This paper describes a three-part framework to study how language technologies elucidate and shape linguistic relations in society. Reframing a mountain of evidence about language bias in LLMs, we introduce the concept of linguistic affordances to attend to how an object can shape social relations through language. First, we contextualize how language ideologies inform social relations in a particular setting. Next, we examine how language ideologies shape the construction of the linguistic affordances of a language technology. Finally, we examine how the linguistic affordances of language technologies lead to new associations that link language and social worth. We describe how this framework can inform both the study of language technologies and the use of language technologies in social science. We demonstrate the framework with two examples: the use of LLMs in college admissions and the adoption of LLMs in scientific publishing.
AdamA. (2000). Deleting the subject: A feminist reading of epistemology in artificial intelligence. Minds and Machines, 10(2), 231–253.
2.
AkrichM. (1992). The de-scription of technical objects. Shaping technology/building society. In: Studies in sociotechnical change, MIT Press, 205–224.
3.
AlgabaA.MazijnC.HolstV.ToriF.WenmackersS.GinisV. (2025 April). Large Language Models Reflect Human Citation Patterns with a Heightened Citation Bias. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics. NAACL, 2025, 6829–6864.
4.
AlveroAJGiebelS.Gebre-MedhinB.AntonioA. L.StevensM. L.DomingueB. W. (2021). Essay content and style are strongly related to household income and SAT scores: Evidence from 60,000 undergraduate applications. Science Advances, 7(42), eabi9031. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abi9031
5.
AlveroAJLeeJ.Regla-VargasA.KizilcecR. F.JoachimsT.AntonioA. L. (2024). Large language models, social demography, and hegemony: Comparing authorship in human and synthetic text. Journal of Big Data, 11(1), 138. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40537-024-00986-7
6.
AlveroAJPalJ.MoussavianK. M. (2022). Linguistic, cultural, and narrative capital: Computational and human readings of transfer admissions essays. Journal of Computational Social Science, 5(2), 1709–1734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001-022-00185-5
7.
AlveroAJPattichisR. (2024). Multilingualism and mismatching: Spanish language usage in college admissions essays. Poetics, 105, Article 101903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2024.101903
8.
AmanoT.Ramírez-CastañedaV.Berdejo-EspinolaV.BorokiniI.ChowdhuryS.GolivetsM.González-TruilloJ. D.Montaño-CentellasF.PaudelK.WhiteR. L.VeríssimoD. (2023). The manifold costs of being a non-native English speaker in science. PLoS Biology, 21(7), Article e3002184. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002184
9.
ArgyleL. P.BusbyE. C.FuldaN.GublerJ. R.RyttingC.WingateD. (2023). Out of one, many: Using language models to simulate human samples. Political Analysis, 31(3), 337–351. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2023.2
10.
AustinJ. L. (1975). How to do things with words. Harvard University Press.
11.
BaughJ. (2016). Linguistic profiling and discrimination. In The Oxford handbook of language and society (pp. 349–368). Oxford Handbooks.
12.
BlodgettS. L.BarocasS.Daumé IIIH.WallachH. (2020). Language (Technology) is power: A critical survey of “bias” in NLP. In Proceedings of the 58th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (pp. 5454–5476). Association for Computational Linguistics.
13.
BoelaertJ.CoavouxS.OllionE.PetevI.PrägP. (2025). Machine bias. How do generative language models answer opinion polls?Sociological Methods & Research, 54(3), Article 00491241251330582.
14.
BourdieuPierre (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press.
15.
BourdieuP. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Harvard UP.
16.
BourdieuP. (1986). The forms of capital. In RichardsonJ. G. (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (Vol. 1). Greenwood Press.
17.
BowkerG. (1993). How to be universal: Some cybernetic strategies, 1943-70. Social Studies of Science, 23(1), 107–127.
18.
BowkerG. C.StarS. L. (2000). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. MIT Press.
19.
CallonM. (1984). Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. The Sociological Review, 32(1_suppl), 196-233.
20.
CanizalesS. L.O’ConnorB. H. (2022). “Maybe not 100%”: Co-constructing language proficiency in the Maya Diaspora. International Multilingual Research Journal, 16(4), 328–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2022.2065598
21.
ChengM.GligoricK.PiccardiT.JurafskyD. (2024). AnthroScore: A computational linguistic measure of anthropomorphism. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.02056.
22.
Cho-BakerS.BridgemanB.LingG.FlorM.BelurV. (2025). Academic Writing Skills in College Admissions Essays: Exploring Their Implications for Admissions Decisions and First-Semester Grade Point Average (p. 0013189X251324189). Educational Researcher.
DavisJ. L. (2023). Affordances’ for machine learning. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency (pp. 324–332). Association for Computing Machinery.
FieldA.BlodgettS. L.WaseemZ.TsvetkovY. (2021). A survey of race, racism, and anti-racism in NLP. In Proceedings of the 59th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics and the 11th international joint conference on natural language processing (volume 1: Long papers) (pp. 1905–1925). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.149
27.
FieldA.CostonA.GandhiN.ChouldechovaA.Putnam-HornsteinE.SteierD.TsvetkovY. (2023). Examining risks of racial biases in NLP tools for child protective services. In 2023 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency (pp. 1479–1492). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3593013.3594094
28.
FloresN.RosaJ. (2015). Undoing appropriateness: Raciolinguistic ideologies and language diversity in education. Harvard Educational Review, 85(2), 149–171. https://doi.org/10.17763/0017-8055.85.2.149
29.
FloresN.RosaJ. (2023). Undoing competence: Coloniality, homogeneity, and the overrepresentation of whiteness in applied linguistics. Language and learning, 73(S2), 268–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12528
30.
FolkesL. (2023). Moving beyond ‘shopping list’ positionality: Using kitchen table reflexivity and in/visible tools to develop reflexive qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 23(5), 1301–1318. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941221098922
31.
FoxD. (2004). The truth about harvard: A behind-the-scenes look at admissions and life on campus. The Princeton Review.
32.
GalS.IrvineJ. T. (2019). Signs of difference: Language and ideology in social life. Cambridge University Press.
33.
Golash-BozaT. (2016). A critical and comprehensive sociological theory of race and racism. Sociology of race and ethnicity, 2(2), 129–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332649216632242
34.
GordinM. D. (2015). Scientific babel: How science was done before and after global English. University of Chicago Press.
35.
GururanganS.CardD.DreierS.GadeE.WangL.WangZ.ZettlemoyerL.SmithN. A. (2022). Whose language counts as high quality? Measuring language ideologies in text data selection. In Proceedings of the 2022 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (pp. 2562–2580). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.165
HofmannV.KalluriP. R.JurafskyD.KingS. (2024). AI generates covertly racist decisions about people based on their dialect. Nature, 633(8028), 147–154. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07856-5
39.
InoueM. (2004). What does language remember? Indexical inversion and the naturalized history of Japanese women. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 14(1), 39–56. https://doi.org/10.1525/jlin.2004.14.1.39
40.
JensenJ. L.KarellD.Tanigawa-LauC.HabashN.OudahM.Fairus Shofia FaniD. (2022). Language models in sociological research: An application to classifying large administrative data and measuring religiosity. Sociological Methodology, 52(1), 30–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/00811750211053370
41.
JohnsonR. L.PistilliG.Menédez-GonzálezN.DuranL. D. D.PanaiE.KalpokieneJ.BertulfoD. J. (2022). The ghost in the machine has an American accent: Value conflict in GPT-3. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.07785.
42.
KarabelJ. (2005). The chosen: The hidden history of admission and exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
43.
KroskrityP. V. (2004). Language ideologies. A companion to linguistic anthropology, 496, 517.
44.
LeblebiciD. (2024). You are Apple, why are you speaking to me in Turkish?”: the role of English in voice assistant interactions. Multilingua, 43(4), 455–485.
45.
LeeJ.AlveroA. J.JoachimsT.KizilcecR. (2025). Poor alignment and steerability of large language models: Evidence from college admission essays. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.20062.
46.
LeppH.LevowG.-A. (2020). Pardon the interruption: An analysis of gender and turn-taking in U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments. In Proceedings of Interspeech (2020, pp. 1838–1842). International Speech Communication Association. https://doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech.2020-2964
47.
LeppH.SmithD. S. (2025). “You cannot sound like GPT”: Signs of language discrimination and resistance in computer science publishing. In Proceedings of the 2025 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency (pp. 3162–3181). Association for Computing Machinery.
48.
LiX. (2023). “There’s no data like more data”: Automatic speech recognition and the making of algorithmic culture. Osiris, 38, 165–182. https://doi.org/10.1086/725132
49.
LiangW.ZhangY.WuZ.LeppH.JiW.ZhaoX.CaoH.LiuS.HeS.HuangZ.YangD.PottsC.ManningC. D.ZouJ. (2025) Quantifying large language model usage in scientific papers. Nature Human Behaviour. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-025-02273-8
50.
LizardoO.MowryR.SepulvadoB.StoltzD. S.TaylorM. A.Van NessJ.WoodM. (2016). What are dual process models? Implications for cultural analysis in sociology. Sociological Theory, 34(4), 287–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275116675900
51.
McFarlandD. A.BroskaD.PrabhakaranV.JurafskyD. (2024). Coming into relations: How communication reveals and persuades relational decisions. Social Networks, 79, 57–75.
MilroyJ. (2001). Language ideologies and the consequences of standardization. Journal of SocioLinguistics, 5(4), 530–555. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00163
NaousT.RyanM. J.RitterA.XuW. (2024). Having beer after prayer? Measuring cultural bias in large language models. In Proceedings of the 62nd annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (volume 1: Long papers) (pp. 16366–16393). Association for Computational Linguistics.
Oldenziel. (2001).CreagerA. N. H.LunbeckE.SchiebingerL. L. (Eds.), Man the maker, woman the consumer. University of Chicago Press.
58.
OmiM.WinantH. (1986). Racial formation in the United States (1st ed.). Routledge.
59.
PapadimitriouI.LopezK.JurafskyD. (2023). Multilingual BERT has an accent: Evaluating English influences on fluency in multilingual models. (No. arXiv:2210.05619). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2210.05619
60.
PeiJ.JurgensD. (2023). When do annotator demographics matter? Measuring the influence of annotator demographics with the POPQUORN dataset. In Proceedings of the 17th linguistic Annotation Workshop (LAW-XVII). Association for Computational Linguistics.
61.
PeirceC. S. (1991). Peirce on signs: Writings on semiotic. UNC Press Books.
62.
PennebakerJ. W.ChungC. K.FrazeeJ.LavergneG. M.BeaverD. I. (2014). When small words foretell academic success: The case of college admissions essays. PLoS One, 9(12), Article e115844. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115844
63.
RayV. (2019). A theory of racialized organizations. American Sociological Review, 84(1), 26–53.
64.
Samy AlimH. (2007). Critical hip-hop language pedagogies: Combat, consciousness, and the cultural politics of communication. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 6(2), 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348450701341378
65.
ShankarS.CavanaughJ. R. (2012). Language and materiality in global capitalism. Annual review of anthropology, 41(1), 355–369.
66.
StevensM. L. (2009). Creating a class. Harvard University Press.
67.
StinchcombeA. L. (2000). On equilibrium, organizational form, and competitive strategy.
68.
StuhlerO.TonC. D.OllionE. (2025). From codebooks to promptbooks: Extracting information from text with generative large language models. Sociological Methods & Research, 54(3), 00491241251336794. https://doi.org/10.1177/00491241251336794
ZhangS.XuJ.AlveroA. J. (2025). Generative AI meets open-ended survey responses: Research participant use of AI and homogenization. Sociological Methods & Research, 54(3), 1197–1242.
