Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates cross-lingual activation in Dutch-English bilingual Transformers by manipulating vocabulary sharing for cognates ("friends") and interlingual homographs ("false friends"). The study evaluates trained models using psycholinguistic stimuli and surprisal/embedding similarity analyses to compare their behavior to human bilingual reading patterns. Results show that models primarily exhibit cross-lingual effects when embeddings are shared, with both friend and false friend facilitation driven by frequency rather than form-meaning consistency, and human-like patterns only emerging when just friends share embeddings.
Sharing embeddings for cognates and interlingual homographs in bilingual language models leads to cross-lingual interference, but only sharing embeddings for cognates produces human-like processing patterns.
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.