Designing Language Technologies for Social Good: The Road not Taken
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Development of speech and language technology for social good (LT4SG), especially those targeted at the welfare of marginalized communities and speakers of low-resource and under-served languages, has been a prominent theme of research within NLP, Speech, and the AI communities. Researchers have mostly relied on their individual expertise, experiences or ad hoc surveys for prioritization of language technologies that provide social good to the end-users. This has been criticized by several scholars who argue that work on LT4SG must include the target linguistic communities during the design and development process. However, none of the LT4SG work and their critiques suggest principled techniques for prioritization of the technologies and methods for inclusion of the end-user during the development cycle. Drawing inspiration from the fields of Economics, Ethics, Psychology, and Participatory Design, here we chart out a set of methodologies for prioritizing LT4SG that are aligned with the end-user preferences. We then analyze several LT4SG efforts in light of the proposed methodologies and bring out their hidden assumptions and potential pitfalls. While the current study is limited to language technologies, we believe that the principles and prioritization techniques highlighted here are applicable more broadly to AI for Social Good.
Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 5 of its 58 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 Oct 2021.
Builds on
5 of 58 references.
References · 5
- 2020Participatory Research for Low-resourced Machine Translation: A Case Study in African Languagescited by 159
- 2020TICO-19: the Translation Initiative for Covid-19cited by 67
- 2020Adoption and Effects of Software Engineering Best Practices in Machine Learningcited by 33
- 2019Unsung Challenges of Building and Deploying Language Technologies for Low Resource Language Communitiescited by 19
- 2021How Good Is NLP? A Sober Look at NLP Tasks through the Lens of Social Impactcited by 18
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2022: 1; 2023: 0; 2024: 4.
5 papers.
- 2022Challenges and Strategies in Cross-Cultural NLPcited by 216
- 2024What Do Dialect Speakers Want? A Survey of Attitudes Towards Language Technology for German Dialectscited by 20
- 2024A Tulu Resource for Machine Translationcited by 4
- 2024Monolingual and Multilingual Misinformation Detection for Low-Resource Languages: A Comprehensive Surveycited by 4
- 2024What is the social benefit of hate speech detection research? A Systematic Reviewcited by 0
- 2024Monolingual and Multilingual Misinformation Detection for Low-Resource Languages: A Comprehensive Survey24 Oct 2024
- 2024What is the social benefit of hate speech detection research? A Systematic Review26 Sep 2024
- 2024A Tulu Resource for Machine Translation28 Mar 2024
- 2024What Do Dialect Speakers Want? A Survey of Attitudes Towards Language Technology for German Dialects19 Feb 2024
- 2022Challenges and Strategies in Cross-Cultural NLP18 Mar 2022