Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-vdhp9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-21T22:52:05.436Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Not-so-strange love: Language models and generative linguistic theories are more compatible than they appear

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2026

R. Thomas McCoy Open the ORCID record for R. Thomas McCoy [Opens in a new window]
R. Thomas McCoy*
Affiliation:
Yale University, USA tom.mccoy@yale.edu
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Futrell and Mahowald frame the success of neural language models (LMs) as supporting gradient, usage-based linguistic theories. I argue that LMs can also instantiate theories based on formal structures – the types of theories seen in the generative tradition. This argument expands the space of theories that can be tested with LMs, potentially enabling reconciliations between usage-based and generative accounts.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 49 , 2026 , e214
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Boleda, G. (2025). LLMs as a synthesis between symbolic and distributed approaches to language. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2025, 9365-9379.10.18653/v1/2025.findings-emnlp.498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L. & Hopper, P. (2001). Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Typological Studies in Language 45. John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.45.01bybCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1993). A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In Hale, K., & Keyser, S.J. (Eds.), The view from building 20 (pp. 1–52). MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kim, N., Schuster, S., & Toshniwal, S. (2024). Code pretraining improves entity tracking abilities of language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.21068.Google Scholar
Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
McCoy, R. T., Grant, E., Smolensky, P., Griffiths, T. L., & Linzen, T. (2020). Universal linguistic inductive biases via meta-learning. Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 737–743.Google Scholar
McCoy, R. T., & Griffiths, T. L. (2025). Modeling rapid language learning by distilling Bayesian priors into artificial neural networks. Nature Communications, 16(1), 4676.10.1038/s41467-025-59957-yCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (1993/2004). Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Wiley.10.1002/9780470759400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smolensky, P., & Legendre, G. (2006). The harmonic mind: From neural computation to optimality-theoretic grammar. MIT.Google Scholar
Smolensky, P., McCoy, R., Fernandez, R., Goldrick, M., & Gao, J. (2022). Neurocompositional computing: From the central paradox of cognition to a new generation of AI systems. AI Magazine, 43(3), 308–322.10.1002/aaai.12065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yedetore, A., Linzen, T., Frank, R., & McCoy, R. T. (2023). How poor is the stimulus? Evaluating hierarchical generalization in neural networks trained on child-directed speech. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), 9370–9393.10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.521CrossRefGoogle Scholar