Communication, Vocalisation, and Language

Large language models (LLMs) are commonly associated with the distributional hypothesis, according to which (1) semantic meaning is grounded in distributional patterns of linguistic context, and (2) knowledge of cross-linguistic distributional correspondences allows for successful translation. This paper rejects the first claim as a causal inversion: linguistic distributions reflect patterns arising from meaning-making practices rather than constituting their source. At the same time, it accepts the second claim, arguing that translation -human or machine - can succeed without requiring access to meaning or reference. Knowledge of interlingual distributional correspondence and their inferential organization may be sufficient for translation. The paper develops an ecological-enactivist perspective, according to which reference and meaning are grounded in agent-environment interaction and stabilized through action-grounded concepts, forms of world-involving cognition that current LLMs do not possess.

Do large language models (LLMs) truly acquire embodied cognition and cultural conventions from text? We introduce demonstratives, fundamental spatial expressions like "this/that" in English and "zhè/nà" in Chinese, as a novel probe for grounded knowledge. Using 6,400 responses from 320 native speakers, we establish a human baseline: English speakers reliably distinguish proximal-distal referents but struggle with perspective-taking, while Chinese speakers switch perspectives fluently but tolerate distal ambiguity. In contrast, five state-of-the-art LLMs fail to inherently understand the proximal-distal contrast and show no cultural differences, defaulting to English-centric reasoning. Our study contributes (i) a new task, based on demonstratives, as a new lens for evaluating embodied cognition and cultural conventions; (ii) empirical evidence of cross-cultural asymmetries in human interpretation; (iii) a new perspective on the egocentric-sociocentric debate, showing both orientations coexist but vary across languages; and (iv) a call to address individual variation in future model design.

Large language models (LLMs) are often described as multilingual because they can understand and respond in many languages. However, speaking a language is not the same as reasoning within a culture. This distinction motivates a critical question: do LLMs truly conduct culture-aware reasoning? This paper presents a preliminary computational audit of cultural inclusivity in a creative writing task. We empirically examine whether LLMs act as culturally diverse creative partners or merely as cultural translators that leverage a dominant conceptual framework with localized expressions. Using a metaphor generation task spanning five cultural settings and several abstract concepts as a case study, we find that the model exhibits stereotyped metaphor usage for certain settings, as well as Western defaultism. These findings suggest that merely prompting an LLM with a cultural identity does not guarantee culturally grounded reasoning.