Circumscribing Referential Domains during Real-Time Language Comprehension

By Craig G. Chambers, Michael K. Tanenhaus, Kathleen M. Eberhard, Hana Filip, Greg N. Carlson. 2002

261 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Cognitive Neuroscience, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a121fe52d1233be8f2b49e790e4ae8787eeeabe9

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

Citations in the corpus

The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye-movements (2003, background): “However, Chambers et al. (2002) did not report the timing of any saccadic movements prior to the onset of the target noun (can), nor can we be sure that the verb (as opposed to the post-verbal preposition) played any part in the process.”
Accent and reference resolution in spoken-language comprehension (2002, unknown): “The target word in the second instruction is underlined. and his colleagues using a similar setting as here has provided evidence suggesting that action-relevant pragmatic constraints can immediately affect reference resolution (Chambers, 2001; Chambers et al., 2002).”
Seeing, acting, understanding: motor resonance in language comprehension. (2006, background): “Some theories argue that all contextual information, that is, information gleaned from the preceding linguistic input as well as information from the communicative context, becomes available immediately to the language processing system, rather than at syntactic boundaries (e.g., Chambers, Tanenhau”
Visible embodiment: Gestures as simulated action (2008, background): “For example, Chambers et al. (2002) instructed participants to put one object from a visual display inside Thus, it is not only that perception determines possible actions; actions also determine what and how we perceive.”
The Immersed Experiencer: Toward An Embodied Theory Of Language Comprehension (2003, background): “…have provided substantial evidence that the incorporation of incoming information occurs immediately rather than at some syntactic boundary and incorporates not only clausal information, but also information from previous clauses (e.g., Chambers et al., 2001; van Berkum, Brown, & Hagoort, 1999).”
Activity and Imagined Activity Can Enhance Young Children's Reading Comprehension. (2004, background): “Thus, if the sentence were uttered while gesturing to a particular chair, the comprehender would index or map the phrase to that chair (see, e.g., Chambers, Tanenhaus, Eberhard, & Filip, 2002 ).”
The effects of common ground and perspective on domains of referential interpretation (2003, methodology): “The results demonstrated that addressees assigned reference as soon as a potential referent was uniquely identifiable given the information provided by contrast and definiteness, replicating and extending the findings of Eberhard et al. (1995), Sedivy et al. (1998), and Chambers et al. (2002).”
Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue (2004, background): “Previous work has shown that eye movements during scene perception are a strong indication of current attention, and that they can be used to index the rapid integration of linguistic and contextual information during comprehension (Chambers et al. 2002; Tanenhaus et al. 1995).”
What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension? (2015, background): “…Matsuki et al., 2011; Metusalem et al., 2012; Paczynski & Kuperberg, 2012), preverbal arguments (Bornkessel-Schlesewsky & Schlesewsky, 2009; Kamide et al., 2003), specific prepositions (Chambers et al., 2002), and prosody (Kurumada, Brown, Bibyk, Pontillo, & Tanenhaus, 2014; Snedeker & Yuan, 2008).”
Language comprehension is both embodied and symbolic (2008, background): “…studies showing specific patterns of eye gaze influenced by text comprehension or problem solving activities of various degrees of complexity (Altman and Kamide 1999; Chambers et al. 2002; Demarais and Cohen 1998; Matlock and Richardson 2004; Spivey and Geng 2001; Spivey et al. 2000, 2002).”
Integration of Syntactic and Semantic Information in Predictive Processing: Cross-Linguistic Evidence from German and English (2003, methodology): “…of that scene or to an instruction to manipulate objects within the scene (initially Cooper, 1974; followed by Allopenna et al., 1998; Altmann & Kamide, 1999; Chambers et al., 2002; Eberhard et al., 1995; Sedivy et al., 1999; Tanenhaus et al., 2001; Tanenhaus et al., 1995; Trueswell et al., 1999).”
Beyond salience: Interpretation of personal and demonstrative pronouns (2005, result): “This finding is consistent with a growing body of research demonstrating social, taskbased, and contextual influences on language understanding (Bangerter, 2004; Beun & Cremers, 1998; Chambers, Tanenhaus, Eberhard, Filip, & Carlson, 2002; Chambers, Tanenhaus, & Magnuson, 2004; Grodner & Sedivy, in”