CORTEXA
← Browse
arxivcs.CLcs.AI2026-07-08

How Do I Know What to Say Next? Barenholtz's Autogenerative Theory as an Enrichment of Harrisean Integrationism

J. Mark Bishop, Stephen J. Cowley

Roy Harris's Integrationist linguistics offers a compelling critique of the referentialist tradition embedded deep at the heart of computational approaches to language, arguing that language is not a code that maps onto a pre-given world but a situated, bipartite activity oriented toward prospective joint action. Yet Integrationism leaves certain explanatory gaps: it does not fully account for the structural mechanism by which signs sustain prospective openness, it undertheorises the continuity between linguistic and non-linguistic semiotic activity, and it offers no detailed account of the structural properties of the accumulated archive of past integrations. This paper argues that Elan Barenholtz's autogenerative theory of language, developed in response to the behaviour of Large Language Models (LLMs), can fill precisely these gaps, enriching Integrationism without undermining any of its core commitments. Specifically, the autogenerative account provides: a structural mechanism for the prospective openness that Harris identifies as central to bipartite communication; a computational correlate for Harris's thesis of semiotic continuity between language and other sign-making activity; and a theory of the archive: what the accumulated residue of past integrations looks like and how new participants draw upon it. The synthesis preserves Harris's ontological primacy of the situated integrative act while adding explanatory content that Integrationism itself does not supply. For practitioners and researchers in natural language processing and large language model design, the argument offers a principled account of what the statistical structure that LLMs so effectively exploit actually is, and of what it cannot, by its nature, provide.

View free PDFSource page

Related papers

arxivcs.CLcs.AI2026-07-09

What LLM Forecasters Know but Don't Say: Probing Internal Representations for Calibration and Faithfulness

Raphaël Sarfati, Pratyush Ranjan Tiwari, Siddharth Boppana, Christopher J. Earls, Srikar Varadaraj, Eric Ho

Large language models fine-tuned for forecasting can be accurate yet poorly calibrated, and their chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning may not faithfully reflect the evidence behind a forecast. We ask whether internal representations offer a more direct window into both. Working with…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.CLcs.AIcs.ET2026-07-10

Conceptual Networks for Cross-Linguistic Idiomatic Expressions: A Feature-Based Graph Approach

Kiran Pala, Punam Silu, Luxin Yu

We present an interpretable network-based framework for representing idiomatic and figurative meaning across eight typologically diverse languages, totaling 160 conventional expressions, the large majority of which are idiomatic. Each expression is annotated with binary conceptua…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.AIcs.CLcs.LGcs.SIphysics.soc-ph2026-07-13

Reproducing human biases in route choice using large language models: Toward scalable behavioral modeling

Jiangtao Han, Shoufeng Ma, Shuxian Xu, Geng Li, Shuai Ling, Ning Jia, et al.

Human choice behavior, including route choice, exhibits systematic behavioral biases that deviate from the assumptions of full rationality. Cumulative prospect theory (CPT) has been widely recognized as an effective framework for characterizing such behavioral patterns. However,…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.CLcs.AIcs.LG2026-07-16

Verbalizable Representations Form a Global Workspace in Language Models

Wes Gurnee, Nicholas Sofroniew, Adam Pearce, Mateusz Piotrowski, Isaac Kauvar, Runjin Chen, et al.

Out of everything the human brain processes, only a small fraction is consciously accessible, in the sense of being available for verbal report, deliberate control, and flexible reasoning. In this paper, we present evidence that an analogous functional distinction has emerged in…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.AIcs.CLcs.LGcs.MA2026-07-21

Knowledge-Centric Self-Improvement

Xuefei Julie Wang, Lauren Hyoseo Yoon, Chengrui Qu, Amanda Zichang Wang, Atharva Sehgal, Eric Mazumdar, et al.

Self-improving AI systems typically treat the agent as the object that improves, by optimizing prompts, workflows, harnesses, or even the agent's own code. This agent-centric view can make improvements expensive to maintain and difficult to transfer, because gains become tied to…

View free PDFSource page