Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T02:00:15.701Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2020

Tim Grant  and
Nicci MacLeod
Tim Grant
Affiliation:
Aston University
Nicci MacLeod
Affiliation:
Northumbria University, Newcastle
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Language and Online Identities
The Undercover Policing of Internet Sexual Crime
 , pp. 181 - 192
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aarsand, P. (2008). Frame switches and identity performances: Alternating between online and offline. Text and Talk 28:2, pp. 147–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Al-Sa’Di, R. and Hamdan, J. (2005). ‘Synchronous online chat’ English: Computer-mediated communication. World Englishes 24:4, pp. 409–424.Google Scholar
Androutsopoulos, J. (2006). Introduction: Sociolinguistics and computer-mediated communication. Journal of Sociolinguistics 10:4, pp. 419–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Androutsopoulos, J. and Georgakopoulou, A. (2003). Discourse constructions of youth identities: Introduction. In Androutsopoulos, J. and Georgakopoulou, A. (eds.), Discourse Constructions of Youth Identities. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–25.Google Scholar
Angouri, J. (2016). Online communities of practice. In Georgakopoulou, A. and Spilioti, T. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Language and Digital Communication. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 323–338.Google Scholar
Antaki, C. and Widdicombe, S. (1998). Identity as an achievement and as a tool. In Antaki, C. and Widdicombe, S. (eds.) Identities in Talk. London: Sage, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
Antaki, C. and Widdicombe, S. (eds.) (2008). Identities in Talk. London: Sage, p. 1.Google Scholar
Argamon, S. and Koppel, M. (2012). A systemic functional approach to automated authorship analysis. Journal of Law and Policy 21, pp. 299–315.Google Scholar
Argamon, S., Koppel, M., Fine, J. and Shimoni, A. R. (2003). Gender, genre, and writing style in formal written texts. Text 23:3, pp. 321–346.Google Scholar
Argamon, S., Koppel, M., Pennebaker, J. W. and Schler, J. (2009). Automatically profiling the author of an anonymous text. Communications of the ACM 52:2, pp. 119–123.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Babchishin, K. M., Hanson, R. K. and Hermann, C. A. (2010). The characteristics of online sex offenders: A meta-analysis. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 23:1, pp. 92–123.Google Scholar
Baker, P. (2001). Moral panic and alternative identity construction in Usenet. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 7:1. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2001.tb00136.xGoogle Scholar
Bamman, D., Eisenstein, J. and Schnoebelen, T. (2014). Gender identity and lexical variation in social media. Journal of Sociolinguistics 18, pp. 135–160.Google Scholar
Barber, C. S. and Bettez, S. C. (2014). Deconstructing the online grooming of youth: Toward improved information systems for detection of online sexual predators. Thirty Fifth International Conference on Information Systems, Auckland 2014.Google Scholar
Baron, N. (2004). See you online: Gender issues in college student use of instant messaging. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 23, pp. 397–423.Google Scholar
Baron, N. (2010). Discourse structures in instant messaging: The case of utterance breaks. Language @Internet 7. www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2010/2651Google Scholar
Baron, N. (2013). Instant messaging. In Herring, S., Stein, D. and Virtanen, T. (eds.), Pragmatics of Computer-Mediated Communication. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 135–162.Google Scholar
Barton, D. and Lee, C. (2013). Language Online: Investigating Digital Texts and Practices. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Beech, N. (2008). On the nature of dialogic identity work. Organization 15:1, pp. 51–74.Google Scholar
Benwell, B. and Stokoe, E. (2006). Discourse and Identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Bergen, E., Davidson, J. Schulz, A., Scuhmass, P. Johansson, A., Santtila, P. and Jern, P. (2014). The effects of using identity deception and suggesting secrecy on the outcomes of adult-adult and adult-child or -adolescent online sexual interactions. Victims and Offenders 9:3, pp. 276–298.Google Scholar
Bernstein, B. (1971). Class, Codes and Control. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, D. and Conrad, S. (2009). Register, Genre and Style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Black, P., Wollis, M., Woodworth, M. and Hancock, J. (2015). A linguistic analysis of grooming strategies of online child sex offenders: Implications for our understanding of predatory sexual behavior in an increasingly computer-mediated world. Child Abuse and Neglect 44, pp. 140–149.Google Scholar
Block, D. (2013). Issues in language and identity research in applied linguistics. ELIA 13, pp. 11–46. http://institucional.us.es/revistas/elia/13/art_1.pdfGoogle Scholar
Briggs, P., Simon, W. T. and Simonsen, S. (2011). An exploratory study of Internet-initiated sexual offenses and the chat room sex offender: Has the Internet enabled a new typology of sex offender? Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 23, pp. 72–91.Google Scholar
Brubaker, R. and Cooper, F. (2000). Beyond ‘identity’. Theory and Society 29, pp. 1–47.Google Scholar
Bryce, J. (2010). Online sexual exploitation of children and young people. In Jewkes, Y. E. and Yar, M. E. (eds.), Handbook of Internet Crime. Cullompton, UK: Willan Publishing, pp. 320–342.Google Scholar
Bucholtz, M. (1999). ‘Why be normal?’: Language and identity practices in a community of nerd girls. Language in Society 28:2, pp. 203–223.Google Scholar
Bucholtz, M. and Hall, K. (2004). Language and identity. In Duranti, A. (ed.), A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 369–394.Google Scholar
Bucholtz, M. and Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociolinguistic cultural approach. Discourse Studies 7:4–5, pp. 585–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burger, J. D., Henderson, J., Kim, G. and Zarrella, G. (2011). Discriminating gender on Twitter. Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing 2011, Edinburgh, UK, pp. 1301– 1309.Google Scholar
Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Butters, R. (2010). The forensic linguist’s professional credentials. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 16:2, pp. 237–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaski, C. (2001). Empirical evaluations of language-based author identification techniques. Forensic Linguistics: The International Journal of Speech Language and the Law 8:1, pp. 1–65.Google Scholar
Cheng, E. (2013). Being pragmatic about forensic linguistics. Journal of Law and Social Policy 2:1, pp. 541–550.Google Scholar
Chiang, E. (2018). Rhetorical moves and identity performance in online child sexual abuse interactions. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Aston University, Birmingham, UK.Google Scholar
Chiang, E. and Grant, T. (2017). Online grooming: Moves and strategies. Language and Law/Linguagem e Direito 4:1, pp. 103–141.Google Scholar
Chiang, E. and Grant, T. D. (2019). Deceptive identity performance: Offender moves and multiple personas in online child abuse conversations. Applied Linguistics 40:4, pp. 675–698.Google Scholar
Clevenger, S. L., Navarro, J. N. and Gilliam, M. (2018). Technology and the endless ‘cat and mouse’ game: A review of the interpersonal cybervictimization literature. Sociology Compass 12:12, p. e121639.Google Scholar
Coulthard, M. (2004). Authorship identification, idiolect and linguistic uniqueness. Applied Linguistics 25:4, pp. 431–447.Google Scholar
Coulthard, M., Grant, T. and Kredens, K. (2011). Forensic linguistics. In Wodak, R., Johnstone, B. and Kerswill, P. (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Sociolinguistics. London: SAGE, pp. 529–544.Google Scholar
Coupland, N. (2007). Style: Language Variation and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cover, R. (2016). Digital Identities: Creating and Communicating the Online Self. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) (2014). Expert Evidence: Legal Guidance. www.cps.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/legal_guidance/expert_evidence_first_edition_2014.pdfGoogle Scholar
CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) (2015). Annual Report and Accounts 2014–15. www.cps.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/publications/annual_report_2014_15.pdfGoogle Scholar
Craven, S., Brown, S. and Gilchrist, E. (2006). Sexual grooming of children: Review of literature and theoretical considerations. Journal of Sexual Aggression 12:3, pp. 287–299.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. (2001). Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Danet, B. (1998). Text as mask: Gender, play and performance on the internet. In Jones, S. G. (ed.), Cybersociety 2.0: Revisiting Computer-Mediated Communication and Community. London: Sage, pp. 129–158.Google Scholar
Darics, E. (2014). The blurring boundaries between synchronicity and asynchronicity: New communicative situations in work-related instant messaging. International Journal of Business Communication 51:4, pp. 337–358.Google Scholar
Darics, E. (2017). E-leadership or ‘how to be a boss in instant messaging?’: The role of nonverbal communication. International Journal of Business Communication. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488416685068Google Scholar
Davies, B. (2005). Communities of practice: Legitimacy not choice. Journal of Sociolinguistics 9:4, pp. 557–581.Google Scholar
de Fina, A. (2010) The negotiation of identities. In Locher, M. and Graham, S. L. (eds.), Interpersonal Pragmatics. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 205–224.Google Scholar
de Fina, A. (2011). Discourse and identity. In van Dijk, T. (ed.), Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. London: Sage, pp. 263–282.Google Scholar
de Siqueira, A. and Herring, S. C. (2009). Temporal patterns in student-advisor instant messaging exchanges: Individual variation and accommodation. Proceedings of the Forty-Second Hawai’i International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-42). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Press.Google Scholar
Dombrowski, S. C., Le Masney, J. W., Ahia, C. E. and Dickson, S. A. (2004). Protecting children from online sexual predators: Technological, psychoeducational, and legal considerations. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 35, pp. 65–73.Google Scholar
Donath, J. (1999). Identity and deception in the virtual community. In Smith, M. and Kollock, P. (eds.), Communities in Cyberspace. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 29–59.Google Scholar
Dresner, E. and Herring, S. C. (2010). Functions of the non-verbal in CMC: Emoticons and illocutionary force. Communication Theory 20:1, pp. 249–268.Google Scholar
Drummond, R. (2017). (Mis)interpreting urban youth language: White kids sounding black? Journal of Youth Studies 20:5, pp. 640–660.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. (2000). Linguistic Variation as Social Practice. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. (2006). Communities of practice. The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 683–685.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. and McConnell-Ginet, S. (1992). Think practically and look locally: Language and gender as community–based practice. Annual Review of Anthropology 21, pp. 461–490.Google Scholar
Edwards, J. (2009). Language and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eysenck, M. (2014). Fundamentals of Psychology. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fadden, L. and Solan, L. (2015). Expert witness communication. In Oxburgh, G., Myklebust, T., Grant, T. and Milne, R. (eds.), Communication in Investigative and Legal Contexts: Integrated Approaches from Forensic Psychology, Linguistics and Law Enforcement. Chichester: Wiley, pp. 209–228.Google Scholar
Georgakopoulou, A. (2006). Small and large identities in narrative (inter)action. In de Fina, A., Schiffrin, D. and Bamberg, M. (eds.), Discourse and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 83–102.Google Scholar
Georgakopoulou, A. (2011). ‘On for drinkies?’: Email cues of participant alignments. Language@Internet 8. www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2011/GeorgakopoulouGoogle Scholar
Giles, H. and Powesland, P. F. (1975). Speech Style and Social Evaluation. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gillespie, A. A. (2008). Cyber-stings: Policing sexual offences on the internet. The Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles 81, pp. 196–208.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. London: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1978). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. London: Harmondsworth.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Graham, S. L. (2016). Relationality, friendship and identity. In Georgakopoulou, A. and Spiloti, T. (eds.), Handbook of Language and Digital Communication. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 305–319.Google Scholar
Grant, T. (2010). Text messaging forensics: Txt 4n6: idiolect free authorship analysis? In Coulthard, M. and Johnson, A. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 508–522.Google Scholar
Grant, T. (2013). TXT 4N6: Method, consistency, and distinctiveness in the analysis of SMS text messages. Journal of Law and Policy 21:2, pp. 467–494.Google Scholar
Grant, T. (2017). Duppying yoots in a dog eat dog world, kmt: Determining the senses of slang terms for the Courts. Semiotica 2017:216, pp. 479–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, T. and Baker, K. (2001). Identifying reliable, valid markers of authorship: A response to Chaski. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 8:1, pp. 66–79.Google Scholar
Grant, T. and MacLeod, N. (2016). Assuming identities online: Linguistics applied to the policing of online paedophile activity. Applied Linguistics 37:1, pp. 50–70.Google Scholar
Grant, T. and MacLeod, N. (2018). Resources and constraints in linguistic identity performance – A theory of authorship. Language and Law/Linguagem e Direito 5:1, pp. 80–96.Google Scholar
Grant, T., and Woodhams, J. (2007). Rape as social activity: An application of investigative linguistics. In Cotterill, J. (ed.), The Language of Sexual Crime. Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
Grieve, J. (2017). Spatial statistics for dialectology. In Boberg, C., Nerbonne, J. and Watt, D. (eds.), The Handbook of Dialectology. Chichester: Wiley, pp. 415–433.Google Scholar
Grieve, J., Clarke, I., Chiang, E., Gideon, H., Heini, A., Nini, A. and Waibel, E. (2019). Attributing the Bixby Letter using n-gram tracing. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities. 34:3, pp. 471–706Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. (1964). Linguistic and social interaction in two communities. American Anthropologist 66:6(Part 2), pp. 137–153.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hård af Segerstad, Y. (2002 ). Use and adaptation of written language to the conditions of computer-mediated communication. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Göteborg University, Sweden.Google Scholar
Hardaker, C. and McGlashan, M. (2016). ‘Real men don’t hate women’: Twitter rape threats and group identity. Journal of Pragmatics 91, pp. 80–93.Google Scholar
Hepburn, A. and Wiggins, S. (2007). Discursive research: Themes and debates. In Hepburn, A. and Wiggins, S. (eds.), Discursive Research in Practice: New Approaches to Psychology and Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–28.Google Scholar
Herring, S. C. (1993). Gender and democracy in computer-mediated communication. Electronic Journal of Communication 3:2, pp. 1–17.Google Scholar
Herring, S. C. (1999). Interactional coherence in CMC. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 4:4. 1 June 1999, JCMC444, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1999.tb00106.xGoogle Scholar
Herring, S. C. (2001). Computer-mediated discourse. In Tannen, D., Schiffrin, D. and Hamilton, H. (eds.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 612–634.Google Scholar
Herring, S. C. (2003). Gender and power in on-line communication. In Holmes, J. and Meyerhoff, M. (eds.), Handbook of Language and Gender. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 202–228.Google Scholar
Herring, S. C. (2004). Computer-mediated discourse analysis: An approach to researching online behavior. In Barab, S. A., Kling, R. and Gray, J. H. (eds.), Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 338–376.Google Scholar
Herring, S. C. (2007). A faceted classification scheme for computer-mediated discourse, Language@Internet www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2007/761Google Scholar
Herring, S. C. (2012). Discourse in Web 2.0: Familiar, reconfigured and emergent. In Tannen, D. and Tester, A. M. (eds.), Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 2011: Discourse 2.0: Language and New Media. Washington, DC, pp. 1–29.Google Scholar
Herring, S. C. (2013). Relevance in computer-mediated conversation. In Herring, S. C., Stein, D. and Virtanen, T. (eds.), Pragmatics of Computer-mediated Communication. Berlin: Mouton, pp. 245–268.Google Scholar
Herring, S. C. (2014). Research: Computer-mediated communication. ASIS&T Bulletin, 40:3. www.asis.org/Bulletin/Feb-14/FebMar14_Herring.htmlGoogle Scholar
Herring, S. C., Johnson, D. A. and DiBenedetto, T. (1998). Participation in electronic discourse in a ‘feminist’ field. In Coates, J. (ed.), Language and Gender: A Reader. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 197–210.Google Scholar
Herring, S. C. and Kapidzic, S. (2015). Teens, gender, and self-presentation in social media. In Wright, J. D. (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed, Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 146–152.Google Scholar
Herring, S. and Nix, C. (1997). Is serious chat an oxymoron? Academic vs. social uses of internet relay chat. Paper presented at the American Association of Applied Linguistics, Orlando, FL, 11 March.Google Scholar
Herring, S. C., Stein, D. and Virtanen, T. (2013). Introduction to the pragmatics of computer-mediated communication. In Herring, S. C., Stein, D. and Virtanen, T. (eds.), Pragmatics of Computer-Mediated Communication. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 3–32.Google Scholar
Hine, C. (2000). Virtual Ethnography. London: Sage.Google Scholar
HMIC. (2014). An inspection of undercover policing in England and Wales. www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmic/publications/an-inspection-of-undercover-policing-in-england-and-wales/Google Scholar
Home Office. (2002). Protecting the public: strengthening protection against sex offenders and reforming the law on sexual offences. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20131205101157/http://www.archive2.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm56/5668/5668.pdfGoogle Scholar
Home Office. (2010). Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP): The Way Forward. https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/10569/1/7785.pdfGoogle Scholar
Hockett, C. F. (1958). A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Howald, B. (2008). Authorship attribution under the rules of evidence: empirical approaches in the layperson legal system. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 15:2, pp. 219–247.Google Scholar
Isaacs, E., Walendowski, A., Whittaker, S., Schiano, D. J. and Kamm, C. (2002). The character, function and styles of instant messaging in the workplace. Proceedings of the 2002 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Co-operative Work. ACM: New York City.Google Scholar
Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, A. and Wright, D. (2014). Identifying idiolect in forensic authorship attribution: an n-gram textbite approach. Language and Law/ Linguagem e Direito 1:1, pp. 37–69.Google Scholar
Johnstone, B. (1996). The Linguistic Individual: Self Expression in Language and Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Johnstone, B. (2000). The individual voice in language. Annual Review of Anthropology 29:1, pp. 405–424.Google Scholar
Johnstone, B. (2009). Stance, style and the linguistic individual. In Jaffe, A. (ed.), Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 29–52.Google Scholar
Johnstone, B. (2010). Indexing the local. In Coupland, N. (ed.), Handbook of Language and Globalization. Chichester: Wiley, pp. 386–405.Google Scholar
Juola, P. (2006). Authorship attribution. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval 1, pp. 233–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kachru, B. B. (1990). World Englishes and applied linguistics. World Englishes 9:1, pp. 3–20.Google Scholar
Kesseler, A. and Bergs, A. (2003). Literacy and the new media. In Aitchison, J. and Lewis, D. M. (eds.), New Media Language. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 75–84.Google Scholar
Kloess, J. A., Beech, A. R. and Harkins, L. (2014). Online child sexual exploitation: Prevalence, process, and offender characteristics. Trauma, Violence and Abuse 15:2, pp. 126–139.Google Scholar
Koppel, M., Argamon, S., Shimoni, A. R. (2002). Automatically categorizing written texts by author gender. Literary and Linguistic Computing 17:4, pp. 401–412.Google Scholar
Koppel, M., Schler, J. and Argamon, S. (2009). Computational methods in authorship attribution. Journal of the American Society for information Science and Technology 60:1, pp. 9–26.Google Scholar
Koppel, M., Schler, J. and Argamon, S. (2013). Authorship attribution: What’s easy and what’s hard? Journal of Law and Policy 21, pp. 317–331.Google Scholar
Kopppel, M., Schler, J. and Zigdon, K. (2005) Determining an author’s native language by mining a text for errors. Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery in Data Mining, pp. 624–628.Google Scholar
Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Boneva, B. Cummings, J., Helgeson, V. and Crawford, A. (2002). Internet paradox revisited. Journal of Social Issues 58:1, pp. 49–74.Google Scholar
Kredens, K. (2002). Idiolect in authorship attribution. Folia Linguistica Anglica 4, Lodz University Press, Lodz.Google Scholar
Le Page, R. B. and Tabouret-Keller, A. (1985). Acts of Identity: Creole-Based Approaches to Language and Ethnicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, C. (2014). Language choice and self-presentation in social media: The case of university students in Hong Kong. In Seargeant, P. and Tagg, C. (eds.), Language of Social Media: Identity and Community on the Internet. Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 91–111.Google Scholar
Lemke, J. L. (2008). Identity, development and desire: Critical questions. In Caldas-Coulthard, C. R. and Iedema, R. (eds.), Identity Trouble. Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 17–42.Google Scholar
Leonard, R. (2005). Forensic linguistics: Applying the scientific principles of language analysis to issues of the law. International Journal of the Humanities 3:7, pp. 65–70.Google Scholar
Lowe, P. (2015). Lessening sensitivity: Student experiences of teaching and learning sensitive issues. Teaching in Higher Education 20:1, pp. 119–129Google Scholar
MacLeod, N. and Grant, T. (2012). Whose tweet?: Authorship analysis of micro-blogs and other short form messages. Electronic Proceedings of the International Association of Forensic Linguists’ 10th Biennial Conference, Aston University, Birmingham, UK, July 2011. www.linguisticaforense.ufsc.br/tiki-index.php?page=IAFL+2011Google Scholar
MacLeod, N. and Grant, T. (2016). ‘You have ruined this entire experiment … shall we stop talking now?’ Orientations to being recorded as an interactional resource. Discourse, Context & Media 14, pp. 63–70.Google Scholar
Madsen, L. M. (2015). Fighters, Girls and Other Identities: Sociolinguistics in a Martial Arts Club. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Martellozzo, E. (2012). Online Child Sexual Abuse: Grooming, Policing and Child Protection in a Multi-Media World. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
McKeown, J. and Zhang, Q. (2015). Socio-pragmatic influence on opening salutation and closing valediction of British workplace email. Journal of Pragmatics 85, pp. 92–107.Google Scholar
McMenamin, G. R. (2001). Style markers in authorship studies. International Journal of Speech, Language & the Law 8:2, pp. 93–7.Google Scholar
McMenamin, G. R. (2002). Forensic Linguistics: Advances in Forensic Stylistics. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
McMenamin, G. R. (2010). Forensic stylistics: Theory and practice of forensic stylistics. In Coulthard, M. and Johnson, A. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 487–507.Google Scholar
Miranda-García, A. and Calle-Martín, J. (2005). The validity of lemma-based lexical richness in authorship attribution: A proposal for the Old English Gospels. ICAME Journal 29, pp. 41–55.Google Scholar
Mosteller, F. and Wallace, D. (1964). Inference and disputed authorship: The Federalist. Boston: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Nastri, J., Pena, J. and Hancock, J. T. (2006). The construction of away messages: A speech act analysis. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 11:4, pp. 1025–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nathan, C. (2017). Liability to deception and manipulation: The ethics of undercover policing. Journal of Applied Philosophy 34:3, pp. 370–388.Google Scholar
Newon, L. (2011). Multimodal creativity and identities of expertise in the digital ecology of a World of Warcraft guild. In Thurlow, C. and Mroczek, K. (eds.), Digital Discourse: Language in the New Media. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 131–153.Google Scholar
Nini, A. (2015). Authorship profiling in a forensic context. PhD dissertation. Aston University, Birmingham, UK.Google Scholar
Nini, A. and Grant, T. (2013). Bridging the gap between stylistic and cognitive approaches to authorship analysis using Systemic Functional Linguistics and multidimensional analysis. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 20:2, pp. 173–202.Google Scholar
Ochs, E. (1990). Indexicality and socialization. In Stigler, J. W., Shweder, R. A. and Herdt, G. (eds.), Cultural Psychology: Essays on Comparative Human Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 287–308.Google Scholar
Omoniyi, T. (2006). Hierarchy of identities: A theoretical perspective. In Omoniyi, T. and White, G. (eds.), The Sociolinguistics of Identity. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 11–33.Google Scholar
Paolillo, J. C. and Zelenkauskaite, A. (2013). Real-time chat. In Herring, S., Stein, D. and Virtanen, T. (eds.), Pragmatics of Computer-Mediated Communication. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 109–134. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v14i3.2162Google Scholar
Pearson, E. (2009). All the World Wide Web’s a stage: The performance of identity in online social networks. First Monday 14: 3.Google Scholar
Petriglieri, G. and Stein, M. (2012). The unwanted self: Projective identification in leaders’ identity work. Organization Studies 33:9, pp. 1217–1235.Google Scholar
Postmes, T., Spears, R. and Lea, M. (2000). The formation of group norms in computer-mediated communication. Human Communication Research 26:3, pp. 341–371.Google Scholar
Potter, J. (1997). Discourse analysis as a way of analysing naturally occurring talk. Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice 2, pp. 200–222.Google Scholar
Preece, S. (2016). Introduction. In Preece, S. (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Language and Identity. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
Quayle, E. and Ribisl, K. M. (eds.) (2012). Understanding and Preventing Online Sexual Exploitation of Children. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Raclaw, J. (2008). Two patterns for conversational closings in instant messaging discourse. Colorado Research in Linguistics 21:1, pp. 34–54.Google Scholar
Radin, P. (2006). ‘To me, it’s my life’: Medical communication, trust, and activism in cyberspace. Social Science and Medicine 62, pp. 591–601.Google Scholar
Randall, N. (2002) Lingo online: A report on the language of the keyboard generation. www.arts.uwaterloo.ca/~nrandall/LingoOnline-finalreport.pdfGoogle Scholar
Ribeiro, B. T. (2006). Footing, positioning, voice. Are we talking about the same thing? In de Fina, A., Schiffrin, D. and Bamberg, M. (eds.), Discourse and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 48–82.Google Scholar
Rintel, E. S., Mulholland, J. and Pittam, J. (2001). First things first: Internet Relay Chat openings. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 4:4. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol6/issue3/rintel.htmlGoogle Scholar
Roberts, C. (2003). Applied linguistics applied. In Sarangi, S. and van Leeuwen, T. (eds.), Applied Linguistics and Communities of Practice. London: Continuum, pp. 132–149.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on Conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. and Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50:4, pp. 696–735.Google Scholar
Saville-Troike, M. (1982). The Ethnography of Communication: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Categories in action: Person-reference and membership categorization. Discourse Studies 9:4, 433–461.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. and Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica 8:4, pp. 289–237.Google Scholar
Schler, J., Koppel, M., Argamon, S. and Pennebaker, K. J .W. (2006). Effects of age and gender on blogging. AAAI spring symposium: Computational approaches to analyzing weblogs 6, pp. 199–205.Google Scholar
Schmid, M. (2011). Language Attrition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schneevogt, D., Chiang, E. and Grant, T. (2018). Do Perverted Justice chat logs contain examples of overt persuasion and sexual extortion? A research note responding to Chiang and Grant (2017, 2019). Language and Law/ Linguagem e Direito 5:1, pp. 97–102.Google Scholar
Seargeant, P. and Tagg, C. (2011). English on the internet and a ‘post-varieties’ approach to language. World Englishes, 30:4, pp. 496–514.Google Scholar
Seargeant, P. and Tagg, C. (2014) Introduction: The language of social media. In Seargeant, P. and Tagg, C. (eds.), The Language of Social Media: Identity and Community on the Internet. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–20.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sebba, M. (2007). Spelling and Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sentencing Council. (2013). Sexual Offences Guideline Consultation. https://consult.justice.gov.uk/sentencing-council/indecent-images-children/supporting_documents/sexual%20offences_Indecent%20images%20of%20children.pdfGoogle Scholar
Smith, J. A. and Kelly, C. (2002). Stylistic consistency and change across literary corpora: Using measures of lexical richness to data works. Computers and the Humanities 36:4, pp. 411–431.Google Scholar
Smith, D. J., Spencer, S. and Grant, T. (2009). Authorship analysis for counter terrorism. Unpublished Research Report, QinetiQ/Aston University, Birmingham, UK.Google Scholar
Sorrell, T. (2016a). The scope of serious crime and preventive justice. Criminal Justice Ethics 35:3, pp. 163–82.Google Scholar
Sorrell, T. (2016b). Online grooming and preventive justice. Criminal Law and Philosophy 11:4, pp. 705–24.Google Scholar
Sousa-Silva, R., Laboreiro, G., Sarmento, L., Grant, T., Oliveira, E. and Maia, B. (2011). ‘twazn me!!! ;(‘Automatic authorship analysis of micro-blogging messages. Proceedings of the Natural Language Processing and Information Systems – 16th International Conference on Applications of Natural Language to Information Systems, pp. 161–168.Google Scholar
Swales, J. (1981). Aspects of Article Introductions. Aston ESP Research Reports No. 1. Language Studies Unit, Aston University, Birmingham.Google Scholar
Tagg, C. (2015). Exploring Digital Communication: Language in Action. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. and Denis, D. (2008). Linguistic ruin? Lol! Instant messaging and teen language. American Speech 83:1, pp. 3–34.Google Scholar
Tardini., S. and Cantoni, L. (2005). A semiotic approach to online communities: Belonging, interest and identity in websites’ and video games’ communities. Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference e-Society, pp. 371–378.Google Scholar
Thurlow, C. (2003). Teenagers in communication, teenagers on communication. Journal of Language & Social Psychology 22:1, pp. 50–57 .Google Scholar
Thurlow, C. (2006). From statistical panic to moral panic: The metadiscursive construction and popular exaggeration of new media language in the print media. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 11:3, pp.66–701.Google Scholar
Thurlow, C. and Mroczek, K. (2011). Digital Discourse: Language in the New Media. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tiersma, P. and Solan, L. (2002). The linguist on the witness stand: Forensic linguistics in American courts. Language 78:2, pp. 221–239.Google Scholar
Tucker, G. (1999). A global perspective on bilingualism and bilingual education. ERIC digest ED435168. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED435168Google Scholar
Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Turell, M. T. (2010). The use of textual, grammatical and sociolinguistic evidence in forensic text comparison. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 17:2, pp. 211–250.Google Scholar
Urbas, G. (2010). Protecting children from online predators: The use of covert investigation techniques by law enforcement. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 26:4, pp. 410–425.Google Scholar
Vásquez, C. (2014) ‘Usually not one to complain but …’: Constructing identities in user-generated online reviews. In Seargeant, P. and Tagg, C. (eds.), The Language of Social Media: Identity and Community Online. Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 65–90.Google Scholar
Vallis, R. (1999). Members’ methods for entering and leaving #IRCbar: A conversation analytic study of internet relay chat. In Chalmers, K., Bogitini, S. and Renshaw, P. (eds.), Educational Research in New Times. Flaxton: Post Pressed, pp. 117–127.Google Scholar
Vendler, Z. (1972). Res cogitans. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Waldvogel, J. (2007). Greetings and closings in workplace email. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 12:2, pp. 456–477.Google Scholar
Watson, D. R. (1978). Categorization, authorization and blame-negotiation in conversation. Sociology 12: 105–113.Google Scholar
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wenger, E., McDermott, R. and Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge. Harvard Business Review Press.Google Scholar
Whittle, H., Hamilton-Giachritsis, C., Beech, A. and Collings, G. (2013a). A review of young people’s vulnerabilities to online grooming. Aggression and Violent Behaviour 18:1, pp. 135–146.Google Scholar
Whittle, H., Hamilton-Giachritsis, C., and Beech, A. (2013b). Victim’s voices: The impact of online grooming and abuse. Universal Journal of Psychology 1, pp. 59–71.Google Scholar
Widdicombe, S. (1998). ‘But you don’t class yourself’: The interactional management of category membership and non-membership. In Antaki, C. and Widdicombe, S. (eds.), Identities in Talk. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Widdicombe, S. and Wooffitt, R. (1995). The Language of Youth Subcultures: Social Identity in Action. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Woodhams, J., and Grant, T. (2006). Developing a categorization system for rapists’ speech. Psychology, Crime & Law 12:3, pp. 245–260.Google Scholar
Wright, D. (2013). Stylistic variation within genre conventions in the Enron email corpus: Developing a text-sensitive methodology for authorship research. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 20:1, pp. 45–75.Google Scholar
Wright, D. (2014). Stylistics versus statistics: A corpus linguistic approach to combining techniques in forensic authorship analysis using Enron emails. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Leeds, UK. http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/8278/Google Scholar
Wright, D. (2017). Using word n-grams to identify authors and idiolects: A corpus approach to a forensic linguistic problem. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22:2, pp. 212–241.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • References
  • Tim Grant, Aston University, Nicci MacLeod, Northumbria University, Newcastle
  • Book: Language and Online Identities
  • Online publication: 10 February 2020
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108766425.011
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • References
  • Tim Grant, Aston University, Nicci MacLeod, Northumbria University, Newcastle
  • Book: Language and Online Identities
  • Online publication: 10 February 2020
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108766425.011
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • References
  • Tim Grant, Aston University, Nicci MacLeod, Northumbria University, Newcastle
  • Book: Language and Online Identities
  • Online publication: 10 February 2020
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108766425.011
Available formats
×