Plural houses in (a) require the plural of the demonstrative determinator, so these appear, not those, which means that there is a morphological dependence that shows the hierarchy of houses to them. The situation is reversed in (b), where the unsingulated subject Sam requires the appearance of the whole uffix -s on the finite verb works, which means that there is a morphological dependence that raises Sam`s hierarchy in works. The nature of the determinator in the German examples (c) and (d) influences the flexionsuffix that appears old on the adjective. If the indeterminate article is used, the strong male end appears on the adjective. On the other hand, if the particular article that is used, the weak ending -e appears on the adjective. Thus, as the choice of the determinator influences the morphological form of the adjective, there is a morphological dependence that leads from the determinator to the adjective, this morphological dependence being totally independent of syntactic dependencies. Keep looking at the following French sentences: English has only a few conformity bending markers and can therefore be interpreted most of the time as a zero marker. However, a dependent mark arises when a singular or plural element requires the singular or plural character of the demonstrative determinant of this or that and if a verb or preposition requires the subject or object form of a personal pronoun: me/me, he/she, who/she, who/who. The following representations of the grammar of addiction illustrate some cases: The male subject the dog in (a) claims the masculine form of the white predictive adjective, while the female subject the house claims the feminine form of this adjective. A morphological dependence, totally independent of syntactic dependencies, therefore refers through the syntactic hierarchy.
Traditionally, directorates-general had a different approach to linear order (word order) than sentence structure grammars. Dependency structures are minimal compared to their counterparts in sentence structure and these minimal structures allow for intense focus on both dimensions of order.  Separating the vertical dimension (hierarchical order) from the horizontal dimension (linear order) is easy to achieve. This aspect of dependency structures has allowed directorates-general, starting with Tesnière (1959), to focus on hierarchical order in a way that is hardly possible for grammars of sentence structure. For Tesnière, linear order was subordinate to hierarchical order insofar as hierarchical order preceded linear order in the head of a spokesman. The stemmas (trees) that Tesnière produced reflected this view; they abstracted from linear order to focus almost exclusively on hierarchical order. Many directorates-general that followed Tesnière took up this practice, that is, they produced tree structures that reflect only the hierarchical order, for example.B. Dependency is a one-for-one: match for each element (for example. B word or morph), there is exactly one node in the structure of this sentence that corresponds to this element. The result of this one-for-one correspondence is that dependency grammatics are verbal (or morphic) grammatics. All that exists are the elements and dependencies that connect the elements to a structure. This situation should be compared to the structure of sentences..