Zeta revisited: A rejoinder

Abstract

Abstract Zeta is a relatively recently developed tool for authorship attribution and computational stylistics (Craig and Kinney, 2009, Shakespeare, Computers, and the Mystery of Authorship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). In ‘The Interpretation of Zeta Test Results’ (2019), Perves Rizvi raised several objections to the method. I responded to and rejected those objections in ‘Zeta Revisited’ (Hoover, 2021a, Zeta revisited. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 1–20). Rizvi has renewed two of his main objections in a critique of my response in his ‘The Interpretation of Zeta Test Results: A Supplement’ (2022). First, he reiterates and expands his argument that the separation of base and counter segments in a Zeta analysis is a mechanical consequence of Zeta, rather than a significant and meaningful finding. Second, he again rejects the use of the bisector line to attribute texts in a Zeta analysis as unsound and adds new arguments that it leads to invalid attributions. This rejoinder provides further evidence and argument that both of Rizvi’s claims must be rejected.