\textit{Versteasch du mi?} Computational and Socio-Linguistic Perspectives on GenAI, LLMs, and Non-Standard Language

The rapid growth of large language models (LLMs) has resurrected age-old questions in sociolinguistics and world Englishes, such as who decides what counts as legitimate English, whose English is suspect etc. This paper examines how AI systems, their uses and discourse on them reflect, reinforce, and occasionally challenge (standard) language ideologies, which privilege Inner Circle norms and marginalize non-dominant Englishes. Drawing on evidence from empirical studies, media commentary, social media debates, and examples from AI outputs, the paper shows that AI technologies reproduce dominant language ideologies at different levels: training data, design protocols, evaluation benchmarks, user feedback and public commentary. The analysis uses the public controversy over AI-sounding language, especially the fixation on the word delve, to illustrate how speakers of English from the Global North police the English language norms of Global South English users. The paper also identifies what Christian Mair has called a "standardisation paradox": AI may homogenize English by privileging standard forms and at the same time pluralize Englishes through exposure to wide-ranging corpora and annotation work carried out by Global South users. In doing so, the paper argues that generative AI is reigniting long-standing debates in World Englishes about standardization, legitimacy, and the ownership of English, now playing out in algorithmic systems, model training, evaluation practices, and public discourse, where non-dominant Englishes are increasingly conflated with AI-generated speech. Discussing AI systems as a site where language ideologies are (re)produced, the paper argues for more inclusive design approaches that recognize the plurality of Englishes in order to address the real-world negative consequences of treating some as more legitimate than others.

While large language model outputs are frequently analysed as a collective super variety termed "AI language," this chapter argues that this perspective coexists with distinct, model-specific linguistic signatures akin to human idiolects. We analyse two datasets of LLM-generated texts on societal topics: a 2024 corpus of six models (Improta et al. 2024) and a newly generated 2026 corpus using the same prompts featuring six contemporary models. Our findings, utilising computational descriptors and stylometric principal component analysis reveal a generational shift between the style of the 2024 and 2026 cohorts, while demonstrating that each individual model maintains a unique linguistic profile. This multi-layered interplay is illustrated by contraction frequencies, which vary from over 1,200 to over 30,000 per million words within the same cohort of models (2026). Ultimately, we conclude that treating LLM output as idiolectal in nature provides a valuable framework with potential implications for research on variation and change, LLM-generated text detection, forensic linguistics and usage-based approaches to language.

Dialect resources occupy a unique position at the intersection of scientific description, cultural preservation, and computational infrastructure. Large language models offer powerful capabilities for accelerating dialect resource development through retrieval-grounded drafting, corpus navigation, metadata enrichment, and annotation workflow support. However, the same systems pose substantial risks: they can contribute to dialect erasure by privileging prestige varieties, homogenizing orthography, and enabling synthetic feedback loops that reduce linguistic diversity over time. These risks are particularly acute for language varieties characterized by diglossia, limited written standardization, or marginalized speaker communities. This paper makes three contributions. First, we integrate insights from variationist sociolinguistics and corpus linguistics to formalize the generator-eraser paradox as a theoretical framework for understanding the dual nature of LLM-assisted dialect work. Second, we derive 12 community guidelines that operationalize this framework into implementable design requirements for dialect resource creation and documentation. Third, we provide an in-depth case study of Arabic dialects, including a structured comparison of widely used resources, to demonstrate how these guidelines address language-specific challenges including diglossia, orthographic variability, and community governance. The contribution is conceptual and operational rather than experimental, with the goal of enabling dialect communities and resource builders across languages to adopt LLMs without sacrificing authenticity, variation, or sovereignty.