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.

In this article I argue against Boš;ković and Takahashi's (1998) analysis of scrambling as base generation (with lowering for Ā -cases). I present evidence from Russian of scope and antire construction 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.