MIT 1 Introduction This paper proposes an architecture for the mapping between syntax and phonologyin particular, that aspect of phonology that determines ordering. In Fox and Pesetsky (in prep.), we will argue that this architecture, when combined with a general theory of syntactic domains ("phases"), provides a new understanding of a variety of phenomena that have received diverse accounts in the literature. This shorter paper focuses on two processes, both drawn from Scandinavian: the

more »

... r process of Object Shift and the less well-known process of Quantifier Movement. We will argue that constraints on these operations can be seen as instances of the same property of grammar that explains the fact that movement is local and successive cyclic. We begin by sketching a model in which locality and successive cyclicity are consequences of the architecture that we propose, rather than specific facts about movement itself. We next present our proposal in somewhat greater detail, and show how it can account for a wide range of apparent limitations on movement -in particular, superficially contradictory restrictions on Object Shift and Quantifier Movement. The restrictions on Object Shift include those grouped under the rubric of Holmberg's Generalization, which Quantifier Movement does not seem to obey. We will argue that Quantifier Movement instead obeys a near mirror-image of Holmberg's Generalization (an "Inverse Holmberg Effect"), but that both Holmberg's Generalization and its mirror image are expected if our proposed architecture is correct. Our discussion will be for the most part informal, but we will conclude by offering a more formal implementation of our proposals. This implementation will belong to a family of Let us focus on a particular property of the movements seen in (2). Consider first step 1, which takes place entirely within the lowest VP phase. This step can be seen as "revising" the word -4order of VP insofar as wh-movement to Spec,VP causes the wh-phrase to precede the words gave the book. which it would otherwise follow. Now consider step 2. This step also "revises" word order, causing the wh-phrase to precede the words that Mary which, once more, it would otherwise have followed. Notice, however, that step 2 only revises word order with respect to these words-not with respect to the words contained within the previous phase. The whphrase preceded the words gave the book at the end of the lowest VP phase, and still precedes them at the end of the next phase. This type of observation can be repeated for each subsequent step. Thus step 3 revises the order of the wh-phrase with respect to the verb say, but not with respect to the words that Mary gave the book. Likewise, step 4 revises the order of the wh-phrase with respect to the words will he, but not with respect to any of the words dominated by lower phases. The generalization is clear. Each time the wh-phrase moves, it leaves unchanged its linear order with respect to words dominated by previous phases, but may revise linear order with respect to words introduced in the current phase. We propose that this property of (2) is not a coincidence. As we will argue, if this property did not obtain, the sentence could not be linearized. This proposal will constitute the core of our explanation for the obligatoriness of successive-cyclic movement and will be the key component of our account of Holmberg's Generalization and of Inverse Holmberg Effects. 4 General proposal We assume, with Chomsky (2000 Chomsky ( , 2001b , that syntactic derivations involve the operations Merge and Move ("remerge"), with the consequence that structure is built from "bottom to top". We also take from Chomsky the suggestion that the mapping between syntax and phonology (Spell-out) takes place at various points in the course of the derivation -rather than at a single point, as in traditional models. In this work, we focus on one key aspect of