You Can't Fight in Here! This is BBS!
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.09501v1
- Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2026 17:14:03 GMT
- Title: You Can't Fight in Here! This is BBS!
- Abstract summary: Norm and Claudette discuss whether modern language models can inform important questions in the language sciences.<n>We use this discussion to highlight what we see as some common underlying issues.<n>We advocate for a more expansive research program for the language sciences in the AI age.
- Score: 14.465537676558727
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Abstract: Norm, the formal theoretical linguist, and Claudette, the computational language scientist, have a lovely time discussing whether modern language models can inform important questions in the language sciences. Just as they are about to part ways until they meet again, 25 of their closest friends show up -- from linguistics, neuroscience, cognitive science, psychology, philosophy, and computer science. We use this discussion to highlight what we see as some common underlying issues: the String Statistics Strawman (the mistaken idea that LMs can't be linguistically competent or interesting because they, like their Markov model predecessors, are statistical models that learn from strings) and the As Good As it Gets Assumption (the idea that LM research as it stands in 2026 is the limit of what it can tell us about linguistics). We clarify the role of LM-based work for scientific insights into human language and advocate for a more expansive research program for the language sciences in the AI age, one that takes on the commentators' concerns in order to produce a better and more robust science of both human language and of LMs.
Related papers
- On the Thinking-Language Modeling Gap in Large Language Models [68.83670974539108]
We show that there is a significant gap between the modeling of languages and thoughts.<n>We propose a new prompt technique termed Language-of-Thoughts (LoT) to demonstrate and alleviate this gap.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-05-19T09:31:52Z) - Can Language Models Learn Typologically Implausible Languages? [62.823015163987996]
Grammatical features across human languages show intriguing correlations often attributed to learning biases in humans.<n>We discuss how language models (LMs) allow us to better determine the role of domain-general learning biases in language universals.<n>We test LMs on an array of highly naturalistic but counterfactual versions of the English (head-initial) and Japanese (head-final) languages.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-02-17T20:40:01Z) - How Linguistics Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Language Models [17.413438037432414]
We argue that the success of LMs obviates the need for studying linguistic theory and structure.<n>They force us to rethink arguments and ways of thinking that have been foundational in linguistics.<n>We offer an optimistic take on the relationship between language models and linguistics.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-01-28T16:13:19Z) - Kallini et al. (2024) do not compare impossible languages with constituency-based ones [0.0]
A central goal of linguistic theory is to find a characterization of the notion "possible human language"
Recent large language models (LLMs) in NLP applications arguably raises the possibility that LLMs might be computational devices that meet this goal.
I explain the confound and suggest some ways forward towards constructing a comparison that appropriately tests the underlying issue.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-10-16T06:16:30Z) - SciInstruct: a Self-Reflective Instruction Annotated Dataset for Training Scientific Language Models [57.96527452844273]
We introduce SciInstruct, a suite of scientific instructions for training scientific language models capable of college-level scientific reasoning.
We curated a diverse and high-quality dataset encompassing physics, chemistry, math, and formal proofs.
To verify the effectiveness of SciInstruct, we fine-tuned different language models with SciInstruct, i.e., ChatGLM3 (6B and 32B), Llama3-8B-Instruct, and Mistral-7B: MetaMath.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-01-15T20:22:21Z) - How should the advent of large language models affect the practice of
science? [51.62881233954798]
How should the advent of large language models affect the practice of science?
We have invited four diverse groups of scientists to reflect on this query, sharing their perspectives and engaging in debate.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-12-05T10:45:12Z) - Divergences between Language Models and Human Brains [59.100552839650774]
We systematically explore the divergences between human and machine language processing.<n>We identify two domains that LMs do not capture well: social/emotional intelligence and physical commonsense.<n>Our results show that fine-tuning LMs on these domains can improve their alignment with human brain responses.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-15T19:02:40Z) - Why Linguistics Will Thrive in the 21st Century: A Reply to Piantadosi
(2023) [5.2424255020469595]
We present a critical assessment of Piantadosi's claim that "Modern language models refute Chomsky's approach to language"
Despite the impressive performance and utility of large language models, humans achieve their capacity for language after exposure to several orders of magnitude less data.
We conclude that generative linguistics as a scientific discipline will remain indispensable throughout the 21st century and beyond.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-08-06T23:41:14Z) - Information-Theoretic Probing for Linguistic Structure [74.04862204427944]
We propose an information-theoretic operationalization of probing as estimating mutual information.
We evaluate on a set of ten typologically diverse languages often underrepresented in NLP research.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-04-07T01:06:36Z)
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.