Linguistics

The design of Large Language Models (LLMs) and generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has been shown to be "unfair" to less-spoken languages (Petrov et al., 2023) and to deepen the digital language divide (Bella et al., 2023). Critical sociolinguistic work has also argued that these technologies are not only made possible by prior sociohistorical processes of linguistic standardisation, often grounded in European nationalist and colonial projects (Migge and Schneider, 2025), but also exacerbate epistemologies of language as "monolithic, monolingual, syntactically standardized systems of meaning" (Schneider, 2024, p. 5). In our paper, we draw on earlier work on the intersections of technology and language policy (Kelly-Holmes, 2019) and bring our respective expertise in critical sociolinguistics and computational linguistics to bear on an interrogation of these arguments. We take two different complexes of non-standard linguistic varieties in our respective repertoires-South Tyrolean dialects, which are widely used in informal communication in South Tyrol, Italy (Alber et al., 2024), as well as varieties of Kurdish-as starting points to an interdisciplinary exploration of the intersections between GenAI and linguistic variation and standardisation. We discuss both how LLMs can be made to deal with non-standard language from a technical perspective, and whether, when or how this can contribute to "democratic and decolonial digital and machine learning strategies" (Migge and Schneider, 2025, p. 12), which has direct policy implications.

Large language models are increasingly used in scholarly work, yet it remains unclear whether their productivity gains are accompanied by changes in research novelty. We examine how relative abstract-level semantic novelty in Information Systems journals changed after ChatGPT became widely available and whether this change differed across institutional language contexts. We analyze 13,847 articles published from 2020 to 2025 in 44 A* and A Information Systems journals. Using SPECTER2 representations of titles and abstracts, we measure each article's semantic distance from its nearest recent predecessors and estimate a comparative pre/post model. Articles whose first authors were affiliated with institutions in non-English-dominant countries show a 0.176 standard deviation larger post-2022 decline in relative semantic novelty than articles from English-dominant affiliations, equivalent to about 7 percentile points. The pattern is similar across several alternative specifications, although the balanced-author estimate is less precise. We interpret this finding through a tension in generative AI-supported knowledge work. GenAI can widen access to prior knowledge and support new combinations, but it can also make established frames easier to reproduce. Because individual LLM use is not observed, the result identifies a heterogeneous post-2022 shift rather than an effect of LLM adoption. The study extends research on LLMs and scholarly productivity by shifting attention from publication counts to the semantic positioning of published articles and by showing that post-2022 change differs across institutional contexts.

Associations between speech sounds and meaning are well documented but have not been systematically mapped over a whole alphabet. Here we map them across the 26 English letters and find that each carries a structured, multidimensional semantic profile that is recoverable from text, perceived across languages, and predicted by articulatory features. Three large language models independently detected consistent semantic structure across nine perceptual dimensions in 220 pairwise letter contrasts, and the profiles they recovered were then tested in preregistered experiments with 1,388 human participants. Native English readers chose the predicted word above chance (85.3%, selected items; 65.7%, all contrasts), and the preference followed the letter rather than the words that carried it. Listeners of five typologically diverse languages showed the same preference (76.7%, selected pairs; 68.4%, randomly drawn contrasts), regardless of their English proficiency. Articulatory features assigned to each letter predicted both the model profiles and the human judgments. Letter-meaning association is thus a systematic, multidimensional property of the alphabet rather than a set of isolated effects.

In cognitive science and linguistic theory, dialogue is not seen as a chain of independent utterances but rather as a joint activity sustained by coherence, consistency, and shared understanding. However, many systems for open-domain and personalized dialogue use surface-level similarity metrics (e.g., BLEU, ROUGE, F1) as one of their main reporting measures, which fail to capture these deeper aspects of conversational quality. We re-examine a notable retrieval-augmented framework for personalized dialogue, LAPDOG, as a case study for evaluation methodology. Using both human and LLM-based judges, we identify limitations in current evaluation practices, including corrupted dialogue histories, contradictions between retrieved stories and persona, and incoherent response generation. Our results show that human and LLM judgments align closely but diverge from lexical similarity metrics, underscoring the need for cognitively grounded evaluation methods. Broadly, this work charts a path toward more reliable assessment frameworks for retrieval-augmented dialogue systems that better reflect the principles of natural human communication.

This paper introduces an updated and combined version of the bidirectional English-German EPIC-UdS (spoken) and EuroParl-UdS (written) corpora containing original European Parliament speeches as well as their translations and interpretations. The new version corrects metadata and text errors identified through previous use, refines the content, updates linguistic annotations, and adds new layers, including word alignment and word-level surprisal indices. The combined resource is designed to support research using information-theoretic approaches to language variation, particularly studies comparing written and spoken modes, and examining disfluencies in speech, as well as traditional translationese studies, including parallel (source vs. target) and comparable (original vs. translated) analyses. The paper outlines the updates introduced in this release, summarises previous results based on the corpus, and presents a new illustrative study. The study validates the integrity of the rebuilt spoken data and evaluates probabilistic measures derived from base and fine-tuned GPT-2 and machine translation models on the task of filler particles prediction in interpreting.

Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models enable robots to perform manipulation tasks directly from natural language instructions and are increasingly viewed as a foundation for generalist robotic policies. However, their reliability under Out-of-Distribution (OOD) instructions remains underexplored. In this paper, we reveal a critical failure mode in which VLA policies continue executing visually plausible actions even when the language instruction contradicts the scene. We refer to this phenomenon as linguistic blindness, where VLA policies prioritize visual priors over instruction semantics during action generation. To systematically analyze this issue, we introduce ICBench, a diagnostic benchmark constructed from the LIBERO dataset that probes language-action coupling by injecting controlled OOD instruction contradictions while keeping the visual environment unchanged. Evaluations on three representative VLA architectures, including Pi0, Pi0.5 and OpenVLA OFT, show that these models frequently succeed at tasks despite logically impossible instructions, revealing a strong visual bias in action generation. To mitigate this issue, we propose Instruction-Guided Attention Recalibration (IGAR), a train-free inference-time mechanism that rebalances attention distributions to restore the influence of language instructions. IGAR operates without retraining or architectural modification and can be directly applied to existing VLA models. Experiments across 30 LIBERO tasks demonstrate that IGAR substantially reduces erroneous execution under OOD contradictory instructions while preserving baseline task performance. We additionally validate the approach on a real Franka robotic arm, where IGAR effectively prevents manipulation triggered by inconsistent instructions.

The internal representations learned by language models consistently exhibit striking geometric structure: calendar months organize into a circle, historical years form a smooth one-dimensional manifold, and cities' latitudes and longitudes can be decoded using a linear probe. To explain this neural code, we first show that language statistics exhibit translation symmetry (for example, the frequency with which any two months co-occur in text depends only on the time interval between them). We prove that this symmetry governs these geometric structures in high-dimensional word embedding models, and we analytically derive the manifold geometry of word representations. These predictions empirically match large text embedding models and large language models. Moreover, the representational geometry persists at moderate embedding dimension even when the relevant statistics are perturbed (e.g., by removing all sentences in which two months co-occur). We prove that this robustness emerges naturally when the co-occurrence statistics are controlled by an underlying latent variable. Our results indicate that these representational manifolds originate in the statistical symmetries of natural language.

When humans and large language models (LLMs) process the same text, activations in the LLMs correlate with brain activity measured, e.g., with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Moreover, it has been shown that, as the training of an LLM progresses, the performance in predicting brain activity from its internal activations improves more in the left hemisphere than in the right one. The aim of the present work is to understand which kind of competence acquired by the LLMs underlies the emergence of this left-right asymmetry. Using the OLMo-2 7B language model at various training checkpoints and fMRI data from English participants, we compare the evolution of the left-right asymmetry in the correlation between brain activity and model predictions alongside performance on several benchmarks. We observe that the asymmetry co-emerges with the formal linguistic abilities of the LLM. These abilities are demonstrated in two ways: by the model's capacity to assign a higher probability to an acceptable sentence than to a grammatically unacceptable one within a minimal contrasting pair, and by its ability to produce well-formed text. By contrast, the left-right asymmetry does not align with the performance on arithmetic or Dyck language tasks; nor with text-based tasks involving world knowledge and reasoning. We generalize these results to another family of LLMs (Pythia) and two other languages, French and Chinese. Our observations indicate that the left-right asymmetry in brain predictivity matches the progress in formal linguistic competence.

Elucidating the language-brain relationship requires bridging the methodological gap between the abstract theoretical frameworks of linguistics and the empirical neural data of neuroscience. Serving as an interdisciplinary cornerstone, computational neuroscience formalizes the hierarchical and dynamic structures of language into testable neural models through modeling, simulation, and data analysis. This enables a computational dialogue between linguistic hypotheses and neural mechanisms. Recent advances in deep learning, particularly large language models (LLMs), have powerfully advanced this pursuit. Their high-dimensional representational spaces provide a novel scale for exploring the neural basis of linguistic processing, while the "model-brain alignment" framework offers a methodology to evaluate the biological plausibility of language-related theories.

Negotiation is a core component of social intelligence, requiring agents to balance strategic reasoning, cooperation, and social norms. Recent work shows that LLMs can engage in multi-turn negotiation, yet nearly all evaluations occur exclusively in English. Using controlled multi-agent simulations across Ultimatum, Buy-Sell, and Resource Exchange games, we systematically isolate language effects across English and four Indic framings (Hindi, Punjabi, Gujarati, Marwadi) by holding game rules, model parameters, and incentives constant across all conditions. We find that language choice can shift outcomes more strongly than changing models, reversing proposer advantages and reallocating surplus. Crucially, effects are task-contingent: Indic languages reduce stability in distributive games yet induce richer exploration in integrative settings. Our results demonstrate that evaluating LLM negotiation solely in English yields incomplete and potentially misleading conclusions. These findings caution against English-only evaluation of LLMs and suggest that culturally-aware evaluation is essential for fair deployment.

We inspect the deductive connection between the neural scaling law and Zipf's law -- two statements discussed in machine learning and quantitative linguistics. The neural scaling law describes how the cross entropy rate of a foundation model -- such as a large language model -- changes with respect to the amount of training tokens, parameters, and compute. By contrast, Zipf's law posits that the distribution of tokens exhibits a power law tail. Whereas similar claims have been made in more specific settings, we show that the neural scaling law is a consequence of Zipf's law under certain broad assumptions that we reveal systematically. The derivation steps are as follows: We derive Heaps' law on the vocabulary growth from Zipf's law, Hilberg's hypothesis on the entropy scaling from Heaps' law, and the neural scaling from Hilberg's hypothesis. We illustrate these inference steps by a toy example of the Santa Fe process that satisfies all four statistical laws.

Large Language Model (LLM)-based Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) are susceptible to linguistic attacks that can trigger cascading failures across the network. Existing defenses face a fundamental dilemma: lightweight single-auditor methods are prone to single points of failure, while robust committee-based approaches incur prohibitive computational costs in multi-turn interactions. To address this challenge, we propose \textbf{MAS-Shield}, a secure and efficient defense framework designed with a coarse-to-fine filtering pipeline. Rather than applying uniform scrutiny, MAS-Shield dynamically allocates defense resources through a three-stage protocol: (1) \textbf{Critical Agent Selection } strategically targets high-influence nodes to narrow the defense surface; (2) \textbf{Light Auditing} employs lightweight sentry models to rapidly filter the majority of benign cases; and (3) \textbf{Global Consensus Auditing} escalates only suspicious or ambiguous signals to a heavyweight committee for definitive arbitration. This hierarchical design effectively optimizes the security-efficiency trade-off. Experiments demonstrate that MAS-Shield achieves a 92.5% recovery rate against diverse adversarial scenarios and reduces defense latency by over 70% compared to existing methods.

The URIEL+ linguistic knowledge base supports multilingual research by encoding languages through geographic, genetic, and typological vectors. However, data sparsity (e.g. missing feature types, incomplete language entries, and limited genealogical coverage) remains prevalent. This limits the usefulness of URIEL+ in cross-lingual transfer, particularly for supporting low-resource languages. To address this sparsity, we extend URIEL+ by introducing script vectors to represent writing system properties for 7,488 languages, integrating Glottolog to add 18,710 additional languages, and expanding lineage imputation for 26,449 languages by propagating typological and script features across genealogies. These improvements reduce feature sparsity by 14% for script vectors, increase language coverage by up to 19,015 languages (1,007%), and boost imputation quality metrics by up to 35%. Our benchmark on cross-lingual transfer tasks (oriented around low-resource languages) shows occasionally divergent performance compared to URIEL+, with performance gains up to 6% in certain setups.

Most state-of-the-art sign language models are trained on interpreter or isolated vocabulary data, which overlooks the variability that characterizes natural dialogue. However, human communication dynamically adapts to contexts and interlocutors through spatiotemporal changes and articulation style. This specifically manifests itself in educational settings, where novel vocabularies are used by teachers, and students. To address this gap, we collect a motion capture dataset of American Sign Language (ASL) STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) dialogue that enables quantitative comparison between dyadic interactive signing, solo signed lecture, and interpreted articles. Using continuous kinematic features, we disentangle dialogue-specific entrainment from individual effort reduction and show spatiotemporal changes across repeated mentions of STEM terms. On average, dialogue signs are 24.6%-44.6% shorter in duration than the isolated signs, and show significant reductions absent in monologue contexts. Finally, we evaluate sign embedding models on their ability to recognize STEM signs and approximate how entrained the participants become over time. Our study bridges linguistic analysis and computational modeling to understand how pragmatics shape sign articulation and its representation in sign language technologies.

Evaluating image captions requires cohesive assessment of both visual semantics and language pragmatics, which is often not entirely captured by most metrics. As such metrics increasingly guide model development, benchmarking, and system optimization in multimodal AI, inaccuracies in evaluation can misrepresent true progress. We introduce Redemption Score(RS), a novel evaluation framework for multi-modal generation by triangulating three complementary signals: (1) Mutual Information Divergence (MID) for global image-text distributional alignment, (2) DINO-based perceptual similarity of cycle-generated images for visual grounding, and (3) LLM Text Embeddings for contextual text similarity against human references. A calibrated fusion of these signals allows RS to offer a more holistic assessment. On the Flickr8k benchmark, RS achieves a Kendall-$τ$ of 58.42, outperforming most prior methods and demonstrating superior correlation with human judgments without requiring task-specific training. Our framework provides a more robust and nuanced evaluation by thoroughly examining both the visual accuracy and text quality together, with consistent performance across Conceptual Captions and MS COCO.

Scientific language is a central infrastructure of knowledge production, but it remains unclear whether large language models (LLMs) are altering not only how scientists write, but also how scientific knowledge is communicated and accessed. Here we analyze 21.36 million scientific abstracts published between 2020 and 2024, together with historical records from major journals, to trace recent changes in the language of science. We identify a marked turning point in 2024, when scientific writing shows a sharp increase in lexical complexity alongside a decline in syntactic complexity. This shift is pervasive across disciplines and journal tiers, and is more pronounced in texts by scholars working in non-native English contexts, especially those from language backgrounds that differ more typologically from English. Controlled polishing experiments confirm that LLMs reproduce this pattern by favoring more lexically dense and syntactically compressed expression. We further show why this linguistic shift matters: it may widen the distance between scientific discourse and public-facing language, while also helping scholars in non-native English contexts navigate English-language publishing requirements. These findings suggest that LLMs may broaden participation in scientific authorship while narrowing the accessibility of scientific communication, making them a new force in the linguistic infrastructure of science.

Instruct-based large language models (LLMs) have been shown to propagate and even amplify gender bias when prompted with contextually constrained instructions (e.g., writing a text from a description or selecting a gendered pronoun). However, little attention has been paid to biases in responses to contextually unconstrained (generic) instructions conveyed by gendered language, particularly masculine generics (MG). MG, found in many gender-marked languages, denote the use of the masculine gender as a supposedly neutral reference to mixed-gender groups or individuals whose gender is unknown or non-binary. Yet, psycholinguistic studies demonstrate that MG are not neutral and systematically induce gender bias. This study investigates how both local and proprietary LLMs are MG-biased when responding to generic prompts in French, examining LLMs' MG bias rates and use of gender-fair language (GFL). We create a 16k+ human noun database from existing lexical resources and evaluate six LLMs on four instruction-response datasets under two conditions: prompts with and without MG. Overall, we find that $\approx$27.57% of LLMs' responses to MG-filtered generic instructions are MG-biased ($\approx$78.55% with MG-containing prompts). Moreover, we find that LLMs rarely use GFL spontaneously. These findings highlight the persistence of MG bias in LLM outputs and models' limited tendency towards GFL strategies.

From the printing press to social media, innovations in communication technology have repeatedly reshaped how ideas spread through human culture. Chatbots powered by generative artificial intelligence constitute a new medium, encoding cultural patterns in their neural representations and disseminating them in conversations with hundreds of millions of people. Whether these patterns transmit into human language, and ultimately shape human culture, is a fundamental question. While fully quantifying the causal impact of a chatbot like ChatGPT on human culture is challenging, lexical shifts in human spoken communication may offer an early indicator. Here we show that words preferentially generated by ChatGPT, such as delve, showcase, boast, intricacies and meticulous, increased abruptly in spontaneous human speech. A synthetic-control analysis of 737,083 hours of conversation from 824,634 podcast episodes, screened for unscripted speech, causally links this shift to ChatGPT's release. The measurable influence on spontaneous speech suggests that humans internalize the lexical choices of large language models (LLMs). A preregistered experiment (N = 496) confirms they do, as a brief chatbot interaction led participants to adopt its words as their own, persisting past a distractor task and confirmed in forced lexical choice, indicating entrenchment in the active vocabulary. Together these results show that machines trained on human data now feed their own traits back into human language, integrating LLMs into the ongoing processes of cultural evolution.. This coupling raises concerns about linguistic homogenization and the capacity of a few major AI providers for latent cultural influence at scale.

The social biases and unwelcome stereotypes revealed by pretrained language models are becoming obstacles to their application. Compared to numerous debiasing methods targeting word level, there has been relatively less attention on biases present at phrase level, limiting the performance of debiasing in discipline domains. In this paper, we propose an automatic multi-token debiasing pipeline called \textbf{General Phrase Debiaser}, which is capable of mitigating phrase-level biases in masked language models. Specifically, our method consists of a \textit{phrase filter stage} that generates stereotypical phrases from Wikipedia pages as well as a \textit{model debias stage} that can debias models at the multi-token level to tackle bias challenges on phrases. The latter searches for prompts that trigger model's bias, and then uses them for debiasing. State-of-the-art results on standard datasets and metrics show that our approach can significantly reduce gender biases on both career and multiple disciplines, across models with varying parameter sizes.

We discuss the nature of chatbots as conversation partners in problem-solving conversations. What can chatbots do and what can't they do? Our analysis draws on insights from Aggregation Dynamics, Cognitive Linguistics, Neuropsychology and Psychology. We establish that chatbots are multifaceted and composite systems. Our argument focuses on basic chatbots in the hope of thereby making statements about the core functionality of more advanced chatbots. Basic chatbots are assumed to consist of a Large Language Model (LLM) with a simple interface. The main results of our analysis are: a description of human imagination, understanding and thinking based on so-called metaphorical problem propagations; that the texts in text datasets used for training LLMs have specific characteristics and that these texts only partially imitate human thinking and understanding; that the LLM training process encodes artificial metaphorical problem propagations into an LLM from these text datasets. Our conclusions are that a basic chatbot cannot be a thinking partner capable of matching the cognitive flexibility of humans, and that further development of LLMs will not lead to this either. But chatbots exist, they are being used on a massive scale, by both individuals and organisations. It is therefore socially and politically important to understand them. Our article aims to contribute to the discussion on the functioning, benefits and drawbacks of chatbots. Cognitive Linguistics shows how the use of metaphor is an expression of our thinking. Aggregation Dynamics, is an attempt at a comprehensive systems theory. We believe that the concept of metaphorical problem propagation could provide an interesting addition for both. Chatbots a solution? For what?

Psycholinguistics studies show that human readers fall for coherence illusions: an incoherent discourse can seem coherent simply because a distractor matches what comes next. We investigate whether Dutch language models (6 monolingual and 4 multilingual) show the same behavior on texts that link back to earlier context with words such as 'again' and 'too'. First, we find that surprisal at the critical word tracks human acceptability judgments and eye-tracking data. Models are more surprised by incoherent continuations, but a matching distractor in the prior context reduces this surprisal. Second, attention entropy identifies heads that behave differently under coherence vs. incoherence. We find that ablating these heads shows transfer effects across experiments, suggesting a shared mechanism. Third, we introduce energy from the associative-memory literature as a metric to quantify discourse coherence. Taken together, our results show that coherence illusions arise in Dutch LLMs, with entropy and energy exposing mechanisms that operate across settings.