In this talk, I show that (i) there is no dedicated syntactic projection for focus and wh-items in Georgian, (ii) information structure is read off minimal syntactic structure, and (iii) information structure is determined by Georgian-specific requirements on the realization of prosodic prominence.

Georgian focus and wh-words appear in the immediately preverbal position:

(1) Gušin       dila-s      bebia        ra-s           
    yesterday   morning-dat grandma.nom  what-dat   
    "What did grandma clean yesterday morning?"
(2) Gušin       dila-s      bebia       samzareulo-s
    yesterday   morning-dat grandma.nom kitchen-dat         
    ‘Yesterday morning, grandma cleaned the kitchen.’

Lack of island effects and lack of weak crossover effects in root and relative clauses suggest that there is no evidence for operator-driven A-bar movement in Georgian. In addition, I show that Georgian does not have cross-clausal A-bar movement and uses wh-scope marking instead (Harris 1984). Using evidence from scope, binding, scalar interpretation of focused numerals, and verbal idioms I show that the focus/wh-expression stays in its base position.

Adjacency to the verb is required in order for the wh/focus item to receive prosodic prominence, which in Georgian is expressed by prosodically grouping the focus/wh-item with the verb. Since the wh/focus item does not undergo movement, focus-verb adjacency is achieved by displacement of intervening material to the right or left periphery of the clause (cf. Zubizarreta 1998, Ishihara 2001, Arregi 2002, Horvath 2010).

Using Condition C effects and epithet-binding data, I show that the material on the right periphery is always base-generated and is generally discourse-linked. The non-focal material in the left periphery can be either base-generated (typical of scene-setting expressions) or A-scrambled (Amiridze 2006).

These results support the approach to information structure (IS) according to which a particular IS status is imposed on structural positions, and does not stand in one-to-one correspondence to syntax (cf. Neeleman & Vermeulen 2012, a.o.), as opposed to the approach according to which a constituent moves to a given position to satisfy an IS criterion (Rizzi 1997, 2004).