Socio-linguistic study explores pragmatic differences in dialogues between humans and AI systems, indicating improvement areas.
While conversational agents have become increasingly ubiquitous, there remain pragmatic differences between human interaction and AI systems. This paper conducts a socio-linguistic study of the pragmatic operations involved in the language production of conversational agents with regards to speech acts, Gricean maxims, common ground, and repairs. Through the use of a dataset comprising of 120 conversations made through artificial intelligence chatbots as well as 120 human-to-human conversations, it becomes clear that conversational agents rely heavily on representative speech acts and directives but overlook expressive and commissive speech acts to generate lifeless, robotic conversations. Examples of Gricean maxim breaches involve quality (lying), relation (irrelevant information), manner (ambiguous expressions), and quantity (unnecessary elaboration). The concept of the computer as a social actor is responsible for humans perceiving conversational agents as social actors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Anjali et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: