The use and limitations of socio-historical linguistic evidence

This book has shown that it is possible to use the varying rates of standardisation in the work of early Modern dramatists as evidence in authorship studies. Socio-historical linguistic evidence can be used to its fullest effect in cases where the investigator wishes to divide a play between two named candidates, for each of whom there exists a group of non-controversial plays suitable for use as a comparison sample. This is the case in the Shakespeare–Fletcher collaborations, where marked differences in linguistic usage between Shakespeare and Fletcher allow detailed comments on the likely authorship of individual scenes to be made. In such cases, knowledge of the minimum significant sample size, gained from tests on plays of known authorship, allows an assessment of the relative certainty of any ascription to be made. In some cases however, the linguistic usages of collaborators may be so similar as to preclude the use of this type of evidence in authorship work.

Even where specific candidates for authorship have not been agreed upon, or where there are not comparison samples available for all candidates, it is still possible for this type of evidence to make limited contributions to the authorship debates surrounding texts. Where suitable comparison samples exist for only one suggested collaborator in a play, for example, it may be possible to rule that writer out of certain portions of the play, or indicate the relative likelihood of their having written other sections.