Speaking of Language: Reflections on Metalanguage Research in NLP

Language models are commonly discussed as technical artefacts, but they are obviously shaped by the linguistic worlds conveyed by data during their training. Using Italian language models as evidence, I want to bring attention to the nature of the systems which result from training and specialising models on translated and synthetic data, and further curating them, and to the meaning of testing them on equally unnatural data. Are these eventually models of Italian? Are they models of language? Does NLP still care about language? These questions yield another, more concrete question: what language do we actually want language models to produce? I argue that this question cannot be answered if we do not first consider a clearer distinction between language models designed as technical products and language models designed as tools for studying language itself. The answers then might be diverse, the languages we are talking about might be diverse, and the picture might not be as pessimistic as we fear.

Multilingual NLP research increasingly involves hundreds or thousands of languages across different datasets. Managing, discovering, and reporting language metadata becomes a common hurdle at these scales. We present QQ, a metadata toolkit and browser explorer. QQ compiles language metadata sources into a graph of language varieties, scripts, regions, identifiers, names, and relations, and exposes it through a Python API, a command-line interface, and a browser-based explorer. Users can normalize identifiers, retrieve metadata, traverse relations, and discover which external resources contain a language. We demonstrate QQ on three workflows: an audit of the HuggingFace Hub, linking resources that use different identifier systems, and generating reproducible language-reporting tables. QQ supports FAIR-oriented metadata practices through versioning, open formats, and reusable interfaces.

Multilingual Large Language Models (mLLMs) leaderboards report per-language accuracy but rarely explain why disparities emerge, leaving systemic biases unattributed and offering practitioners no actionable levers. We first establish that these gaps are systematic rather than artifacts of sampling noise via distribution-free Friedman and Kruskal--Wallis tests, then introduce a two-step Bayesian hierarchical framework that decomposes multilingual performance variance into interpretable components. First, isolating the variance attributable to language identity, we show that observable language features (script, family, typological distance) explain $R^2_{\text{ling}} = 79\%$ of this variance on understanding tasks and $92\%$ on reasoning, with a model's internal representational similarity to English emerging as the dominant predictor across both task buckets. Second, decomposing the full (model$\times$benchmark$\times$language) cube, we find that NLU and reasoning have fundamentally divergent variance profiles: model identity dominates understanding ($66.7\%$ of variance), whereas the benchmark$\times$model interaction dominates reasoning ($46.3\%$). Together these results recast multilingual evaluation from passive performance mapping into an explainable, diagnostic framework with concrete levers for targeting the root drivers of language disparity.