Typological Alignment of Stack-Based Language Models on Mildly Context-Sensitive Artificial Languages

Many of the thousands of attested languages share common configurations of features, creating a spectrum from typologically very rare (e.g., object-verb-subject word order) or impossible languages to very common combinations of features (e.g., subject-object-verb word order). One central question is under what conditions such typological tendencies can be predicted, and specifically whether the learning bias of language models (LMs) is sufficient to reproduce such patterns. In this study, we add one dimensionality to such analysis -- the learning scenario for LMs -- to explore its interaction with the inductive bias of LMs. Specifically, as a first study, we examine the effect of curriculum learning (CL), as a developmentally motivated learning scenario, i.e., starting with simpler sentences rather than randomly-ordered input. We expand existing LM-based exploration (El-Naggar et al., 2025a,b) with a simple CL variant and find that CL substantially impacts the apparent inductive bias of LMs.

We systematically compare word order preferences in decoder-only language models across 192 artificial languages and typologically diverse natural languages. On artificial languages, models exhibit a left-branching preference that aligns with neither natural language universals nor human word order learning biases. On natural languages, monolingual models show no clear base word order bias at small scales, but as data grows, a preference for right-branching subject-verb-object (SVO) languages emerges while SOV falls behind despite being the most frequent order cross-linguistically. This SVO advantage extends to multilingual models and correlates with language resource level and data quality rather than word order. Thus, the same architecture exhibits opposite preferences on artificial and natural languages, establishing that word order biases observed in practice are data-driven. Since highly-resourced languages are overwhelmingly SVO, these biases risk gradually reducing word order diversity, particularly in languages that productively use multiple word orders, with the widespread adoption of LLMs.

A central question in language acquisition is whether linguistic biases can emerge from general learning mechanisms operating over underdetermined input. Artificial Language Learning (ALL) studies have shown that human learners reliably generalize beyond the evidence provided, including by preferring scope-homomorphic noun phrase modifier orders. In this work, we investigate whether language models exhibit the same bias under similar conditions. We create a controlled learning environment in which models are trained on a corpus where all noun phrases containing multiple modifiers have been removed, eliminating direct evidence about modifier ordering, and are then evaluated on multiple modifier sentences. Across three model sizes, we find that they consistently prefer scope-homomorphic orders despite never observing them during training. These preferences vary in strength by modifier type. To investigate the source of these preferences, we examine noun-modifier association strength using pointwise mutual information (PMI). While PMI reflects known modifier-ordering patterns, it does not explain the models' ordering preferences. These findings demonstrate that LMs can recover human-like linguistic generalizations from impoverished input and provide a controlled framework for investigating the mechanisms underlying such biases.