Cited by 81Natural Language Processing TechniquesSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationSpeech and dialogue systems

A fine-grained comparison of pragmatic language understanding in humans and language models

Open access
Hu, Jennifer, Floyd, Sammy, Jouravlev, Olessia, Fedorenko, Evelina, Gibson, Edward·2023·Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)

Abstract

Pragmatics and non-literal language understanding are essential to human communication, and present a long-standing challenge for artificial language models.We perform a finegrained comparison of language models and humans on seven pragmatic phenomena, using zero-shot prompting on an expert-curated set of English materials.We ask whether models (1) select pragmatic interpretations of speaker utterances, (2) make similar error patterns as humans, and (3) use similar linguistic cues as humans to solve the tasks.We find that the largest models achieve high accuracy and match human error patterns: within incorrect responses, models favor literal interpretations over heuristic-based distractors.We also find preliminary evidence that models and humans are sensitive to similar linguistic cues.Our results suggest that pragmatic behaviors can emerge in models without explicitly constructed representations of mental states.However, models tend to struggle with phenomena relying on social expectation violations.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.230

Cites

86 of 86 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. W.C. Booth. 1974. A Rhetoric of Irony. Litera- ture/Criticism -The University of Chicago Press. University of Chicago Press.
  2. G. Lakoff and M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press.
  3. Stephen Levinson. 2000. Presumptive meaning: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. MIT Press.
  4. Eleonore Lumer and Hendrik Buschmeier. 2022. Mod- eling Social Influences on Indirectness in a Rational Speech Act Approach to Politeness. In Proceedings of the 44th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Sci- ence Society.
  5. Kyle Mahowald, Anna A. Ivanova, Idan A. Blank, Nancy Kanwisher, Joshua B. Tenenbaum, and Evelina Fedorenko. 2023. Dissociating language and thought in large language models: A cognitive perspective. arXiv preprint.
  6. Laura Ruis, Akbir Khan, Stella Biderman, Sara Hooker, Tim Rocktäschel, and Edward Grefenstette. 2022. Large language models are not zero-shot communi- cators. arXiv preprint.
  7. D. Wilson and D. Sperber. 2012. Meaning and Rele- vance. Cambridge University Press.
  8. George Yule. 1996. Pragmatics, 1 edition. Oxford Introduction to Language Study. Oxford University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hu, J., Floyd, S., Jouravlev, O., Fedorenko, E., & Gibson, E.
Affiliations
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
  • Sarah Lawrence College (US)
  • Carleton University (CA)
  • McGovern Institute for Brain Research (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)
Published
2023
Pages
4194-4213
ISSN
0736-587X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4385571325
Cited by
78
References
86
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 15
FWCI
12.35
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (2116918, 1745302)
  • Simons Center for the Social Brain, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
Keywords
figurative language, zero-shot prompting, error patterns, linguistic cues, mental state representation, English pragmatics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review