According to Lillo-Martin (1986), null arguments with simple verbs exhibit different syntactic behavior than those with corresponding verbs, and therefore the licensing mechanisms for these two types of null arguments are different. In this analysis, the agreement itself identifies null arguments that are displayed with corresponding verbs. Such a suggestion crucially depends on the existence of a class of corresponding verbs with associated syntactic consequences. Bahan et al. (2000), unlike Lillo-Martin, argue that null arguments of both types of verbs are allowed by agreement, but that only non-manual correspondence with simple verbs is used. Although this proposition differs from Lillo-Martin`s in terms of license null arguments and their syntactic type, it is based on the concept of morphosyntactic agreement. See Koulidobrova (2010) for another view of the NULL ARGUMENT LICENSE in ASL and the relationship between null arguments and verbdirectionality. Third, our representation of the difference between simple verbs and matching verbs (an asymmetry in the movement of verbs) is independently supported by differences in negation marking; As a result, the distribution of the excipient does not need to be determined, but may be related to independent differences in syntactic structure (i.e. whether V is part of the complex head or not) and may be motivated by the fact that it provides a host for correspondence morphemes that would otherwise hang. Previous work, in particular thematic work, should provide that agreement assistants should appear with simple verbs; However, if the agreement is essentially thematic, why would it need an element that corresponds in a completely different way (e.g.B.

in grammatical functions)? According to our analysis, the agreement on matchbends and on ancillary obligations of agreement fulfils the same function which explains their largely complementary distribution. Aronoff, Mark, Irit Meir, Carol Padden and Wendy Sandler. 2008. The roots of linguistic organization in a new language. Interaction studies 9(1). 133-153. DOI: doi.org/10.1075/is.9.1.10aro Perniss, Pamela, Roland Pfau & Markus Steinbach. 2007. Don`t you see the difference? Sources of variation in the structure of sign language.

In Pamela Perniss, Roland Pfau & Markus Steinbach (d.` eds.), Visible variation: Comparative studies on sign language structure, 1–34. Berlin: Gruyter sheep. The range in which one of the third-party speakers is considered immediate and all the others as obviative can be quite wide, but can change in principle after each sentence depending on the speech, e.B. by placing a new participant as close or by assigning a previously obviative nominal now proximative. This decisively shows that a single speaker can be associated with both inflection values, and so the chord does not pursue a stable grammatical property of the speaker, but a property highly dependent on speech. .