Cover not available

In:Theoretical Issues in the Languages of the Caucasus
Edited by Ümit Atlamaz, Ömer Demirok and Balkız Öztürk
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 294] 2026
► pp. 282–311

Chapter 9
Within language variation in V-final projections

Objects and goals in Tush (Tsova-Tush, Batsbi)

This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Abstract
OV languages exhibit variation in the contextual conditions under which they permit postverbal constituents. In some OV languages, such as Turkish, postverbal constituents cannot be focused, while in other OV languages, such as Georgian, postverbal foci are possible. Moreover, variation exists not only between languages but also within languages: different arguments may appear postverbally in different contexts within one and the same language. The present article examines this type of variation in Tush — a Nakh language spoken in Georgia. Corpus facts reveal that direct objects are predominantly postverbal if they represent given information, while goal arguments of motion verbs can be postverbal independent of information structure. The syntactic properties of these constructions indicate that this difference is traced back to the directionality of merging different types of complements: while objects are first merged at the left side of the V, goals do so at the right side. Goals can raise to a position adjoined at the left side of the VP, which creates optionality in broad focus contexts.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Tush
    • 2.1Aims
    • 2.2Language and grammar
    • 2.3Word order
  • 3.Discourse
    • 3.1Aims
    • 3.2Method
    • 3.3Results
    • 3.4Discussion
  • 4.Narrow focus
    • 4.1Aims
    • 4.2Only-phrases
    • 4.3Negative words
    • 4.4Discussion
  • 5.Layers
    • 5.1Aims
    • 5.2Infinitives
    • 5.3Discussion
  • 6.Origin
    • 6.1Aims
    • 6.2Binding properties
    • 6.3Stranded modifiers
    • 6.4Discussion
  • 7.Analysis
    • 7.1Focus movement
    • 7.2Core clause
    • 7.3Goals vs. objects
  • 8.Conclusions
  • Author queries
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
References (57)
References
Aboh, Enoch Oladé. 2004. The Morpho-syntax of Complement-Head Sequences: Clause Structure and Word Order Patterns in Kwa. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aronson, Howard I. 2005. Georgian: A Reading Grammar [1st ed., 1989]. Bloomington: Slavica.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baker, Mark & Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2017. On inherent and dependent theories of ergative case. In The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity, Jessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa Demena Travis (eds). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beaver, David I. & Clark, Brady Z. 2008. Sense and Sensitivity: How Focus Determines Meaning. Malden/Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2024. OV∼VO in Itelmen: Information Structure and Postverbal Objects in a Verb-final Language. Ms. Harvard University url: [URL]
Borise, Lena. 2019. Phrasing Is Key: The Syntax and Prosody of Focus in Georgian. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.
Borise, Lena & Erschler, David. 2022. Flexible syntax–prosody mapping of Intonational Phrases in the context of varying verb height. Phonology 39(2): 171–212. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brody, Michael. 1995. Focus and checking theory. In Approaches to Hungarian, vol. 5: Levels and Structures, István Kenesei (ed.), 31–43. Szeged: Jate.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew 1992. On the Greenbergian word-order correlations. Language 68: 81–138. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Erschler, David. 2012. From preverbal focus to preverbal “left periphery”: the Ossetic clause architecture in areal and diachronic perspective. Lingua 122(6): 673–699. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Erschler, David & Volk, Vitaly. 2011. On negation, negative concord, and negative imperatives in Digor Ossetic. In Topics in Iranian Linguistics. Beiträge zur Iranistik, Geoffrey Haig, Simin Karimi, Agnes Korn & Pollet Samvelian (eds.), 135–150. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert. 2004. Münchhausen-style head movement and the analysis of verb second. In Three papers on German Verb Movement, Ralf Vogel (ed.), 9–49. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert & Ćavar, Damir. 2002. Distributed deletion. In Theoretical approaches to Universals, Artemis Alexiadou (ed.), 64–109. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline & Samek-Lodovici, Vieri. 2006. Focus Projection and Prosodic Prominence in Nested Foci. Language 82(1): 131–150. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Forker, Diana. 2024. Post-predicate elements in Kartvelian and East Caucasian. In Post-predicate Elements in the Western Asian Transition Zone: A Corpus-based Approach to Areal Typology, Geoffrey Haig, Mohammad Rasekh-Mahand, Donald Stilo, Laurentia Schreiber & Nils N. Schiborr (eds.), 279–303. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Forker, Diana & Belyaev, Oleg. 2016. Word order and focus particles in Nakh-Daghestanian languages. In Information Structuring of Spoken Language from a Cross-linguistic Perspective, M. M. Jocelyne Fernandez-Vest & Robert D. Van Valin (eds.), 239–262. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fox, Danny & Sauerland, Uli. 1998. Illusive scope of universal quantifiers. NELS 26, 71–85.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ganenkov, Dmitry & Maisak, Timur A. 2021. Nakh-Dagestanian languages. In The Oxford Handbook of Languages of the Caucasus, Maria Polinsky (ed.), 86–145. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gärtner, Hans-Martin. 2002. On the force of V2 declaratives. Theoretical Linguistics 28(1): 33–42. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gigashvili, Ketevan. 2010. The Linguistic Map of Modern World and Endangered Languages. Tbilisi: Universali.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gündoğdu, Songül. 2019. Asymmetries in Kurmanji morphosyntax. In Current Issues in Kurdish Linguistics, Songül Gündoğdu, Ergin Öpengin, Geoffrey Haig, and Erik Anonby (eds.), 93–115. Bamberg: University of Bamberg Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gündoğdu Yücel, Songül. 2018. Argument-Adjunct Distinction in Kurmanji Kurdish. PhD dissertation, Boğaziçi University.
Haider, Hubert. 2020. VO-/OV-base ordering. In The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics, Michael T. Putnam, B. Richard Page (eds.), 339–364. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haig, Geoffrey. 2014. VG word order in Kurdish and Neo-Aramaic: Typological and areal considerations. In Neo-Aramaic and its Linguistic Context, Geoffrey Khan and Lidia Napiorkowska (eds.), 407–425. New York: Gorgias Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haig, Geoffrey, Rasekh-Mahend, Mohammad, Stilo, Donald, Schreiber, Laurentia & Schiborr, Nils. 2024. Post-predicate elements in the Western Asian Transition Zone: Data, theory, and methods. In Post-predicate Elements in the Western Asian Transition Zone: A Corpus-Based Approach to Areal Typology, Geoffrey Haig, Mohammad Rasekh-Mahand, Donald Stilo, Laurentia Schreiber & Nils N. Schiborr (eds.), 3–53. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harris, Alice. 2010. Origins of differential unaccusative/unergative case marking: implications for innateness. In Hypothesis A/Hypothesis B: Linguistic Explorations in Honor of David M. Perlmutter, Donna B. Gerdts, John C. Moore & Maria Polinsky (eds.), 203–220. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hauk, Bryn & Harris, Alice C. 2018. Batsbi. To appear in The Caucasian Languages: An International Handbook, Yuri Koryakov, Yuri Lander & Timur Maisak (eds.). Berlin/New York: Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hauk, Bryn. 2020. Deixis and Reference Tracking in Tsova-Tush. PhD dissertation, University of Hawai’i at Mānoa.
Herring, Susan C. & Paolillo, John C. 1995. Focus position in SOV languages. In Word Order in Discourse, Pamela Downing & Michael Noonan (eds.), 163–198. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holisky, Ann. 1987. The case of the intransitive subject in Tsova-Tush (Batsbi). Lingua 71, 103–132. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holisky, Dee Ann & Gagua, Rusudan. 1994. Tsova-Tush (Batsbi). In North East Caucasian Languages Part 2, Rieks Smeets (ed.), 147–212. Delmar, NY: Delmar, New York: Caravan Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kakashvili, Diana & Skopeteas, Stavros. 2024. Tsova-Tush (Bats/bi) Spoken Data Corpus. Corpus resource: University of Göttingen.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kidwai, Ayesha. 2000. XP-Adjunction in Universal Grammar: Scrambling and Binding in Hindi-Urdu. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kiss, Katalin Eva. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74 (2): 245–273. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda. 1992. On the absence of case chains in Bambara. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10, 554–594. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kural, Murat. 1997. Postverbal constituents in Turkish and the Linear Correspondence Axiom. Linguistic Inquiry 28(3): 498–519.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kvačadze, Levan. 1996. tanamedrove kartuli enis sint’aksi [Syntax of the contemporary Georgian language, 4th revised edition]. Tbilisi: Rubikoni.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Legate, Julie Anne. 2017. The locus of ergative case. In The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity, Jessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa Demena Travis (eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Manetta, Emily. 2012. Reconsidering rightward scrambling: postverbal constituents in Hindi-Urdu. Linguistic Inquiry 43(1): 43–74. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McGinnis, Martha, Nash, Léa, Kunizheva, Elmiskhan, Kakashvili, Diana, Amiridze, Nino & Alexeyenko, Sascha. 2025. Argument structure and binding in Tsova-Tush. Paper presented at Caucasian linguistics: recent advances and emerging topics, Lyon, France, June, 11–13, 2025.
Modarresi, Fereshteh. 2014. Bare Nouns in Persian: Interpretation, Grammar, and Prosody. PhD dissertation, University of Ottawa.
Neeleman, Ad & Weerman, Fred. 1999. Flexible Syntax. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Öztürk, Balkız. 2013. Postverbal constituents in SOV languages. In Theoretical Approaches to Disharmonic Word Order, Theresa Biberauer & Michelle Sheehan (eds.), 270–305. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pregla, Andreas. 2024. Word Order Variability in OV Languages. PhD dissertation, University of Potsdam.
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1, 75–116. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. Second occurrence focus and relativized stress F. In Information Structure: Theoretical, Typological, and Experimental Perspectives, Malte Zimmermann & Caroline Féry (eds.), 15–35. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schwarzschild, Roger. 1999. GIVENness, AVOIDF and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics 7: 141–177. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Simpson, Andrew & Choudhury, Arunima. 2015. The Nonuniform Syntax of Postverbal Elements in SOV Languages: Hindi, Bangla, and the Rightward Scrambling Debate. Linguistic Inquiry 46(3): 533–551. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Skopeteas, Stavros & Fanselow, Gisbert. 2010. Focus in Georgian and the expression of contrast. Lingua 120(6): 1370–1391. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Surányi, Balázs. 2005. Head movement and reprojection. Annales Universitatis Scientiarum Budapestinensis de Rolando Eötvös Nominatae. Sectio Linguistica. ELTE Tomus 26, 313–342.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Şener, Serkan. 2006. Right adjunction in the right peripheries. BLS 32(1): 349–361. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thiersch, Craig Lee. 1978. Topics in German Syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Van der Wal, Jenneke. 2016. Diagnosing focus. Studies in Language 40(2): 259–301. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Hoof, Hanneke. 2006. Split topicalization. In The Blackwell companion to syntax, vol. 4, Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), 410–465. Malden: Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vikner, Sten. 2020. The Placement of Finite Verbs. In The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics, Michael T. Putnam and B. Richard Page (eds.), 365–388. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wichers Schreur, Jesse. 2024. Intense Language Contact in Eastern Georgia: The Case of Tsova-Tush. PhD dissertation, University of Frankfurt.
Woolford, Ellen. 2015. Ergativity and transitivity. Linguistic Inquiry 46(3): 489–531. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue