Investigates cue interactions in GPT models, revealing insights into language processing similarities and differences with humans.
Transformer-based language models have demonstrated sensitivity to a range of linguistic dependencies, yet it remains unclear how they represent information-structural focus and integrate discourse and lexical focus cues during ellipsis resolution. We investigated GPT-style models’ interpretation of elliptical remnant continuations in double-object constructions by manipulating contextual focus via preceding interrogatives ( who vs. what ) and lexical focus via the particle only , whose surface position was varied. Using word-by-word surprisal as an index of processing difficulty, we conducted three experiments with GPT-2 models (Small–XL) and GPT-Neo. In Experiment 1 (no only ), models robustly tracked the wh -induced discourse focus, assigning higher surprisal to remnants that mismatched the contextually focused constituent. In Experiment 2 ( only preceding the indirect object), contextual focus continued to dominate, indicating that discourse cues were maintained despite the presence of a competing lexical marker. In Experiment 3 ( only preceding the direct object), lexical focus effects became stronger: models favored remnants aligned with the lexically biased direct object, consistent with locality-based cue weighting when only is adjacent to that object. Comparisons with human reaction-time data revealed broad convergence in contextual-focus sensitivity but divergence when the remnant was compatible with one cue but not the other, with GPT-style models exhibiting a stronger bias toward alignment with only than humans. Together, these findings suggest that the tested models maintain discourse-level focus representations while integrating multiple focus cues in a proximity-sensitive manner, revealing both overlap and limits in their alignment with human processing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chung et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: