Rhythmic Monotonization in LLM-Generated Text Is Cross-Lingual: Evidence from Three Languages and Seven Models

Our previous study of Japanese LLM-generated text found a two-layer fingerprint: vocabulary identifies which model wrote a text, while rhythm (suppressed sentence-length variation, uniform paragraph structure) shifts in the same direction in all models, like a shared machine accent. That study left an open question: is the accent a property of the machines, or an artifact of Japanese? We test the cross-lingual claim by replicating the rhythm protocol in English and Brazilian Portuguese: 7 LLMs (Claude Haiku 4.5, Claude Sonnet 5, Claude Opus 4.8, GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4o, GPT-OSS 20B, Llama 3.2 1B) x 10 themes x 5 trials per language, measured against 853 pre-ChatGPT Dev.to articles (EN) and 403 pre-ChatGPT TabNews posts (PT-BR), with the Japanese results of the prior study as the third point of comparison. Direction is universal: on all five core rhythm metrics (burstiness of sentence-length sequences in characters, words, and syllables; sentence-length CV in characters and words), every one of the 70 model x language cells shows the AI side more monotone than human (d < 0), before and after residualizing against document length. Magnitude is language-dependent but narrowly so: pooled character-burstiness effects are d = -0.96 (JA), -1.12 (EN), and -1.03 (PT), and the model ordering on burstiness is identical in all three languages (GPT-3.5 Turbo most monotone, GPT-OSS 20B closest to human). Comma density behaves in the opposite way: AI overshoots the human rate in English (d = +0.45) but undershoots it in Portuguese (d = -0.83), because AI writes commas at a nearly language-independent rate while human comma conventions differ twofold. Rhythm is a cross-lingual accent; punctuation is a language-specific dialect the models fail to acquire. A secondary result is generational: the current Claude tier shows roughly a third of GPT-3.5 Turbo's monotonization (d = -0.58 to -0.96 vs. -2.2 to -2.6), suggesting the accent is fading. Rhythm-based AI-text lint can reuse its metric directions across languages, but must calibrate thresholds per language.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Published
2026-07-18
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21424903
Primary Topic
Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Type
preprint
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
preprint

Rhythmic Monotonization in LLM-Generated Text Is Cross-Lingual: Evidence from Three Languages and Seven Models

Ken Imoto
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
preprint

Rhythmic Monotonization in LLM-Generated Text Is Cross-Lingual: Evidence from Three Languages and Seven Models

Ken Imoto
preprint en

Abstract

Our previous study of Japanese LLM-generated text found a two-layer fingerprint: vocabulary identifies which model wrote a text, while rhythm (suppressed sentence-length variation, uniform paragraph structure) shifts in the same direction in all models, like a shared machine accent. That study left an open question: is the accent a property of the machines, or an artifact of Japanese? We test the cross-lingual claim by replicating the rhythm protocol in English and Brazilian Portuguese: 7 LLMs (Claude Haiku 4.5, Claude Sonnet 5, Claude Opus 4.8, GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4o, GPT-OSS 20B, Llama 3.2 1B) x 10 themes x 5 trials per language, measured against 853 pre-ChatGPT Dev.to articles (EN) and 403 pre-ChatGPT TabNews posts (PT-BR), with the Japanese results of the prior study as the third point of comparison. Direction is universal: on all five core rhythm metrics (burstiness of sentence-length sequences in characters, words, and syllables; sentence-length CV in characters and words), every one of the 70 model x language cells shows the AI side more monotone than human (d < 0), before and after residualizing against document length. Magnitude is language-dependent but narrowly so: pooled character-burstiness effects are d = -0.96 (JA), -1.12 (EN), and -1.03 (PT), and the model ordering on burstiness is identical in all three languages (GPT-3.5 Turbo most monotone, GPT-OSS 20B closest to human). Comma density behaves in the opposite way: AI overshoots the human rate in English (d = +0.45) but undershoots it in Portuguese (d = -0.83), because AI writes commas at a nearly language-independent rate while human comma conventions differ twofold. Rhythm is a cross-lingual accent; punctuation is a language-specific dialect the models fail to acquire. A secondary result is generational: the current Claude tier shows roughly a third of GPT-3.5 Turbo's monotonization (d = -0.58 to -0.96 vs. -2.2 to -2.6), suggesting the accent is fading. Rhythm-based AI-text lint can reuse its metric directions across languages, but must calibrate thresholds per language.

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Electric Propulsion Laboratory (United States) (US)
Quality Education
Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.