Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in culturally diverse environments, yet existing evaluations of cultural competence remain limited. Existing methods focus on de-contextualized correctness or forced-choice judgments, overlooking the need for cultural understanding and reasoning required for appropriate responses. To address this gap, we introduce a set of benchmarks that, instead of directly probing abstract norms or isolated statements, present models with realistic situational contexts that require culturally grounded reasoning. In addition to the standard Exact Match metric, we introduce four complementary metrics (Coverage, Specificity, Connotation, and Coherence) to capture different dimensions of model's response quality. Empirical analysis across frontier models reveals that thin evaluation systematically overestimates cultural competence and produces unstable assessments with high variance. In contrast, thick evaluation exposes differences in reasoning depth, reduces variance, and provides more stable, interpretable signals of cultural understanding.

We present a comprehensive evaluation of the ability of large language models (LLMs) to process culturally grounded language, specifically to understand and pragmatically use figurative expressions that encode local knowledge and cultural nuance. Using figurative language as a proxy for cultural nuance and local knowledge, we design evaluation tasks for contextual understanding, pragmatic use, and connotation interpretation in Arabic and English. We evaluate 22 open- and closed-source LLMs on Egyptian Arabic idioms, multidialectal Arabic proverbs, and English proverbs. Our results show a consistent hierarchy: the average accuracy for Arabic proverbs is 4.29% lower than for English proverbs, and performance for Egyptian idioms is 10.28% lower than for Arabic proverbs. For the pragmatic use task, accuracy drops by 14.07% relative to understanding, though providing contextual idiomatic sentences improves accuracy by 10.66%. Models also struggle with connotative meaning, reaching at most 85.58% agreement with human annotators on idioms with 100% inter-annotator agreement. These findings demonstrate that figurative language serves as an effective diagnostic for cultural reasoning: while LLMs can often interpret figurative meaning, they face challenges in using it appropriately. To support future research, we release Kinayat, the first dataset of Egyptian Arabic idioms designed for both figurative understanding and pragmatic use evaluation.

This paper delves into the intricate world of Urdu poetry, exploring its thematic depths through a lens of polysemy. By focusing on the nuanced differences between three seemingly synonymous words (pyaar, muhabbat, and ishq) we expose a spectrum of emotions and experiences unique to the Urdu language. This study employs a polysemic case study approach, meticulously examining how these words are interwoven within the rich tapestry of Urdu poetry. By analyzing their usage and context, we uncover a hidden layer of meaning, revealing subtle distinctions which lack direct equivalents in English literature. Furthermore, we embark on a comparative analysis, generating word embeddings for both Urdu and English terms related to love. This enables us to quantify and visualize the semantic space occupied by these words, providing valuable insights into the cultural and linguistic nuances of expressing love. Through this multifaceted approach, our study sheds light on the captivating complexities of Urdu poetry, offering a deeper understanding and appreciation for its unique portrayal of love and its myriad expressions

Current benchmarks for evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) often do not exhibit enough writing style diversity, with many adhering primarily to standardized conventions. Such benchmarks do not fully capture the rich variety of communication patterns exhibited by humans. Thus, it is possible that LLMs, which are optimized on these benchmarks, may demonstrate brittle performance when faced with "non-standard" input. In this work, we test this hypothesis by rewriting evaluation prompts using persona-based LLM prompting, a low-cost method to emulate diverse writing styles. Our results show that, even with identical semantic content, variations in writing style and prompt formatting significantly impact the estimated performance of the LLM under evaluation. Notably, we identify distinct writing styles that consistently trigger either low or high performance across a range of models and tasks, irrespective of model family, size, and recency. Our work offers a scalable approach to augment existing benchmarks, improving the external validity of the assessments they provide for measuring LLM performance across linguistic variations.

Lexical Semantic Change (LSC) offers insights into cultural and social dynamics. Yet, the validity of methods for measuring kinds of LSC has yet to be established due to the absence of historical benchmark datasets. To address this gap, we develop a novel three-stage evaluation framework that involves: 1) creating a scalable, domain-general methodology for generating synthetic datasets that simulate theory-driven LSC across time, leveraging In-Context Learning and a lexical database; 2) using these datasets to evaluate the effectiveness of various methods; and 3) assessing their suitability for specific dimensions and domains. We apply this framework to simulate changes across key dimensions of LSC (SIB: Sentiment, Intensity, and Breadth) using examples from psychology, and evaluate the sensitivity of selected methods to detect these artificially induced changes. Our findings support the utility of the synthetic data approach, validate the efficacy of tailored methods for detecting synthetic changes in SIB, and reveal that a state-of-the-art LSC model faces challenges in detecting affective dimensions of LSC. This framework provides a valuable tool for dimension- and domain-specific bench-marking and evaluation of LSC methods, with particular benefits for the social sciences.

Social categories and stereotypes are embedded in language and can introduce data bias into Large Language Models (LLMs). Despite safeguards, these biases often persist in model behavior, potentially leading to representational harm in outputs. While sociolinguistic research provides valuable insights into the formation of stereotypes, NLP approaches for stereotype detection rarely draw on this foundation and often lack objectivity, precision, and interpretability. To fill this gap, in this work we propose a new approach that detects and quantifies the linguistic indicators of stereotypes in a sentence. We derive linguistic indicators from the Social Category and Stereotype Communication (SCSC) framework which indicate strong social category formulation and stereotyping in language, and use them to build a categorization scheme. To automate this approach, we instruct different LLMs using in-context learning to apply the approach to a sentence, where the LLM examines the linguistic properties and provides a basis for a fine-grained assessment. Based on an empirical evaluation of the importance of different linguistic indicators, we learn a scoring function that measures the linguistic indicators of a stereotype. Our annotations of stereotyped sentences show that these indicators are present in these sentences and explain the strength of a stereotype. In terms of model performance, our results show that the models generally perform well in detecting and classifying linguistic indicators of category labels used to denote a category, but sometimes struggle to correctly evaluate the associated behaviors and characteristics. Using more few-shot examples within the prompts, significantly improves performance. Model performance increases with size, as Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct and GPT-4 achieve comparable results that surpass those of Mixtral-8x7B-Instruct, GPT-4-mini and Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct.

Drawing on contemporary pragmatist philosophy and linguistic theories on cognition, meaning, and communication, this paper presents a dynamic, metasemantic-metapragmatic taxonomy for grounding and conceptualizing human-like multimodal communicative alignment. The framework is rooted in contemporary developments of the three basic communicative capacities initially identified by American logician and pragmatist philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce: iconic (sensory and perceptual qualities), indexical (contextual and sociocultural associations), and rule-like (symbolic and intuitive reasoning). Expanding on these developments, I introduce the concept of indexical contextualization and propose the principle of "contextualization directionality" for characterizing the crucial metapragmatic capacity for maintaining, navigating, or transitioning between semantic and pragmatic modes of multimodal communication. I contend that current cognitive-social computational and engineering methodologies disproportionately emphasize the semantic/metasemantic domain, overlooking the pivotal role of metapragmatic indexicality in traversing the semantic-pragmatic spectrum of communication. The framework's broader implications for intentionality, identity, affect, and ethics in within-modal and cross-modal human-machine alignment are also discussed.

Retrieval augmented generation (RAG) systems augment how knowledge language models are by integrating external information sources such as Wikipedia, internal documents, scientific papers, or the open internet. RAG systems that rely on the open internet as their knowledge source have to contend with the complexities of human-generated content. Human communication extends much deeper than just the words rendered as text. Intent, tonality, and connotation can all change the meaning of what is being conveyed. Recent real-world deployments of RAG systems have shown some difficulty in understanding these nuances of human communication. One significant challenge for these systems lies in processing sarcasm. Though the Large Language Models (LLMs) that make up the backbone of these RAG systems are able to detect sarcasm, they currently do not always use these detections for the subsequent processing of text. To address these issues, in this paper, we synthetically generate sarcastic passages from Natural Question's Wikipedia retrieval corpus. We then test the impact of these passages on the performance of both the retriever and reader portion of the RAG pipeline. We introduce a prompting system designed to enhance the model's ability to interpret and generate responses in the presence of sarcasm, thus improving overall system performance. Finally, we conduct ablation studies to validate the effectiveness of our approach, demonstrating improvements in handling sarcastic content within RAG systems.

We study the evolution of opinions inside a population of interacting large language models (LLMs). Every LLM needs to decide how much funding to allocate to an item with three initial possibilities: full, partial, or no funding. We identify biases that drive the exchange of opinions based on the LLM's tendency to (i) find consensus with the other LLM's opinion, (ii) display caution when specifying funding, and (iii) consider ethical concerns in its opinion. We find these biases are affected by the perceived absence of compelling reasons for opinion change, the perceived willingness to engage in discussion, and the distribution of allocation values. Moreover, tensions among biases can lead to the survival of funding for items with negative connotations. We also find that the final distribution of full, partial, and no funding opinions is more diverse when an LLM freely forms its opinion after an interaction than when its opinion is a multiple-choice selection among the three allocation options. In the latter case, consensus or polarization is generally attained. When agents are aware of past opinions, they seek to maintain consistency with them, and more diverse updating rules emerge. Our study is performed using a Llama 3 LLM.

Misogyny is often expressed through figurative language. Some neutral words can assume a negative connotation when functioning as pejorative epithets. Disambiguating the meaning of such terms might help the detection of misogyny. In order to address such task, we present PejorativITy, a novel corpus of 1,200 manually annotated Italian tweets for pejorative language at the word level and misogyny at the sentence level. We evaluate the impact of injecting information about disambiguated words into a model targeting misogyny detection. In particular, we explore two different approaches for injection: concatenation of pejorative information and substitution of ambiguous words with univocal terms. Our experimental results, both on our corpus and on two popular benchmarks on Italian tweets, show that both approaches lead to a major classification improvement, indicating that word sense disambiguation is a promising preliminary step for misogyny detection. Furthermore, we investigate LLMs' understanding of pejorative epithets by means of contextual word embeddings analysis and prompting.