Multilingual text processing has been gaining more and more attention in recent years. This trend has been accentuated by the global integration of European states and the vanishing cultural and social boundaries. Multilingual text processing has become an important field bringing a lot of new and interesting problems. This paper describes a novel approach to multilingual plagiarism detection. We propose a new method called MLPlag for plagiarism detection in multilingual environment. This method is based on analysis of word positions. It utilizes the EuroWordNet thesaurus which transforms words into language independent form. This allows to identify documents plagiarized from sources written in other languages. Special techniques, such as semantic-based word normalization, were incorporated to refine our method. It identifies the replacement of synonyms used by plagiarists to hide the document match. We performed and evaluated our experiments on monolingual and multilingual corpora and results are presented in this paper.


Plagiarism Copy Detection Nature Language Processing EuroWordNet Thesaurus Lemmatization 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Clough, P.: Plagiarism in natural and programming languages: An overview of current tools and technologies. In: Internal Report CS-00-05, Department of Computer Science, University of Sheffield (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    European Commission - Joint Research Centre: The JRC-Acquis Multilingual Parallel Corpus, Version 3.0 (Last update 23/1/2008),
  3. 3.
    Gorin, R.: Ispell (Last update 5/6/1996),
  4. 4.
    Global WordNet Association: EuroWordNet (Last update 9/1/2001),
  5. 5.
    Hajic, J.: Morphology analyzer (Last update 8/27/2001),
  6. 6.
    Lane, P., Lyon, C., Malcolm, J.: Demonstration of the Ferret Plagiarism Detector. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Plagiarism Conference, Newcastle, UK (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Maurer, H., Kappe, F., Zaka, B.: Plagiarism – A Survey. Journal of Universal Computer Science 12(8), 1050–1084 (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Myers, E.: An O(ND) Difference Algorithm and Its Variations. Algorithmica 1, 251–266 (1986)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pataki, M.: Distributed Similarity and Plagiarism Search. In: Proceedings of the Automation and Applied Computer Science Workshop, pp. 121-130, Budapest, Hungary (2006) ISBN 963-420-865-7Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rijsbergen, C.: Information Retrieval. Butterworth-Heinemann, 2nd rev. edn. (March 1979) ISBN 0-408-70929-4 Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Runeson, P., Alexanderson, M., Nyholm, O.: Detection of Duplicate Defect Reports Using Natural Language Processing. In: Proceedings of the IEEE 29th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 499-510 (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Salton, G.: The state of retrieval system evaluation. International Journal of Information Processing & Management 24(4), 441–449 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shivakumar, N., Garcia-Molina, H.: SCAM: A copy detection mechanism for digital documents. In: Proceedings of 2nd International Conference in Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries, Austin (1995)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Salton, G., Buckley, C.: Term-Weighting Approaches in Automatic Retrieval. Journal of Information Processing and Management 24(5), 513–523 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zdenek Ceska
    • 1
  • Michal Toman
    • 1
  • Karel Jezek
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Faculty of Applied SciencesUniversity of West BohemiaPilsenCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations