ArticlePloS one2025
Multilingual capabilities of GPT: A study of structural ambiguity.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A bibliometric analysis of large language models in mental health research.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study examines the multilingual capabilities of GPT, focusing on its handling of syntactic ambiguity across English, Korean, and Japanese. We investigate whether GPT can capture language-specific attachment preferences or if it relies primarily on English-centric training patterns. Using ambiguous relative clauses as a testing ground, we assess GPT's interpretation tendencies across language contexts. Our findings reveal that, while GPT (GPT-3.5-turbo, GPT-4-turbo, GPT 4o)'s performance aligns with native English speakers' preferred interpretations, it overgeneralizes this interpretation in Korean and lacks clear preferences in Japanese, despite distinct attachment biases among native speakers of these languages. The newer, smaller-scale models-o1-mini and o3-mini-further reinforce this trend by closely mirroring English attachment patterns in both Korean and Japanese. Overall results suggest that GPT's multilingual proficiency is limited, likely reflecting a bias toward high-resource languages like English, although differences in model size and tuning strategies may partially mitigate the extent of English-centric generalization. While GPT models demonstrate aspects of human-like language processing, our findings underscore the need for further refinement to achieve a more nuanced engagement with linguistic diversity across languages.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.