Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

RNNs as psycholinguistic subjects: Syntactic state and grammatical dependency

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1809.01329 v1 pith:Y7EEZEJG submitted 2018-09-05 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords grammaticalstatedependencylanguagelearnmodelssyntacticbehavior
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Recurrent neural networks (RNNs) are the state of the art in sequence modeling for natural language. However, it remains poorly understood what grammatical characteristics of natural language they implicitly learn and represent as a consequence of optimizing the language modeling objective. Here we deploy the methods of controlled psycholinguistic experimentation to shed light on to what extent RNN behavior reflects incremental syntactic state and grammatical dependency representations known to characterize human linguistic behavior. We broadly test two publicly available long short-term memory (LSTM) English sequence models, and learn and test a new Japanese LSTM. We demonstrate that these models represent and maintain incremental syntactic state, but that they do not always generalize in the same way as humans. Furthermore, none of our models learn the appropriate grammatical dependency configurations licensing reflexive pronouns or negative polarity items.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Language Models Largely Exhibit Human-like Constituent Ordering Preferences

    cs.CL 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Across heavy NP shift, dative alternation and multiple PP shift, LLM ordering preferences correlate with human judgments, but particle movement preferences do not.

Pith tools