The Role of Prompt Language and Translation-Theory-Driven Prompts in Large Language Models: A Case Study on Spanish-Chinese Journalistic Translation

Translation-based prompting is widely used in multilingual LLMs, yet its effectiveness varies across languages and tasks. We evaluate prompting strategies across ten languages of different resource levels and four benchmarks. Our analysis shows that no single strategy is universally optimal. Translation strongly benefits low-resource languages even when translation quality is imperfect, high-resource languages gain little, and prompt-based self-routing underperforms explicit translation. Motivated by these findings, we formulate prompting strategy selection as a learned decision problem and introduce lightweight classifiers that predict whether native or translation-based prompting is optimal for each instance. The classifiers achieve statistically significant improvements over fixed strategies across four benchmarks and generalize to unseen task formats not observed during training. Further analysis reveals that language resource level, rather than translation quality alone, determines when translation is beneficial.

Large language models perform well on high-resource pairs but are less reliable for Japanese-Chinese sentences containing noun-modifying clause constructions (NMCCs). This study evaluates a retrieval-augmented generation RAG+Prompt translation system that integrates linguistic analysis, embedding-based retrieval, prompt construction, and LLM generation without modifying the base model. The analysis module outputs A1 (inner vs. outer NMCC) and A2 (risk predictions: lexical choice/NMCC handling/word order/style/register); top-k = 5 similar Ja-Zh examples (L2 distance) and A1/A2 are inserted into an enhanced prompt. Using GPT-4o and a 66-sentence test set, we compare six knowledge-base sizes (0/100/200/500/1,000/2,000). Macro-averaged sentence-level BLEU (1-4-gram with brevity penalty; cased; Chinese at the character level) is the sole metric. Mean BLEU increases from 24.28 at 0 (RAG disabled) to 29.96 at 2,000 (+5.68; +23.4%). The upward trend holds across sizes, with larger knowledge bases yielding higher scores. We conclude that the RAG+Prompt translation system improves Ja-Zh translation of sentences containing NMCCs in an interpretable and auditable manner. Limitations include one base model, one metric, and reliance on published texts and commercial APIs; future work will broaden genres, language pairs, and evaluation metrics.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as general-purpose translation systems, but their behavior is usually evaluated under a single prompt shape: translate one source sentence into one target language. In practice, users may ask for one target language, for several related languages at once, or for translations conditioned on examples. This paper studies prompt scope and demonstration selection as experimental variables for local LLM machine translation. We evaluate English-to-Romance and English-to-Germanic translation on the full FLORES devtest split for nine official European Union languages. We compare three local instruction-tuned LLMs, llama3.2:3b, mistral:latest, and qwen2.5:14b, against dedicated MT baselines from OPUS-MT and NLLB-200. We test zero-shot prompting and k=5 few-shot prompting with random, lexical-similarity, and embedding-similarity demonstration selection. We also compare single-target prompts with JSON-formatted family-scope prompts that request all languages in a family at once. Results show that dedicated MT systems remain strongest overall, especially for Germanic languages. Few-shot prompting helps mistral:latest and qwen2.5:14b, but hurts llama3.2:3b; embedding retrieval is best on average for the stronger LLMs, but its advantage over random and lexical examples is modest. Family-scope prompting is feasible for stronger local LLMs but exposes structured-output failures in smaller models. These findings motivate evaluating LLM translation not only by language pair and metric, but also by prompt scope, retrieval strategy, and multi-target compliance.