In lexicalist linguistic theories, argument structure is assumed to be predictable from the meaning of verbs. As a result, the verb is the primary determinant of the meaning of a clause. In contrast, construction grammarians propose that argument structure is encoded in constructions (or form-meaning pairs) that are distinct from verbs. Two decades of psycholinguistic research have produced substantial empirical evidence in favor of the construction view. Here we adapt several psycholinguistic studies to probe for the existence of argument structure constructions (ASCs) in Transformer-based language models (LMs). First, using a sentence sorting experiment, we find that sentences sharing the same construction are closer in embedding space than sentences sharing the same verb. Furthermore, LMs increasingly prefer grouping by construction with more input data, mirroring the behavior of non-native language learners. Second, in a “Jabberwocky” priming-based experiment, we find that LMs associate ASCs with meaning, even in semantically nonsensical sentences. Our work offers the first evidence for ASCs in LMs and highlights the potential to devise novel probing methods grounded in psycholinguistic research.

As large and powerful neural language models are developed, researchers have been increasingly interested in developing diagnostic tools to probe them. There are many papers with conclusions of the form “observation X is found in model Y”, using their own datasets with varying sizes. Larger probing datasets bring more reliability, but are also expensive to collect. There is yet to be a quantitative method for estimating reasonable probing dataset sizes. We tackle this omission in the context of comparing two probing configurations: after we have collected a small dataset from a pilot study, how many additional data samples are sufficient to distinguish two different configurations? We present a novel method to estimate the required number of data samples in such experiments and, across several case studies, we verify that our estimations have sufficient statistical power. Our framework helps to systematically construct probing datasets to diagnose neural NLP models.

Morality plays an important role in social well-being, but people’s moral perception is not stable and changes over time. Recent advances in natural language processing have shown that text is an effective medium for informing moral change, but no attempt has been made to quantify the origins of these changes. We present a novel unsupervised framework for tracing textual sources of moral change toward entities through time. We characterize moral change with probabilistic topical distributions and infer the source text that exerts prominent influence on the moral time course. We evaluate our framework on a diverse set of data ranging from social media to news articles. We show that our framework not only captures fine-grained human moral judgments, but also identifies coherent source topics of moral change triggered by historical events. We apply our methodology to analyze the news in the COVID-19 pandemic and demonstrate its utility in identifying sources of moral change in high-impact and real-time social events.

Transformer language models have shown remarkable ability in detecting when a word is anomalous in context, but likelihood scores offer no information about the cause of the anomaly. In this work, we use Gaussian models for density estimation at intermediate layers of three language models (BERT, RoBERTa, and XLNet), and evaluate our method on BLiMP, a grammaticality judgement benchmark. In lower layers, surprisal is highly correlated to low token frequency, but this correlation diminishes in upper layers. Next, we gather datasets of morphosyntactic, semantic, and commonsense anomalies from psycholinguistic studies; we find that the best performing model RoBERTa exhibits surprisal in earlier layers when the anomaly is morphosyntactic than when it is semantic, while commonsense anomalies do not exhibit surprisal at any intermediate layer. These results suggest that language models employ separate mechanisms to detect different types of linguistic anomalies.

There is increasing interest in assessing the linguistic knowledge encoded in neural representations. A popular approach is to attach a diagnostic classifier – or ”probe” – to perform supervised classification from internal representations. However, how to select a good probe is in debate. Hewitt and Liang (2019) showed that a high performance on diagnostic classification itself is insufficient, because it can be attributed to either ”the representation being rich in knowledge”, or ”the probe learning the task”, which Pimentel et al. (2020) challenged. We show this dichotomy is valid information-theoretically. In addition, we find that the ”good probe” criteria proposed by the two papers, *selectivity* (Hewitt and Liang, 2019) and *information gain* (Pimentel et al., 2020), are equivalent – the errors of their approaches are identical (modulo irrelevant terms). Empirically, these two selection criteria lead to results that highly agree with each other.

Recently, neural language models (LMs) have demonstrated impressive abilities in generating high-quality discourse. While many recent papers have analyzed the syntactic aspects encoded in LMs, there has been no analysis to date of the inter-sentential, rhetorical knowledge. In this paper, we propose a method that quantitatively evaluates the rhetorical capacities of neural LMs. We examine the capacities of neural LMs understanding the rhetoric of discourse by evaluating their abilities to encode a set of linguistic features derived from Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST). Our experiments show that BERT-based LMs outperform other Transformer LMs, revealing the richer discourse knowledge in their intermediate layer representations. In addition, GPT-2 and XLNet apparently encode less rhetorical knowledge, and we suggest an explanation drawing from linguistic philosophy. Our method shows an avenue towards quantifying the rhetorical capacities of neural LMs.

Linguistic features have shown promising applications for detecting various cognitive impairments. To improve detection accuracies, increasing the amount of data or the number of linguistic features have been two applicable approaches. However, acquiring additional clinical data can be expensive, and hand-crafting features is burdensome. In this paper, we take a third approach, proposing Consensus Networks (CNs), a framework to classify after reaching agreements between modalities. We divide linguistic features into non-overlapping subsets according to their modalities, and let neural networks learn low-dimensional representations that agree with each other. These representations are passed into a classifier network. All neural networks are optimized iteratively. In this paper, we also present two methods that improve the performance of CNs. We then present ablation studies to illustrate the effectiveness of modality division. To understand further what happens in CNs, we visualize the representations during training. Overall, using all of the 413 linguistic features, our models significantly outperform traditional classifiers, which are used by the state-of-the-art papers.