Language Models as Measurement Apparatus for Culture

The paper explores how "culture" can be operationalised in Natural Language Processing (NLP) and what this reveals about the possibilities and limits of considering a plurality of cultural backgrounds in technological design. It proposes that cultural alignment cannot be achieved only by adding more examples of "other cultures", rather it requires plural epistemologies: allowing multiple, locally grounded ways of knowing. To analyze how this plurality of knowing can be addressed in NLP, the paper uses a socio-technical model of language technology (LT) design, the five layers of technological activity model, for collecting and systematizing approaches to culture in NLP. The analysis shows that while NLP research has made progress toward more culturally sensitive systems, many approaches remain partial, addressing "culture" primarily at the level of output or representation while leaving deeper questions of power, governance, and social context unresolved. The paper concludes that operationalising culture requires much more than technical adaptation; it suggests a reflexive and plural socio-technical approach that navigates potentials and limits of computational formalisation for accounting multiple linguistic and socio-cultural backgrounds.

Although the cultural (mis)alignment of Large Language Models (LLMs) has attracted increasing attention -- often framed in terms of cultural bias -- until recently there has been limited work on the design and development of datasets for cultural assessment. Here, we review existing approaches to such datasets and identify their main limitations. To address these issues, we propose design guidelines for annotators and report on the construction of a dataset built according to these principles. We further present a series of contrastive experiments conducted with this dataset. The results demonstrate that our design yields test sets with greater discriminative power, effectively distinguishing between models specialized for a given culture and those that are not, ceteris paribus.

LLMs often default to equal treatment across cultural groups, even though context warrants differentiation: this is a lack of difference awareness. Using mechanistic interpretability and a factorial design on the N4 cultural appropriation benchmark from Wang et al. (2025), we identify 2-3 mid-layer attention heads per model that contribute causally to cultural binding across eight models (base and instruct versions of four architectures). Cultural binding is the process of associating a cultural item with its related identity. Knockout of the identity-to-item edges on these heads lowers the binding strength by 9-23%. The identified heads transfer from instruct to base models, suggesting that cultural binding is created during pre-training. An $α$-scaling shows a graded dose-response. Moderate amplification steering at generation ($α= 2-3$) increases cultural differentiation accuracy by 1-3 pp while leaving reasoning on culturally neutral questions mostly intact. A knowledge probing task shows that models know 3-6 times more than they act upon, indicating that the bottleneck lies in routing and not knowledge.