THE PARADOX OF PERFECTION: HOW AI’S GRAMMATICAL PRECISION MASKS SOCIOPRAGMATIC FAILURES IN LANGUAGE EDUCATION
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Abstract
This article examines how the structural impeccability of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) serves as a cognitive trap within the paradigm of second language acquisition. The authors argue that the syntactic-lexical precision of large language models masks profound sociopragmatic deficiencies, fostering a “fluency illusion” that precipitates the atrophy of metapragmatic judgment. Central to this study is the “paradox of perfection,” a phenomenon in which AI’s flawless syntax creates a profound halo effect, neutralizing a learner’s ability to recognize sociocultural inappropriateness. The research analyzes the risks of erosion of pragmatic sensitivity among students using AI for English as a Foreign Language (EFL) acquisition. It contends that over-reliance on algorithmically perfected outputs facilitates a state of “hidden pragmatic incompetence”. This condition is characterized by a high level of formal literacy paired with an inability to make independent sociopragmatic choices in real-world interactions. To mitigate these risks, the study proposes a fundamental shift in pedagogical focus: from utilizing AI as an authoritative source to employing it as an object of pragmatic deconstruction. The authors outline specific methodological strategies, such as contextual prompting and metapragmatic reflection, to restore human communicative authenticity in the digital age.
How to Cite
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
linguistic perfection, sociopragmatic deficiencies, sociocultural inappropriateness, pragmatic sensitivity, EFL, generative AI
2. Belnap, D., & Jarvis, J. S. (2023). Generative AI and the future of pragmatic competence in language learning. Journal of Language and Education, 9(4), 112-125.
3. Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 610-623.
4. Bohré, M. (2024). The illusion of intellectual depth: Stylistic averaging in machine-generated discourse. Digital Linguistics Quarterly, 12(1), 45-59.
5. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
6. Chomsky, N., Roberts, I., & Watumull, J. (2023, March 8). The false promise of ChatGPT. The New York Times. www.nytimes.com
7. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech acts (pp. 41–58). Academic Press.
8. Kasper, G. (1992). Pragmatic transfer. Second Language Acquisition, 14(3), 203-231.
9. Shapran, O. I. (2023). Profesijna pidhotovka majbutnikh uchyteliv inozemnykh mov v umovakh tsyfrovizatsii osvity [Professional training of future foreign language teachers in the conditions of digitalization of education]. Pedagogical Sciences, (84), 22-29.
10. Sharples, M. (2023). Towards social generative AI for education: Theory, practices and ethics. Open University Research Repository.
11. Shvachko, S. O. (2022). Paradoxes of automated translation in the digital era. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Translation Studies, 5(2), 14-21.
12. Taguchi, N. (2023). Pragmatics and technology in language learning and teaching. Language Teaching, 56(3), 387-406.
13. Tarnopolsky, O. B. (2023). Immersion and authenticity in EFL: Challenges posed by artificial intelligence. Applied Linguistics in Ukraine, 7(1), 5-18.
14. Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91-112.