We introduce Dango, a 1.8B-parameter large language model designed for controlled studies of L1-to-L2 (Japanese-to-English) transfer in second language acquisition (SLA). While previous studies have explored SLA in language models, they have predominantly relied on smaller or non-decoder models, limiting their ability to generate open-ended text and reducing their suitability as practical L2 simulators. We identify a key challenge when scaling models to this size: L2 contamination within the "monolingual" pretraining corpus used for L1 acquisition. To address this, we propose a filtering method to reduce premature exposure to English while preserving realistic, minimal exposure. We then fine-tune the model on LLM-generated L2-learning lessons to simulate the L2 acquisition process. Our evaluations confirm that Dango develops human-like L2 production patterns, outperforming both unfiltered and standard multilingual baselines. We release the model, data, and code to facilitate reproducible computational SLA research and learner-facing applications.
Constructed languages (conlangs) are intentionally created human languages with a rich tradition of linguistic creativity. Despite their potential for studying language learning in large language models (LLMs), existing conlangs remain largely underexplored in LLM research. We present ConlangBench, the first large-scale benchmark for evaluating and training LLMs on 21 existing conlangs. We collect over 21M conlang-English parallel sentence pairs (including 430K pairs across the 20 non-Esperanto conlangs) and 321K vocabulary entries. In bidirectional translation experiments, we find that models perform better on a posteriori conlangs, whose vocabularies are derived from natural languages, reflecting the design characteristics of conlangs. Training on ConlangBench also shows that models can learn all eight conlangs for which sufficient parallel corpora are available, while their learning curves vary depending on how the conlangs were created. Our findings suggest that conlangs provide a unique testbed for investigating how LLMs acquire low-resource languages.
Despite the widespread multilingual deployment of large language models, post-training pipelines remain predominantly English-centric, contributing to performance disparities across languages. We present a systematic, controlled study of the interplay between training language coverage, model scale, and task domain, based on 220 supervised fine-tuning runs on parallel translated multilingual data mixtures spanning mathematical reasoning and API calling tasks, with models up to 8B parameters. We find that English-only post-training is typically suboptimal: incorporating even a single non-English language improves both English performance and cross-lingual generalization. Increasing language diversity during post-training generally yields further gains, particularly for low-resource languages, while performance on high-resource languages tends to plateau rather than degrade. Moreover, greater language diversity enables strong zero-shot transfer to unseen languages, reducing the need for direct inclusion, though gains remain limited for typologically distant, low-resource languages.
Large language models increasingly understand dialectal English, yet still produce only standard, US-leaning English, leaving dialectal generation, the harder half of the problem, largely unaddressed. We introduce DiaLLM, which continually pretrains three open-weight language model families on the International Corpus of English and applies implicit and explicit post-training paradigms, each combined with three model alignment strategies, giving the first controlled comparison of these components across Australian, Indian, and Northern British English. Our results reveal a robustness-generation gap: benchmarks are shaped by continual pretraining and SFT, while alignment visibly reshapes generation in ways benchmarks do not capture. Explicit variety-targeted adaptation produces output reliably recognised as dialectal and judged more dialectal than broad alignment, yet where human judgement was directly assessed, the method that most aggressively optimises the dialectal reward is not the one judged most dialectal. Independent linguistic analysis corroborates this reward-quality gap, most clearly on two of the three families. No single alignment method dominates, and closing the gap will require richer reward designs and continued investment in dialectal resources. We release all code, checkpoints, and preference datasets.
Jordan Painter, Dipankar Srirag, Adarsh Kappiyath +3