Introduction: you’ll construct materials for an experiment, following the principles of experimental design in Gries
Ditransitive verbs are verbs that appear with two VP-internal arguments. One argument is called the Theme. The Theme is the argument that moves or changes possession in the event described by the verb. The other argument is the Goal. The Goal argument describes where the Theme argument moves to or who gains possession of the Theme at the end of the event. (These are illustrated in (1).)
Many ditransitive verbs in English alternate—that is, appear differently in different syntactic contexts. Give, for instance, has an alternation where its Theme and Goal can appear as an NP and PP, as in (1-a), or as an NP and another NP, as in (1-b). (Some terminology: the PP in the former example is called the indirect object, while the second type of example is sometimes called the double object construction.)
(1) a. She gave a book to the librarian. (NP + PP)
b. She gave the library a book. (NP + NP)
This alternation is not always available, though. For instance, (2) and (3) are both pretty odd sounding to native English speakers.
(2) a. I mailed a book to Japan.
b. ??I mailed Japan a book.
(3) a. Bugs give me the creeps.
b. ??Bugs give the creeps to me.
Task: you’ll design an acceptability judgment experiment to test aspects that determine when this alternation is acceptable, by looking at the interaction of construction type (syntactic position of Goal and Theme NPs) and definiteness of the Theme NP.
You’ll construct your stimuli with two variables in mind:
• Construction: Two levels, NP+PP and NP+NP.
• Definiteness: Definiteness of the Theme argument, with the levels Definite and Indefinite.
Note: In English, a definite NP uses the as the article, while an indefinite NP uses a (or nothing) as the article.
It’s not relevant for the task, but the dependent variable is Acceptability, on a 6 point scale.
Here’s a schematized token set, illustrating what you are creating:
Construction: NP PP Construction: NP NP
Definiteness: Definite V the-NP to NP V a-NP to NP
Definiteness: Indefinite V NP the-NP V NP a-NP
Table 1: Schematized token set for Construction × Definiteness.
To illustrate more concretely, suppose you constructed a set of example stimuli using give. You might build the following set of stimuli which vary both by construction type and by definiteness of the Goal.
(4) NP+PP
a. The boy gave the chocolate to the girl. (Definite)
b. The boy gave a chocolate to the girl. (Indefinite)
(5) NP+NP
a. The boy gave the girl the chocolate. (Definite)
b. The boy gave the girl a chocolate. (Indefinite)
Or, in the table format:
NP PP NP NP
Definite The boy gave the chocolate to the girl. (The boy gave a chocolate to the girl. NP NP)
Indefinite The boy gave the girl the chocolate. (The boy gave the girl a chocolate. NP NP)
Table 2: Concrete token set for Construction × Definiteness.
Part A: You are a research assistant for a professor, and are helping them make materials for an experiment. Create twelve concrete token sets total that follow the schema above. These are the crucial sentences that would be shown to a participant in the experiment.
1. List your 12 concrete token sets. Give a label to each concrete token set (e.g. “A”, “B”, etc).
2. Describe any extraneous linguistic variables you took into consideration when you chose your experimental items. What possible language-related confounds did you try to control for in your sentences, and how? Be specific.
2 Part B: Suppose the professor you work for has decided that a between-subjects design is appropriate for this experiment.
1. How many lists of stimuli for the experiment would you have to create in order to use a between-subjects design? Briefly explain your reasoning.
2. At a minimum, how many fillers do there need to be in each stimuli list? Create enough fillers for one list.
3. Discuss the considerations you paid attention to while constructing your fillers.
Part C: Now suppose the professor you’re working for has changed their mind, and decided it’s better to use a within-subjects design for the experiment.
1. How many lists of stimuli would you have to create in order to use a within-subjects design? Briefly explain your reasoning. (Don’t worry about counterbalancing in the answer to this question.)
2. Create one of the stimuli lists for the experiment. Your list should be pseudorandomized and follow the principles Gries. The list should include the experimental sentences from Part A, and an appropriate amount of fillers from Part B. If you discover you need more fillers for your list, create them.
3. Save your list as a comma-separated file or tab-separated file. You should have the columns Sentence (the sentence you are presenting), Definiteness (the definiteness of the sentence, e.g. definite or indefinite), Type (the type of construction, NPNP or NPPP), and TokenSet (the label of the token set the sentence came from). If the sentence is a filler, leave Definiteness and Type blank, and put Filler as the TokenSet.
You’ll wind up with a CSV or TSV that’s structured similar to this:
…………
Sentence Definiteness Type TokenSet
The boy gave the chocolate to the girl. Definite NPPP A
The boy gave a chocolate to the girl. Indefinite NPPP A
The girl saw the boy in the hall. Filler
The boy gave the girl the chocolate. Definite NPNP A
The teacher met the student after lunch. Filler
The boy gave the girl a chocolate. Indefinite NPNP A
…………
