Language Models Learn Constructional Semantics, Not To Mention Syntax: Investigating LM Understanding of Paired-Focus Constructions
This paper investigates whether language models can learn the semantics of rare English constructions (e.g., 'let alone', 'much less'), constructing a novel dataset to test form-meaning pairing understanding. Testing models across parameter counts, architectures, and pretraining dataset sizes, the authors find that modestly sized open-source models can grasp Paired-Focus construction semantics, while models trained on human-scale data fail. Training dynamics analysis reveals that semantic understanding of these constructions emerges later than syntactic knowledge and correlates with gains in world knowledge more broadly.
Related guides (2)
Related events (8)
Revisiting LLM systematicity in negation understanding via in-context learning
A new arXiv preprint analyzes how well large language models handle negation from two angles: behavioral systematicity (whether models correctly recognize negation expressions and scope) and representational systematicity (whether function vectors can be reliably constructed from in-context examples). Results show LLMs partially succeed at negation cue recognition via in-context learning but struggle with scope recognition, with performance varying by output format. Function vectors can be composed for cue extraction but are harder to extract for scope recognition tasks.
Tracing the Emergence of Human-Like Pragmatic Reasoning in LLMs Across Languages
Researchers conducted a population-matching experiment evaluating 25 LLMs on conditional inference tasks across four languages, comparing model behavior to matched human populations. The study finds that LLMs function as accurate semantic operators but systematically fail to capture pragmatic enrichments—context-sensitive inferences beyond literal logical meaning—that humans apply effortlessly. Model performance on pragmatic reasoning is not predicted by open vs. closed weights, training orientation, or architecture type, suggesting pragmatic reasoning remains an emergent and unreliable capability. The findings contribute to ongoing debates about whether LLMs reason like humans or merely approximate surface-level linguistic patterns.
LLMs Show Inverted Compositional Strengths vs. Humans on Reference Resolution Task
This paper evaluates LLMs and humans on the Personal Relation Task (Paperno 2022), distinguishing between Extensional tasks (resolving what an expression refers to) and Intensional tasks (representing structured sense/formula). The study finds that humans outperform LLMs on Extensional tasks while LLMs outperform humans on Intensional tasks—an inverted pattern of strengths. The authors argue this asymmetry reflects the absence of referential grounding in LLM training as a key gap in human-like language understanding.
Causal evaluation framework for learnability of formal language tasks in LMs
A new arXiv preprint proposes a causal framework for evaluating how much task-specific data language models need to learn a given task. The authors use formal languages generated by probabilistic finite automata as a controlled testbed, introducing the 'binning semiring' algebraic object to control property frequency in training corpora. Experiments show that standard correlational evaluation practices produce incorrect learnability conclusions due to confounders, with implications for how natural-language task learning is studied.
Attention Expansion mechanism improves keyphrase extraction from long documents without full-context LLMs
Researchers propose an 'attention expansion' mechanism that augments pre-trained language model token representations with information from out-of-context chunks using static word embeddings, enabling more effective keyphrase extraction from long documents. The approach avoids the computational cost of full-document attention or LLM-based inference while expanding the effective contextual scope of PLM-based models. Evaluated across five PLM backbones and five benchmark corpora, the method consistently improves F1 scores over state-of-the-art baselines in both scientific and news domains.
VLMs May Not Globally Enhance Human Alignment over LLMs During Natural Reading
This paper compares matched LLM and VLM pairs in a text-only setting to isolate the effect of multimodal training history on human-like language processing. Using whole-cortex fMRI and eye-tracking data from natural reading, the authors find that multimodal pretraining does not confer a uniform global advantage in human alignment. However, VLMs show selective advantages when sentences contain stronger visual semantic content, with converging evidence from both neural and behavioral measures. The findings suggest language-internal representations remain the primary driver of human text processing alignment.
Quantifying Cross-Linguistic Effects of Syncretism on Agreement Attraction Using LLM Processing Proxies
This paper investigates why morphological syncretism amplifies agreement attraction errors in some languages (English, German, Russian) but not others (Turkish, Armenian), a pattern lacking a principled account. The authors use surprisal and attention entropy derived from large language models as proxies for human sentence processing across four languages. LLM-derived measures successfully replicate behavioral findings in English and German, align with Turkish null results, and partially capture Russian patterns. The work demonstrates LLMs as tools for cross-linguistic psycholinguistic investigation.
LexNeo-Bench: Probing LLM Knowledge of Lexical Borrowing in Luxembourgish via Knowledge-Graph Prompting
Researchers introduce LexNeo-Bench, a 3,050-instance benchmark for evaluating LLM performance on lexical borrowing classification and neology detection in Luxembourgish, a low-resource contact language. Three multilingual LLMs are tested across 34 prompt configurations; without external context, models perform near chance on borrowing classification (25–35%). Injecting instance-specific subgraphs from a linguistic knowledge graph raises accuracy to 71–81% and largely closes the gap between small and large models, though neology detection remains difficult. The study highlights the value of lexicon-aware, structured prompting for low-resource multilingual evaluation.