The syntax of wh-phrases, narrow foci, and neg-words in Georgian

Abstract This paper demonstrates that narrow foci and wh-phrases, even in a language where they have (nearly-)identical surface distributions, do not have the same syntax – and, as such, are not a uniform category. Specifically, it shows that foci and wh-phrases in Georgian appear immediately preverbally but are derived differently. The evidence comes from standard syntactic tests and language-specific ones: I show that, in Georgian, neg-words can serve as a tool for determining the structural positions of other constituents, and foci and wh-phrases have different distributional properties with respect to neg-words. Based on this, I demonstrate that wh-phrases in Georgian undergo A-bar movement to the specifier of a dedicated projection, accompanied by verb raising. Preverbal foci remain in situ, while the material intervening between the narrow focus and the verb undergoes displacement. This demonstrates that what looks like unified preverbal placement of foci and wh-phrases corresponds to the outcomes of two independent syntactic processes. Additional support for this approach is provided by the analysis of the distribution of postverbal foci, also allowed in Georgian. The Georgian facts, I argue, support the hypothesis that syntactic/semantic notions (e.g., [+Q]) are encoded as syntactic features that drive movement. On the other hand, purely information-structural notions (e.g., semantically non-exhaustive focus) are not encoded syntactically, and, as such, cannot trigger syntactic movement – but can impose their own syntax-prosody mapping requirements onto the syntactic structure.