The evidence against movement analyses of
scrambling seems to be overwhelming:
·
the characteristics of scrambling structures do not fit into the
standard analytical framework that otherwise seems to be descriptively adequate
for movement operations
·
the data speak against the assumption of chain formation, since
scrambling structures do not show relevant trace effects
·
it is hard to see how scrambling as movement could be mechanically
motivated, since analyses involving feature checking would grant either too
little or too much optionality to scrambling.
Thus, I am led to believe that scrambling
structures are base generated. Since individual verbs show strong preferences
for argument orderings which speak against a structural symmetry between
syntactic representations and propositional or thematic relations, it appears
reasonable to either assume direct encoding of deviating word orders in the
lexicon or presyntactic mechanisms that would ensure such word orders. Such
mechanisms may be identifiable as e.g. definiteness or specificity effects,
which, however, require further investigation.
To be able to account for certain
V2-phenomena, I committed to a VP/IP structure for German that on the one hand
allows to categorize both the verb alone as well as any verb/object conjunction
as a maximal (moveable) projections, and on the other hand provides a structural
distinction for arguments that can or cannot move in conjunction with the verb.
I proposed that VP and IP form interdependent tiers in a multidimensional
sentence structure, where each individual tier may introduce independent
constraints into the syntax. Further research will have to show independent
evidence for syntactic tiers, but it seems reasonable to hope that a tier
analysis provides a more powerful apparatus than the traditional 2-dimensional
framework. It is hard to see how e.g. intonation and focus could be integrated
into a plain tree structure, in spite of the fact that they undoubtedly have
semantic effects.
© Philipp Strazny 1997