Pragmatics Meets Culture: Culturally-adapted Artwork Description Generation and Evaluation

Recent work has shown that LLMs overrepresent dominant cultures, particularly Western ones, while marginalizing others. We investigate whether this affects models' ability to generate culturally adapted responses by evaluating their use of local measurement units based on the user's perceived cultural background. We introduce Cultural and Pragmatic Response Inference (CAPRI), a dataset of conversations with varying levels of cultural cues. Experiments with state-of-the-art LLMs show that models can infer cultural background and recall relevant conventions, but often fail to utilize the information to adapt their answers to the relevant cultural conventions, unless explicitly prompted to perform the tasks sequentially. We further evaluate adaptation to the interpretation of time and quantity expressions, two subjective language grounding dimensions that are affected by culture. We find that models increasingly adapt their answers as cultural cues accumulate, but their priors are not culture-neutral, sometimes aligning with the model's country of origin. Overall, CAPRI provides a resource for future research aimed at narrowing the gap between cultural knowledge and culturally adaptive language generation.

Many benchmarks show that large language models can answer direct questions about culture. We study a different question: do they also change how they speak when culture is only implied by the situation? We evaluate 60 culturally grounded conversational scenarios across five languages in three conditions: a neutral baseline (Prompt A), an explicit cultural instruction (Prompt B), and implicit situational cueing (Prompt C). We score responses on 12 pragmatic features covering deference to authority, individual-versus-group framing, and uncertainty management. We define Pragmatic Context Sensitivity (PCS) as the fraction of the Prompt A->B shift that reappears under Prompt A->C. Across four deployed LLMs and five languages (English, German, Hindi, Nepali, Urdu), the primary stable-only PCS mean is 0.196 (SD = 0.113), indicating that the models recover only about one-fifth of the pragmatic shift they can produce when instructed explicitly. Transfer is strongest for authority-related cues (0.299) and weakest for individual-versus-group framing (0.120). Uncertainty-related behaviour is mixed: hedging density exhibits negative explicit gaps in all five languages, suggesting that alignment training actively suppresses the target behaviour. Because Hindi and Urdu share core grammar yet index distinct cultural communities, we use them as a natural control; a paired analysis finds no reliable baseline difference (t = 0.96, p = 0.339, dz = 0.06), suggesting that models respond primarily to linguistic structure rather than to the cultural associations a language carries. We argue that multilingual cultural pragmatics is an explicit-versus-implicit deployment problem, not only a factual knowledge problem.

Ambiguity is often treated as a bug for AI systems to resolve---but in human communication and culture, ambiguity can also be a generative resource. From humour to politics to art, people express themselves in words and images that are open enough to invite different interpretations, yet constrained enough to be interpretable. We operationalise this notion of calibrated ambiguity with a task drawn from the parlour game Dixit. We compare differences in clues generated by human vs multimodal language models, based on a novel coding rubric for calibrated ambiguity, and find that models consistently exhibit ambiguity collapse (i.e., their outputs are over-specified, leaving no room for multiple legitimate interpretations). Unlike human clues, AI-generated clues also exhibit cultural flattening; they almost never make reference to culturally-situated knowledge, even when prompted to use allusion and figurative language.