Plagiarism Across Languages and Cultures: A (Forensic) Linguistic Analysis

Reference work entry


A considerably high volume of research into plagiarism has been conducted in recent years, most of which focused on educational approaches. Other studies, however, attempted to establish, especially from a forensic linguistic perspective, the extent to which linguistic analyses like the ones used in forensic contexts could help determine the degree of plagiarism in written assignments. However, most of these focused on the role of the linguist as a forensic consultant and/or expert dealing especially with attorneys and being involved in court cases, and rarely, if ever, have they applied linguistic research into academic plagiarism. Indeed, plagiarism analysis has traditionally focused on determining the uniqueness of a suspect text, while disregarding important cross-cultural circumstances. This chapter discusses plagiarism as a cross-cultural/cross-linguistic phenomenon. It examines the perceptions of higher education students and lecturers/tutors in two different countries in order to assess, firstly, whether speakers from different countries share the same concept of plagiarism, or on the contrary whether they have different perceptions. Secondly, based on these perceptions, it is asked whether a distinction needs to be made between judgments of intentional and unintentional instances of plagiarism. Thirdly, this chapter discusses the potential role of the linguist in demonstrating the alleged plagiarist’s intention, and the corresponding ethical implications. The chapter ends by arguing that a cross-cultural analysis, combined with an understanding of the legal context, is crucial in detecting and analyzing plagiarism.


Forensic linguistics Translation Academic integrity Multimodal plagiarism analysis Language and the law 



This work was partially supported by Grant SFRH/BD/47890/2008 and SFRH/BPD/100425/2014 FCT-Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, Portugal, co-financed by POPH/FSE.


  1. Al-Marashi, I. (2002). Iraq’s security and intelligence network: A guide and analysis. Middle East Review of International Affairs, 6(3).Google Scholar
  2. Angèlil-Carter, S. (2000). Stolen language?: Plagiarism in writing. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
  3. Ascensão, J. d. O. (1992). Direitos de Autor e Direitos Conexos. Coimbra: Coimbra Editora.Google Scholar
  4. Cohen, S. (1972). Folk devils and moral panics. Oxon/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Coulthard, M. (2004). Author identification, idiolect and linguistic uniqueness. Applied Linguistics, 25(4), 431–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coulthard, M., & Johnson, A. (2007). An introduction to forensic linguistics: Language in evidence. London/New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coulthard, M., Johnson, A., Kredens, K., & Woolls, D. (2010). Four forensic linguists’ responses to suspected plagiarism. In M. Coulthard & A. Johnson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics (pp. 523–538). Milton Park, Abingdon/New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eiras, H., & Fortes, G. (2010). Dicion{á}rio de Direito Penal e Processo Penal. Lisboa: Quid Juris.Google Scholar
  9. Finnis, J. (1991). Intention and side-effects. In R. G. Frey & C. W. Morris (Eds.), Liability and responsibility: Essays in law and morals (pp. 32–64). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Garner, B. A. (2009). Black’s law dictionary (9th ed.). St. Paul: West.Google Scholar
  11. Glendinning, I. (2014). Impact of policies for plagiarism in higher education across Europe – Results of the Project. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 63(1):207–216Google Scholar
  12. Goldstein, P. (2003). Copyright’s highway: From Gutenberg to the celestial jukebox. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Howard, R. M. (1995). Plagiarisms, authorships, and the academic death penalty. College English, 57(7), 788–806. Scholar
  14. Howard, R. M., & Robillard, A. E. (2008). Plagiarisms. In R. M. Howard & A. E. Robillard (Eds.), Pluralizing plagiarism: Identities, contexts, pedagogies (pp. 1–7). Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook.Google Scholar
  15. Jameson, D. A. (1993). The ethics of plagiarism: How genre affects writers’ use of source materials. Bulletin of the Association for Business Communication, 56(2), 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Johnson, A. (1997). Textual kidnapping – A case of plagarism among three student texts? The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 4(2), 210–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kress, G. (2000). Multimodality. In Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images the grammar of visual design. Oxon and New York: Routledge.
  19. Mota-Ribeiro, S., & Pinto-Coelho, Z. (2011). Para além da superfície visual: os anúncios publicitários vistos à luz da semiótica social. Representações e discursos da heterossexualidade e de género. Comunicação e Sociedade, 19, 227–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Partridge, L., & West, J. (2003). Plagiarism: Perceptions, and occurrence amongst transnational postgraduate students in the Graduate School of Education. In H. Marsden, M. Hicks, & A. Bundy (Eds.), Educational integrity: Plagiarism and other perplexities, Proceedings of the 1st Australasian Integrity Conference, 21–22 November (pp. 149–154). Adelaide: University of South Australia.Google Scholar
  21. Pecorari, D. (2008). Academic writing and plagiarism: A linguistic analysis. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  22. Scollon, R. (1994). As a matter of fact: The changing ideology of authorship and responsibility in discourse. World Englishes, 13(1), 33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Scollon, R. (1995). Plagiarism and ideology: Identity in intercultural discourse. Language in Society, 24, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sousa-Silva, R. (2012). Legitimated plagiarism: An investigation of textual borrowing in official documents. In A. A. C. Teixeira (Ed.), Interdisciplinary insights on fraud and corruption – 1st OBEGEF conference booklet, Porto: Universidade do Porto.Google Scholar
  25. Sousa-Silva, R. (2013). Detecting plagiarism in the forensic linguistics turn. Unpublished PhD thesis. Birmingham: Aston University.Google Scholar
  26. Sousa-Silva, R. (2014). Detecting translingual plagiarism and the backlash against translation plagiarists. Language and Law/Linguagem e Direito, 1(1), 70–94.Google Scholar
  27. Sutherland-Smith, W. (2005). Pandora’s box: Academic perceptions of student plagiarism in writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(1), 83–95. Scholar
  28. Turell, M. T. (2004). Textual kidnapping revisited: The case of plagarism in literary translation. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 11(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Turell, M. T. (2007). Plagio y traducci{ó}n literaria. Vasos Comunicantes, 37(1), 43–54.Google Scholar
  30. Turell, M. T. (2008). Plagiarism. In J. Gibbons & M. T. Turell (Eds.), Dimensions of forensic linguistics (Vol. 9, pp. 265–299). Oxford: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Turell, M. T. (2013). Presidential address. In Proceedings of the 3rd European conference of the International Association of Forensic Linguists on the theme of “Bridging the gaps between language and the law”. Porto: Universidade do Porto – Faculdade de Letras.Google Scholar
  32. Williams, K., & Carroll, J. (2009). Referencing and understanding plagiarism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  33. Woolls, D. (2003). Better tools for the trade and how to use them. Forensic Linguistics, 10(1), 102–112. Scholar
  34. Woolls, D., & Coulthard, M. (1998). Tools for the trade. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 5(1), 33–57. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidade do Porto – Faculdade de Letras/CLUPPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations