A Typologically Grounded Evaluation Framework for Word Order and Morphology Sensitivity in Multilingual Masked LMs

We introduce a typology-aware diagnostic for multilingual masked language models that tests reliance on word order versus inflectional form. Using Universal Dependencies, we apply inference-time perturbations: full token scrambling, content-word scrambling with function words fixed, dependency-based head--dependent swaps, and sentence-level lemma substitution (+L), which lemmatizes both the context and the masked target label. We evaluate mBERT and XLM-R on English, Chinese, German, Spanish, and Russian. Full scrambling drives word-level reconstruction accuracy near zero in all languages; partial and head--dependent perturbations cause smaller but still large drops. +L has little effect in Chinese but substantially lowers accuracy in German/Spanish/Russian, and it does not mitigate the impact of scrambling. Top-5 word accuracy shows the same pattern: under full scrambling, the gold word rarely appears among the five highest-ranked reconstructions. We release code, sampling scripts, and balanced evaluation subsets; Turkish results under strict reconstruction are reported in the appendix.

When Semantic Overlap Is Not Enough: Cross-Lingual Euphemism Transfer Between Turkish and English

Euphemisms substitute socially sensitive expressions, often softening or reframing meaning, and their reliance on cultural and pragmatic context complicates modeling across languages. In this study, we investigate how cross-lingual equivalence influences transfer in multilingual euphemism detection. We categorize Potentially Euphemistic Terms (PETs) in Turkish and English into Overlapping (OPETs) and Non-Overlapping (NOPETs) subsets based on their functional, pragmatic, and semantic alignment. Our findings reveal a transfer asymmetry: semantic overlap is insufficient to guarantee positive transfer, particularly in low-resource Turkish-to-English direction, where performance can degrade even for overlapping euphemisms, and in some cases, improve under NOPET-based training. Differences in label distribution help explain these counterintuitive results. Category-level analysis suggests that transfer may be influenced by domain-specific alignment, though evidence is limited by sparsity.