Better to Be Alone than in Bad Company: Cognate Synonyms Impair Word Learning

Cognates: their Power, Pitfalls and Untapped Potential and implications for the classroom

Introduction Let’s face it: in the chaotic symphony of vocabulary lists, verb drills, and assessment pressure, cognates are the low-hanging fruit we often forget to pick. And yet, they’re the close…

Is Cross-Lingual Transfer in Bilingual Models Human-Like? A Study with Overlapping Word Forms in Dutch and English

Bilingual speakers show cross-lingual activation during reading, especially for words with shared surface form. Cognates (friends) typically lead to facilitation, whereas interlingual homographs (false friends) cause interference or no effect. We examine whether cross-lingual activation in bilingual language models mirrors these patterns. We train Dutch-English causal Transformers under four vocabulary-sharing conditions that manipulate whether (false) friends receive shared or language-specific embeddings. Using psycholinguistic stimuli from bilingual reading studies, we evaluate the models through surprisal and embedding similarity analyses. The models largely maintain language separation, and cross-lingual effects arise primarily when embeddings are shared. In these cases, both friends and false friends show facilitation relative to controls. Regression analyses reveal that these effects are mainly driven by frequency rather than consistency in form-meaning mapping. Only when just friends share embeddings are the qualitative patterns of bilinguals reproduced. Overall, bilingual language models capture some cross-linguistic activation effects. However, their alignment with human processing seems to critically depend on how lexical overlap is encoded, possibly limiting their explanatory adequacy as models of bilingual reading.

How to Implement Cognate Instruction

Teaching with cognates can help multilingual learners draw on prior knowledge to understand new vocabulary.

False Friends Are Not Foes: Investigating Vocabulary Overlap in Multilingual Language Models

Subword tokenizers trained on multilingual corpora naturally produce overlapping tokens across languages. Does token overlap facilitate cross-lingual transfer or instead introduce interference between languages? Prior work offers mixed evidence, partly due to varied setups and confounders, such as token frequency or subword segmentation granularity. To address this question, we devise a controlled experiment where we train bilingual autoregressive models on multiple language pairs under systematically varied vocabulary overlap settings. Crucially, we explore a new dimension to understanding how overlap affects transfer: the semantic similarity of tokens shared across languages. We first analyze our models' hidden representations and find that overlap of any kind creates embedding spaces that capture cross-lingual semantic relationships, while this effect is much weaker in models with disjoint vocabularies. On XNLI and XQuAD, we find that models with overlap outperform models with disjoint vocabularies, and that transfer performance generally improves as overlap increases. Overall, our findings highlight the advantages of token overlap in multilingual models and show that substantial shared vocabulary remains a beneficial design choice for multilingual tokenizers.

Word family

A word family is the base form of a word plus its inflected forms and derived forms made with suffixes and prefixes[1] plus its cognates, i.e. all words that have a common etymological origin, some of which even native speakers don't recognize as being related (e.g. "wrought (iron)" and "work(ed)").[2] In the English language, inflectional affixes include third person -s, verbal -ed and -ing, plural -s, possessive -s, comparative -er and superlative -est. Derivational affixes include -able, -er, -ish, -less, -ly, -ness, -th, -y, non-, un-, -al, -ation, -ess, -ful, -ism, -ist, -ity, -ize/-ise, -ment, in-.[1] The idea is that a base word and its inflected forms support the same core meaning, and can be considered learned words if a learner knows both the base word and the affix. Bauer and Nation proposed seven levels of affixes based on their frequency in English.[3] It has been shown that word families can assist with deriving related words via affixes, along with decreasing the time needed to derive and recognize such words.[4]

Why Does ChatGPT "Delve" So Much? Exploring the Sources of Lexical Overrepresentation in Large Language Models

Scientific English is currently undergoing rapid change, with words like "delve," "intricate," and "underscore" appearing far more frequently than just a few years ago. It is widely assumed that scientists' use of large language models (LLMs) is responsible for such trends. We develop a formal, transferable method to characterize these linguistic changes. Application of our method yields 21 focal words whose increased occurrence in scientific abstracts is likely the result of LLM usage. We then pose "the puzzle of lexical overrepresentation": WHY are such words overused by LLMs? We fail to find evidence that lexical overrepresentation is caused by model architecture, algorithm choices, or training data. To assess whether reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) contributes to the overuse of focal words, we undertake comparative model testing and conduct an exploratory online study. While the model testing is consistent with RLHF playing a role, our experimental results suggest that participants may be reacting differently to "delve" than to other focal words. With LLMs quickly becoming a driver of global language change, investigating these potential sources of lexical overrepresentation is important. We note that while insights into the workings of LLMs are within reach, a lack of transparency surrounding model development remains an obstacle to such research.

Why Does ChatGPT "Delve" So Much? Exploring the Sources of Lexical Overrepresentation in Large Language Models

Scientific English is currently undergoing rapid change, with words like "delve," "intricate," and "underscore" appearing far more frequently than just a few years ago. It is widely assumed that scientists' use of large language models (LLMs) is responsible for such trends. We develop a formal, transferable method to characterize these linguistic changes. Application of our method yields 21 focal words whose increased occurrence in scientific abstracts is likely the result of LLM usage. We then pose "the puzzle of lexical overrepresentation": WHY are such words overused by LLMs? We fail to find evidence that lexical overrepresentation is caused by model architecture, algorithm choices, or training data. To assess whether reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) contributes to the overuse of focal words, we undertake comparative model testing and conduct an exploratory online study. While the model testing is consistent with RLHF playing a role, our experimental results suggest that participants may be reacting differently to "delve" than to other focal words. With LLMs quickly becoming a driver of global language change, investigating these potential sources of lexical overrepresentation is important. We note that while insights into the workings of LLMs are within reach, a lack of transparency surrounding model development remains an obstacle to such research.

Model Misalignment and Language Change: Traces of AI-Associated Language in Unscripted Spoken English

In recent years, written language, particularly in science and education, has undergone remarkable shifts in word usage. These changes are widely attributed to the growing influence of Large Language Models (LLMs), which frequently rely on a distinct lexical style. Divergences between model output and target audience norms can be viewed as a form of misalignment. While these shifts are often linked to using Artificial Intelligence (AI) directly as a tool to generate text, it remains unclear whether the changes reflect broader changes in the human language system itself. To explore this question, we constructed a dataset of 22.1 million words from unscripted spoken language drawn from conversational science and technology podcasts. We analyzed lexical trends before and after ChatGPT's release in 2022, focusing on commonly LLM-associated words. Our results show a moderate yet significant increase in the usage of these words post-2022, suggesting a convergence between human word choices and LLM-associated patterns. In contrast, baseline synonym words exhibit no significant directional shift. Given the short time frame and the number of words affected, this may indicate the onset of a remarkable shift in language use. Whether this represents natural language change or a novel shift driven by AI exposure remains an open question. Similarly, although the shifts may stem from broader adoption patterns, it may also be that upstream training misalignments ultimately contribute to changes in human language use. These findings parallel ethical concerns that misaligned models may shape social and moral beliefs.

Model Misalignment and Language Change: Traces of AI-Associated Language in Unscripted Spoken English

In recent years, written language, particularly in science and education, has undergone remarkable shifts in word usage. These changes are widely attributed to the growing influence of Large Language Models (LLMs), which frequently rely on a distinct lexical style. Divergences between model output and target audience norms can be viewed as a form of misalignment. While these shifts are often linked to using Artificial Intelligence (AI) directly as a tool to generate text, it remains unclear whether the changes reflect broader changes in the human language system itself. To explore this question, we constructed a dataset of 22.1 million words from unscripted spoken language drawn from conversational science and technology podcasts. We analyzed lexical trends before and after ChatGPT's release in 2022, focusing on commonly LLM-associated words. Our results show a moderate yet significant increase in the usage of these words post-2022, suggesting a convergence between human word choices and LLM-associated patterns. In contrast, baseline synonym words exhibit no significant directional shift. Given the short time frame and the number of words affected, this may indicate the onset of a remarkable shift in language use. Whether this represents natural language change or a novel shift driven by AI exposure remains an open question. Similarly, although the shifts may stem from broader adoption patterns, it may also be that upstream training misalignments ultimately contribute to changes in human language use. These findings parallel ethical concerns that misaligned models may shape social and moral beliefs.

Mnemonic Devices for Cogent: Remember Cogent Easily - Wordpandit

Learning new vocabulary doesn’t have to be difficult. Mnemonic techniques make it easier by associating words with vivid images, sounds, and stories. Today,

Familect

Familects often gain vocabulary through the words young children create as they learn to talk, when these words are adopted by the family.[1][2] Familects also gain vocabulary through slips of the tongue and word invention.[3]

Measuring Combinatorial Creativity in Large Language Models and Humans

Combinatorial creativity, the process of combining familiar ideas in unfamiliar ways, is one of the foremost engines of scientific, technological, and artistic progress. This work introduces Kombine, an LLM benchmark for combinatorial creativity tasking models to discover surprising, original, and useful associations, analogies, and blends between unrelated entities, and to use those analogies and blends to invent novel concepts by re-combining the parts of existing ones. In a large-scale study across 35 LLMs, we find that: (1) LLMs are 10-16 percentage points better at discovering associations and analogies than blends, and (2) exhibit an abstraction bottleneck on blending, in which even frontier LLMs struggle to find a shared abstraction between inputs and instantiate a coherent blended space. (3) LLMs also exhibit inventive homogeneity, in which one in five concepts invented for a given item reuses properties invented by another model. Moreover, (4) models are $14\times$ more likely to reuse other invented properties on blends than analogies, and (5) models from the same provider are $2.3\times$ more likely to reuse properties than those from different providers. Next, in a comparative study involving 75 humans on the same tasks, we find that (6) humans score below nearly every LLM on each task and (7) both humans and LLMs find blending most difficult, but association is easier than analogy for LLMs, while analogy is easier than association for humans. Lastly, (8) humans and LLMs access distinct regions of semantic space on each task, suggesting that combinatorial creativity could benefit from systematic human-AI collaboration to enhance conceptual diversity. In summary, we provide a framework to assess progress towards LLMs, AI systems, and human-AI collaborations more broadly, that can elicit combinatorial creativity in a setting relevant to scientific and technological innovation.

Critical analysis of datasets for sign language translation

IntroductionIn recent years, significant progress has been made in Machine Translation (MT), including multilingual and low-resource settings. However, Sign Language Translation (SLT) remains underdeveloped, largely due to the scarcity of high-quality datasets and the overreliance on a few small, widely used benchmarks. This study aims to critically assess the datasets most commonly used in SLT research to determine whether their characteristics may lead to overfitting and misleading evaluation results.MethodsWe then conduct a detailed empirical study comparing training and test set similarity for PHOENIX14T, CSL-Daily, and LSE-Health. Using both gloss-based (TwoStream-SLT) and gloss-free (GFSLT-VLP) models, we evaluate the extent to which models memorize training data and how this affects BLEU scores.ResultsOur analysis reveals that PHOENIX14T exhibits substantial overlap between training and test sets, leading to inflated BLEU scores and can even mask signs of overfitting. CSL-Daily shows less overlap and more robust generalization. We also show that a small subset of “training-like” sentences disproportionately contributes to BLEU scores.DiscussionWe recommend that future SLT research move away from overused benchmarks and adopt larger, more diverse datasets such as How2Sign, CSL-News, and FLEURS-ASL. We also advocate for a shift toward gloss-free approaches and more careful interpretation of evaluation metrics, especially in low-resource settings.

Why Do Large Language Models (LLMs) Struggle to Count Letters?

Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved unprecedented performance on many complex tasks, being able, for example, to answer questions on almost any topic. However, they struggle with other simple tasks, such as counting the occurrences of letters in a word, as illustrated by the inability of many LLMs to count the number of "r" letters in "strawberry". Several works have studied this problem and linked it to the tokenization used by LLMs, to the intrinsic limitations of the attention mechanism, or to the lack of character-level training data. In this paper, we conduct an experimental study to evaluate the relations between the LLM errors when counting letters with 1) the frequency of the word and its components in the training dataset and 2) the complexity of the counting operation. We present a comprehensive analysis of the errors of LLMs when counting letter occurrences by evaluating a representative group of models over a large number of words. The results show a number of consistent trends in the models evaluated: 1) models are capable of recognizing the letters but not counting them; 2) the frequency of the word and tokens in the word does not have a significant impact on the LLM errors; 3) there is a positive correlation of letter frequency with errors, more frequent letters tend to have more counting errors, 4) the errors show a strong correlation with the number of letters or tokens in a word and 5) the strongest correlation occurs with the number of letters with counts larger than one, with most models being unable to correctly count words in which letters appear more than twice.

Why Do Large Language Models (LLMs) Struggle to Count Letters?

Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved unprecedented performance on many complex tasks, being able, for example, to answer questions on almost any topic. However, they struggle with other simple tasks, such as counting the occurrences of letters in a word, as illustrated by the inability of many LLMs to count the number of "r" letters in "strawberry". Several works have studied this problem and linked it to the tokenization used by LLMs, to the intrinsic limitations of the attention mechanism, or to the lack of character-level training data. In this paper, we conduct an experimental study to evaluate the relations between the LLM errors when counting letters with 1) the frequency of the word and its components in the training dataset and 2) the complexity of the counting operation. We present a comprehensive analysis of the errors of LLMs when counting letter occurrences by evaluating a representative group of models over a large number of words. The results show a number of consistent trends in the models evaluated: 1) models are capable of recognizing the letters but not counting them; 2) the frequency of the word and tokens in the word does not have a significant impact on the LLM errors; 3) there is a positive correlation of letter frequency with errors, more frequent letters tend to have more counting errors, 4) the errors show a strong correlation with the number of letters or tokens in a word and 5) the strongest correlation occurs with the number of letters with counts larger than one, with most models being unable to correctly count words in which letters appear more than twice.

Cognition

Other languages are inflexible and broken. Let's fix that.