Hubbry Logo
IdiolectIdiolectMain
Open search
Idiolect
Community hub
Idiolect
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Idiolect
Idiolect
Idiolect
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Part of a series on
Linguistics
General linguistics
Applied linguistics
Theoretical frameworks
Topics
Portal

Idiolect is an individual's unique use of language, including speech. This unique usage encompasses vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation. This differs from a dialect, a common set of linguistic characteristics shared among a group of people.

The term is etymologically derived from the prefix idio-, from Ancient Greek ἴδιος, ídios, 'own, personal, private, peculiar, separate, distinct'; and -lect, abstracted from dialect,[1] ultimately from Ancient Greek λέγω, légō, 'I speak'.

Language

[edit]

Language consists of sentence constructs, word choices, and expressions of style, and an idiolect comprises an individual's uses of these facets. Every person has a unique idiolect influenced by their language, socioeconomic status, and geographical location. Forensic linguistics psychologically analyzes idiolects.[2]

The notion of language is used as an abstract description of the language use, and of the abilities of individual speakers and listeners. According to this view, a language is an "ensemble of idiolects ... rather than an entity per se".[3][better source needed] Linguists study particular languages by examining the utterances produced by native speakers.

This contrasts with a view among non-linguists, at least in the United States, that languages as ideal systems exist outside the actual practice of language users. Based on work done in the US, Nancy Niedzielski and Dennis Preston describe a language ideology seemingly common among American English speakers. According to Niedzielski and Preston, many of their subjects believe that there is one "correct" pattern of grammar and vocabulary that underlies Standard English, and that individual usage comes from this external system.[4]

Linguists who understand particular languages as a composite of unique, individual idiolects must nonetheless account for the fact that members of large speech communities, and even speakers of different dialects of the same language, can understand one another. All human beings seem to produce language in essentially the same way.[5] This has led to searches for universal grammar, as well as attempts to further define the nature of particular languages.

Forensic linguistics

[edit]
Main article: Forensic linguistics

Forensic linguistics includes attempts to identify whether a person produced a given text by comparing the style of the text with the idiolect of the individual in question. The forensic linguist may conclude that the text is consistent with the individual, rule out the individual as the author, or deem the comparison inconclusive.[6]

In 1995, Max Appedole relied in part on an analysis of Rafael Sebastián Guillén Vicente's writing style to identify him as Subcomandante Marcos, a leader of the Zapatista movement. Although the Mexican government regarded Subcomandante Marcos as a dangerous guerrilla, Appedole convinced the government that Guillén was a pacifist. Appedole's analysis is considered an early success in the application of forensic linguistics to criminal profiling in law enforcement.[7][8]

In 1998, Ted Kaczynski was identified as the "Unabomber" by means of forensic linguistics. The FBI and Attorney General Janet Reno pushed for the publication of an essay of Kaczynski's, which led to a tip-off from Kaczynski's brother, who recognized the writing style, his idiolect.[9]

In 1978, four men were convicted of murdering Carl Bridgewater. No forensic linguistics was involved in their case at the time. Today, forensic linguistics reflects that the idiolect used in the interview of one of the men was very similar to that man's reported statement. Since idiolects are unique to an individual, forensic linguistics reflects that it is very unlikely that one of these files was not created by using the other.[10]

Detecting idiolect with corpora

[edit]

Idiolect analysis is different for an individual depending on whether the data being analyzed is from a corpus made up entirely from texts or audio files, since written work is more thought out in planning and precise in wording than in spontaneous speech, which is full of informal language and conversation fillers, e.g. "umm..." and "you know". Corpora with large amounts of input data allow for the generation of word frequency and synonym lists, normally through the use of the top ten bigrams created from it. In such a situation, the context of word usage is considered, particularly when determining the legitimacy of a given bigram.[11]

Whether a word or phrase is part of an idiolect is determined by the word's location compared with the window's head word, the edge of the window. This window is kept to 7-10 words, with a sample that is being considered as a feature of the idiolect being possibly +5/-5 words away from the "head" word of the window (which is normally in the middle). Data in corpus pertaining to idiolect get sorted into three categories: irrelevant, personal discourse marker(s), and informal vocabulary. Samples at the end of the frame and far from this head word are often deemed superfluous. Superfluous and non-superfluous data are then run through different functions to see if given words or phrases are a part of an individual's idiolect.[11]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Idiolect

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
An idiolect is the unique variety of employed by an individual speaker, encompassing their personal patterns in , morphology, , , and , which distinguish their speech or writing from that of others. This linguistic system is shaped by intrinsic personal factors, such as cognitive processes and experiences, independent of broader communal conventions. Unlike dialects or sociolects, which are shared across groups, an idiolect represents the totality of possible utterances one person could produce in a given at a specific time. The concept of idiolect traces its roots to early 20th-century linguistics, building on Ferdinand de Saussure's distinction between langue (the abstract social system) and (individual speech acts), though the term itself was introduced by American linguist Bernard Bloch in to describe the complete set of linguistic features available to a single speaker in interaction. Derived from idios (meaning "own" or "private") and the -lect (indicating a variety of speech), it highlights the personalized nature of use, influenced by factors like regional , social affiliations, education, age, and life events. No two idiolects are identical, even among speakers of the same , due to these idiosyncratic variations. Idiolects are not static; they evolve over a speaker's lifetime through exposure to new linguistic input, social changes, and , potentially incorporating shifts in vocabulary, pronunciation, or stylistic preferences. In linguistic research, idiolects serve as a foundational unit for analysis, informing fields such as , where they help study variation within communities, and , where distinctive markers like word choice or syntactic patterns aid in speaker identification. Philosophically, idiolects raise debates about the ontology of language, contrasting individual-centric views (e.g., Noam Chomsky's I-language) with those emphasizing communal conventions, as explored in works by David Lewis. Empirical studies, often using , quantify these traits through metrics like n-gram frequencies or perceptual learning models to model how listeners adapt to idiolectal differences in .

Definition and Fundamentals

Core Definition

An idiolect is the unique linguistic variety characteristic of an speaker or , encompassing their personal patterns of , , , and usage. This personal language system represents the totality of possible utterances that one person might produce at a given time when interacting with others in a shared . Shaped by factors such as personal experiences, , , and cognitive habits, an idiolect reflects the idiosyncratic ways in which an adapts broader linguistic norms to their own communicative needs. The term "idiolect" was coined by linguist Bernard Bloch in , derived from "idios," meaning "own" or "private," and "lect," referring to a form of speech, as in . It first appeared in Bloch's revision of postulates for phonemic , where he introduced it to describe the individual-level linguistic system within the study of structure. This etymology underscores the concept's focus on personal linguistic ownership, distinguishing it from collective varieties like dialects, which operate at the group level. Examples of idiolects often appear in literary or spoken contexts, such as a writer's habitual phrasing; for instance, Jane Austen's frequent and context-specific use of the "very" in her Emma (1815) serves as a marker of her stylistic , linking voice to themes of linguistic precision and social observation. In everyday speech, an idiolect might manifest in unique filler words, like a person's consistent insertion of "you know" at sentence ends, or idiosyncratic pronunciations, such as regional but personalized shifts. These elements highlight how idiolects embed within larger languages yet remain distinctly individual.

Key Characteristics

Idiolects exhibit distinct phonological features that set an individual's speech apart from others, including unique accents, intonations, and phonetic reductions. For instance, a speaker might consistently elide sounds, such as pronouncing "going to" as "gonna," reflecting personal phonetic habits rather than broader dialectal norms. These variations arise from individual articulatory patterns and can include idiosyncratic prosody, such as specific or stress placements in utterances. Lexical features of an idiolect encompass personal vocabulary preferences, neologisms, and unique or metaphorical usages that reveal the speaker's idiosyncratic . An individual may favor certain synonyms, like consistently using "livid" to mean "bluish-gray" based on personal associations, or invent terms tailored to their experiences, such as niche metaphors drawn from hobbies. These choices often stem from accumulated reading, interactions, and life events, creating a personalized that deviates subtly from communal standards. Syntactic and grammatical traits in an idiolect manifest as habitual sentence structures and construction preferences, such as a recurrent reliance on or particular conjunctions like "whilst" in place of "while." For example, a speaker might habitually split infinitives or employ non-standard placements, like "hopefully, we proceed," as a pattern. These elements contribute to a recognizable stylistic , detectable through consistent syntactic choices across texts or speech samples. Idiolects demonstrate a balance of stability and change over time, maintaining core consistencies in features like lexical preferences and syntactic habits while evolving through age, new exposures, or life events. Studies of authors' works show that while some idiolectal markers, such as epistemic modality constructions, remain stable across genres and decades, others shift gradually, as seen in the rectilinear of use in 19th-century French writers. This core stability allows detection of an idiolect from sufficiently large samples, even as peripheral traits adapt. Several factors influence the shaping of idiolectal traits, including neurodiversity, bilingualism, and regional exposure. , such as in autism spectrum conditions, can lead to unique neologisms and metonymic language patterns that form part of an individual's idiolect, emphasizing literal or associative word uses. Bilingualism integrates features from multiple languages, creating a unified phonological idiolect organized by shared sound features rather than separate systems, as observed in bilingual speakers' speech patterns. Regional exposure further molds idiolects by layering personal deviations onto dialectal bases, such as localized intonations or lexical borrowings.

Linguistic Context

Relation to Dialect and Sociolect

In sociolinguistics, a dialect refers to a shared linguistic variety among a group of speakers, often defined by regional or factors, such as phonological patterns or lexical choices common to a geographic area. An idiolect functions as a personal subset or variation within this , incorporating its collective features while introducing individual deviations shaped by personal history, education, and interactions. For example, while a might uniformly feature certain shifts, an idiolect could modify these through unique intonational habits or word preferences unique to the speaker. A , by contrast, denotes a variety tied to a specific , , or , characterized by markers like specialized or stylistic norms that signal group affiliation. An idiolect draws influence from these sociolectal norms—such as adopting professional terminology—but remains distinct through idiosyncratic elements, like atypical phrasing or quirks that set the apart from group averages. This distinction highlights how idiolects reflect both to social structures and personal agency in use. These relations form a hierarchical model in linguistic variation, with the idiolect at the most granular individual level, nested within sociolects (social group varieties) and dialects (regional or class-based varieties), all subsumed under the broader language system. In creole contexts, this hierarchy manifests along a , where idiolects vary from acrolectal forms (closer to the ) to basilectal forms (more and divergent), depending on the speaker's socioeconomic position and stylistic shifts. For instance, a speaker's idiolect might integrate local dialectal traits like variable rhoticity in the pronunciation of /r/ sounds (which may be omitted or realized) in words such as "car", while overlaying personal twists, such as inventive or rhythmic emphases not shared across the dialect community.

Historical Development

The concept of the idiolect has roots in 19th-century , particularly in the work of Hermann Paul, who in his 1880 book Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte emphasized the individual speaker's linguistic system as the fundamental unit of variation and change, viewing languages as aggregates of such personal usages. This laid the groundwork for recognizing linguistic individuality amid broader communal patterns. The idea gained further traction in early 20th-century American through Bloomfield's 1933 monograph , where he described the idiolect implicitly as the "habits of speech" peculiar to each individual, serving as the basic observable unit for linguistic analysis without yet using the specific term. The term "idiolect" itself was formally coined by Bernard Bloch in 1948, in his revision of Bloomfield's linguistic postulates, defining it as "the totality of the possible utterances of one speaker at one time in using a ," thus establishing it as a precise analytical category in phonemic and structural studies. In the mid-20th century, the idiolect concept expanded within emerging , particularly through the collaborative efforts of Uriel Weinreich and , who positioned it as a key unit for investigating language variation and change. In their seminal paper "Empirical Foundations for a Theory of Language Change," co-authored with Marvin I. , they argued that the idiolect represents the primary locus of linguistic innovation and stability, bridging individual habits with social influences in a systematic framework for empirical research. This shift highlighted how idiolects could be studied quantitatively to reveal patterns of heterogeneity within speech communities. Following the , the idiolect became integral to variationist linguistics, with Labov's research demonstrating its role in revealing stable individual patterns amid community-level shifts. For instance, in his 1963 study of , Labov documented consistent idiolectal variations in centralization among speakers, illustrating how personal linguistic styles persist and contribute to broader dialectal dynamics despite external pressures. Key publications further advanced this, including C. Stokoe's 1960 work Sign Language Structure, which extended idiolectal analysis to sign languages by analyzing individual variations in as structured systems akin to spoken idiolects. In modern linguistic theory, influenced by , the idiolect is increasingly viewed as an individual's unique mental , encompassing internalized rules and representations shaped by personal and interaction. This perspective, articulated in works like Ricardo Otheguy, Ofelia García, and Wallis Reid's 2015 analysis, frames the idiolect not merely as observable speech but as a dynamic cognitive construct enabling unique .

Applications

In

In , idiolect plays a crucial role in speaker identification, where experts match voice samples or written texts to an individual's unique linguistic markers during criminal investigations. This process involves comparing phonetic patterns, such as formants or prosodic features, and lexical selections in disputed against known samples from a , aiming to establish authorship or origin with a degree of probabilistic certainty. For instance, analysis of phonetic idiosyncrasies like individual articulation styles or lexical choices, including rare word preferences or , can link anonymous communications to a specific without relying on broader dialectal traits. A prominent case exemplifying idiolect's application is the Unabomber investigation in the 1990s, where forensic linguists analyzed Theodore "Ted" Kaczynski's manifesto and bomb-related writings, identifying stylistic markers such as unusual spellings (e.g., "wilfully" instead of "willfully") and that matched his personal essays recovered from his cabin. This linguistic profiling, combined with comparisons to his academic work, provided pivotal leading to his arrest in 1996. Similarly, in voice forensics for trials, idiolectal traits like speaker-specific intonation or vocabulary have been used to authenticate recordings, as seen in Cold War-era cases where audio from intercepted communications was matched to suspects through acoustic analysis of individual speech patterns. Despite its utility, idiolect analysis faces significant challenges, including variability in speech or writing due to , which can alter phonetic realizations, or deliberate , such as accent , potentially masking markers and reducing identification accuracy. Ethical concerns arise regarding , as collecting and analyzing personal linguistic data may infringe on individual rights, while court admissibility remains contentious due to debates over the field's scientific reliability and potential for subjective interpretation. Legal precedents highlight these issues; in United States v. Clifford (704 F.2d 86, 3d Cir. 1983), the excluded forensic linguistic testimony on and text comparisons, ruling that the methods lacked sufficient reliability for , thereby setting a cautious standard for idiolect-based evidence incorporating linguistic traits akin to voiceprint analysis. This decision underscores ongoing scrutiny of idiolect's evidentiary value in trials, emphasizing the need for rigorous validation to ensure fairness.

In Authorship Attribution

In literary analysis, idiolect plays a crucial role in resolving authorship disputes for works of uncertain origin, particularly by examining distinctive syntactic patterns and lexical choices that reflect an author's unique linguistic habits. For instance, studies of the Shakespearean canon have utilized idiolectal markers, such as the over- or under-use of specific common words, to distinguish Shakespeare's contributions in collaborative plays like , achieving high accuracy in attributing sections to him over contemporaries like or . These markers, including rare word frequencies and phrase constructions, serve as stable indicators of individual style amid the era's shared dramatic conventions. A landmark historical application of idiolect analysis occurred in the attribution of the disputed Federalist Papers, where Frederick Mosteller and David L. Wallace in 1964 employed frequencies of function words—such as prepositions ("of," "upon") and conjunctions—to differentiate between and . Their method, which focused on invariant stylistic habits rather than content-specific vocabulary, concluded with strong that Madison authored all 12 contested essays, influencing subsequent computational approaches to 18th-century texts. This "Mosteller-Wallace" technique exemplifies how idiolectal invariants enable attribution in anonymous or pseudonymous documents without relying on external metadata. In contemporary digital contexts, idiolect aids in identifying authors of anonymous online posts, detecting , and verifying authorship in communities, where stylistic idiosyncrasies like sentence complexity and word collocations reveal creators amid pseudonyms. For AI-generated content detection, analyses reveal that large language models like exhibit a detectable "idiolect" characterized by high usage and limited syntactic variation, contrasting with human writers' greater register flexibility and preferences. Methodologically, authorship attribution via idiolect prioritizes stable habits such as function word frequencies and syntactic preferences, which remain consistent across an author's oeuvre and resist topical influences. However, these approaches face limitations when editing or collaboration intervenes, as multiple contributors blend styles and dilute individual idiolectal signals, reducing attribution accuracy in co-authored works like historical plays or modern hybrid human-AI texts.

Analysis Methods

Corpus-Based Detection

Corpus construction for idiolect analysis involves compiling personal corpora from an individual's speeches, writings, or audio recordings to capture unique linguistic patterns. These corpora are typically built by collecting and transcribing relevant materials, such as emails, transcripts, or literary works, ensuring they represent consistent contexts to minimize external influences. For instance, the Corpus for Idiolectal Research (CIDRE) was assembled from public-domain e-books of 19th-century French authors, converting files to via Python scripts and applying quality controls like removing to yield over 421 works spanning 1829–1926. Similarly, personal corpora from press secretaries were created by editing transcripts to isolate individual speech, resulting in datasets of 200,000 to 1,200,000 words per speaker. The detection process relies on comparing sample texts against reference corpora to identify matches in frequency distributions, often using n-gram analysis to examine word sequences. Bigrams and trigrams, for example, reveal idiolectal preferences, such as varying frequencies of phrases like "of the" or "the president" across speakers. In one approach, chi-squared distances between n-gram profiles are calculated via correspondence analysis to cluster individuals based on lexical and syntactic patterns. The Enron Email Corpus study applied word n-grams (2–6 words) to attribute authorship, achieving up to 70.5% accuracy with four-grams on samples from 176 authors. Tools and software facilitate idiolect extraction by enabling concordance searches, analysis, and frequency profiling on custom corpora. AntConc, a toolkit, supports keyword-in-context views and n-gram extraction, as demonstrated in analyses of fictional characters' speech patterns for noun frequencies. provides advanced term extraction and word sketches, used in stylometric studies of authors like to identify idiostyle features in fiction corpora. Large-scale studies, such as those on the dataset, employ tools like for n-gram similarity evaluation and Wordsmith Tools for concordances. Empirical studies highlight corpus-based methods' effectiveness in measuring idiolectal variation. Michael Barlow's analysis of five U.S. press secretaries' speeches showed stable patterns in and use over 1–2 years, with inter-speaker differences in constructions like "I don’t know." A study using the Email Corpus tested n-grams on 63,369 emails, finding higher attribution success (64% overall) for larger samples and certain authors, such as 87.2% for one executive. These approaches underscore quantitative identification of individual styles through frequency-based comparisons. Corpus-based detection offers quantitative objectivity by grounding analysis in empirical , allowing reliable of stable linguistic habits. However, it requires large sample sizes—ideally over 100,000 words—for robust results, as smaller texts yield lower accuracy (e.g., below 40% with 2% samples). Limitations include context restrictions, such as press conferences limiting generalizability, and transcription issues omitting prosodic features.

Stylometric Approaches

Stylometry is the statistical study of linguistic style through quantifiable features that reflect an individual's unique language patterns, known as idiolect, such as average sentence length, which measures syntactic complexity, and , defined as the ratio of to total words in a text. These features provide stable markers of idiolect because they are less influenced by topic or context compared to content-specific vocabulary. Corpus-based detection often serves as the initial data source, supplying large samples of texts for extracting these stylometric inputs. A prominent metric in stylometric analysis of idiolect is Burrows' Delta, which calculates the stylistic distance between texts by comparing relative frequencies of common words, enabling the identification of authorship differences with high accuracy in closed-set scenarios. ratios, such as the relative frequencies of articles, prepositions, and pronouns, act as reliable idiolectal fingerprints due to their subconscious use and stability across texts; Hoover's refinements in 2003 highlighted how selecting the most frequent enhances discrimination between authors without overfitting to sample size. Computational models in stylometry leverage machine learning to classify idiolects based on these features, with support vector machines (SVM) commonly employed for their effectiveness in high-dimensional spaces of lexical and syntactic variables. SVM classifiers, trained on idiolectal features like n-gram distributions and punctuation patterns, can separate individual styles in controlled datasets. In case studies, stylometric approaches have been applied to authorship in investigations and to historical texts. Evolving trends integrate with for idiolect profiling, using neural networks to process text data and capture stylistic consistencies, as demonstrated in online register analyses where BERT embeddings identify subtle patterns. However, challenges persist in multilingual idiolects, where cross-linguistic feature transferability can affect attribution accuracy due to differences across languages.

References

  1. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/idiolects/
  2. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440251334276
  3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2375975/
  4. https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/abstract/document/obo-9780199772810/obo-9780199772810-0225.xml
  5. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/small-talk-and-big-questions/202309/what-your-idiolect-says-about-you
  6. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-Set-of-Postulates-for-Phonemic-Analysis-Bloch/2e995cb7f5d42a29b88f92154f43818a9d0bc3fa
  7. https://www.etymonline.com/word/idiolect
  8. https://online.ucpress.edu/ncl/article/62/3/303/67071/Very-Austen-Accounting-for-the-Language-of-Emma
  9. https://www.babbel.com/en/magazine/what-is-an-idiolect
  10. https://iew.com/support/blog/dialect-and-idiolect-i-say-may-you-say-mah
  11. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11196-023-10056-5
  12. https://culturalanalytics.org/article/37588-the-evolution-of-the-idiolect-over-the-lifetime-a-quantitative-and-qualitative-study-of-french-19th-century-literature
  13. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12384733/
  14. https://pubs.asha.org/doi/10.1044/2025_AJSLP-24-00566
  15. https://david-wright.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/lin_0225_dw_oa.pdf
  16. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366389168_Idiolect_-_idiostyle_-_Sociolect_Differentiation_and_Interrelation_of_Linguistic_Terms
  17. https://redfame.com/journal/index.php/smc/article/view/5838
  18. https://iris.siue.edu/eng-417/files/original/bc5c3d2951a54199429e4ffd86adfd12.pdf
  19. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/language-variation-and-change/article/r-we-there-yet-the-change-to-rhoticity-in-new-york-city-english/BF917AFEAB0A1C50E04D7E65589907E5
  20. https://www.internationalphoneticassociation.org/icphs-proceedings/ICPhS2003/papers/p15_0691.pdf
  21. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0379073821001444
  22. https://theconversation.com/how-the-unabombers-unique-linguistic-fingerprints-led-to-his-capture-207681
  23. https://www.npr.org/2017/08/22/545122205/fbi-profiler-says-linguistic-work-was-pivotal-in-capture-of-unabomber
  24. https://www.encyclopedia.com/politics/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/forensic-voice-and-tape-analysis
  25. http://www.columbia.edu/~remez/remez_identity.pdf
  26. https://david-wright.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/wright-2021-post-print.pdf
  27. https://www.int-jecse.net/article/The%2BRole%2Bof%2BForensic%2BLinguistics%2Bin%2BDiscourse%2BAnalysis_7212/?download=true&format=pdf
  28. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3086556
  29. https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/2/article/609643
  30. https://search.proquest.com/openview/912f0a671bed2817/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=3776
  31. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01621459.1963.10500849
  32. https://web.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/site/1575865521.shtml
  33. https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/195334
  34. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2508.16385
  35. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-60080-2_11
  36. https://openhumanitiesdata.metajnl.com/articles/10.5334/johd.42
  37. http://michaelbarlow.com/barlowLAUD.pdf
  38. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/84587040.pdf
  39. https://www.sciepub.com/portal/downloads?doi=10.12691/jll-5-1-1&filename=jll-5-1-1.pdf
  40. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3526242.3526249
  41. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11707938/
  42. https://aclanthology.org/2021.emnlp-main.25.pdf
  43. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240956478_%27Delta%27_A_Measure_of_Stylistic_Difference_and_a_Guide_to_Likely_Authorship
  44. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/style.41.2.174
  45. https://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/id/eprint/21415/1/FinalThesis_Yunita.pdf
  46. https://academic.oup.com/dsh/article/39/3/954/7688491
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.