Sign Language Structure
Stokoe, Jr.
may be an approximation of a directional opposite of the ‘enjoy’ sign’s sig, the rubbing motion
being opposed by the quick, checked retreat of hand from chest.
3.5. The isolation and description of the sign language sentence as a syntactic unit await
further study, but it seems likely at this point that the patterning of the aspectual cheremic elements
with the head and eye kind of supra-aspectual elements will furnish the clues to the syntactic
structure. For instance, a kind of ‘terminal juncture’ in signing is to be seen perhaps in a general
relaxation at the end of an utterance of one sort. It may be taken as similar to the ‘dropping’ of the
voice, but the dropping of the hand or hands that made the last sign is more a feature of the general
somatic change than it is a separate signal. Similarly, the utterance which is followed by a reply,
which seeks perhaps an opinion on what has just been signed, ends with a kind of upward or
outward ‘focus’: eyes, face, hands may join in passing the conversational ball to the viewer.
Much more remains to be done also in establishing exactly what are the structural
principles of the sign language sentence, the overall pattern, and how dialect and idiolect patterns
utilize one or another part of the total possible pattern. For it is apparent now that just as any
speaker’s variety and complexity of syntactical patterns will vary according to his age, intellectual
habits, and education, to name a few factors, and the extent of his vocabulary will be similarly
determined, so the sign language user will differ in his employment of the resources of the
language. But there is another way that signers may show difference in selection from the overall
structural patterns. Presumably his language habits will be more or less affected by the extent to
which English is his second language. The bilingual person may only in an occasional ‘slip of the
tongue’ superimpose the patterns of one language on another; but two languages, which can be
used simultaneously, may be more strongly drawn into syntactical conformity.
Again, more study is needed. Some informants, members of the college faculty, whose sign
sentences may often be translated into idiomatic English sentences by a word-for-sign rendering
without change in order, say frankly that they sign ‘differently’ in other situations. The difference
may be analogous to the writer’s different ways of speaking with superiors, subordinates, family,
children, intimate friends, and others; but there is also the strong possibility that along with the
usual stylistic differences there is a greater or less similarity to English syntax in these different
situational levels of sign use.
3.6. While the cheremic analysis of the sign language seems to be complete enough to
make a number of observations about the formation and use of signs, the writer is aware that the
period of the study is all too short to have arrived at a complete and exhaustive analysis. Other
ways of analyzing cheremes are likely and possible; and judging by the list of symbols, more may
still be done to establish the true isolates or structure points of the language.
The other kinds of signals, such as the head dip or ‘questioning look’ are only beginning
to be analyzed, and a number of pre-linguistic, paralinguistic, and to coin still one more term,
dualinguistic data remain to be considered.
Nevertheless, the work so far accomplished seems to us to substantiate the claim that the
communicative activity of persons using this language is truly linguistic and susceptible of
microlinguistic analysis of the most rigorous kind. And the cheremic and morphocheremic analysis
at its present stage will make possible the preparation of a lexicon, now in progress, which can be
more than an English-Sign language word-list. The lexicon will arrange entries according to the
sign language elements, or cheremes, and will give some indication of morpheme class and
SASLJ, Vol. 2, No. 2 – Fall/Winter 2018
50