Doctor of Philosophy
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Linguistic identifiers of L1 Persian speakers writing in English NLID for authorship analysis Ria Perkins 2014 Aston University Some pages of this thesis may have been removed for copyright restrictions. If you have discovered material in AURA which is unlawful e.g. breaches copyright, (either yours or that of a third party) or any other law, including but not limited to those relating to patent, trademark, confidentiality, data protection, obscenity, defamation, libel, then please read our Takedown Policy and contact the service immediately Linguistic Identifiers of L1 Persian speakers writing in English. NLID for Authorship Analysis. Ria Charlotte Perkins, M.A. Centre for Forensic Linguistics School of Languages and Social Sciences, Aston University A thesis submitted for the fulfilment of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy December, 2012 ©Ria Perkins, 2012 Ria Perkins asserts her moral right to be identified as the author of this thesis. This copy of the thesis has been supplied on condition that anyone who consults it is understood to recognise that its copyright rests with its author and that no quotation from the thesis and no information derived from it may be published without proper acknowledgement. Thesis Summary Institution: Aston University Title: Linguistic Identifiers of L1 Persian speakers writing in English. NLID for Authorship Analysis. Name: Ria Charlotte Perkins Degree: Doctor of Philosophy Year of Submission: 2012 Synopsis: This research focuses on Native Language Identification (NLID), and in particular, on the linguistic identifiers of L1 Persian speakers writing in English. This project comprises three sub-studies; the first study devises a coding system to account for interlingual features present in a corpus of L1 Persian speakers blogging in English, and a corpus of L1 English blogs. Study One then demonstrates that it is possible to use interlingual identifiers to distinguish authorship by L1 Persian speakers. Study Two examines the coding system in relation to the L1 Persian corpus and a corpus of L1 Azeri and L1 Pashto speakers. The findings of this section indicate that the NLID method and features designed are able to discriminate between L1 influences from different languages. Study Three focuses on elicited data, in which participants were tasked with disguising their language to appear as L1 Persian speakers writing in English. This study indicated that there was a significant difference between the features in the L1 Persian corpus, and the corpus of disguise texts. The findings of this research indicate that NLID and the coding system devised have a very strong potential to aid forensic authorship analysis in investigative situations. Unlike existing research, this project focuses predominantly on blogs, as opposed to student data, making the findings more appropriate to forensic casework data. Keywords: Native Language Identification (NLID), Authorship Analysis, Forensic Linguistics, Persian, Interlanguage. 2 Acknowledgements I have always believed in the power of words, but they fail me when I try to express my gratitude to everyone who has helped me along the path to completing this thesis. My parents have given me so much; they taught me the value of education, and everything I have achieved is thanks to them. My Mum showed me what it is to be strong, and my Dad helped me to strategise rather than panic and to savour the moment. Dr Tim Grant, my supervisor has inspired me since I first met him and is one of the nicest people I would ever hope to meet. He has guided me through one of the greatest challenges of my life, and has a true gift for making the most difficult things seem completely feasible. My friends and running buddies have been a constant source of support and encouragement, especially: Baiba, Elie, Jenn, Amina, Margarita, Nat, Andrea, Klaus, Jon, Ene, Dan, Sofia, Tom, and Alec – thank you. Rob has helped me relax and smile in these final months. Special thanks also go to my best friend Maria Coker, who has been there for me for so long and through so much, with a genuine belief in me, countless phone calls and frequently; a cup of courage. My gratitude also goes to my teachers who have inspired me along the way, particularly Dr Abdi Raifee whose love of Persian is truly infectious. The department of Languages and Social Sciences at Aston University is filled with incredibly supporting colleagues, especially within the Centre for Forensic Linguistics. Prof. Malcolm Coulthard and Dr. Krzysztof Kredens have always been there to answer questions. Virtually everyone I have met within the field of forensic linguistics has been inspiring, encouraging and kind. Special thanks go to Larry Solan and Rob Leonard for their advice and encouragement, and for making me feel like I had something valuable to say. Ann Maguire has been so much more than a dyslexia support tutor to me, she’s been a friend. I’d also like to thank the people who shared and completed the questionnaire for Study Three. I asked for quite a lot of time from them and was unable to offer anything in return, except my heartfelt gratitude. Finally I am grateful to Bailey and Marple. Bailey’s constant reminders that nothing is as important as the state of his food bowl help me keep life in perspective. 3 Table of Contents Part 1 – Introduction .................................................................................................................. 9 Chapter 1. Introduction to NLID .......................................................................................... 9 1.1 NLID – Introduction .................................................................................................... 9 1.2 Relevant case history ............................................................................................... 11 1.3 Legal and forensic linguistic context ........................................................................ 15 1.4 Thesis Outline ........................................................................................................... 17 Chapter 2. Literature Review Interlanguage and Persian language. ................................. 19 2.1 Interlanguage ........................................................................................................... 20 2.1.1 Interlanguage background ............................................................................... 20 2.1.2 Language contact and Globalisation ................................................................ 24 2.1.3 Social versus individual influence .................................................................... 26 2.2 Persian Language ..................................................................................................... 28 2.2.1 Background of the Persian language ............................................................... 29 2.2.2 Modern Persian ................................................................................................ 31 2.2.3 Persian-English Interlanguage .......................................................................... 33 Chapter 3. Literature Review: Internet language, Authorship Analysis and Weblogistan 38 3.1 Weblogistan ............................................................................................................. 38 3.2 Forensic Authorship Analysis ................................................................................... 42 3.3 LADO ........................................................................................................................ 44 3.4 Blogs as a linguistic resource ................................................................................... 47 Part Two – Features of L1 Persian speakers blogging in English ............................................. 50 Chapter 4. Overall Methodology ....................................................................................... 50 4.1 Aims of research. ..................................................................................................... 50 4.2 Methodological fields and theories. ........................................................................ 53 4.3 Structure and plan of overall research .................................................................... 55 4.4 Ethical Considerations .............................................................................................. 59 Chapter 5. Study One. Internet Data : Analysis ................................................................. 62 Structure of Chapter 5: ............................................................................................................ 62 5.1 Evolution of NLID Method ....................................................................................... 62 4 5.2 NLID coding system .................................................................................................. 66 5.3 Results and findings ................................................................................................. 70 5.4 Discussion ................................................................................................................. 75 Chapter 6. Study One – Internet Data: findings................................................................. 77 6.1 Statistics plan - Logistic regression analysis ............................................................. 77 6.2 Initial analyses .......................................................................................................... 79 6.2.1 Higher level features: