This study investigates the linguistic understanding of Large Language Models (LLMs) regarding signifier (form) and signified (meaning) by distinguishing two LLM assessment paradigms: psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic. Traditional psycholinguistic evaluations often reflect statistical rules that may not accurately represent LLMs’ true linguistic competence. 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. We found: (1) Psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic methods reveal that language performance and competence are distinct; (2) Direct probability measurement may not accurately assess linguistic competence; (3) Instruction tuning won’t change much competence but improve performance; (4) LLMs exhibit higher competence and performance in form compared to meaning. Additionally, we introduce new conceptual minimal pair datasets for Chinese (COMPS-ZH) and German (COMPS-DE), complementing existing English datasets.

In this work, we introduce XCOMPS, a multilingual conceptual minimal pair dataset that covers 17 languages.Using this dataset, we evaluate LLMs’ multilingual conceptual understanding through metalinguistic prompting, direct probability measurement, and neurolinguistic probing. We find that: 1) LLMs exhibit weaker conceptual understanding for low-resource languages, and accuracy varies across languages despite being tested on the same concept sets. 2) LLMs excel at distinguishing concept-property pairs that are visibly different but exhibit a marked performance drop when negative pairs share subtle semantic similarities. 3) More morphologically complex languages yield lower concept understanding scores and require deeper layers for conceptual reasoning.

Inspired by cognitive neuroscience studies, we introduce a novel “decoding probing” method that uses minimal pairs benchmark (BLiMP) to probe internal linguistic characteristics in neural language models layer by layer. By treating the language model as the brain and its representations as “neural activations”, we decode grammaticality labels of minimal pairs from the intermediate layers’ representations. This approach reveals: 1) Self-supervised language models capture abstract linguistic structures in intermediate layers that GloVe and RNN language models cannot learn. 2) Information about syntactic grammaticality is robustly captured through the first third layers of GPT-2 and also distributed in later layers. As sentence complexity increases, more layers are required for learning grammatical capabilities. 3) Morphological and semantics/syntax interface-related features are harder to capture than syntax. 4) For Transformer-based models, both embeddings and attentions capture grammatical features but show distinct patterns. Different attention heads exhibit similar tendencies toward various linguistic phenomena, but with varied contributions.