Structure-inducing Language Models (SiLM) are trained on a self-supervised language modeling task, and induce a hierarchical sentence representation as a byproduct when processing an input. SiLMs couple strong syntactic generalization behavior with competitive performance on various NLP tasks, but many of their basic properties are yet underexplored. In this work, we train three different SiLM architectures from scratch: Structformer (Shen et al., 2021), UDGN (Shen et al., 2022), and GPST (Hu et al., 2024b). We train these architectures on both natural language (English, German, and Chinese) corpora and synthetic bracketing expressions. The models are then evaluated with respect to (i) properties of the induced syntactic representations (ii) performance on grammaticality judgment tasks, and (iii) training dynamics. We find that none of the three architectures dominates across all evaluation metrics. However, there are significant differences, in particular with respect to the induced syntactic representations. The Generative Pretrained Structured Transformer (GPST; Hu et al. 2024) performs most consistently across evaluation settings, and outperforms the other models on long-distance dependencies in bracketing expressions. Furthermore, our study shows that small models trained on large amounts of synthetic data provide a useful testbed for evaluating basic model properties.

Large language models (LLMs) can reliably distinguish grammatical from ungrammatical sentences, but how grammatical knowledge is represented within the models remains an open question. We investigate whether different syntactic phenomena recruit shared or distinct components in LLMs. Using a functional localization approach inspired by cognitive neuroscience, we identify the LLM units most responsive to 67 English syntactic phenomena in seven open-weight models. These units are consistently recruited across sentences containing the phenomena and causally support the models' syntactic performance. Critically, different types of syntactic agreement (e.g., subject-verb, anaphor, determiner-noun) recruit overlapping sets of units, suggesting that agreement constitutes a meaningful functional category for LLMs. This pattern holds in English, Russian, and Chinese; and further, in a cross-lingual analysis of 57 diverse languages, structurally more similar languages share more units for subject-verb agreement. Taken together, these findings reveal that syntactic agreement-a critical marker of syntactic dependencies-constitutes a meaningful category within LLMs' representational spaces.

We introduce TurBLiMP, the first Turkish benchmark of linguistic minimal pairs, designed to evaluate the linguistic abilities of monolingual and multilingual language models (LMs). Covering 16 linguistic phenomena with 1000 minimal pairs each, TurBLiMP fills an important gap in linguistic evaluation resources for Turkish. In designing the benchmark, we give extra attention to two properties of Turkish that remain understudied in current syntactic evaluations of LMs, namely word order flexibility and subordination through morphological processes. Our experiments on a wide range of LMs and a newly collected set of human acceptability judgments reveal that even cutting-edge Large LMs still struggle with grammatical phenomena that are not challenging for humans, and may also exhibit different sensitivities to word order and morphological complexity compared to humans.

Seminal work by Huebner et al. (2021) showed that language models (LMs) trained on English Child-Directed Language (CDL) can reach similar syntactic abilities as LMs trained on much larger amounts of adult-directed written text, suggesting that CDL could provide more effective LM training material than the commonly used internet-crawled data. However, the generalizability of these results across languages, model types, and evaluation settings remains unclear. We test this by comparing models trained on CDL vs. Wikipedia across two LM objectives (masked and causal), three languages (English, French, German), and three syntactic minimal-pair benchmarks. Our results on these benchmarks show inconsistent benefits of CDL, which in most cases is outperformed by Wikipedia models. We then identify various shortcomings in previous benchmarks, and introduce a novel testing methodology, FIT-CLAMS, which uses a frequency-controlled design to enable balanced comparisons across training corpora. Through minimal pair evaluations and regression analysis we show that training on CDL does not yield stronger generalizations for acquiring syntax and highlight the importance of controlling for frequency effects when evaluating syntactic ability.

We investigate whether pre-training exclusively on dialogue data results in formally and functionally apt small language models. Based on this pre-trained llamalogue model, we employ a variety of fine-tuning strategies to enforce "more communicative" text generations by our models. Although our models underperform on most standard BabyLM benchmarks, they excel at dialogue continuation prediction in a minimal pair setting. While PPO fine-tuning has mixed to adversarial effects on our models, DPO fine-tuning further improves their performance on our custom dialogue benchmark.

Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit a robust mastery of syntax when processing and generating text. While this suggests internalized understanding of hierarchical syntax and dependency relations, the precise mechanism by which they represent syntactic structure is an open area within interpretability research. Probing provides one way to identify the mechanism of syntax being linearly encoded in activations, however, no comprehensive study has yet established whether a model's probing accuracy reliably predicts its downstream syntactic performance. Adopting a "mechanisms vs. outcomes" framework, we evaluate 32 open-weight transformer models and find that syntactic features extracted via probing fail to predict outcomes of targeted syntax evaluations across English linguistic phenomena. Our results highlight a substantial disconnect between latent syntactic representations found via probing and observable syntactic behaviors in downstream tasks.

What have language models (LMs) learned about grammar? This question remains hotly debated, with major ramifications for linguistic theory. However, since probability and grammaticality are distinct notions in linguistics, it is not obvious what string probabilities can reveal about an LM's underlying grammatical knowledge. We present a theoretical analysis of the relationship between grammar, meaning, and string probability, based on simple assumptions about the generative process of corpus data. Our framework makes three predictions, which we validate empirically using 280K sentence pairs in English and Chinese: (1) correlation between the probability of strings within minimal pairs, i.e., string pairs with minimal semantic differences; (2) correlation between models' and humans' deltas within minimal pairs; and (3) poor separation in probability space between unpaired grammatical and ungrammatical strings. Our analyses give theoretical grounding for using probability to learn about LMs' structural knowledge, and suggest directions for future work in LM grammatical evaluation.

We present Irish-BLiMP (Irish Benchmark of Linguistic Minimal Pairs), the first dataset and framework designed for fine-grained evaluation of linguistic competence in the Irish language, an endangered language. Drawing on a variety of linguistic literature and grammar reference works, we manually constructed and reviewed 1020 minimal pairs across a taxonomy of 11 linguistic features, through a team of fluent Irish speakers. We evaluate both existing Large Language Models (LLMs) and fluent human participants on their syntactic knowledge of Irish. Our findings show that humans outperform all models across all linguistic features, achieving 16.6% higher accuracy on average. Moreover, a substantial performance gap of 18.1% persists between open- and closed-source LLMs, with even the strongest model (gpt-5) reaching only 73.5% accuracy compared to 90.1% by human. Interestingly, human participants and models struggle on different aspects of Irish grammar, thus highlighting a difference in representation learned by the models. Overall, Irish-BLiMP provides the first systematic framework for evaluating the grammatical competence of LLMs in Irish and offers a valuable benchmark for advancing research on linguistic understanding in low-resource languages.

Large Language Models are increasingly used in applications requiring objective assessment, which could be compromised by political bias. Many studies found preferences for left-leaning positions in LLMs, but downstream effects on tasks like fact-checking remain underexplored. In this study, we systematically investigate political bias through exchanging words with euphemisms or dysphemisms in German claims. We construct minimal pairs of factually equivalent claims that differ in political connotation, to assess the consistency of LLMs in classifying them as true or false. We evaluate six LLMs and find that, more than political leaning, the presence of judgmental words significantly influences truthfulness assessment. While a few models show tendencies of political bias, this is not mitigated by explicitly calling for objectivism in prompts. Warning: This paper contains content that may be offensive or upsetting.

Transformer-based speech language models (SLMs) have significantly improved neural speech recognition and understanding. While existing research has examined how well SLMs encode shallow acoustic and phonetic features, the extent to which SLMs encode nuanced syntactic and conceptual features remains unclear. By drawing parallels with linguistic competence assessments for large language models, this study is the first to systematically evaluate the presence of contextual syntactic and semantic features across SLMs for self-supervised learning (S3M), automatic speech recognition (ASR), speech compression (codec), and as the encoder for auditory large language models (AudioLLMs). Through minimal pair designs and diagnostic feature analysis across 71 tasks spanning diverse linguistic levels, our layer-wise and time-resolved analysis uncovers that 1) all speech encode grammatical features more robustly than conceptual ones.