Multilingual language models now cover more languages than ever, yet script-sharing low-resource languages remain vulnerable to failures driven by script and dominant-language priors. This dissertation studies one such failure mode, semantic interference, in Square Bai Script, where many forms resemble Chinese characters but often differ in meaning. We argue that current adaptation pipelines underperform not only because Bai is low-resource, but because they treat visible overlap as safe transfer by default. Building on an expert-validated corpus of 28,382 Bai-Chinese sentence pairs, an out-of-domain epigraphic set and a reproducible encoding pipeline, the dissertation will (1) diagnose semantic interference, (2) compare adaptation strategies under realistic compute constraints, and (3) estimate when shared-script transfer helps or harms adaptation. The long-term goal is Bai-capable understanding and generation. The dissertation addresses the prerequisite problem of safe and effective adaptation in a script-sharing low-resource setting.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in contexts requiring complex moral reasoning and value trade-offs. However, existing evaluations typically rely on item-level behavioral metrics, which fail to capture how models structurally prioritize competing values as a cohesive system. To address this, we propose a symmetric human-LLM evaluation framework, grounded in Q methodology, to measure value-structure alignment. Under our protocol, humans and models sort an identical 140-item moral statement set into a shared nine-column forced distribution; for LLMs, we elicit strict rankings and deterministically map them to Q-sort buckets. Using a human reference sample (N=35), we establish a stable three-factor reference geometry specific to this instrument and sample. We evaluate 12 LLMs across four model families via 240 replicated Q-sorts at two temperature settings, quantifying structural alignment via Procrustes similarity (𝜙) and RSA-based Spearman correlation (𝜌). Our results reveal significant cross-family heterogeneity, model-specific sensitivity to generation stochasticity and localized misalignment, which demonstrate that favorable global scores can obscure underlying regional distortions. While rank- and bucket-based analyses remain highly consistent, prompt phrasing introduces notable variance. Ultimately, assessing value-structure alignment provides a crucial structural complement to traditional itemwise moral benchmarks.