Coordination, a fundamental linguistic structure, remains a subject of intense debate, and its exact nature continues to elude theoretical linguistics. A common view holds that only same-category constituents can be conjoined, which has been challenged by the many grammatical unlike coordinations found in natural language. Treating language models as a computational testbed, we investigate whether the acquisition of unlike coordination requires direct exposure in the training data, or whether it can emerge organically from general compositional abilities. Using Filtered-Corpus Training (FiCT), we train GPT-2 models on corpora from which all instances of unlike coordination have been removed. We find that direct exposure is not necessary: models trained on filtered data successfully generalize to unlike coordination, achieving perplexity and grammaticality judgments comparable to models trained on unfiltered text. Furthermore, our analyses of internal representations indicate that language models process unlike coordination by treating the conjoined elements as belonging to similar structural categories or through a mechanism akin to deletion, both of which appear learnable from exposure to alike coordination alone. This work contributes to the growing understanding of how language models internally represent linguistic structures, while also adding to the broader debate on coordination by showing how models generalize and process unlike coordination without direct exposure.
As model-generated content is increasingly consumed by other model instances in automated workflows, a practically important question arises: can a model embed a signal in natural language that an independent instance of the same model can detect, relying only on shared pre-training and task instructions, without any shared memory or coordination-specific training? We introduce For Your Eyes Only, a cooperative signalling game designed to evaluate this directly. A Sender produces free-form descriptions for two words, one of which is a hidden target; an isolated Receiver must identify it. We evaluate seven contemporary models from four architectural families on 300 word pairs from established psycholinguistic corpora, using the Double-Pass Success Rate to control for output biases. We find that most models struggle to maintain coordination once they are required to avoid detectable signals, while one frontier model retains near-perfect performance even after such filtering. We further show that models can direct this capability toward deliberate misdirection, and that coordination is consistently weaker across architectures than within them.
Grammaticality and likelihood are distinct notions in human language. Pretrained language models (LMs), which are probabilistic models of language fitted to maximize corpus likelihood, generate grammatically well-formed text and discriminate well between grammatical and ungrammatical sentences in tightly controlled minimal pairs. However, their string probabilities do not sharply discriminate between grammatical and ungrammatical sentences overall. But do LMs implicitly acquire a grammaticality distinction distinct from string probability? We explore this question through studying internal representations of LMs, by training a linear probe on a dataset of grammatical and (synthetic) ungrammatical sentences obtained by applying perturbations to a naturalistic text corpus. We find that this simple grammaticality probe generalizes to human-curated grammaticality judgment benchmarks and outperforms LM probability-based grammaticality judgments. When applied to semantic plausibility benchmarks, in which both members of a minimal pair are grammatical and differ in only plausibility, the probe however performs worse than string probability. The English-trained probe also exhibits nontrivial cross-lingual generalization, outperforming string probabilities on grammaticality benchmarks in numerous other languages. Additionally, probe scores correlate only weakly with string probabilities. These results collectively suggest that LMs acquire to some extent an implicit grammaticality distinction within their hidden layers.
Grokking, the phenomenon in which neural networks generalize long after fitting their training data, has been studied in supervised settings on many epochs. LLM pre-training instead involves next-token prediction over an unlabeled corpus, with limited data repetition and no explicit train/validation split. To address this, we propose an exposure-based framework that enables the study of grokking-like dynamics during LLM pre-training. We ground our evaluation in BLiMP minimal pairs, which provide controlled grammatical contrasts. For every BLiMP minimal pair, we identify a critical phrase, the smallest continuous span that captures the grammatical contrast and the phenomenon-relevant context. Examples whose critical phrase appears in the pre-training window are assigned to the proxy-train split; the remaining examples are assigned to the proxy-validation split. Across five grammatical phenomena, we observe delayed generalization. Analyzing pre-training checkpoints before and after generalization shows that grammatical concept vectors become more predictive of grammatical acceptability and occupy a higher-dimensional subspace after generalization. We also find that attention from the critical token to the relevant context token is concentrated in a small number of heads.