The Dialect Tax: Dialectal Biases Persist throughout the Language Modeling Pipeline
cs.CL, cs.AI, cs.LG
Submitted: 2026-08-24
Updated: 2026-08-24
Comments: To be published at EMNLP 2026 under the full author name "Elle"
Code: https://github.com/socialnlp/dialecttax
License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
The gist: Systematic dialectal performance gaps in language models (LMs) are well documented, but the source of these disparities within the modern language modeling pipeline remains unclear.
Terminology
Abstract
Systematic dialectal performance gaps in language models (LMs) are well documented, but the source of these disparities within the modern language modeling pipeline remains unclear. Our study traces this "dialect tax" across the natural language processing pipeline. Using parallel English dialect corpora that hold meaning fixed while varying surface form, we first confirm that LMs recognize matched Standard American English (SAE) and dialectal texts as semantically equivalent. However, we discover further representational gaps corresponding to downstream performance gaps. Across model families and generations, modern LMs still encode dialectal texts unequally during tokenization, pre-training, post-training, and inference. Strikingly, bypassing traditional subword segmentation via a character-level counterfactual tokenizer removes neither input and output asymmetries nor dialectal accuracy gaps. During pre-training, dialect pairs induce more divergent gradient updates than pairs of entirely unrelated SAE documents, indicating that models find semantically equivalent dialectal content harder to learn from than unrelated SAE documents. During post-training, reward models show contextual, unstable dialect preferences, assigning higher values to isolated AAVE-exclusive tokens than to SAE-exclusive tokens, while full reasoning contexts receive task- and model-dependent dialect penalties. Overall, our findings suggest that the dialect tax is encoded and accumulated not by any one step in isolation, but at every step of the language modeling process.
Sources
- Do All Languages Cost the Same? Tokenization in the Era of Commercial Language Models
- Why do language models perform worse for morphologically complex languages?
- A Bit of a Problem: Measurement Disparities in Dataset Sizes Across Languages
- Program Synthesis with Large Language Models
- Large Language Models Reflect the Ideology of their Creators
- FOLIO: Natural Language Reasoning with First-Order Logic
- Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code
- Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems
- BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding
- Natural Language Processing for Dialects of a Language: A Survey
- The Llama 3 Herd of Models
- Scale Dependent Data Duplication
- Subword Regularization: Improving Neural Network Translation Models with Multiple Subword Candidates
- SentencePiece: A simple and language independent subword tokenizer and detokenizer for Neural Text Processing
- Matryoshka Representation Learning
- Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformer
- Graph-enhanced Large Language Models in Asynchronous Plan Reasoning
- CoQA: A Conversational Question Answering Challenge
- Tokenization Is More Than Compression
- Neural Machine Translation of Rare Words with Subword Units
Related papers
- Exploring Solution Divergence and Its Effect on Large Language Model Problem Solving
- Ishigaki-IDS-Bench: A Benchmark for Generating Information Delivery Specification from BIM Information Requirements
- Subliminal Steering: Stronger Encoding of Hidden Signals
- MedStruct-S: A Benchmark for Key Discovery, Key-Conditioned QA and Semi-Structured Extraction from OCR Clinical Reports
- The End of Transformers? On Challenging Attention and the Rise of Sub-Quadratic Architectures
- Untangling the Mechanisms of Misleading Context in Medical Question Answering