To what extent can neural network models learn generalizations about language structure, and how do we find out what they have learned? We explore these questions by training neural models for a range of natural language processing tasks on a massively multilingual dataset of Bible translations in 1,295 languages. The learned language representations are then compared to existing typological databases as well as to a novel set of quantitative syntactic and morphological features obtained through annotation projection. We conclude that some generalizations are surprisingly close to traditional features from linguistic typology, but that most of our models, as well as those of previous work, do not appear to have made linguistically meaningful generalizations. Careful attention to details in the evaluation turns out to be essential to avoid false positives. Furthermore, to encourage continued work in this field, we release several resources covering most or all of the languages in our data: (1) multiple sets of language representations, (2) multilingual word embeddings, (3) projected and predicted syntactic and morphological features, (4) software to provide linguistically sound evaluations of language representations.

A neural language model trained on a text corpus can be used to induce distributed representations of words, such that similar words end up with similar representations. If the corpus is multilingual, the same model can be used to learn distributed representations of languages, such that similar languages end up with similar representations. We show that this holds even when the multilingual corpus has been translated into English, by picking up the faint signal left by the source languages. However, just as it is a thorny problem to separate semantic from syntactic similarity in word representations, it is not obvious what type of similarity is captured by language representations. We investigate correlations and causal relationships between language representations learned from translations on one hand, and genetic, geographical, and several levels of structural similarity between languages on the other. Of these, structural similarity is found to correlate most strongly with language representation similarity, whereas genetic relationships—a convenient benchmark used for evaluation in previous work—appears to be a confounding factor. Apart from implications about translation effects, we see this more generally as a case where NLP and linguistic typology can interact and benefit one another.