Identifying the author of a written text is based on comparison of stable linguistic features in the disputed material and reliable samples. The topic or individual matching words do not themselves identify the author.

Subject of examination

  • The complete disputed text
  • Reliable texts by the presumed author
  • Circumstances of creation, editing and publication

Sample questions for the expert

  • Are there comparable individual linguistic features in the disputed text and the samples?
  • Are the volume and quality of the materials sufficient to resolve the question of authorship?
  • Which differences may be explained by genre, topic, time or editing?
  • Is a finding about a specific author possible in view of the limitations identified?

The final questions are formulated according to the objects and circumstances of the particular task.

What to prepare

  • The source text and information about how it was obtained
  • Samples with verified authorship, dates and circumstances of creation
  • Information about an editor, co-authors, translation and templates
  • Questions from the court or a party and a previously prepared expert report

How the examination is conducted

The comparability of the samples is checked first. Vocabulary, grammar, composition, linguistic habits and their combinations are then examined. General genre features are distinguished from features relevant to individual identification.

Scope and limitations

Short phrases, translation, intensive editing and formulaic text may make a finding impossible. A text's style does not automatically confirm personal ownership of an account or the act of sending it.

What the deliverable records

The expert report states the features identified, their significance, alternative explanations and the permissible degree of certainty of the answer.

Cost and terms

from RUB 90 000. The exact cost depends on the length of the text, number of samples, number of authors, questions and urgency.

Which matches matter when checking authorship

A matching word, shared topic or identical greeting may be explained by the communicative situation. It is therefore useful to base comparison on combinations of linguistic features and the circumstances in which they appear. What matters is which features recur in independently produced texts, how comparable the materials are and which differences remain after checking.

Quotations, ready-made formulations, professional terminology and editorial intervention are considered separately in the examination. If a disputed letter uses a standard form, matches in mandatory wording should not be confused with features of the freely written part. For a translated text, it is necessary to know which linguistic choices may have been made by the translator.

  • The passages that constitute independently produced written language are identified.
  • It is checked whether the observed features occur in several reliable samples.
  • Differences in genre, addressee, period and communicative task are compared.
  • The alternative explanations for similarity considered when reaching the finding are described.

This procedure helps assess the reasoning, rather than an impression of a 'similar style'. An automatically detected match or overall similarity percentage may guide a review, but does not replace an explanation of the significance of specific features. If the available data are insufficient for individual identification, that forms part of the examination's result and cannot be remedied by selecting an answer desired in advance.