mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

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

arXiv 2512.10453 ↗First posted 11 Dec 2025cs.CLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

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.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 3 of its 20 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 Dec 2025.

Builds on

3 of 20 references.

References · 3

  1. 2019BLiMP: The Benchmark of Linguistic Minimal Pairs for Englishcited by 564
  2. 2021Attention Can Reflect Syntactic Structure (If You Let It)cited by 22
  3. 2025Large Language Models as Proxies for Theories of Human Linguistic Cognitioncited by 10

Built on by

Not cited yet.