Unsupervised learning objectives like autoregressive and masked language modeling constitute a significant part in producing pre-trained representations that perform various downstream applications from natural language understanding to conversational tasks. However, despite impressive generative capabilities of recent large language models, their abilities to capture syntactic or semantic structure within text lag behind. We hypothesize that the mismatch between linguistic performance and competence in machines is attributable to insufficient learning of linguistic structure knowledge via currently popular pre-training objectives. Working with English, we show that punctuation restoration as a learning objective improves performance on structure-related tasks like named entity recognition, open information extraction, chunking, and part-of-speech tagging. Punctuation restoration results in ▲≥2%p improvement in 16 out of 18 experiments, across 6 out of 7 tasks. Our results show that punctuation restoration is an effective learning objective that can improve structure understanding and yield a more robust structure-aware representations of natural language in base-sized models.

In this paper we present a sample treebank for Old English based on the UD Cairo sentences, collected and annotated as part of a classroom curriculum in Historical Linguistics. To collect the data, a sample of 20 sentences illustrating a range of syntactic constructions in the world’s languages, we employ a combination of LLM prompting and searches in authentic Old English data. For annotation we assigned sentences to multiple students with limited prior exposure to UD, whose annotations we compare and adjudicate. Our results suggest that while current LLM outputs in Old English do not reflect authentic syntax, this can be mitigated by post-editing, and that although beginner annotators do not possess enough background to complete the task perfectly, taken together they can produce good results and learn from the experience. We also conduct preliminary parsing experiments using Modern English training data, and find that although performance on Old English is poor, parsing on annotated features (lemma, hyperlemma, gloss) leads to improved performance.

Pretrained neural models such as BERT, when fine-tuned to perform natural language inference (NLI), often show high accuracy on standard datasets, but display a surprising lack of sensitivity to word order on controlled challenge sets. We hypothesize that this issue is not primarily caused by the pretrained model’s limitations, but rather by the paucity of crowdsourced NLI examples that might convey the importance of syntactic structure at the fine-tuning stage. We explore several methods to augment standard training sets with syntactically informative examples, generated by applying syntactic transformations to sentences from the MNLI corpus. The best-performing augmentation method, subject/object inversion, improved BERT’s accuracy on controlled examples that diagnose sensitivity to word order from 0.28 to 0.73, without affecting performance on the MNLI test set. This improvement generalized beyond the particular construction used for data augmentation, suggesting that augmentation causes BERT to recruit abstract syntactic representations.

If the same neural network architecture is trained multiple times on the same dataset, will it make similar linguistic generalizations across runs? To study this question, we fine-tuned 100 instances of BERT on the Multi-genre Natural Language Inference (MNLI) dataset and evaluated them on the HANS dataset, which evaluates syntactic generalization in natural language inference. On the MNLI development set, the behavior of all instances was remarkably consistent, with accuracy ranging between 83.6% and 84.8%. In stark contrast, the same models varied widely in their generalization performance. For example, on the simple case of subject-object swap (e.g., determining that “the doctor visited the lawyer” does not entail “the lawyer visited the doctor”), accuracy ranged from 0.0% to 66.2%. Such variation is likely due to the presence of many local minima in the loss surface that are equally attractive to a low-bias learner such as a neural network; decreasing the variability may therefore require models with stronger inductive biases.