Résumé : Large language models exhibit exciting capabilities, yet can show surprisingly narrow generalization from finetuning -- from failing to generalize to simple reversals of relations they are trained on, to missing logical deductions that can be made from trained information. These failures to generalize from fine-tuning can hinder practical application of these models. However, language models' in-context learning shows different inductive biases, and can generalize better in some of these cases. Here, we explore these differences in generalization between in-context- and fine-tuning-based learning. To do so, we constructed several novel datasets to evaluate and improve models' ability to generalize from finetuning data. The datasets are constructed to isolate the knowledge in the dataset from that in pretraining, to create clean tests of generalization. We expose pretrained large models to controlled subsets of the information in these datasets -- either in context, or through fine-tuning -- and evaluate their performance on test sets that require various types of generalization. We find overall that in data-matched settings, in-context learning can generalize more flexibly than fine-tuning (though we also find some qualifications of prior findings, such as cases when fine-tuning can generalize to reversals embedded in a larger structure of knowledge). We build on these findings to propose a method to enable improved generalization from fine-tuning: adding in-context inferences to finetuning data. We show that this method improves generalization across various splits of our datasets and other benchmarks. Our results have implications for understanding the inductive biases of different modes of learning in language models, and practically improving their performance.