Our verbal statement construction analyses are similar to proposals containing composite expressions of language and gesture (Enfield 2009) and their application to sign languages, including the idea that constructions showing sign languages are symbolic indexing (Johnston 2013). It`s also a bit like Wilcox and Occhinos (2016) Cognitive grammar analysis of the display of verbs as complex symbolic constructs with a pointing device and what they call the place. However, Wilcox and Occhino assert that Place is a specific feature of sign language, different from the actions of non-signatories. They suggest that sign languages have no equivalent to “gesture,” but they do not discuss the possibility that work on multimodal vocal constructs may be relevant to sign languages, as we propose here. Since Wilcox and Occhino do not offer new data and make concrete predictions that could make the difference between their proposal and our account of building unimodal clues and verbs, we will not talk more about their work here. In this section, we provide two general analyses of indicative verbs. We first focus on what might be called the “mainstream view,” which developed from paddens (1983) of the tripartizing division of verbs in sign languages – this direction in these verbs is similar to the systems of concordance in spoken languages. We then present our analysis of construction grammar, which is based on Liddell (2003) and others, and examines the role of the deli gesture in these verbs. We will now call our proposal the word “construction account.” The word in (8) is a simple mating of form and meaning.
As Hoffmann and Trousdale (2013) explain, the importance of (9) is only partially compository and is therefore stored as a unit in the mental lexicon of the spokesperson. This idiom is partly schematic, because it has open positions for subject and object arguments that can be filled with different elements, and partly on the background, because its shape is fixed in part. The construction in (10) is even more schematic, with a single content element [that], while (11) is entirely schematic, with open slots for cause X, verb V, Y complement and state Z that could be an adjective or verb. In general, the term linguistic agreement, which is first used in this sense by Bloomfield (1933), refers to the existence of some form of co-kariation between different lexical elements in a clause that is used to express grammatical relationships such as sex, case, person and/or number. However, language literature is the subject of much discussion about grammatical phenomena to be included in the category of agreement systems. In cognitive linguistics, for example, the relationship between agreement systems and other related forms of reference monitoring has been studied (for example. B, Croft 2001; 2013; 2008 Langacker; Kibrik 2013). Since the boundaries of the agreement sometimes seem obscure, some even suggest abandoning the term (z.B.
Haspelmath 2013). However, for the purposes of this paper, we will focus on a definition of the obkmorphological expression of concordance, based on important typological work on this subject (Corbett 2006). This particular definition forms the basis of a “canonical typology” of the agreement, which attempts to recognize the many complications associated with the term, by proposing that the systems of agreements show similarities and differences between languages, making some more “canonical” than others.
