While modern language models increasingly rely on ever-larger web corpora, we show that pretraining on historical text (e.g., pre-1913 text) in a data-constrained setting can produce a temporally grounded language model that still shows reasonable performance on language understanding. However, developing History LMs requires addressing challenges in data quality, preventing temporal leakage in post-training, and constructing temporally aligned evaluations. We address these challenges and pretrain TypewriterLM, a 7.24B-parameter model with a 1913 knowledge cutoff. We construct TypewriterCorpus, a 54B-token historical corpus with extensive temporal filtering, propose lexically grounded instruction tuning that constrains all responses to vocabulary from historical source documents, and introduce History-Event, a benchmark of 2,344 events for evaluating both competence and cutoff adherence. We release TypewriterLM and all associated resources to support future research on History LMs.

How do learners avoid overgeneralizations such as *Tom laughed me* without explicit negative evidence? Constructionists have posited two proposals that describe indirect negative evidence against overgeneralizations: preemption (which privileges exposure to near-synonymous construction—e.g., *she made him laugh*) vs. entrenchment (all exposures to a verb’s grammatical usages, including cases like *He laughed*). We disentangle these hypotheses by running controlled rearing experiments on LMs trained on child-caregiver conversations, where we systematically remove preemptive vs. non-preemptive evidence. We find that while LMs avoid overgeneralizations, they do not show preemption at a verb-specific level, instead showing weak but non-zero evidence of abstract preemption. Combined with results from analyzing the LMs’ training dynamics, we find that LMs treat competing structures as indirect positive—as opposed to negative—evidence in the verb-specific condition. Insofar as preemption is the more plausible route to avoiding overgeneralizations in humans, our results point the need for there to be sensitivities to indirect negative evidence in neural network learners, and suggest new human experiments to test abstract preemption.

With the increasing interest in using large language models (LLMs) for planning in natural language, understanding their behaviors becomes an important research question. This work conducts a systematic investigation of LLMs’ ability to perform logical reasoning in natural language. We introduce a controlled dataset of hypothetical and disjunctive syllogisms in propositional and modal logic and use it as the testbed for understanding LLM performance. Our results lead to novel insights in predicting LLM behaviors: in addition to the probability of input, logical forms should be considered as important factors. In addition, we show similarities and discrepancies between the logical reasoning performances of humans and LLMs by collecting and comparing behavioral data from both.