Evidence for systematic semantic structure in individual letters

Sound symbolism, the human tendency to map speech sounds to perceptual qualities such as roundness or sharpness, arises primarily from the acoustics of speech rather than spelling. Whether Speech Language Models (SLMs) share this tendency remains open, as prior evaluations rely on text or images rather than real speech. We study it using genuine human speech recordings, comparing model judgments against human data across the auditory, crossmodal, and visual components of the effect. We find that SLMs' auditory judgments align poorly with human perception and miss the acoustic cues, such as spectral tilt, that drive human intuitions, and open-weight models cannot reliably link a heard sound to its corresponding shape. With a visual-only control ruling out shape perception, the weakness localizes to how speech is represented, suggesting that perceptual alignment depends not on stronger vision but on speech representations that capture the cues humans hear.

Grammaticality and likelihood are distinct notions in human language. Pretrained language models (LMs), which are probabilistic models of language fitted to maximize corpus likelihood, generate grammatically well-formed text and discriminate well between grammatical and ungrammatical sentences in tightly controlled minimal pairs. However, their string probabilities do not sharply discriminate between grammatical and ungrammatical sentences overall. But do LMs implicitly acquire a grammaticality distinction distinct from string probability? We explore this question through studying internal representations of LMs, by training a linear probe on a dataset of grammatical and (synthetic) ungrammatical sentences obtained by applying perturbations to a naturalistic text corpus. We find that this simple grammaticality probe generalizes to human-curated grammaticality judgment benchmarks and outperforms LM probability-based grammaticality judgments. When applied to semantic plausibility benchmarks, in which both members of a minimal pair are grammatical and differ in only plausibility, the probe however performs worse than string probability. The English-trained probe also exhibits nontrivial cross-lingual generalization, outperforming string probabilities on grammaticality benchmarks in numerous other languages. Additionally, probe scores correlate only weakly with string probabilities. These results collectively suggest that LMs acquire to some extent an implicit grammaticality distinction within their hidden layers.

Large language models (LLMs) have excelled in processing multiple languages through pre- and post-training on multilingual data, even though English dominates the training data. Prior work focusing on token representations has revealed how those LLMs process non-English text. Although these analyses have provided insightful findings, they fail to capture a structural view, which is an inherent property of language. In this study, we explore the multilinguality of LLMs through representational structural analysis. Our findings reveal that low-resource languages are structurally more different from English than high- and mid-resource languages, and that language-specific post-training alters their structures while preserving inter-language relationships.