Grammaticality Judgments in Humans and Language Models: Revisiting Generative Grammar with LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.10453v1
• Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2025 09:17:35 GMT
• Title: Grammaticality Judgments in Humans and Language Models: Revisiting Generative Grammar with LLMs
• Authors: Lars G. B. Johnsen,
• Abstract summary: In traditional generative grammar, systematic contrasts in grammaticality such as subject-auxiliary inversion and the licensing of parasitic gaps are taken as evidence for an internal, hierarchical grammar.<n>We test whether large language models (LLMs), trained only on surface forms, reproduce these contrasts in ways that imply an underlying structural representation.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: What counts as evidence for syntactic structure? In traditional generative grammar, systematic contrasts in grammaticality such as subject-auxiliary inversion and the licensing of parasitic gaps are taken as evidence for an internal, hierarchical grammar. In this paper, we test whether large language models (LLMs), trained only on surface forms, reproduce these contrasts in ways that imply an underlying structural representation. We focus on two classic constructions: subject-auxiliary inversion (testing recognition of the subject boundary) and parasitic gap licensing (testing abstract dependency structure). We evaluate models including GPT-4 and LLaMA-3 using prompts eliciting acceptability ratings. Results show that LLMs reliably distinguish between grammatical and ungrammatical variants in both constructions, and as such support that they are sensitive to structure and not just linear order. Structural generalizations, distinct from cognitive knowledge, emerge from predictive training on surface forms, suggesting functional sensitivity to syntax without explicit encoding.

Related papers

• StructCoh: Structured Contrastive Learning for Context-Aware Text Semantic Matching [10.000850856259866]
  StructCoh is a graph-enhanced contrastive learning framework.<n>A hierarchical contrastive objective enforces consistency at multiple granularities.<n>Experiments on three legal document matching benchmarks and academic plagiarism detection datasets demonstrate significant improvements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-02T07:21:36Z)
• "You Are An Expert Linguistic Annotator": Limits of LLMs as Analyzers of Abstract Meaning Representation [60.863629647985526]
  We examine the successes and limitations of the GPT-3, ChatGPT, and GPT-4 models in analysis of sentence meaning structure. We find that models can reliably reproduce the basic format of AMR, and can often capture core event, argument, and modifier structure. Overall, our findings indicate that these models out-of-the-box can capture aspects of semantic structure, but there remain key limitations in their ability to support fully accurate semantic analyses or parses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-26T21:47:59Z)
• Simple Linguistic Inferences of Large Language Models (LLMs): Blind Spots and Blinds [59.71218039095155]
  We evaluate language understanding capacities on simple inference tasks that most humans find trivial. We target (i) grammatically-specified entailments, (ii) premises with evidential adverbs of uncertainty, and (iii) monotonicity entailments. The models exhibit moderate to low performance on these evaluation sets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T06:41:09Z)
• Physics of Language Models: Part 1, Learning Hierarchical Language Structures [51.68385617116854]
  Transformer-based language models are effective but complex, and understanding their inner workings and reasoning mechanisms is a significant challenge.<n>We introduce a family of synthetic CFGs that produce hierarchical rules, capable of generating lengthy sentences.<n>We demonstrate that generative models like GPT can accurately learn and reason over CFG-defined hierarchies and generate sentences based on it.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T04:28:16Z)
• The Better Your Syntax, the Better Your Semantics? Probing Pretrained Language Models for the English Comparative Correlative [7.03497683558609]
  Construction Grammar (CxG) is a paradigm from cognitive linguistics emphasising the connection between syntax and semantics. We present an investigation of their capability to classify and understand one of the most commonly studied constructions, the English comparative correlative (CC) Our results show that all three investigated PLMs are able to recognise the structure of the CC but fail to use its meaning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-24T13:01:24Z)
• Controlled Evaluation of Grammatical Knowledge in Mandarin Chinese Language Models [22.57309958548928]
  We investigate whether structural supervision improves language models' ability to learn grammatical dependencies in typologically different languages. We train LSTMs, Recurrent Neural Network Grammars, Transformer language models, and generative parsing models on datasets of different sizes. We find suggestive evidence that structural supervision helps with representing syntactic state across intervening content and improves performance in low-data settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-22T22:11:30Z)
• Dependency Induction Through the Lens of Visual Perception [81.91502968815746]
  We propose an unsupervised grammar induction model that leverages word concreteness and a structural vision-based to jointly learn constituency-structure and dependency-structure grammars. Our experiments show that the proposed extension outperforms the current state-of-the-art visually grounded models in constituency parsing even with a smaller grammar size.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-20T18:40:37Z)
• Decomposing lexical and compositional syntax and semantics with deep language models [82.81964713263483]
  The activations of language transformers like GPT2 have been shown to linearly map onto brain activity during speech comprehension. Here, we propose a taxonomy to factorize the high-dimensional activations of language models into four classes: lexical, compositional, syntactic, and semantic representations. The results highlight two findings. First, compositional representations recruit a more widespread cortical network than lexical ones, and encompass the bilateral temporal, parietal and prefrontal cortices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-02T10:24:05Z)
• Structural Supervision Improves Few-Shot Learning and Syntactic Generalization in Neural Language Models [47.42249565529833]
  Humans can learn structural properties about a word from minimal experience. We assess the ability of modern neural language models to reproduce this behavior in English.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-12T14:12:37Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.