Abstract
Abstract It is usual to say that in (2) and (3), the past participle agrees with the clitic or Wh-phrase, much as the auxiliary ‘a’ in (1)-(3) is said to agree with the subject NP ‘Paul’. We shall argue, however, that this parallelism is only partially valid and that there is a significant distinction to be drawn between the two types of agreement, namely that although the finite auxiliary does agree directly with its subject, the past participle in (2) and (3) does not agree directly in the same sense with either clitic or Wh-phrase. Rather, the past participle agreement in (2) and (3) must be mediated by an empty category that intervenes between the clitic or Wh-phrase and the past participle.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
