Rewriting of Scientific Text as a Case Study for Linguistic Expert Analysis for Identity, Similarity and Difference
УДК 81’42, ББК 81
Abstract
Semantic comparison of speech products is a labor-intensive linguistic study, separated by experts of the Ministry of Justice of Russia into a new area of forensic expertise - 29.1 "Examination of intellectual property objects". This article considers the difficulties faced by expert linguists conducting research on text comparison. When comparing interrogation protocols, the discovery of text identity serves as an alarming factor, indicating the lack of independence of the source author against the significant role of the content-editor. The established similarity between the studied texts and extremist materials allows us to consider such texts as versions of materials previously included in the list of prohibited ones, which helps to accelerate the deadlines of linguistic expertise.
The work of expert linguists on establishing identity-similarity-differences obtains a new research material represented by a rewrite of scientific publications. This article examines the methods used by experts in the course of analyzing a text created by rewriting. Our own linguistic study on the comparison of scientific texts is discussed as well with detailed description of the techniques used to create a surface rewrite of a scientific text. Based on the analysis conducted, it was concluded that the result of surface rewriting is not a new original text, but a version of the source text, or, in other words, a copy text that formally has insignificant differences with the source text and is either identical or significantly similar to it in terms of content.
In the work of expert linguists with the purpose of establishing identity-similarity-differences, a new research material appears, which is a rewrite of scientific publications. This article examines the methods used by experts in the course of analyzing a text created by rewriting. Also presented is our own linguistic study on the comparison of scientific texts, during which the techniques used to create a superficial rewrite of a scientific text are described. Based on the analysis conducted, it was concluded that the result of superficial rewriting is not a new original text, but a version of the original text, or, in other words, a copy text that has, in formal terms, insignificant differences with the source text and identical or significant similarities with it in terms of content.
Downloads
Metrics
References
Абрамкина Е. Е. Автороведческая экспертиза протокола допроса: основные особенности и методика анализа / Вестник Томского государственного университета. – Томск, 2017. – №415. – С. 158–162.
Бельская Н. С. Применение аналитико-описательных методов в решении сравнительных задач судебного лингвистического исследования речевых произведений / Вестник Томского государственного университета. – Томск. – 2014. – №381. – С. 5–10.
Бельская Н. С. К разработке методики лингвистической экспертизы экстремистских материалов, произведенных посредством рерайтинга и автоматической генерации текстов / Известия Волгоградского государственного педагогического университета. – Волгоград, 2015. – №7 (102). – С. 118–123.
Еремченко В. И. Нарушение авторских и смежных прав посредством рерайтинговой деятельности в информационно-телекоммуникационной сети Интернет: современное состояние и перспективы доказывания / Общество и право. – Краснодар, 2016. – №2 (56). – С. 263–265.
Иваненко Г. С. Протоколы допросов и показаний как объект лингвистического исследования / Вопросы русского языка в юридических делах и процедурах. Международная научно-практическая конференция. – СПб., 2021. – С. 346–357.
Костенко Е. В. Копирайтинг и рерайтинг в сетевых СМИ – новые виды журналистики? URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/kopirayting-i-rerayting-v-setevyh-smi-novye-vidy-zhurnalistiki/viewer
Маржецкий С. Е. Авторский рерайтинг как технология создания публицистического текста / Челябинский гуманитарий. – Челябинск, 2021. – №1 (54). – С. 55–62.
Решение Арбитражного суда Хабаровского края по делу № А73-14263/2012 от 19.04.2013 г. URL: https://ras.arbitr.ru
Решение Серафимовичского районного суда Волгоградской области по делу № 2-292/2019 от 09.07.2019 г. URL: https://sudact.ru/regular/doc/uXXM7uhRUpJ8.
Садова Т. С. Текстовые заимствования (плагиат) как предмет лингвистической экспертизы / Аcta linguistica petropolitana. Труды института лингвистических исследований. – Санкт-Петербург, 2019. – Том 1. – №15. – С. 184–194.
Семантические исследования в судебной лингвистической экспертизе : методическое пособие / А. М. Плотникова, В. О. Кузнецов, И. И. Саженин [и др.]; под ред. С. А. Смирновой. – М., 2018. – 136 с.
Смирнова С. А., Гулевская В. В., Омельянюк Г. Г. Судебная экспертиза объектов интеллектуальной собственности – новое направление судебно-экспертной деятельности Минюста России / Теория и практика судебной экспертизы. – 2018. – Том 13. – № 2. – С. 16–26.
Стексова Т. И. Дело о плагиате: опыт лингвистической экспертизы / Юрислингвистика. – Барнаул, 2005. – №6. – С. 269–272.
Шульгина К. В. Способы и проблемы фиксации ненормативной лексики в протоколе допроса / Юрислингвистика. – Барнаул, 2020. – №17 (28). – С. 8–11.
Copyright (c) 2025 Яна Дударева
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The authors, which are published in this journal, agree to the following conditions:
1. Authors retain the copyright to the work and transfer to the journal the right of the first publication along with the work, at the same time licensing it under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which allows others to distribute this work with the obligatory indication of the authorship of this work and a link to the original publication in this journal .
2. The authors retain the right to enter into separate, additional contractual agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published by this journal (for example, to place it in the university depository or to publish it in a book), with reference to the original publication in this journal.
3. Authors are allowed to post their work on the Internet (for example, in a university repository or on their personal website) before and during the review process of this journal, as this may lead to a productive discussion, as well as more links to this published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
