The Scrambling Paradox

Abstract

It has been commonly observed that scrambling and wh-movement share sensitivity to strong movement constraints (Webelhuth 1989, Saito 1992, Bailyn 1995). At the same time, the two processes clearly differ in certain other respects, such as wh-island sensitivity, a finding that has inspired a range of analyses of scrambling as entirely distinct from better-understood movement processes (Müller and Sternefeld 1993, Bošković and Takahashi 1998, among many others). Careful comparison of Ā-scrambling and overt wh-movement in a language that shows both (Russian) reveals that this seemingly paradoxical behavior can be captured effectively in a probe-goal theory of scrambling that obeys a form of Relativized Minimality defined across feature classes, following Rizzi 2004. The resulting analysis exposes the distinct nature of strong and weak islands, with consequences for our understanding of the core architecture of syntactic movement.

Сложнее, Чем Мы Думаем: Еще Раз Об Островных Свойствах Союза Что

“…На этом фоне кажется загадочной невозможность извлечения составляющих из придаточных изъяснительных с союзом что для многих носителей русского языка. Синтаксисты отмечают контраст между извлечением из придаточных изъяснительных с союзами что и чтобы (2): в то время как извлечение из чтобы-клауз признается допустимым, извлечение из что-клауз оценивается как неграмматичное даже в случае дополнения -обычно наиболее свободно извлекаемой составляющей (Müller, Sternefeld 1993, Khomitsevich 2007, Хомицевич 2008, Лютикова 2009, Antonenko 2010, Dyakonova 2009, Bailyn 2020. Несмотря на то, что приемлемость извлечения из что-клауз варьирует в зависимости от типа передвижения (относительное передвижение и скрэмблинг оцениваются выше, а в корпусах обнаруживаются соответствующие примеры, см.…”

An Argument for Non‐agree‐driven Movement

“…Second, there is no sense in which higher numerals (6 and above) are focused in a way that low numerals are not, hence no plausible semantic/pragmatic justification for assuming that high numerals induce focus-intervention effects when low numerals do not. We assume, with Rizzi (2018), Boeckx and Jeong (2004), Bailyn (2020) and many others that Agree and the relativized minimality effects associated with probe-goal relations are feature-specific (or, at least, sensitive to feature classes and hierarchies of features) and it is not the case that RM is 'feature-blind', with A-and A'movement being blocked by the presence of any filled, intervening A-or A'-specifier (an older alternative to featural RM). There are many instances where A-and A'-movement is clearly not blocked by the presence of intervening, filled AÀ/A'-specifiers, for example, OSV structures in Japanese where the object A-moves over the subject to SpecTP (Miyagawa 2010), NW British English passivization of direct objects over indirect objects ('The book was given her yesterday ' Biggs 2016), the lack of wh-island effects in Bulgarian and other languages where wh phrases are able to raise over other raised wh phrases (Rudin 1988), the failure of adverbs as specifiers (Cinque 1999) to block either A-or A'movement, the lack of blocking effects with Russian long-distance scrambling over raised wh-phrases, among many other cases.…”

Clausal-Internal Scrambling in Urdu Language: A Derivation by Phases

“…Now, we moved towards the movement basedscrambling. Many proposals have been dedicated in this line of inquiry (Ross, 1967;Saito, 1985;1992, Saito & Fukui, 1998Haider & Rosengren, 2003;Grewendorf & Sabel, 1999;Müller and Sternefeld, 1994;Mahajan, 1994;Bailyn 2001Bailyn , 2020Kidwai, 2000). Related to Asian languages, it is evident to evaluate Mahajan (1990) proposal in which he has dealt with the scrambling of nominalizations within Binding Theory (1985), taking data of Hindi language.…”

“…Structural dependency and Uniformity. The studies conducted by Mahajan (1990), Kidwai (2000) and Bailyn (2020) posited that scrambling is constituted by external mechanism imposed on the derivation, but Chomskyyan's model did not accept this. This is theoretically inconsistent with human cognition.…”