← 研踪 PaperTrailACL Anthology · ACL 2026:acl:2026.acl-long.461 · 记录 #1
Do LLMs Capture Embodied Cognition and Cultural Variation? Cross-Linguistic Evidence from Demonstratives
来源日期（仅到月份） 2026-07
来源记录日期 2026-07
雷达观测 2026-11-01 22:02
摘要
Do large language models (LLMs) truly acquire embodied cognition and cultural conventions from text? We introduce demonstratives, fundamental spatial expressions like “this/that” in English and “这/那” in Chinese, as a novel probe for grounded knowledge. Using 6,400 responses from 320 native speakers, we establish a human baseline: English speakers reliably distinguish proximal–distal referents but struggle with perspective-taking, while Chinese speakers switch perspectives fluently but tolerate distal ambiguity. In contrast, five state-of-the-art LLMs fail to inherently understand the proximal–distal contrast and show no cultural differences, defaulting to English-centric reasoning. Our study contributes (i) demonstratives as a new lens for evaluating embodied cognition and cultural conventions, (ii) empirical evidence of cross-cultural asymmetries in human interpretation, (iii) a new perspective on the egocentric–sociocentric debate, showing both orientations coexist but vary across languages, and (iv) a call to address individual variation in future model design.
论文发现出处
这些页面提供论文线索，不代表同行评审或质量认证。
观测到的版本
平台记录号代表本站观测到的元数据变化，不是作者修订号。来源日期仅到月份或年份时，按该月或该年首日存档。
记录 #1 · 2026-07 · 最新观测版本
Do LLMs Capture Embodied Cognition and Cultural Variation? Cross-Linguistic Evidence from Demonstratives
Do large language models (LLMs) truly acquire embodied cognition and cultural conventions from text? We introduce demonstratives, fundamental spatial expressions like “this/that” in English and “这/那” in Chinese, as a novel probe for grounded knowledge. Using 6,400 responses from 320 native speakers, we establish a human baseline: English speakers reliably distinguish proximal–distal referents but struggle with perspective-taking, while Chinese speakers switch perspectives fluently but tolerate distal ambiguity. In contrast, five state-of-the-art LLMs fail to inherently understand the proximal–distal contrast and show no cultural differences, defaulting to English-centric reasoning. Our study contributes (i) demonstratives as a new lens for evaluating embodied cognition and cultural conventions, (ii) empirical evidence of cross-cultural asymmetries in human interpretation, (iii) a new perspective on the egocentric–sociocentric debate, showing both orientations coexist but vary across languages, and (iv) a call to address individual variation in future model design.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗