mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

For GPT-4 as with Humans: Information Structure Predicts Acceptability of Long-Distance Dependencies

arXiv 2505.09005 ↗First posted 13 May 2025cs.CLcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

It remains debated how well any LM understands natural language or generates reliable metalinguistic judgments. Moreover, relatively little work has demonstrated that LMs can represent and respect subtle relationships between form and function proposed by linguists. We here focus on a particular such relationship established in recent work: English speakers' judgments about the information structure of canonical sentences predicts independently collected acceptability ratings on corresponding 'long distance dependency' [LDD] constructions, across a wide array of base constructions and multiple types of LDDs. To determine whether any LM captures this relationship, we probe GPT-4 on the same tasks used with humans and new extensions.Results reveal reliable metalinguistic skill on the information structure and acceptability tasks, replicating a striking interaction between the two, despite the zero-shot, explicit nature of the tasks, and little to no chance of contamination [Studies 1a, 1b]. Study 2 manipulates the information structure of base sentences and confirms a causal relationship: increasing the prominence of a constituent in a context sentence increases the subsequent acceptability ratings on an LDD construction. The findings suggest a tight relationship between natural and GPT-4 generated English, and between information structure and syntax, which begs for further exploration.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 9 of its 42 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 May 2025.

Builds on

9 of 42 references.

References · 9

  1. 2019BLiMP: The Benchmark of Linguistic Minimal Pairs for Englishcited by 553
  2. 2020Are Natural Language Inference Models IMPPRESsive? Learning IMPlicature and PRESuppositioncited by 76
  3. 2024PUB: A Pragmatics Understanding Benchmark for Assessing LLMs' Pragmatics Capabilitiescited by 58
  4. 2024Language models align with human judgments on key grammatical constructionscited by 49
  5. 2023Testing AI on language comprehension tasks reveals insensitivity to underlying meaningcited by 45
  6. 2023Prompting is not a substitute for probability measurements in large language modelscited by 43
  7. 2023Do Language Models' Words Refer?cited by 17
  8. 2024Generalizations across filler-gap dependencies in neural language modelscited by 12
  9. 2023Simple Linguistic Inferences of Large Language Models (LLMs): Blind Spots and Blindscited by 7

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.