Abstract
Cross-lingual transfer in language models is difficult to study in natural corpora because lexical overlap, morphology, data imbalance, and tokenization are entangled. We introduce an in-vitro framework with two procedurally generated languages that share the same ontology, typed grammar, and compositional structure, but differ in surface realization. This lets us independently vary lexical distance, minority-language proportion, tokenizer training regime, and vocabulary size, while evaluating transfer on a masked minority-language condition whose lexical forms are never observed during training. Across 700 controlled runs, we find that transfer is governed less by tokenizer balance or raw lexical similarity than by whether tokenization preserves reusable cross-lingual substructure. Smaller vocabularies often improve masked transfer by keeping words decomposable into shared fragments, whereas larger vocabularies can turn forms into language-specific atoms. We further show that transfer emerges as a staged process: grammatical and type-level competence precede masked lexical generalization. Finally, we attempt to explain this mechanism through tokenizer bridges and show that bridge strength correlates strongly with masked reachability.
Explore similar work
Jun 20, 2026cs.CL
Cross-lingual transfer is a model's ability to generalize capabilities from well-represented source languages to under-represented target languages. Existing measures of a model's transfer strength conflate improvements in transfer with general improvements to accuracy in the source language. We advocate for an alternate metric that reliably captures transfer strength called Hardness Adjusted Transfer (HAT) Score, and use it to derive multiple insights on factors influencing transfer strength. Our analysis across twenty diverse language models and three popular mainstream multilingual benchmarks argues that 1) transfer in small models is not broken, 2) we are making slower than expected progress in cross-lingual transfer with model size, and 3) we have made clear progress over time.
Prasoon Bajpai, Eleftheria Briakou, Colin Cherry +2
Apr 19, 2026cs.CL
Large language models exhibit impressive cross-lingual capabilities. However, prior work analyzes this phenomenon through isolated factors and at sparse points during training, limiting our understanding of how cross-lingual generalization emerges--particularly in the early phases of learning. To study the early trajectory of linguistic and translation capabilities, we pretrain a multilingual 1.7B model on nine diverse languages, capturing checkpoints at a much finer granularity. We use word-level translation as a testbed, introducing a novel dataset to trace how translation develops over training through behavioral analyses, model-component analysis, and parameter-based ablations. We find that the model quickly acquires basic linguistic capabilities in parallel with token-level copying, while translation develops in two distinct phases: an initial phase dominated by copying and surface-level similarities, and a second phase in which more generalizing translation mechanisms are developed while copying is refined. Together, these findings provide a fine-grained view of how cross-lingual generalization develops during multilingual pretraining.
Felicia Körner, Maria Matveev, Florian Eichin +3
Jul 20, 2026cs.CL
Multilingual language models rely on shared subword vocabularies to represent multiple languages within a limited number of token units. While such sharing is often useful, it can also create cases in which identical surface forms are treated too uniformly across languages, even when their meanings or usage differ. We investigate this limitation through cross-lingual homographs and false friends, and examine whether introducing language information earlier in the tokenization process can improve their treatment. We propose a simple tokenizer-level intervention based on language cues: language-specific characters replacing initial characters of shared-vocabulary words, reducing common identity during vocabulary construction. In intrinsic analysis, we find through tokenizer-level statistics that BPE and UnigramLM often treat cross-lingual homographs in a largely language agnostic way, whereas the context-sensitive SaGe tokenizer diverges more strongly; our intervention removes this gap. In downstream English-to-X machine translation, our cues yield modest improvements in several settings, especially under BPE, although the effect is not consistent across all languages and evaluation sets. Overall, the findings suggest that adding lightweight language information at the tokenizer level is a promising direction for further exploration.
Rotem Brillant, Yuval Pinter