Modern Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown human-like abilities in many language tasks, sparking interest in comparing LLMs' and humans' language processing. In this paper, we conduct a detailed comparison of the two on a sentence comprehension task using garden-path constructions, which are notoriously challenging for humans. Based on psycholinguistic research, we formulate hypotheses on why garden-path sentences are hard, and test these hypotheses on human participants and a large suite of LLMs using comprehension questions. Our findings reveal that both LLMs and humans struggle with specific syntactic complexities, with some models showing high correlation with human comprehension. To complement our findings, we test LLM comprehension of garden-path constructions with paraphrasing and text-to-image generation tasks, and find that the results mirror the sentence comprehension question results, further validating our findings on LLM understanding of these constructions.

A central component of rational behavior is logical inference: the process of determining which conclusions follow from a set of premises. Psychologists have documented several ways in which humans' inferences deviate from the rules of logic. Do language models, which are trained on text generated by humans, replicate these biases, or are they able to overcome them? Focusing on the case of syllogisms -- inferences from two simple premises, which have been studied extensively in psychology -- we show that larger models are more logical than smaller ones, and also more logical than humans. At the same time, even the largest models make systematic errors, some of which mirror human reasoning biases such as ordering effects and logical fallacies. Overall, we find that language models mimic the human biases included in their training data, but are able to overcome them in some cases.