Abstract

Fox and Pesetsky (henceforth F&P) propose an architecture for the mapping between syntax and phonology which relates a number of different constraints on movement to the way in which phrase structure is linearized. They investigate Object Shift (henceforth OS) and Quantifier Movement (henceforth QM) in Scandinavian and argue that the restrictions on these processes, namely Holmberg’s Generalization (HG) effects on OS and what they call ‘‘the inverse Holmberg effect’’ on QM, reflect a requirement for preservation of the order established in the VP due to the fact that the VP is a Spell-out domain. F&P’s proposal relies on Holmberg’s (1999) formulation of HG which has been challenged by Anagnostopoulou (2002) on the basis of data discussed in Anagnostopoulou (2003) that directly contradict Holmberg (1999). It is my goal here to investigate how these data can be accommodated in F&P’s system. I will argue that even though F&P can, in principle, account for the data in question, the attempt to unify the restrictions on OS, QM with comparable restrictions on passivization under F&P’s architecture fails to express certain crosslinguistic generalizations which are straightforwardly captured in traditional locality accounts.