Linguistic Typology

Some properties of languages, e.g., subject-object-verb (SOV) word order, are more prevalent than others among the thousands of attested natural languages (NLs). Such typological commonality is often attributed to learning biases. Computational simulations, recently with language models (LMs), have facilitated the exploration of this theory. In this paper, we extend existing analyses of the relationship between LMs' learning biases and typological commonality on both data and model sides, focusing on: (i) cross-serial dependencies, the upper limit of attested syntactic complexity, and (ii) stack-based LMs (SLMs), potentially facilitating learning of hierarchical patterns. We first evaluate generalization of SLMs on cross-serial dependencies across diverse artificial languages and confirm that they struggle with such constructions. However, SLMs with limited working memory generalize better suggesting a possible basis for such inductive bias and thus the typological commonality of some word order configurations.

Cross-lingual transfer describes how knowledge in a source language benefits a target language. Measuring it quantitatively requires broad multilingual pre-training, as prior work has done with cross-lingual transfer matrices. We ask whether transfer is predictable from freely available typological features, and whether the prominence of high-resource source languages reflects typology or data quality and quantity. We show that typological databases contain cheap and dense signals about cross-lingual transfer. Our typology-only random forest on a 24-language prior-work transfer matrix scores leave-one-language-out $ρ{=}0.705$ and $R^2{=}0.49$, beating a non-typological control at $ρ{=}0.62$, which verifies the ability of typology-only predictions to reconstruct costly measured cross-lingual transfer. The signal survives leave-one-script-out and leave-one-family-out protocols, so script and family confounding do not explain the effect. By decomposing the transfer into a typology term and a resource-and-script bias term, we find the best-source ranking sensitive to this bias. In contrast, typology is not affected by this bias, which makes it a zero-compute screening tool that replaces hundreds of training runs with a model fit. Our code is available here.

Linguistic typology relies on expert analysis of reference grammars across languages, making large-scale crosslinguistic comparison labor-intensive and unscalable. We introduce AUTOTYPOLOGIST, an LLM agent for evidence-grounded typological analysis over reference grammars. The agent is capable of retrieving relevant grammar sections, analyzing interlinear glossed text (IGT), and iteratively reasoning over typological hypotheses using a ReAct-style workflow. We evaluate the system on TYPOLOGICAL FEATURE CODING against expert annotations and TYPOLOGICAL HYPOTHESIS TESTING with typological universals using 25 open-source reference grammars. Operating under different information constraints in TYPOLOGICAL FEATURE CODING, the agent can synthesize information from reference grammar prose but still faces challenges with only IGTs in the target language. In TYPOLOGICAL HYPOTHESIS TESTING, the agent can synthesize crosslinguistic evidence and identify both supporting cases and counterexamples. These findings suggest that LLM agents can support scalable and inspectable typological analysis, while still requiring expert validation.

Typological features are widely used in multilingual NLP, and the prediction of such features holds downstream utility. However, existing methods to predict missing values lack interpretable justifications for predictions, while their performance across resource levels and feature types remains underexplored. Given LLMs' abilities in meta-linguistic reasoning and in providing rationales, we investigate LLMs' performance in typological feature prediction via an in-context learning approach with linguistic data from URIEL+ and Glottolog. We find that zero-shot prompting is insufficient, but when given phylogenetic and geographic neighbour evidence, LLMs substantially outperform all baselines without disadvantaging low-resource languages. We further find that most LLM rationales are consistent with the provided evidence, offering a step toward explainable typological feature prediction.

Pretraining LLMs on artificial languages ("pre-pretraining") is a technique that could reportedly increase token efficiency by 33%, i.e., save up to 33% of training tokens needed to reach a certain performance. We validate this prior result for English on a larger set of natural languages across four language families, using two different tokenizers and varying model sizes. We also relate the observed gains (or losses) in token efficiency to quantified linguistic properties of the languages, such as sentence length, morphological richness, and features of dependency syntactic trees (tree depth, number of children, number of crossing dependencies). Our empirical results indicate that the reported gains depend heavily on the experiment setup and the choice of random seed, although we can confirm the trend of stable gains with 128-Dyck pretraining of small models with the Llama tokenizer for most of the examined languages. On a general note, we argue that multiple training runs should be carried out at least for a subset of experiments to avoid the community adopting unstable approaches.

Macroareas are geographical areas used in typological research for grouping variables of interest. In linguistic typology, languages in a given macroarea are considered to have potential for contact, in contrast to those outside the area, where contact is less likely. Along with language family membership, macroareas are used as controls for models in linguistic typology, in an attempt to address the problem of autocorrelation - the observation that historical developments or typological patterns may be due to contact between neighboring languages and/or inheritance from a common ancestral language. Macroareas are therefore a central aspect of research that seeks to separate universal properties of language from local (or language-specific) properties. Existing macroareas largely depend on expert determinations of what constitutes a geographical area of potential contact, and to date have mainly aligned with continents or landmasses (Hammarström and Donohue 2014; Nichols, Witzlack-Makarevich, and Bickel 2013). While there are various historical and theoretical reasons for these groupings, there as of yet has been no systematic approach to identifying such areas for a given region. This paper attempts to address such a gap and move beyond macroarea to identification of language areas of relatively arbitrary size, presenting a simple geographical clustering method for identifying groupings over any area. The method produces a set of worldwide macroareas that largely align with existing groupings, as well as local groupings for a well-known sprachbund.

Linguistics olympiad problems (LOPs) are a category of self-sufficient puzzles consisting of a scaled-down corpus representative of certain linguistic phenomena, from which the solver must deduce a primitive set of rules of the language and then translate a new set of elements. The linguistics olympiads (LOs) have become a worldwide phenomenon with 43 different territories taking part in the International Linguistics Olympiad (IOL) 2025. While the typology and solving strategies of LOPs have been analysed, their scientific facet and connections to academic linguistics have yet to be explored. LOPs are directly connected to many linguistic fields, e.g., linguistic typology, linguistic relativity, and linguistics fieldwork. Recently, LOPs have become a research focus as benchmarks for large language models, thus highlighting their usefulness in computational linguistics. Nevertheless, they have not yet been integrated into mainstream linguistics research. This paper attempts to open new directions of including this particular type of puzzle in academic research by offering a structured evaluation of LOPs as linguistic data sources and proposes criteria for their responsible use in academic research. Starting from a set of over 1800 LOPs, this study critically examines the potential of LOPs as a novel corpus for linguistics research by discussing their strengths and limitations as tools, as well as the areas of linguistics into which these problems could fit. This work forms the foundation for a broader initiative aimed at bridging the gap between LOs and academic linguistics, by establishing a robust theoretical framework for LOPs.

Brain-LLM alignment is well established in English, yet the brain's language network is neuroanatomically universal across languages. Does alignment also generalize cross-linguistically, and what governs the variation? We test this using fMRI data from 112 participants across English, Chinese, and French (the Le Petit Prince corpus) and seven LLMs spanning English-dominant, Chinese-dominant, and multilingual architectures. Our central finding is that training-language dominance, not an inherent property of English, drives the alignment pattern: a Chinese-dominant model (Baichuan2-7B), architecture-matched to LLaMA-2-7B, reverses the gradient entirely, aligning best with Chinese brains and worst with English. Beyond training dominance, formal typological distance independently covaries with alignment degradation, syntax-associated brain regions (IFG) show $2.3\times$ steeper typological gradients than lexico-semantic regions (PTL), and tokenization fertility accounts for $\sim$60% of a cross-linguistic shift in optimal encoding layer. These results reveal that the apparent "English advantage" in brain-LLM alignment is an artifact of training data composition, while the remaining variation reflects genuine typological structure concentrated in syntactic processing.

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.

Languages of the world vary concerning the order of subject, object and verb. The most frequent dominant orders are SOV and SVO, and researchers have tailored models to this fact. However, there are still languages whose dominant order does not conform to these expectations or even lack a dominant order. Here we show that across linguistic families and macroareas, word order variation within languages is shaped by the principle of swap distance minimization even when the dominant order is not SOV/SVO and even when a dominant order is lacking.

Despite their widespread use, the principles governing the organisation of syntactic dependency trees remain poorly understood. I analyse dependency trees from 124 typologically, genetically, and geographically diverse languages. Their topology departs systematically from randomness. Relative to uniformly sampled random trees, dependency trees exhibit greater structural robustness and lower branching heterogeneity. I propose that these universal regularities emerge naturally from incremental grammatical encoding. I model this process using sublinear preferential attachment. The model accurately reproduces the observed topology. More generally, the results demonstrate how a universal statistical property of syntax can emerge from a simple, cognitively motivated generative process. They further illustrate a broader principle of efficiency by construction: communicatively efficient syntactic structures can emerge without direct optimisation for communication.

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.