The history of the Korean language is characterized by a discrepancy between its spoken and written forms and a pivotal shift from Chinese characters to the Hangul alphabet. However, this linguistic evolution has remained largely unexplored in NLP due to a lack of accessible historical corpora. To address this gap, we introduce the Open Korean Historical Corpus, a large-scale, openly licensed dataset spanning 1,300 years and 6 languages, as well as under-represented writing systems like Korean-style Sinitic (Idu) and Hanja-Hangul mixed script. This corpus contains 17.7 million documents and 5.1 billion tokens from 19 sources, ranging from the 7th century to 2025. We leverage this resource to quantitatively analyze major linguistic shifts: (1) Idu usage peaked in the 1860s before declining sharply; (2) the transition from Hanja to Hangul was a rapid transformation starting around 1890; and (3) North Korea’s lexical divergence causes modern tokenizers to produce up to 51 times higher out-of-vocabulary rates. This work provides a foundational resource for quantitative diachronic analysis by capturing the history of the Korean language. Moreover, it can serve as a pre-training corpus for large language models, potentially improving their understanding of Sino-Korean vocabulary in modern Hangul as well as archaic writing systems.

Historical documents in the Sinosphere are known to share common formats and practices, particularly in veritable records compiled by court historians. This shared linguistic heritage has led researchers to use Classical Chinese resources for cross-lingual transfer when processing historical documents from Korea and Japan, which remain relatively low-resource. In this paper, we question the assumption of cross-lingual transferability from Classical Chinese to Hanja and Kanbun, the ancient written languages of Korea and Japan, respectively. Our experiments across machine translation, named entity recognition, and punctuation restoration tasks show minimal impact of Classical Chinese datasets on language model performance for ancient Korean documents written in Hanja, with performance differences within ±0.0068 F1-score for sequence labeling tasks and up to +0.84 BLEU score for translation. These limitations persist consistently across various model sizes, architectures, and domain-specific datasets. Our analysis reveals that the benefits of Classical Chinese resources diminish rapidly as local language data increases for Hanja, while showing substantial improvements only in extremely low-resource scenarios for both Korean and Japanese historical documents. These findings emphasize the need for careful empirical validation rather than assuming benefits from indiscriminate cross-lingual transfer.

Evaluating text generation capabilities of large language models (LLMs) is challenging, particularly for low-resource languages where methods for direct assessment are scarce. We propose MUG-Eval, a novel framework that evaluates LLMs’ multilingual generation capabilities by transforming existing benchmarks into conversational tasks and measuring the LLMs’ accuracies on those tasks. We specifically designed these conversational tasks to require effective communication in the target language. Then, we simply use task success rate as a proxy for successful conversation generation. Our approach offers two key advantages: it is independent of language-specific NLP tools or annotated datasets, which are limited for most languages, and it does not rely on LLMs-as-judges, whose evaluation quality degrades outside a few high-resource languages. We evaluate 8 LLMs across 30 languages spanning high, mid, and low-resource categories, and we find that MUG-Eval correlates strongly with established benchmarks (r > 0.75) while enabling standardized comparisons across languages and models. Our framework provides a robust and resource-efficient solution for evaluating multilingual generation that can be extended to thousands of languages.

Content moderation platforms concentrate resources on English content despite serving predominantly non-English speaking users.Also, given the scarcity of native moderators for low-resource languages, non-native moderators must bridge this gap in moderation tasks such as hate speech moderation.Through a user study, we identify that non-native moderators struggle with understanding culturally-specific knowledge, sentiment, and internet culture in the hate speech.To assist non-native moderators, we present LLM-C3MOD, a human-LLM collaborative pipeline with three steps: (1) RAG-enhanced cultural context annotations; (2) initial LLM-based moderation; and (3) targeted human moderation for cases lacking LLM consensus.Evaluated on Korean hate speech dataset with Indonesian and German participants, our system achieves 78% accuracy (surpassing GPT-4o’s 71% baseline) while reducing human workload by 83.6%.In addition, cultural context annotations improved non-native moderator accuracy from 22% to 61%, with humans notably excelling at nuanced tasks where LLMs struggle.Our findings demonstrate that non-native moderators, when properly supported by LLMs, can effectively contribute to cross-cultural hate speech moderation.