This study investigates the linguistic understanding of Large Language Models (LLMs) regarding signifier (form) and signified (meaning) by distinguishing two LLM evaluation paradigms: psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic. Traditional psycholinguistic evaluations often reflect statistical biases that may misrepresent LLMs' true linguistic capabilities. We introduce a neurolinguistic approach, utilizing a novel method that combines minimal pair and diagnostic probing to analyze activation patterns across model layers. This method allows for a detailed examination of how LLMs represent form and meaning, and whether these representations are consistent across languages. Our contributions are three-fold: (1) We compare neurolinguistic and psycholinguistic methods, revealing distinct patterns in LLM assessment; (2) We demonstrate that LLMs exhibit higher competence in form compared to meaning, with the latter largely correlated to the former; (3) We present new conceptual minimal pair datasets for Chinese (COMPS-ZH) and German (COMPS-DE), complementing existing English datasets.

Developmental psychologists have argued about when cognitive capacities such as language understanding or theory of mind emerge. These debates often hinge on the concept of "task demands" -- the auxiliary challenges associated with performing a particular evaluation -- that may mask the child's underlying ability. The same issues arise when measuring the capacities of language models (LMs): performance on a task is a function of the model's underlying competence, combined with the model's ability to interpret and perform the task given its available resources. Here, we show that for analogical reasoning, reflective reasoning, word prediction, and grammaticality judgments, evaluation methods with greater task demands yield lower performance than evaluations with reduced demands. This "demand gap" is most pronounced for models with fewer parameters and less training data. Our results illustrate that LM performance should not be interpreted as a direct indication of intelligence (or lack thereof), but as a reflection of capacities seen through the lens of researchers' design choices.

Prompting is now a dominant method for evaluating the linguistic knowledge of large language models (LLMs). While other methods directly read out models' probability distributions over strings, prompting requires models to access this internal information by processing linguistic input, thereby implicitly testing a new type of emergent ability: metalinguistic judgment. In this study, we compare metalinguistic prompting and direct probability measurements as ways of measuring models' linguistic knowledge. Broadly, we find that LLMs' metalinguistic judgments are inferior to quantities directly derived from representations. Furthermore, consistency gets worse as the prompt query diverges from direct measurements of next-word probabilities. Our findings suggest that negative results relying on metalinguistic prompts cannot be taken as conclusive evidence that an LLM lacks a particular linguistic generalization. Our results also highlight the value that is lost with the move to closed APIs where access to probability distributions is limited.