In this wiki on "Subject–verb inversion in English", there are two approaches suggested to dealing with subject-verb inversion.
(1) Maintaining the traditional subject-predicate division of the clause (S → NP VP)
(2) Rejecting the existence of the finite VP constituent.
But neither is perfect, says the wiki:
In approach (1), "one has to assume movement (or copying) on a massive scale."
In approach (2), "this analysis does not capture the obvious dependency between the main verb and the inverted subject."
I'm not quite sure what the latter exactly means, but this sounds like a drawback of the second approach. (Please enlighten me on this as well in your answer.)
Now, what if a verb phrase (VP) can be defined to include a subject? Then, I think we should be able to analyze subject-verb inversion without (1) assuming movement (or copying) on a massive scale or (2) failing to capture the obvious dependency between the main verb and the inverted subject -- whatever that means.
[i] Under the bush crouched Bill.
[ii] Bill crouched under the bush.
In sentence [i], for example, if "crouched Bill" can be defined as a VP that includes a subject "Bill", then the sentence can be easily analyzed as follows:
S → PP + VP
VP → V + NP
In other words, this approach doesn't treat sentence [i] merely as an inversion of sentence [ii], but it treats sentence [i] as having a unique VP that includes a subject.
Has this kind of approach ever been suggested? If not, what do you think about it, compared to the other two approaches mentioned above?