There is No Theoretical Curse of Multilinguality For Embedding Space Structure

This paper argues that contemporary multilingual NLP has converged on a fragile and misleading paradigm of incidental multilingualism. Today's LLMs appear multilingual largely because they are trained on massive, uneven web corpora, not because multilingual or multicultural competence has been treated as a core design objective. We contend that this paradigm systematically produces unequal, brittle, and opaque behavior across languages, with severe consequences in real-world and agentic deployments where models must reason, plan, and act across multiple linguistic contexts. We report a focused empirical study of two practical questions: which languages models self-report as supported and which languages they actually respond in across multilingual prompts. We additionally demonstrate how even a simple language-change attack can surface these failures and expose hidden assumptions about language in LLM-based systems. To address this, we call for a shift toward multilingualism by design: a research agenda that treats equitable multilingual performance, cultural grounding, and cross-lingual behavioral understanding as first-class goals in all aspects of the model pipeline.

Multilingual embedding models are deployed under the assumption that cross-lingual retrieval is symmetric: if a query in language A retrieves its translation in language B, the reverse should also hold. In practice it does not. Using a parallel corpus of 6,518 idiomatic and proverbial expressions in English, Bangla, Hindi, and Arabic, embedded by five production-grade encoders (Gemini, Mistral, OpenAI-L, OpenAI-S, Qwen), we formalise this failure as a deficit in mutual nearest-neighbour reciprocity and test a single mechanistic claim: among the geometric pathologies of multilingual spaces, hubness, not anisotropy, centroid drift, or magnitude, is the dominant causal driver. Across five pre-registered experiments with falsification conditions specified in advance, hub mass dominates a joint regression on reciprocity (49.5% dominance share, 1.68x the next predictor; partial R^2 = 0.302 versus 0.003 for anisotropy), while a hub-aware score correction (CSLS) closes 63.5% of the worst-to-best reciprocity gap and yields a mean within-model effect size 130x larger than surgical hub-vector ablation. The latter contrast pinpoints the mechanism: hubness is a pathology of the similarity metric, not of individual hub vectors. We resolve the well-known anisotropy-hubness paradox by showing the two are statistically dissociable, and we recommend replacing cosine similarity with CSLS as the default retrieval metric for multilingual embedding pipelines.

Large language models (LLMs) have excelled in processing multiple languages through pre- and post-training on multilingual data, even though English dominates the training data. Prior work focusing on token representations has revealed how those LLMs process non-English text. Although these analyses have provided insightful findings, they fail to capture a structural view, which is an inherent property of language. In this study, we explore the multilinguality of LLMs through representational structural analysis. Our findings reveal that low-resource languages are structurally more different from English than high- and mid-resource languages, and that language-specific post-training alters their structures while preserving inter-language relationships.