- Email: [email protected]
Chapter 6 Stylistic analysis in document examination
113
6.0 Introduction The use of stylistic analysis as internal evidence for author identification has been a part of the practice of document examination since the beginning of the 20th century, when Albert S. Osborn (1910:307) emphasized the importance of composition, grammar, spelling, idioms, word division, spacing, margins, punctuation, use of capital letters, underscoring, and abbreviations. Osborn reinforced this position in The Problem of Proof (1926), saying: An examination of any document for the purpose of discovering its authorship should include a careful examination of its language (Osborn 1926:455).
always
Osborn (1926) extended and reorganized his first inventory of stylistic features, now proposing the two general categories of rhetoric and composition, and errors. Included in the first category were these subareas: tone or general effect, figures of speech, order and logical character of statements, emphasis and control, diction, sentence construction, style, manner, and individual habits of language expression. Although Osborn’s “careful examination” of language did not result in the development of a systematic linguistic approach at that time, it was generally comprehensive and received more attention in his and others’ later writings. In his later revision of Questioned Documents (1929), Osborn provided a more extensive array of stylistic characteristics to be considered, placing them in three broad categories: subject matter; rhetoric, composition, and language; and errors. Other document examiners as well have continued to emphasize the need to observe stylistic patterns of language and typing in questioned writings. It is interesting that they represent the different notions of language style itself (Chapter 8), i.e., errors, individual habits, differences, and optional choices. A number of central works in the field of document examination are identified here, and their contribution to the development of forensic stylistic analysis follows. Principal sources include: Evidential Documents (Conway 1959) Suspect Documents (Harrison 1958) Scientijk Examination of Questioned Documents (Hilton 1982) The Problem of Proof (Osborn 1926) Questioned Documents (Osborn 1910) Questioned Documents, 2nd Edition, (Osborn 1929) Criminalistics, Chapter XI, (Zotov 1984) 6.1 The North American Tradition The North American tradition of attention to language style among document examiners has been strongly established by Albert S. Osborn, James Conway, Ordway Hilton and others.
114
6.10 Albert S. Osborn The work of A.S. Osborn is the earliest and most comprehensive to date in the field of document examination. Osborn observes, “Another important initial step in the inquiry . . . is the careful analysis of an anonymous communication with a view of determining the . . . grammatical ability of the writer,” (Osborn 1929:397). In an extended footnote just below this statement, Osborn elaborates on Questioned Documents (1910) by outlining the many features of writing style he was able to identify as important. This note is entitled, “Analysis of Language as a Means of Identification,” and contains an extensive list of characteristics: Subject Matter (1) Technical terms and their significance; (2) References to persons, places, and occasions; (3) Masculinity or femininity; (4) Gist of subject matter; (5) Purpose of communication; (6) Hysteria, incoherence, or insanity; (7) Jealousy; (8) Self-defense or self-justification; (9) Annoyance, pique, antipathy, anger, hate; (10) Suggestions, advice, threats, demands. Rhetoric, Composition, Language: (1) Tone; (2) Figure of speech; (3) Order of statement; (4) Logical connection; (5) Climax and emphasis; (6) Statement of facts and inference; (7) Continuity; (8) Exaggeration or restraint; (9) Choice of words; (10) Choice of adjectives; (11) Location and frequency of modifiers; (12) Forceful or weak style; (13) Direct or indirect expression; (14) Personal or impersonal; (15) Short or long sentences; (16) Idioms; (17) Original or conventional style; (18) Courteous or brusque; (19) Dictatorial or obsequious; (20) Educated or illiterate; (21) Refined or coarse; (22) Flowery or plain; (23) Slangy, profane, or elegant; (24) Foreign form. Errors (1) Spelling; (2) Capitals; (3) Punctuation; (4) Paragraphing; (5) Titles; (6) Person; (7) Number; (8) Case; (9) Pronoun and antecedent; (10) Verb and subject; (11) Mood; (12) Tense; (13) Voice; (14) Possessives; (15) Omissions; (16) Interlineations; (17) Erasures; (18) Repetitions; (19) Facts or statements.
In addition to this comprehensive list of possible stylistic features, Osborn continues in the text with another (at times repetitive) catalog of characteristics: . careful attention should be given to the question of materials, sentence construction, grammar, spelling, idioms, division of words, proportions of letters, shading, alignment, spacing, margins, system of writing, watermarks, titles, corrections, erasures, punctuation, use of capital letters, underscoring, abbreviations, folding, superscriptions, typewriting, stamping, and ink (Osborn 1929:399).
On the subject of questioned typewriting, Osborn (1929:601) observes that it is not always possible to identify a particular typewriter operator but is often possible to say certain typewriting was not written by a particular typist. However, he also points out in the same place that, “Occasionally it is possible to determine with a high degree of certainty who wrote a particular specimen of typewriting.. . ,”
115
The stylistic characteristics to look for in questioned typing are much the same as those identified above for writing. Osborn (1929:601) says: The points for consideration are, first, as with hand-written letters: (1) spelling; (2) punctuation; (3) use of capitals; (4) division of words; (5) choice of words; (6) construction of sentences; (7) observance or non-observance of grammatical rules; (8) subject matter in general. As relating specifically to the typewriting itself, the matters to consider in addition to those mentioned above are: (1) depth of indentation of paragraphs; (2) spacing before or after punctuation; (3) arrangement of heading; (4) arrangement of conclusion; (5) use of characters in an unusual way, as capital ‘I’for figure ‘I’, small character ‘1’for capital ‘I’, sign ‘&’for the word ‘and’; (6) erroneous repetition of a letter in a word; (7) striking shift-key letters in the wrong positions; (8) repeated heavy impressions of certain characters; (9) uniform light impressions of certain characters; (10) peculiar erasures or corrections; (11) uneven margin; (12) balanced or unbalanced placing of matter on page; (13) length of lines; (14) method of writing numbers, amounts and fractions.
In The Problem ofProof( 1926) Osborn also covers the possibility of identifying characteristics of a first language other than English in an anonymous writer, noting: When it is shown, as it often can be, that a letter was actually written by one who first learned Italian, or German, or French, or who had learned to write in England, Ireland, or Canada instead of the United States, this information alone may be of sufficient importance to solve the problem (Osborn 1926:455).
Because of the importance of Osborn’s continued and comprehensive attention to stylistic evidence, Osborn’s revised (1926) list of characteristics relating to language and style is reproduced below. ANALYSIS OF SUBJECT MATTER, LANGUAGE, AND STYLE OF A WRITTEN COMMUNICATION, AND THE DETERMINATION OF ITS MOTIVE, PURPOSE, OR PURPOSES, AS A MEANS OF DISCOVERING ITS AUTHORSHIP. (Sections I-III and VI omitted) (IV) Rhetoric,
Composition
(A) Tone or general effect (1) Dignified or lofty; (2) Insulting; (3) Respectful; (4) Menial, groveling, or obsequious; (5) Imploring; (6) Commanding or overbearing; (7) Informing; (8) Accusing; (9) Vehement or restrained; (10) Penitent; (11) Childish; (12) Inconsistent; (13) Trivial and unimportant. (B) Figures of speech (1) Character, frequency, infrequency; sulting epithets; (5) Interjections.
(2) Slang,
profanity;
(3) Nicknames;
(C) Order and logical character of statements (1) Logical and progressive; (2) Faulty and illogical; (3) Omission sion; (4) Interpolated irrelevant ideas; (5) Reference to matter,
(4) In-
of basis of conclualleged facts, or
116
ideas, not specified; (6) Vague reminiscences; (9) Anti-climax.
allusions;
(0) Emphasis and control (1) Method of emphasis; (2) Exaggeration for emphasis; (4) Restraint; (5) Repetition; from evidence and reasoning.
(7) Veiled
threats;
(8) Alleged
and use of superlatives; (3) Straining (6) Underscoring; (7) Justified climax
(E) Diction: Skill or lack of skill in the choice oj (1) nouns; (2) adjectives; (3) adverbs. (F) Construction (1) Long or short sentences; (2) Simple, complex, or compound; (3) Frequency and location of relative clauses and modifying words; (4) Weak or strong ending of sentences; (5) Disconnected statements; (6) Smoothness and continuity; (7) Frequent or rare use of connectives. (G) Style
(1) Educated or illiterate; (2) Vigorous or mild; (3) Clear, vague, or ambiguous; (4) Argumentative or assertive; (5) Elegant or slangy; (6) Natural or affected; (7) Plain or flowery; (8) Terse or discursive; (9) Original or conventional, (10) Refined or coarse; (11) Cumbersome or heavy, or flowering and easy; (12) Masculine or feminine; (13) Foreign; (14) Literary; (15) Journalistic; (16) Childish; (17) Ecclesiastical; (18) Sporting; (19) Theatrical. (H) Manner (1) Hurried or deliberate; (2) Studied or precipitate; (3) Careless, slovenly, precise or careful; (4) Courteous or disrespectful; (5) Brusque or suave; (6) Dictatorial or obsequious; (7) Threatening or appealing; (8) Sincere or affected; (9) Sad, gay, injured, dejected, crazy, insulting, belligerent; (10) Cold or passionate. (I) Individual habits in language or expression (1) Underscoring; (2) Omission of letters from words, or words from sentences; (3) Excessive division of words at ends of lines, or no divisions; (4) Use of interlineations; (5) Overwriting of words, letters, or figures;@) Marking out or obliterating words; (7) Favorite expressions; (8) Favorite words; (9) Postscripts; (10) Excessive punctuation; (11) No punctuation; (12) Use of interjections; (13) Use of quotations; (14) Divulging alleged secrets; (15) Writing across or at right angles with other writing; (16) Slots and offsets; (17) Margins and paragraphing. (lo Errors Errors in: (1) Spelling; (2) Capitals; (3) Punctuation, Division of words; (4) Paragraphing, Arrangement, Margins; (5) Titles; (6) Person; (7) Number; (8) Case; (9) Pronoun and antecedent; (10) Verb and subject; (11) Mode; (12) Tense; (13) Voice; (14) Possessives; (15) Omission of subject or of predicate; (16) Repetitions; (17) Incorrect abbreviations; (18) Incorrect use of words; (19) Errors in names, initials, places, or titles; (20) Erroneous statements and incorrect information; (21) Incorrect addresses; (22) Unsuitable or improper materials (Osborn 1926).
117
6.11Conway, Hilton and Others In his Evidential Documents (1959), James Conway proposes consideration of errors and “individualities” in spelling, grammar, capitalization, punctuation, expression, and arrangement. Conway places significant emphasis on stylistic evidence in anonymous letters, saying: A detailed study should be made of all errors and individualities in spelling, grammar, capitalization, punctuation, and expression. Margins, paragraphing, arrangement, dates, and numerals merit analysis (Conway 1959:147).
In addition, Conway also recognizes the importance tion, saying of exemplar writing:
of style in typist identifica-
The questioned typewriting [of exemplars] should be dictated so that the suspect will utilize his personal habits of arrangement, capitalization, spacing, abbreviations, and especially phrasing and spelling. .. . . Special attention should be given numbers and dates, unusual phrases, and errors. It should be remembered that if one omits individualities such as misspellings, he is handicapping his own investigation, . .. (Conway 1959:135).
In Scientific Examination of Questioned Documents (1982), Hilton stresses the importance of a writer’s habits of arrangement, punctuation and capitalization, as well as his or her choice of alternative or optional symbols, spellings, hyphenations, phraseology, and modes of correction. Hilton recognizes the evident,iary value of features of style in the identification of the typist, saying: With all typists, however, consideration of the habits of arrangement, punctuation, capitalization, choice of alternative or optional symbols, spelling, hyphenation, phraseology, mode of correction, stenographic signatures, and presence of overtypings may point out an individual (Hilton 1982251).
In addition to the above proposals of Osborn, Conway and Hilton for typist identification, applications of such techniques are found in Bohn (1988), Hart (1989), Huber (1956), and Tytell(1955). Huber’s approach to typist identification is the most comprehensive and systematic of these. He distinguishes between the composer and the typist, outlines possible identifying characteristics of each, and proposes a basis for analyzing the relationship between the two. For the composer, he follows Osborn’s analysis of subject matter, rhetoric, composition, word choice, and other errors and idiosyncracies. For typist identification, Huber (1956:157) presents this detailed list of characteristics: 1. 2. 3.
Spelling errors or styles: true spelling errors, foreign spelling styles, and typographical errors. Other errors: omissions, omissions corrected, sequences, capitalization, key selection, and superfluous letters. Methods of correction: typeovers, obliterations.
118
4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.
Punctuation: excessive use of comma, dash, question mark, etc., errors. Use of capitals: especially errors. Division of words: methods of dividing words, correction of poor divisions, at the end of a line. Shift key operation Depth of indentions Spacing after punctuation Arrangement Margin: evenness, width Balance of material Length of lines Unusual character use Use of numbers, amounts, and fractions
While attention to such internal evidence is often absent in routine document examinations, examiners of questioned documents from around the world have for many years used internal evidence of language style (in addition to “mechanical” factors) in cases of disputed authorship. For example, clues to authorship from internal evidence are identified by Tytell(1955:46) as “the style of writing in a document; the system of punctuation used; the format; and grammatical constructions employed.” Tytell (idem) further cites types of internal evidence as a consistent misspelling, a habitual manner of phrasing, the length of sentences, and the manner in which a letter is arranged. Added to the initial and continuing impetus for stylistic analysis within the field of document examination, there is also research on typing and check writing that relies on the stylistic habits of the typist or check writer for identification. This research provides extensive lists of habitual characteristics of individual check writers, in particular the “trademarks” of how money amounts are written in figures and written out in words, also including such characteristics as check type, number, date, payee, maker signature, endorsement, handwriting, and check protector. See the following limited reference list for classification and specific examples of characteristics: Bradford (1954), FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin (1968), Glick and Newsome (1974), Lee and Abbey (1922), Livingston (1949), Nelson (n/d), New York State Identification Intelligence System (n/d), Schroeder (1971), and Schroeder (1974). 6.2 European Approaches 6.20 Britain Harrison’s focus in Suspect Documents (1958) is especially prescriptive. While he notes the importance of “phraseology, ” his is otherwise an error-based emphasis on style, citing “bad grammar,” “poor punctuation,” and “spelling errors.” Harrison’s is an extensive British work on document examination which gives some attention to stylistic evidence. He does note its importance in two
119
contexts. First, in his discussion of anonymous reading the letter aloud because,
letters,
Harrison
recommends
... during the reading, when attention is focused more on the style, choice of words and phraseology, it will often become apparent that there is only one mind behind the whole (Harrison 1958:471).
In addition, Harrison (1958484) discusses the anonymous writer who intends to give a misleading impression of his educational level “by the use of bad grammar, poor punctuation and spelling errors in simple words.” He observes that the opposite possibility, a not very literate person attempting to assume a high level of literacy, is not possible “... because no one can assume a higher standard of phraseology, grammar and skill in the selection and use of words than is normal to him . ..” (Harrison 1958484). Harrison, therefore, makes use of stylistic cues to identify the disguised writing of a literate author. For example, while simple words in a text may be misspelled, the more difficult ones are spelled correctly. Grammatical errors of the “I is” and “you was” type “... are often exposed as deliberate errors by their association with correct punctuation and division of the written matter into sentences and paragraphs, as well as with the correct division of words at the ends of lines (Harrison 1958:485). Finally, with respect to spelling, Harrison makes several observations. First, “a truly illiterate person” will spell the more difficult words incorrectly. Second, several spelling versions of the same word may be encountered on the same page. And third, long words and proper names are often written as they are pronounced by the writer (Harrison 1958:484). 6.21. Eastern Europe Reference to an “Eastern European” approach is based on publications that have reached the West from Czechoslovakia and the former Soviet Union, and on the reports of Western specialists who have observed similarities of approach in east bloc countries they have visited. The linguistic examination of the stylistic features of written “communication” is well established as an integral part of document examination in Czechoslovakia (Musilova 1992). Additionally, in the former Soviet Union Criminalistics (1984) was written by a group of thirteen authors and translated from the Russian in 1989. The section on writing and style (Chapter 13) was done by B.L. Zotov (1984). In keeping with the European practice, Zotov divides document examination into two parts: the “technical study of documents” (document examination), and the “examination of writing.” The examination of writing is further subdivided into respective examination of the writing and the language style, which are often done by different analysts. With respect to stylistics, two things are significant about the eastern European approach. First, stylistic analysis is an integral, routine part of document examination, and second, the same “identificational marks” of style identified by American and British examiners of questioned documents (above) are used.
120
The east European approach maintains that relatively stable writing skills are outwardly manifested by “identificational marks of writing,” and that the uniqueness of a manuscript results only from “a definite totality of marks.” The writer’s level of literacy, style, and grammar “as a rule, cannot be changed at will by the writer. That is why they are used to identify him,” (Zotov 1989:1’77) Identificational marks include style characteristics and “topographic attributes.” Style markers are text structure, the manner in which the writer outlines his ideas, vocabulary (frequent use of the same words - indictating a small “word stock”, simili, proverbs, argot, archaisms, localisms, foreign borrowings, slang, professionalisms, dialectisms), word composition, spelling mistakes, and sentence structure (laconic or verbose, complex/compound, frequently occurring phrases, consistency, mistakes) (Zotov 1989:178). Topographic attributes reflect stable habits of text arrangement, such as: presence, form and dimension of margins, headings and addresses, distance between words and lines, ways of writing dates, ways of attracting the reader’s attention, corrections, additions, and changes, pagination and punctuation between words and lines (Zotov 1989:179).
6.0 Introduction The use of stylistic analysis as internal evidence for author identification has been a part of the practice of document examination since the beginning of the 20th century, when Albert S. Osborn (1910:307) emphasized the importance of composition, grammar, spelling, idioms, word division, spacing, margins, punctuation, use of capital letters, underscoring, and abbreviations. Osborn reinforced this position in The Problem of Proof (1926), saying: An examination of any document for the purpose of discovering its authorship should include a careful examination of its language (Osborn 1926:455).
always
Osborn (1926) extended and reorganized his first inventory of stylistic features, now proposing the two general categories of rhetoric and composition, and errors. Included in the first category were these subareas: tone or general effect, figures of speech, order and logical character of statements, emphasis and control, diction, sentence construction, style, manner, and individual habits of language expression. Although Osborn’s “careful examination” of language did not result in the development of a systematic linguistic approach at that time, it was generally comprehensive and received more attention in his and others’ later writings. In his later revision of Questioned Documents (1929), Osborn provided a more extensive array of stylistic characteristics to be considered, placing them in three broad categories: subject matter; rhetoric, composition, and language; and errors. Other document examiners as well have continued to emphasize the need to observe stylistic patterns of language and typing in questioned writings. It is interesting that they represent the different notions of language style itself (Chapter 8), i.e., errors, individual habits, differences, and optional choices. A number of central works in the field of document examination are identified here, and their contribution to the development of forensic stylistic analysis follows. Principal sources include: Evidential Documents (Conway 1959) Suspect Documents (Harrison 1958) Scientijk Examination of Questioned Documents (Hilton 1982) The Problem of Proof (Osborn 1926) Questioned Documents (Osborn 1910) Questioned Documents, 2nd Edition, (Osborn 1929) Criminalistics, Chapter XI, (Zotov 1984) 6.1 The North American Tradition The North American tradition of attention to language style among document examiners has been strongly established by Albert S. Osborn, James Conway, Ordway Hilton and others.
114
6.10 Albert S. Osborn The work of A.S. Osborn is the earliest and most comprehensive to date in the field of document examination. Osborn observes, “Another important initial step in the inquiry . . . is the careful analysis of an anonymous communication with a view of determining the . . . grammatical ability of the writer,” (Osborn 1929:397). In an extended footnote just below this statement, Osborn elaborates on Questioned Documents (1910) by outlining the many features of writing style he was able to identify as important. This note is entitled, “Analysis of Language as a Means of Identification,” and contains an extensive list of characteristics: Subject Matter (1) Technical terms and their significance; (2) References to persons, places, and occasions; (3) Masculinity or femininity; (4) Gist of subject matter; (5) Purpose of communication; (6) Hysteria, incoherence, or insanity; (7) Jealousy; (8) Self-defense or self-justification; (9) Annoyance, pique, antipathy, anger, hate; (10) Suggestions, advice, threats, demands. Rhetoric, Composition, Language: (1) Tone; (2) Figure of speech; (3) Order of statement; (4) Logical connection; (5) Climax and emphasis; (6) Statement of facts and inference; (7) Continuity; (8) Exaggeration or restraint; (9) Choice of words; (10) Choice of adjectives; (11) Location and frequency of modifiers; (12) Forceful or weak style; (13) Direct or indirect expression; (14) Personal or impersonal; (15) Short or long sentences; (16) Idioms; (17) Original or conventional style; (18) Courteous or brusque; (19) Dictatorial or obsequious; (20) Educated or illiterate; (21) Refined or coarse; (22) Flowery or plain; (23) Slangy, profane, or elegant; (24) Foreign form. Errors (1) Spelling; (2) Capitals; (3) Punctuation; (4) Paragraphing; (5) Titles; (6) Person; (7) Number; (8) Case; (9) Pronoun and antecedent; (10) Verb and subject; (11) Mood; (12) Tense; (13) Voice; (14) Possessives; (15) Omissions; (16) Interlineations; (17) Erasures; (18) Repetitions; (19) Facts or statements.
In addition to this comprehensive list of possible stylistic features, Osborn continues in the text with another (at times repetitive) catalog of characteristics: . careful attention should be given to the question of materials, sentence construction, grammar, spelling, idioms, division of words, proportions of letters, shading, alignment, spacing, margins, system of writing, watermarks, titles, corrections, erasures, punctuation, use of capital letters, underscoring, abbreviations, folding, superscriptions, typewriting, stamping, and ink (Osborn 1929:399).
On the subject of questioned typewriting, Osborn (1929:601) observes that it is not always possible to identify a particular typewriter operator but is often possible to say certain typewriting was not written by a particular typist. However, he also points out in the same place that, “Occasionally it is possible to determine with a high degree of certainty who wrote a particular specimen of typewriting.. . ,”
115
The stylistic characteristics to look for in questioned typing are much the same as those identified above for writing. Osborn (1929:601) says: The points for consideration are, first, as with hand-written letters: (1) spelling; (2) punctuation; (3) use of capitals; (4) division of words; (5) choice of words; (6) construction of sentences; (7) observance or non-observance of grammatical rules; (8) subject matter in general. As relating specifically to the typewriting itself, the matters to consider in addition to those mentioned above are: (1) depth of indentation of paragraphs; (2) spacing before or after punctuation; (3) arrangement of heading; (4) arrangement of conclusion; (5) use of characters in an unusual way, as capital ‘I’for figure ‘I’, small character ‘1’for capital ‘I’, sign ‘&’for the word ‘and’; (6) erroneous repetition of a letter in a word; (7) striking shift-key letters in the wrong positions; (8) repeated heavy impressions of certain characters; (9) uniform light impressions of certain characters; (10) peculiar erasures or corrections; (11) uneven margin; (12) balanced or unbalanced placing of matter on page; (13) length of lines; (14) method of writing numbers, amounts and fractions.
In The Problem ofProof( 1926) Osborn also covers the possibility of identifying characteristics of a first language other than English in an anonymous writer, noting: When it is shown, as it often can be, that a letter was actually written by one who first learned Italian, or German, or French, or who had learned to write in England, Ireland, or Canada instead of the United States, this information alone may be of sufficient importance to solve the problem (Osborn 1926:455).
Because of the importance of Osborn’s continued and comprehensive attention to stylistic evidence, Osborn’s revised (1926) list of characteristics relating to language and style is reproduced below. ANALYSIS OF SUBJECT MATTER, LANGUAGE, AND STYLE OF A WRITTEN COMMUNICATION, AND THE DETERMINATION OF ITS MOTIVE, PURPOSE, OR PURPOSES, AS A MEANS OF DISCOVERING ITS AUTHORSHIP. (Sections I-III and VI omitted) (IV) Rhetoric,
Composition
(A) Tone or general effect (1) Dignified or lofty; (2) Insulting; (3) Respectful; (4) Menial, groveling, or obsequious; (5) Imploring; (6) Commanding or overbearing; (7) Informing; (8) Accusing; (9) Vehement or restrained; (10) Penitent; (11) Childish; (12) Inconsistent; (13) Trivial and unimportant. (B) Figures of speech (1) Character, frequency, infrequency; sulting epithets; (5) Interjections.
(2) Slang,
profanity;
(3) Nicknames;
(C) Order and logical character of statements (1) Logical and progressive; (2) Faulty and illogical; (3) Omission sion; (4) Interpolated irrelevant ideas; (5) Reference to matter,
(4) In-
of basis of conclualleged facts, or
116
ideas, not specified; (6) Vague reminiscences; (9) Anti-climax.
allusions;
(0) Emphasis and control (1) Method of emphasis; (2) Exaggeration for emphasis; (4) Restraint; (5) Repetition; from evidence and reasoning.
(7) Veiled
threats;
(8) Alleged
and use of superlatives; (3) Straining (6) Underscoring; (7) Justified climax
(E) Diction: Skill or lack of skill in the choice oj (1) nouns; (2) adjectives; (3) adverbs. (F) Construction (1) Long or short sentences; (2) Simple, complex, or compound; (3) Frequency and location of relative clauses and modifying words; (4) Weak or strong ending of sentences; (5) Disconnected statements; (6) Smoothness and continuity; (7) Frequent or rare use of connectives. (G) Style
(1) Educated or illiterate; (2) Vigorous or mild; (3) Clear, vague, or ambiguous; (4) Argumentative or assertive; (5) Elegant or slangy; (6) Natural or affected; (7) Plain or flowery; (8) Terse or discursive; (9) Original or conventional, (10) Refined or coarse; (11) Cumbersome or heavy, or flowering and easy; (12) Masculine or feminine; (13) Foreign; (14) Literary; (15) Journalistic; (16) Childish; (17) Ecclesiastical; (18) Sporting; (19) Theatrical. (H) Manner (1) Hurried or deliberate; (2) Studied or precipitate; (3) Careless, slovenly, precise or careful; (4) Courteous or disrespectful; (5) Brusque or suave; (6) Dictatorial or obsequious; (7) Threatening or appealing; (8) Sincere or affected; (9) Sad, gay, injured, dejected, crazy, insulting, belligerent; (10) Cold or passionate. (I) Individual habits in language or expression (1) Underscoring; (2) Omission of letters from words, or words from sentences; (3) Excessive division of words at ends of lines, or no divisions; (4) Use of interlineations; (5) Overwriting of words, letters, or figures;@) Marking out or obliterating words; (7) Favorite expressions; (8) Favorite words; (9) Postscripts; (10) Excessive punctuation; (11) No punctuation; (12) Use of interjections; (13) Use of quotations; (14) Divulging alleged secrets; (15) Writing across or at right angles with other writing; (16) Slots and offsets; (17) Margins and paragraphing. (lo Errors Errors in: (1) Spelling; (2) Capitals; (3) Punctuation, Division of words; (4) Paragraphing, Arrangement, Margins; (5) Titles; (6) Person; (7) Number; (8) Case; (9) Pronoun and antecedent; (10) Verb and subject; (11) Mode; (12) Tense; (13) Voice; (14) Possessives; (15) Omission of subject or of predicate; (16) Repetitions; (17) Incorrect abbreviations; (18) Incorrect use of words; (19) Errors in names, initials, places, or titles; (20) Erroneous statements and incorrect information; (21) Incorrect addresses; (22) Unsuitable or improper materials (Osborn 1926).
117
6.11Conway, Hilton and Others In his Evidential Documents (1959), James Conway proposes consideration of errors and “individualities” in spelling, grammar, capitalization, punctuation, expression, and arrangement. Conway places significant emphasis on stylistic evidence in anonymous letters, saying: A detailed study should be made of all errors and individualities in spelling, grammar, capitalization, punctuation, and expression. Margins, paragraphing, arrangement, dates, and numerals merit analysis (Conway 1959:147).
In addition, Conway also recognizes the importance tion, saying of exemplar writing:
of style in typist identifica-
The questioned typewriting [of exemplars] should be dictated so that the suspect will utilize his personal habits of arrangement, capitalization, spacing, abbreviations, and especially phrasing and spelling. .. . . Special attention should be given numbers and dates, unusual phrases, and errors. It should be remembered that if one omits individualities such as misspellings, he is handicapping his own investigation, . .. (Conway 1959:135).
In Scientific Examination of Questioned Documents (1982), Hilton stresses the importance of a writer’s habits of arrangement, punctuation and capitalization, as well as his or her choice of alternative or optional symbols, spellings, hyphenations, phraseology, and modes of correction. Hilton recognizes the evident,iary value of features of style in the identification of the typist, saying: With all typists, however, consideration of the habits of arrangement, punctuation, capitalization, choice of alternative or optional symbols, spelling, hyphenation, phraseology, mode of correction, stenographic signatures, and presence of overtypings may point out an individual (Hilton 1982251).
In addition to the above proposals of Osborn, Conway and Hilton for typist identification, applications of such techniques are found in Bohn (1988), Hart (1989), Huber (1956), and Tytell(1955). Huber’s approach to typist identification is the most comprehensive and systematic of these. He distinguishes between the composer and the typist, outlines possible identifying characteristics of each, and proposes a basis for analyzing the relationship between the two. For the composer, he follows Osborn’s analysis of subject matter, rhetoric, composition, word choice, and other errors and idiosyncracies. For typist identification, Huber (1956:157) presents this detailed list of characteristics: 1. 2. 3.
Spelling errors or styles: true spelling errors, foreign spelling styles, and typographical errors. Other errors: omissions, omissions corrected, sequences, capitalization, key selection, and superfluous letters. Methods of correction: typeovers, obliterations.
118
4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.
Punctuation: excessive use of comma, dash, question mark, etc., errors. Use of capitals: especially errors. Division of words: methods of dividing words, correction of poor divisions, at the end of a line. Shift key operation Depth of indentions Spacing after punctuation Arrangement Margin: evenness, width Balance of material Length of lines Unusual character use Use of numbers, amounts, and fractions
While attention to such internal evidence is often absent in routine document examinations, examiners of questioned documents from around the world have for many years used internal evidence of language style (in addition to “mechanical” factors) in cases of disputed authorship. For example, clues to authorship from internal evidence are identified by Tytell(1955:46) as “the style of writing in a document; the system of punctuation used; the format; and grammatical constructions employed.” Tytell (idem) further cites types of internal evidence as a consistent misspelling, a habitual manner of phrasing, the length of sentences, and the manner in which a letter is arranged. Added to the initial and continuing impetus for stylistic analysis within the field of document examination, there is also research on typing and check writing that relies on the stylistic habits of the typist or check writer for identification. This research provides extensive lists of habitual characteristics of individual check writers, in particular the “trademarks” of how money amounts are written in figures and written out in words, also including such characteristics as check type, number, date, payee, maker signature, endorsement, handwriting, and check protector. See the following limited reference list for classification and specific examples of characteristics: Bradford (1954), FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin (1968), Glick and Newsome (1974), Lee and Abbey (1922), Livingston (1949), Nelson (n/d), New York State Identification Intelligence System (n/d), Schroeder (1971), and Schroeder (1974). 6.2 European Approaches 6.20 Britain Harrison’s focus in Suspect Documents (1958) is especially prescriptive. While he notes the importance of “phraseology, ” his is otherwise an error-based emphasis on style, citing “bad grammar,” “poor punctuation,” and “spelling errors.” Harrison’s is an extensive British work on document examination which gives some attention to stylistic evidence. He does note its importance in two
119
contexts. First, in his discussion of anonymous reading the letter aloud because,
letters,
Harrison
recommends
... during the reading, when attention is focused more on the style, choice of words and phraseology, it will often become apparent that there is only one mind behind the whole (Harrison 1958:471).
In addition, Harrison (1958484) discusses the anonymous writer who intends to give a misleading impression of his educational level “by the use of bad grammar, poor punctuation and spelling errors in simple words.” He observes that the opposite possibility, a not very literate person attempting to assume a high level of literacy, is not possible “... because no one can assume a higher standard of phraseology, grammar and skill in the selection and use of words than is normal to him . ..” (Harrison 1958484). Harrison, therefore, makes use of stylistic cues to identify the disguised writing of a literate author. For example, while simple words in a text may be misspelled, the more difficult ones are spelled correctly. Grammatical errors of the “I is” and “you was” type “... are often exposed as deliberate errors by their association with correct punctuation and division of the written matter into sentences and paragraphs, as well as with the correct division of words at the ends of lines (Harrison 1958:485). Finally, with respect to spelling, Harrison makes several observations. First, “a truly illiterate person” will spell the more difficult words incorrectly. Second, several spelling versions of the same word may be encountered on the same page. And third, long words and proper names are often written as they are pronounced by the writer (Harrison 1958:484). 6.21. Eastern Europe Reference to an “Eastern European” approach is based on publications that have reached the West from Czechoslovakia and the former Soviet Union, and on the reports of Western specialists who have observed similarities of approach in east bloc countries they have visited. The linguistic examination of the stylistic features of written “communication” is well established as an integral part of document examination in Czechoslovakia (Musilova 1992). Additionally, in the former Soviet Union Criminalistics (1984) was written by a group of thirteen authors and translated from the Russian in 1989. The section on writing and style (Chapter 13) was done by B.L. Zotov (1984). In keeping with the European practice, Zotov divides document examination into two parts: the “technical study of documents” (document examination), and the “examination of writing.” The examination of writing is further subdivided into respective examination of the writing and the language style, which are often done by different analysts. With respect to stylistics, two things are significant about the eastern European approach. First, stylistic analysis is an integral, routine part of document examination, and second, the same “identificational marks” of style identified by American and British examiners of questioned documents (above) are used.
120
The east European approach maintains that relatively stable writing skills are outwardly manifested by “identificational marks of writing,” and that the uniqueness of a manuscript results only from “a definite totality of marks.” The writer’s level of literacy, style, and grammar “as a rule, cannot be changed at will by the writer. That is why they are used to identify him,” (Zotov 1989:1’77) Identificational marks include style characteristics and “topographic attributes.” Style markers are text structure, the manner in which the writer outlines his ideas, vocabulary (frequent use of the same words - indictating a small “word stock”, simili, proverbs, argot, archaisms, localisms, foreign borrowings, slang, professionalisms, dialectisms), word composition, spelling mistakes, and sentence structure (laconic or verbose, complex/compound, frequently occurring phrases, consistency, mistakes) (Zotov 1989:178). Topographic attributes reflect stable habits of text arrangement, such as: presence, form and dimension of margins, headings and addresses, distance between words and lines, ways of writing dates, ways of attracting the reader’s attention, corrections, additions, and changes, pagination and punctuation between words and lines (Zotov 1989:179).