The second facet of the problem concerns the problem that the SL agreement does not contain stable formal or semantic characteristics of the DP that controls the agreement. But again, concordance in spoken languages may include temporary characteristics.13 A famous example is that of languages with a close/obvitative system, i.e. a special system that distinguishes different stakeholders from third parties by treating the most important/topical/important stakeholders as close, while the smaller entities are identified as obviative. Such a system is, for example, used in the languages of Algonquian, and is illustrated in the following example of Plains Cree. Note that the near DP is not marked, while the obvitific DP the suffix – a; Verb-agreement also records decisively the difference between close and obvient. The next step towards an agreement system is seen when the verb is no longer limited to the Z axis. Some signatories have established forms in which the initial position of the sign is on the body of the signatory and whose final point is directed towards a spatial place associated with the object`s argument. However, it is essential that the position associated with the argument is not on the Z axis, but on the right or left of the signatory (see Figure 2). In other words, the “loose” end of the verb can be addressed to any position related to an argument at the signature level.
These forms can be considered as marked verbs for an agreement with a single argument.4 The reanalysis of the final position of the verb as Morpheme marking agreement with an argument is over. This morphum is not limited to a certain value (a point in space on the Z axis), but may accept any value of an R locus associated with the verb argument. Such forms are found in the responses of the signatories of the three groups, but they are much more common in the group 3 responses. They represent 41% and 47% respectively of the single agreement forms in groups 1 and 2 and 81% of the group 3`s single agreement forms. Schembri, Adam, Jordan Fenlon, & Kearsy Cormier. 2018. Mention verbs as typologically unique constructions: Verb `Accord` in sign language. Glossa 3 (1). 89. DOI: doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.468 Neg is then performed as a head shake all over the complex head at Neg.
This applies either to the entire treaty (22a) or, in the case of simple verbs, only PAM (22b). Some signs may show “who did what to whom” through their movement. The movement of the sign indicates the object and object of the verb. For example, if I sign “money” and “give” close to my body and sign “give” in your direction, I will sign “I`ll give you some money” or “I gave you money.” Assuming I begin the sign by spreading the sign from my body (whatever direction you are in), then moving the “give” sign to me and ending near my body… It means, “You`re giving me money.” If I look at you and move the “Give” sign to the right or left, I will sign “Give it.” This “direction” can be used with many (but not all) characters.