AI lexicography and literary texts: applying Gricean maxims to evaluate ChatGPT’s performance on Shakespearean vocabulary

Clicks: 11
ID: 333449
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #23 of 26 articles by views in digital scholarship in the humanities

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Abstract This study evaluates the reliability of ChatGPT-3.5, accessed via its 2024 public web interface, in identifying and contextualizing Shakespearean lexical items within Elizabethan English. Using five lexical items (bread, blood, grace, honest, and wit) as test cases, ChatGPT’s outputs are systematically compared with established reference resources, including Shakespeare’s Words and the Shakespeare Complete Works. The analysis adopts Grice’s cooperative principle—Quality, Quantity, Relevance, and Manner—as an evaluative framework for assessing the accuracy, proportionality, relevance, and clarity of artificial intelligence (AI)-generated responses. A total of eighty responses were independently coded by six raters, yielding perfect inter-rater agreement (Fleiss’ κ = 1.00). Results show that violations of the maxim of Quality—particularly factual inaccuracies, misattribution, and fabricated citations—were dominant across all lexical items, despite variation in semantic domain. While ChatGPT demonstrates fluency and occasional contextual sensitivity, its outputs exhibit instability and limited reliability in historically grounded literary tasks. The findings, specific to ChatGPT-3.5, suggest that this model generation may function as a supplementary tool for exploratory or pedagogical purposes but cannot replace curated lexicographic resources in Shakespearean scholarship; whether these limitations persist in more recent model generations remains an open question for future comparative work.
Reference Key
openalex_W7223229547 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors
Journal digital scholarship in the humanities
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/llc/fqag141
URL
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.