Slashdot Mirror
Plagiarism-Detection Software Confirms Shakespeare Play
mi tips us that software intended to help essay graders detect plagiarism has been used to attribute to Shakespeare — with high probability — a hitherto unattributed play, 'The Reign of Edward III.' It seems that the work was co-authored by Shakespeare and another playwright of the time, Thomas Kyd. "With a program called Pl@giarism, Vickers detected 200 strings of three or more words in 'Edward III' that matched phrases in Shakespeare's other works. Usually, works by two different authors will only have about 20 matching strings."
For example, these matching strings could just as well be common turns of phrase of the day. There doesn't seem to be any indication that the software was re-configured for common expressions of old English.
This is gibberish. The software isn't configured for common expressions of modern English, either. If you understand what it's doing, you should understand why no such configuration is necessary, as long as the two works being compared are contemporaneous. (Or heck, even if they aren't -- correlation should go down in that case, a high score is even more indicative when comparing non-contemporaneous authors.)
The study would be more plausible if works by two different authors IN ENGLAND IN THE YEAR 1600 contained 20 or so matching strings. But since that control group is missing -- so is the validity of the conclusion.
This is just misinformed. They've compared works by both the same author and different authors in England around 1600. It turns out it's just as true then as it is today that works by different authors contain significantly smaller sets of common wording. Indeed, this technique is used to identify which 60% of the play was written by Kyd (by comparing with his other work) and which 40% comes from The Bard. Comparing known works of either Kyd or The Bard with other works by the same author produce the same high correspondence, and comparing known works between the two different authors produces the same low correspondence.
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Why the pedantry? Because, if you didn't know that, you really shouldn't be pontificating on linguistics or linguistic analysis.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
About six years ago, the Royal Shakespeare Company presented a performance of Edward III and attributed it to Shakespeare. It's accepted that Shakespeare didn't write every word of every plays in his canon (for example, he didn't write most of Pericles and Henry VIII) but there was obviously enough evidence for most Shakespeare scholars to accept that he wrote a substantial part of it. This latest piece of research is just a further piece of evidence, but it's nothing radically new.
Or complete sentences. If this is plagiarized it is at least seriously rewritten.
Yes. People actually rewrote things while copying back then; no cut-and-paste.
Shakespeare being famous is not necessarily the one being plagiarised. Maybe he is the one plagiarising.
There was no plagiarism in the modern sense back then. Authors, artists, and scientists copied each others works; that's why we got such a rich cultural heritage. Today, you can get in trouble for a single sentence.
Imagine how backwards computers would be if you had to write a new kernel, window system, and libraries every time you wanted to write an application.
Some religious sects do encourage questioning of the bible. Some don't believe the (King James version of the, lol) bible is the actual word of god, but instead a document written by humans. While it is still the basis of the faith, it is understood that it is written for people in the 1st century BC and therefore should be interpreted through that lens. You shouldn't stereotype over such a diverse range of people like that. It just makes you sound ignorant and reactionary.
for example, he didn't write most of Pericles and Henry VIII...
As to the latter, he might not have wanted to claim too much ownership to that play, given its first performance only 10 years after the death of Elizabeth, Henry's daughter. Dangerous ground indeed, given the treatment meted out by the Queen's secret police to other playwrights of the time.
In fact, the first performance of that play happened to be the same night the Globe Theatre burnt down. Good fodder for conspiracy theories there...