# Manipulating language models' training data to study syntactic constraint learning: the case of English passivization

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.04593 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.04593/

## Key facts

- Cited by 12 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- First posted on arXiv 5 Jul 2024.

## Built on by (most cited first, 12 of 12)

- [Language Models as Models of Language](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.07144/) (2024)
- [Both Direct and Indirect Evidence Contribute to Dative Alternation Preferences in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.20850/) (2025)
- [Linguistic Generalizations are not Rules: Impacts on Evaluation of LMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.13195/) (2025)
- [A systematic framework for generating novel experimental hypotheses from language models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.05086/) (2024)
- [Can Language Models Induce Grammatical Knowledge from Indirect Evidence?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.06022/) (2024)
- [The Structural Sources of Verb Meaning Revisited: Large Language Models Display Syntactic Bootstrapping](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.12482/) (2025)
- [Differences in Typological Alignment in Language Models' Treatment of Differential Argument Marking](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.17653/) (2026)
- [Perturbation: A simple and efficient adversarial tracer for representation learning in language models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.23821/) (2026)
- [BabyLM's First Constructions: Causal probing provides a signal of learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.02147/) (2025)
- [Collocational bootstrapping: A hypothesis about the learning of subject-verb agreement in humans and neural networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.20529/) (2026)
- [Language Models Generalize to Human-like Word Order Preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.05028/) (2026)
- [Disentangling Statistical Preemption from Entrenchment in Language Models' Avoidance of Overgeneralization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.01794/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Grammatical rules in natural languages are often characterized by exceptions. How do language learners learn these exceptions to otherwise general patterns? Here, we study this question through the case study of English passivization. While passivization is in general quite productive, there are cases where it cannot apply (cf. the following sentence is ungrammatical: *One hour was lasted by the meeting). Using neural network language models as theories of language acquisition, we explore the sources of indirect evidence that a learner can leverage to learn whether a verb can be passivized. We first characterize English speakers' judgments of exceptions to the passive, and confirm that speakers find some verbs more passivizable than others. We then show that a neural network language model's verb passivizability judgments are largely similar to those displayed by humans, suggesting that evidence for these exceptions is available in the linguistic input. Finally, we test two hypotheses as to the source of evidence that language models use to learn these restrictions: frequency (entrenchment) and semantics (affectedness). We do so by training models on versions of the corpus that have had sentences of the types implicated by each hypothesis removed, altered, or introduced. We find support for both hypotheses: entrenchment and affectedness make independent contributions to a verb's passivizability. From a methodological point of view, this study highlights the utility of altering a language model's training data for answering questions where complete control over a learner's input is vital.