Differences in Typological Alignment in Language Models' Treatment of Differential Argument Marking

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.17653v1
• Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2026 18:56:34 GMT
• Title: Differences in Typological Alignment in Language Models' Treatment of Differential Argument Marking
• Abstract summary: differential argument marking (DAM) is a semantic licensing system in which morphological marking depends on semantic prominence.<n>We train GPT-2 models on 18 corpora implementing distinct DAM systems and evaluate their generalization using minimal pairs.<n>Our results reveal a dissociation between two typological dimensions of DAM.
• Score: 1.9371675344367494
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Recent work has shown that language models (LMs) trained on synthetic corpora can exhibit typological preferences that resemble cross-linguistic regularities in human languages, particularly for syntactic phenomena such as word order. In this paper, we extend this paradigm to differential argument marking (DAM), a semantic licensing system in which morphological marking depends on semantic prominence. Using a controlled synthetic learning method, we train GPT-2 models on 18 corpora implementing distinct DAM systems and evaluate their generalization using minimal pairs. Our results reveal a dissociation between two typological dimensions of DAM. Models reliably exhibit human-like preferences for natural markedness direction, favoring systems in which overt marking targets semantically atypical arguments. In contrast, models do not reproduce the strong object preference in human languages, in which overt marking in DAM more often targets objects rather than subjects. These findings suggest that different typological tendencies may arise from distinct underlying sources.

Related papers

• Enhancing Multilingual Reasoning via Steerable Model Merging [53.27036725623993]
  We propose a Steerable Model Merging (ST-Merge) framework to modulate the contribution of each source model.<n>We show that ST-Merge consistently outperforms multiple strong baselines on four multilingual reasoning benchmarks across 21 different languages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-17T12:28:47Z)
• Benchmarking Concept-Spilling Across Languages in LLMs [7.577675422356702]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit remarkable cross-lingual abilities, yet often exhibit a systematic bias toward representations from other languages.<n>This paper presents a novel comparative framework for evaluating multilingual semantic robustness by measuring how models handle polysemous words across languages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-18T19:28:26Z)
• Quantification and object perception in Multimodal Large Language Models deviate from human linguistic cognition [0.12314765641075438]
  Quantification has been proven to be a particularly difficult linguistic phenomenon for (Multimodal) Large Language Models (MLLMs)<n>This paper looks at three key features of human quantification shared cross-linguistically that have remained so far unexplored in the (M)LLM literature.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-11T11:30:21Z)
• 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)
• Exploring Large Language Models for Detecting Mental Disorders [6.5144428714312035]
  This paper compares the effectiveness of machine learning methods, encoder-based models, and large language models (LLMs) on the task of detecting depression and anxiety.<n>We tested AutoML models based on linguistic features, several variations of encoder-based Transformers such as BERT, and state-of-the-art LLMs as pathology classification models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-09T17:51:55Z)
• The Scenario Refiner: Grounding subjects in images at the morphological level [2.401993998791928]
  We ask whether Vision and Language (V&L) models capture such distinctions at the morphological level. We compare the results from V&L models to human judgements and find that models' predictions differ from those of human participants.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-20T12:23:06Z)
• Agentivit\`a e telicit\`a in GilBERTo: implicazioni cognitive [77.71680953280436]
  The goal of this study is to investigate whether a Transformer-based neural language model infers lexical semantics. The semantic properties considered are telicity (also combined with definiteness) and agentivity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-06T10:52:22Z)
• Interpreting Language Models with Contrastive Explanations [99.7035899290924]
  Language models must consider various features to predict a token, such as its part of speech, number, tense, or semantics. Existing explanation methods conflate evidence for all these features into a single explanation, which is less interpretable for human understanding. We show that contrastive explanations are quantifiably better than non-contrastive explanations in verifying major grammatical phenomena.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-21T18:32:24Z)
• A comprehensive comparative evaluation and analysis of Distributional Semantic Models [61.41800660636555]
  We perform a comprehensive evaluation of type distributional vectors, either produced by static DSMs or obtained by averaging the contextualized vectors generated by BERT. The results show that the alleged superiority of predict based models is more apparent than real, and surely not ubiquitous. We borrow from cognitive neuroscience the methodology of Representational Similarity Analysis (RSA) to inspect the semantic spaces generated by distributional models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-20T15:18:06Z)
• A Comparative Study of Lexical Substitution Approaches based on Neural Language Models [117.96628873753123]
  We present a large-scale comparative study of popular neural language and masked language models. We show that already competitive results achieved by SOTA LMs/MLMs can be further improved if information about the target word is injected properly.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-29T18:43:22Z)
• Do Neural Language Models Show Preferences for Syntactic Formalisms? [14.388237635684737]
  We study the extent to which the semblance of syntactic structure captured by language models adheres to a surface-syntactic or deep syntactic style of analysis. We apply a probe for extracting directed dependency trees to BERT and ELMo models trained on 13 different languages. We find that both models exhibit a preference for UD over SUD - with interesting variations across languages and layers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-29T11:37:53Z)
• Evaluating Transformer-Based Multilingual Text Classification [55.53547556060537]
  We argue that NLP tools perform unequally across languages with different syntactic and morphological structures. We calculate word order and morphological similarity indices to aid our empirical study.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-29T03:34:53Z)

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.