Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Grammaticality Representation in ChatGPT as Compared to Linguists and Laypeople

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2406.11116 v1 pith:LIKBMG4Y submitted 2024-06-17 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords chatgptgrammaticallaypeoplelinguistsexperimentlinguisticllmstasks
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional performance across various linguistic tasks. However, it remains uncertain whether LLMs have developed human-like fine-grained grammatical intuition. This preregistered study (https://osf.io/t5nes) presents the first large-scale investigation of ChatGPT's grammatical intuition, building upon a previous study that collected laypeople's grammatical judgments on 148 linguistic phenomena that linguists judged to be grammatical, ungrammatical, or marginally grammatical (Sprouse, Schutze, & Almeida, 2013). Our primary focus was to compare ChatGPT with both laypeople and linguists in the judgement of these linguistic constructions. In Experiment 1, ChatGPT assigned ratings to sentences based on a given reference sentence. Experiment 2 involved rating sentences on a 7-point scale, and Experiment 3 asked ChatGPT to choose the more grammatical sentence from a pair. Overall, our findings demonstrate convergence rates ranging from 73% to 95% between ChatGPT and linguists, with an overall point-estimate of 89%. Significant correlations were also found between ChatGPT and laypeople across all tasks, though the correlation strength varied by task. We attribute these results to the psychometric nature of the judgment tasks and the differences in language processing styles between humans and LLMs.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Explain-then-Process: Using Grammar Prompting to Enhance Grammatical Acceptability Judgments

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Feeding an LLM-generated grammar explanation back to a model before a grammaticality judgment improves minimal-pair accuracy, with the largest gains for smaller models.

Pith tools