← 研踪 PaperTrailACL Anthology · ACL 2026:acl:2026.acl-long.84 · 记录 #1
Using Perspectival Words Is Harder Than Vocabulary Words for Humans —and Even More So for Multimodal Language Models
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 22:06
摘要
Multimodal language models (MLMs) increasingly demonstrate human-like communication, yet their use of everyday perspectival words remains poorly understood. To address this gap, we compare humans and MLMs in their use of three word types, which we predict impose increasing cognitive demands: vocabulary (e.g., ’boat’ or ’cup’), possessives (e.g., ’mine’ vs. ’yours’), and demonstratives (e.g., ’this one’ vs. ’that one’). Testing seven MLMs against human participants, we find that perspectival words are harder than vocabulary words for both groups. The gap is even larger for MLMs: while models approach human-level performance on using vocabulary, they exhibit clear deficits with possessives and even greater difficulties with demonstratives. Ablation analyses point to limitations in perspective-taking and spatial reasoning as key sources of these gaps in MLMs. Instruction-based prompting helps close the gap for possessives but still leaves demonstratives far below human performance. These results show that, unlike vocabulary, perspectival words pose a greater challenge in human communication—and this difficulty is further amplified in MLMs, revealing a crucial shortfall in their pragmatic and social-cognitive abilities.
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
Using Perspectival Words Is Harder Than Vocabulary Words for Humans —and Even More So for Multimodal Language Models
Multimodal language models (MLMs) increasingly demonstrate human-like communication, yet their use of everyday perspectival words remains poorly understood. To address this gap, we compare humans and MLMs in their use of three word types, which we predict impose increasing cognitive demands: vocabulary (e.g., ’boat’ or ’cup’), possessives (e.g., ’mine’ vs. ’yours’), and demonstratives (e.g., ’this one’ vs. ’that one’). Testing seven MLMs against human participants, we find that perspectival words are harder than vocabulary words for both groups. The gap is even larger for MLMs: while models approach human-level performance on using vocabulary, they exhibit clear deficits with possessives and even greater difficulties with demonstratives. Ablation analyses point to limitations in perspective-taking and spatial reasoning as key sources of these gaps in MLMs. Instruction-based prompting helps close the gap for possessives but still leaves demonstratives far below human performance. These results show that, unlike vocabulary, perspectival words pose a greater challenge in human communication—and this difficulty is further amplified in MLMs, revealing a crucial shortfall in their pragmatic and social-cognitive abilities.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗