Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 major objections 5 minor 75 references

It's How You Ask: Gender-Associated Linguistic Bias in LLMs

T0 review · 6 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read LLMs answer women-associated prompts with shorter, less formal text.

desk verdict A novel and important question, but the paper's own realism data undermines the causal claim; send it to review with major revisions. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.13328 v1 pith:6ASO3U2A submitted 2026-08-13 cs.CL cs.AI

Katherine Van Koevering , Anjalie Field This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords gender-associatedlanguageLLMresponsebiaspromptmanipulationlinguisticregisterhedgesandtagquestionsworkplacecommunicationreadabilityformalitymechanisticinterpretability
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Large language models are increasingly used to draft emails, cover letters, and resignation letters, and this paper asks whether they serve all users equally. It builds paired prompts from real user requests, rewriting each one into a version with women-associated linguistic register (hedges, tag questions, collective reference, expressive adjectives) and a version with men-associated register (direct assertions, individual reference, neutral adjectives), then compares the responses. Across three document types and four models, the women-associated versions systematically elicit responses that are shorter, less sophisticated, more readable, and less formal. The differences survive controls for prompt complexity and feature carry-over, and they are driven by linguistic register rather than by explicit gender cues such as sign-off name gender. If the finding holds, LLM-mediated professional communication could systematically disadvantage users whose natural writing style carries women-associated register, in a way that users cannot readily avoid.

What carries the argument

The experimental engine is a paired-prompt manipulation. Each of 427 real workplace prompts is rewritten into two matched versions by an LLM-based rewriting step: a women-associated linguistic features (WALF) version that injects hedges, tag questions, collective reference, and expressive adjectives, and a men-associated linguistic features (MALF) version that removes those markers, uses direct assertions, individual reference, and neutral adjectives. This creates a paired test in which the underlying task is held fixed and only register varies. The response analysis uses paired t-tests on complexity, style, and formality metrics (word count, sophistication, readability, grade level, type-token ratio, politeness density, clout, and the F-measure of formality), followed by OLS regressions of response metrics on prompt metrics, bootstrap mediation analysis of feature carry-over, a 2 × 2 factorial name-gender experiment, and a mechanistic layer whose tools are linear probes and activation patching. The probes locate linguistic-feature information in early layers, and patching shows those layers causally shift the output distribution, identifying the representational locus of the effect.

What would settle it

Run the same paired-prompt experiment with WALF and MALF versions matched by human raters for equal realism and equal task fidelity; if the complexity gap between responses disappears once naturalness is equated, the claim that gender-associated register itself changes LLM outputs is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that LLMs use implicit linguistic register as a socially meaningful cue: when a request is phrased with features documented as more common in women's writing, the model treats the user differently. Specifically, WALF prompts elicit responses with lower lexical sophistication, lower grade level, higher readability, and lower formality than MALF prompts, with the strongest and most consistent effects for emails and job applications and weaker effects for resignation letters, where the sample is small. The authors rule out the most obvious explanation—that responses simply mirror prompt complexity or copied linguistic features—through regression controls and bootstrap mediation, leaving a substantial unexplained gap they attribute to register-based adjustment. A factorial experiment adding sign-off names shows that explicit name gender has no significant main effect or interaction, while register effects replicate, and linear probing and activation patching on a 3-billion-parameter open transformer show that linguistic-feature information is strongly encoded in early transformer layers (peaking around layer 5) and causally shapes output distributions, whereas name gender is weakly encoded. The paper concludes that models may use women-associated dialect as a proxy for gender and produce stereotyped, plainer professional text, and that mitigation is difficult because the cue is culturally embedded and entangled with other features in early layers.

Load-bearing premise

The results stand on the assumption that the paired WALF and MALF prompt versions differ only in gender-associated register, not in naturalness or task fidelity, and the paper's own realism check found WALF rewrites were rated less realistic than MALF rewrites (3.35 vs 4.33), which is the point where the argument could give way.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Workplace users who naturally write with hedges, tag questions, or collective reference can expect measurably plainer LLM drafts than users who write directly, which could make the same request look less sophisticated when the output is used in a cover letter or email.
  • Because the effect is not explained by simple style-mirroring, telling users to write more directly is not a reliable fix; the bias sits in how the model interprets register, not in prompt length or readability.
  • Debiasing strategies built around explicit markers such as names or pronouns will miss this bias, since the paper finds name gender has no significant behavioral effect while implicit register has large effects.
  • Any effective mitigation must operate upstream or in early transformer layers, but activation steering experiments suggest the relevant representations are entangled with coherence, so layer-level interventions need to be narrow and carefully targeted.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: the same paired-prompt design could test whether register biases for other dialect features (for example, features associated with age, class, or national varieties of English) follow the same early-layer mechanism; the paper itself suggests this generalization as future work.
  • Because the paper's own realism validation found WALF rewrites less natural than MALF rewrites (3.35 vs 4.33 on a 5-point scale), a skeptic could attribute part of the response gap to perceived unnaturalness; a human-matched naturalness condition would settle whether pure register alone drives the effect.
  • If users adapt their style to obtain better outputs, the effect could create a feedback loop that pressures women-associated registers out of LLM-mediated professional writing—an outcome the paper mentions as a possible longitudinal consequence but does not test.
  • The finding implies that fairness evaluation of LLMs should include user-side prompt variation, not only model depictions of demographic groups; measuring output quality as a function of user register would be a practical audit.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

6 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies whether gender-associated linguistic register in user prompts changes LLM response properties. The authors rewrite real WildChat prompts into women-associated (WALF) and men-associated (MALF) versions, then measure response length, lexical sophistication, readability, grade level, TTR, politeness, clout, and formality for GPT-4, Gemma 2, Mistral 7B, and Llama 3.1. They report that WALF prompts elicit shorter, less sophisticated, more readable, and less formal outputs; that these differences persist after controlling for prompt complexity and feature carry-over; that sign-off name gender has no effect while implicit register does; and that linear probes and activation patching localize the relevant signal in early transformer layers, with activation steering showing entanglement with coherence. The paper concludes that LLM-mediated professional communication may disadvantage users who use women-associated registers.

Significance. If the core causal claim were established, this would be a valuable contribution to the LLM-fairness literature, moving beyond explicit demographic cues to user-facing linguistic-register effects, and it would have practical implications for workplace communication and mitigation design. The paper has genuine strengths: it builds on a real user corpus (WildChat), evaluates four models, includes human validation studies, reports full prompts and detailed appendices, and explicitly acknowledges its resignation-letter sample size and the possibility of residual artifacts. Those strengths are undermined, however, by an internal inconsistency in the formality results, an overstatement of the Table 2 effects in the abstract, and a realism confound in the prompt manipulation that the paper's own Appendix A documents. The work is best treated as an important but not yet cleanly identified empirical finding.

major comments (6)
  1. [Abstract; §3.2, Table 2] The abstract's claim that WALF prompts 'systematically elicit shorter, less sophisticated, and less formal responses across three document types and four models' is not supported by Table 2. Word count is significant in only 1 of 12 model-category cells (GPT-4 email); tokens show direction-inconsistent results, including significant WALF-direction effects for Mistral in both email and job applications; sophistication, readability, and grade level each reach significance in at most 6 of 12 cells. In addition, TTR is defined in §3.1 as a sophistication measure, yet Table 2 shows significant WALF-direction TTR effects for GPT-4 emails and Llama emails, contradicting the uniform 'less sophisticated' narrative. Please either restrict the claims to the metrics, models, and categories where effects replicate, or add an aggregate/meta-analytic test across cells that supports the 'across three document types and four models' phrasing.
  2. [§2.1.1, Appendix A; §4] The causal attribution to gender-associated register is confounded by prompt naturalness and interaction type. Appendix A reports that WALF rewrites were rated markedly less realistic than MALF rewrites (3.35 vs. 4.33, p < 0.0001), and rewritten prompts were rated less realistic than real WildChat prompts (p = 0.0002). The example triples in Table 6 show that WALF rewrites often convert an imperative into a collaborative request for help ('Could you possibly help us out by drafting...'), which can change the expected response genre from a finished document to an assistant-style draft. Section 4's controls for prompt complexity and feature carry-over do not include realism, request directness, or interaction type, so the regression and mediation analyses do not rule out the alternative explanation that the model is responding to unnaturalness or to the difference between 'write X' and 'help us write X'. Please either construct prompt pairs matched on realism and directness, include such variables as covariates, or substantially soften the causal language.
  3. [§3.2 vs. Appendix Table 9] There is a direct internal inconsistency in the formality results. Section 3.2 states that the resignation-letter formality difference is significant at p = 0.033, but Appendix Table 9 reports p = 0.239 (ns) for the same comparison. The main text also describes paired t-tests (§3.1), whereas Appendix Table 9 uses Mann-Whitney U. Because the sentence 'formality shows significant differences across all three writing categories' depends on the resignation-letter result, this inconsistency must be resolved and the statistical procedure reported consistently.
  4. [§5.2, §5.3] The mechanistic interpretability results do not currently support the paper's claims of shared representational space and early-layer causal localization. Linear probes decode WALF vs. MALF near-perfectly from layer 1 onward, but this is expected, because the two prompt conditions differ in surface lexical content; name-gender decoding at 0.717 is likewise explainable by token identities. The activation-patching experiment replaces WALF activations with matched MALF activations, so high KL divergence in early layers again reflects processing of different input tokens rather than a gender-register-specific mechanism. To support the 'shared underlying mechanisms' and 'early-layer encoding' claims, please add control conditions, for example patching between unrelated prompt pairs or between prompts matched on all features except the construct of interest.
  5. [§2.1, §3.2, Appendix A] The resignation-letter results are too weak to support the 'across three document types' claim. The cell size is only n = 27 per condition; the semantic-preservation rating for resignation letters is 2.70, below the 'somewhat similar' threshold of 3 used in the validation; and Table 2 shows mostly non-significant effects in this category. The paper itself notes the low power in a footnote, but the abstract and Section 3.2 nevertheless aggregate resignation letters into the general claim. Please either exclude resignation letters from the headline claims or explicitly conditionalize all cross-category statements on the evidence available.
  6. [Table 2] Table 2 reports 72 hypothesis tests (4 models × 3 categories × 6 metrics) without multiple-comparison correction. At α = 0.05, several significant cells would be expected by chance, and several of the reported effects are only at the p < .05 level. Please report FDR-adjusted p-values or otherwise account for multiplicity before drawing conclusions about consistency across models and categories.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract vs. §5.2] The abstract says sign-off names and linguistic dialect are encoded in 'the same representational space,' but Section 5.2 concludes the representations are 'largely orthogonal subspaces' and functionally independent. Please align the wording.
  2. [Table 2] The cell notation in Table 2 (e.g., 'Tokens - M*** W* M***') is difficult to parse, especially because the direction key is in the caption while the table uses M/W. Please make the direction explicit in each cell or use arrows.
  3. [§6.3, Table 14] The discussion says targeted early-layer interventions 'could potentially modulate or mitigate bias effects,' but Table 14 shows that steering works only in a narrow parameter range and quickly degenerates. Please temper the feasibility claim or add coherence-constrained evaluation.
  4. [Appendix B] The LLM-as-a-judge analysis is partial (GPT-4 only, 105 of 185 job-application pairs, no emails) and single-sample with temperature 1.0. The main text calls it 'preliminary,' which is appropriate, but please state in the main text that it covers only GPT-4, since readers may otherwise assume four-model coverage.
  5. [§4.1, Table 3] The conclusion that 'simple prompt mirroring cannot account for the observed response differences' is based on linear regressions and low R² values. The absence of a linear relationship does not rule out nonlinear or threshold-style style-mirroring; please soften this wording or test nonlinear specifications.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: response differences are measured outcomes; prompt manipulation and controls are independent of the outcome metrics.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, that prompts containing women-associated linguistic features elicit shorter, less sophisticated, more readable, and less formal responses, is an empirical measurement result, not a derived identity. WALF/MALF prompts are constructed by GPT-4 rewrites that inject predefined sociolinguistic features (Section 2.1), and the manipulation is verified with regex checks; the outcomes (word count, sophistication, readability, grade level, formality, politeness, clout) are computed on independently generated model responses using standard, externally established metrics (Section 3.1). No parameter is fitted to the response data and then reported as a prediction: the paired t-tests, OLS mirroring regressions, and bootstrap mediation analyses (Section 4) are post-hoc controls, not constructions of the outcome. The sociolinguistic feature inventory is an exogenous input from prior literature, not defined in terms of the measured response differences. There are no load-bearing self-citations: the reference list contains no work by the present authors. The realism imbalance between WALF and MALF rewrites (Appendix A) and the internal formality p-value inconsistency (Section 3.2 p=0.033 vs. Appendix Table 9 p=0.239) are internal-validity and correctness concerns, but they are confounds and reporting issues, not circular reductions; they do not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on three domain assumptions: the gender association of the injected features, the validity of the surface metrics as quality proxies, and the absence of a realism confound. The third is the most fragile because the paper's own validation shows WALF rewrites are less realistic. The only hand-chosen numeric input is the steering amplitude used in exploratory analysis.

free parameters (1)
  • Steering amplitude alpha = -30, -15, 0, 15, 30 (hand-chosen)
    Used only in the exploratory activation-steering experiment (Section 6.3, Appendix D.4) to modulate linguistic feature direction. Hand-chosen and qualitative; does not affect the main behavioral results.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The four feature classes (hedges, tag questions, collective reference, expressive adjectives) are used more by women than men in professional writing.
    The entire WALF/MALF manipulation rests on this sociolinguistic prior (Lakoff 1973; Argamon et al. 2003). The paper notes the features are not gender-exclusive, but the interpretation as gender-associated bias depends on this literature.
  • domain assumption Surface metrics (mean word length, Flesch scores, F-measure, TTR) validly measure sophistication and formality as claimed.
    The outcome interpretation equates these proxies with quality or register. The paper cites validation literature but provides no calibration to actual professional judgments within this study.
  • domain assumption Prompt realism differences between WALF and MALF do not drive the output differences.
    The control strategy (prompt-complexity OLS, feature carry-over mediation) does not include a realism covariate. The paper's own realism data show WALF prompts are significantly less realistic, so this assumption is load-bearing and only partially defended.
  • standard math Standard paired t-tests and OLS statistics assume independent, suitably distributed paired differences.
    The paired comparisons and regressions rely on routine distributional assumptions, not stated in detail.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of It's How You Ask: Gender-Associated Linguistic Bias in LLMs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6ASO3U2A

@misc{pith2026260813328,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: It's How You Ask: Gender-Associated Linguistic Bias in LLMs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6ASO3U2A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.13328}
}
read the original abstract

Professional communication is increasingly mediated by LLMs - but do these models serve all users equally? We show that when prompts contain linguistic features more commonly used by women (hedges, tag questions, collective reference), they systematically elicit shorter, less sophisticated, and less formal responses across three document types and four models. These effects persist after controlling for prompt complexity and feature carry-over. Explicit gender cues like sign-off names are encoded in the same representational space as linguistic dialect - suggesting shared underlying mechanisms - yet linguistic register is far more influential, producing large, consistent effects where names produce none. Our results further reveal that post-hoc mitigation is challenging: because these patterns are culturally embedded and outside conscious control, users cannot easily avoid them through strategic self-presentation, and mechanistic analysis reveals that linguistic features are encoded in early transformer layers and entangled with other features. Our work calls for upstream consideration of the influences of linguistic variation to mitigate disparate impacts of LLM-mediated workplace communication.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.13328 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An example of two modified prompts and responses to each. The left prompt [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Marked Personas: Using Natural Language Prompts to Measure Stereotypes in Language Models

    Cheng, Myra and Durmus, Esin and Jurafsky, Dan. Marked Personas: Using Natural Language Prompts to Measure Stereotypes in Language Models. Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2023. doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.84

    doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.84 2023

  2. [2]

    2023 , isbn =

    Bianchi, Federico and Kalluri, Pratyusha and Durmus, Esin and Ladhak, Faisal and Cheng, Myra and Nozza, Debora and Hashimoto, Tatsunori and Jurafsky, Dan and Zou, James and Caliskan, Aylin , title =. 2023 , isbn =. doi:10.1145/3593013.3594095 , booktitle =

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    ``Kelly is a Warm Person, Joseph is a Role Model'': Gender Biases in LLM -Generated Reference Letters

    Wan, Yixin and Pu, George and Sun, Jiao and Garimella, Aparna and Chang, Kai-Wei and Peng, Nanyun. ``Kelly is a Warm Person, Joseph is a Role Model'': Gender Biases in LLM -Generated Reference Letters. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023. 2023. doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.243

    doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.243 2023

  4. [4]

    Griffiths , title =

    Xuechunzi Bai and Angelina Wang and Ilia Sucholutsky and Thomas L. Griffiths , title =. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , volume =. 2025 , doi =

    2025

  5. [5]

    Nature , volume=

    AI generates covertly racist decisions about people based on their dialect , author=. Nature , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    The AI Gap: How Socioeconomic Status Affects Language Technology Interactions

    Bassignana, Elisa and Curry, Amanda Cercas and Hovy, Dirk. The AI Gap: How Socioeconomic Status Affects Language Technology Interactions. Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2025. doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.914

    doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.914 2025

  7. [7]

    Evaluation of A frican A merican Language Bias in Natural Language Generation

    Deas, Nicholas and Grieser, Jessica and Kleiner, Shana and Patton, Desmond and Turcan, Elsbeth and McKeown, Kathleen. Evaluation of A frican A merican Language Bias in Natural Language Generation. Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2023. doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.421

    doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.421 2023

  8. [8]

    The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

    Quantifying Language Models' Sensitivity to Spurious Features in Prompt Design or: How I learned to start worrying about prompt formatting , author=. The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    White Men Lead, Black Women Help? Benchmarking and Mitigating Language Agency Social Biases in LLM s

    Wan, Yixin and Chang, Kai-Wei. White Men Lead, Black Women Help? Benchmarking and Mitigating Language Agency Social Biases in LLM s. Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2025. doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.445

    2025 doi

  2. [10]

    and Rambow, Owen

    Prabhakaran, Vinodkumar and Reid, Emily E. and Rambow, Owen. Gender and Power: How Gender and Gender Environment Affect Manifestations of Power. Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing ( EMNLP ). 2014. doi:10.3115/v1/D14-1211

    2014 doi

  3. [11]

    Text - Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse , volume=

    Gender, genre, and writing style in formal written texts , author=. Text - Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse , volume=

  4. [12]

    2020 , publisher=

    A survey of modern English , author=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  5. [13]

    Language in society , year=

    African American vernacular English: Features, evolution, educational implications , author=. Language in society , year=

  6. [14]

    , author=

    The principles of readability. , author=. Online submission , year=

  7. [15]

    Scientometrics , volume=

    Readability is decreasing in language and linguistics , author=. Scientometrics , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  8. [16]

    Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society , volume=

    The impact of readability on trust in information , author=. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society , volume=

  9. [17]

    Journal of Language and Social Psychology , volume=

    Gender-linked differences in the style and content of e-mails to friends , author=. Journal of Language and Social Psychology , volume=. 2002 , publisher=

    2002

  10. [18]

    Research in organizational Behavior , volume=

    Gender stereotypes and workplace bias , author=. Research in organizational Behavior , volume=. 2012 , publisher=

    2012

  11. [19]

    Sociology , volume=

    Gender, status and professionalism , author=. Sociology , volume=. 1987 , publisher=

    1987

  12. [20]

    The Discourse of Indirectness: Cues, voices and functions , year=

    Indirectness and effectiveness of requests in professional emails , author=. The Discourse of Indirectness: Cues, voices and functions , year=

  13. [21]

    WildChat: 1M Chat

    Wenting Zhao and Xiang Ren and Jack Hessel and Claire Cardie and Yejin Choi and Yuntian Deng , booktitle=. WildChat: 1M Chat. 2024 , url=

    2024

  14. [22]

    2000 , publisher=

    Language variation as social practice: The linguistic construction of identity in Belten High , author=. 2000 , publisher=

    2000

  15. [23]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783 , year=

    The llama 3 herd of models , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783 , year=

    arXiv

  16. [24]

    2023 , eprint=

    Mistral 7B , author=. 2023 , eprint=

    2023

  17. [25]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00118 , year=

    Gemma 2: Improving open language models at a practical size , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00118 , year=

    arXiv

  18. [26]

    2024 , eprint=

    GPT-4 Technical Report , author=. 2024 , eprint=

    2024

  19. [27]

    Women language features in Tennessee Williams

    Rahadiyanti, Iga , journal=. Women language features in Tennessee Williams

  20. [28]

    Journal of Cultura and Lingua , volume=

    Gender and Communication: Some Features of Women’s Speech , author=. Journal of Cultura and Lingua , volume=

  21. [29]

    Sriyono , title =

    Ayu Suhesty and S. Sriyono , title =. 2023 , journal=

    2023

  22. [30]

    Iksan , title =

    Dewi Ginarti and Irman Nurhapitudin and Ruminda Ruminda and Hasanah Hj. Iksan , title =. 2022 , journal =

    2022

  23. [31]

    2022 , journal =

    Aziz, Zulfadli Abdul and Mahmud, Masrizal and Nurhasanah, Dista , title =. 2022 , journal =

    2022

  24. [32]

    International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development , volume=

    Gender and the use of english language among form 3 secondary school students in Malaysia , author=. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development , volume=

  25. [33]

    k@ ta: A Biannual Publication on the Study of Language and Literature , volume=

    She’s Really Kind and Hella Weird!- The Use of Intensifiers among Teens: A Sociolinguistic Analysis , author=. k@ ta: A Biannual Publication on the Study of Language and Literature , volume=

  26. [34]

    Research in the Teaching of English , volume=

    Gender-typical style in written language , author=. Research in the Teaching of English , volume=

  27. [35]

    Group decision and negotiation , volume=

    Deception in computer-mediated communication , author=. Group decision and negotiation , volume=. 2004 , publisher=

    2004

  28. [36]

    The Journal of Education, Culture, and Society , volume=

    Identifying the linguistic genderlects of the style of writing of Arab male and female novelists , author=. The Journal of Education, Culture, and Society , volume=. 2011 , publisher=

    2011

  29. [37]

    2024 , journal =

    Priyanshu Priya and Mauajama Firdaus and Asif Ekbal , title =. 2024 , journal =

    2024

  30. [38]

    2023 , journal =

    Muhammad Salman and Sulaiman Ahmad and Khushnood Arshad , title =. 2023 , journal =

    2023

  31. [39]

    S. K. Mugair and Inst. Atyaf Hasan Ibrahim and Amthal Mohammed Abbas , title =. 2018 , journal =

    2018

  32. [40]

    Zohaib Zahid , title =

    Tehreema Hassan and Dr. Zohaib Zahid , title =. 2024 , journal =

    2024

  33. [41]

    Linguistics and Literature Studies , volume=

    Social gender construction in political context: a corpus-based study of lexical differences across genders , author=. Linguistics and Literature Studies , volume=

  34. [42]

    2024 , journal =

    Zhuang Jie , title =. 2024 , journal =

    2024

  35. [43]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.10537 , year=

    Application of lexical features towards improvement of Filipino readability identification of children's literature , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.10537 , year=

    arXiv

  36. [44]

    Febres and K

    Gerardo L. Febres and K. Jaffe , title =. 2014 , journal =

    2014

  37. [45]

    Reading Level Assessment Using Support Vector Machines and Statistical Language Models

    Schwarm, Sarah and Ostendorf, Mari. Reading Level Assessment Using Support Vector Machines and Statistical Language Models. Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics ( ACL '05). 2005. doi:10.3115/1219840.1219905

    2005

  38. [46]

    2022 , journal =

    Chen Zhang and Wenzhong Zhang , title =. 2022 , journal =

    2022

  39. [47]

    Controllable Dictionary Example Generation: Generating Example Sentences for Specific Targeted Audiences

    He, Xingwei and Yiu, Siu Ming. Controllable Dictionary Example Generation: Generating Example Sentences for Specific Targeted Audiences. Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2022. doi:10.18653/v1/2022....

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    2020 , journal =

    Irina Rets and Tim Coughlan and Ursula Stickler and Lluïsa Astruc , title =. 2020 , journal =

    2020

  41. [49]

    Text Readability Assessment for Second Language Learners

    Xia, Menglin and Kochmar, Ekaterina and Briscoe, Ted. Text Readability Assessment for Second Language Learners. Proceedings of the 11th Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications. 2016. doi:10.18653/v1/W16-0502

    2016 doi

  42. [50]

    Classist Tools: Social Class Correlates with Performance in NLP

    Cercas Curry, Amanda and Attanasio, Giuseppe and Talat, Zeerak and Hovy, Dirk. Classist Tools: Social Class Correlates with Performance in NLP. Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2024. doi:10.18653/v...

    2024 doi

  43. [51]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.22282 , year=

    Whose chatgpt? unveiling real-world educational inequalities introduced by large language models , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.22282 , year=

    arXiv

  44. [52]

    Schillinger and D

    D. Schillinger and D. McNamara and S. Crossley and C. Lyles and H. Moffet and U. Sarkar and Nicholas D. Duran and Jill Y. Allen and Jennifer Y. Liu and Danielle E. Oryn and Neda Ratanawongsa and A. Karter , title =. 2017 , journal =

    2017

  45. [53]

    2022 , journal =

    Carlos Carrasco-Farré , title =. 2022 , journal =

    2022

  46. [54]

    S em E val 2016 Task 11: Complex Word Identification

    Paetzold, Gustavo and Specia, Lucia. S em E val 2016 Task 11: Complex Word Identification. Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation ( S em E val-2016). 2016. doi:10.18653/v1/S16-1085

    2016 doi

  47. [55]

    Waes , title =

    Alessandra Rossetti and L. Waes , title =. 2022 , journal =

    2022

  48. [56]

    Müngen , title =

    A. Müngen , title =. 2023 , journal =

    2023

  49. [57]

    Ng , title =

    Yang Han and Shuo Zhao and L. Ng , title =. 2021 , journal =

    2021

  50. [58]

    Lebernegg and Jakob-Moritz Eberl and Petro Tolochko and H

    Noëlle S. Lebernegg and Jakob-Moritz Eberl and Petro Tolochko and H. Boomgaarden , title =. 2024 , journal =

    2024

  51. [59]

    Truong and Nick Haber and M

    Radhika Kapoor and Sang T. Truong and Nick Haber and M. A. Ruiz-Primo and Benjamin W. Domingue , title =. 2025 , journal =

    2025

  52. [60]

    2023 , journal =

    Jisu Ryu and Moongee Jeon , title =. 2023 , journal =

    2023

  53. [61]

    Beier and Sam M Berlow and Esat Boucaud and Z

    S. Beier and Sam M Berlow and Esat Boucaud and Z. Bylinskii and Tianyuan Cai and Jenae Cohn and Kathy Crowley and Stephanie L. Day and Tilman Dingler and Jonathan Dobres and Jennifer Healey and R. Jain and Marjorie Jordan and Bernard Kerr and Qisheng Li and Dave B. Miller and ...

    2021

  54. [62]

    2019 , journal =

    Zixuan Ke and Vincent Ng , title =. 2019 , journal =

    2019

  55. [63]

    2024 , journal =

    Scott Crossley , title =. 2024 , journal =

    2024

  56. [64]

    Reports of personal experiences and stories in argumentation: datasets and analysis

    Falk, Neele and Lapesa, Gabriella. Reports of personal experiences and stories in argumentation: datasets and analysis. Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2022. doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.379

    2022 doi

  57. [65]

    ELI -Why: Evaluating the Pedagogical Utility of Language Model Explanations

    Joshi, Brihi and He, Keyu and Ramnath, Sahana and Sabouri, Sadra and Zhou, Kaitlyn and Chattopadhyay, Souti and Swayamdipta, Swabha and Ren, Xiang. ELI -Why: Evaluating the Pedagogical Utility of Language Model Explanations. Findings of the Association for Computational Lingui...

    2025 doi

  58. [66]

    Nguyen and A

    D. Nguyen and A. Seza Doğruöz and C. Rosé and F. D. Jong , title =. 2016 , journal =

    2016

  59. [67]

    Contextualized Embeddings for Enriching Linguistic Analyses on Politeness

    Aljanaideh, Ahmad and Fosler-Lussier, Eric and de Marneffe, Marie-Catherine. Contextualized Embeddings for Enriching Linguistic Analyses on Politeness. Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. 2020. doi:10.18653/v1/2020.coling-main.198

    2020 doi

  60. [68]

    AP-BIPA Indonesia , year=

    Pondering a global BIPA: Politeness and impoliteness in verbal interactions , author=. AP-BIPA Indonesia , year=

  61. [69]

    Language in society , volume=

    Language and woman's place , author=. Language in society , volume=. 1973 , publisher=

    1973

  62. [70]

    , author=

    A new readability yardstick. , author=. Journal of applied psychology , volume=. 1948 , publisher=

    1948

  63. [71]

    1975 , publisher=

    Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, fog count and flesch reading ease formula) for navy enlisted personnel , author=. 1975 , publisher=

    1975

  64. [72]

    1987 , publisher=

    Politeness: Some universals in language usage , author=. 1987 , publisher=

    1987

  65. [73]

    Leo Apostel

    Formality of language: definition, measurement and behavioral determinants , author=. Interner Bericht, Center “Leo Apostel”, Vrije Universiteit Br. 1999 , publisher=

    1999

  66. [74]

    Journal of Language and Social Psychology , volume=

    Pronoun use reflects standings in social hierarchies , author=. Journal of Language and Social Psychology , volume=. 2014 , publisher=

    2014

  67. [75]

    Linguistic Bias in C hat GPT : Language Models Reinforce Dialect Discrimination

    Fleisig, Eve and Smith, Genevieve and Bossi, Madeline and Rustagi, Ishita and Yin, Xavier and Klein, Dan. Linguistic Bias in C hat GPT : Language Models Reinforce Dialect Discrimination. Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 20...

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.