From a functional point of view, it can be said that the marking of the subject and object transmitted by the Directorate frees the order of words from this function, so that the order of words can be flexible or used for other purposes such as the information structure. In formal approaches, the difference between verbs with consent and non-conforming verbs could be reflected in more complex syntactic structures that open positions for the movement of the subject and/or object in the first, but not in the latter (Quadros and Lillo-Martin 2010). In both cases, recognition of the grammatical difference between directional and simple verbs is essential to account for the different syntactic effects. In this paper, we argue for a fourth perspective – and a less important perspective in the literature – assuming the strong assumption that all cases of SL agreement are of a syntactic nature. We show that the three approaches – gestural, hybrid and climatic representations – face empirical and theoretical problems, and we show that coherent syntician implementation is not only possible, but also offers a number of significant benefits. It is important to note that our analysis is based on data from German sign language (German Sign Language – DGS). LS has been shown to differ typologically in different grammatical areas (Perniss et al. 2007; Zeshan 2008; 2015), so it is not clear that our analysis applies to all LS without modification. Given that “the spatial resources available to LS, however, we assume that our account can be applied to other LLs, at least to those who use space in a similar way and to LSEs that develop similar morphosytic means (for example. B of contract assistants) to obtain their agreement.
We return to the question of typological variation at the end of this article in section 5.1, note that our analysis is not only tactical synt, but also formally explicit and cast in a specific framework (the minimalist program) 2. This seems important to us, because the success (as well as the possible pitfalls) of an analysis (syntaxic) is only visible when one is obliged to stick to a series of (motivated) hypotheses. This means concluding (verb) a formal and legally binding agreement. Richard P. Meier, 2002b. Why is it different, why the same thing? Explain the impact and non-impact of the modality on the language structure in characters and language. In Richard P. Meier, Kearsy Cormier – David Quinto-Pozos (note. M),modality and structure in signed and spoken languages, 1-25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. It is essential that, for BAVs, the guidance agreement should also focus on the object and not on the subject. They therefore do not show a reversal of the orientation of the hand.
Like the path-movement chord, the orientation-based concordance is found in both transitory and ditraneous verbs. With the latter, it again targets the target/indirect object and not the subject. Compliance with inexteriable verbs is rarely confirmed; see z.B. Costello (2015) for the marked agreement on the verb DIE in SL (LSE) in Spanish.9 We think that no matter what point is used in the room for a particular reference point, it is grammar. Abstract clues are part of grammar,11, but loci are determined outside of grammar. Therefore, the link between referents and loci requires that language be associated with a gesture. We see this combination of language and gestures as an equivalence of the combination of language and gesture (cf.