Article published In: Linguistics in the Netherlands 2024
Edited by Marco Bril and Kristel Doreleijers
[Nota Bene 1:2] 2024
► pp. 242–260
ChatGPT as an informant
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.
For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.
Open Access publication of this article was funded through a Transformative Agreement with Utrecht University.
Published online: 24 January 2025
https://doi.org/10.1075/nb.00015.mul
https://doi.org/10.1075/nb.00015.mul
Abstract
While previous machine learning protocols have failed to achieve even observational adequacy in acquiring natural
language, generative large language models (LLMs) now produce large amounts of free text with few grammatical errors. This is
surprising in view of what is known as “the logical problem of language acquisition”. Given the likely absence of negative
evidence in the training process, how would the LLM acquire the information that certain strings are to be avoided as ill-formed?
We attempt to employ Dutch-speaking ChatGPT as a linguistic informant by capitalizing on the documented “few shot learning”
ability of LLMs. We then investigate whether ChatGPT has acquired familiar island constraints, in particular the CNPC, and compare
its performance to that of native speakers. Although descriptive and explanatory adequacy may remain out of reach, initial results
indicate that ChatGPT performs well over chance in detecting island violations.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Test methodology: ChatGPT as an informant
- 3.Experiment 1: ChatGPT
- 3.1Language models
- 3.2Materials
- Set 1: Base line examples
- Set 2: English island violations
- Set 3: Dutch island violations
- 3.3Procedure
- 3.4Predictions
- 3.5Analysis, results and discussion
- 4.Experiment 2: Humans versus few-shot GPT 4
- 4.1Participants
- 4.2Materials
- 4.3Procedure
- 4.4Analysis and results
- 4.4.1Humans
- 4.4.2Humans versus GPT 4 with a few-shot prompt
- 5.Conclusions
- Supplementary materials and data archive
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
References
References (33)
Baker, C. LeRoy. 1979. Syntactic theory and the
projection problem. Linguistic
Inquiry 10(4). 533–581.
Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler, Ben Bolker & Steve Walker. 2015. Fitting
linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical
Software 67(1). 1–48.
Berwick, Robert C., Paul Pietroski, Beracah Yankama & Noam Chomsky. 2011. Poverty
of the stimulus revisited. Cognitive
Science 351. 1207–1242.
Braine, Martin D. S. 1971. On two types of models of the
internalization of grammars. In D. I. Slobin (ed.), The
Ontogenesis of Grammar: A Theoretical Symposium. New York: Academic Press.
Brown, Tom B., Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Malanie Subbiah, Jared D. Kaplan et al. 2020. Language
models are few-shot learners. In H. Larochelle, M. Ranzato, R. Hadsell, M. F. Balcan & H. Lin (eds.), Advances
in Neural Information Processing Systems 331.
Clark, Alexander & Eyraud, Rémi. 2007. Polynomial
identification in the limit of substitutable context-free languages. Journal of Machine
Learning
Research 81. 1725–1745.
Dentella, Vittoria, Fritz Günther & Evelina Leivada. 2023. Systematic
testing of three Language Models reveals low language accuracy, absence of response stability, and a yes-response
bias. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 120(51).
Fox, John & Sanford Weisberg. 2019. An
R Companion to Applied Regression, Third edition. Sage, Thousand Oaks CA. [URL]
Hamaker, Ellen L., Pascal van Hattum, Rebecca M. Kuiper & Herbert Hoijtink. 2011. Model
selection based on information criteria in multilevel modeling. Handbook of advanced multilevel
analysis, 231–255.
Hornstein, Norbert & David Lightfoot (eds.). 1981. Explanation
in Linguistics, The Logical Problem of Language
Acquisition. Longman.
Hu, Jennifer, Kyle Mahowald, Gary Lupyan, Anna Ivanova & Roger Levy. 2024. Language
models align with human judgments on key grammatical constructions.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Logical Relations in Chinese
and the Theory of
Grammar. Diss. MIT.
Huijbregts, Riny. 2008. Linguistic
Argumentation and Poverty of the Stimulus Arguments. Ms., Utrecht University.
Kojima, Takeshi, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo & Yusuke Iwasawa. 2022. Large
Language Models are zero-shot reasoners.
Laurence, Stephen & Eric Margolis. 2001. The
poverty of the stimulus argument. The British Journal for the Philosophy of
Science 52(2). 217–276.
Lenth, Russell V. 2023. emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka
Least-Squares Means. R package version 1.9.0, [URL]
Ozaki, Satoru, Dan Yurovsky & Lori Levin. 2022. How
well do LSTM language models learn filler-gap dependencies? Proceedings of the Society for
Computation in Linguistics
(SCiL) 5(1). 76–88.
Pinheiro, José, Douglas Bates & R Core Team. 2023. nlme:
Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models. R package version 3.1–164. [URL]
Pinker, Steven. 1986. Productivity
and conservatism in language acquisition. In W. Demopoulos & A. Marras (eds.), Language
Learning and Concept Acquisition: Foundational
Issues, 54–79. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Posit team. 2024. RStudio: Integrated
Development Environment for R. Boston, MA: PBC. [URL]
R Core Team. 2023. R: A Language and
Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [URL]
Reali, Florencia & Morten H. Christiansen. 2005. Uncovering
the richness of the stimulus: Structure dependence and indirect statistical evidence. Cognitive
Science 291. 1007–1028.
Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on variables in
syntax. Doctoral
dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Reprinted as Infinite Syntax! Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1986.
Sprouse, Jon, Matt Wagers & Colin Phillips. 2012. A
test of the relation between working-memory capacity and syntactic island
effects. Language. 82–123.
