Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics

Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics

Dismantling the Discursive Representation of Women in AI-Generated Life-Changing Narratives: A Critical Discourse Analysis

Document Type : Research Article

Author
Faculty of Learning Sciences and Education, Thammasat University, Rangsit Campus, Pathum Thani, Thailand
Abstract
ChatGPT’s reliance on large datasets sourced from the Internet has begun to cause concerns over the possibility that the artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot may perpetuate societal biases manifested in forms such as racial, gender, and class discrimination. This qualitative research thus attempted to explore how ChatGPT shapes social identities and ideologies of women depicted in life-changing narratives. Fairclough’s (2013) critical discourse analysis (CDA), coupled with poststructuralist feminism, was used as the theoretical framework for analyzing lexical choices that construe biases related to women in narrative texts. To examine ChatGPT’s discursive construction of text, 40 different prompts were created to generate 40 life-changing narrative articles that were to be published in women’s magazines. With the help of WordSmith Tools, connotative word choices were repetitively deployed to construe ‘real’ women as ‘powerful,’ ‘independent,’ and ‘transformative’ individuals. Additionally, nominalizations and relational processes were the distinctively employed discursive strategies, leading to the omission of concrete actions, genuine voices, and emotions of women. The exclusive women-to-women form of assistance ideology was also discursively manifested, narrating stories of successful female leaders who inspired vulnerable women to transform their lives. Findings suggest critical language awareness is a necessary tool to assist modern writers to determine what is buried in AI-generated discourses, minimizing the distribution of social biases.
Keywords

  1. Andujar, A., & Spratt, M. (2023). Using AI to support CLIL teacher language. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 14(2), 7-19. https://https://doi.org/ 10.22055/rals.2023.45267.3177

    Attwood, F. (2011). Through the looking glass? Sexual agency and subjectification online. In R. Gill, & C.

    Scharff. (Eds.), New femininities: Postfeminism, neoliberalism, and subjectivity (pp. 203-214). London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Bang, Y., Cahyawijaya, S., Lee, N., Dai, W., Su, D., Wilie, B., Lovenia, H., Ji, Z., Yu, T., Chung, W., Do, Q.V., Xu, Y., & Fung, P. (2023). A multitask, multilingual, multimodal evaluation of ChatGPT on reasoning, hallucination, and interactivity. Computation and Language, 1, 675-718. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2302.04023

    Baaz, M. & Lilja, M. (2022). “Reverse discourse” revisited: Cracks, formations, and a complex understanding of power. Global Society, 36(3), 301-308. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600826.2022.2052026

    Blackie, M. A. L. (2024). ChatGPT is a game changer: Detection and eradication is not the way forward.  

    Teaching in Higher Education, 29(4), 1109-1116. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2023.2300951

    Cameron, D. (1985). Feminism and linguistic theory. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Christoffersen, A. (2023). Applying intersectionality in policy and practice: Unseating the dominance of gender in responding to social inequalities. SOZIALPOLITIK, 1(7), 1-13. 

    Coelho, Z.P., & Ribeiro, S.M. (2014). Discourses of heterosexuality in women's magazines’ ads: Visual realizations and their ideological underpinnings. Observatorio (OBS*), 8(2), 17-43. https://doi.org/10.15847/obsOBS822014761

    Cohen, G. (2023). What should ChatGPT mean for bioethics? The American Journal of Bioethics, 23(10), 8-16. https://https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2023.2233357

    Collins, P. H., & Bilge, S. (2020). Intersectionality (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139-167. http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8

    Diabah, G. (2023). Gendered discourses and pejorative language use: An analysis of YouTube comments on we should all be feminists. Discourse, Context & Media, 51(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2022.100667

    de-Teso-Craviotto, M. (2006). Words that matter: Lexical choice and gender ideologies in women’s magazines. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 2003-2021.

    Deng, J., & Lin, Y. (2023). The benefits and challenges of ChatGPT: An overview. Frontiers in Computing and Intelligent Systems, 2(2), 81-83. https://doi.org/10.54097/fcis.v2i2.4465

    Durmus, E., Nyugen, K., Liao, T. I., Schiefer, N., Askell, A., Bakhtin, A., Chen, C. et al. (2023). Towards measuring the representation of subjective global opinions in language models. https://https://doi.org/10.48 550/arXiv.2306.16388

    Esposito, E. (2023). Discourse, intersectionality, critique: Theory, methods, and practice. Critical Discourse Studies, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2023.2230602

    Eggins, S. (2004). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics (2nd ed.). London: Continuum.

    Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.

    Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and text: Linguistic and intertextual analysis within discourse analysis. Discourse and Society, 3, 193-217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0957926592003002004

    Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis. London: Longman.

    Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis and critical policy studies. Critical Policy Studies, 7, 177-197. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2013.798239

    Farhall, K. (2018). ‘Girl-on-girl confessions!’ Changing representations of female-female sexuality in two Australian women’s magazines. Sexualities, 21(1-2), 212-232. https://doi.org/10.1177/136346071 6679388

    Ferrara, E. (2023). Should ChatGPT be biased? Challenges and risks of bias in large language models. First Monday, 28(11). https://https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv. 2304.03738

    Foucault, M. (1990). The history of sexuality (vol. 1): An introduction. New York: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.

    Gill, R., & Orgad, S. (2017). Confidence culture and the remaking of feminism. New Formations, 91, 16-34. https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/74346/

    Gill, R., & Scharff, C. (Eds.). (2011). New femininities: Postfeminism, neoliberalism, and subjectivity. London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Glosh, S., & Caliskan, A. (2023). ChatGPT perpetuates gender bias in machine translation and ignores nongendered pronouns: Findings across Bengali and five other low-resource languages. Proceedings of AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, USA, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.10510

    Golab-Andrzejak, E. (2023). The impact of Generative AI and ChatGPT on creating digital advertising campaigns. Cybernetics and Systems, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/01969722.2023.2296253

    Gross, N. (2023). What ChatGPT tells us about gender: A cautionary tale about performativity and gender biases in AI. Soc. Sci., 12(435). https://doi.org/ 10.3390/socsci12080435

    Halliday, M. A. K. (2004). The language of science. London: Continuum.

    Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. (2004). An Introduction to functional grammar. London: Routledge.

    Hartmann, J., Schwenzow, J., & Witte, M. (2023). The political ideology of conversational AI: Converging evidence on ChatGPT’s proenvironmental, left-libertarian orientation. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv. 2301.01768

    Hoffman, F. J., & Iso, K. (2024). Google, ChatGPT, questions of omniscience, and wisdom. Asian Philosophy, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/09552367.2024.2366046

    Jaton, F. (2020). The constitution of algorithms. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Arnold.

    Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2020). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London/ New York: Routledge.

    Lazer, M. M. (2011). The right to be beautiful: Postfeminist identity and consumer beauty advertising. In

    1. Gill, & C. Scharff. (Eds.), New femininities: Postfeminism, neoliberalism, and subjectivity (pp.37-51). London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Landgrebe, J., & Smith, B. (2021). Making AI meaningful again. Syntheses, 198(3), 2061-2081. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02192-y

    Lindebaum, D., & Fleming, P. (2023). ChatGPT undermines human reflexivity, scientific responsibility and responsible management research. British Journal of Management, 35, 566-575. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12781

    Litosseliti, E., Gill, R., & Favaro, L. (2019). Postfeminism as a critical tool for gender and language study. Gender and Language, 13(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1558/ genl.34599

    Machin, D., & Mayr, A. (2023). How to do critical discourse analysis: A multimodal introduction. Los Angeles: SAGE.

    Machin, D., & Thornborrow, J. (2003). Branding and discourse: The case of cosmopolitan. Discourse & Society, 14, 453-471. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926503014004003

    Mackenzie, J. (2018) Language, gender, and parenthood online: Negotiating motherhood in Mumsnet Talk. Oxon: Routledge.

    Maleknia, Z., Alemi, M., & Tajeddin, Z. (2022). Language teachers’ gendered identity in ideologized spaces: A narrative analysis of their positioning. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 58-69. https://https://doi.org/ 10.22055/rals.2022.17425

    Moosavinia, S. R., Racevskis, K., & Talebi, S. (2019). Edward Said and Michel Foucault: Representation of the notion of discourse in colonial discourse theory. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 182-197. https://https://doi.org/ 10.22055/rals.2019.14723

    Muñoz-Puig, M. (2023). Intersectional power struggles in feminist movements: An analysis of resistance and counter-resistance to intersectionality. Gender, Work, & Organization, 31(3), 1133-1147. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12995

    O’Neill, B. (2015). New feminism’s war on women. Policy, 31(2), 12-14.

    OpenAI. (2023). ChatGPT (Nov 12 version) [Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com/chat

    Quan, Z., & Chen, Z. (2024). Human-computer pragmatics trialled: Some (im)polite interactions with ChatGPT4.0 and the ensuing implications. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10494820.2024.2362829

    Ray, P. P. (2023). ChatGPT: A comprehensive review on background, applications, key, challenges,bias, ethics, limitations, and future scope. Internet of Things and Cyber-Physical Systems, 3, 121-154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iotcps. 2023.04.003

    Rahimzadeh, V., Kostick-Quenet, K., Blumenthal Barby, J., & McGuire, A. L. (2023). Ethics education for healthcare professionals in the era of ChatGPT and other Large Language Models: Do we still need it? The American Journal of Bioethics, 23(10), 17-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2023.2233358

    Reisigl, M. (2013). Critical discourse analysis. Oxford University Press.

    Rivas, P., & Zhao, L. (2023). Marketing with ChatGPT: Navigating the ethical terrain of GPT-based chatbot technology. Artificial Intelligence, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/ai4020019

    Sanders, L. S. (2001). Feminists love a utopia: Collaboration, conflict, and the futures of feminism. In S. Gillis, G. Howie, R. Munford (Eds.), The third wave feminism: A critical exploration (pp. 60-64). London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Scott, M. (2022). WordSmith Tools version 8 (64 bit version). Stroud: Lexical Analysis Software.

    Simon-Kumar, R. (2023). Affirming fissures: Conceptualizing intersectional ‘ethnic’ feminism in Aotearoa New Zealand. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 44(4), 454-469. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1554477X.20 23.2247927

    Shewale, R. (2024). ChatGPT statistics—User demographics (January 2024). Demandsage. https://www.demandsage.com/chatgpt-statistics/

    Suguri Motoki, F. Y., Pinho Neto, V., & Rodrigues, V. (2023). More human than human: Measuring ChatGPTpolitical bias. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4372349

    Sunderland, J. (2006). Language and gender: An advanced resource book. London: Routledge.

    Tyler, I. (2011). Pregnant beauty: Maternal femininities under neoliberalism. In R. Gill & C. Scharff. (Eds.), New femininities: Postfeminism, neoliberalism, and subjectivity (pp. 21-36). London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Tannen, D. Schiffrin, & H. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 352-371). Cambridge, MA and Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

    van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and power. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-07299-3

    Wang, Z. (2024). Post-rhetoric: A rhetoric profile of the generative artificial intelligence chatbot. Rhetoric Review, 43(3), 155-172. https://doi.org/10/1080/07350198.2024.2351723

    Weiss, G., & Wodak, R. (2003). Introduction: Theory, interdisciplinarity and critical discourse analysis. In G.

    Weiss & R. Wodak (Eds.), Critical discourse analysis: Theory and interdisciplinarity (pp. 1-34). Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Wodak, R. (2009). The discourse of politics in action: Politics as usual. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009). Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory, and methodology. In R.

    Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods for critical discourse analysis (pp. 1-33). London: SAGE.

    Yoong, M. (2023). “If your voice isn't accepted, does it mean you stop talking?” Exploring a woman leader’s reversal of postfeminist confidence discourses. Gender in Management, 38(2), 200-214. https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-06-2022-0207

    Zeng, A., Attarian, M., Ichter, B., Choromanski, K., Wong, A., Welker, S., Tombari, F., et al. (2022). Socratic models: Composing zero-shot multimodal reasoning with language. arXiv, 1-30. https://https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2204.00598

    Zheng, E.L., & Lee, S. S. J. (2023). The epistemological danger of large language models. The American Journal of Bioethics, 23(1), 102-104. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2023.2250294