Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Yehia A. AlSohbani

Publications and source records attributed to Yehia A. AlSohbani.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Machine learning and digital pragmatics: Which word category influences emoji use most?

This study examines the performance of the state-of-the-art MARBERT model in identifying the lexical/pragmatic category associated with emoji use on X within a digital pragmatics approach (DPA). A net corpus of 15856 Colloquial Arabic (CA) posts containing emojis was collected from X using Python. The texts were tokenized and normalized into 4 lexical categories, namely noun_norm, verb_norm, adj_norm, and adverb_norm, and 2 pragmatic/structural categories, question_norm and exclamation_norm. MARBERT was finetuned and optimized to identify which category scores standard metrics more, hence associated with emoji use, while binary logistic regression was used to examine which category is statistically associated with emoji occurrence. Findings unveil that nouns dominate the corpus in normalized frequency (M = 0.675, SD = 0.161), followed by verbs (M = 0.083, SD = 0.100). However, verbs have the strongest influence of emoji use indicated by verb density (\b{eta} = 0.821, p = .001, 95% CI [0.332, 1.309]). The study concludes that in digital pragmatics of CA on X, emoji use association with lexical/pragmatic category can be explained by a hybrid approach of computational, statistical, and pragmatic methods, reflecting the interaction among machine learning, linguistic/lexical features, contextual representation, and pragmatic communication.

cs.CL↗

Current LLMs still cannot 'talk much' about grammar modules: Evidence from syntax

We aim to examine the extent to which Large Language Models (LLMs) can 'talk much' about grammar modules, providing evidence from syntax core properties translated by ChatGPT into Arabic. We collected 44 terms from generative syntax previous works, including books and journal articles, as well as from our experience in the field. These terms were translated by humans, and then by ChatGPT-5. We then analyzed and compared both translations. We used an analytical and comparative approach in our analysis. Findings unveil that LLMs still cannot 'talk much' about the core syntax properties embedded in the terms under study involving several syntactic and semantic challenges: only 25% of ChatGPT translations were accurate, while 38.6% were inaccurate, and 36.4.% were partially correct, which we consider appropriate. Based on these findings, a set of actionable strategies were proposed, the most notable of which is a close collaboration between AI specialists and linguists to better LLMs' working mechanism for accurate or at least appropriate translation.

cs.CL↗