More Aligned, Less Diverse? Analyzing the Grammar and Lexicon of Two Generations of LLMs

Syntactic convergence (the tendency of speakers to adapt in language towards the grammatical profiles of their interlocutors) is a well-documented feature of human dialogue widely considered to operate below conscious awareness. Whether large language models exhibit analogous syntactic convergence toward human users relative to human baselines and across a broad range of syntactic constructions remains an open question. Using substitution-paradigm data in which model generations replace one speaker's turns in pre-existing human dialogues, this study measures turn-adjacent reuse of context-free grammar (CFG) rules across sixteen open-weight Llama and Gemma models (1B-70B, pretrained and instruction-tuned) at 1,901 matched positions per model. Every model showed greater CFG-rule overlap with the preceding human turn than with a sampled unrelated human prime, and in every model this actual-versus-random difference was larger for lower-frequency rules. Each instruction-tuned model also showed greater natural-output overlap with the actual prime than the human response it replaced, and all eight matched architecture pairs exhibited greater actual-prime overlap after instruction tuning. However, relative to pretrained variants, instruction-tuned outputs overlapped more with unrelated primes, showed a smaller actual-versus-random increment, and had lower conditional rule-reuse odds once target rule-set size was held constant. In exploratory analyses, each model exhibited greater mean lexical and semantic similarity to the preceding turn than the matched human responses did. Instruction-tuned models additionally produced responses with greater mean semantic similarity than their pretrained counterparts in all eight architecture pairs, whereas the lexical similarity results were more heterogeneous.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have enabled the generation of high-quality prose, yet whether these models are capable of generating diverse or creative artifacts remains a contested question. In this work, we investigate the diversity of LLM-generated stories through the framework of narrative similarity. Using a contrastive framework and a dataset of human-written stories and prompts from r/WritingPrompts, we collect narrative similarity judgments across 10 representative LLMs, utilizing both human evaluations and three different automatic annotation methods. Our findings reveal a clear trend: LLM-generated narratives are consistently more similar to each other than human-written stories are. We demonstrate that frontier models in particular converge on a "mean" generic narrative that approximates individual human stories but lacks the collective diversity of human authors. Finally, we show that common mitigation strategies, including negative prompting and temperature scaling, fail to meaningfully address this homogeneity.

Prior work on LLM-generated text has demonstrated quantitative and qualitative departures from text produced by humans. LLM-generated texts differ from human writing in style, resulting in a characteristic textual "feel," while the semantic range of LLMs is much restricted compared to that of humans. In this contribution, I note simple but consistent patterns in the statistical distribution of n-grams within LLM-generated text. Via qualitative analysis of these n-grams, I reveal deficiencies in LLM style. Because higher-order n-grams correlate to semantic content, I conclude that questions of style and semantics are not cleanly separable.