Even after decades of sociolinguistic efforts to
legitimize AAE, it continues to be viewed as “bad”
English and its speakers continue to be viewed as
linguistically inadequate—a view called the deﬁcit
perspective (Alim et al., 2016; Rosa and Flores,
2017). This perspective persists despite demonstrations that AAE is rule-bound and grammatical
(Mufwene et al., 1998; Green, 2002), in addition
to ample evidence of its speakers’ linguistic adroitness (e.g., Alim, 2004; Rickford and King, 2016).
This perspective belongs to a broader set of raciolinguistic ideologies (Rosa and Flores, 2017), which
also produce allocational harms; speakers of AAE
are frequently penalized for not adhering to dominant language practices, including in the education
system (Alim, 2004; Terry et al., 2010), when
seeking housing (Baugh, 2018), and in the judicial
system, where their testimony is misunderstood or,
worse yet, disbelieved (Rickford and King, 2016;
Jones et al., 2019). These raciolinguistic ideologies
position racialized communities as needing
linguistic intervention, such as language education
programs, in which these and other harms can be
reduced if communities accommodate to dominant language practices (Rosa and Flores, 2017).
We survey 146 papers analyzing "bias" in NLP systems, finding that their
motivations are often vague, inconsistent, and lacking in normative reasoning,
despite the fact that analyzing "bias" is an inherently normative process. We
further find that these papers' proposed quantitative techniques for measuring
or mitigating "bias" are poorly matched to their motivations and do not engage
with the relevant literature outside of NLP. Based on these findings, we
describe the beginnings of a path forward by proposing three recommendations
that should guide work analyzing "bias" in NLP systems. These recommendations
rest on a greater recognition of the relationships between language and social
hierarchies, encouraging researchers and practitioners to articulate their
conceptualizations of "bias"---i.e., what kinds of system behaviors are
harmful, in what ways, to whom, and why, as well as the normative reasoning
underlying these statements---and to center work around the lived experiences
of members of communities affected by NLP systems, while interrogating and
reimagining the power relations between technologists and such communities.
Su Lin Blodgett Solon Barocas Hal Daumé III Hanna Wallach