Neural networks without hierarchical biases often struggle to learn linguistic rules that come naturally to humans.However, neural networks are trained primarily on form alone, while children acquiring language additionally receive data about meaning.Would neural networks generalize more like humans when trained on both form and meaning?We investigate this by examining if Transformers-neural networks without a hierarchical bias-better achieve hierarchical generalization when trained on both form and meaning compared to when trained on form alone.Our results show that Transformers trained on form and meaning do favor the hierarchical generalization more than those trained on form alone, suggesting that statistical learners without hierarchical biases can leverage semantic training signals to bootstrap hierarchical syntactic generalization.

When acquiring syntax, children consistently choose hierarchical rules over competing nonhierarchical possibilities.Is this preference due to a learning bias for hierarchical structure, or due to more general biases that interact with hierarchical cues in children's linguistic input?We explore these possibilities by training LSTMs and Transformers-two types of neural networks without a hierarchical biason data similar in quantity and content to children's linguistic input: text from the CHILDES corpus.We then evaluate what these models have learned about English yes/no questions, a phenomenon for which hierarchical structure is crucial.We find that, though they perform well at capturing the surface statistics of childdirected speech (as measured by perplexity), both model types generalize in a way more consistent with an incorrect linear rule than the correct hierarchical rule.These results suggest that human-like generalization from text alone requires stronger biases than the general sequence-processing biases of standard neural network architectures.