| This thesis examines how morphology interacts with RECONSTRUCTION in the environment of SCRAMBLING. We observe that while certain instances of scrambling undergo reconstruction, there exists a set of systematic instances of scrambling that does not fall into this class. This set involves a "monomorphemic" word in the scrambling position. Construal patterns of reflexives instantiate such a case: complex reflexives can be construed with lower antecedents, whereas monomorphemic reflexives cannot. By exploring the CHECKING POSITION PRESERVATION PRINCIPLE (CPPP) adumbrated in Lasnik 1993, we claim that scrambling is a checking operation. That is, reconstruction is possible insofar as the position created by scrambling, a checking position, can be preserved at the interface level LF.;We examine a trace or copy associated with wh-scrambling with regard to various aspects of LF representation---semantics of specificity, scope interpretation, weak crossover, and Pesetsky's (1987) Path Containment Condition. The result shows us that a trace/copy, if ever created by wh-scrambling, acts as though invisible at the interface level LF. By defining reconstruction as a function of a trace/copy, coupled with the minimalist assumption that a syntactic object with no LF role need not be represented on that level (i.e., 'representational economy'), we conclude that there is no reconstruction with wh-scrambling.;In sharp contrast with wh-phrases, Quantifier Phrases (QPs) are known to display scope ambiguity when they undergo scrambling. We account for the contrast by noticing that QPs, unlike (bare) wh-phrases, are complex in morphology. Given the CPPP as a working hypothesis, QPs, being bimorphemic, can freely undergo reconstruction, whereas bare wh-phrases cannot. Not only does this explain the asymmetry between QP-scrambling and wh-scrambling, it also complies with the construal pattern of reflexives in scrambling constructions. Monomorphemic reflexives pattern with bare wh-phrases, while complex reflexives pattern with QPs. Morphological complexity thus turns out to be a key to gross differences in LF-behaviors of all categories in the scrambling environment. |
