This remark presents novel evidence on Ukrainian specificity-inducing object shift in its interaction with quantifier scope, evidence suggesting a generalization that whatever scope interpretations are established in the postverbal field will carry over into the preverbal field. We point out that the data present a serious challenge to the Superiority account of scope freezing, since that account predicts that object shift of a QP will always freeze scope with respect to another object QP, contrary to fact. Furthermore, while Ukrainian object shift does not obey Holmberg’s Generalization, we argue that it is nevertheless fully comparable to Scandinavian object shift. We propose to account for the data with a modified version of cyclic linearization. Cyclic linearization accounts for the crosslinguistic differences with respect to object shift and also derives the peculiar object shift–QP scope interaction patterns we observe, which remain obscure on the Superiority account of scope freezing.

中文翻译：

---

乌克兰语的范围冻结和对象转移：优越感重要吗？

这篇评论提供了关于乌克兰特异性诱导宾语转移在其与量词范围的相互作用中的新证据，证据表明，无论在后动词领域建立的范围解释都将延续到前动词领域，这一概括性的证据。我们指出，这些数据对范围冻结的优势说明提出了严重挑战，因为该说明预测一个 QP 的对象移动将始终冻结相对于另一个对象 QP 的范围，这与事实相反。此外，虽然乌克兰对象移位不服从 Holmberg 的概括，但我们认为它仍然与斯堪的纳维亚对象移位完全可比。我们建议使用修改后的循环线性化版本来解释数据. 循环线性化解释了关于对象移位的跨语言差异，并且还导出了我们观察到的特殊对象移位-QP 范围交互模式，这在范围冻结的优势说明中仍然模糊不清。