Linguistics

Adoption and diffusion of neologisms in online communities have received renewed attention in recent years. As internet slang terms such as APT, referring to a K-pop song, and phrases such as Canon Event meaning an embarrassing but pivotal event, go viral online, it becomes increasingly important to understand the mechanisms that contribute to their success. Prior studies have often explained slang diffusion either from the perspective of social interaction or from the linguistic properties of the slang itself, but rarely from both perspectives together. One major obstacle has been the high cost of annotating slang usage in large-scale online communication. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs), however, make it possible to use them as scalable annotators for such tasks. In this study, we first curate a human-annotated benchmark to evaluate LLM performance in detecting slang usage in real Reddit communication. We then leverage LLM-based annotations to model slang adoption and diffusion. Our results show that slang diffusers with higher bridging capital are associated with increased subsequent adoption, whereas diffusers with higher bonding capital are associated with reduced adoption. We also find that wider contextual usage of a slang term is associated with a longer time before new users officially adopt it. Together, these findings suggest that both social-network structure and linguistic context shape the diffusion of neologisms in online communities.

Sequential sentence classification (SSC) is an essential task for structuring scientific publications, and extending SSC research to languages other than English can improve accessibility to scientific knowledge in multilingual digital libraries. Cross-lingual transfer is a promising approach to address the scarcity of training data in non-English languages. Prior work on other natural language processing tasks has shown the benefits of capturing linguistic similarity between source and target languages. However, SSC inherently depends on patterns at the discourse level, such as label sequences and positional regularities, which appear consistently across languages regardless of linguistic differences. To examine the factors that determine transfer success in SSC, we constructed a multilingual SSC dataset covering 13 non-English languages collected from five academic databases. Our cross-lingual transfer experiments, using both encoder-based and generative models, show that linguistic proximity has no consistent predictive power for transfer performance, whereas structural similarity in rhetorical organization shows a weak but consistent positive correlation across models. After controlling for source-language performance, the similarity of label distributions is the most consistent predictor. Building on this finding, we propose a set of three methods that explicitly leverage structural information using generative models. In the in-domain evaluation, the best combination reaches parity with the strongest encoder baselines, and in transfer to languages unseen during training, it outperforms the strongest encoder baseline.

As model-generated content is increasingly consumed by other model instances in automated workflows, a practically important question arises: can a model embed a signal in natural language that an independent instance of the same model can detect, relying only on shared pre-training and task instructions, without any shared memory or coordination-specific training? We introduce For Your Eyes Only, a cooperative signalling game designed to evaluate this directly. A Sender produces free-form descriptions for two words, one of which is a hidden target; an isolated Receiver must identify it. We evaluate seven contemporary models from four architectural families on 300 word pairs from established psycholinguistic corpora, using the Double-Pass Success Rate to control for output biases. We find that most models struggle to maintain coordination once they are required to avoid detectable signals, while one frontier model retains near-perfect performance even after such filtering. We further show that models can direct this capability toward deliberate misdirection, and that coordination is consistently weaker across architectures than within them.

Burnout is a chronic occupational syndrome, and open source is close to a worst case for it: maintainers absorb unbounded demand with no manager to reallocate work and no organization to notice decline. The cost is not only personal. Burnout precedes withdrawal, and in projects sustained by a handful of maintainers, one departure can break infrastructure that thousands of downstream systems depend on. Yet the field has no way to see it coming: self-report inventories, the only existing measure, miss exactly the contributors most in need of detection and cannot be applied retroactively, so the field cannot even ask how common burnout is or what helps. We present BurnRiSc, a framework that operationalizes the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory's two dimensions, exhaustion and disengagement, as 14 behavioral and linguistic signals computed from GitHub activity and scored against each contributor's own history. The signals aggregate into two weighted dimension scores, with weights learned from labeled cases, and average into a monthly Burnout Risk Score (BRS). In a preliminary evaluation across 68 contributors in ten repositories (ten disclosed burnout cases, twelve comparable-volume collapses, and 46 comparison contributors), sustained BRS elevation precedes 6 of 10 disclosures by 6-15 months, 8 of 10 when adding peak BRS as a second criterion, and 10 of 10 over any prior time frame. We thus present BurnRiSc as evidence that burnout is screenable from public data.

We report the results of a Turing Test conducted in Finland in the Finnish language. Because languages and cultural contexts are unevenly represented in LLM training data, we expected the model (ChatGPT 5.2) to perform worse in a Finnish-language Turing Test than in previously studied English-language US contexts. We also present model-generated role prompting as a replicable technique for conducting comparative LLM-based Turing Tests designed to improve construct validity. Contrary to our expectations, the LLM passed the Finnish Turing Test. A prominent source of error was participants' reliance on linguistic cues, particularly colloquial Finnish, as markers of human authorship. We reframe the Turing Test from a test of intelligence to a comparative method for examining whether an AI system can display credible membership in a particular social world. Because its outcome reflects model capabilities, prompted identity, insider competence among human participants, and their AI literacy, the method provides a useful probe of the human-machine boundary across domains.

Open-weight large language models are rapidly entering hiring pipelines, yet their discriminatory failure modes -- and the regulatory exposure these create under the EU AI Act high-risk classification (Annex III) and U.S. EEOC adverse-impact analysis -- remain poorly understood. We present the first systematic, multi-model audit of open-weight LLMs that treats job-posting language as the primary experimental variable, evaluating six models (Llama 3.2, Mistral, Gemma 3, Qwen 3, Phi 3, DeepSeek-R1) across four controlled experiments that jointly probe recruiter-simulation and job-seeker-simulation tasks. We find that (1) agentic posting language depresses recruiter recommendation scores for female candidates (r_rb = 0.309, p_Bonf = 7x10^-5; model-fixed-effects r_rb = 0.448), while communal language partially reverses the penalty; and (2) coded-exclusion language suppresses non-White recruiter scores at large effect sizes (r_rb = 0.646-0.758) and, on the job-seeker side, selectively deters non-White personas from expressing interest -- operationalizing a chilling-effect mechanism at scale. A label-ablation experiment isolates the explicit demographic persona label as the primary causal driver, and Word Embedding Association Tests corroborate these findings at the representational level (d = 1.01-1.45 under Caliskan et al.'s multi-word gender attribute lists). We translate these results into a concrete pre-deployment audit protocol -- posting-vocabulary scoring, persona-conditioned LLM probing, and adverse-impact flagging against the four-fifths threshold -- that operationalizes the documentation and risk-management obligations Annex III imposes on high-risk AI in recruitment.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains such as housing screening. While alignment techniques mitigate explicit racial bias in generated text, they often leave covert attitudinal associations in internal probability distributions untouched. Adapting the matched-guise sociolinguistic paradigm, we examine covert dialect bias in housing-related social judgments across four varieties: Standard American English (SAE), African American Vernacular English (AAVE), Nigerian Standard English (NSE), and Nigerian Pidgin (NP). AAVE reflects the racialized dialect studied in prior covert-bias evaluations, whereas NSE and NP represent Black African, postcolonial varieties absent from this literature. Using 260 meaning-matched sentence quadruples and log-probability scoring over housing-relevant adjectives, we probe ten open-weight LLMs across three contexts varying in social proximity: tenant screening, neighbor acceptance, and roommate selection. Across all ten models, AAVE and NP are consistently associated with more negative adjectives than SAE, with NP penalized most severely. Crucially, each dialect is penalized via distinct stereotype clusters rather than a generic non-standard category. NSE, which carries institutional prestige, displays a context-dependent shift: favored over SAE in formal tenant screening but increasingly penalized as social proximity grows. Our findings reveal that LLMs inherit covert dialect bias along both racial identity and prestige dimensions, echoing documented human housing discrimination and demonstrating its reach across postcolonial English varieties.

Ensuring that multilingual language models generate coherent text in a specific target language is a major issue in multilingual language modeling. We develop an optimal control method for target-language text generation as well as a framework for evaluating the quality of generated text in terms of language adherence, linguistic coherence, and semantic coherence. We find that the proposed method performs at least as well as the prominent difference-in-means activation steering method for the majority of models tested, with substantially less hyperparameter tuning required.

Puns are a challenging form of figurative language that exploit phonetic similarity and semantic ambiguity to convey multiple meanings. Although large language models (LLMs) demonstrate strong language understanding capabilities, they still struggle with pun reasoning due to limited phonetic modeling and uncontrolled end-to-end generation. We propose \textbf{PunGraph}, a retrieval-enhanced knowledge graph framework for pun understanding. PunGraph constructs a phonetic-semantic lexical graph using the Unisyn phonetic dictionary, IPA and G2P representations, and WordNet definitions, and retrieves candidate words or senses to constrain LLM reasoning within a structured candidate space. We further introduce \textbf{WebPun}, a new large-scale dataset containing 5,730 annotated heterographic and homographic puns. Experiments on SemEval-2017 and WebPun show that PunGraph consistently improves the performance of small-scale LLMs and achieves competitive results against strong proprietary models. Further analysis shows that retrieval-guided phonetic and semantic constraints effectively reduce common reasoning errors in pun interpretation, highlighting the benefits of integrating structured knowledge with LLMs. We release our code and dataset at https://github.com/ysu132/PunGraph.

Privileged on-policy distillation improves multimodal reasoning by allowing a teacher to evaluate student trajectories using rich, training-only visual evidence. Both models score these trajectories while conditioning on the same student-generated prefix. When a student misinterprets an image early in a response, this accumulating erroneous rationale eventually pulls the teacher away from its visual evidence. The teacher and student converge on the same hallucination, causing standard cross-model supervision to collapse precisely where correction is most needed. We find that the teacher's visual corrective preference is not lost under this misleading agreement. Comparing the predictions of the identical teacher given the real image and a visual null reveals that the privileged evidence still pushes the model toward the correct interpretation. We introduce OPD-Aha, which reconstructs the distillation target directly from this isolated visual preference rather than relying on the fragile teacher-student discrepancy. This reconstructed target aggressively suppresses continuations that contradict the image. Trained with this objective, students learn to naturally interrupt their own flawed reasoning with reflection tokens such as wait and actually. After reflection, subsequent generation relies less on the accumulated erroneous text and more on the visual evidence. Correcting these trajectories mid-generation fundamentally alters the reasoning process, yielding broad and consistent improvements across diverse fine-grained perception and complex multimodal reasoning benchmarks. Our code and models are available at https://github.com/Echochef/OPD-Aha.

Multilingual large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for open-ended text generation, yet their behaviour in low-resource languages remains poorly understood. In this work, we question how correct and reliable is the generation of multilingual LLMs when used for the task of story generation. We consider Urdu language as a representative low-resource language. We generate Urdu-Stories, a corpus of 93 stories generated using three contemporary LLMs (GPT-5.1, Qwen-3-Max, DeepSeek-3.1). We manually annotate the errors present in them under a nine-label linguistic, semantic, and cultural taxonomy. Our notable findings suggest that LLMs often make basic errors of grammar and semantics. The stories lack coherence, have unnatural repetition and show pervasive cultural shallowness. We further show using few-shot prompting that the cultural and context errors largely remain unresolved. Our findings highlight the limitations of current LLMs as a reliable source of content generation and information retrieval for low-resource languages.

Recent advances in large language models have transformed human-computer interaction. Despite their fluency, these models often produce texts that are grammatically correct but semantically incoherent, containing contradictions or disruptions in logical flow. This work investigates whether enriching text with syntactic and rhetorical information can improve incoherence prediction. Our experiments and analysis show that plain texts achieved higher accuracy because the added information was structurally and syntactically incompatible with the language model's architecture. Additionally, to demonstrate the practical importance of coherence assessment, we performed zero-shot experiments on a Brazilian disinformation dataset, suggesting that textual coherence can serve as a proxy for detecting misleading content. Code and models are available at https://github.com/ittozzamV/cohereclassifier.

Turn-taking is a fundamental mechanism that governs when interlocutors speak and listen. Although Spoken Dialogue Systems (SDS) exploit a range of linguistic, acoustic, and non-verbal cues, they produce ill-timed responses in unscripted interaction. A central challenge is anticipating Transition Relevance Places (TRPs), or opportunities, not obligations, for a listener to take the floor. Human listeners do not wait for turn endings; as an utterance unfolds, they use expectations about its developing meaning to anticipate TRPs and decide whether to take the floor. We examine whether these evolving expectations can be modeled through semantic uncertainty -- an LLM-derived measure of how strongly a turn so far constrains what may plausibly come next. To do so, we sample possible continuations of an ongoing turn and use changes in semantic dispersion to identify TRPs within turns. We evaluate this account on a dataset with TRP labels derived from real-time listener responses, rather than retrospective annotation. Our approach substantially outperforms prompt-based and fine-tuned text-only baselines, providing empirical support for the view that evolving semantic constraints inform perceived turn-taking opportunities in unscripted interaction.

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.

Minimal-pair benchmarks such as BLiMP evaluate linguistic knowledge by testing whether language models (LMs) prefer acceptable sentences over minimally different unacceptable ones. However, these benchmarks largely ignore lexical frequency variation, despite lexical frequency being a pervasive and highly skewed property of natural language use. Consequently, existing evaluations do not test whether grammatical preferences remain stable when contrasts involve rare lexical items. We introduce FreqBLiMP, a frequency-controlled extension of BLiMP that regenerates all 67 paradigms under explicit Zipf-frequency regimes while preserving each minimal-pair's grammatical contrast. Evaluating multiple open-weight LLM families across scales, we find that decreasing lexical frequency produces a consistent, monotonic decrease in sentence likelihood, but only a modest reduction in overall contrastive acceptability accuracy. However, this aggregate stability masks substantial variation across linguistic phenomena, with LLMs remaining robust on overt morphosyntactic generalization while degrading on phenomena that require lemma-specific information.

Research and news coverage of language-model deception increasingly attributes human-like mental-state concepts to language models. Such claims can blur the distinction between behavior that looks deceptive and a mechanism that is actually deceptive. We introduce a causal taxonomy separating prior commitment from retrospective report, model preference from realized output, false preference from sensitivity to the utility of misleading a recipient, and deceptive behavior from the provenance of the objective or strategy producing it. We test these distinctions in two open-weight model families. Across controlled guessing-game and stock-trading experiments, we find that deceptive-looking behavior can arise without the corresponding proposed mechanism, while other interventions provide direct evidence that recipient information state can causally affect deceptive preference. These results show that deceptive behavior can provide evidence for a deceptive mechanism. But even evidence for such a mechanism does not establish model agency in the deception.

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.

Language models are commonly discussed as technical artefacts, but they are obviously shaped by the linguistic worlds conveyed by data during their training. Using Italian language models as evidence, I want to bring attention to the nature of the systems which result from training and specialising models on translated and synthetic data, and further curating them, and to the meaning of testing them on equally unnatural data. Are these eventually models of Italian? Are they models of language? Does NLP still care about language? These questions yield another, more concrete question: what language do we actually want language models to produce? I argue that this question cannot be answered if we do not first consider a clearer distinction between language models designed as technical products and language models designed as tools for studying language itself. The answers then might be diverse, the languages we are talking about might be diverse, and the picture might not be as pessimistic as we fear.

Nastase et al. (2026) argue that large language models (LLMs) may illuminate language processing because both rely on distributed, context-sensitive representations shaped by statistical learning. Their rejection of simple cortical "boxology" is persuasive, and they articulate a strong case for the value of LLM-brain alignment research. The key question is what kind of inference LLM-brain alignment licenses. My claim here will be narrow: representational alignment can in principle constrain mechanistic hypotheses, but it does not by itself identify a mechanism. Nastase et al. acknowledge that an encoding model can capture features represented in neural activity without establishing a shared architecture or algorithm. Yet the authors sometime move from alignment to "shared computational principles" and ultimately to LLMs as mechanistic models of natural language. Indeed, their methodological caveat that alignment does not establish a shared architecture or algorithm sits uneasily with their conclusion that LLMs might instantiate the same computational principles as biological brains and provide a "fully mechanistic model" of language. I discuss what I consider to be problems of logical, causal, and computational underdetermination in Nastase et al.'s (2026) proposal.

How do learners avoid overgeneralizations such as Tom laughed me without explicit negative evidence? Constructionists have posited two proposals that describe indirect negative evidence against overgeneralizations: preemption (which privileges exposure to near-synonymous construction---e.g., she made him laugh) vs. entrenchment (all exposures to a verb's grammatical usages, including cases like He laughed). We disentangle these hypotheses by running controlled rearing experiments on LMs trained on child-caregiver conversations, where we systematically remove preemptive vs. non-preemptive evidence. We find that while LMs avoid overgeneralizations, they do not show preemption at a verb-specific level, instead showing weak but non-zero evidence of abstract preemption. Combined with results from analyzing the LMs' training dynamics, we find that LMs treat competing structures as indirect positive---as opposed to negative---evidence in the verb-specific condition. Insofar as preemption is the more plausible route to avoiding overgeneralizations in humans, our results point the need for there to be sensitivities to indirect negative evidence in neural network learners, and suggest new human experiments to test abstract preemption.

Linear classifiers trained on hidden states of a large language model (LLM), linear probes, can flag factual errors from a single forward pass. Geometrically, that implies that true and false statements separate along a stable direction in hidden state space, i.e., the truth direction. Prior work disagrees on whether this generalises across input shifts, but the disagreement is hard to interpret because cross-dataset probe transfer experiments confound several kinds of input change at once. We isolate three such variables in medical question-answering (QA): writing style (register), domain (medical specialty), and corpus (dataset). We build a benchmark using 500 MedQA entries, each rewritten into four styles (textbook, patient, clinical note, colloquial), annotated with clinical specialty, and grouped with two other exam corpora, MedMCQA and MMLU-medical, for cross-dataset evaluation. Probing four open-weight LLMs (2--8B), we find that the truth direction is largely robust to writing style (mean $Δ_\text{register} \approx 0.10$ AUROC on held-out facts) and to medical specialty ($Δ_\text{specialty} \approx 0.03$), but degrades unevenly across corpora: by $0.12$ AUROC on MMLU-medical and by $0.21$ on MedMCQA, roughly twice the register gap. The register result replicates with a second generator and carries over to human-written patient questions. The truth direction is therefore largely stable within the medical domain but breaks under some corpus shifts, and question format does not explain the break, which suggests that the signal a linear probe recovers is partly bound to dataset structure rather than to medical knowledge alone.

Customer-service QA in an AI contact center (AICC) runs under deployment constraints that benchmark QA misses: tight voice-hotline latency and a high cost for unsupported or wrong automatic answers. We deploy a system that answers only from a closed set of verified QA units: it returns a retrieved unit verbatim, or routes to clarify, abstain, or handoff. The index is enriched offline by staged linguistic seeding (SLS): a human authors a per-unit world-grounded slot recipe, gpt-4.1-mini renders it into variants, and a light human gate filters them. One methodology is reused across both domains, so inference stays a single retrieval pass with no query-time generation. On held-out query variants from two industrial domains, SLS lifts hybrid R@1 to 0.881/0.930 (+0.27/+0.34), with gains across all five retrievers tested. At the same gpt-4.1-mini generation budget, SLS beats doc2query by +0.20/+0.32, while cross-provenance evaluation provides additional evidence of transfer across generated-query distributions. Verified-unit answering also removes free-form generation's unsupported-content surface (7-13% versus approximately 0%). We report this as an application study, including negative results.

LLMs can imitate how people write, which raises concerns about impersonation, trust, and detection in social settings. These concerns are especially important for adolescents, who use generative AI frequently but may struggle to recognize it. We introduce \textit{DoppelBot}, a cooperative social deduction game designed to study how young people detect and respond to AI impersonation. Through studies with middle schoolers, we investigate whether a DoppelBot prompts reflection on privacy and impersonation, how repeated exposure affects AI-detection accuracy as agents become more personalized, and which strategies students use to identify AI doppelgängers. We find that students' detection accuracy improves over time, driven by a shift from relying on linguistic cues to leveraging shared social and contextual signals. Students also demonstrated an understanding of AI limitations such as embodiment and reflected on broader issues such as data privacy. To support future research, we release an anonymized dataset of game transcripts and voting behavior.

While automatic speech recognition (ASR) models have achieved remarkable improvements in recent years, performance disparities persist across different speaker populations. One such disparity is for speakers whose first languages (L1) are from families distant from English. This paper investigates the relationship between first language background and English ASR performance. Through empirical analysis, we observe that the correlation between speakers' L1 distance and ASR error rates yields a systematic effect on English Speech, with its strength varying across datasets and models. This association is statistically significant in a follow-up analysis accounting for dataset-level variation in Tweedie mixed-effects models ($p<0.001$ across evaluated models). In addition, analysis of the latent space reveals a L1-based spatial segregation across deeper acoustic layers in the majority of evaluated architectures

Large language models often answer complex reasoning questions without revealing intermediate steps, raising whether they reason latently or complete patterns. We propose the Hidden CoT Detection Score (HCDS), a comparative behavioral and mechanistic signal measuring whether neutral-prompt behavior aligns more closely with explicit CoT or explicit no- CoT. Here, hidden CoT operationally denotes this neutral-prompt CoT-like alignment; HCDS does not directly observe or prove an unexposed reasoning trace. On GSM8K, HCDS is significantly positive for both Qwen3-4B variants (Thinking $+1.87$, $p = 1.2 \times 10^{-7}$; Instruct $+1.41$, $p = 1.9 \times 10^{-4}$), replicates across a different inference stack and quantization within $0.08$ ($+1.80$ and $+1.45$), and is not significantly positive in seven of eight length-adjusted calibration-control cells. The unadjusted score produces large positive scores on single-step arithmetic and numeric factual lookup. The variants also respond differently to no-CoT instructions: Instruct complies from the prompt alone, whereas Thinking continues reasoning and requires intervention. These findings show stronger, less prompt-conditional CoT-like behavior in the reasoning-tuned model, consistent with but not proof of latent reasoning. HCDS thus investigates latent reasoning without relying on models' self-reported traces.

Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) has become the dominant paradigm for aligning large language models (LLMs) with human preferences. However, traditional RLHF relies on scalar reward signals that lack interpretability and fail to capture the multifaceted nature of response quality. Rubric-guided reinforcement learning addresses these limitations by introducing structured, interpretable evaluation criteria, or rubrics, as the backbone of reward design, feedback generation, and policy optimization. In this survey, we introduce a Bayesian framework that defines constitutions as prior distributions $P(R)$ over evaluation criteria and rubrics as conditional instantiations $R_x \sim P(R|x)$. Under this unified view, we present a taxonomy of rubric-guided RL along the prior-posterior axis, covering constitutional AI, instance-specific rubrics, process-level supervision, self-evolving rubrics, and their agentic and multimodal extensions. Furthermore, as rubrics are natural-language artifacts, we present a linguistic analysis of how granularity trade-offs, semantic drift, and linguistic reward hacking impact alignment reliability, identifying key open problems for future research.

Crosslingual evaluation of language models that enables fair comparisons remains a fundamental challenge in multilingual NLP. Existing studies adopt a variety of downstream tasks and intrinsic metrics with different theoretical justifications, yet there has been little empirical investigation into whether these approaches yield meaningful crosslingual conclusions. We systematically examine crosslingual evaluation approaches using controlled monolingual language models trained on parallel data with varying tokenizer vocabulary sizes and model sizes, and further validate our findings on multilingual LLMs. We further discuss challenges in achieving comparable downstream evaluation across languages. Our results show that several widely used normalized metrics introduce crosslinguistic biases rooted in tokenization, encoding, and orthographic differences. In contrast, sentence-level negative log-likelihood computed over semantically equivalent sequences provides more meaningful and consistent crosslingual comparisons.

Professional communication is increasingly mediated by LLMs - but do these models serve all users equally? We show that when prompts contain linguistic features more commonly used by women (hedges, tag questions, collective reference), they systematically elicit shorter, less sophisticated, and less formal responses across three document types and four models. These effects persist after controlling for prompt complexity and feature carry-over. Explicit gender cues like sign-off names are encoded in the same representational space as linguistic dialect - suggesting shared underlying mechanisms - yet linguistic register is far more influential, producing large, consistent effects where names produce none. Our results further reveal that post-hoc mitigation is challenging: because these patterns are culturally embedded and outside conscious control, users cannot easily avoid them through strategic self-presentation, and mechanistic analysis reveals that linguistic features are encoded in early transformer layers and entangled with other features. Our work calls for upstream consideration of the influences of linguistic variation to mitigate disparate impacts of LLM-mediated workplace communication.

Mechanistic interpretability of large language models lacks spatially resolved, falsifiable tools for testing whether internal components are specialized for distinct cognitive operations. We adapt subtraction analysis, the standard framework of human neuroimaging, from biological brains to perturbed transformers, and apply the same logic to both substrates in parallel. Building on the Brain-LLM Unified Model (BLUM), which showed that layer-perturbed LLaVA-1.6-Vicuna-13B error profiles match the lesion patterns of aphasic patients, we develop PRISM (Perturbation-based Regional Interpretability through Subtraction Mapping). PRISM maps the seven clinical Philadelphia Naming Test categories, subtracts error classes pairwise, and treats each perturbation seed as a subject in a group analysis with threshold-free cluster enhancement along the layer axis. We run a structurally matched analysis on 213 chronic post-stroke aphasia patients using correlation-difference lesion-symptom mapping, and replicate both sides on held-out splits. The designs match in subject dimension (seeds, patients), spatial dimension (layers, atlas-parcellated cortex) and thresholding, but the contrast operator differs: a within-subject error-proportion difference for the LLM, a between-subject correlation difference for the cortex. Both substrates recover a robust phonemic-favoring dissociation, a deep layer cluster and a frontal-perisylvian cortical cluster, both replicating; the semantic-favoring direction is a consistently signed but non-significant trend on both. PRISM thus gives a falsifiable, spatially resolved test of functional-specialization claims in transformer language models. A confirmatory ROI-level intervention (PRISM Stage 3) licensing the strongest causal-mechanism claim is left to subsequent work.

Automated Text-to-Speech (TTS) evaluation methods (Mean Opinion Score (MOS) predictors and Audio Large Language Models (Audio-LLM) judges) are expected to reflect human perception, yet it is unclear how well they capture the distinct aspects of speech that listeners actually perceive. We deconstruct "naturalness" into a linguistically grounded annotation schema spanning 10 distinct perceptual dimensions, and use it to construct the first dimension-level meta-evaluation benchmark for TTS, comprising 860 utterances annotated by trained linguist raters. Results from benchmarking four MOS predictors and four Audio-LLM judges reveal that MOS predictors collapse onto acoustic signal quality, while Audio-LLM judges show selective, prompt-dependent detection that does not generalise across all dimensions. Neither class reliably captures a breadth of linguistically structured speech errors. Our dataset, annotation schema, and evaluation code are publicly released to support more targeted and interpretable TTS evaluation.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved strong performance in medical question answering and clinical reasoning tasks. However, their reliability under uncertainty remains poorly understood which raises critical concerns for deployment in high-stakes clinical settings. In such environments, incorrect predictions are inherently risky, but confident incorrect predictions can be particularly harmful as they may mislead clinical decision-making. In this paper, we conduct a systematic behavioral analysis of LLMs under clinical information uncertainty. We propose an evaluation framework based on the MedMCQA dataset consisting of two complementary uncertainty settings. First, we introduce linguistic uncertainty cues through prompt modifications to simulate ambiguous clinical contexts. Second, we construct an answer removal setting, wherein the correct option is deliberately excluded mandating the model to recognize insufficient information and abstain. We analyze both model accuracy and confidence behavior using multiple calibration metrics including calibration gap, Expected Calibration Error (ECE), and Unsafe Confident Error Rate (UCER) across 500 medical questions. Our results reveal a consistent failure mode, i.e., although accuracy degrades under increasing uncertainty, model confidence remains misaligned with accuracy. This leads to a substantial increase in unsafe confident errors, indicating that model confidence remains largely insensitive to clinically meaningful information loss. Furthermore, we observe significant variation across models in their ability to abstain when the correct answer is unavailable, with some models persistently producing high confidence hallucinated answers. These findings expose critical limitations in the epistemic reliability of current LLMs and highlight the need for uncertainty aware evaluation methods prior to their deployment in clinical workflows.

Focus particles such as "even" and "only" are central to formal semantic theories that posit structured representations over sets of alternatives. "Even" highlights unexpected or extreme alternatives, while "only" enforces exclusivity. If such scalar representations are robust and generalizable, they should give rise to consistent judgments across contexts and systems. In this work, we test whether humans and large language models (LLMs) construct stable scalar representations from sentences containing these particles. Using a dataset of approximately 100 items, participants and models were asked to make scalar judgments. Preliminary results suggest that similar outputs across humans and LLMs may arise from different underlying mechanisms.

While large language model outputs are frequently analysed as a collective super variety termed "AI language," this chapter argues that this perspective coexists with distinct, model-specific linguistic signatures akin to human idiolects. We analyse two datasets of LLM-generated texts on societal topics: a 2024 corpus of six models (Improta et al. 2024) and a newly generated 2026 corpus using the same prompts featuring six contemporary models. Our findings, utilising computational descriptors and stylometric principal component analysis reveal a generational shift between the style of the 2024 and 2026 cohorts, while demonstrating that each individual model maintains a unique linguistic profile. This multi-layered interplay is illustrated by contraction frequencies, which vary from over 1,200 to over 30,000 per million words within the same cohort of models (2026). Ultimately, we conclude that treating LLM output as idiolectal in nature provides a valuable framework with potential implications for research on variation and change, LLM-generated text detection, forensic linguistics and usage-based approaches to language.

Automatic speaking assessment systems are increasingly deployed in high-stakes settings to mark second language (L2) learners' speaking tests, making it critical to show that their scores depend on speaking proficiency rather than irrelevant speaker attributes such as first language (L1) or age. Transformer-based foundation models have improved the accuracy of these L2 speaking graders, but their black-box representations make fairness and interpretability analysis more difficult. Building on prior work that used Concept Activation Vectors (CAVs) to detect bias towards unwanted attributes (`concepts') in feature-based graders, we extend CAV-based analysis to two neural speaking assessment systems: a text-based BERT grader and a speech-and-text multimodal grader based on Whisper. CAVs represent human-interpretable concepts as directions in a model's activation space, allowing us to distinguish between whether a concept is encoded in a model's internal representations and whether it influences the predicted score, the latter quantified using a gradient-based sensitivity metric. Since CAVs rely on linear separability, which is less likely in complex neural embedding spaces, we also investigate whether sparse autoencoders (SAEs) provide cleaner concept directions by learning CAVs in a sparse latent space and mapping them back to activation space. Our analysis shows that concept recoverability depends strongly on the representation and architecture being probed, rather than on the concept alone. Sensitivity to concepts is also architecture-dependent. SAEs make concepts more linearly recoverable, but attenuate the original activation-space sensitivity, especially in low-dimensional layers. These findings highlight the need to distinguish concept recoverability from concept influence when auditing bias in speaking assessment systems.

This paper focuses on automatic speech recognition (ASR) and ASR-mediated voice interfaces that shape access to public services, healthcare, and education. We argue that persistent failures for low-resource, Indigenous, and non-standard language varieties are not only technical errors, but also implicit linguistic policies that reproduce colonial language hierarchies. Drawing on linguistic capital, raciolinguistic ideology, language policy research, and decolonial computing, we show how data, metrics, and model priors determine whose voices become machine-legible. We introduce the Three Harms (3M) taxonomy---Misrecognition, Misalignment, and Mistrust---and a seven-layer situatedness model for linguistic diversity in ASR and ASR-mediated voice interfaces. We then propose a participatory framework and minimum audit protocol for culturally competent ASR, positioning affected communities as co-designers, evaluators, and governance partners.

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.

Despite its cultural relevance and diffusion, queer slang remains underrepresented in Natural Language Processing research. Towards addressing this gap, we introduce Slang-Q, a manually curated dataset of naturally user-generated English sentences paired with queer slang terms and reference definitions, built upon a newly constructed taxonomy of 118 queer terms. We use this resource to conduct a first exploratory evaluation of language models on their ability to understand and define queer slang under varying prompting conditions. Slang-Q is intended as a basis for studying how current models handle sensitive, community-specific language and whether they can provide accurate and reliable information about such forms of identity and linguistic expression.

Translating wordplay across languages has long challenged both professional translators and machine translation systems. We investigate three approaches to translating puns from English to French by combining large language models with linguistic constraints for wordplay generation. Our baseline uses a large language model with feedback from a discriminator prompted with positive and negative French examples. Our guided reasoning pipeline uses combined phonetic-semantic embeddings to retrieve lexical candidates for wordplay generation. Finally, our multi-agent framework iteratively evaluates and regenerates candidate translations using specialized feedback. Moving beyond literal translation, our objective is to preserve the linguistic creativity, ambiguity, and humor of the source-text wordplay rather than simply reproduce its vocabulary. The multi-agent and guided chain-of-thought systems ranked first and second, respectively, in the CLEF JOKER 2025 Task 2 competition under expert human evaluation, despite only modest improvements in BLEU and BERTScore. These findings suggest that both explicit phonetic-semantic guidance and iterative multi-agent evaluation can improve LLM-based wordplay translation relative to direct discriminator-guided generation, particularly when balancing semantic fidelity, phonetic similarity, and natural target-language expression

Historical language change affects morphology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics, yet computational studies typically examine these levels with incompatible representations and therefore cannot determine whether they evolve together across languages. We address this problem by asking how the magnitude and direction of change vary across linguistic levels, languages, and historical periods within a single analytical space. We introduce ChronoLens, a framework that combines frozen multilingual language models, feature-aligned crosscoders, and post-hoc linguistic interventions, and apply it to 44.98 million documents and approximately 17.2 billion tokens from five parliamentary traditions spanning 1803--2026. The resulting sparse representations agree substantially more strongly with linguistic statistics than dense embeddings or a pooled sparse autoencoder ($ρ=0.72$ versus $0.29$ and $0.28$), and reveal that morphology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics generally change by comparable amounts within a language, while languages differ markedly in when, how far, and in which direction they change. These findings show that historical language change is a structured, multidimensional process: similar magnitudes can conceal different trajectories, and meaningful cross-linguistic comparison requires measuring both distance and direction.

Human-interpretable computer-aided diagnosis is crucial for clinical decision making. Concept-based models excel by providing transparent reasoning and enabling post-hoc, clinician-in-the-loop interventions. However, their rigid dataset-specific adaptation inherently restricts cross-site generalization. Applying them across diverse modalities, such as dermoscopic and clinical photographs, is challenging due to heterogeneous concept taxonomies varying in availability, granularity, and semantics across cohorts. Consequently, adapting Foundation Vision-Language Models (FVLMs) demands costly label engineering and repeated post-training. Existing intervention mechanisms remain rigidly tied to predefined concepts, lacking adaptability and hindering scalable dermatology CAD deployment. To address these bottlenecks, we propose UniCon, an open-linguistic unified concept learning framework for multimodal interpretable vision-language diagnosis. UniCon resolves these challenges through three contributions: (1) A shared semantic representation space via a unified concept prototype codebook, seamlessly coordinating heterogeneous concept systems across modalities without dataset-specific retraining. (2) Open-linguistic based multi-faceted semantic specifications to overcome sparse textual label limitations, improving boundary sensitivity in uncertain clinical contexts. (3) A robust, cross-site adjustable intervention interface powered by reliability-gated bottleneck aggregation, enabling consistent reasoning and transferable clinician corrections. Extensive experiments demonstrate that beyond securing top-tier diagnostic accuracy, UniCon successfully bridges disparate clinical taxonomies, unlocking unprecedented cross-site intervention capabilities. Code is available at https://github.com/wuchengyu123/UniCon.

Foundation models place language throughout embodied agents, but its presence does not show what it contributes or how well that contribution is grounded. This survey separates these two questions. We define five non-exclusive functional roles for language: Specification, Embodied Representation, Action Orchestration, Grounding Regulation, and Execution Coupling. For each role, we trace the path from linguistic content to its embodied consumer and identify the observations or interventions that can test the claimed responsibility. Applying this framework to the reviewed literature reveals a recurring gap between functional use and evidential support. Interpretable or revised linguistic intermediates may be incorrect, go unused, or fail to affect later behavior. Even when actions are directly conditioned on language, system-level success does not by itself isolate language's contribution. We therefore evaluate grounding claim by claim, asking whether the reported evidence supports the specific responsibility assigned to language. Using role claims rather than architectures as the unit of comparison allows us to compare modular and end-to-end embodied agents without extending conclusions beyond the reported evidence.

The linguistic notion of state has traditionally been restricted to the construct (annexation) state of Afroasiatic languages and treated as a language-specific morphosyntactic phenomenon. This article argues instead that the state is a systemic, context-dependent morphosyntactic mechanism that selects grammatical templates across synthetic languages. Within the Template-Based Modular Cognitive framework, taking Riffian as its primary empirical basis, the proposed theory provides a unified explanation for diverse nominal marking patterns traditionally analysed independently and is formalised as a symbolic computational model in which the state is represented by a set-valued function over grammatical templates. A learning algorithm based on finite-set operations acquires and predicts state-dependent grammatical configurations. Beyond nominal morphology, the framework has broader implications for theories of nominal structure and lexical cognition, in particular offering a unified analysis of determiner-noun structure. These results suggest that the state constitutes one instance of a broader class of syntactically conditioned dependencies that also includes agreement and grammatical case.

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.

Writing and communication are increasingly mediated by large language models (LLMs) that are being used to draft, revise and polish text. Although such assistance can improve clarity and help authors meet institutional expectations, widespread reliance on shared models may reduce population-level variation in linguistic form, a phenomenon we refer to as linguistic monoculture. We develop a mathematical framework in which authors and LLMs are represented as distributions over linguistic features and coevolve through repeated interaction. We analyze three interaction mechanisms: a shared model with a fixed linguistic distribution, a shared model recursively updated from author outputs, and personalized models updated through author-specific and population-level feedback. We characterize the resulting equilibria and convergence rates, showing that, shared models can drive authors toward a common norm, recursive feedback relocates the shared norm without altering pairwise spread under common conformity, and personalization can preserve a family of distinct author-model equilibria with nonzero linguistic diversity. We then endogenize conformity as a strategic choice trading off private benefits from clarity, legibility, and perceived fluency against distinctive style. Within this utility model, individually rational authors may conform more than is socially optimal because they do not internalize the value their distinctiveness provides to others, creating a negative externality and a price of monoculture that is finite for each fixed instance but can grow without bound when distinctiveness dominates authenticity. Synthetic simulations illustrate how fixed shared assistance, recursive feedback, and personalization produce different long-run diversity outcomes.

Regional bias in large language models (LLMs) may shape both perceptions of regional groups and decisions about individuals from different regions. Yet existing studies often examine these manifestations separately, leaving their structure and consequences unclear. We introduce Stereotypes-to-Decisions (S2D), a systematic framework evaluating regional bias from abstract stereotypes to concrete social decisions. Covering all 34 provincial-level administrative regions of China, S2D evaluates six LLMs using stereotype ratings of Warmth (perceived friendliness and trustworthiness) and Competence (perceived capability and intelligence), along with paired-choice tasks across Education, Occupation, and Social Interaction. Results reveal substantial regional differences in regional scores, with considerable agreement across models, especially for Competence and Occupation decisions. Furthermore, these patterns are associated with regional economic and digital development indicators and display mixed human-like stereotypes, with some regions rated highly on one dimension but poorly on the other. They also remain largely stable across Chinese and English prompts. Overall, our findings show that regional bias in LLMs is prevalent, systematic, and consequential, motivating more regionally aware evaluation and mitigation.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly embedded in everyday life and widely used for information seeking, raising concerns about their potential to perpetuate social biases and reinforce stereotypes. In this study, we investigate gender bias in LLMs through the lens of their associations with musical instruments. Building on social-science research on the cultural gender-typing of instruments, we introduce Symphony-Bias, a parallel multimodal dataset spanning text, vision, and audio. We evaluate ten multimodal models with diverse architectures and scales across 22 musical instruments, analyzing how they associate each instrument with three gender categories: {male, female, non-binary}, across three modalities: {text, vision, audio}. Our results show that 92% of instrument-level outcomes align with prior social-science findings, with the harp and drums showing particularly consistent gendered associations across all evaluated models and modalities. We further find that alignment with social stereotypes is weakest in audio, stronger in vision, and strongest in text, suggesting that modality-specific representations can differentially amplify gendered associations with musical instruments.\footnote{The Symphony-Bias dataset will be publicly released upon acceptance of the paper.}

Quattrociocchi and colleagues warn that the fluent outputs of large language models may allow linguistic plausibility to substitute for epistemic evaluation, producing the condition they call Epistemia: the experience of possessing knowledge without undertaking the practices through which judgment would ordinarily be warranted. This article accepts that diagnosis but challenges its explanatory framework, which compares an embodied, socially situated human knower with an isolated generative model thereby locating epistemic legitimacy in capacities internal to autonomous agents. Drawing on Carlo Sini's philosophy of practices, writing, signs, and technics, we propose instead to understand a large language model (LLM) as a techno-semiotic machine that automates a phase of written semiosis by producing plausible linguistic configurations from the sedimented archive of human writing. From this perspective, Epistemia is one consequence of a broader phenomenon that we call epistemic schizologia: the socio-technical cleavage between signs as linguistically accomplished expressions and signs as moments within socially embedded circuits of interpretation, evidence, criticism, verification, and responsibility. This cleavage is reinforced by eikotic closure, through which a plausible continuation is presented with the finality of an epistemic result, and by algorithmic authority and epistemic self-misrecognition. The relevant unit is therefore not the model alone but the complete practice in which generated inscriptions are prompted, interpreted, verified, contested, used, and made consequential. This reframing preserves the distinction between linguistic production and responsible understanding while grounding a design programme centred on inspectable genealogy, contestability, distributed responsibility, epistemic agency, and the evaluation of hybrid human--AIpractices.

Prompt compression shortens LLM input to reduce inference cost, yet existing methods score token importance through LM forward passes. It remains questionable whether such nuanced, costly token selection is necessary. Compression requires identifying informative content, a problem that linguistic research has long addressed through cues that can be operationalized as deterministic rules. We therefore ask: can \textbf{linguistic rules alone} serve as effective prompt compressors, without LM-based scoring at compression time? To address this, we conduct offline evolutionary search over lexical, syntactic, semantic, and discourse seeds to find competitive rule combinations. The resulting linguistic compressor requires no LM forward pass at deployment and uses only CPU-side processing for compression. We evaluate it with a dual-path protocol to balance compression quality and reconstruction fidelity. Across short passages, multi-document reasoning, and dialogue-memory QA datasets, evolved compressors achieve performance similar to that of recent advanced prompt-compression strategies. Performance is strongest under light-to-moderate compression and degrades as compression becomes more aggressive, while the Direct and Reconstruction paths exhibit distinct patterns. Evolutionary analysis reveals that effective compression fuses signals across linguistic levels and, as the compression ratio increases, rules shift from token pruning to sentence extraction.

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.

Large language models may easily assign personality labels from text, but model interpretability remains an open problem. To address this gap, we introduce LEX-EC, a reusable black-box audit framework combining prevalence and agreement diagnostics with controlled lexical ablation to distinguish marginal-distribution effects from trait-associated signal recoverable under restricted evidence. Using this framework, we illustrate how various text genres may exhibit sharply different profiles: free-form essay text contains the broadest, but still weak, signal; in graduate student introductions, an observable Extraversion association weakened after masking; and single Facebook statuses yield little stable evidence even in a trait-balanced sample, indicating a possible lower bound of content or length. Masking topical and demographic content weakened some associations while leaving others detectable from function words, affective terms, and cognitive-style vocabulary. Linguistic prompting shifted model self-explanations but did not eliminate topical content. LEX-EC jointly evaluates classification prevalence, item-level association, chance-corrected agreement, persistence under lexical restriction, and prompt sensitivity in model-generated explanations. Across datasets, models, and prompts, LEX-EC characterizes how trait associations may vary with available lexical evidence, introducing a novel application of lexical methods to black-box interpretability in personality labeling.

Existing research on affect in speech has shown how acoustic surface characteristics and content-related linguistic aspects of speech both relate to perceived emotional arousal and valence. However, it is not clear what the relative contributions of these two factors are in the perceptual process. This is especially true for Finnish, for which most existing studies focus on either acoustic-phonetic or text analysis. This paper presents a study where we systematically explore the combinatory role of text- and audio-based features in modeling the human perception of valence and arousal using a newly released affective speech corpus for spontaneous Finnish. We show that the combination of text- and audio-based features improves valence regression results over the individual modalities, whereas for arousal regression the complementary effect is not substantial. The results support prior findings from other languages, providing new data and knowledge on spontaneous Finnish speech.

Joint-Embedding Predictive Architectures (JEPAs) are effective for images, video, and audio, yet deterministic JEPA-style latent prediction has not become a standard objective for text encoders. We argue that this gap reflects a mismatch between squared-error latent prediction and the conditional structure of language. The key requirement is conditional concentration: given a context and target location, the target representation should lie near a single meaningful point. Local image prediction often satisfies this through spatial continuity, whereas masked text can admit multiple valid token or span completions whose representations need not share a coherent center. We formalize this mismatch through three conditions---predictability, non-collapse, and low conditional variance---and show how their failure creates centroid degeneracy and collapse pressure in text. Matched I-JEPA and T-JEPA experiments reveal the predicted sequence: mutual-information saturation and elevated target variance precede train--validation instability, effective-rank degeneration, cosine collapse, and poor downstream transfer. The same pattern appears across five independent data seeds, indicating that it is not a sampling artifact. These results do not rule out predictive learning for language; they show that text-compatible JEPA objectives must preserve multiple plausible completions rather than compress them into a single latent point.

Over fourty years after the initial publication of "Implications of Theories of Language for Information Systems" in MIS Quaterly, Lyytinen reflects about the origins of his publication and the developments in this area of research over the past decades. In the here presented interview, Lyytinen discusses the linguistic core of information systems also in light of recent trends and developments in the field, especially with regards to large language models and generative AI. Future research directions following a linguistic perspective on Information Systems (IS) research are outlined.

Mathematical Word Problems (MWPs) are an important benchmark for evaluating natural language understanding and quantitative reasoning. Despite recent progress in high resource languages, Bengali remains underexplored due to the limited availability of large scale annotated datasets. In this work, we introduce PatiGonit22K, an expanded Bengali MWP dataset containing 22,441 problems, developed by extending the original PatiGonit dataset with a substantially larger collection of complex mathematical problems. The dataset includes both simple and multi operation equations, providing a balanced benchmark for evaluating mathematical reasoning across different difficulty levels. Each problem is carefully translated, annotated, culturally adapted, and verified to ensure linguistic consistency and mathematical correctness. By increasing both the scale and complexity of Bengali MWPs, PatiGonit22K provides a more comprehensive resource for future research on mathematical reasoning and educational NLP applications in low resource languages.

Surprisal theory holds that the human processing difficulty of a linguistic unit in context is an affine function of its surprisal under some language model. I argue this claim is a tautology without further constraint: for any non-negative difficulty measure over units in context, there exists a language model whose surprisal is an affine function of it under mild technical conditions. Therefore, because any pattern of difficulty is consistent with some language model, without an additional constraint on the language model, surprisal theory makes no falsifiable predictions. The tautology was long obscured by an assumption implicit in two decades of psycholinguistic work---that the relevant language model is the distribution that generated the training corpus, so that improving corpus fit improves predictions of human behavior. Recent empirical work has undermined this assumption, demonstrating that better corpus models can be worse predictors of processing difficulty. I conclude that breaking the tautology requires a rationalist intervention, i.e., the relevant language model must be derived from a non-empirically motivated model of the comprehender, which could be based on, for instance, memory constraints or processing goals, and that, thus, does not depend on the behavioral data surprisal theory is meant to explain.

This study investigates vowel-inherent spectral change (VISC) in spontaneous conversational Mandarin. Using the generalized additive model and word embeddings from distributional semantics, we show that, when controlling for variables such as vowel duration, gender, speaker identity, co-articulation, vowel identity, and utterance position, vowel formant trajectory dynamics have word-specific components that are tied to their meaning in context: The F1 and F2 trajectories of words can be predicted from their contextualized embeddings with an accuracy that substantially exceeds a permutation baseline. Challenging modular cognitive models of speech production, these results indicate that, words' semantics co-determine the fine details of their articulation.

Slang is a central component of everyday language, reflecting linguistic creativity, social identity, and cultural change, yet its dy- namic and non-standard nature makes it difficult to model computationally. We present the first large-scale computational study of slang.gr, a crowdsourced lexicon of Greek non-standard language, combining lexical content, user-generated tags, and interaction data. To enable the systematic analysis, we map noisy folksonomic tags to a structured multi-layer taxonomy capturing both semantic categories and sociolinguistic metadata. Using this representation, we analyze the linguistic structure of Greek slang and the behavior of its contributor community. We find that slang is strongly centered on person-related and evaluative language, exhibits high morphological creativity, and is shaped by highly skewed participation with short user lifespans and overlapping communities. Building on these signals, we introduce a community-based confidence score for definitions that integrates user roles, interaction patterns, and moderation signals. Our results show that taxonomy-based representations improve interpretability while retaining meaningful aspects of behavioral structure, enabling a more structured and interpretable analysis of confidence signals. Overall, this work establishes slang.gr as a computational resource for non-standard Greek and provides a foundation for sociolinguistic NLP, bias analysis, and the study of informal language in LLMs.

Coordination, a fundamental linguistic structure, remains a subject of intense debate, and its exact nature continues to elude theoretical linguistics. A common view holds that only same-category constituents can be conjoined, which has been challenged by the many grammatical unlike coordinations found in natural language. Treating language models as a computational testbed, we investigate whether the acquisition of unlike coordination requires direct exposure in the training data, or whether it can emerge organically from general compositional abilities. Using Filtered-Corpus Training (FiCT), we train GPT-2 models on corpora from which all instances of unlike coordination have been removed. We find that direct exposure is not necessary: models trained on filtered data successfully generalize to unlike coordination, achieving perplexity and grammaticality judgments comparable to models trained on unfiltered text. Furthermore, our analyses of internal representations indicate that language models process unlike coordination by treating the conjoined elements as belonging to similar structural categories or through a mechanism akin to deletion, both of which appear learnable from exposure to alike coordination alone. This work contributes to the growing understanding of how language models internally represent linguistic structures, while also adding to the broader debate on coordination by showing how models generalize and process unlike coordination without direct exposure.

Surprisal Theory is often characterized as a computational-level explanation per (Marr, 1982). We argue in this work that, even though a computational level narrative has been used to support "representation-agnostic research" within computational psycholinguistics, the movement toward black box systems embodied by large language models (LLMs) does not exempt modelers using the surprisal metric from the representational decisions required by computational-level characterizations. In fact, we argue that the uncritical use of LLM-surprisal obfuscates the representational and algorithmic-level commitments of different models. In three analyses, we show that the choice of algorithm and model architecture play significant roles in the computation of language model probabilities. We advise that researchers who wish to test Surprisal Theory re-evaluate the practice of treating large language model probabilities as interchangeable

Large language models (LLMs) are known to be sensitive to prompt and input formulations. However, existing studies have focused on lexical realization and largely ignored constructional choice. This paper studies whether linguistic construction can systematically shift LLM decisions and where these shifts can be causally localized inside the model. We use political stance judgment as a meaning-sensitive case study and extend an English political statements dataset, resulting in six controlled linguistic rewrite types that preserve or invert the meaning of a statement. Experiments on four open-weight models show that stance instability affect both meaning-preserving and meaning-inversing rewrites. Because output shifts reveal that rewrites affect stance, but not where in the model, we apply activation patching, where activations from the original statement are substituted into the forward pass for the rewritten statement and measure which components recover the original stance distribution. The results show that mid-to-late decoder layers, especially block outputs at the final prompt position, provide the strongest restoration signal.