What does “<i>I will, yeah!</i>” mean? Can chatbots do pragmatics?

Abstract We consider the compatibility of artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots with human pragmatics and whether they have utility as a tool in the understanding of human communications, and language in use. We claim that, precisely because pragmatics reflects a human communication-oriented endeavour, there are a number of cognitive processes to do with processing context, speech acts, common ground, implicatures, and inference, that are potentially difficult for an AI chatbot to accurately handle and mimic. Another claim is that an AI chatbot manages common ground differently to a person. In order to advance our knowledge of the pragmatic behaviour of the AI chatbots, we undertake empirical testing of Microsoft’s Copilot, Google Gemini, and OpenAI’s ChatGPT. We test against: a) the behaviour of these AI chatbots for how they treat local, linguistic, encyclopaedic and contextual knowledge; b) the AI chatbots’ knowledge and understanding of common ground; c) the AI chatbots’ understanding of different kinds of speech acts; d) reference resolution across a discourse; e) implicatures and inferencing. We address the following questions: 1) To what degree does an AI chatbot engage with pragmatic processes? 2) Can an AI chatbot mimic the human cognitive architecture? 3) To what extent can an AI chatbot be trusted with the quality of the knowledge it produces?

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Intercultural Pragmatics
Published
2025-04-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2025-2009
Primary Topic
AI in Service Interactions
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

What does “I will, yeah!” mean? Can chatbots do pragmatics?

Brian Nolan
Intercultural Pragmatics
AI in Service Interactions
article

What does “I will, yeah!” mean? Can chatbots do pragmatics?

Brian Nolan
article en

Abstract

Abstract We consider the compatibility of artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots with human pragmatics and whether they have utility as a tool in the understanding of human communications, and language in use. We claim that, precisely because pragmatics reflects a human communication-oriented endeavour, there are a number of cognitive processes to do with processing context, speech acts, common ground, implicatures, and inference, that are potentially difficult for an AI chatbot to accurately handle and mimic. Another claim is that an AI chatbot manages common ground differently to a person. In order to advance our knowledge of the pragmatic behaviour of the AI chatbots, we undertake empirical testing of Microsoft’s Copilot, Google Gemini, and OpenAI’s ChatGPT. We test against: a) the behaviour of these AI chatbots for how they treat local, linguistic, encyclopaedic and contextual knowledge; b) the AI chatbots’ knowledge and understanding of common ground; c) the AI chatbots’ understanding of different kinds of speech acts; d) reference resolution across a discourse; e) implicatures and inferencing. We address the following questions: 1) To what degree does an AI chatbot engage with pragmatic processes? 2) Can an AI chatbot mimic the human cognitive architecture? 3) To what extent can an AI chatbot be trusted with the quality of the knowledge it produces?

Intercultural PragmaticsVol. 22(2)
Technological University Dublin (IE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 90%
AI in Service Interactions
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.