Cover not available
Article published In:
Register and social media
Edited by Isobelle Clarke and Jack Grieve
[Register Studies 4:2] 2022
► pp. 202–231

Same person, different platform

Challenges and implications for forensic authorship analysis. An exploratory study of Instagram and Twitter users

ORCID logo | University of Graz
| University of Graz
| University of Graz
The importance of digital data in forensic contexts has been increasing continuously (e.g., Grant 2013; Layton, Watters & Dazeley 2010; Wright 2013), with individuals holding an average of 8.5 different social media accounts in 2018 (Statista 2021a). Even though numerous studies have investigated registers on social media platforms (e.g., Seargeant & Tagg 2014; Zappavigna 2013), it has rarely been attempted to describe individual styles of one and the same person on different platforms – a research gap this paper attempts to address with the help of an exploratory hypothesis-generating study. The data is drawn from Instagram and Twitter, and comprises 1,800 posts from three media representatives and/or writers that hold accounts with both platforms. The results of the analysis suggest that the use of some features (e.g., emoji, hashtags) is strongly influenced by the respective platforms, while other features (e.g., patterns of punctuation, use of types of speech acts) remain stable and thus offer promising avenues for authorship analysis.
Keywords: individual styles, social media, forensic linguistics, authorship analysis, stylistics, pragmatics
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Approaches to researching online behavior: Computer-mediated discourse (CMD)
    • 1.2Registers of social media platforms
      • 1.2.1Twitter
      • 1.2.2Instagram
    • 1.3Forensic authorship analysis & individual styles
  • 2.Data
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Genre, register, style
    • 3.2Ethical considerations
    • 3.3Limitations
  • 4.Analysis
    • 4.1Differences in individual style – Platform-dependent register
      • 4.1.1DS – Structural level (post-final periods)
      • 4.1.2OS – Level of meaning (interrogative speech acts)
      • 4.1.3MY – Level of interaction & discourse (@mentions)
    • 4.2Similarities in platform-independent individual style
      • 4.2.1DS – Structural level (missing hyphens)
      • 4.2.2MY – Level of meaning (commissive & directive speech acts)
      • 4.2.3OS – Level of interaction & discourse (emoji)
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 October 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.22006.mar
References (106)
References
Al-Surmi, M. (2012). Authenticity and TV shows: A multidimensional analysis perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 46 (4), 671–694. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Argamon, S. (2019). Register in computational research. Register Studies, 1 (1), 100–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ayers, J. W., Caputi, T. L., Nebeker, C., & Dredze, M. (2018). Don’t quote me: Reverse identification of research participants in social media studies. Digital Medicine, 1 (1). [URL]
Barber, C. (1962). Some measurable characteristics of modern scientific prose. In F. Behre (Ed.), Contributions to English syntax and philology (pp. 21–43). Gothenborg: Almquist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Barlas, G., & Stamatatos, E. (2020). Cross-domain authorship attribution using pre-trained language models. In I. Maglogiannis, L. Iliadis & E. Pimenidis (Eds.), Artificial intelligence applications and innovations (pp. 255–266). Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. (1988/1995). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Text-linguistic approaches to register variation. Register Studies, 1 (1), 42–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, genre, style. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., & Egbert, J. (2018). Register variation online. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
boyd, D., Golder, S., & Lotan, G. (2010). Tweet, tweet, retweet: Conversational aspects of retweeting on Twitter. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), Networked self: Identity, community, and culture on social network sites (pp. 39–58). London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bruns, A., & Moe, H. (2014). Structural layers of communication on Twitter. In K. Weller, A. Bruns, J. Burgess, M. Mahrt & C. Puschmann (Eds.), Twitter and society (pp. 15–28). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Clarke, I. (2019). Functional linguistic variation in Twitter trolling. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 26 (1), 57–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clarke, I., & Grieve, J. (2019). Stylistic variation on the Donald Trump Twitter account: A linguistic analysis of tweets posted between 2009 and 2018. PLoS ONE, 14 (9), 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Conrad, S. (2019). Register in English for Academic Purposes and English for Specific Purposes. Register Studies, 1 (1), 168–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Constantinou, F., & Chambers, L. (2020). Non-standard English in UK students’ writing over time. Language and Education, 34 (1), 22–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coulthard, M. (2004). Author identification, idiolect and linguistic uniqueness. Applied Linguistics, 25 (4), 431–447. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coulthard, M., Johnson, A., & Wright, D. (2017). Introduction to forensic linguistics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. (2011). Internet linguistics. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crystal, D., & Davy, D. (1969). Investigating English style. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Daelemans, W., Kestemont, M., Manjavacas, E., Potthast, M., Rangel, F., Rosso, P., Specht, G., Stamatatos, E., Stein, B., Tschuggnall, M., Wiegmann, M., & Zangerle, E. (2019). Overview of PAN 2019: Bots and gender profiling, celebrity profiling, cross-domain authorship attribution and style change detection. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 11696 1, 402–416. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dayter, D. (2015). Small stories and extended narratives on Twitter. Discourse, Context and Media, 10 1, 19–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Beaugrande, R. A., & Dressler, W. U. (1981). Introduction to text linguistics. London: Longman. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eckert, P., & Rickford, J. R. (Eds.) (2001). Style and sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Politypress.Google Scholar
(1995). Media discourse. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Fobbe, E. (2020). Text-linguistic analysis in forensic authorship attribution. International Journal of Language & Law, 9 1, 93–114.Google Scholar
(2022). Authorship identification. In V. Guillén-Nieto & D. Stein (Eds.), Language as Evidence: Doing forensic linguistics (pp. 185–217). Cham: Palgrave MacMillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gawne, L., & McCulloch, G. (2019). Emoji as digital gestures. Language@Internet, 17 1. [URL]
Goldstein-Stewart, J., Winder, R., & Sabin, R. (2009). Person identification from text and speech genre samples. Proceedings of the 12th Conference of the European Chapter of the ACL, 336–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gomaa, W. H., & Fahmy, A. A. (2013). A survey of text similarity approaches. International Journal of Computer Applications, 68 (13), 13–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grant, T. (2013). Txt 4n6: Method, consistency, and distinctiveness in the analysis of SMS text messages. Journal of Law and Policy, 21 (2), 467–494.Google Scholar
(2022). The idea of progress in forensic authorship analysis. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grant, T., & MacLeod, N. (2018). Resources and constraints in linguistic identity performance: A theory of authorship. Language and Law / Linguagem e Direito, 5 (1), 80–96.Google Scholar
(2020). Language and online identities. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. (2014). Introduction to Systemic Functional Grammar. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hardaker, C., & McGlashan, M. (2016). “Real men don’t hate women”: Twitter rape threats and group identity. Journal of Pragmatics, 91 1, 80–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herring, S. (2004). Computer-mediated discourse analysis: An approach to researching online behavior. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling & J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning (pp. 338–376). New York: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). A faceted classification scheme for computer-mediated discourse. Language@Internet [URL]
Hoey, M. (2005). Lexical priming: A new theory of words and language. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hogan, B. (2013). Pseudonyms and the rise of the real-name web. In J. Hartley, J. Burgess & A. Bruns (Eds.), A companion to new media dynamics (pp. 290–308). London: Wiley. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hood, S. (June 2013). Systemic functional linguistics. Genre across borders. [URL]
Ishihara, S. (2017). Strength of linguistic text evidence: A fused forensic text comparison system. Forensic Science International, 278 1, 148–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jiang, F. K., & Hyland, K. (2015). ‘The fact that’: Stance nouns in disciplinary writing. Discourse Studies, 17 (5), 529–550. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, A., & Wright, D. (2014). Identifying idioloect in forensic authorship attribution: An n-gram textbite approach. Language and Law / Linguagem e Direito, 1 (1), 37–69.Google Scholar
Johansson, F., Kaati, L. & Shrestha, A. (2015). Timeprints for identifying social media users with multiple aliases. Security Informatics, 4(7), 1–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Juola, P. (2007). Future trends in authorship attribution. In P. Craiger & S. Shenoi (Eds.), IFIP (Vol. 242): Advances in digital forensics (pp. 119–132). Boston: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kemp, S. (2019). Digital 2019: Global internet usage accelerates. We are social. [URL]
Kestemont, M., Luyckx, K., Daelemans, W., & Crombez, T. (2012). Cross-genre authorship verification using unmasking. English Studies, 93 (3), 340–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Killian, A., Brounstein, T., Skryzalin, J., & Garcia, D. (2017). Stylometric and temporal techniques for social media account resolution. Technical Report for Sandia National Lab, 1–8.Google Scholar
Kocher, M., & Savoy, J. (2017). Distance measures in author profiling. Information Processing and Management, 53 1, 1103–1119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koppel, M., Schler, J., & Argamon, S. (2011). Authorship attribution in the wild. Language Resources & Evaluation, 45 1, 83–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krieg-Holz, U., & Bülow, L. (2016). Linguistische Stil- und Textanalyse. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Kruger, H., & van Rooy, B. (2018). Register variation in written contact varieties of English. A multidimensional analysis. English World-Wide, 39 (2), 214–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kytö, M. (2019). Register in historical linguistics. Register Studies, 1 (1), 136–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larner, S. (2014). A preliminary investigation into the use of fixed formulaic sequences as a marker of authorship. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 21 (1), 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Layton, R., Watters, P., & Dazeley, R. (2010). Authorship attribution for Twitter in 140 characters or less. IEEEI, 1–8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leaver, T., Highfield, T., & Abidin, C. (2020). Instagram: Visual social media cultures. Cambridge: Politybooks.Google Scholar
MacLeod, N., & Grant, T. (2012). Whose tweet? Authorship analysis of micro-blogs and other short-form messages. In S. Tomblin, N. MacLeod, R. Sousa-Silva & M. Coulthard (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Association of Forensic Linguists’ 10th Biennial Conference (pp. 210–224). Birmingham: Aston University.Google Scholar
(2017). “go on cam but dnt be dirty”: Linguistic levels of identity assumption in undercover online operations against child sex abusers. Language and Law / Linguagem e Direito, 4 (2), 157–175.Google Scholar
Manovich, L. (2017). Instagram and contemporary image. Manovich. [URL]
Marko, K. (2020). Exploring the distinctiveness of emoji use for digital authorship analysis. Language and Law / Linguagem e Direito, 7 (1–2), 36–55.Google Scholar
(forthcoming). “You’re a rockstar *heart eyes*” – what the functions of emoji reveal about the age and gender of their users on Instagram. Language@Internet.
Marko, K., & Sullivan Buker, G. (2022). “Hope you’re in the mood for cookies”: An exploratory study of writing styles across social media platforms. Journal of Indonesian Community for Forensic Linguistics, 1(1), 14–25.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations: Mapping culture. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2019). Register in Systemic Functional Linguistics. Register Studies, 1 (1), 10–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCulloch, G. (2019). Because Internet. New York: Riverhead Books.Google Scholar
McMenamin, G. R. (2010). Forensic stylistics. Theory and practice of forensic stylistics. In M. Coulthard & A. Johnson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics (pp. 487–507). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Myers, G. (2010). The discourse of blogs and wikis. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Nini, A. (2017). Register variation in malicious forensic texts. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 24 (1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). An authorship analysis of the Jack the Ripper letters. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 33 (3), 621–636. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nini, A., & Grant, T. (2013). Bridging the gap between stylistic and cognitive approaches to authorship analysis using Systemic Functional Linguistics and multidimensional analysis. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 20 (2), 173–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Orebaugh, A., & Allnutt, J. (2009). Classification of instant messaging communications for forensic analysis. The International Journal of Forensic Computer Science, 1 1, 22–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Overdorf, R., Dutko, T., & Greenstadt, R. (2014). Blogs and Twitter feeds: A stylometric environmental impact study. Proceedings of Privacy Enhancing Technologies Symposium. [URL]
Overdorf, R., & Greenstadt, R. (2016). Blogs, Twitter feeds, and Reddit comments: Cross-domain authorship attribution. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies, 3 1, 155–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Page, R. (2011). Stories and social media: Identities and interaction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2012). The linguistics of self-branding and micro-celebrity in Twitter: The role of hashtags. Discourse & Communication, 6 (2), 181–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Page, R., Barton, D., Unger, J. W., & Zappavigna, M. (2014). Researching language and social media. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peddinti, S. T., Ross, K. W., & Cappos, J. (2017). User anonymity on Twitter. Sociotechnical Security and Privacy, 84–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. [URL]
Rheindorf, M., & Wodak, R. (2019). Genre-related language change: Discourse- and corpus-linguistic perspectives on Austrian German 1970–2010. Folia Linguistica, 53 (1), 125–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rocha, A., Scheirer, W., Forstall, C., Cavalcante, T., Theophilo, A., Shen, B., Carvalho, A. R. B., & Stamatatos, E. (2016). Authorship attribution for social media forensics. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 12 (1), 1–30.Google Scholar
Scott, K. (2018). “Hashtags work everywhere”: The pragmatic functions of spoken hashtags. Discourse, Context & Media, 22 1, 57–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seargeant, P. (2019). The emoji revolution: How technology is shaping the future of communication. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seargeant, P., & Tagg, C. (2014). The language of social media. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schoch, K. W. (2016). Case study research. In G. J. Burkholder, K. A. Cox & L. M. Crawford (Eds.), The scholar-practitioner’s guide to research design (pp. 227–241). Baltimore: Laureate.Google Scholar
Siever, C. M., & Siever, T. (2019). Emoji-text relations on Instagram. In C. M. Siever, T. Siever & H. Stöckl (Eds.), Shifts toward image-centricity in contemporary multimodal practices (pp. 177–203). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. M. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Sing, C. (2016). Writing for specific purposes: Developing business students’ ability to ‘technicalize’. In S. Göpferich & I. Neumann (Eds.), Developing and assessing academic and professional writing skills (pp. 15–44). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Sousa Silva, R., Laboreiro, G., Sarmento, L., Grant, T., Oliveira, E., & Maia, B. (2011). ‘twazn me!!! ;(‘Automatic authorship analysis of micro-blogging messages. In R. Munoz, A. Monotoyo & E. Métais (Eds.), Natural language processing and information systems (pp. 161–168). Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stamatatos, E. (2013). On the robustness of authorship attribution based on character n-gram features. Journal of Law and Policy, 421–439.Google Scholar
Statista (2021a). Average number of social media accounts per Internet user from 2013 to 2018. [URL]
(2021b). Most popular social networks worldwide as of January 2021. [URL]
Stone, B. (2009, November 19th). What’s happening? Twitter. [URL]
Szmrecsanyi, B. (2019). Register in variationist linguistics. Register Studies, 1 (1), 76–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagg, C. (2015). Exploring digital communication. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turell, M. T. (2010). The use of textual, grammatical and sociolinguistic evidence in forensic text comparison. International Journal of Speech, Language & the Law, 17 (2), 211–250.Google Scholar
Twitter, Inc. (2022). About public and protected Tweets. [URL]
Veum, A., & Undrum, L. V. M. (2018). The selfie as a global discourse. Discourse & Society, 29 (1), 86–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wright, D. (2013). Stylistic variation within genre conventions in the Enron email corpus. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 20 (1), 45–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Using word n-grams to identify authors and idiolects. A corpus approach to a forensic linguistic problem. International Journals of Corpus Linguistics, 22 (2), 212–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021). Corpus approaches to forensic linguistics. In M. Coulthard & R. Sousa-Silva (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics (pp. 611–627). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Zappavigna, M. (2013). Discourse of Twitter and social media. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Zhang, M. (2016). A multidimensional analysis of metadiscourse markers across written registers. Discourse Studies, 18 (2), 204–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zote, J. (2021, July 26th). How long should social posts be? Try this social media character counter. Sprout social. [URL]
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Gracheva, Marianna
2023. The role of situation in individual style. Register Studies 5:2 ► pp. 205 ff. DOI logo
Marko, Karoline
2023. Digital identity performance through emoji on the social media platform Instagram. Frontiers in Communication 8 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.