1One of the so-called “village” or “rural” SLs, .b. SLs, born in small, sometimes quite isolated communities, with an abnormally high number of deaf inhabitants, seem exceptional as regards the expression of consent; see Padden et al. (2010); de Vos &Pfau (2015); and section 5 under consideration. Second, the excessive spatial realization of these characteristics depends on the physical properties of space. In particular, location and movement in space are two important aspects of conformity marking in SLs. Since location and motion are simultaneously phonological parameters in SLs, the lexical specification of these two parameters plays an important role in the serenation of conformity. Therefore, simple verbs, specified lexically for these two phonological parameters, cannot express correspondence by path movement or manual orientation. Interestingly, simple verbs can lose such a lexical specification and turn into compliance rules, as is the case, for example, for the DGS TRUST verb. Therefore, a particular phonological specification that blocks the expression of conformity may be abandoned for compliance conditions. As noted in Section 3, we see a general shift towards a “greater” concordance in the SLs. With regard to the standardization of spatial verbs and signs of concordance, a standardization may seem attractive, but it should be emphasized that the movement of paths has very different meanings in the two classes of verbs: for spatial verbs, it designates the actual movement of a referent from one place to another (cf. Wilbur 2010 for the discussion of space (and time) against temporal readings of verbs with “).

As mentioned in point 3.2.2 with regard to the proposal by Meir (2002), the interpretation of path movement as literal movement often fails in cases where the verb does not designate transmission. An approach that tries to standardize the two classes of verb is therefore faced with the same problem as the thematic presentation. While there is no reversal of grammatical functions in BAVs, it is certain that as far as the agreement is concerned, the object is treated as the subject and vice versa, so we are faced with a reversal of conformity. We will analyse the coherence of BAVs and the difference between VSRs and BAVs using an approach developed in the context of agativity (cf. Lourenço 2015 for a related idea and Pavlič 2016 for an analysis of reflexive ditransitives.32 Of course, the agreement in SL, where there is no (normally) concordance in opaque clauses, is not a reasonable way to obtain, because this agreement does not treat transitive objects and intransigent subjects in the same way. Nevertheless, we take into account the conclusions of Müller`s (2009) approach to ergativity, which proposes this orientation (i.e. direct/exact vs. B inverse/ergativ) is syntactically determined by the order of operations at v: v must perform two operations, it has an Agree probe and introduces the external argument. It is proposed that different provisions of these two operations lead to different adaptations, see (24): the second facet of the problem relates to the issue that the SL agreement does not contain stable formal or semantic characteristics of the EP controlling the agreement. .

. .