1. Enquiry
Send the disputed text and available comparison samples, and briefly describe the task.
2. Assessment
The field of specialist knowledge, volume, comparability, origin of materials and timeframe are checked.
3. Assignment
The objects, questions, limits, form of deliverable, cost and timeframe are agreed.
4. Analysis
Stable linguistic features, matches, differences and possible explanations are examined.
5. Result
An expert report or another agreed document describing limitations is delivered; a predetermined finding is not promised.
If the text was edited, translated or jointly written
Information about the circumstances of a text's preparation affects the choice of examination task. A document may contain the author's own contribution, a ready-made template, someone else's quotation and editorial changes. Rather than asking a general question about authorship of the entire file, it is useful to identify which passages and whose contribution actually need to be compared.
At the preliminary stage, the data directly presented are separated from assumptions about the writing process. If an editor, translator or joint preparation is known to have been involved, state which versions have survived and which actions are supported by the materials. There is no need to attribute all differences to one of these factors in advance.
- The disputed passages and available independently produced texts for comparison are identified.
- Comparability in genre, topic, time and circumstances of creation is assessed.
- Passages showing signs of formulaic or borrowed content are identified.
- Possible explanations for the matches and differences found are checked.
- The answer is formulated within the limits of what the set of materials allows.
This analysis may clarify the assignment itself: comparison of one author with samples, checking common authorship of several messages, or assessing the substantiation of another person's authorship finding. Textual analysis does not automatically reconstruct an unavailable revision history. When data are insufficient, it should be clear exactly which question lacks sufficient grounds and what might help to check it.