I am a professional linguist and communications consultant. I have been practicing forensic linguistics since 1979.

I have a Bachelor’s degree in linguistics from Brown University and a Master’s and Doctorate in linguistics from the University of Chicago. I taught linguistics and English for 12 years. I have also taught graduate seminars in stylistics and in the structure and process of written language.

My undergraduate and graduate studies included courses in the grammatical structure of English, a subject which I have studied intensively over the years and employed practically, as a writer.

My academic and professional experience qualifies me to render expert opinions in four areas: (i) authorship of anonymous, questioned, or forged documents; (ii) plagiarism; (3) copyright/trademark infringement; and (iv); interpretation of contracts and other binding documents whose meaning is ambiguous or indeterminate.

STATUS AS COURT-CERTIFIED LAY WITNESS: I am a court-certified lay witness under Rule 701 of the Federal Rules for Evidence. I have an unusual if not unique combination of academic credentials (AB in linguistics, Brown University; MA and PhD in linguistics, University of Chicago) and real-world experience in the effective use of language, as a speech/ghostwriter and professional writer and editor.

After 13 years of academic research, teaching, and publishing, I used my linguistics training to become, in just four years, one of the country’s leading corporate speechwriters, writing for the CEO and other executives of Burroughs Corporation, General Motors, Philip Morris and Kraft Foods, partly because of my ability to use style analysis to write in the voice of each individual speaker. I ghost-wrote or edited many other works and published four books of my own.

While writing speeches and doing forensic work, I developed original knowledge and shared my expertise in various venues. My sociolinguistic and pragmatic analysis of buzzwords was published in The Journal of Employee Communication Management and excerpted by The Harvard Business Review.

In 1997 I published my first book on speechwriting, Writing Great Speeches: Professional Techniques You Can Use (Allyn & Bacon). The book, part of the publisher’s “Essence of Public Speaking” series, applies principles of stylistic, syntactic, and content analysis to create a linguistics-based, step-by-step process for composing, editing, and presenting a successful speech. The section on ceremonial speeches is completely original and was the first account of its kind. One reviewer wrote that “[the] chapter on ceremonial speeches is worth the price of the book.”

In 2006, my second book, Perfect Phrases for Executive Presentations (McGraw-Hill), included original advice, developed from linguistic principles plus real-world experience, on what to say in dozens of kinds of speeches. The book also tells readers how to speak to employees, avoid gender issues, address audiences who are non-native speakers of English, and vary writing/speaking style to suit the occasion, audience, and context. I also provide a chapter on “the most persuasive words in the language.”

I have published numerous articles in professional publications and given many talks on effective communication.

For decades, I have studied language variation and style, in many roles and contexts, and I have composed, edited, analyzed, and taught others to compose thousands of documents of every kind. I have applied linguistic concepts to the understanding of a wide range of written and spoken data and even to jazz improvisation ("Miles Davis Meets Noam Chomsky: Some Observations on Jazz Improvisation and Language Structure"; the article now generates over 70,000 Google hits) .

My reports, written in clear, non-technical language, have been used in litigation in more than 20 jurisdictions, and I have provided expert advice to many private clients. My CV is available on my website, www.language-expert.net.

Specific information on my areas of expertise:

Forensic linguistics encompasses a wide variety of disciplines.  I specialize in four of them, deriving from my academic background and real-world experience as a writer and editor.

(1) Interpretation of contracts, wills, laws, and other binding documents: expert judgment on clarity, meaning, comprehensibility and (un)ambiguity.  

What was intended to be said -- and what, if anything, does the document actually say?  Is it ambiguous, and, if so, what are the possible interpretations, given the semantics, syntax, and pragmatics (roughly, the intent and purpose) of the text(s) in question?

Prenups and other contracts designed to be air-tight are exactly where writing problems occur, as people try to execute complex ideas and cover all contingencies.

I analyze specific words, phrases, clauses, sentences, and other units, including the entire document, to offer informed judgments on clarity, comprehensibility, and (un)ambiguity.

Case example: A man suffered damages from defective rental equipment; he did not know that he had released the company from liability by signing a contract that was, when quantitatively compared with everyday writing (e.g., USA Today),  too complex to understand.

Category ambiguity: Some of my cases involved the well-known "attachment ambiguity," e.g., They fired the VP in New York.  Was NY where the firing took place?  Or was it the local VP who was fired?

(2) Plagiarism: expert opinion on likelihood of plagiarism. 

In the Internet age, plagiarism – deliberate, dishonest appropriation of another’s words and/or ideas -- has been redefined. 

Problems occur when the traditional definitions are applied: similarity of text, which is what plagiarism tools find, is not a basis for a charge of plagiarism.  It is not unique but prosaic information that is most likely copied, thus undermining the traditional charge of plagiarism.  Much more is in the public domain than ever before.

Case examples: I have defended many academic writers, from college students to law professors, against groundless charges of plagiarism, which are often based on (i) similarity of items in the public domain (since there are relatively few ways of saying certain things in scientific, technical, and legal writing) or (ii) misunderstanding or misapplication of the institution’s own quotation/paraphrase rules.

In literary plagiarism allegations, one writer accuses another of stealing his/her ideas.  But these usually turn out to be widespread, occurring in typical books of this genre.  Courts have ruled that elements of theme and setting are not protectable.

(3) Copyright/trademark infringement: I offer informed judgment on the genericity, specificity, and protectability of individual words, phrases, and brand names; assessment of linguistic similarity to evaluate infringement claims. 

The process typically involves dictionary search. The question is: to what extent is the item already part of the language (unless it's a "fanciful" term like XEROX or XANAX, the most easily protectable)?

If it is already a lexical unit, it can still be trademarked, even if it's suggestive (DAWN, JOY) or descriptive (SimpleGreen). But you cannot market a name that already stands for a whole category of items, e.g., Pants.

However, there is also a large class of generic trademarks: terms, items, or symbols already in the public domain but which marketers attempt to use as brands, e.g., DELTA (airlines, faucets, dental care).  This class includes ACME, APEX, A-1, UNIVERSAL...the list is almost endless, because it includes place-names (MONADNOCK APPLIANCE CENTER).

Even idiomatic terms can become frozen into generic brand names.  ACCIDENT AND INJURY is the brand name associated with a variety of services, and the idiomatic meaning is carried over every time: it's never "accidents AND injuries" ( = 'we offer a separate service for each') but "services related to injuries resulting from accidents." 

NOTE: Linguistically, the legal categories do not admit of sharp divisions. 

-- A descriptive mark is suggestive because it is derived from product properties by various processes, including figurative speech, e.g., EVERREADY selects a salient property, durability, and applies hyperbole (it does run out eventually).

-- A suggestive mark is descriptive in the sense that it borrows some property or the product/service that's being branded, even if only metaphorically (TIDE).  

-- Even fanciful marks can be descriptive/suggestive by using sounds and word-parts creatively.  While many are nonsensical (XELJANZ uses a lot of odd letters, so it must be potent), others others are memorable because they convey brand promise and value.  VIAGRA is so effective because it reminds one immediately of a romantic place, while the V has many positive connotations around "virility."


I also consider cases in which one company's mark may be too similar to another's, causing confusion to consumers or clients.

Case example: I demonstrated that another marketer’s brand name was, on several linguistic levels, similar to that of the attorney’s client.

(4) Authorship: I conduct analysis of a language sample -- the grammar, lexicon, and other features -- to offer an expert opinion on the likelihood of particular suspected writers, single-author/forged texts, and other legal/linguistic hypotheses, via a method verified in thousands of academic studies and real-world cases.

Here's where my vast experience in text analysis is relevant.  Everybody has a writing style -- some more obvious than others -- and I can usually make an authorship call with some (or a lot of) certainty based on feature occurrence and pattern similarities.  If the writer is a foreign language speaker, his/her style will be even more obvious.

Case example: anonymous letters of complaint to a company’s Board; forged letters (by a single author) in employment dispute.

Case example: An ex-husband’s new wife was writing emails over his signature.  Dr. Perlman was asked to identify the elements of her style and help resolve the disputed authorship.

Other examples from the above four case categories:

-- Expert opinion on status of compound words (trademark infringement litigation).

-- Expert opinion on plagiarism of song lyrics (copyright litigation involving musical group The Who).

-- Authorship analysis of e-mails in Florida internal union dispute.

-- Preliminary analysis of authorship issues in malpractice litigation.

-- Expert opinion on authorship issues in business partnership dispute involving anonymous writings.

-- Authorship analysis of anonymous letters of complaint to a corporation’s Board of Directors.

-- Expert opinion on the semantics of trademark infringement in litigation by an apparel firm.

-- Authorship analysis of anonymous letters (possibly written by disgruntled employees) for major Midwestern corporation.

-- Authorship analysis of emails to website of a “cult deprogrammer.”

-- Expert opinion on linguistic similarities between plaintiff’s and defendant’s trademarks.

-- Authorship analysis of defamatory emails written to an individual in a corporation.

-- Authorship advice on a possibly forged stock transfer document.

-- Authorship analysis of letters involved in the Son of Sam case.

-- Analysis to support allegations of plagiarism of online course material.

-- Interpretation of contract language regarding the disposition of acquired corporate entities.

-- Defense against charges of academic and student plagiarism (several cases).

-- Analysis of chat transcripts to determine whether defendant engaged in enticement or seduction.

-- Authorship analysis of emails in divorce and custody disputes (several cases).

-- Expert opinion on whether The DaVinci Code was plagiarized from the client’s writing (it was, partly).