On the referential capacity of language models: An internalist rejoinder to Mandelkern & Linzen

TL;DR

This paper critiques Mandelkern & Linzen's externalist view that language models' words refer to real-world entities, arguing that their scope is limited and their generalizations may be unwarranted.

Contribution

It clarifies the scope of externalist claims about LMs' referential capacity and questions the generalization of these claims to all language expressions.

Findings

The claim applies only to a narrow class of natural language expressions.

Externalist accounts may overgeneralize about LMs' referential abilities.

The status of LMs as members of linguistic communities remains debatable.

Abstract

In a recent paper, Mandelkern & Linzen (2024) - henceforth M&L - address the question of whether language models' (LMs) words refer. Their argument draws from the externalist tradition in philosophical semantics, which views reference as the capacity of words to "achieve 'word-to-world' connections". In the externalist framework, causally uninterrupted chains of usage, tracing every occurrence of a name back to its bearer, guarantee that, for example, 'Peano' refers to the individual Peano (Kripke 1980). This account is externalist both because words pick out referents 'out there' in the world, and because what determines reference are coordinated linguistic actions by members of a community, and not individual mental states. The "central question to ask", for M&L, is whether LMs too belong to human linguistic communities, such that words by LMs may also trace back causally to their bearers. Their answer is a cautious "yes": inputs to LMs are linguistic "forms with particular histories of referential use"; "those histories ground the referents of those forms"; any occurrence of 'Peano' in LM outputs is as causally connected to the individual Peano as any other occurrence of the same proper name in human speech or text; therefore, occurrences of 'Peano' in LM outputs refer to Peano. In this commentary, we first qualify M&L's claim as applying to a narrow class of natural language expressions. Thus qualified, their claim is valid, and we emphasise an additional motivation for that in Section 2. Next, we discuss the actual scope of their claim, and we suggest that the way they formulate it may lead to unwarranted generalisations about reference in LMs. Our critique is likewise applicable to other externalist accounts of LMs (e.g., Lederman & Mahowald 2024; Mollo & Milliere 2023). Lastly, we conclude with a comment on the status of LMs as members of human linguistic communities.