Recurring expressions in model-written text are often treated as signatures of machine authorship, yet most of them serve legitimate functions. Whether such an expression is a tic depends on whether the model knows when it is called for. This judgment of appropriateness, central to communicative competence, remains largely unexamined for language models. We study it through the Mandarin corrective construction bushi X, ershi Y ("not X, but Y"). Drawing on Gricean pragmatics and corrective negation, we introduce a decision tree that classifies uses as substantive, optional, or defective by testing whether the context makes X a live alternative and whether rejecting X is informative. Five commercial models use the construction 2.5 to 9.2 times as densely as a human reference. Of 307 annotated uses, only 1.30% are defective while 52.8% are optional, that is, correct but unneeded, so models fall short in appropriateness far more often than in correctness. Several reward models favor the construction even over quality-matched variants, an LLM judge favors it even where the context does not license it, and both supervised fine-tuning and preference optimization tend to raise its frequency in open-weight models. We hope this work encourages the development of models attentive to the appropriateness of their expressions.

翻译：暂无翻译