It has been widely accepted that it is difficult to characterize scrambling in terms of A/A'-distinction. One of the most challenging examples in Korean is binding-related examples that are closely connected with (anti-) reconstruction effects. This paper points out that it is problematic to attempt to define scrambling depending on only the availability of reconstruction effects on the basis of the binding principles(Condition B and C). Instead, we need to consider non-canonical relations among anaphors, pronouns, and Rexpressions in understanding the interplay between scrambling and binding in Korean; the complexity of binding relations is disguised as the inconsistent behaviors of scrambling with regard to (anti-)reconstruction. Based on the assumption that scrambling is not a semantically vacuous movement and the non-trivial fact that anti-reconstruction effects are observed in a wider variety of data while reconstruction effects are limited to cases in which anaphors are scrambled, I argue that (at least in binding-related constructions) scrambling disallows ‘reconstruction effects’ and examples that have been considered to be involved in reconstruction effects can be accounted for within the frame of ‘anti-reconstruction effects’.

This paper asks why scrambling is recognized as 'transparent' movements in showing the remedy effect on the intervention phenomenon (e.g. 'LF'-intervention effects, island effects, Weak Crossover effects). Focusing on the non-trivial fact that scrambling induces D-linked interpretation in whquestions, I analyze scrambled elements with the same perspective to D-linked ones. When a wh-word is scrambled, as a D-linking effect, its base copy is inactive (incomplete before [+D] is realized) and its higher copy is active as the complete copy (complete at the outer vP,Spec or TP,Spec). Under this new analysis, we can account for well why scrambling across offending interveners is legitimate. Further, it provides a new perspective on scrambling.

This paper investigates the long-standing issue of how scrambling as a word order- changing operation is to be understood in light of the general theory of structure building, particularly vis-à-vis Chomsky’s (2013, 2005) Labeling Theory. First, noting that case or inflectional markers are realized on clausal dependent elements in-situ in Korean, we argue that they come about to record the output of labeling in the wake of the Merge operation during structure building. In other words, they are reflections of labeling in head-complement or XP-YP relations in tandem with theta-marking, predication, and predicate modification. Second, noting that scrambling is an adjunction operation via non-A, non-operator movement, we argue that a scrambled element enters into licensing relation just like an adjunct. Neither the former nor the latter can be accommodated into the properly labeled structure in the syntactic component. They rather resort to processes such as semantic predication or predicate modification at the interface to resolve the problem with labeling.

This paper deals with Korean scrambling. Seeing what the triggering mechanism for scrambling is very interesting, but not easy. In this paper, we discuss a derivational approach to the interpretation of scrambling chains proposed by Saito (2003). According to his claims, scrambling is an instance of an optional operation and it thus need not have any effect on the interpretation. In other words, scrambling is a stylistic rule applied in the PF side of the grammar and it is not semantically effective at all. We have, however, many counterexamples to these claims in Korean scrambling. Additionally, in the so-called Minimalist Program, movement is not optional and free, but it must be triggered by a feature on a head. Therefore, to resolve these problems with his approach, we search for an alternative approach to the interpretation of scrambling and its optionality based on Miyagawa (2003).

Kim, Yong-Ha. 1999. Scrambling and Economy of Representation. Studies in Modern Grammar 16, 1-38. Scrambling is known to have mixed properties of A-movement and A´-movement. One of the defining characteristics of A-scrambling is that scrambled elements can bind anaphors in their c-command domain. On the other hand, A´-scrambling has the undoing property, which can be best attributed to the reconstniction effect and hence is a typical A`-movement property. Work in the minimalist program generally explains these dual properties of scrambling by assuming that there are two kinds of scrambling in the fast place. However, it is very dubious to treat seemingly identical operations as different ones. Thus, it seems reasonable to take a unified approach to scrambling if there is any possible way to do. In this paper, we suggest a unified way of explaining the dual properties of scrambling in the framework of Chomsky`s (1995) minimalist program. We regards scrambling as a case of MSC. The unique feature of scrambling, under our approach, is that its identity as A-movement or A´-movement is not determined a priori. Rather, scrambled elements are only affected by deleted strong features of functional heads. What is predicted from our approach is that scrambling can take place only when all necessary feature-checking is completed.

Kim Young-Suck. 1997. The LF Analysis of Scrambling. Studies in Modern Grammatical Theories 11: 79-90. Such languages as Korean and Japanese can scramble and have free word order, unlike English. Some linguistic theoreticians proposed English is configurational while Korean and Japanese are nonfigurational. Since Saito(1985), it has been standard to view the free word order as being derived from the optional, transformational operation of scrambling. Since the optional operation of scrambling has been problematic as it seems to apply without any driving force, this paper is to propose a novel analysis of scrambling. It will be argued that `scrambled` elements are actually base-generated in their surface positions and undergo obligatory LF movement to where they are assigned θ -roles. Since scrambling in this sense involves only LF movement that has a driving force, this analysis not only conforms to the last resort principle, but also explains why it is `undone` in LF. Moreover, the LF analysis provides support for the minimalist assumption that LF is the sole level at which interpretive conditions apply.