Modeling of Coreference Relations in
Multi-Object Constructions
Sandiway Fong
UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

1.

Jason Ginsburg
UNIVERSITY OF AIZUIntroduction
In this paper, we demonstrate how a movement based account of traditional

Binding facts, motivated by the need to obtain computational efficiency,
accounts for coreference relations in a variety of multi-object constructions. The
traditional Binding Conditions, given in (1), do a reasonably good job ofdescribing a variety of coreference data.

(1) (a) An anaphor must be bound in a local domain.
(b) A pronoun must be free in a local domain.
(c) An r-expression must be free. (Chomsky 1995:96)

However, it is not clear why these types of Binding Conditions hold. In addition,
there are a variety of data that pose problems for the Binding conditions. In thispaper, we demonstrate how an analysis of pronoun-antecedent relations as
doubling constituents, couched within Phase Theory (Chomsky 2000, 2001),
accounts for coreference relations found in certain multi-object constructions.

The primary focus of our analysis is the following multi-objectconstructions.

(2) (a) I showed Johni himselfi in the mirror.
(b) I showed Johni to himselfi in the mirror. (Pesetsky 1995:125-126)(3) (a) *I showed himselfi to Johni in the mirror.
(b) *I showed himselfi Johni in the mirror. (Pesetsky 1995:125-126)(4) Pictures of himselfi worry Johni. (Belleti & Rizzi:317)

Coreference in (2a-b) and the impossibility of coreference in (3a-b) are expectedin accord with Conditions A and C. However, the well-formedness of (4) issurprising since there is a Condition A violation, as himself is not c-commandedby its antecedent in surface structure.
In this paper, we present an account of these constructions that does notrely on representational-level Conditions A-C. In addition, our analyses havebeen implemented using a computer model, which automatically computes eachstage of the derivation of a target sentence, and thus aids with theory
development and verification.
The organization of this paper is as follows. In section 2, we present
background information that this work follows. In section 3, we describe ourproposals. Section 4 describes our model. Section 5 presents the derivations of

the target sentences. Section 6 is the conclusion.

2.

Background
Kayne (2002) develops an analysis that attempts to explain traditional

Binding facts without recourse to Conditions A-C. Kayne’s primary proposal isthat a pronominal element and an antecedent originate within a doubling
constituent of the form [Spec Head] where the Spec is the antecedent and thehead is the pronominal, as in (5).

(5)[John he]In this account, a Spec can move out of a doubling constituent, but a headcannot. Also, the Spec can only move out of a doubling constituent if thedoubling constituent has moved. Kayne proposes that a reflexive DP (e.g.,himself) contains a position for the doubling constituent to move to, as shown in(6).

(6) [[John he]i [John he]I’s self]

However, Kayne’s analysis faces a variety of problems. Most notably, it is notclear why a doubling constituent must move in order for the Spec to beextracted.1 In this paper, we develop a revised version of Kayne’s analysis.
Our analysis is framed within Phase Theory (Chomsky 2000, 2001, 2004,

etc.). In Phase Theory, a derivation proceeds in phases. According to Chomsky(2004), when a phase head is Merged, the complement of a lower phase head issent to Spell-Out, thereby becoming inaccessible to further operations.2 Thisidea that, during the sentence generation process, portions of a derivation areclosed-off (become inaccessible) plays an important role in determining thetiming of movement in our analysis of coreference phenomena, which we turn tonext.

3.

Proposals
We assume a modified version of Kayne’s doubling constituent proposal.

Our proposed doubling constituent structures are shown in (7a-b).

(7) (a) pronoun and r-expression(non-phase)(b) anaphor and r-expression(phase)A pronoun takes a DP r-expression complement (7a). An anaphor (7b) contains
a D phase head self. Morphological affixation between self and a pronoun results
in an anaphor. (7a) lacks the phase head self and is not a phase.
We also propose the Last Resort (LR) operation, given in (8).

(8) Last Resort (LR)A Lexical Item (LI) with an uninterpretable feature that is in imminent
danger of falling outside of a probe-goal scope relation will, if possible,undergo internal merge into an available theta-position.

The LR process makes it possible for a syntactic object to escape from a phase.
For example, in (9), X* and Y* are phase heads, where * signifies a phase.
When X* is Merged, the phase (or a portion of the phase) YP will be closed offand Z, a DP with an uninterpretable feature [uFeat], is contained within YP.
Thus, Z is subject to LR and undergoes internal merge into an available
theta-position in the higher XP. In this position, the uninterpretable feature ischecked, resulting in [iFeat].

(9) Last Resort: [XP Z[iFeat] X* ... [YP Y*...Z[uFeat] ...]]In this manner, LR-movement can save a derivation, under the appropriate
circumstances.

4.

Model
We tested our theory with a computer model. Our model incorporates thebasic probe-goal search of Phase Theory, the possibility of LR theta-Merge
when a phase is closed off, and the doubling constituent structures (7a-b). The
model constructs derivations of sentences in a bottom up fashion and displayseach step of the derivation, as in (10), which shows the derivation for John likes
Mary. The left side of the Tree Viewer describes each step. First there istheta-Merge between V and N, 3 followed by merge of v* with V, etc.

(10)

In order to account for the multi-object structures that are the focus of thispaper, we utilize complex-PP structures, following Pesetsky (1995), in which a
PP has full argument structure with a specifier and complement. The PP in (2a),repeated below, has the structure in (11a-b), where G is a null preposition thathas a theme complement and a goal specifier. John functions as the goal andhimself as the theme. The theme receives Case from the preposition G.

(2) (a) I showed Johni himselfi in the mirror.
(11) (a) [VP V [PP Goal [P G] Theme]](b) [VP show [PP John [P G] himself]]

The PP in (2b) has a similar structure, but with the pronoun to, as shown in(12a-b). In this case, however, to takes a goal complement and a theme specifier.

(2) (b) I showed Johni to himselfi in the mirror.
(12) (a) [VP V [PP Theme [P to] Goal]](b) [VP show [PP John [P to] himself]]

Note that the thematic roles of John and himself differ between (2a-b), withJohn and himself functioning as the goal and theme in (2a), and as the theme andgoal in (2b). Example (4), repeated below, has a structure with a CAUSp, which
is a null P that assigns a causer theta-role but no Case. As shown in (13a-b), theCAUSp takes a theme as a complement and a goal as a specifier. There is also aCAUSv, which is a causative v that occurs in experiencer constructions. Since
the theme does not get Case from the CAUSp, the theme later undergoes
movement to subject position (13c).

(4) Pictures of himselfi worry Johni.
(13) (a) [VP CAUSv [PP Goal [PCAUSp] Theme]](b) [VP worry [PP John [PCAUSp] pictures of himself]](c) [TP pictures of himself T [VP worry [PP John [PCAUSp] pictures ofhimself]]]

Crucially, we assume that P in these multi-object constructions is a phasehead; it has full argument structure with a specifier and a complement(Chomsky 2000, 2001). This will play an important triggering role indetermining the timing of the LR operation.

5.

Derivations
In this section, we demonstrate how our proposals predict the relevanttarget data.
The well-formedness of (2a-b) results from the possibility of LR (see (8)),
as constrained by Phase Theory. In these constructions, there is an anaphor withthe structure in (7b) above. In (2a), repeated below, the doubling constituent
originates as the complement to the null pronoun G, and the anaphor himself,
which functions as the theme, is licensed in its base position.

(2) (a) I showed Johni himselfi in the mirror.

The doubling constituent is a phase. In addition, the preposition G is a phasehead. When G is Merged, the lower doubling constituent phase will be closedoff. 4 If John were to remain in the lower DP phase, the derivation would crashbecause John could not be licensed (it lacks a theta-role and case). Since thelower DP phase will be closed off, LR is able to apply, and the goal John isremerged in theta-position in [Spec, PP] (14a). The complete derivation isshown in (14b).

(14) (a)(b)

Similarly, in (2b), repeated below, when the preposition to, which we assume isa phase head, is Merged, the anaphor doubling constituent, which in this casefunctions as the goal, will be closed off.

(2) (b) I showed Johni to himselfi in the mirror.

Since the theme John lacks Case and a theta-role, it undergoes LR movement,out of the lower DP phase, to theta-position (15a), and the derivation convergesas (15b).

(15) (a)(b)

This analysis accounts straightforwardly for typical Condition B effects too,in which the pronoun is bound locally. Consider (16a-b), which correspond to(2a-b) above, except that they contain him.

(16) (a) *I showed Johni himi in the mirror.
(b) *I showed Johni to himi in the mirror.

In these cases, the doubling constituent has the structure in (7a) above, which we
assume is not a phase (the D head is not a phase head). Therefore, when P isMerged, there is no lower phase. See (17a-b) which correspond to (16a-b),
respectively. Thus, LR cannot apply to John, and John cannot be Remerged intheta-position.

(17) (a)(b)

This analysis also accounts straightforwardly for the ill-formedness of(3a-b), repeated below.

(3) (a) *I showed himselfi to Johni in the mirror.
(b) *I showed himselfi Johni in the mirror.

Assuming the doubling constituent structure in (7b), in which self is the head ofthe doubling constituent, in (3a-b), when P is Merged (18a-b), the anaphor islicensed in its base position and has no reason to move. On the other hand, ther-expression John is subject to LR. As a result, (3a-b), which would require
movement of himself, cannot be derived. Instead, these constructions will
converge as (2a-b). While (2a-b) are well-formed, they are not the desired
structures.

(18)

(a)

(b)

The ill-formedness of corresponding examples in which a pronoun
c-commands the r-expression, (19a-b), are accounted for in a similar manner as(3a-b).

(19) (a) *I showed himi to Johni in the mirror.
(b) *I showed himi Johni in the mirror.

Assuming that the head of the doubling constituent is the pronoun, as in (17a-b),

the pronoun is not subject to movement, since it is licensed in its base position.
Furthermore, the doubling constituent does not originate in a phase, since it isbase generated as part of a non-phase structure (see the prototype in (7a)). LR
cannot apply, and the derivation cannot converge.
The well-formedness of example (4), repeated below, results from thepossibility of LR movement.

(4) Pictures of himselfi worry Johni.

The doubling constituent with the phase head self is base-generated within apicture-DP. The picture-DP Merges with CAUSp (a null P that assigns a causer
theta-role but no Case). CAUSp is a phase head. As a result, the lower DP
anaphor containing John will be closed off. Thus, the experiencer John
undergoes LR to theta-position in [Spec, PP], as shown in (20a). LR applies
because John lacks Case and a theta-role. Next, the head CAUSv (a causative vthat occurs in experiencer constructions) is Merged into the derivation. Since
CAUSv itself is a phase head dominating a lower PP phase, that lower PP phasewill be closed off. Thus, the DP pictures of himself, which is contained within
the PP that is about to be closed-off, undergoes LR to the specifier-of-CAUSv
theta-position, shown in (20b). LR applies because pictures of himself lacks
Case. The picture-DP gets a causer theta-role twice (once from CAUSp andonce from CUASv), but this is permitted because a DP can be assigned the sametheta-role multiple times, following the analysis in Pesetsky (1995). The final

structure obtained is shown in (20c).

(20) (a)

(b)

(c)

When the anaphor in (4) is replaced with a pronoun, resulting in (21), theresult is ill-formed.

(21) *Pictures of himi worry Johni.

In this case, when the CAUSp phase head is Merged, the pronoun is notcontained within a phase (22). Since the doubling constituent is not a phase, LR
will not be triggered to bring him into theta-position, and the derivation crashes.

(22)

6.

Conclusion
This paper demonstrates how a derivation based account, motivated by theneed to preserve computational efficiency in probe-goal search, accounts for avariety of coreference facts involving constructions that underlyingly havemultiple objects.
We can also extend this analysis to account for a variety of other data (seeFong and Ginsburg (To Appear)), such as (23a-b), which demonstrate thetypical complementary distribution between pronouns and anaphors.

(23) (a) *Johni praises himi.
(b) Johni praises himselfi.

In (23a), when v* is Merged, John is not contained within a phase that is about
to be closed off and so LR cannot apply (24a). Thus, this is ill-formed. In (23b),when v* is Merged, John is contained within a DP phase (due to the phase head

self). LR applies and John moves to subject theta-position (24b), thus resulting
in a successful derivation.

(24) (a)(b)Importantly, this work not only demonstrates how a movement-based
analysis, motivated by the need to achieve computational efficiency, accounts
for a variety of coreference facts involving constructions that underlyingly havemultiple objects, but it also demonstrates how a computer model can be used toconfirm and verify how computation in the generative framework can be madeprecise.

Notes

1

See Ginsburg & Fong (To Appear) for further discussion of problems with

Kayne’s analysis.
2According to the Phase Impenetrability Condition (Chomsky 2000, 2001, 2004,

etc.), the complement of a phase head is sent to Spell-Out separately from thephase edge (the head and specifier, if present). Our proposals are able to accountfor the examples discussed in this paper regardless of whether or not a phaseedge is closed-off (sent to Spell-Out) together with, or separately from, its
complement. See Ginsburg & Fong (To Appear) for discussion of examples forwhich the issue of whether or not a phase edge is closed-off becomes important.
3For the sake of simplicity, this example uses N to represent a DP. The otherexamples in this paper use D.
4For the sake of simplicity, we refer to closing off of an entire phase. As noted in

endnote 2, it does not matter for these examples if the complement of a phasehead, or if an entire phase, is closed-off.

References
Beletti, A. & Rizzi, L. 1988. Psych-verbs and theta-theory. Natural Language
and Linguistic Theory 6.291-352.
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step:
Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. by R. Martin, D.
Michaels and J. Uriagereka, 89-155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by Phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. byM. Kenstowicz, 1-52. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Chomsky, N. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Structures and beyond:
The cartography of syntactic structures, volume 3, ed. by A. Belletti,104-131. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Fong, S & J. Ginsburg. To Appear. Computation with doubling constituents:
Pronouns and antecedents in Phase Theory. In Towards a Biolinguistics
understanding of grammar: Essays on interfaces, ed. by A. M. Di Sciullio.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kayne, R. 2002. Pronouns and their antecedents. In Derivation and explanationin the Minimalist Program, ed. by S. D. Epstein & T. D. Seely, 133-166.
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Pesetsky, D. 1995. Zero syntax: Experiencers and cascades. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.

(sandiway@email.arizona.edu)(jginsbur@gmail.com)