What kinds of and how much data is necessary for language models to induce grammatical knowledge to judge sentence acceptability? Recent language models still have much room for improvement in their data efficiency compared to humans. This paper investigates whether language models efficiently use indirect data (indirect evidence), from which they infer sentence acceptability. In contrast, humans use indirect evidence efficiently, which is considered one of the inductive biases contributing to efficient language acquisition. To explore this question, we introduce the Wug InDirect Evidence Test (WIDET), a dataset consisting of training instances inserted into the pre-training data and evaluation instances. We inject synthetic instances with newly coined wug words into pretraining data and explore the model’s behavior on evaluation data that assesses grammatical acceptability regarding those words. We prepare the injected instances by varying their levels of indirectness and quantity. Our experiments surprisingly show that language models do not induce grammatical knowledge even after repeated exposure to instances with the same structure but differing only in lexical items from evaluation instances in certain language phenomena. Our findings suggest a potential direction for future research: developing models that use latent indirect evidence to induce grammatical knowledge.

The imitation of the children’s language acquisition process has been explored to make language models (LMs) more efficient.In particular, errors caused by children’s regularization (so-called overregularization, e.g., using wroted for the past tense of write) have been widely studied to reveal the mechanisms of language acquisition. Existing research has analyzed regularization in language acquisition only by modeling word inflection directly, which is unnatural in light of human language acquisition. In this paper, we hypothesize that language models that imitate the errors children make during language acquisition have a learning process more similar to humans. To verify this hypothesis, we analyzed the learning curve and error preferences of verb inflections in small-scale LMs using acceptability judgments. We analyze the differences in results by model architecture, data, and tokenization. Our model shows child-like U-shaped learning curves clearly for certain verbs, but the preferences for types of overgeneralization did not fully match the observations in children.

For nearly the past forty years, there has been discussion regarding whether symbolic representations are involved in morphological inflection, a debate commonly known as the Past Tense Debate. The previous literature has extensively explored whether neural models, which do not use symbolic representations can process morphological inflection like humans. However, current research interest has shifted towards whether neural models can acquire morphological inflection like humans. In this paper, we trained neural models, the recurrent neural network (RNN) with attention and the transformer, and a symbolic model, the Minimal Generalization Learner (MGL), under a human-like learning environment. Evaluating the models from the perspective of language acquisition, we found that while the transformer and the MGL exhibited some human-like characteristics, the RNN with attention did not demonstrate human-like behavior across all the evaluation metrics considered in this study. Furthermore, none of the models accurately inflected verbs in the same manner as humans in terms of morphological inflection direction. These results suggest that these models fall short as cognitive models of morphological inflection.