Exposure is Optional: Learning Unlike Coordination in Language Models
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Coordination, a fundamental linguistic structure, remains a subject of intense debate, and its exact nature continues to elude theoretical linguistics. A common view holds that only same-category constituents can be conjoined, which has been challenged by the many grammatical unlike coordinations found in natural language. Treating language models as a computational testbed, we investigate whether the acquisition of unlike coordination requires direct exposure in the training data, or whether it can emerge organically from general compositional abilities. Using Filtered-Corpus Training (FiCT), we train GPT-2 models on corpora from which all instances of unlike coordination have been removed. We find that direct exposure is not necessary: models trained on filtered data successfully generalize to unlike coordination, achieving perplexity and grammaticality judgments comparable to models trained on unfiltered text. Furthermore, our analyses of internal representations indicate that language models process unlike coordination by treating the conjoined elements as belonging to similar structural categories or through a mechanism akin to deletion, both of which appear learnable from exposure to alike coordination alone.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 52 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 Jul 2026.
Builds on
18 of 52 references.
References · 18
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
- 2018Neural Network Acceptability Judgmentscited by 958
- 2018What you can cram into a single vector: Probing sentence embeddings for linguistic propertiescited by 457
- 2019Linguistic Knowledge and Transferability of Contextual Representationscited by 383
- 2016Assessing the Ability of LSTMs to Learn Syntax-Sensitive Dependenciescited by 354
- 2018Analysis Methods in Neural Language Processing: A Surveycited by 277
- 2018Targeted Syntactic Evaluation of Language Modelscited by 242
- 2018Colorless green recurrent networks dream hierarchicallycited by 213
- 2018Constituency Parsing with a Self-Attentive Encodercited by 199
- 2019Neural Language Models as Psycholinguistic Subjects: Representations of Syntactic Statecited by 138
- 2022What Artificial Neural Networks Can Tell Us About Human Language Acquisitioncited by 99
- 2018Under the Hood: Using Diagnostic Classifiers to Investigate and Improve how Language Models Track Agreement Informationcited by 97
6 more
- 2024Language Models Learn Rare Phenomena from Less Rare Phenomena: The Case of the Missing AANNscited by 65
- 2018Do Language Models Understand Anything? On the Ability of LSTMs to Understand Negative Polarity Itemscited by 36
- 2024Filtered Corpus Training (FiCT) Shows that Language Models can Generalize from Indirect Evidencecited by 35
- 2020Spying on your neighbors: Fine-grained probing of contextual embeddings for information about surrounding wordscited by 28
- 2018Verb Argument Structure Alternations in Word and Sentence Embeddingscited by 25
- 2019LINSPECTOR: Multilingual Probing Tasks for Word Representationscited by 22
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2024The Same But Different: Structural Similarities and Differences in Multilingual Language Modeling
- 2026What do Language Models Learn and When? The Implicit Curriculum Hypothesis
- 2026Causal Interventions Reveal Typologically Organized Syntactic Mechanisms in Multilingual Language Models
- 2021Syntactic Perturbations Reveal Representational Correlates of Hierarchical Phrase Structure in Pretrained Language Models
- 2024Revisiting the Superficial Alignment Hypothesis
- 2025Large Language Model probabilities cannot distinguish between possible and impossible language
- 2026Investigating Linguistic Steering: An Analysis of Adjectival Effects Across Large Language Model Architectures
- 2026Fine-Grained Analysis of Shared Syntactic Mechanisms in Language Models