Studies with impossible languages falsify LMs as models of human language

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.11389v1
• Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2025 15:18:26 GMT
• Title: Studies with impossible languages falsify LMs as models of human language
• Authors: Jeffrey S. Bowers, Jeff Mitchell,
• Abstract summary: According to Futrell and Mahowald [arXiv:2501.17047], both infants and language models (LMs) find attested languages easier to learn than impossible languages that have unnatural structures.<n>We review the literature and show that LMs often learn attested and many impossible languages equally well.
• Score: 1.6328866317851185
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: According to Futrell and Mahowald [arXiv:2501.17047], both infants and language models (LMs) find attested languages easier to learn than impossible languages that have unnatural structures. We review the literature and show that LMs often learn attested and many impossible languages equally well. Difficult to learn impossible languages are simply more complex (or random). LMs are missing human inductive biases that support language acquisition.

Related papers

• Language models as tools for investigating the distinction between possible and impossible natural languages [30.440694754088934]
  We argue that language models (LMs) have strong potential as investigative tools for probing the distinction between possible and impossible natural languages.<n>We outline a phased research program in which LM architectures are iteratively refined to better discriminate between possible and impossible languages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-10T07:37:43Z)
• Language Generation: Complexity Barriers and Implications for Learning [51.449718747429756]
  We show that even for simple and well-studied language families the number of examples required for successful generation can be extraordinarily large.<n>These results reveal a substantial gap between theoretical possibility and efficient learnability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-07T23:06:48Z)
• Biasless Language Models Learn Unnaturally: How LLMs Fail to Distinguish the Possible from the Impossible [4.7831562043724665]
  We show that GPT-2 learns each language and its impossible counterpart equally easily.<n>By considering cross-linguistic variance in various metrics computed on the perplexity curves, we show that GPT-2 provides no systematic separation between the possible and the impossible.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-08T16:17:13Z)
• Anything Goes? A Crosslinguistic Study of (Im)possible Language Learning in LMs [14.78046527879077]
  We train language models to model impossible and typologically unattested languages.<n>Our results show that while GPT-2 small can largely distinguish attested languages, it does not achieve perfect separation between all the attested languages and all the impossible ones.<n>These findings suggest that LMs exhibit some human-like inductive biases, though these biases are weaker than those found in human learners.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-26T04:01:36Z)
• Can Language Models Learn Typologically Implausible Languages? [62.823015163987996]
  Grammatical features across human languages show intriguing correlations often attributed to learning biases in humans.<n>We discuss how language models (LMs) allow us to better determine the role of domain-general learning biases in language universals.<n>We test LMs on an array of highly naturalistic but counterfactual versions of the English (head-initial) and Japanese (head-final) languages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T20:40:01Z)
• Kallini et al. (2024) do not compare impossible languages with constituency-based ones [0.0]
  A central goal of linguistic theory is to find a characterization of the notion "possible human language" Recent large language models (LLMs) in NLP applications arguably raises the possibility that LLMs might be computational devices that meet this goal. I explain the confound and suggest some ways forward towards constructing a comparison that appropriately tests the underlying issue.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-16T06:16:30Z)
• Understanding and Mitigating Language Confusion in LLMs [76.96033035093204]
  We evaluate 15 typologically diverse languages with existing and newly-created English and multilingual prompts.<n>We find that Llama Instruct and Mistral models exhibit high degrees of language confusion.<n>We find that language confusion can be partially mitigated via few-shot prompting, multilingual SFT and preference tuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-28T17:03:51Z)
• Hire a Linguist!: Learning Endangered Languages with In-Context Linguistic Descriptions [49.97641297850361]
  LINGOLLM is a training-free approach to enable an LLM to process unseen languages that hardly occur in its pre-training. We implement LINGOLLM on top of two models, GPT-4 and Mixtral, and evaluate their performance on 5 tasks across 8 endangered or low-resource languages. Our results show that LINGOLLM elevates translation capability from GPT-4's 0 to 10.5 BLEU for 10 language directions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-28T03:44:01Z)
• Mission: Impossible Language Models [29.249131112359503]
  We develop a set of synthetic impossible languages of differing complexity. At one end are languages that are inherently impossible, such as random and irreversible shuffles of English words. At the other end are languages that may not be intuitively impossible but are often considered so in linguistics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-12T07:24:26Z)
• Do Multilingual Language Models Capture Differing Moral Norms? [71.52261949766101]
  Massively multilingual sentence representations are trained on large corpora of uncurated data. This may cause the models to grasp cultural values including moral judgments from the high-resource languages. The lack of data in certain languages can also lead to developing random and thus potentially harmful beliefs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-18T12:26:37Z)
• X-FACTR: Multilingual Factual Knowledge Retrieval from Pretrained Language Models [103.75890012041366]
  Language models (LMs) have proven surprisingly successful at capturing factual knowledge. However, studies on LMs' factual representation ability have almost invariably been performed on English. We create a benchmark of cloze-style probes for 23 typologically diverse languages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-13T05:29:56Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.