When AI Writes, Whose Voice Remains? Quantifying Cultural Marker Erasure in LLMs

Paper: 2602.22145 Authors: Satyam Kumar Navneet, Joydeep Chandra, Yong Zhang Categories: cs.HC, cs.AI, cs.CL

Abstract

As LLMs become ubiquitous tools for “professionalizing” workplace communication, they inadvertently homogenize linguistic diversity. This research introduces the concept of Cultural Ghosting - the systematic erasure of linguistic markers that distinguish non-native English varieties during AI-mediated text processing. Through comprehensive analysis of 22,350 LLM outputs across five models processing 1,490 culturally marked texts from Indian, Singaporean, and Nigerian English varieties, the authors quantify this phenomenon using two novel metrics: Identity Erasure Rate (IER) and Semantic Preservation Score (SPS). The findings reveal an overall IER of 10.26% with significant model variation (3.5% to 20.5%), and identify a critical Semantic Preservation Paradox where models maintain high semantic similarity (mean SPS = 0.748) while systematically removing cultural markers. Pragmatic markers prove 1.9× more vulnerable than lexical markers to erasure, though explicit cultural-preservation prompts can reduce erasure by 29%.

Key Contributions

• Conceptual Framework: Introduction of “Cultural Ghosting” as a measurable phenomenon in LLM text processing, providing vocabulary for discussing linguistic identity loss in AI systems
• Novel Metrics: Development of Identity Erasure Rate (IER) and Semantic Preservation Score (SPS) to quantify cultural marker retention and semantic fidelity simultaneously
• Large-Scale Empirical Study: Analysis of 22,350 outputs across five LLMs (GPT-4, Claude, Gemini, Llama, Mistral) under three prompt conditions, establishing baseline erasure patterns
• Marker Taxonomy: Systematic categorization of cultural markers into lexical and pragmatic types, revealing differential vulnerability (71.5% vs. 37.1% erasure rates)
• Mitigation Strategy: Demonstration that explicit cultural-preservation prompts reduce erasure by 29% without compromising semantic quality or task performance

Methodology and Experimental Design

The research employs a rigorous three-stage methodology. First, the authors curated a dataset of 1,490 authentic texts representing three World English varieties: Indian English (characterized by markers like “do the needful,” “prepone”), Singaporean English (featuring “lah,” “can or not”), and Nigerian English (including “I dey come,” “no wahala”). These texts span professional contexts including emails, reports, and workplace communications.

The experimental design tests five state-of-the-art LLMs under three prompt conditions: (1) Neutral prompts requesting text improvement without cultural guidance, (2) Professional prompts explicitly requesting “professional” or “formal” output, and (3) Cultural-preservation prompts instructing models to maintain regional linguistic characteristics. Each text-model-prompt combination generates outputs that are then analyzed using automated detection algorithms supplemented by human validation.

The IER metric is calculated as:

$\text{IER} = \frac{\text{Cultural markers in input} - \text{Cultural markers in output}}{\text{Cultural markers in input}} \times 100\%$

Meanwhile, SPS employs sentence-transformer embeddings to measure semantic similarity between input and output, with scores ranging from 0 (completely different) to 1 (semantically identical).

Results and the Semantic Preservation Paradox

The empirical findings reveal striking patterns. Across all conditions, the mean IER reaches 10.26%, but model-level variation spans a 5.9× range - from GPT-4’s relatively conservative 3.5% to Mistral’s aggressive 20.5% erasure rate. This variation suggests that cultural sensitivity is not uniformly distributed across model architectures or training regimes.

The Semantic Preservation Paradox emerges as the study’s most provocative finding: models achieve high semantic similarity scores (mean SPS = 0.748) while simultaneously erasing cultural markers. This indicates that LLMs successfully preserve propositional content and communicative intent while systematically removing the linguistic features that signal cultural identity. The paradox challenges assumptions that semantic fidelity equates to faithful reproduction - meaning is preserved, but voice is lost.

Marker type analysis reveals differential vulnerability. Pragmatic markers - including politeness conventions, discourse particles, and interactional patterns - suffer 71.5% erasure rates, nearly double the 37.1% rate for lexical markers (vocabulary items, idioms, syntactic patterns). This asymmetry suggests that models more readily identify and “correct” pragmatic features, possibly because they’re perceived as stylistic rather than semantic.

Prompt engineering demonstrates measurable impact. Cultural-preservation prompts reduce overall IER from 12.8% (professional prompts) to 9.1%, a 29% reduction. Critically, this reduction occurs without degrading semantic quality - SPS remains stable at 0.745-0.750 across prompt conditions. This finding suggests that cultural erasure is not an inevitable byproduct of text improvement but rather a default behavior that can be modified through explicit instruction.

Implications for AI Ethics and Linguistic Justice

The research carries profound implications for AI ethics, workplace equity, and linguistic justice. As LLMs mediate increasing volumes of professional communication, Cultural Ghosting risks creating a linguistic monoculture where only standardized varieties are deemed “professional.” This has material consequences: speakers of World English varieties may face pressure to suppress linguistic identity to appear competent, reinforcing colonial language hierarchies that position native-speaker norms as superior.

The findings challenge the notion of “neutral” AI assistance. When models systematically erase cultural markers while claiming to merely “improve” text, they encode specific ideologies about linguistic legitimacy. The high erasure rates for pragmatic markers are particularly concerning, as these features often carry crucial social information about relationships, respect, and cultural context that may be invisible to models trained predominantly on standardized English.

From a design perspective, the success of cultural-preservation prompts suggests actionable interventions. LLM interfaces could implement opt-in cultural preservation modes, provide transparency about marker modification, or offer users control over which linguistic features to retain. However, the burden should not fall entirely on users to defend their linguistic identity - model training and evaluation must incorporate cultural sensitivity as a core objective.

The research also highlights gaps in current AI evaluation frameworks. Standard benchmarks emphasize semantic accuracy, fluency, and task completion but rarely assess cultural marker preservation. The IER and SPS metrics provide a template for more holistic evaluation that considers both what is preserved and what is lost in AI-mediated communication.

Takeaways

1. Cultural Ghosting is pervasive: LLMs erase 10.26% of cultural markers on average, with some models removing over 20%, systematically homogenizing linguistic diversity in professional contexts.

2. The Semantic Preservation Paradox reveals a critical gap: Models maintain high semantic similarity (74.8%) while erasing cultural identity, demonstrating that “meaning” and “voice” are distinct dimensions that current systems conflate.

3. Pragmatic markers are disproportionately vulnerable: Politeness conventions and discourse particles face 1.9× higher erasure rates than lexical markers, suggesting models treat cultural pragmatics as stylistic noise rather than meaningful communication.

4. Prompt engineering offers partial mitigation: Explicit cultural-preservation instructions reduce erasure by 29% without compromising semantic quality, indicating that Cultural Ghosting is modifiable behavior rather than inevitable technical limitation.

5. Model variation suggests training matters: The 5.9× range in erasure rates across models (3.5% to 20.5%) indicates that architectural choices, training data composition, and fine-tuning objectives significantly impact cultural sensitivity.

6. Evaluation frameworks need expansion: Current AI benchmarks inadequately assess linguistic identity preservation, necessitating new metrics like IER and SPS that measure both semantic fidelity and cultural marker retention simultaneously.