When users formulate queries, they often include not only the information they seek, but also pragmatic markers such as interrogative phrasing or polite requests. Although these speech act indicators communicate the user\textquotesingle s intent -- whether it is asking a question, making a request, or stating a fact -- they do not necessarily add to the core informational content of the query itself. This paper investigates whether extracting the underlying propositional content from user utterances -- essentially stripping away the linguistic markers of intent -- can improve retrieval quality in Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems. Drawing upon foundational insights from speech act theory, we propose a practical method for automatically transforming queries into their propositional equivalents before embedding. To assess the efficacy of this approach, we conducted an experimental study involving 63 user queries related to a Brazilian telecommunications news corpus with precomputed semantic embeddings. Results demonstrate clear improvements in semantic similarity between query embeddings and document embeddings at top ranks, confirming that queries stripped of speech act indicators more effectively retrieve relevant content.

Within Dialogue Modeling research in AI and NLP, considerable attention has been spent on ``dialogue state tracking'' (DST), which is the ability to update the representations of the speaker's needs at each turn in the dialogue by taking into account the past dialogue moves and history. Less studied but just as important to dialogue modeling, however, is ``common ground tracking'' (CGT), which identifies the shared belief space held by all of the participants in a task-oriented dialogue: the task-relevant propositions all participants accept as true. In this paper we present a method for automatically identifying the current set of shared beliefs and ``questions under discussion'' (QUDs) of a group with a shared goal. We annotate a dataset of multimodal interactions in a shared physical space with speech transcriptions, prosodic features, gestures, actions, and facets of collaboration, and operationalize these features for use in a deep neural model to predict moves toward construction of common ground. Model outputs cascade into a set of formal closure rules derived from situated evidence and belief axioms and update operations. We empirically assess the contribution of each feature type toward successful construction of common ground relative to ground truth, establishing a benchmark in this novel, challenging task.

It is well known that argumentation can usefully be analysed as a distinct, if complex, type of speech act. Speech acts that form a part of argumentative discourse, and in particular, of argumentative dialogue, can be seen as anchors for the establishment of inferences between propositions in the domain of discourse. Most often, the speech acts that directly give rise to inference are implicit, but can be drawn out in analysis by consideration of the type of dialogue game being played. AI approaches to argumentation often focus solely on such inferences as the means by which persuasion can be effected – but this is in contrast with psychological and rhetorical models which have long recognised the role played by extra-logical features of the dialogical context. These ‘peripheral’ cues can not only affect persuasive effect of the logical, ‘central’ argumentation, but can override and dominate it. This paper presents a theory which allows both central and peripheral aspects of argumentation to be represented in a coherent analytical account based on the sequences of speech acts which constitute dialogues.