\u00e9cifiquement comme un probl\u00e8me de classification automatique de textes. Dans ce sc\u00e9nario, les auteurs deviennent les \u00ab classes \u00bb auxquelles les \u00e9chantillons peuvent \u00eatre attribu\u00e9s. Cette m\u00e9thode gagne du terrain depuis l\u2019essor de l\u2019intelligence artificielle dans le traitement automatique de textes. Dans cette approche algorithmique, la qualit\u00e9 des r\u00e9sultats repose fortement sur l\u2019\u00e9chantillonnage, les caract\u00e9ristiques analys\u00e9es (\u00ab features \u00bb) et le classifieur s\u00e9lectionn\u00e9s par le linguiste.<\/span><\/p>\n Perspectives en France<\/span><\/p>\n L\u2019attribution d\u2019auteur est une t\u00e2che complexe qui demande une compr\u00e9hension approfondie du fonctionnement de la langue et des diff\u00e9rentes m\u00e9thodes d\u2019attribution utilis\u00e9es. La linguistique forensique peut \u00eatre un outil d\u2019analyse concourant \u00e0 la prise en compte d\u2019un texte en tant que trace.<\/span><\/p>\n L\u2019universit\u00e9 de CY Cergy Paris<\/span><\/a>, \u00e0 travers le laboratoire AGORA<\/span><\/a> and the\u2019Institut des humanit\u00e9s num\u00e9riques<\/span><\/a>, avec l\u2019aide des techniciens du d\u00e9partement Documents<\/span><\/a> de l\u2019IRCGN<\/span><\/a>, travaille au d\u00e9veloppement d\u2019une m\u00e9thodologie d\u2019attribution d\u2019auteur adapt\u00e9e aux contextes judiciaires. Pour plus d\u2019informations sur les diff\u00e9rents projets de l\u2019Institut des humanit\u00e9s num\u00e9riques, nous vous invitons \u00e0 visiter notre site<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Auteurs Julien Longhi Professeur des universit\u00e9s en sciences du langage, CY Cergy Paris Universit\u00e9 Alexandra Freeman Doctorante en linguistique, CY Cergy Paris Universit\u00e9 C\u00e9cile Jacob Sp\u00e9cialiste en comparaison d’\u00e9critures manuscrites, Institut de recherche criminelle de la Gendarmerie nationale (IRCGN) Le sujet de l\u2019attribution d\u2019auteurs n\u2019est pas nouveau, notamment dans le champ des \u00e9tudes litt\u00e9raires. Il<\/p>","protected":false},"author":33,"featured_media":17256,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"footnotes":"","rank_math_focus_keyword":"","rank_math_title":"","rank_math_description":"","rank_math_canonical_url":"","rank_math_robots":null,"rank_math_facebook_title":"","rank_math_facebook_description":"","rank_math_twitter_title":"","rank_math_twitter_description":""},"categories":[819],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-17255","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-justice"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/antilla-martinique.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17255","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/antilla-martinique.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/antilla-martinique.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antilla-martinique.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/33"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antilla-martinique.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=17255"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/antilla-martinique.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17255\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antilla-martinique.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/17256"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/antilla-martinique.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17255"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antilla-martinique.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17255"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antilla-martinique.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17255"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}