Third, the emergence of contractual assistants attests to the grammatical status of the agreement (Steinbach 2011). Contract auxiliaries have developed only to mark the concordance with simple verbs, and they are not limited to verbs that refer to (abstract) transmission. What is even more interesting is that contractual assistants do not depend on the thematic structure of the predicate that co-illustrates them, since they can be systematically combined with unique predicates such as WAIT or LAUGH, in order to broaden the argument structure of these predicates (WAIT-FOR and LAUGH-AT). First, while a DIR component may be plausible for verbs such as GIVE, TAKE, SEND and PAY, which express a concrete transfer of an entity, there are also many contractual verbs for which it is less clear if it is a transfer. Meir is of course aware of this fact and proposes that such verbs (z.B. TEACH, INFORM, ANSWER) be considered as the expression of an abstract transmission. Nevertheless, we say that, for some verbs, the concept of transmission is much less obvious, for example. B DGS HELP (see Meir 2002: 423, fn. 11; Steinbach 2011; but see Bos 2017[1998] for the assertion that such verbs can include integrated themes and therefore something like “helping someone,” SEE and DEFEAT in Catalan SL (LSC; cf. by Quadros – Quer 2011), die in LSE (Costello 2015) und KILL in vielen SLs (for DGS, see Rathmann – Mathur 2005), where the classic DEcomposition CAUSE TO DIE clearly does not include transmission.16 Generally speaking , the argument may run the risk being circular in this transfer (concrete or abstract) when a verb shows an agreement by movement (see also below for contractual assistants that can be combined with inexteriory verbs that do not express any transmission). So far, the motivation for the verb has been only indirect, because the verb is put in place whenever there is no aid to the convention. As in the final languages of the head in general (see p. B Haider 2010), the verb movement in the DGS is difficult to diagnose, as the verbal elements are usually at the end of the clause and there are no elements in this part of the clause that could be used to delineate the vP limit.

However, there is a type of diagnosis that provides an independent motivation for the movement of the verb in the case of concordance verbs: this involves negation that treats concordance and PAM verbs in the same way, excluding simple verbs. DGS is what is called a non-manual SL dominance, which implies that klausal negation is often expressed by a non-manual marker, i.e. only a shake-head (hs). The head shake, which is analyzed as Nego`s non-manual installation, properly associates with the nearest verbal element, whether it is a contractual verb (19a) or PAM (19b) (see Peacock 2002; 2016 for a syn-tactical report on the DGS NEGATION). 33We have adopted this theory of wandering because it allows a very simple formulation of inversion between LESIV and BAVs. Other approaches to the different orientations developed in the context of errivity may also work. They generally differ in the location of the Agree probes (z.B. the two probes on T, the two probes on v, or one on T, and one on V, as proposed here; see the 2015 deal for an updated overview).