Do We Have A Linguistic Fingerprint Appl

Thomas Hoffmann
(University of Osnabrck)
Do we have a linguistic fingerprint?

Applications and Limits of Forensic Linguistics
Invited Talk for the Osnabrcker Wissenschaftliche Gesellschaft

28.05.2014
The Linguistic Fingerprint
Die Handschrift eines Menschen. Fr Experten unverwechselbar.

Doch wie ordnet man einem Menschen zu, wenn dieser etwas mit
Computer oder Schreibmaschine verfasst hat? Einen Drohbrief oder
ein anonymes Bekennerschreiben etwa. Dr. Raimund H. Drommel
(65), Kriminologe und Sprachwissenschaftler aus Kln, sagt: Kein
groes Problem. Sprache verrt die Menschen, ist wie ein
Fingerabdruck. (Klner Express 16.04.2011)
Does a linguistic fingerprint exist?

A short note on fingerprints
(Lyle 2009: 105-118)
Fingerprints:
unique/individual:
not even identical twins have same fingerprints
indelible:
do not change over lifetime
3 general patterns:
loop (~6065%) / whorl (~3035%) / arch (~5%)
1 variable that is not under individuals control

language
The myth linguistic fingerprint
(e.g. Dern 2009: 32-90; Olsson 2004: 31-37)
Language:
innate (Chomsky), but: cultural transmission
speakers do have an idiolect, but also:
regional dialect, sociolect, speak like their peers,
education leads to (written) norms
some linguistic feature = genre-specific
individuals (subconsciously) choose style dependent on:
topic, social relationships, situation, their intention
The Fast Show: idiolect dialect sociolect
First approach: Authorship studies
(Coulthard and Johnson 2007: 161-183; Holmes 1998)
No single linguistic fingerprint, instead:

The essence of authorship analysis is the formation of a set of
features, or metrics, that remain relatively constant for a large
number of writings created by the same person. In other words, a set
of writings from one author would exhibit greater similarity in terms of
these features than a set of writings from different authors.
(Zheng et al. 2003: 61)
attempt to look at sets of features

control for: genre, topic, situation, medium,
degrees of similarity ( simple yes/no-attribution)
attribution (also known as: stylometrics)
Authorship studies: Classic examples
1439: Lorenzo Valla proved: Donation of Constantine = forgery

(Latin authentic 4th Century documents)
1851: Augustus de Morgan

average word length (nr of letters) = discriminative
tested on works by Bacon, Marlow, Shakespeare
not effective authorial discriminator (Holmes 1998)
1938: G. Udny Yule

sentence length (authorship of De Imitatione Christi)
conclusion: sentence length not wholly reliable
also: 18th & 19th century historical-critical bible studies

Authorship studies: Mosteller and Wallace (1964)
(Holmes 1998: 112; Tankard, Jr. 2001)
Mosteller and Wallace (1964):

authorship in Federalist Papers (aka The Federalist / online:
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html)
85 essays by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James

Madison (1787-1788)
published anonymously to urge New Yorkers to ratify the
proposed United States Constitution, which was drafted in
Philadelphia (1787 / source)
later authorship mostly clear, but:
12 essays claimed by Hamilton and Madison
Mosteller and Wallace (1964):

average sentence length: not discriminative
(words/sentence: Hamilton 34.55 Madison 34.59)
instead used function words (incl. P, CONJ, PRON, ADVS,
ADJ, AUX) to discriminate between Hamilton and Madison:
e.g. Hamilton used while vs. Madison whilst
best discriminators (!for this specific study!):
any, from, may, upon, can, his, do, there, on, every
advantage:
several features combined &
use of function words mostly subconscious
e.g. upon (taken from: Tankard, Jr. 2001: 54)

e.g. probability of also (taken from: Tankard, Jr. 2001: 55)

if also = 4x in 1,000 words: 0.00158 vs. 0.0153 Hamilton 1:10 Madison
result: all disputed papers = Madison

[paper with lowest odds 80:1 Madison / next 800:1]
several features combined &
use of function words mostly subconscious
but: large trainings set
(several thousands words per potential author)
most forensic texts (< 200 words; cf. Olsson 2004: 26, 68)
Authorship studies: CUSUM
Morton and Michaelson (1990):

used cumulative sum charts (cusum):
statistical method (industrial processes/quality control monitoring)
1st purely statistical approach used in court

central claim:
each person has unique set of linguistic habits
unaffected by medium (spoken/written)
used in several high-profile court cases
(e.g. appeal in London of Tommy McCrossen in July 1991,
trial of Vincent Connell in Dublin in December 1991,
pardon for Nicky Kelly from the Irish government in April 1992,
Carl Bridgewater murder case)

linguistic features analysed:
- sentence length (words/sentence)
- nr of vowel-initial words (per sentence)
- nr of 2-/3-letter words (per sentence)
then sentence-by-sentence plot for deviation from mean:
- sentence length & vowel-initial words
- sentence length & 2-/3-letter words
claim:
- graphs = same trend same author
- significant divergence different authorship
Example: Hilton and Holmes (1993: 74)

Jane Austins Northanger Abbey


same trend one author


divergence > 1 author

CUSUM:
exemplifying the methods problems
sentences 1-10 of Unabomber (University and Airline Bomber)

manifesto [Ted Kaczynski: Industrial Society and Its Future]
source: http://editions-hache.com/essais/pdf/kaczynski2.pdf
Example: start of Unabomber manifesto

sentence length & vowel-initial words
divergence > 1 author?

Example: start of Unabomber manifesto

sentence length & 2-/3-letter words
divergence > 1 author?


CUSUM method too subjective & unreliable:
all [researchers that tested the method] commented on the
subjectivity of the interpretation of the charts themselves and that
the underlying assumption regarding the consistency of habits
within the utterances of one person is false. Even a statistically
more rigourous version of the cusum method gave unreliable
results. All concluded that cusum should not be used as a definitive
indicator of the author of a book, document, or legal confession.
(Holmes 1998: 114)
still: occasionally used in courtrooms!

Authorship studies: continued
(Luyckx and Daelemans 2011: 38)
Luyckx and Daelemans (2011):

so far automatic authorship identification successful if
few potential candidates
> 5,000-10,000 words per candidate
forensic situation: most texts 200 words
min of words per candidate?

(Luyckx and Daelemans 2011)
Figure 1: Machine learning approach (Luyckx and Daelemans 2011: 38)

one corpus used: AAAC (Juola 2004)

Ad-hoc Authorship Attribution Competition corpus
student essays | four topics:
Work, The Frontier Thesis,
The American Dream, National security
13 authors / 43,497 words /
844 words per author and topic
Table 1: Linguistic features investigated (Luyckx and Daelemans 2011: 40)

Linguistic features: most important terms/notions

types vs. tokens: abstract entity vs. concrete realisation
e.g. the old woman shot the old man
types: 5 (the, old, woman, shot, man)
tokens: 7 (each instance)
PoS (part-of speech) tagger
n-gram: any linear string of n-elements
character 2-gram: e.g. th, he, ec, ca, at (in the cat)
lexical 3-gram: e.g. for the old, the old cat (in for the old cat)
POS 2-gram: e.g. P DET, DET ADJ, ADJ N (P DET ADJ N)
Figure 2: Results AAAC author sample size

Accuracy (in %)
Figure 2: Results AAAC data sample size [10% 4,000 words]

[13 authors] (Luyckx and Daelemans 2011: 50)
Some success: predictive accuracy

full data set (~ 40,000 words)
from max. ~85% (2 authors) to max. ~55% (13 authors)
only 10% of data (~ 4,000 words):
max. ~27% (all authors)
water-tight automatic author identification
in forensic contexts (< 2,000 word samples)
still not possible
not just quantitative but also qualitative analysis needed
Authorship studies: Disguise
Dern (2009: 80) lists following strategies:

randomly changing ones language
pretending to have weak L1 competency in language
(less education / lower class)
pretending to be L2-Speaker (foreigner talk)
pretending to be another person (false identity)
Authorship studies: Experiment
(Dern 2008)
52 Students (Uni Saarbruecken/Uni Mainz)

3 tasks (each 20 min / all same frame elements:
blackmail of food company Deli, address, demanded sum)
1. write a blackmail letter you think might be successful.
2. write the blackmail letter again but this time try to
change your language in order not to be identified.
3. write the letter a 3rd time, pretending to be a foreigner.
(Dern 2008)
Figure 2. Results: Length of letters in nr of words

(Dern 2008)
Figure 3. Linguistic disguise attempts in task 1

(Dern 2008)
Figure 4. Linguistic disguise attempts in task 2

(Dern 2008)
Figure 5. Linguistic foreigner disguise attempts in task 3

(Dern 2008: 254f.)
Example A: undisguised letter (author X)

Sehr geehrter Herr Deli,
ich fordere Sie hiermit auf an mich 1,5 Mio auszuhndigen, wenn Sie
verhindern wollen, dass Ihre Firma in ernsthafte Schwierigkeiten gert.
Sollte ich nicht innerhalb einer Woche die 1,5 Mio besitzen, werde
ich in Ihre Baby-Nahrungsartikel ttliche oder gesundheitsgefhrdende
Flssigkeiten unterrhren.
Sie sollten sich beeilen!

Bis demnchst
PS: Sie werden Anweisungen von mir erhalten was die bergabe des
Geldes (1,5 Mio ) betrifft.
(Dern 2008: 254f.)
Example B: disguised letter (same author X)

ICH WILL NCHSTE WOCHE VON DIR 1,5 MIO EURO. SONST
PASSIERT WAS. DU KRIEGST ECHT SCHEIVIELE PROBLEME.
KINDERESSEN AUS DEINEN LDEN WIRD VERGIFTET.
TTLICHES GIFT WIRD DEINE FIRMA KAPUTT MACHEN. BEEIL
DICH.
BIS BALD VOLLIDIOT
DU BEKOMMST NE NACHRICHT, WO DIE KOHLE (1,5 MIO EURO)

ABLADEN KANNST.
(Dern 2008: 254f.)
Example B: typical of major disguise strategy in task 2

(68%):
style shift:
colloquial to vulgar language
simpler sentences
only few orthographic and grammatical errors
no word order violations
(Dern 2008: 254f.)
Example C: disguised foreigner letter

Fa. Deli
Seminarstr.
Mainz
1,5 Mio. wollen wir von inen. Wir sind in groser Zal unt bereit iren
Laden zu zerstren wen sie uns das Gelt nich geben! Auserdem sint
wir zu Gewalt bereit bei Fehlfahalten.
Das sint keine Witze di wir machen!
Bringen si das Gelt zum Hafen! Dort werden sie weitere Informationen
erhalten.
Haben si das telefon bei sich.
Uhrzeit komt noch.
KEINE POLIZEI
note: Orthography vs Syntax (V placement)

(Dern 2008)
Figure 6. Linguistic foreigner disguise attempts in task 3

Authorship studies: Checklist Disguised Identity
(Dern 2009: 81-82)
Type of Error Disguise

mostly superficial, affecting:
more likely
orthography / mutilation of inflectional endings
same linguistic category: more likely
correct and incorrect usage
towards end of text: more likely
number of errors decrease
more likely
correct use of idiomatic phrases
errors on word level / idioms:

less likely
compatible with surface errors
less likely
incorrect / undiomatic use of words
less likely
comprehension of text seriously impaired
Sample Case
The Lindbergh case

Linguistic evidence
Author profiling:
- aphasic criminal?
- L2 speaker or L1 speaker disguise?
- single authorship?
Corpus Linguistic approach
The Lindbergh case: revisited
(Fisher 1987, 1999 / Olsson 2004: 94-97)
1 March 1932: kidnapping

son of Charles & Anne Morrow Lindbergh,
Charles Lindbergh, Jnr (20 months old)
several ransom notes follow

linguistic evidence
Sample Case
12 May 1932: corpse of child is found
arrested, convicted and executed:

German carpenter Bruno Richard Hauptmann
source of pictures:
http://jimfisher.edinboro.edu/lindbergh/photos.html
The Lindbergh case: Evidence
(Fisher 1987, 1999 / Olsson 2004: 94-97)
Hauptmann had >14,000$ of ransom bills
Condon's phone number & address

on note in his house
rail of kidnap ladder from Hauptmann's attic floor
Condon: Hauptmann = "Cemetery John"
Lindbergh:
Hauptmann's voice = voice of "Cemetery John
8 document examiners:
Hauptmann = writer of ransom notes
( handwriting evidence)
source of pictures:
http://jimfisher.edinboro.edu/lindbergh/photos.html
The Lindbergh case
(Olsson 2004: 94-97 / Jim Fishers website)
Olsson
(2004: 94)
Today: corpus linguistic approach why?
inconsistency of transcripts in literature

Fisher
bold claims (kidnapper had Wernicke's)
(1999)
new: corpus linguistic approach
The Lindbergh case: Corpus
Ransom notes (source: http://jimfisher.edinboro.edu/lindbergh/photos/nsry_let.jpg)

The Lindbergh case: Corpus analysis
Issues:
aphasic criminal?
L2 speaker or or L1 speaker disguise?
The Lindbergh case: Aphasic criminal
(Olsson 2004: 94-97)
Based on ransom notes, Olsson makes a pretty strong claims:

1. kidnapper: English = L2
2. kidnappers L1 = German
3. neurological disability:
seem to indicate some kind of neurological disability,
possibly Wernickes aphasia (Olsson 2004: 95)
and: 1.-3. = Hauptmann 4. Hauptmann = kidnapper
TH:1./2./4. = agreed 3. Wernickes

The Lindbergh case: neurological disorder?
(Olsson 2004: 94-97)
Olsson (2004: 94): nursery note

note that the various sums ($2500, $1500, $1000) do not add up to
the total demanded, i.e. $50,000): in fact they add up to exactly one-
tenth of the ransom amount, i.e. $5000.
erroneous claim:
raises doubts over Olssons analysis

(Olsson 2004: 94-97)
Olsson (2004: 95) kidnappers language shows:

a tendency to mix actor-patient roles;
a tendency to confuse statements with questions;
mixing of grammatical categories,
e.g. nouns for adjectives, adverbs for adjectives;
confusion of first-person with second-person pronouns;
confusion of consonantal sounds, e.g. s for l and/or the creation of
new words based on existing ones, e.g. impollibly for impossible.
neurological disability, possibly Wernickes aphasia

Short excursus: Aphasia
(Pulvermller 2002: 33-49 / Turgeon and Macoir 2008)
Aphasia
acquired language impairment
through stroke, tumour, trauma, encephalitis
all aphasics have:
- difficulties speaking, though articulator muscles can be moved
- difficulties speaking & writing
yet:
different region in brain affected different syndromes
Broca aphasia (motor aphasia): primary deficit = production
Wernicke aphasia (sensory aphasia): primary deficit =
comprehension
[note: there are several others global aphasia / amnesic aphasia]

Major language areas and associated aphasia types (source):

Wernicke aphasia
severely impaired language comprehension
speech:
- fluent
- normal intonation/stress
- function words used
but:
- anomia: difficulty recalling correct content words
- paraphasia: production of unintended syllables, words, phrases
(verbal p.: substituting one word for another telephone for television)
(literal/phonological p.: >50% of word correct, e.g. pun for spun)
(neologistic p.: less than 50% of word correct)
Quantitative Analysis I
(Coulthard and Johnson 2007: 161-167 / Luyckx and Daelemans
2011: 40 / McMenamin 2002a / Olsson 2004: 117-118)
Corpus linguistic analysis of:

actor-patient mistakes / sentence
statement-question confusion / sentence
wrong lexical category used / lexical types
wrong 1st/2nd pronoun use / N 1st/2nd pronouns
The Lindbergh case: an aphasic kidnapper?
(Olsson 2004: 94-97)
1. actor-patient confusion:
Olsson : Ransom note 1 (Olsson 2004: 95)
dont be afraid about the baby-keeping care of us day and night
claim: agent patient confusion (baby does the

caring?)
yet: actually different text (source)
Don't by afraid about the baby twu ladys keeping

care of us day and night.
(Olsson 2004: 94-97)
1. actor-patient confusion:
potentially relevant token: Ransom note 1
We know very well what it means to us
You know very well what it means to us (?)

(Olsson 2004: 94-97)
1. actor-patient confusion (1 in 138 sentences)

(Olsson 2004: 94-97)
2. statement-question confusion
Olsson : Ransom note 1 (Forensic text 6.10 from Olsson 2004: 94)
It is realy necessary to make a world affair out of this, or to get
your baby back as soon as possible to settle those affair in a quick
way will be better for both
claim: writer confuses statements with questions
yet: if this is due to a neurological disorder
why correct in ransom note 2 (source)?
(Olsson 2004: 94-97)
2. statement-question confusion (2 in 138 sentences)

(Olsson 2004: 94-97)
3. mixing of grammatical categories

We also have adverbs for adjectives: impossibly for impossible
and on occasion nouns for adjectives, e.g. innocence for
innocent
claim: mixing of grammatical categories, e.g.

nouns for adjectives, adverbs for adjectives
how often? (pathological vs L2?)
(Olsson 2004: 94-97)
3. mixing of grammatical categories (7 in 546 types)

(Olsson 2004: 94-97)
4. Pronoun confusion
We know very well what it means to us.
[after the Lindberghs (acc. to him) publicized the crime]
claim: It is evident (to me at least) that he probably

means You know very well what it means to us
yet: frequency of this?
(Olsson 2004: 94-97)
4. Pronoun confusion (2 in 148 1st/2nd pronoun tokens)

(Olsson 2004: 94-97)
Based on ransom notes:

1. kidnapper: English = L2
3. neurological disability:
seem to indicate some kind of neurological disability,
possibly Wernickes aphasia (Olsson 2004: 95)
and: 1.-3. = Hauptmann 4. Hauptmann = kidnapper
TH:1./2./4. = agreed 3. Wernickes

The Lindbergh case: L2 vs disguised L1
(Olsson 2004: 94-97)
Olsson claims:
1. English = L2
other theories: L1 = English speaker disguise
Dern (2009: 80): L2 disguise strategies (foreigner talk)

(Olsson 2004: 94-97)
As Dern (2009: 81) points out:

laypeople usually unaware of intricate
linguistic rules of language
orthography / inflectional endings:
more prominent more often affected
strong collocations / syntax:
less prominent less often affected
ransom notes tested:
collocation & syntax errors / sentences
(Olsson 2004: 94-97)
Texts show many L1 German collocation & syntax errors:

Nursery note: Indication for all letters are singnature
(COHA: 0 hits | German: Zeichen fr )
Ransom 1 & 2: to make a world affair out of this
(COHA: 0 hits | German: eine Staatsaffaire draus machen)
Random 1 & 2 : ransom was made aus
(COHA: 0 hits | German: ausgemacht)
Random 3: make one packet
(COHA: 0 hits | ein Packet machen)
Ransom 4: a big open Porch around
(German: eine Veranda herum)

(Olsson 2004: 94-97)
constant high number no disguise
L1 = German
(also other evidence:
N capitalization: RN2: Thers is no worry about the Boy [Police / Mony]
German lexis: NN: gut care, RN2: Best dank
final devoicing: RN1: holt the baby, both seits, RN22: canselt
<th>: NN,RN1: anyding
The Lindbergh case:
(Olsson 2004: 94-97, Coulthard and Johnson 2007: 161-167)
Olsson claims:
1. English = L2
Summing up: linguistic fingerprint
(e.g. Dern 2009: 32-90; Olsson 2004: 31-37)
So far practice is a long way behind theory and no one has even
begun to speculate about how much and what kind of data would be
needed to uniquely characterize an idiolect, nor how the data, once
collected, would be analysed and stored. Indeed work on the very
much simpler task of identifying the linguistic characteristics or
fingerprints of single genres is still in its infancy
(Coulthard and Johnson 2007: 161)
not simply: 1 linguistic feature = linguistic fingerprint

instead:
careful combination of qualitative & quantitative methods
Conclusion
there is no linguistic fingerprint

idiolects [many features | so far: lack of data]
forensic linguistics instead:
careful quantitative and qualitative analyses
Lindbergh crime: blackmailer
- probably L2 speaker
- L1 probably German
- no aphasia
References
Coulthard, M. and A. Johnson. 2007. An Introduction to Forensic Linguistics:

Language in Evidence. London: Routledge.
Craig, H. 2004. "Stylistic Analysis and Authorship Studies." In: S. Schreibman,
R. Siemens and J. Unsworth, eds. A Companion to Digital Humanities.
Malden, MA: Blackwell Reference Online. 02 May 2011 Love, H. 2002.
Attributing Authorship: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Dern, Christa. 2009. Autorenerkennung: Theorie und Praxis der linguistischen
Tatschreibenanalyse. Stuttgart et al.: Richard Boorberg Verlag.
Fisher, J. 1987. The Lindbergh Case. London: Rutgers University Press.
Fisher, J. 1999. The Ghosts of Hopewell: Setting the Record Straight in the
Lindbergh Case. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Holmes, D. I. 1998. The Evolution of Stylometry in Humanities. Literary and
Linguistic Computing 13,3: 111-117.
References
Luyckx, K. and W. Daelemans. 2011. The effect of author set size and data
size in authorship attribution. Literary and Linguistic Computing 26,1: 35-
55.
McMenamin, G.R. 2002a. The Measurement of Style. In: G.R. McMenamin,
ed. Forensic Linguistics: Advances in Forensic Stylistics. London et al.:
CRC Press, 137-161.
McMenamin, G.R. 2002bStylistic Variation in Authorship Cases. In: G.R.
McMenamin, ed. Forensic Linguistics: Advances in Forensic Stylistics.
London et al.: CRC Press, 207-231.
Olsson J. 2004. An Introduction to Language Crime and the Law. London:
Continuum International Publishing Group.
Turgeon, Z. and J. Macoir. 2008. Classical and Contemporary Assessment of
Aphasia and Acquired Disorders of Language. In: B. Stemmer and H.A.
Whitaker, eds. The Handbook of the Neuroscience of Language. London et
al.: Elsevier, 3-11.

Do We Have A Linguistic Fingerprint Appl

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Do We Have A Linguistic Fingerprint Appl

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thomas Hoffmann

Do we have a linguistic fingerprint?

Invited Talk for the Osnabrcker Wissenschaftliche Gesellschaft

Die Handschrift eines Menschen. Fr Experten unverwechselbar.

Does a linguistic fingerprint exist?

1 variable that is not under individuals control

No single linguistic fingerprint, instead:

attempt to look at sets of features

1439: Lorenzo Valla proved: Donation of Constantine = forgery

1851: Augustus de Morgan

1938: G. Udny Yule

also: 18th & 19th century historical-critical bible studies

Mosteller and Wallace (1964):

85 essays by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James

Mosteller and Wallace (1964):

e.g. upon (taken from: Tankard, Jr. 2001: 54)

e.g. probability of also (taken from: Tankard, Jr. 2001: 55)

result: all disputed papers = Madison

Morton and Michaelson (1990):

1st purely statistical approach used in court

Morton and Michaelson (1990):

Example: Hilton and Holmes (1993: 74)

Example: Hilton and Holmes (1993: 74)

Example: Hilton and Holmes (1993: 74)

same trend one author

Example: Hilton and Holmes (1993: 74)

divergence > 1 author

sentences 1-10 of Unabomber (University and Airline Bomber)

Example: start of Unabomber manifesto

divergence > 1 author?

Example: start of Unabomber manifesto

divergence > 1 author?

Morton and Michaelson (1990):

still: occasionally used in courtrooms!

Luyckx and Daelemans (2011):

forensic situation: most texts 200 words

min of words per candidate?

Figure 1: Machine learning approach (Luyckx and Daelemans 2011: 38)

one corpus used: AAAC (Juola 2004)

Table 1: Linguistic features investigated (Luyckx and Daelemans 2011: 40)

Linguistic features: most important terms/notions

Figure 2: Results AAAC author sample size

Figure 2: Results AAAC data sample size [10% 4,000 words]

Some success: predictive accuracy

Dern (2009: 80) lists following strategies:

52 Students (Uni Saarbruecken/Uni Mainz)

Figure 2. Results: Length of letters in nr of words

Figure 3. Linguistic disguise attempts in task 1

Figure 4. Linguistic disguise attempts in task 2

Figure 5. Linguistic foreigner disguise attempts in task 3

Example A: undisguised letter (author X)

Sie sollten sich beeilen!

Example B: disguised letter (same author X)

BIS BALD VOLLIDIOT

DU BEKOMMST NE NACHRICHT, WO DIE KOHLE (1,5 MIO EURO)

Example B: typical of major disguise strategy in task 2

Example C: disguised foreigner letter

note: Orthography vs Syntax (V placement)

Figure 6. Linguistic foreigner disguise attempts in task 3

Type of Error Disguise

errors on word level / idioms:

The Lindbergh case

1 March 1932: kidnapping