Resource-sensitive but language-blind: Community size and not grammatical complexity better predicts the accuracy of Large Language Models in a novel Wug Test

The linguistic abilities of Large Language Models are a matter of ongoing debate. This study contributes to this discussion by investigating model performance in a morphological generalization task that involves novel words. Using a multilingual adaptation of the Wug Test, six models were tested across four partially unrelated languages (Catalan, English, Greek, and Spanish) and compared with human speakers. The aim is to determine whether model accuracy approximates human competence and whether it is shaped primarily by linguistic complexity or by the quantity of available training data. Consistent with previous research, the results show that the models are able to generalize morphological processes to unseen words with human-like accuracy. However, accuracy patterns align more closely with community size and data availability than with structural complexity, refining earlier claims in the literature. In particular, languages with larger speaker communities and stronger digital representation, such as Spanish and English, revealed higher accuracy than less-resourced ones like Catalan and Greek. Overall, our findings suggest that model behavior is mainly driven by the richness of linguistic resources rather than by sensitivity to grammatical complexity, reflecting a form of performance that resembles human linguistic competence only superficially.

Large Language Model probabilities cannot distinguish between possible and impossible language

A controversial test for Large Language Models concerns the ability to discern possible from impossible language. While some evidence attests to the models' sensitivity to what crosses the limits of grammatically impossible language, this evidence has been contested on the grounds of the soundness of the testing material. We use model-internal representations to tap directly into the way Large Language Models represent the 'grammatical-ungrammatical' distinction. In a novel benchmark, we elicit probabilities from 4 models and compute minimal-pair surprisal differences, juxtaposing probabilities assigned to grammatical sentences to probabilities assigned to (i) lower frequency grammatical sentences, (ii) ungrammatical sentences, (iii) semantically odd sentences, and (iv) pragmatically odd sentences. The prediction is that if string-probabilities can function as proxies for the limits of grammar, the ungrammatical condition will stand out among the conditions that involve linguistic violations, showing a spike in the surprisal rates. Our results do not reveal a unique surprisal signature for ungrammatical prompts, as the semantically and pragmatically odd conditions consistently show higher surprisal. We thus demonstrate that probabilities do not constitute reliable proxies for model-internal representations of syntactic knowledge. Consequently, claims about models being able to distinguish possible from impossible language need verification through a different methodology.