Humans appear to have a critical period (CP) for language acquisition: Second language (L 2 ) acquisition becomes harder after early childhood, and ceasing exposure to a first language (L 1 ) after this period (but not before) typically does not lead to substantial loss of L 1 proficiency. It is unknown whether these CP effects result from innately determined brain maturation or as a stabilization of neural connections naturally induced by experience. In this study, we use language models (LMs) to test the extent to which these phenomena are peculiar to humans, or shared by a broader class of language learners. We vary the age of exposure by training LMs on language pairs in various experimental conditions, and find that LMs, which lack any direct analog to innate maturational stages, do not show CP effects when the age of exposure of L 2 is delayed. Our results contradict the claim that CP effects are an inevitable result of statistical learning, and they are consistent with an innate mechanism for CP effects. We show that we can reverse-engineer the CP by introducing a regularizer partway through training to simulate a maturational decrease in plasticity. All in all, our results suggest that L 1 learning on its own may not be enough to induce a CP, and additional engineering is necessary to make language models more cognitively plausible.

We correct wrongly reported results on BLiMP.

We introduce The Benchmark of Linguistic Minimal Pairs (BLiMP), 1 a challenge set for evaluating the linguistic knowledge of language models (LMs) on major grammatical phenomena in English. BLiMP consists of 67 individual datasets, each containing 1,000 minimal pairs—that is, pairs of minimally different sentences that contrast in grammatical acceptability and isolate specific phenomenon in syntax, morphology, or semantics. We generate the data according to linguist-crafted grammar templates, and human aggregate agreement with the labels is 96.4%. We evaluate n -gram, LSTM, and Transformer (GPT-2 and Transformer-XL) LMs by observing whether they assign a higher probability to the acceptable sentence in each minimal pair. We find that state-of-the-art models identify morphological contrasts related to agreement reliably, but they struggle with some subtle semantic and syntactic phenomena, such as negative polarity items and extraction islands.

This paper investigates the ability of artificial neural networks to judge the grammatical acceptability of a sentence, with the goal of testing their linguistic competence. We introduce the Corpus of Linguistic Acceptability (CoLA), a set of 10,657 English sentences labeled as grammatical or ungrammatical from published linguistics literature. As baselines, we train several recurrent neural network models on acceptability classification, and find that our models outperform unsupervised models by Lau et al. (2016) on CoLA. Error-analysis on specific grammatical phenomena reveals that both Lau et al.’s models and ours learn systematic generalizations like subject-verb-object order. However, all models we test perform far below human level on a wide range of grammatical constructions.