Abstract
In this article I argue against Bošković and Takahashi's (1998) analysis of scrambling as base generation (with lowering for Ā-cases). I present evidence from Russian of scope and antireconstruction effects and scrambling/wh-movement parallels, all implicating a "classical" overt movement account of Ā-scrambling. I then discuss theoretical issues unresolved by the base generation/lowering account. Having shown that Ā-scrambling is (upward) movement, I argue that the account of A-scrambled arguments as base-generated also loses its force. In conclusion I suggest an alternative way to eliminate the apparent optionality associated with scrambling, while maintaining the classical analysis of scrambling as upward movement.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 635-658 |
| Number of pages | 24 |
| Journal | Linguistic Inquiry |
| Volume | 32 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - 2001 |
Keywords
- Ā-movement
- Constraints on movement
- Optionality
- Reconstruction
- Russian syntax
- Scrambling
- Word order
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'On scrambling: A reply to Bošković and Takahashi'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver