@article{Dipper-Zinsmeister-etal-2013.200,
 abstract = {The goal of this special issue is to show the challenges faced in reliably annotating abstractsemantic and pragmatic information at both the sentence and discourse levels, and how those chal-lenges are being met. Such information is frequently not explicitly or unambiguously marked innatural language. It is usually dependent on contextual information, and annotators often have toreconstruct complex relations and situations from the context.},
 author = {Stefanie Dipper and Heike Zinsmeister and Bonnie Webber},
 day = {03},
 doi = {10.5210/dad.2013.200},
 issue = {2},
 journal = {Dialogue \& Discourse},
 month = {06},
 pages = {},
 title = {Beyond semantics: the challenges of annotating pragmatic and discourse phenomena },
 url = {https://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/dad/article/view/14300},
 volume = {4},
 year = {2025}
}


@article{Myrendal-2025.104,
 abstract = {
This article describes how participants in online discussion forums manage claimed non-understanding of word meaning, specifically when one participant displays insufficient understanding by requesting meta-linguistic clarification. Claimed non-understanding refers to cases where a participant signals a lack of understanding in a way that invites repair. By engaging in a short word meaning negotiation sequence, the participants collaboratively repair the issue of claimed non-understanding and can move on with the discussion on topic. In some cases, however, participants behave in ways that break the normative pattern of interaction and do not enter into the anticipated sequence of repair dealing with the lack of understanding. The analysis of these deviant cases reveals the participants' own normative orientations in repair of claimed non-understanding of word meaning, and thus provide evidence that there is an underlying organization of repair dealing with such issues in online discussion forum interaction. 
},
 author = {Jenny Myrendal},
 day = {21},
 doi = {10.5210/dad.2025.104},
 issue = {1},
 journal = {Dialogue \& Discourse},
 month = {05},
 pages = {91--113},
 title = {Repair of claimed non-understanding of word meaning in online discussion forum interaction},
 url = {https://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/dad/article/view/13208},
 volume = {16},
 year = {2025}
}


@article{Nguyen-FoxTree-2025.103,
 abstract = {We examined how the phrases I don't know, I dunno, and idk are used in spontaneously produced speech and writing. We compared functions to the related phrases totally, absolutely, sorta, and kinda. We assessed usage across modalities (face to face, instant messaging, audiovisual), goals (tasks versus casual chat), and relationships (friends versus strangers). We also assessed where the phenomena occurred in a sentence, what words co-occurred with the phenomena, and what functions the phenomena served in the conversations. Communicators use phenomena differently depending on modality, goals, and relationships. We found that I don't know was used more often when people could access cues beyond the voice, and that both I don't know and I dunno can perform a variety of pragmatic functions. In instant messaging, I don't know has been lexicalized to idk, but idk does not have as many pragmatic functions as I don't know and I dunno.},
 author = {Allison Nguyen and Jean Fox Tree},
 day = {01},
 doi = {10.5210/dad.2025.103},
 issue = {1},
 journal = {Dialogue \& Discourse},
 month = {05},
 pages = {68--90},
 title = {Pragmatic uses of I don’t know, boosters, and hedges in text and talk},
 url = {https://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/dad/article/view/13830},
 volume = {16},
 year = {2025}
}


@article{Brenna-Jezek-etal-2025.102,
 abstract = {This paper investigates proactivity, a characteristic phenomenon of collaborative human-human interaction, where a participant in the dialogue offers the addressee some useful and not explicitly requested information. More precisely, a proactive behaviour is: (i) self-prompted and not simply reactive, that is, the speaker does not act merely in response to the requests the other participant has made; (ii) somehow effective for the achievement of the dialogue goal, since the speaker has a long-term, goal-directed behaviour that predicts future states and needs. Proactivity has been poorly investigated from a theoretical point of view, and there is a general need of empirical data for both quantitative and qualitative research. The paper provides an extensive analysis of proactivity in several human-human task-oriented dialogic corpora, selected with different characteristics, including chat exchanges and telephone calls, collection modalities such as natural setting and Wizard of Oz, and two languages, Italian and English. The main result is the D-Pro Corpus, a new resource manually annotated at the utterance level with proactivity and dialogue acts, which allows to investigate proactivity in the context of task-oriented dialogues. There are several findings from our empirical investigation of proactivity: (i) we find that about 20\% of turns in our corpus are proactive turns, showing that this is a very diffused and relevant phenomenon; (ii) we confirm the non-reactive nature of proactivity, highlighting the presence of a pattern where a turn in the dialogue triggers a reaction in a following turn and a proactive utterance is then added to the turn; (iii) we show that only a limited number of dialogue acts are actually involved in expressing proactivity, and we discuss the theoretical implications of this finding; (iv) we empirically confirm that proactivity has a crucial role in recovering from goal-failure situations, contributing to the effectiveness of the whole dialogue; (v) we support the intuition of a non-uniform distribution of proactive utterances throughout the dialogue. Our empirical findings and the D-Pro Corpus provide relevant insights for deeper theoretical investigations, as well as crucial resources for improving proactivity in current task-oriented dialogue systems.},
 author = {Sofia Brenna and Elisabetta Jezek and Bernardo Magnini},
 day = {23},
 doi = {10.5210/dad.2025.102},
 issue = {1},
 journal = {Dialogue \& Discourse},
 month = {03},
 pages = {31--67},
 title = {Investigating Proactivity in Task-Oriented Dialogues},
 url = {https://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/dad/article/view/13603},
 volume = {16},
 year = {2025}
}


@article{Seemann-Scheffler-2025.101,
 abstract = {This study investigates the interaction of German modal particles like ja and doch with discourse structure. We conduct an acceptability study of modal particles in four discourse relations (CIRCUMSTANCE, CONDITION, EVIDENCE, JUSTIFY) to test predictions of (in)compatibilities derived from a corpus study by Döring and Repp (2019). As ratings for sentences representing the discourse relations CIRCUMSTANCE and CONDITION were significantly lower than for the two causal relations if presented with a modal particle, we confirm that modal particles and discourse structure interact. In a forced-choice study testing the particle ja's effect on relation disambiguation, we show that ja supports a causal interpretation of an ambiguous context in the absence of explicit discourse markers. Our findings contribute to delineating the role of German modal particles in discourse, as we show that there is an interaction between discourse relations and modal particles, meaning that readers do not accept all modal particles in every discourse relation, and at least the modal particle ja serves as a non-connective discourse signal for causal relations.},
 author = {Hannah Seemann and Tatjana Scheffler},
 day = {21},
 doi = {10.5210/dad.2025.101},
 issue = {1},
 journal = {Dialogue \& Discourse},
 month = {01},
 pages = {1--30},
 title = {German Modal Particles as Discourse Signals},
 url = {https://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/dad/article/view/13570},
 volume = {16},
 year = {2025}
}


