An argument in favour of management as coherence reflects the proposition that, if the direction of the verb indication was gestural, one would expect to see significant differences between the positions on which the verb indication can be directed (Aronoff et al. 2000; Meier 2002). However, the directional adjustment of the verb indication seems limited: Z.B.→ is directed to positions related to the speaker associated with the speaker who is represented by indirect nophrases of object and subject, but not on the position related to the reference point of the direct object (Aronoff et al. 2000; Meier 2002; Lillo-Martin – Meier 2011). This section first describes a typology of the morphology of the verb in sign languages. Since Padden`s first proposal (1983), sign language verbs have been categorized by many scholars (z.B Meir, 2002; Aronoff et al. 2004a; Meier – Lillo-Martin 2010) in three main types that differ from arguments in terms of morphosytic expression: (1) concordance verbs, (2) spatial verbs and (3) simple verbs. The nature of the direction of the GIVEX→Y sign indeed seems predictable, at least in part, from its semantics and has little to expect from the question of whether the direction itself is gestural or not. The GIVEX→Y sign refers to acts in which individuals transfer ownership of an object of themselves to another person. This transmission does not occur between the theme of the verb and the recipient, so there is no reason to think that the path under the sign would work in this way. Padden (1983) contrasts the transmission inside ASL GIVEX→Y with a similar sign she called PASS-BY-HAND, which could actually move from the place associated with the subject to the recipient`s place, as it mimics what the hand does when someone records an object and hands it to another person. In fact, Taub (2001) argues that much of the direction to indicate verbs in the ASL is symbolically motivated, as it generally represents physical interactions between animated speakers or more abstract interactions, which are metaphorically represented as if they were a physical interaction. Taub (2001) examines how each case involves different trade-offs between training characteristics, iconicity and metaphor (see also Meir et al.
2007; 2013). It is the different combinations of each factor, as well as the verbs, that lead to differences between the languages we see beyond the sign languages. This may partly explain some of the constraints that Aronoff, Meir and Sandler (2000) discuss. Although the BELONG-TO/OWN character in BSL is a static verb that does not include typical interaction, this sign is an innotator verb that can move between positions associated with the theme and target. Similar arguments can be made in favour of backward verbs – that is, verbs that move from one object to another (z.B TAKE, INVITE, BORROW, etc. in many sign languages) – which could be problematic for contract analysis (cf. Quadros – Quer 2008; Lillo-Martin – Meier 2011). This argument in Aronoff, Meir and Sandler (2000) also seems to assume that even the stuff of the point is neither conventional nor limited in any way. As in paragraph 4.1, it appears that this is not the case. Liddell (2000; 2003) argues, however, that the direction of indicating verbs is ultimately controlled by the actual or imaginary position of the speaker, not by any characteristic that could be interpreted as a formal or semantic property of a set of name controllers. Note that this does not mean that the speaker`s position is not a semantic property per semantic per se.
Previous work, z.B. von Schlenker et al. (2013), makes it very clear that the verb indication can be used to convey the position of the speaker of a controller`s no morse, and these agreements are part of the importance of a statement.