PofoliaShared via Pofolia

Language Policy· 2026Q1

Whose voices count? Multilingualism, AI policy, and equity at Hispanic-Serving institutions

Zhongfeng Tian, M. Sidury Christiansen

Short summary

AI policies at two Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) implicitly favor English and place uneven burdens on multilingual users, despite institutional commitments to diverse language practices.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Key points

  • University AI policies at two HSIs implicitly favor English, leaving multilingual practices unaddressed.
  • Responsible AI use is framed through procedural compliance and individual responsibility, creating uneven burdens for multilingual users.
  • Institutional AI policies function as de facto language policies, reproducing monolingual assumptions.
  • AI governance and institutional linguistic priorities are not yet integrated at these HSIs.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Abstract

Abstract Universities have been rapidly developing generative AI policies to govern teaching, learning, research, and administration. Although these policies are typically framed around innovation, academic integrity, and risk management, they also shape language practices and participation in multilingual institutional contexts. Drawing on language policy scholarship that conceptualizes policy as discourse-in-action, this study examines AI policy discourse at two Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) in the United States. Using critical discourse analysis of AI guidance documents, syllabus templates, faculty guidelines, task force materials, and administrative communications, we identify two interrelated patterns across both institutions. First, AI governance constructs an implicitly English-dominant user while leaving multilingual practices and perspectives largely unaddressed. Second, responsible AI use is framed through procedural compliance and individualized responsibility, creating uneven terrain for multilingual users to navigate. Together, these patterns suggest that institutional AI policies function as de facto language policies that reproduce monolingual assumptions through both what they explicitly address and what they leave unsaid. Read against each institution’s broader commitments to multilingual communities, these findings indicate that AI governance and institutional linguistic priorities have not yet been fully integrated. We conclude by proposing a five-dimension continuum for more linguistically responsive and participatory AI governance across domains of governance, language orientation, ethics, responsibility, and innovation.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Language Policy, 2026 · DOI ↗

TakeawaysPremium
Ask the paperFree account

Continue with a free account

Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.

Continue free on the web

Sign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.

On your phone:

Field: Linguistics and Language

Linguistics and LanguageSocial Sciences