Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39959915›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2025

Analysis of argument structure constructions in the large language model BERT.

Pegah Ramezani, Achim Schilling, Patrick Krauss

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Do Language Models Know Who Did What to Whom?Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Pegah RamezaniDepartment of English and American Studies, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Achim SchillingPattern Recognition Lab, Cognitive Computational Neuroscience Group, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Patrick KraussPattern Recognition Lab, Cognitive Computational Neuroscience Group, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Understanding how language and linguistic constructions are processed in the brain is a fundamental question in cognitive computational neuroscience. In this study, we investigate the processing and representation of Argument Structure Constructions (ASCs) in the BERT language model, extending previous analyses conducted with Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks. We utilized a custom GPT-4 generated dataset comprising 2000 sentences, evenly distributed among four ASC types: transitive, ditransitive, caused-motion, and resultative constructions. BERT was assessed using the various token embeddings across its 12 layers. Our analyses involved visualizing the embeddings with Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) and t-Distributed Stochastic Neighbor Embedding (t-SNE), and calculating the Generalized Discrimination Value (GDV) to quantify the degree of clustering. We also trained feedforward classifiers (probes) to predict construction categories from these embeddings. Results reveal that CLS token embeddings cluster best according to ASC types in layers 2, 3, and 4, with diminished clustering in intermediate layers and a slight increase in the final layers. Token embeddings for DET and SUBJ showed consistent intermediate-level clustering across layers, while VERB embeddings demonstrated a systematic increase in clustering from layer 1 to 12. OBJ embeddings exhibited minimal clustering initially, which increased substantially, peaking in layer 10. Probe accuracies indicated that initial embeddings contained no specific construction information, as seen in low clustering and chance-level accuracies in layer 1. From layer 2 onward, probe accuracies surpassed 90 percent, highlighting latent construction category information not evident from GDV clustering alone. Additionally, Fisher Discriminant Ratio (FDR) analysis of attention weights revealed that OBJ tokens had the highest FDR scores, indicating they play a crucial role in differentiating ASCs, followed by VERB and DET tokens. SUBJ, CLS, and SEP tokens did not show significant FDR scores. Our study underscores the complex, layered processing of linguistic constructions in BERT, revealing both similarities and differences compared to recurrent models like LSTMs. Future research will compare these computational findings with neuroimaging data during continuous speech perception to better understand the neural correlates of ASC processing. This research demonstrates the potential of both recurrent and transformer-based neural language models to mirror linguistic processing in the human brain, offering valuable insights into the computational and neural mechanisms underlying language understanding.

Indexed as

argument structure constructionsBERTcomputational linguisticsGPT-4large language models (LLMs)linguistic constructions (CXs)natural language processing (NLP)sentence representation

Identifiers

PMID39959915
PMCPMC11825518

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.