Whether large language models (LLMs) process language similarly to humans has been the subject of much theoretical and practical debate. We examine this question through the lens of the production-interpretation distinction found in human sentence processing and evaluate the extent to which instruction-tuned LLMs replicate this distinction. Using an empirically documented asymmetry between production and interpretation in humans for implicit causality verbs as a testbed, we find that some LLMs do quantitatively and qualitatively reflect human-like asymmetries between production and interpretation. We demonstrate that whether this behavior holds depends upon both model size - with larger models more likely to reflect human-like patterns and the choice of meta-linguistic prompts used to elicit the behavior.

While a large body of literature suggests that large language models (LLMs) acquire rich linguistic representations, little is known about whether they adapt to linguistic biases in a human-like way. The present study probes this question by asking whether LLMs display human-like referential biases using stimuli and procedures from real psycholinguistic experiments. Recent psycholinguistic studies suggest that humans adapt their referential biases with recent exposure to referential patterns; closely replicating three relevant psycholinguistic experiments from Johnson & Arnold (2022) in an in-context learning (ICL) framework, we found that InstructGPT adapts its pronominal interpretations in response to the frequency of referential patterns in the local discourse, though in a limited fashion: adaptation was only observed relative to syntactic but not semantic biases. By contrast, FLAN-UL2 fails to generate meaningful patterns. Our results provide further evidence that contemporary LLMs discourse representations are sensitive to syntactic patterns in the local context but less so to semantic patterns. Our data and code are available at \url{https://github.com/zkx06111/llm_priming}.