Textual Synonymy and Copyonymy from the Perspective of Identity – Similarity – Difference
https://doi.org/10.21603/sibscript-2025-27-1-73-84
EDN: plaeuv
Abstract
Contemporary comparative studies present synonymous relations between texts at the highest and most complex linguistic level of syntax. This approach is especially important in legal linguistics, an interdisciplinary direction that focuses on resolving real-life disputes. The practical need for new comparative and contrastive methods yields a new type of expert research, i.e., forensic examination of intellectual property. Formal and substantive similarity between texts leads to their similarity in the aspect of linguistic personality. The research featured fi e texts analyzed in line with the contemporary methods applied by linguistic experts to comparative and contrastive copyright studies. The texts had similar names but belonged to different internet bloggers. The contents demonstrated significant similarity, with almost identical formal components and minor differences. So great was the linguistic similarity that it neutralized the linguistic personality of the authors. The authors proposed copyonymy as a term for this phenomenon: texts that are so similar in form and content that the linguistic personalities of their authors disappear.
References
1. Belova P. E. Methods for automated comparative analysis of texts when detecting signs of plagiarism in expert case examinations of copyright and related rights infringement. Legal Linguistics, 2023, (27): 94–98. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.14258/leglin(2023)2717
2. Belonogova A. A. Compact text in conditions of intercultural communication. Major issues of linguistics and linguistic didactics: Proc. I Intern. Sci. Conf., Astrakhan, 15 Oct 2007. Astrakhan: ASU, 2007, 3–5. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/qhwmgv
3. Belskaya N. S. Considering the issue of the methodology of the linguistic expertise of the extremist materials produced by rewriting and automatic texts production. Izvestiia Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta, 2015, (7): 118–123. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/uzbhzb
4. Belskaya N. S. Application of analytical and descriptive methods for comparative task solution in forensic linguistics. Tomsk State University Journal, 2014, (381): 5–10. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/sbtusd
5. Golev N. D. Expertise of conflict texts in modern linguistic and legal paradigms. Theory and practice of linguistic analysis of media texts in forensic examinations and information disputes: Proc. Interregion. Sci.-Prac. Seminar, Moscow, 7–8 Dec 2002. Moscow: Galeriia, 2003, pt. 2, 64–73. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/rxjvyp
6. Golev N. D., Brinev K. I., Kirkinskaya T. I. Experience of linguopersonological description of derivative texts (towards the typology of anthropotexts). Natural written Russian speech: Research and education: Sci.-Prac. Conf., Barnaul, 24–26 Jan 2003. Barnaul: ASU, 2004, pt. 3, 58–64. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/swzljj
7. Golev N. D., Kim L. G. Dictum-mode pluralism of virtual dialogic discourse (based on Internet comments). Medialingvistika, 2023, 10(1): 4–26. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu22.2023.101
8. Golev N. D., Saykova N. V. Presentation, parody, translation... On the basis of derivational interpretation of secondary texts. Linguistic existence of a person and ethnos: Psycholinguistic and cognitive aspects, ed. Pishchalnikova V. A. Barnaul: AAEL, 2001, iss. 3, 20–27. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/rlsmjr
9. Dzyuba N. A. Synonymy of a simple sentence and phrase. Vestnik Stavropolskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2007, (52): 100–105. (In Russ.)
10. Dudareva Ya. A. Similarity of linguistic signs to the point of confusion and linguo-personological similarity of texts (on the material of political accounts in social networks in the Russian language). Kul'tura i tekst, 2022, (1): 199–211. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.37386/2305-4077-2022-1-199-211
11. Zhilin I. M. Synonymy in the syntax of the modern German language. Krasnodar: KubSU, 1974, 184. (In Russ.)
12. Ionova S. V. Two models for constructing secondary texts. Vestnik Volgogradskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta. Seriya 2. Yazykoznanie, 2006, (5): 69–76. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/kuxdrv
13. Kameneva V. A., Potapova N. V., Rumyantseva A. A. Lexical and grammatical transformations of terms when changing communicative situation "doctor – doctor" to "doctor – child – parent". Nauchnyi Dialog, 2023, 12(2): 27–44. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2023-12-2-27-44
14. Kim L. G. Conflict of text interpretations as a consequence of cognitive dissonance in Internet disputes. Virtual Communication and Social Networks, 2023, 2(4): 222–228. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21603/2782-4799-2023-2-4-222-228
15. Koshkareva N. B. On the polysemy of syntactic units. Vestnik NGU, Seriya: Istoriya, Filologiya, 2012, 11(9): 164–171. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/pnmfaj
16. Krassa S. I. The procedure of determining degree of similarity between objects in linguistic examination. Legal Linguistics, 2023, (27): 106–110. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.14258/leglin(2023)2719
17. Kuznetsov V. O., Kryuk E. K. Demarcating a linguistic expert's and an authorship investigator's competencies when examining copyright and related rights objects. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science, 2019, 14(3): 15–25. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.30764/1819-2785-2019-14-3-15-25
18. Kuznecova A. S. Synonymy of texts as a subject of linguistic research. Piatyi etazh, 2016, (2): 13–18. (In Russ.)
19. Litvinova T. A., Gromova A. V. Current problems of forensic authorship analysis and the possibility of their solution with the use of computer methods: Problems and prospects. Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya 2. Yazykoznanie, 2020, 19(1): 77–88. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu2.2020.1.7
20. Melnik N. V., Bogatchanova T. D. Correlation of degrees of emergence of metalinguistic consciousness in the text and tendencies to personalization and depersonalization. Vestnik Kemerovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2015, (4-4): 138–142. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/vbwubj
21. Peshkovskiy A. M. Principles and techniques of stylistic analysis and evaluation of fiction. Moscow: SAAS, 1927, 68. (In Russ.)
22. Savelyeva I. V., Melnik N. V. Receptive and productive activity of non-professional Internet discourse participants. Research Result. Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, 2024, 10(3): 42–69. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18413/2313-8912-2024-10-3-0-3
23. Savenko A. S. Subject, objects and tasks of forensic examination of intellectual property objects. Economic Problems and Legal Practice, 2020, 16(5): 318–321. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/xkdtbt
24. Sadova T. S. Textual borrowings (plagiarism) as a matter of linguistic expertise. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana, 2019, 1(15): 184–194. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.30842/alp2306573715109
25. Saykova N. V. Models for secondary texts. People and Their Language, eds. Pimenov E. A., Pimenova M. V. Kemerovo: Grafika, 2003, vol. 4, 162–169. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/sgqemn
26. Smirnova S. A., Gulevskaya V. V., Omel'yanyuk G. G. Intellectual property investigations: A new area of forensic Practice in the System of the Russian Ministry of Justice. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science, 2018, 13(2): 16–26. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.30764/1819-2785-2018-13-2-16-26
27. Steksova T. I. The plagiarism case: Experience of linguistic expertise. Legal Linguistics, 2005, (6): 269–272. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/wcmryr
28. Trubnikova Yu. V. Lexical-derivational structure of the text. Filologiya i chelovek, 2011, (1): 16–25. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/nyoqmp
29. Chulanova A. P. Regarding the question of expediency and significance of the term "syntactical synonymy". Tomsk State University Journal, 2009, (320): 27–30. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/llvxxz
30. Shpilnaya N. N. Response generation intentions realized in dialogue. Philological Class, 2022, 27(2): 68–76. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/gpfaxa
31. Shumilova A. A. Lexical synonymy: Traditional and cognitive vision of the problem. Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State University, 2009, (22): 144–148. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/kwbbov
Review
For citations:
Dudareva Ya.A. Textual Synonymy and Copyonymy from the Perspective of Identity – Similarity – Difference. SibScript. 2025;27(1):73-84. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21603/sibscript-2025-27-1-73-84. EDN: plaeuv
Views:
121
Email this article 