As established in the previous chapter, no formal research exists which specifically explores the potential application of formulaic language in cases of forensic authorship attribution. Therefore, the research questions posed in this thesis are novel and need to be tested on a carefully controlled corpus (e.g. Hänlein, 1999). Arising from the issues raised in Chapter 2, four criteria need to be considered when selecting data:
i. Known authorship – are the authors of the texts verifiable?
ii. Composition dates – were all the texts written during similar periods? iii. Length – do the texts contain a similar number of words?
iv. Genre – is like being compared with like?
Research which tests a new marker of authorship should use data which has been controlled for these four characteristics. That way, the marker under investigation (in this case formulaic sequences), is the only variable under investigation and any differences between authors cannot be attributed to the fact that, for example, they composed texts of different lengths. In other words, if differences in the use of formulaic sequences are found, they should be explainable as differences between authors and not differences between the texts. The best way to control these variables is to use texts that are written specifically for the research purpose through a structured writing task.
4.4.1 Method
Participants for the study were recruited through a snowball sampling technique. In this way, an initial group of participants was identified and from them the names of other participants were solicited (Heiman, 1999: 289). Specifically, an initial e-mail was sent to friends, relations and colleagues as well as to a university undergraduate mailing list which provided information about the research and invited people to participate. Recipients were then asked to forward the e-mail to any of their contacts who they thought might also be interested in participating.
A structured writing task was designed which required participants to write personal narratives in response to a choice of questions. The decision to elicit narratives, rather than, for example, diary entries or e-mails, was motivated by ethical (cf. Section 4.4.2, p. 87) and practical considerations. Asking participants to keep a diary may have been too invasive (i.e. requiring participants to recount what they did on a particular day) and too hard since if the participants did not do anything
-85-
noteworthy on a particular day, they may have struggled to reach a set word limit. Collecting e-mails would have been another alternative, although this again may have been problematic. Whilst it may be possible to control the known authors and composition dates, controlling the length of an e-mail, the type of addressee, the topic etc., may be more difficult. A participant who ordinarily sends e- mails consisting of two or three sentences to set up meetings may struggle to reach an imposed word count. Furthermore, it may be hard to control the variable of genre since e-mails are likely to be produced for a variety of purposes.
Eliciting narratives overcomes these particular problems since participants can be provided with a choice of topics to write about and by virtue of being structured, there is a set word length target to work towards. Finally, since the texts are produced specifically for the task, they all serve the same purpose so they should be comparable in terms of genre. An additional benefit is that “telling about personal experiences seems to be something all humans do” (Johnstone, 1997: 316), so the likelihood that a participant will fail to understand the task is reduced.
It was established in Chapter 3 that formulaic sequences are produced automatically. Therefore, to inform participants that this particular aspect of their authorial style is important would be to foreground an otherwise automatic behaviour which could affect the reliability of the formulaic sequences elicited as a marker of authorship. For this reason, participants were not told the real aim of the research at the outset, although they were fully debriefed at the end of the task and were provided with the opportunity to withdraw their data. Labov (1970, 1972a) and Labov and Waletsky (1997) propose an additional measure for reducing the experimental effect. They propose that through describing past events—producing narratives of personal experience—participants focus less on their writing style. The questions posed to participants as part of the structured writing task were therefore open-ended and designed to engage participants with their personal experiences.
Participants were asked over a period of five days to write one text each day. The decision to solicit five texts was motivated by the need to balance gaining sufficient data for authorial patterns to emerge against not going beyond the realms of feasibility for the forensic context, or indeed asking too much of the participants. Chaski (2001) deemed three texts to be sufficient for testing markers of authorship and Grant (2007) used 175 texts composed by 50 authors—an average of 3.5 texts per author. Hänlein (1999) used between 13 and 17 texts per author. Using five texts falls well within this range and ensures that at a rate of producing one text per day, participants could complete their task in less than a week and within the same time period. Of course, though, there is no consensus in the literature regarding the dates that “the same time period” spans. In his research into quantitative approaches to literary authorship studies, Grieve (2007) pointed out that author-based corpora
-86-
should contain Questioned Documents and Known Documents produced “around the same point in time” (p. 255) and in his corpus, he selected texts produced over a five year period. Hänlein (1999) collected texts produced over a period of one year. Therefore, for the purposes of this research, texts produced over five days can justifiably be considered to have similar composition dates. Although all participants wrote their texts within their five day slot, not all participants started on the same date. The data were in fact collected over a six week period, in late 2006.
Deciding on the required length of the texts to make the research legitimate for forensic purposes may be somewhat arbitrary, since the lengths of authentic forensic texts vary, as do the number of texts available for analysis. Some authorship attribution research has been conducted on shorter texts (e.g. Chaski, 2001; Grant, 2004; Winter, 1996) although a lower word-limit threshold has not yet been established for the minimum amount of text required for analysis. Similarly, although estimates exist regarding how much formulaic language material may be found in written texts (cf. Section 3.1, p. 44), there is as yet no consensus regarding the ideal text length for establishing individual patterns. Therefore, the issue of feasibility needs to be the main criterion. In order that participants did not find the task too cumbersome, they were asked to write approximately 500 words. Since researchers have found formulaic patterns in texts shorter than this (Chenoweth, 1995), whilst others have used texts of similar lengths in forensic investigations (Chaski, 2001; Hänlein, 1999; Winter, 1996), this is a reasonable length of text on which to establish whether patterns of formulaic sequences can reliably differentiate authors.
Each morning participants were sent two narrative-eliciting questions and were asked to answer just one of them. They were given a choice so that they could answer whichever question they preferred. The list of questions appears below in Table 4.2. A list of reserve substitute questions was also available and participants were invited to request one of these if they could not answer either of a particular day’s questions. The substitute questions were designed to be hypothetical so that they could be answered more easily and are reproduced as Table 4.3.
-87-
Table 4-2 Text generating questions
Questions (Participants answer only one each day) Day One What has been the best moment of your life?
When did you last cry and what made you cry?
Day Two Have you ever told a lie and what were the consequences?
What has been the worst moment of your life?
Day Three
How did you find out that Santa Claus doesn’t exist?
What is the biggest decision you have ever made and did you make the right one?
Day Four What is the most life-threatening situation you have ever been in?
What is the angriest you have ever been?
Day Five What has been the most embarrassing moment of your life?
How close have you ever got to having your heart broken?
Table 4-3 Substitute text generating questions
Questions (Participants answer one as required)
Substitute A If you could change anything in the world, what would it be and why?
Substitute B Who do you admire and why?
Substitute C If you could be invisible for a day, what would you do?
Substitute D What would you do if you won £1,000,000?
Substitute E Would you like to be a housemate on Big Brother and what are your
reasons?
Participants were sent an electronic Microsoft Word template by e-mail into which they could type their answer. The template was locked so that they could not change the size of the font which restricted participants to writing a maximum of approximately 850 words. The template was big enough to hold more words than required so that if a participant could not fill the template, they may still have written enough for the text to be useful and so that their answers did not have to end abruptly if they reached the word limit, hopefully encouraging a less-experimental feel to the task.
After writing an answer to the question, participants saved the file and returned it, via e- mail, on the same day. This process was repeated for each of the five days. When five answers had been received, participants were thanked for their time and were paid £10. Upon completion of the tasks, participants were debriefed.
4.4.2 Ethical considerations
Full approval for this research was granted by the departmental ethics committee. All potential participants were sent an information sheet and declaration form (Appendix A). The information sheet explained that texts were required for an investigation into how people write about their personal experiences. They were told this half-truth so that they would not focus directly on their
-88-
authorial style as outlined in Section 4.4.1. Participants were given sufficient time to consider participating and to ask any questions that they might have. All participants were required to sign the declaration form and indicate that they consented to take part in the research.
The declaration form asked participants to confirm that they were native speakers of British English to ensure that an additional variable of ‘native language’ was not introduced. They were also asked to confirm that they understood that they alone should write the texts and that they could withdraw from the research at any time. A small amount of personal information was collected from the participants. Each participant was asked for their name and address to ensure that payment could be sent. They were additionally asked to provide their e-mail addresses to enable the writing task to be administered and their gender, age and highest level of education (cf. Table 4.4) to enable the possibility of identifying trends along these variables.
Upon completion of their task, participants were told the real purpose of the research. They were invited to ask questions and discuss any concerns. They were also told that the results of all of the analyses would be available to them. Finally, they were given sufficient time to re-consider their participation and withdraw their data, which none of them did.
A potential ethical concern may be the nature of the topics that participants were asked to write about, since questions which elicit personal narratives may invoke sensitive and emotive memories, potentially causing distress. To this end, before agreeing to take part in the study, participants were provided with two example questions (which were not used in the actual task) to help them orientate to the sorts of questions they would be asked. Of the two questions that participants were sent daily, a potentially more emotive question was off-set against a less emotive question (e.g. Day 3: ‘What is the biggest decision you have ever made and did you make the right one?’ and ‘How did you find out that Santa Claus doesn’t exist?’) so that participants could avoid writing about a sensitive issue (and of course, the list of substitute questions was available for anyone who felt uncomfortable or unable to answer the set questions).
Full anonymity was guaranteed to participants and all identifying material was altered. Such material typically included names, places and dates and all were replaced with fictitious information which was inserted into the text following the original format used by the author.
4.4.3 Participants
A total of 21 people took part in the research. One participant withdrew from the study on the third day (in line with standard ethical procedures, she was not asked for a reason). Table 4.4 shows the gender, age and highest level of education of the remaining 20 participants. Since a snowball
-89-
sampling technique was used to recruit participants, it was not possible to control for these variables. Therefore, nine males and 11 females participated with an age range of 18—48 and all participants possessed a post-secondary school academic qualification, ranging from college level qualifications (A-Level and AS-Level) to a doctorate.
Table 4-4 Biographical information for each participant
Author Age Education
Alan 19 College Carla 25 Undergraduate David 28 Doctorate Elaine 24 Postgraduate Greg 25 Undergraduate Hannah 25 Postgraduate Jenny 23 Undergraduate John 24 Postgraduate Judy 24 Undergraduate June 24 Undergraduate Keith 25 Undergraduate Mark 19 College Michael 20 College Melanie 48 Undergraduate Nicola 20 College Rick 28 Undergraduate Rose 21 Undergraduate Sarah 24 Undergraduate Sue 18 College Thomas 25 College