The cognitive essence of humans is deeply intertwined with the concept of animacy, which plays an essential role in shaping their memory, vision, and multi-layered language understanding. Although animacy appears in language via nuanced constraints on verbs and adjectives, it is also learned and refined through extralinguistic information. Similarly, we assume that the LLMs' limited abilities to understand natural language when processing animacy are motivated by the fact that these models are trained exclusively on text. Hence, the question this paper aims to answer arises: can LLMs, in their digital wisdom, process animacy in a similar way to what humans would do? We then propose a systematic analysis via prompting approaches. In particular, we probe different LLMs by prompting them using animate, inanimate, usual, and stranger contexts. Results reveal that, although LLMs have been trained predominantly on textual data, they exhibit human-like behavior when faced with typical animate and inanimate entities in alignment with earlier studies. Hence, LLMs can adapt to understand unconventional situations by recognizing oddities as animated without needing to interface with unspoken cognitive triggers humans rely on to break down animations.

Animacy - whether an entity is alive and sentient - is fundamental to cognitive processing, impacting areas such as memory, vision, and language. However, animacy is not always expressed directly in language: in English it often manifests indirectly, in the form of selectional constraints on verbs and adjectives. This poses a potential issue for transformer language models (LMs): they often train only on text, and thus lack access to extralinguistic information from which humans learn about animacy. We ask: how does this impact LMs' animacy processing - do they still behave as humans do? We answer this question using open-source LMs. Like previous studies, we find that LMs behave much like humans when presented with entities whose animacy is typical. However, we also show that even when presented with stories about atypically animate entities, such as a peanut in love, LMs adapt: they treat these entities as animate, though they do not adapt as well as humans. Even when the context indicating atypical animacy is very short, LMs pick up on subtle clues and change their behavior. We conclude that despite the limited signal through which LMs can learn about animacy, they are indeed sensitive to the relevant lexical semantic nuances available in English.

Context changes expectations about upcoming words - following a story involving an anthropomorphic peanut, comprehenders expect the sentence the peanut was in love more than the peanut was salted, as indexed by N400 amplitude (Nieuwland & van Berkum, 2006). This updating of expectations has been explained using Situation Models - mental representations of a described event. However, recent work showing that N400 amplitude is predictable from distributional information alone raises the question whether situation models are necessary for these contextual effects. We model the results of Nieuwland and van Berkum (2006) using six computational language models and three sets of word vectors, none of which have explicit situation models or semantic grounding. We find that a subset of these can fully model the effect found by Nieuwland and van Berkum (2006). Thus, at least some processing effects normally explained through situation models may not in fact require explicit situation models.

Technology is changing almost everything about the world we live in. It's also changing how we work. These 10 industry analysts have smart ideas about the future of work to share. Following their conversations can help you plan for what's next. Meghan M. Biro is the founder and CEO of TalentCulture, a publication that explores how the workplace is changing.