PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 22, 2026Digital studies in language and literature0 citationsOpen Access

Do Large Language Models Encode Second-Language Writing Proficiency? A CALF-Based Perspective

MCMichele CarloOTOsamu Takeuchi

Key Points

  • The aim is to examine how Large Language Models differentiate second language writing proficiency compared to human learners.
  • Analyzed CEFR-graded essays and matched LLM outputs (A2–C1)
  • Used statistical models to control for prompt and text length
  • Employed a CALF feature set: Complexity, Accuracy, Lexical Complexity, Fluency
  • LLMs explained 10.6% of variance in outputs compared to 2.9% in human texts
  • LLM outputs exhibited clearer levels of writing proficiency across prompts
  • Sharper distinctions observed between neighboring CEFR bands in LLMs than in learners' essays

Abstract

Abstract This study investigates how Large Language Models (LLMs) encode second language (L2) writing proficiency distinctions compared to human learners, focusing on the structural alignment between synthetic outputs and human developmental patterns. We analyzed CEFR-graded Write therefore, CALF captures core structural proficiency (syntax, lexis, accuracy, fluency) but not discourse-pragmatic qualities or human variability. The analyses provide level-calibrated evidence that LLM texts show clearer distinctions than learners’, under identical prompts, whose development is gradual and overlapping. This positions LLMs as both tool (exemplars, rubric calibration) and challenge (assessment validity and fairness), while offering SLA researchers insight into how proficiency constructs are encoded in human versus model-based writing.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Carlo et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/699a9d65482488d673cd34c6https://doi.org/10.1515/dsll-2025-0019
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper