Instructions

In this task, you will read an English expression. Then, you will evaluate what the individual contribution of each word is to the global meaning of the expression.

  • Each HIT should take 1 to 2 minutes to complete.
  • If this is your first HIT, you are required to fill out this qualification form in order to be paid.
  • Each HIT asks you to read 3 sentences containing a given expression. If you do not understand them, you should abandon the HIT.
  • If the expression sounds ambiguous to you, consider ONLY the meaning that is reflected in the 3 sentences.
  • Do not think for too long about each question, as there are no wrong answers.

${compound}




NO 0 1 2 3 4 5 YES
Absolutely not — ${undefdet_compound} ${compound} ${have} nothing to do with ${undefdet_head} ${head}
No — I see only a vague relation between ${undefdet_compound} ${compound} and ${undefdet_head} ${head}
Not really — the meaning of ${compound} is associated with ${head}, but only indirectly
Sort of — the meaning of ${compound} is directly associated to ${head}, even if these meanings are not identical
Yes — ${undefdet_compound} ${compound} ${be} actually ${undefdet_head} ${head}, for an uncommon sense of the word ${head}
Exactly! — ${undefdet_compound} ${compound} ${be} always literally ${undefdet_head} ${head}


NO 0 1 2 3 4 5 YES
Absolutely not — ${undefdet_compound} ${compound} ${have} nothing to do with ${something_modifier} ${modifier}
No — I see only a vague relation between ${undefdet_compound} ${compound} and ${something_modifier} ${modifier}
Not really — the meaning of ${compound} is associated with ${something_modifier} ${modifier}, but only indirectly
Sort of — the meaning of ${compound} is directly associated with ${something_modifier} ${modifier}, even if these meanings are not identical
Yes — the expression ${compound} actually means ${something_modifier} ${modifier}, for an uncommon sense of the word ${modifier}
Exactly! — the expression ${compound} always literally means ${something_modifier} ${modifier}


NO 0 1 2 3 4 5 YES
Absolutely not — it doesn't make any sense to imagine ${undefdet_head} ${head} which ${be} ${relatedto_modifier} ${modifier}
No — it is weird to imagine ${undefdet_head} ${head} which ${be} ${relatedto_modifier} ${modifier}, even if the meaning is understandable
Not really — the meaning of ${compound} is associated with ${undefdet_head} ${head} and with ${something_modifier} ${modifier}, but only in an indirect manner
Sort of — the meaning of ${compound} is directly associated with ${undefdet_head} ${head} and ${something_modifier} ${modifier}, even if these meanings are not identical
Yes — ${undefdet_compound} ${compound} ${be} actually ${undefdet_head} ${head} which ${be} ${relatedto_modifier} ${modifier}
Exactly! — ${undefdet_compound} ${compound} ${be} always literally ${undefdet_head} ${head} which ${be} ${relatedto_modifier} ${modifier}

You should only fill out this field if you have problems, questions or suggestions