arXiv:2608.18144v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Modal auxiliaries such as must, should, and have to mark necessity and obligation within the contexts of speaker authority and interpersonal stance. We examine whether large language models (LLMs) reproduce contemporary human patterns of deontic modal usage. Across three primary corpora, an external benchmark, two controlled replications, and a naturalistic eleven-model replication, AI-generated text consistently underuses positive deontic modals (must, should, have to, had to) relative to contemporary humans. Historical comparison with the Google Books Ngram corpus (1920-2022), used as a heuristic calibration against the published-prose record, shows that AI modal frequencies fall within the range of formal published English, whereas contemporary human modal rates in informal digital contexts often exceed twentieth-century book baselines. Phrase-level decomposition shows that the AI-human modal gap is concentrated in constructions central to interpersonal stance (should, have to, had to), while AI matches or exceeds humans on need to in instructional and question-answering contexts but not in persuasive student writing, indicating that the modal profile is genre-conditional. The findings suggest that LLM modal usage reflects the formal written resources on which these models were trained, while underusing the modal constructions through which contemporary human writers mark immediate, interpersonal obligation.
Abstract: Modal auxiliaries such as must, should, and have to mark necessity and obligation within the contexts of speaker authority and interpersonal stance. We examine whether large language models (LLMs) reproduce contemporary human patterns of deontic modal usage. Across three primary corpora, an external benchmark, two controlled replications, and a naturalistic eleven-model replication, AI-generated text consistently underuses positive deontic modals (must, should, have to, had to) relative to contemporary humans. Historical comparison with the Google Books Ngram corpus (1920-2022), used as a heuristic calibration against the published-prose record, shows that AI modal frequencies fall within the range of formal published English, whereas contemporary human modal rates in informal digital contexts often exceed twentieth-century book baselines. Phrase-level decomposition shows that the AI-human modal gap is concentrated in constructions central to interpersonal stance (should, have to, had to), while AI matches or exceeds humans on need to in instructional and question-answering contexts but not in persuasive student writing, indicating that the modal profile is genre-conditional. The findings suggest that LLM modal usage reflects the formal written resources on which these models were trained, while underusing the modal constructions through which contemporary human writers mark immediate, interpersonal obligation.
This article has been indexed from cs.AI updates on arXiv.org
Read the original article: