Organizations: University of Hildesheim, Institute of Translation Studies and Specialised Communication, Germany · University of Paris 8 Vincennes-Saint Denis, TransCrit, France · University of Hildesheim, Institute of Information Science and Language Technology, Germany
Abstract
In this paper, we draw a comparison between linguists in training, a trained linguist, and annotations generated by large language models (LLMs) to find out if they struggle with complex linguistic phenomena in a similar way. For this purpose, we analyse evaluative language in spoken popular science discourse, with the example of a corpus of English TED talk transcripts. We focus on the Appraisal theory and its Attitude subsystem, including the categories (classes) of Affect, Judgement, and Appreciation. In this context, Appraisal theory is an example of a highly subjective annotation task, making it a suitable example for the study of complex annotation challenges. First, we assess human annotations on a sentence level in specific scientific domains. Then, we develop three prompts and compare them for model performance for the automatic classification of Appraisal classes. We assess the performance of three LLMs using the best-performing prompt and finetune the model, reaching an F1-score of 0.77. We find that models perform best compared to annotations conducted by the trained linguist, while linguists in training do not reach high agreement scores. We conclude that LLMs can aid in complex annotation task resolution, opening new pathways for the complex theories annotated and analyzed in digital humanities studies.
Although large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as annotators at scale, they are typically treated as a pragmatic fallback rather than a faithful estimator of human perspectives. This work challenges that presumption. By framing perspective-taking as the estimation of a latent group-level judgment, we characterize the conditions under which modern LLMs can outperform human annotators, including in-group humans, when predicting aggregate subgroup opinions on subjective tasks, and show that these conditions are common in practice. This advantage arises from structural properties of LLMs as estimators, including low variance and reduced coupling between representation and processing biases, rather than any claim of lived experience. Our analysis identifies clear regimes where LLMs act as statistically superior frontline estimators, as well as principled limits where human judgment remains essential. These findings reposition LLMs from a cost-saving compromise to a principled tool for estimating collective human perspectives.
Linguistic annotation of transcribed speech is essential for research in language acquisition, language disorders, and sociolinguistics, yet remains labor-intensive and time-consuming. While Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in automating annotation tasks, their ability to handle complex discourse-level annotation in non-English languages remains understudied. This study evaluates whether LLMs can reliably annotate narrative macrostructure-the hierarchical organization of story grammar elements-in spoken Mandarin, using the Multilingual Assessment Instrument for Narratives (MAIN) as a testbed. We compared four LLMs against trained human annotators on narratives produced by children, young adults, and older adults. The best-performing model achieved agreement with human raters (k=.794) approaching human-human reliability levels (k=.872) while reducing annotation time by 65%, whereas the locally deployable lightweight model performed substantially worse. Annotation difficulty varied systematically by macrostructure element type, with categories requiring subtle semantic differentiation posing persistent challenges. Furthermore, model reliability decreased on young adult narratives, which exhibited greater lexical variation, semantic ambiguity, and multi-element integration within single utterances. These findings suggest that LLMs can effectively support discourse-level annotation in non-English spoken corpora, while highlighting the continued need for human oversight in semantically complex tasks. Our prompt templates are open sourced for future use.
Annotating speaker attributes from text is inherently ambiguous, particularly in multilingual settings where demographic and social cues are implicit and culturally variable. We propose a human-large language model (LLM) collaborative re-annotation framework for stabilizing multilingual speaker-attribute labels under practical resource constraints. Starting from a noisy corpus, we use LLMs to surface recurring annotation rationales through iterative interaction with experts, and apply disagreement-focused sampling for targeted re-annotation. Using this framework, we construct WhoSaidIt, a multilingual dataset covering nine speaker-attribute labels. We quantify divergence between original and revised annotations, benchmark recent LLMs, and analyze the effect of explicit rationales on model behavior. Our results reveal substantial cross-lingual differences in annotation decisions and demonstrate both the strengths and limitations of LLMs in speaker-attribute classification.