Causal Drawbridges: Characterizing Gradient Blocking of Syntactic Islands in Transformer LMs

We show how causal interventions in Transformer models provide insights into English syntax by focusing on a long-standing challenge for syntactic theory: syntactic islands. Extraction from coordinated verb phrases is often degraded, yet acceptability varies gradiently with lexical content (e.g., "I know what he hates art and loves" vs. "I know what he looked down and saw"). We show that modern Transformer language models replicate human judgments across this gradient. Using causal interventions that isolate functionally relevant subspaces in Transformer blocks, attention modules, and MLPs, we demonstrate that extraction from coordination islands engages the same filler-gap mechanisms as canonical wh-dependencies, but that these mechanisms are selectively blocked to varying degrees. By projecting a large corpus of unrelated text onto these causally identified subspaces, we derive a novel linguistic hypothesis: the conjunction "and" is represented differently in extractable versus non-extractable constructions, corresponding to expressions encoding relational dependencies versus purely conjunctive uses. These results illustrate how mechanistic interpretability can inform syntax, generating new hypotheses about linguistic representation and processing.

Causal Interventions Reveal Shared Structure Across English Filler-Gap Constructions

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as powerful sources of evidence for linguists seeking to develop theories of syntax. In this paper, we argue that causal interpretability methods, applied to LLMs, can greatly enhance the value of such evidence by helping us characterize the abstract mechanisms that LLMs learn to use. Our empirical focus is a set of English filler-gap dependency constructions (e.g., questions, relative clauses). Linguistic theories largely agree that these constructions share many properties. Using experiments based in Distributed Interchange Interventions, we show that LLMs converge on similar abstract analyses of these constructions. These analyses also reveal previously overlooked factors -- relating to frequency, filler type, and surrounding context -- that could motivate changes to standard linguistic theory. Overall, these results suggest that mechanistic, internal analyses of LLMs can push linguistic theory forward.

Models Can and Should Embrace the Communicative Nature of Human-Generated Math

Math is constructed by people for people: just as natural language corpora reflect not just propositions but the communicative goals of language users, the math data that models are trained on reflects not just idealized mathematical entities but rich communicative intentions. While there are important advantages to treating math in a purely symbolic manner, we here hypothesize that there are benefits to treating math as situated linguistic communication and that language models are well suited for this goal, in ways that are not fully appreciated. We illustrate these points with two case studies. First, we ran an experiment in which we found that language models interpret the equals sign in a humanlike way -- generating systematically different word problems for the same underlying equation arranged in different ways. Second, we found that language models prefer proofs to be ordered in naturalistic ways, even though other orders would be logically equivalent. We advocate for AI systems that learn from and represent the communicative intentions latent in human-generated math.