Using AI for Pragmatics Instruction: Opportunities and Challenges in Language Education
Le résumé fourni par la source
Recent studies have shown the growing impact of AI technologies on education, particularly in language learning classrooms (e.g., Allen & Mizumoto, 2024; Huang & Mizumoto, 2024). While these studies typically focus on the four language skills (reading, writing, listening, and speaking) and the challenges and benefits of implementing AI, few researchers have examined its role in developing pragmatic competence or critically assessed its limitations in this context (Lee & Cook, 2024). Thus, this chapter explores how three scholars have engaged with AI in pragmatic instruction and teacher education through three complementary perspectives: (1) authentic classroom cases that integrate AI into pragmatics-focused teacher education, highlighting benefits, risks of overreliance, and the importance of prompt design; (2) the use of ChatGPT to generate speech acts, emphasizing the need for critical and reflective classroom engagement; and (3) the constraints of ChatGPT in producing natural dialogues, including the lack of false starts, repair sequences, and issues in topic coherence and progressivity. Together, these perspectives underscore the importance of thoughtful prompt creation and critical pedagogy in AI integration. Overall, the chapter offers a nuanced account of three scholars’ experiences with AI and pragmatics, addressing challenges of authenticity, ethics, technological dependency, and the adaptation of pedagogical strategies for AI-enhanced pragmatic instruction.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Using AI for Pragmatics Instruction: Opportunities and Challenges in Language Education
- Date Crossref
- 22/11/2025
- Éditeur
- Candlin & Mynard
- Type
- book-chapter
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.