DECONSTRUCTING THE CHEROLOGICAL PARAMETERS OF AMERICAN SIGN
LANGUAGE: IMPLICATIONS FOR NOVICE LEARNER ACQUISITION AND INTER-
LINGUISTIC TRANSFER EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Course Work
Hina Rodriguez
University of Cincinnati
Beginning American Sign Language I
2024-07-24
This project investigates the fundamental cherological parameters that constitute
American Sign Language (ASL) as a complete, natural language, and critically analyzes their
impact on novice learner acquisition and broader inter-linguistic understanding. Drawing upon
foundational linguistic theories, cognitive science, and pedagogical research, this study
deconstructs the five primary parameters—Handshape, Location, Movement, Orientation, and
Non-Manual Markers (NMMs)—examining their individual complexities and their synergistic
function in conveying meaning. The analysis highlights specific challenges encountered by
hearing learners transitioning from spoken language phonology to ASL's visual-spatial
cherology, including issues of motor control, spatial grammar conceptualization, and the
integration of NMMs. Findings underscore the necessity of linguistically informed pedagogical
approaches that explicitly address these parameters to foster effective acquisition and fluency.
Ultimately, this work reaffirms ASL's linguistic autonomy and its significant contribution to
our understanding of language diversity and human cognition.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The linguistic study of American Sign Language (ASL) fundamentally shifted from a
perception of ASL as a derivative of spoken English or a system of pantomime to its recognition
as a fully autonomous natural language with the pioneering work of William C. Stokoe in the
1960s (Stokoe, 1960). Stokoe’s seminal research at Gallaudet University introduced the
concept of "cheremes"—analogous to phonemes in spoken languages—which he categorized
into three primary components: Tab (Location), Dez (Handshape), and Sig (Movement). This
groundbreaking framework established a scientific basis for analyzing ASL’s internal
structure, demonstrating its systematicity and rule-governed nature. Subsequent research
expanded upon Stokoe’s model, leading to the widely accepted five-parameter model of ASL
phonology (or cherology). These parameters include Handshape (HS), Location (LOC),
Movement (MOV), Orientation (ORI), and Non-Manual Markers (NMMs) (Battison, 1978;
Liddell & Johnson, 1989). Battison's work, particularly his identification of the "Symmetry
Condition" and "Dominance Condition," provided crucial insights into the morphological
constraints and well-formedness rules governing ASL signs, demonstrating systematicity
beyond mere individual parameters. The "Movement-Hold" model proposed by Liddell and
Johnson (1989) further refined the understanding of ASL phonology by segmenting signs into
sequential holds and movements, analogous to consonant and vowel distinctions in spoken
language, offering a more granular analysis of temporal organization within signs. Neuro-
linguistic studies have further corroborated ASL’s status as a language, revealing that sign
language processing, much like spoken language, primarily engages left-hemisphere brain
regions associated with language functions (Poizner et al., 1987; Hickok et al., 1996). This
evidence refutes earlier notions that signed languages were purely spatial or visual, instead
highlighting their complex linguistic organization. Studies on ASL acquisition, both by native
signers (Deaf children of Deaf parents) and second language learners (hearing individuals),
reveal distinct developmental trajectories and challenges. Native acquisition often mirrors
milestones in spoken language acquisition, while second language learners frequently grapple
with transferring phonological awareness from an auditory-vocal modality to a visual-spatial
one (Padden & Humphries, 1988). Pedagogical approaches to ASL have evolved to incorporate
these linguistic insights. Early methods often focused solely on vocabulary memorization, akin
to rote learning in foreign language education. However, contemporary ASL pedagogy
emphasizes immersion, contextual learning, and explicit instruction on the five parameters,
recognizing that a deep understanding of these foundational elements is crucial for accurate
production and comprehension (Humphries & Padden, 2005). Challenges for hearing learners
include overcoming glottocentric biases, developing precise motor control for handshapes and
movements, and integrating NMMs, which often function adverbially or syntactically in ASL,
differing significantly from their role in spoken language. The literature consistently points to
the necessity of recognizing ASL as a unique linguistic system, not merely a translation of
English, to facilitate effective and respectful acquisition.
METHODOLOGY/APPROACH
This project employs a comprehensive theoretical and analytical synthesis approach,
integrating established linguistic theories with insights from cognitive science and pedagogical
research. The primary objective is to deconstruct the cherological parameters of ASL and
analyze their implications for novice learner acquisition and cross-linguistic understanding.
The research design is qualitative, drawing upon a robust body of existing scholarly literature
rather than generating new empirical data. The methodology involves:
1. LITERATURE REVIEW AND SYNTHESIS: Extensive review of foundational
texts and peer-reviewed articles from prominent academic databases (e.g., Google Scholar,
JSTOR, PsycINFO). Key search terms included "ASL phonology," "cherology," "sign
language linguistics," "ASL acquisition," "non-manual markers," and "visual-spatial language
processing." This synthesis aims to consolidate diverse perspectives on ASL’s linguistic
structure and pedagogical challenges.
2. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK: The five-parameter model (Handshape, Location,
Movement, Orientation, and Non-Manual Markers) serves as the core analytical framework.
Each parameter is individually examined for its linguistic function, variability, and specific
challenges it presents to beginning ASL learners.
3. COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS PERSPECTIVE: The analysis incorporates a
comparative lens, contrasting ASL’s cherological system with the phonological systems of
spoken languages to highlight both universal linguistic principles and modality-specific
differences. This approach illuminates the unique cognitive demands and advantages of visual-
spatial language processing.
4. PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS: Research on ASL teaching methodologies and
second language acquisition is integrated to identify effective strategies for parameter
instruction and to explain common errors and difficulties faced by hearing learners. Cognitive
load theory is implicitly considered when discussing the simultaneous processing demands of
ASL.
5. DATA SOURCES: Primary sources include seminal works by Stokoe (1960),
Battison (1978), Liddell and Johnson (1989), and Padden and Humphries (1988). Secondary
sources comprise contemporary articles from journals such as Sign Language Studies, Journal
of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, and Language Learning, alongside textbooks on ASL
linguistics and pedagogy. By systematically synthesizing these multi-disciplinary sources, this
project aims to provide a nuanced understanding of ASL's linguistic architecture and its
profound implications for both language education and broader linguistic theory.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The analysis of ASL's cherological parameters reveals a complex, highly structured
linguistic system that presents distinct challenges and opportunities for novice learners. Each
parameter contributes uniquely to the meaning and grammatical structure of a sign, and their
precise execution is paramount for accurate communication.
1. HANDSHAPE (HS): This parameter refers to the configuration of the hand(s) used
in a sign. ASL possesses a finite set of approximately 40 distinct handshapes, many of which
are derived from the American Manual Alphabet (Stokoe, 1960). Handshapes serve a
contrastive function; for example, the signs for "TRAIN" (two U-handshapes rubbing together)
and "CHAIR" (two H-handshapes tapping) differ only in handshape. Novice learners often
struggle with the fine motor control required to produce precise handshapes and maintaining
consistency, particularly with less common or more complex configurations.
Mispronunciation, akin to a spoken language accent, can occur if handshapes are not accurately
formed, leading to ambiguity or misunderstanding.
2. LOCATION (LOC): This parameter specifies where a sign is produced in relation
to the signer's body or in neutral signing space. Locations can be on the head (e.g., "KNOW"
at the temple, "THINK" at the forehead), torso (e.g., "FEEL" at the chest), or in the neutral
space in front of the signer (e.g., "SIGN"). Location is crucial for distinguishing minimal pairs
(e.g., "SUMMER" at the forehead vs. "DRY" at the chin) and for grammatical functions such
as verb agreement and spatial referencing. Beginning learners often face challenges in
accurately identifying and maintaining consistent signing locations, especially when signs
involve movement across different locations.
3. MOVEMENT (MOV): Movement refers to the path, direction, and repetition of the
hand(s) during a sign. It is a highly dynamic parameter, conveying not only lexical meaning
but also grammatical information such as aspect (e.g., continuous, iterative, punctual action).
For instance, the sign "WALK" can be modified by repeating the movement to indicate
"WALK CONTINUOUSLY" or "WALKING FOR A WHILE." Directionality in movement is
also critical for verb agreement (e.g., "ASK-YOU" vs. "ASK-ME"). Learners frequently
struggle with the nuanced precision of movement, including its speed, tension, and trajectory,
which can impact the intended meaning or grammatical function of a sign.
4. ORIENTATION (ORI): This parameter describes the direction the palm and/or
fingers are facing during a sign. While often subtle, orientation can be contrastive. For example,
the signs for "NAME" (H-handshape tapping on the other H-handshape) and "CHAIR" (same
handshape, different movement, but also subtle orientation differences) illustrate its
importance. A slight change in palm orientation can differentiate between signs that are
otherwise identical in handshape, location, and movement. Novice learners often overlook the
subtle but critical role of orientation, leading to signs that are grammatically incorrect or
semantically ambiguous.
5. NON-MANUAL MARKERS (NMMs): NMMs encompass facial expressions (e.g.,
raised eyebrows for questions, furrowed brows for "wh"-questions), head tilts, body posture,
and mouth movements (e.g., "cha" for large, "mm" for normal). Unlike the manual parameters,
NMMs are often produced simultaneously with manual signs and carry significant grammatical
and semantic weight. They can function as adverbs, adjectives, or even complete syntactic
structures (e.g., a simple head shake can negate a statement). Learners frequently underestimate
the importance of NMMs, often focusing solely on manual components. This oversight leads
to "flat" or ungrammatical signing, as NMMs are integral to ASL's syntax and emotional
expression (Baker & Padden, 1978).
ACQUISITION CHALLENGES FOR NOVICE LEARNERS: The integrated
complexity of these parameters presents several significant challenges for hearing novice
learners:
INTERFERENCE FROM SPOKEN LANGUAGE: Learners accustomed to linear-
temporal, auditory-vocal phonology must adapt to a visual-spatial, multi-dimensional
cherological system. This shift requires a fundamental reconceptualization of how language is
structured and processed.
MOTOR CONTROL AND PROPRIOCEPTION: Developing the precise fine motor
skills for handshapes, movements, and orientations, often performed simultaneously or in rapid
succession, requires extensive practice and proprioceptive awareness.
SIMULTANEOUS PROCESSING: The most significant hurdle is often the
simultaneous integration of all five parameters, particularly NMMs with manual signs. This
demands a high degree of cognitive processing and coordination not typically required in
spoken language production.
VISUAL-SPATIAL GRAMMAR: Understanding how space is used grammatically
(e.g., for verb agreement, referencing, narrative sequencing) is a departure from the largely
sequential grammar of spoken English.
PEDAGOGICAL STRATEGIES: Effective ASL
instruction for beginners must explicitly address each parameter, providing ample
opportunities for visual discrimination, guided practice, and feedback. Immersion in the Deaf
community and consistent exposure to fluent signers are invaluable for developing an intuitive
understanding of parameter integration, especially NMMs. Drills focusing on minimal pairs
that differ by only one parameter can enhance learners' cherological awareness.
COGNITIVE BENEFITS AND CROSS-LINGUISTIC IMPLICATIONS: Learning
ASL has been shown to enhance visual-spatial reasoning, attention to detail, and the ability to
process information across multiple modalities. From a cross-linguistic perspective, the study
of ASL cherology provides compelling evidence for the universal principles of language
organization, demonstrating that complex linguistic systems can manifest in diverse modalities.
It challenges glottocentric biases and enriches our understanding of human language capacity.
CONCLUSION
The cherological parameters of Handshape, Location, Movement, Orientation, and
Non-Manual Markers are the foundational building blocks of American Sign Language,
endowing it with the full linguistic complexity and expressive power of any natural language.
This project has elucidated how these parameters function individually and synergistically to
create meaning, and critically examined the specific challenges they pose for novice hearing
learners. The transition from a spoken language phonological system to a visual-spatial
cherological one demands not only motoric precision but also a profound cognitive shift in how
language is perceived and produced. Effective ASL acquisition hinges upon a deep,
linguistically informed understanding of these parameters. Pedagogical approaches must move
beyond rote vocabulary memorization to emphasize explicit instruction, extensive practice in
parameter differentiation, and immersion that fosters the simultaneous integration of all five
components, particularly the often-underestimated Non-Manual Markers. The difficulties
encountered by beginners underscore the sophisticated nature of ASL's structure and the
cognitive demands of mastering a language in a visual-spatial modality. Ultimately, the study
of ASL's cherological system not only facilitates more effective language acquisition but also
enriches our broader understanding of linguistic universals, cognitive flexibility, and the
remarkable diversity of human communication. ASL stands as a testament to the brain's
capacity for language, irrespective of modality, and its continued study offers invaluable
insights into the very nature of language itself.
The linguistic study of American Sign Language (ASL) fundamentally shifted from a
perception of ASL as a derivative of spoken English or a system of pantomime to its recognition
as a fully autonomous natural language with the pioneering work of William C. Stokoe in the
1960s (Stokoe, 1960). Stokoe’s seminal research at Gallaudet University introduced the
concept of "cheremes"—analogous to phonemes in spoken languages—which he categorized
into three primary components: Tab (Location), Dez (Handshape), and Sig (Movement). This
groundbreaking framework established a scientific basis for analyzing ASL’s internal
structure, demonstrating its systematicity and rule-governed nature. Subsequent research
expanded upon Stokoe’s model, leading to the widely accepted five-parameter model of ASL
phonology (or cherology). These parameters include Handshape (HS), Location (LOC),
Movement (MOV), Orientation (ORI), and Non-Manual Markers (NMMs) (Battison, 1978;
Liddell & Johnson, 1989). Battison's work, particularly his identification of the "Symmetry
Condition" and "Dominance Condition," provided crucial insights into the morphological
constraints and well-formedness rules governing ASL signs, demonstrating systematicity
beyond mere individual parameters. The "Movement-Hold" model proposed by Liddell and
Johnson (1989) further refined the understanding of ASL phonology by segmenting signs into
sequential holds and movements, analogous to consonant and vowel distinctions in spoken
language, offering a more granular analysis of temporal organization within signs. Neuro-
linguistic studies have further corroborated ASL’s status as a language, revealing that sign
language processing, much like spoken language, primarily engages left-hemisphere brain
regions associated with language functions (Poizner et al., 1987; Hickok et al., 1996). This
evidence refutes earlier notions that signed languages were purely spatial or visual, instead
highlighting their complex linguistic organization. Studies on ASL acquisition, both by native
signers (Deaf children of Deaf parents) and second language learners (hearing individuals),
reveal distinct developmental trajectories and challenges. Native acquisition often mirrors
milestones in spoken language acquisition, while second language learners frequently grapple
with transferring phonological awareness from an auditory-vocal modality to a visual-spatial
one (Padden & Humphries, 1988). Pedagogical approaches to ASL have evolved to incorporate
these linguistic insights. Early methods often focused solely on vocabulary memorization, akin
to rote learning in foreign language education. However, contemporary ASL pedagogy
emphasizes immersion, contextual learning, and explicit instruction on the five parameters,
recognizing that a deep understanding of these foundational elements is crucial for accurate
production and comprehension (Humphries & Padden, 2005). Challenges for hearing learners
include overcoming glottocentric biases, developing precise motor control for handshapes and
movements, and integrating NMMs, which often function adverbially or syntactically in ASL,
differing significantly from their role in spoken language. The literature consistently points to
the necessity of recognizing ASL as a unique linguistic system, not merely a translation of
English, to facilitate effective and respectful acquisition.
METHODOLOGY/APPROACH
This project employs a comprehensive theoretical and analytical synthesis approach,
integrating established linguistic theories with insights from cognitive science and pedagogical
research. The primary objective is to deconstruct the cherological parameters of ASL and
analyze their implications for novice learner acquisition and cross-linguistic understanding.
The research design is qualitative, drawing upon a robust body of existing scholarly literature
rather than generating new empirical data. The methodology involves:
1. LITERATURE REVIEW AND SYNTHESIS: Extensive review of foundational
texts and peer-reviewed articles from prominent academic databases (e.g., Google Scholar,
JSTOR, PsycINFO). Key search terms included "ASL phonology," "cherology," "sign
language linguistics," "ASL acquisition," "non-manual markers," and "visual-spatial language
processing." This synthesis aims to consolidate diverse perspectives on ASL’s linguistic
structure and pedagogical challenges.
2. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK: The five-parameter model (Handshape, Location,
Movement, Orientation, and Non-Manual Markers) serves as the core analytical framework.
Each parameter is individually examined for its linguistic function, variability, and specific
challenges it presents to beginning ASL learners.
3. COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS PERSPECTIVE: The analysis incorporates a
comparative lens, contrasting ASL’s cherological system with the phonological systems of
spoken languages to highlight both universal linguistic principles and modality-specific
differences. This approach illuminates the unique cognitive demands and advantages of visual-
spatial language processing.
4. PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS: Research on ASL teaching methodologies and
second language acquisition is integrated to identify effective strategies for parameter
instruction and to explain common errors and difficulties faced by hearing learners. Cognitive
load theory is implicitly considered when discussing the simultaneous processing demands of
ASL.
5. DATA SOURCES: Primary sources include seminal works by Stokoe (1960),
Battison (1978), Liddell and Johnson (1989), and Padden and Humphries (1988). Secondary
sources comprise contemporary articles from journals such as Sign Language Studies, Journal
of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, and Language Learning, alongside textbooks on ASL
linguistics and pedagogy. By systematically synthesizing these multi-disciplinary sources, this
project aims to provide a nuanced understanding of ASL's linguistic architecture and its
profound implications for both language education and broader linguistic theory.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The analysis of ASL's cherological parameters reveals a complex, highly structured
linguistic system that presents distinct challenges and opportunities for novice learners. Each
parameter contributes uniquely to the meaning and grammatical structure of a sign, and their
precise execution is paramount for accurate communication.
1. HANDSHAPE (HS): This parameter refers to the configuration of the hand(s) used
in a sign. ASL possesses a finite set of approximately 40 distinct handshapes, many of which
are derived from the American Manual Alphabet (Stokoe, 1960). Handshapes serve a
contrastive function; for example, the signs for "TRAIN" (two U-handshapes rubbing together)
and "CHAIR" (two H-handshapes tapping) differ only in handshape. Novice learners often
struggle with the fine motor control required to produce precise handshapes and maintaining
consistency, particularly with less common or more complex configurations.
Mispronunciation, akin to a spoken language accent, can occur if handshapes are not accurately
formed, leading to ambiguity or misunderstanding.
2. LOCATION (LOC): This parameter specifies where a sign is produced in relation
to the signer's body or in neutral signing space. Locations can be on the head (e.g., "KNOW"
at the temple, "THINK" at the forehead), torso (e.g., "FEEL" at the chest), or in the neutral
space in front of the signer (e.g., "SIGN"). Location is crucial for distinguishing minimal pairs
(e.g., "SUMMER" at the forehead vs. "DRY" at the chin) and for grammatical functions such
as verb agreement and spatial referencing. Beginning learners often face challenges in
accurately identifying and maintaining consistent signing locations, especially when signs
involve movement across different locations.
3. MOVEMENT (MOV): Movement refers to the path, direction, and repetition of the
hand(s) during a sign. It is a highly dynamic parameter, conveying not only lexical meaning
but also grammatical information such as aspect (e.g., continuous, iterative, punctual action).
For instance, the sign "WALK" can be modified by repeating the movement to indicate
"WALK CONTINUOUSLY" or "WALKING FOR A WHILE." Directionality in movement is
also critical for verb agreement (e.g., "ASK-YOU" vs. "ASK-ME"). Learners frequently
struggle with the nuanced precision of movement, including its speed, tension, and trajectory,
which can impact the intended meaning or grammatical function of a sign.
4. ORIENTATION (ORI): This parameter describes the direction the palm and/or
fingers are facing during a sign. While often subtle, orientation can be contrastive. For example,
the signs for "NAME" (H-handshape tapping on the other H-handshape) and "CHAIR" (same
handshape, different movement, but also subtle orientation differences) illustrate its
importance. A slight change in palm orientation can differentiate between signs that are
otherwise identical in handshape, location, and movement. Novice learners often overlook the
subtle but critical role of orientation, leading to signs that are grammatically incorrect or
semantically ambiguous.
5. NON-MANUAL MARKERS (NMMs): NMMs encompass facial expressions (e.g.,
raised eyebrows for questions, furrowed brows for "wh"-questions), head tilts, body posture,
and mouth movements (e.g., "cha" for large, "mm" for normal). Unlike the manual parameters,
NMMs are often produced simultaneously with manual signs and carry significant grammatical
and semantic weight. They can function as adverbs, adjectives, or even complete syntactic
structures (e.g., a simple head shake can negate a statement). Learners frequently underestimate
the importance of NMMs, often focusing solely on manual components. This oversight leads
to "flat" or ungrammatical signing, as NMMs are integral to ASL's syntax and emotional
expression (Baker & Padden, 1978).
ACQUISITION CHALLENGES FOR NOVICE LEARNERS: The integrated
complexity of these parameters presents several significant challenges for hearing novice
learners:
INTERFERENCE FROM SPOKEN LANGUAGE: Learners accustomed to linear-
temporal, auditory-vocal phonology must adapt to a visual-spatial, multi-dimensional
cherological system. This shift requires a fundamental reconceptualization of how language is
structured and processed.
MOTOR CONTROL AND PROPRIOCEPTION: Developing the precise fine motor
skills for handshapes, movements, and orientations, often performed simultaneously or in rapid
succession, requires extensive practice and proprioceptive awareness.
SIMULTANEOUS PROCESSING: The most significant hurdle is often the
simultaneous integration of all five parameters, particularly NMMs with manual signs. This
demands a high degree of cognitive processing and coordination not typically required in
spoken language production.
VISUAL-SPATIAL GRAMMAR: Understanding how space is used grammatically
(e.g., for verb agreement, referencing, narrative sequencing) is a departure from the largely
sequential grammar of spoken English.
PEDAGOGICAL STRATEGIES: Effective ASL
instruction for beginners must explicitly address each parameter, providing ample
opportunities for visual discrimination, guided practice, and feedback. Immersion in the Deaf
community and consistent exposure to fluent signers are invaluable for developing an intuitive
understanding of parameter integration, especially NMMs. Drills focusing on minimal pairs
that differ by only one parameter can enhance learners' cherological awareness.
COGNITIVE BENEFITS AND CROSS-LINGUISTIC IMPLICATIONS: Learning
ASL has been shown to enhance visual-spatial reasoning, attention to detail, and the ability to
process information across multiple modalities. From a cross-linguistic perspective, the study
of ASL cherology provides compelling evidence for the universal principles of language
organization, demonstrating that complex linguistic systems can manifest in diverse modalities.
It challenges glottocentric biases and enriches our understanding of human language capacity.
CONCLUSION
The cherological parameters of Handshape, Location, Movement, Orientation, and
Non-Manual Markers are the foundational building blocks of American Sign Language,
endowing it with the full linguistic complexity and expressive power of any natural language.
This project has elucidated how these parameters function individually and synergistically to
create meaning, and critically examined the specific challenges they pose for novice hearing
learners. The transition from a spoken language phonological system to a visual-spatial
cherological one demands not only motoric precision but also a profound cognitive shift in how
language is perceived and produced. Effective ASL acquisition hinges upon a deep,
linguistically informed understanding of these parameters. Pedagogical approaches must move
beyond rote vocabulary memorization to emphasize explicit instruction, extensive practice in
parameter differentiation, and immersion that fosters the simultaneous integration of all five
components, particularly the often-underestimated Non-Manual Markers. The difficulties
encountered by beginners underscore the sophisticated nature of ASL's structure and the
cognitive demands of mastering a language in a visual-spatial modality. Ultimately, the study
of ASL's cherological system not only facilitates more effective language acquisition but also
enriches our broader understanding of linguistic universals, cognitive flexibility, and the
remarkable diversity of human communication. ASL stands as a testament to the brain's
capacity for language, irrespective of modality, and its continued study offers invaluable
insights into the very nature of language itself.
The linguistic study of American Sign Language (ASL) fundamentally shifted from a
perception of ASL as a derivative of spoken English or a system of pantomime to its recognition
as a fully autonomous natural language with the pioneering work of William C. Stokoe in the
1960s (Stokoe, 1960). Stokoe’s seminal research at Gallaudet University introduced the
concept of "cheremes"—analogous to phonemes in spoken languages—which he categorized
into three primary components: Tab (Location), Dez (Handshape), and Sig (Movement). This
groundbreaking framework established a scientific basis for analyzing ASL’s internal
structure, demonstrating its systematicity and rule-governed nature. Subsequent research
expanded upon Stokoe’s model, leading to the widely accepted five-parameter model of ASL
phonology (or cherology). These parameters include Handshape (HS), Location (LOC),
Movement (MOV), Orientation (ORI), and Non-Manual Markers (NMMs) (Battison, 1978;
Liddell & Johnson, 1989). Battison's work, particularly his identification of the "Symmetry
Condition" and "Dominance Condition," provided crucial insights into the morphological
constraints and well-formedness rules governing ASL signs, demonstrating systematicity
beyond mere individual parameters. The "Movement-Hold" model proposed by Liddell and
Johnson (1989) further refined the understanding of ASL phonology by segmenting signs into
sequential holds and movements, analogous to consonant and vowel distinctions in spoken
language, offering a more granular analysis of temporal organization within signs. Neuro-
linguistic studies have further corroborated ASL’s status as a language, revealing that sign
language processing, much like spoken language, primarily engages left-hemisphere brain
regions associated with language functions (Poizner et al., 1987; Hickok et al., 1996). This
evidence refutes earlier notions that signed languages were purely spatial or visual, instead
highlighting their complex linguistic organization. Studies on ASL acquisition, both by native
signers (Deaf children of Deaf parents) and second language learners (hearing individuals),
reveal distinct developmental trajectories and challenges. Native acquisition often mirrors
milestones in spoken language acquisition, while second language learners frequently grapple
with transferring phonological awareness from an auditory-vocal modality to a visual-spatial
one (Padden & Humphries, 1988). Pedagogical approaches to ASL have evolved to incorporate
these linguistic insights. Early methods often focused solely on vocabulary memorization, akin
to rote learning in foreign language education. However, contemporary ASL pedagogy
emphasizes immersion, contextual learning, and explicit instruction on the five parameters,
recognizing that a deep understanding of these foundational elements is crucial for accurate
production and comprehension (Humphries & Padden, 2005). Challenges for hearing learners
include overcoming glottocentric biases, developing precise motor control for handshapes and
movements, and integrating NMMs, which often function adverbially or syntactically in ASL,
differing significantly from their role in spoken language. The literature consistently points to
the necessity of recognizing ASL as a unique linguistic system, not merely a translation of
English, to facilitate effective and respectful acquisition.
METHODOLOGY/APPROACH
This project employs a comprehensive theoretical and analytical synthesis approach,
integrating established linguistic theories with insights from cognitive science and pedagogical
research. The primary objective is to deconstruct the cherological parameters of ASL and
analyze their implications for novice learner acquisition and cross-linguistic understanding.
The research design is qualitative, drawing upon a robust body of existing scholarly literature
rather than generating new empirical data. The methodology involves:
1. LITERATURE REVIEW AND SYNTHESIS: Extensive review of foundational
texts and peer-reviewed articles from prominent academic databases (e.g., Google Scholar,
JSTOR, PsycINFO). Key search terms included "ASL phonology," "cherology," "sign
language linguistics," "ASL acquisition," "non-manual markers," and "visual-spatial language
processing." This synthesis aims to consolidate diverse perspectives on ASL’s linguistic
structure and pedagogical challenges.
2. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK: The five-parameter model (Handshape, Location,
Movement, Orientation, and Non-Manual Markers) serves as the core analytical framework.
Each parameter is individually examined for its linguistic function, variability, and specific
challenges it presents to beginning ASL learners.
3. COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS PERSPECTIVE: The analysis incorporates a
comparative lens, contrasting ASL’s cherological system with the phonological systems of
spoken languages to highlight both universal linguistic principles and modality-specific
differences. This approach illuminates the unique cognitive demands and advantages of visual-
spatial language processing.
4. PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS: Research on ASL teaching methodologies and
second language acquisition is integrated to identify effective strategies for parameter
instruction and to explain common errors and difficulties faced by hearing learners. Cognitive
load theory is implicitly considered when discussing the simultaneous processing demands of
ASL.
5. DATA SOURCES: Primary sources include seminal works by Stokoe (1960),
Battison (1978), Liddell and Johnson (1989), and Padden and Humphries (1988). Secondary
sources comprise contemporary articles from journals such as Sign Language Studies, Journal
of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, and Language Learning, alongside textbooks on ASL
linguistics and pedagogy. By systematically synthesizing these multi-disciplinary sources, this
project aims to provide a nuanced understanding of ASL's linguistic architecture and its
profound implications for both language education and broader linguistic theory.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The analysis of ASL's cherological parameters reveals a complex, highly structured
linguistic system that presents distinct challenges and opportunities for novice learners. Each
parameter contributes uniquely to the meaning and grammatical structure of a sign, and their
precise execution is paramount for accurate communication.
1. HANDSHAPE (HS): This parameter refers to the configuration of the hand(s) used
in a sign. ASL possesses a finite set of approximately 40 distinct handshapes, many of which
are derived from the American Manual Alphabet (Stokoe, 1960). Handshapes serve a
contrastive function; for example, the signs for "TRAIN" (two U-handshapes rubbing together)
and "CHAIR" (two H-handshapes tapping) differ only in handshape. Novice learners often
struggle with the fine motor control required to produce precise handshapes and maintaining
consistency, particularly with less common or more complex configurations.
Mispronunciation, akin to a spoken language accent, can occur if handshapes are not accurately
formed, leading to ambiguity or misunderstanding.
2. LOCATION (LOC): This parameter specifies where a sign is produced in relation
to the signer's body or in neutral signing space. Locations can be on the head (e.g., "KNOW"
at the temple, "THINK" at the forehead), torso (e.g., "FEEL" at the chest), or in the neutral
space in front of the signer (e.g., "SIGN"). Location is crucial for distinguishing minimal pairs
(e.g., "SUMMER" at the forehead vs. "DRY" at the chin) and for grammatical functions such
as verb agreement and spatial referencing. Beginning learners often face challenges in
accurately identifying and maintaining consistent signing locations, especially when signs
involve movement across different locations.
3. MOVEMENT (MOV): Movement refers to the path, direction, and repetition of the
hand(s) during a sign. It is a highly dynamic parameter, conveying not only lexical meaning
but also grammatical information such as aspect (e.g., continuous, iterative, punctual action).
For instance, the sign "WALK" can be modified by repeating the movement to indicate
"WALK CONTINUOUSLY" or "WALKING FOR A WHILE." Directionality in movement is
also critical for verb agreement (e.g., "ASK-YOU" vs. "ASK-ME"). Learners frequently
struggle with the nuanced precision of movement, including its speed, tension, and trajectory,
which can impact the intended meaning or grammatical function of a sign.
4. ORIENTATION (ORI): This parameter describes the direction the palm and/or
fingers are facing during a sign. While often subtle, orientation can be contrastive. For example,
the signs for "NAME" (H-handshape tapping on the other H-handshape) and "CHAIR" (same
handshape, different movement, but also subtle orientation differences) illustrate its
importance. A slight change in palm orientation can differentiate between signs that are
otherwise identical in handshape, location, and movement. Novice learners often overlook the
subtle but critical role of orientation, leading to signs that are grammatically incorrect or
semantically ambiguous.
5. NON-MANUAL MARKERS (NMMs): NMMs encompass facial expressions (e.g.,
raised eyebrows for questions, furrowed brows for "wh"-questions), head tilts, body posture,
and mouth movements (e.g., "cha" for large, "mm" for normal). Unlike the manual parameters,
NMMs are often produced simultaneously with manual signs and carry significant grammatical
and semantic weight. They can function as adverbs, adjectives, or even complete syntactic
structures (e.g., a simple head shake can negate a statement). Learners frequently underestimate
the importance of NMMs, often focusing solely on manual components. This oversight leads
to "flat" or ungrammatical signing, as NMMs are integral to ASL's syntax and emotional
expression (Baker & Padden, 1978).
ACQUISITION CHALLENGES FOR NOVICE LEARNERS: The integrated
complexity of these parameters presents several significant challenges for hearing novice
learners:
INTERFERENCE FROM SPOKEN LANGUAGE: Learners accustomed to linear-
temporal, auditory-vocal phonology must adapt to a visual-spatial, multi-dimensional
cherological system. This shift requires a fundamental reconceptualization of how language is
structured and processed.
MOTOR CONTROL AND PROPRIOCEPTION: Developing the precise fine motor
skills for handshapes, movements, and orientations, often performed simultaneously or in rapid
succession, requires extensive practice and proprioceptive awareness.
SIMULTANEOUS PROCESSING: The most significant hurdle is often the
simultaneous integration of all five parameters, particularly NMMs with manual signs. This
demands a high degree of cognitive processing and coordination not typically required in
spoken language production.
VISUAL-SPATIAL GRAMMAR: Understanding how space is used grammatically
(e.g., for verb agreement, referencing, narrative sequencing) is a departure from the largely
sequential grammar of spoken English.
PEDAGOGICAL STRATEGIES: Effective ASL
instruction for beginners must explicitly address each parameter, providing ample
opportunities for visual discrimination, guided practice, and feedback. Immersion in the Deaf
community and consistent exposure to fluent signers are invaluable for developing an intuitive
understanding of parameter integration, especially NMMs. Drills focusing on minimal pairs
that differ by only one parameter can enhance learners' cherological awareness.
COGNITIVE BENEFITS AND CROSS-LINGUISTIC IMPLICATIONS: Learning
ASL has been shown to enhance visual-spatial reasoning, attention to detail, and the ability to
process information across multiple modalities. From a cross-linguistic perspective, the study
of ASL cherology provides compelling evidence for the universal principles of language
organization, demonstrating that complex linguistic systems can manifest in diverse modalities.
It challenges glottocentric biases and enriches our understanding of human language capacity.
CONCLUSION
The cherological parameters of Handshape, Location, Movement, Orientation, and
Non-Manual Markers are the foundational building blocks of American Sign Language,
endowing it with the full linguistic complexity and expressive power of any natural language.
This project has elucidated how these parameters function individually and synergistically to
create meaning, and critically examined the specific challenges they pose for novice hearing
learners. The transition from a spoken language phonological system to a visual-spatial
cherological one demands not only motoric precision but also a profound cognitive shift in how
language is perceived and produced. Effective ASL acquisition hinges upon a deep,
linguistically informed understanding of these parameters. Pedagogical approaches must move
beyond rote vocabulary memorization to emphasize explicit instruction, extensive practice in
parameter differentiation, and immersion that fosters the simultaneous integration of all five
components, particularly the often-underestimated Non-Manual Markers. The difficulties
encountered by beginners underscore the sophisticated nature of ASL's structure and the
cognitive demands of mastering a language in a visual-spatial modality. Ultimately, the study
of ASL's cherological system not only facilitates more effective language acquisition but also
enriches our broader understanding of linguistic universals, cognitive flexibility, and the
remarkable diversity of human communication. ASL stands as a testament to the brain's
capacity for language, irrespective of modality, and its continued study offers invaluable
insights into the very nature of language itself.
The linguistic study of American Sign Language (ASL) fundamentally shifted from a
perception of ASL as a derivative of spoken English or a system of pantomime to its recognition
as a fully autonomous natural language with the pioneering work of William C. Stokoe in the
1960s (Stokoe, 1960). Stokoe’s seminal research at Gallaudet University introduced the
concept of "cheremes"—analogous to phonemes in spoken languages—which he categorized
into three primary components: Tab (Location), Dez (Handshape), and Sig (Movement). This
groundbreaking framework established a scientific basis for analyzing ASL’s internal
structure, demonstrating its systematicity and rule-governed nature. Subsequent research
expanded upon Stokoe’s model, leading to the widely accepted five-parameter model of ASL
phonology (or cherology). These parameters include Handshape (HS), Location (LOC),
Movement (MOV), Orientation (ORI), and Non-Manual Markers (NMMs) (Battison, 1978;
Liddell & Johnson, 1989). Battison's work, particularly his identification of the "Symmetry
Condition" and "Dominance Condition," provided crucial insights into the morphological
constraints and well-formedness rules governing ASL signs, demonstrating systematicity
beyond mere individual parameters. The "Movement-Hold" model proposed by Liddell and
Johnson (1989) further refined the understanding of ASL phonology by segmenting signs into
sequential holds and movements, analogous to consonant and vowel distinctions in spoken
language, offering a more granular analysis of temporal organization within signs. Neuro-
linguistic studies have further corroborated ASL’s status as a language, revealing that sign
language processing, much like spoken language, primarily engages left-hemisphere brain
regions associated with language functions (Poizner et al., 1987; Hickok et al., 1996). This
evidence refutes earlier notions that signed languages were purely spatial or visual, instead
highlighting their complex linguistic organization. Studies on ASL acquisition, both by native
signers (Deaf children of Deaf parents) and second language learners (hearing individuals),
reveal distinct developmental trajectories and challenges. Native acquisition often mirrors
milestones in spoken language acquisition, while second language learners frequently grapple
with transferring phonological awareness from an auditory-vocal modality to a visual-spatial
one (Padden & Humphries, 1988). Pedagogical approaches to ASL have evolved to incorporate
these linguistic insights. Early methods often focused solely on vocabulary memorization, akin
to rote learning in foreign language education. However, contemporary ASL pedagogy
emphasizes immersion, contextual learning, and explicit instruction on the five parameters,
recognizing that a deep understanding of these foundational elements is crucial for accurate
production and comprehension (Humphries & Padden, 2005). Challenges for hearing learners
include overcoming glottocentric biases, developing precise motor control for handshapes and
movements, and integrating NMMs, which often function adverbially or syntactically in ASL,
differing significantly from their role in spoken language. The literature consistently points to
the necessity of recognizing ASL as a unique linguistic system, not merely a translation of
English, to facilitate effective and respectful acquisition.
METHODOLOGY/APPROACH
This project employs a comprehensive theoretical and analytical synthesis approach,
integrating established linguistic theories with insights from cognitive science and pedagogical
research. The primary objective is to deconstruct the cherological parameters of ASL and
analyze their implications for novice learner acquisition and cross-linguistic understanding.
The research design is qualitative, drawing upon a robust body of existing scholarly literature
rather than generating new empirical data. The methodology involves:
1. LITERATURE REVIEW AND SYNTHESIS: Extensive review of foundational
texts and peer-reviewed articles from prominent academic databases (e.g., Google Scholar,
JSTOR, PsycINFO). Key search terms included "ASL phonology," "cherology," "sign
language linguistics," "ASL acquisition," "non-manual markers," and "visual-spatial language
processing." This synthesis aims to consolidate diverse perspectives on ASL’s linguistic
structure and pedagogical challenges.
2. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK: The five-parameter model (Handshape, Location,
Movement, Orientation, and Non-Manual Markers) serves as the core analytical framework.
Each parameter is individually examined for its linguistic function, variability, and specific
challenges it presents to beginning ASL learners.
3. COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS PERSPECTIVE: The analysis incorporates a
comparative lens, contrasting ASL’s cherological system with the phonological systems of
spoken languages to highlight both universal linguistic principles and modality-specific
differences. This approach illuminates the unique cognitive demands and advantages of visual-
spatial language processing.
4. PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS: Research on ASL teaching methodologies and
second language acquisition is integrated to identify effective strategies for parameter
instruction and to explain common errors and difficulties faced by hearing learners. Cognitive
load theory is implicitly considered when discussing the simultaneous processing demands of
ASL.
5. DATA SOURCES: Primary sources include seminal works by Stokoe (1960),
Battison (1978), Liddell and Johnson (1989), and Padden and Humphries (1988). Secondary
sources comprise contemporary articles from journals such as Sign Language Studies, Journal
of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, and Language Learning, alongside textbooks on ASL
linguistics and pedagogy. By systematically synthesizing these multi-disciplinary sources, this
project aims to provide a nuanced understanding of ASL's linguistic architecture and its
profound implications for both language education and broader linguistic theory.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The analysis of ASL's cherological parameters reveals a complex, highly structured
linguistic system that presents distinct challenges and opportunities for novice learners. Each
parameter contributes uniquely to the meaning and grammatical structure of a sign, and their
precise execution is paramount for accurate communication.
1. HANDSHAPE (HS): This parameter refers to the configuration of the hand(s) used
in a sign. ASL possesses a finite set of approximately 40 distinct handshapes, many of which
are derived from the American Manual Alphabet (Stokoe, 1960). Handshapes serve a
contrastive function; for example, the signs for "TRAIN" (two U-handshapes rubbing together)
and "CHAIR" (two H-handshapes tapping) differ only in handshape. Novice learners often
struggle with the fine motor control required to produce precise handshapes and maintaining
consistency, particularly with less common or more complex configurations.
Mispronunciation, akin to a spoken language accent, can occur if handshapes are not accurately
formed, leading to ambiguity or misunderstanding.
2. LOCATION (LOC): This parameter specifies where a sign is produced in relation
to the signer's body or in neutral signing space. Locations can be on the head (e.g., "KNOW"
at the temple, "THINK" at the forehead), torso (e.g., "FEEL" at the chest), or in the neutral
space in front of the signer (e.g., "SIGN"). Location is crucial for distinguishing minimal pairs
(e.g., "SUMMER" at the forehead vs. "DRY" at the chin) and for grammatical functions such
as verb agreement and spatial referencing. Beginning learners often face challenges in
accurately identifying and maintaining consistent signing locations, especially when signs
involve movement across different locations.
3. MOVEMENT (MOV): Movement refers to the path, direction, and repetition of the
hand(s) during a sign. It is a highly dynamic parameter, conveying not only lexical meaning
but also grammatical information such as aspect (e.g., continuous, iterative, punctual action).
For instance, the sign "WALK" can be modified by repeating the movement to indicate
"WALK CONTINUOUSLY" or "WALKING FOR A WHILE." Directionality in movement is
also critical for verb agreement (e.g., "ASK-YOU" vs. "ASK-ME"). Learners frequently
struggle with the nuanced precision of movement, including its speed, tension, and trajectory,
which can impact the intended meaning or grammatical function of a sign.
4. ORIENTATION (ORI): This parameter describes the direction the palm and/or
fingers are facing during a sign. While often subtle, orientation can be contrastive. For example,
the signs for "NAME" (H-handshape tapping on the other H-handshape) and "CHAIR" (same
handshape, different movement, but also subtle orientation differences) illustrate its
importance. A slight change in palm orientation can differentiate between signs that are
otherwise identical in handshape, location, and movement. Novice learners often overlook the
subtle but critical role of orientation, leading to signs that are grammatically incorrect or
semantically ambiguous.
5. NON-MANUAL MARKERS (NMMs): NMMs encompass facial expressions (e.g.,
raised eyebrows for questions, furrowed brows for "wh"-questions), head tilts, body posture,
and mouth movements (e.g., "cha" for large, "mm" for normal). Unlike the manual parameters,
NMMs are often produced simultaneously with manual signs and carry significant grammatical
and semantic weight. They can function as adverbs, adjectives, or even complete syntactic
structures (e.g., a simple head shake can negate a statement). Learners frequently underestimate
the importance of NMMs, often focusing solely on manual components. This oversight leads
to "flat" or ungrammatical signing, as NMMs are integral to ASL's syntax and emotional
expression (Baker & Padden, 1978).
ACQUISITION CHALLENGES FOR NOVICE LEARNERS: The integrated
complexity of these parameters presents several significant challenges for hearing novice
learners:
INTERFERENCE FROM SPOKEN LANGUAGE: Learners accustomed to linear-
temporal, auditory-vocal phonology must adapt to a visual-spatial, multi-dimensional
cherological system. This shift requires a fundamental reconceptualization of how language is
structured and processed.
MOTOR CONTROL AND PROPRIOCEPTION: Developing the precise fine motor
skills for handshapes, movements, and orientations, often performed simultaneously or in rapid
succession, requires extensive practice and proprioceptive awareness.
SIMULTANEOUS PROCESSING: The most significant hurdle is often the
simultaneous integration of all five parameters, particularly NMMs with manual signs. This
demands a high degree of cognitive processing and coordination not typically required in
spoken language production.
VISUAL-SPATIAL GRAMMAR: Understanding how space is used grammatically
(e.g., for verb agreement, referencing, narrative sequencing) is a departure from the largely
sequential grammar of spoken English.
PEDAGOGICAL STRATEGIES: Effective ASL
instruction for beginners must explicitly address each parameter, providing ample
opportunities for visual discrimination, guided practice, and feedback. Immersion in the Deaf
community and consistent exposure to fluent signers are invaluable for developing an intuitive
understanding of parameter integration, especially NMMs. Drills focusing on minimal pairs
that differ by only one parameter can enhance learners' cherological awareness.
COGNITIVE BENEFITS AND CROSS-LINGUISTIC IMPLICATIONS: Learning
ASL has been shown to enhance visual-spatial reasoning, attention to detail, and the ability to
process information across multiple modalities. From a cross-linguistic perspective, the study
of ASL cherology provides compelling evidence for the universal principles of language
organization, demonstrating that complex linguistic systems can manifest in diverse modalities.
It challenges glottocentric biases and enriches our understanding of human language capacity.
CONCLUSION
The cherological parameters of Handshape, Location, Movement, Orientation, and
Non-Manual Markers are the foundational building blocks of American Sign Language,
endowing it with the full linguistic complexity and expressive power of any natural language.
This project has elucidated how these parameters function individually and synergistically to
create meaning, and critically examined the specific challenges they pose for novice hearing
learners. The transition from a spoken language phonological system to a visual-spatial
cherological one demands not only motoric precision but also a profound cognitive shift in how
language is perceived and produced. Effective ASL acquisition hinges upon a deep,
linguistically informed understanding of these parameters. Pedagogical approaches must move
beyond rote vocabulary memorization to emphasize explicit instruction, extensive practice in
parameter differentiation, and immersion that fosters the simultaneous integration of all five
components, particularly the often-underestimated Non-Manual Markers. The difficulties
encountered by beginners underscore the sophisticated nature of ASL's structure and the
cognitive demands of mastering a language in a visual-spatial modality. Ultimately, the study
of ASL's cherological system not only facilitates more effective language acquisition but also
enriches our broader understanding of linguistic universals, cognitive flexibility, and the
remarkable diversity of human communication. ASL stands as a testament to the brain's
capacity for language, irrespective of modality, and its continued study offers invaluable
insights into the very nature of language itself.
The linguistic study of American Sign Language (ASL) fundamentally shifted from a
perception of ASL as a derivative of spoken English or a system of pantomime to its recognition
as a fully autonomous natural language with the pioneering work of William C. Stokoe in the
1960s (Stokoe, 1960). Stokoe’s seminal research at Gallaudet University introduced the
concept of "cheremes"—analogous to phonemes in spoken languages—which he categorized
into three primary components: Tab (Location), Dez (Handshape), and Sig (Movement). This
groundbreaking framework established a scientific basis for analyzing ASL’s internal
structure, demonstrating its systematicity and rule-governed nature. Subsequent research
expanded upon Stokoe’s model, leading to the widely accepted five-parameter model of ASL
phonology (or cherology). These parameters include Handshape (HS), Location (LOC),
Movement (MOV), Orientation (ORI), and Non-Manual Markers (NMMs) (Battison, 1978;
Liddell & Johnson, 1989). Battison's work, particularly his identification of the "Symmetry
Condition" and "Dominance Condition," provided crucial insights into the morphological
constraints and well-formedness rules governing ASL signs, demonstrating systematicity
beyond mere individual parameters. The "Movement-Hold" model proposed by Liddell and
Johnson (1989) further refined the understanding of ASL phonology by segmenting signs into
sequential holds and movements, analogous to consonant and vowel distinctions in spoken
language, offering a more granular analysis of temporal organization within signs. Neuro-
linguistic studies have further corroborated ASL’s status as a language, revealing that sign
language processing, much like spoken language, primarily engages left-hemisphere brain
regions associated with language functions (Poizner et al., 1987; Hickok et al., 1996). This
evidence refutes earlier notions that signed languages were purely spatial or visual, instead
highlighting their complex linguistic organization. Studies on ASL acquisition, both by native
signers (Deaf children of Deaf parents) and second language learners (hearing individuals),
reveal distinct developmental trajectories and challenges. Native acquisition often mirrors
milestones in spoken language acquisition, while second language learners frequently grapple
with transferring phonological awareness from an auditory-vocal modality to a visual-spatial
one (Padden & Humphries, 1988). Pedagogical approaches to ASL have evolved to incorporate
these linguistic insights. Early methods often focused solely on vocabulary memorization, akin
to rote learning in foreign language education. However, contemporary ASL pedagogy
emphasizes immersion, contextual learning, and explicit instruction on the five parameters,
recognizing that a deep understanding of these foundational elements is crucial for accurate
production and comprehension (Humphries & Padden, 2005). Challenges for hearing learners
include overcoming glottocentric biases, developing precise motor control for handshapes and
movements, and integrating NMMs, which often function adverbially or syntactically in ASL,
differing significantly from their role in spoken language. The literature consistently points to
the necessity of recognizing ASL as a unique linguistic system, not merely a translation of
English, to facilitate effective and respectful acquisition.
METHODOLOGY/APPROACH
This project employs a comprehensive theoretical and analytical synthesis approach,
integrating established linguistic theories with insights from cognitive science and pedagogical
research. The primary objective is to deconstruct the cherological parameters of ASL and
analyze their implications for novice learner acquisition and cross-linguistic understanding.
The research design is qualitative, drawing upon a robust body of existing scholarly literature
rather than generating new empirical data. The methodology involves:
1. LITERATURE REVIEW AND SYNTHESIS: Extensive review of foundational
texts and peer-reviewed articles from prominent academic databases (e.g., Google Scholar,
JSTOR, PsycINFO). Key search terms included "ASL phonology," "cherology," "sign
language linguistics," "ASL acquisition," "non-manual markers," and "visual-spatial language
processing." This synthesis aims to consolidate diverse perspectives on ASL’s linguistic
structure and pedagogical challenges.
2. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK: The five-parameter model (Handshape, Location,
Movement, Orientation, and Non-Manual Markers) serves as the core analytical framework.
Each parameter is individually examined for its linguistic function, variability, and specific
challenges it presents to beginning ASL learners.
3. COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS PERSPECTIVE: The analysis incorporates a
comparative lens, contrasting ASL’s cherological system with the phonological systems of
spoken languages to highlight both universal linguistic principles and modality-specific
differences. This approach illuminates the unique cognitive demands and advantages of visual-
spatial language processing.
4. PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS: Research on ASL teaching methodologies and
second language acquisition is integrated to identify effective strategies for parameter
instruction and to explain common errors and difficulties faced by hearing learners. Cognitive
load theory is implicitly considered when discussing the simultaneous processing demands of
ASL.
5. DATA SOURCES: Primary sources include seminal works by Stokoe (1960),
Battison (1978), Liddell and Johnson (1989), and Padden and Humphries (1988). Secondary
sources comprise contemporary articles from journals such as Sign Language Studies, Journal
of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, and Language Learning, alongside textbooks on ASL
linguistics and pedagogy. By systematically synthesizing these multi-disciplinary sources, this
project aims to provide a nuanced understanding of ASL's linguistic architecture and its
profound implications for both language education and broader linguistic theory.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The analysis of ASL's cherological parameters reveals a complex, highly structured
linguistic system that presents distinct challenges and opportunities for novice learners. Each
parameter contributes uniquely to the meaning and grammatical structure of a sign, and their
precise execution is paramount for accurate communication.
1. HANDSHAPE (HS): This parameter refers to the configuration of the hand(s) used
in a sign. ASL possesses a finite set of approximately 40 distinct handshapes, many of which
are derived from the American Manual Alphabet (Stokoe, 1960). Handshapes serve a
contrastive function; for example, the signs for "TRAIN" (two U-handshapes rubbing together)
and "CHAIR" (two H-handshapes tapping) differ only in handshape. Novice learners often
struggle with the fine motor control required to produce precise handshapes and maintaining
consistency, particularly with less common or more complex configurations.
Mispronunciation, akin to a spoken language accent, can occur if handshapes are not accurately
formed, leading to ambiguity or misunderstanding.
2. LOCATION (LOC): This parameter specifies where a sign is produced in relation
to the signer's body or in neutral signing space. Locations can be on the head (e.g., "KNOW"
at the temple, "THINK" at the forehead), torso (e.g., "FEEL" at the chest), or in the neutral
space in front of the signer (e.g., "SIGN"). Location is crucial for distinguishing minimal pairs
(e.g., "SUMMER" at the forehead vs. "DRY" at the chin) and for grammatical functions such
as verb agreement and spatial referencing. Beginning learners often face challenges in
accurately identifying and maintaining consistent signing locations, especially when signs
involve movement across different locations.
3. MOVEMENT (MOV): Movement refers to the path, direction, and repetition of the
hand(s) during a sign. It is a highly dynamic parameter, conveying not only lexical meaning
but also grammatical information such as aspect (e.g., continuous, iterative, punctual action).
For instance, the sign "WALK" can be modified by repeating the movement to indicate
"WALK CONTINUOUSLY" or "WALKING FOR A WHILE." Directionality in movement is
also critical for verb agreement (e.g., "ASK-YOU" vs. "ASK-ME"). Learners frequently
struggle with the nuanced precision of movement, including its speed, tension, and trajectory,
which can impact the intended meaning or grammatical function of a sign.
4. ORIENTATION (ORI): This parameter describes the direction the palm and/or
fingers are facing during a sign. While often subtle, orientation can be contrastive. For example,
the signs for "NAME" (H-handshape tapping on the other H-handshape) and "CHAIR" (same
handshape, different movement, but also subtle orientation differences) illustrate its
importance. A slight change in palm orientation can differentiate between signs that are
otherwise identical in handshape, location, and movement. Novice learners often overlook the
subtle but critical role of orientation, leading to signs that are grammatically incorrect or
semantically ambiguous.
5. NON-MANUAL MARKERS (NMMs): NMMs encompass facial expressions (e.g.,
raised eyebrows for questions, furrowed brows for "wh"-questions), head tilts, body posture,
and mouth movements (e.g., "cha" for large, "mm" for normal). Unlike the manual parameters,
NMMs are often produced simultaneously with manual signs and carry significant grammatical
and semantic weight. They can function as adverbs, adjectives, or even complete syntactic
structures (e.g., a simple head shake can negate a statement). Learners frequently underestimate
the importance of NMMs, often focusing solely on manual components. This oversight leads
to "flat" or ungrammatical signing, as NMMs are integral to ASL's syntax and emotional
expression (Baker & Padden, 1978).
ACQUISITION CHALLENGES FOR NOVICE LEARNERS: The integrated
complexity of these parameters presents several significant challenges for hearing novice
learners:
INTERFERENCE FROM SPOKEN LANGUAGE: Learners accustomed to linear-
temporal, auditory-vocal phonology must adapt to a visual-spatial, multi-dimensional
cherological system. This shift requires a fundamental reconceptualization of how language is
structured and processed.
MOTOR CONTROL AND PROPRIOCEPTION: Developing the precise fine motor
skills for handshapes, movements, and orientations, often performed simultaneously or in rapid
succession, requires extensive practice and proprioceptive awareness.
SIMULTANEOUS PROCESSING: The most significant hurdle is often the
simultaneous integration of all five parameters, particularly NMMs with manual signs. This
demands a high degree of cognitive processing and coordination not typically required in
spoken language production.
VISUAL-SPATIAL GRAMMAR: Understanding how space is used grammatically
(e.g., for verb agreement, referencing, narrative sequencing) is a departure from the largely
sequential grammar of spoken English.
PEDAGOGICAL STRATEGIES: Effective ASL
instruction for beginners must explicitly address each parameter, providing ample
opportunities for visual discrimination, guided practice, and feedback. Immersion in the Deaf
community and consistent exposure to fluent signers are invaluable for developing an intuitive
understanding of parameter integration, especially NMMs. Drills focusing on minimal pairs
that differ by only one parameter can enhance learners' cherological awareness.
COGNITIVE BENEFITS AND CROSS-LINGUISTIC IMPLICATIONS: Learning
ASL has been shown to enhance visual-spatial reasoning, attention to detail, and the ability to
process information across multiple modalities. From a cross-linguistic perspective, the study
of ASL cherology provides compelling evidence for the universal principles of language
organization, demonstrating that complex linguistic systems can manifest in diverse modalities.
It challenges glottocentric biases and enriches our understanding of human language capacity.
CONCLUSION
The cherological parameters of Handshape, Location, Movement, Orientation, and
Non-Manual Markers are the foundational building blocks of American Sign Language,
endowing it with the full linguistic complexity and expressive power of any natural language.
This project has elucidated how these parameters function individually and synergistically to
create meaning, and critically examined the specific challenges they pose for novice hearing
learners. The transition from a spoken language phonological system to a visual-spatial
cherological one demands not only motoric precision but also a profound cognitive shift in how
language is perceived and produced. Effective ASL acquisition hinges upon a deep,
linguistically informed understanding of these parameters. Pedagogical approaches must move
beyond rote vocabulary memorization to emphasize explicit instruction, extensive practice in
parameter differentiation, and immersion that fosters the simultaneous integration of all five
components, particularly the often-underestimated Non-Manual Markers. The difficulties
encountered by beginners underscore the sophisticated nature of ASL's structure and the
cognitive demands of mastering a language in a visual-spatial modality. Ultimately, the study
of ASL's cherological system not only facilitates more effective language acquisition but also
enriches our broader understanding of linguistic universals, cognitive flexibility, and the
remarkable diversity of human communication. ASL stands as a testament to the brain's
capacity for language, irrespective of modality, and its continued study offers invaluable
insights into the very nature of language itself.
The linguistic study of American Sign Language (ASL) fundamentally shifted from a
perception of ASL as a derivative of spoken English or a system of pantomime to its recognition
as a fully autonomous natural language with the pioneering work of William C. Stokoe in the
1960s (Stokoe, 1960). Stokoe’s seminal research at Gallaudet University introduced the
concept of "cheremes"—analogous to phonemes in spoken languages—which he categorized
into three primary components: Tab (Location), Dez (Handshape), and Sig (Movement). This
groundbreaking framework established a scientific basis for analyzing ASL’s internal
structure, demonstrating its systematicity and rule-governed nature. Subsequent research
expanded upon Stokoe’s model, leading to the widely accepted five-parameter model of ASL
phonology (or cherology). These parameters include Handshape (HS), Location (LOC),
Movement (MOV), Orientation (ORI), and Non-Manual Markers (NMMs) (Battison, 1978;
Liddell & Johnson, 1989). Battison's work, particularly his identification of the "Symmetry
Condition" and "Dominance Condition," provided crucial insights into the morphological
constraints and well-formedness rules governing ASL signs, demonstrating systematicity
beyond mere individual parameters. The "Movement-Hold" model proposed by Liddell and
Johnson (1989) further refined the understanding of ASL phonology by segmenting signs into
sequential holds and movements, analogous to consonant and vowel distinctions in spoken
language, offering a more granular analysis of temporal organization within signs. Neuro-
linguistic studies have further corroborated ASL’s status as a language, revealing that sign
language processing, much like spoken language, primarily engages left-hemisphere brain
regions associated with language functions (Poizner et al., 1987; Hickok et al., 1996). This
evidence refutes earlier notions that signed languages were purely spatial or visual, instead
highlighting their complex linguistic organization. Studies on ASL acquisition, both by native
signers (Deaf children of Deaf parents) and second language learners (hearing individuals),
reveal distinct developmental trajectories and challenges. Native acquisition often mirrors
milestones in spoken language acquisition, while second language learners frequently grapple
with transferring phonological awareness from an auditory-vocal modality to a visual-spatial
one (Padden & Humphries, 1988). Pedagogical approaches to ASL have evolved to incorporate
these linguistic insights. Early methods often focused solely on vocabulary memorization, akin
to rote learning in foreign language education. However, contemporary ASL pedagogy
emphasizes immersion, contextual learning, and explicit instruction on the five parameters,
recognizing that a deep understanding of these foundational elements is crucial for accurate
production and comprehension (Humphries & Padden, 2005). Challenges for hearing learners
include overcoming glottocentric biases, developing precise motor control for handshapes and
movements, and integrating NMMs, which often function adverbially or syntactically in ASL,
differing significantly from their role in spoken language. The literature consistently points to
the necessity of recognizing ASL as a unique linguistic system, not merely a translation of
English, to facilitate effective and respectful acquisition.
METHODOLOGY/APPROACH
This project employs a comprehensive theoretical and analytical synthesis approach,
integrating established linguistic theories with insights from cognitive science and pedagogical
research. The primary objective is to deconstruct the cherological parameters of ASL and
analyze their implications for novice learner acquisition and cross-linguistic understanding.
The research design is qualitative, drawing upon a robust body of existing scholarly literature
rather than generating new empirical data. The methodology involves:
1. LITERATURE REVIEW AND SYNTHESIS: Extensive review of foundational
texts and peer-reviewed articles from prominent academic databases (e.g., Google Scholar,
JSTOR, PsycINFO). Key search terms included "ASL phonology," "cherology," "sign
language linguistics," "ASL acquisition," "non-manual markers," and "visual-spatial language
processing." This synthesis aims to consolidate diverse perspectives on ASL’s linguistic
structure and pedagogical challenges.
2. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK: The five-parameter model (Handshape, Location,
Movement, Orientation, and Non-Manual Markers) serves as the core analytical framework.
Each parameter is individually examined for its linguistic function, variability, and specific
challenges it presents to beginning ASL learners.
3. COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS PERSPECTIVE: The analysis incorporates a
comparative lens, contrasting ASL’s cherological system with the phonological systems of
spoken languages to highlight both universal linguistic principles and modality-specific
differences. This approach illuminates the unique cognitive demands and advantages of visual-
spatial language processing.
4. PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS: Research on ASL teaching methodologies and
second language acquisition is integrated to identify effective strategies for parameter
instruction and to explain common errors and difficulties faced by hearing learners. Cognitive
load theory is implicitly considered when discussing the simultaneous processing demands of
ASL.
5. DATA SOURCES: Primary sources include seminal works by Stokoe (1960),
Battison (1978), Liddell and Johnson (1989), and Padden and Humphries (1988). Secondary
sources comprise contemporary articles from journals such as Sign Language Studies, Journal
of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, and Language Learning, alongside textbooks on ASL
linguistics and pedagogy. By systematically synthesizing these multi-disciplinary sources, this
project aims to provide a nuanced understanding of ASL's linguistic architecture and its
profound implications for both language education and broader linguistic theory.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The analysis of ASL's cherological parameters reveals a complex, highly structured
linguistic system that presents distinct challenges and opportunities for novice learners. Each
parameter contributes uniquely to the meaning and grammatical structure of a sign, and their
precise execution is paramount for accurate communication.
1. HANDSHAPE (HS): This parameter refers to the configuration of the hand(s) used
in a sign. ASL possesses a finite set of approximately 40 distinct handshapes, many of which
are derived from the American Manual Alphabet (Stokoe, 1960). Handshapes serve a
contrastive function; for example, the signs for "TRAIN" (two U-handshapes rubbing together)
and "CHAIR" (two H-handshapes tapping) differ only in handshape. Novice learners often
struggle with the fine motor control required to produce precise handshapes and maintaining
consistency, particularly with less common or more complex configurations.
Mispronunciation, akin to a spoken language accent, can occur if handshapes are not accurately
formed, leading to ambiguity or misunderstanding.
2. LOCATION (LOC): This parameter specifies where a sign is produced in relation
to the signer's body or in neutral signing space. Locations can be on the head (e.g., "KNOW"
at the temple, "THINK" at the forehead), torso (e.g., "FEEL" at the chest), or in the neutral
space in front of the signer (e.g., "SIGN"). Location is crucial for distinguishing minimal pairs
(e.g., "SUMMER" at the forehead vs. "DRY" at the chin) and for grammatical functions such
as verb agreement and spatial referencing. Beginning learners often face challenges in
accurately identifying and maintaining consistent signing locations, especially when signs
involve movement across different locations.
3. MOVEMENT (MOV): Movement refers to the path, direction, and repetition of the
hand(s) during a sign. It is a highly dynamic parameter, conveying not only lexical meaning
but also grammatical information such as aspect (e.g., continuous, iterative, punctual action).
For instance, the sign "WALK" can be modified by repeating the movement to indicate
"WALK CONTINUOUSLY" or "WALKING FOR A WHILE." Directionality in movement is
also critical for verb agreement (e.g., "ASK-YOU" vs. "ASK-ME"). Learners frequently
struggle with the nuanced precision of movement, including its speed, tension, and trajectory,
which can impact the intended meaning or grammatical function of a sign.
4. ORIENTATION (ORI): This parameter describes the direction the palm and/or
fingers are facing during a sign. While often subtle, orientation can be contrastive. For example,
the signs for "NAME" (H-handshape tapping on the other H-handshape) and "CHAIR" (same
handshape, different movement, but also subtle orientation differences) illustrate its
importance. A slight change in palm orientation can differentiate between signs that are
otherwise identical in handshape, location, and movement. Novice learners often overlook the
subtle but critical role of orientation, leading to signs that are grammatically incorrect or
semantically ambiguous.
5. NON-MANUAL MARKERS (NMMs): NMMs encompass facial expressions (e.g.,
raised eyebrows for questions, furrowed brows for "wh"-questions), head tilts, body posture,
and mouth movements (e.g., "cha" for large, "mm" for normal). Unlike the manual parameters,
NMMs are often produced simultaneously with manual signs and carry significant grammatical
and semantic weight. They can function as adverbs, adjectives, or even complete syntactic
structures (e.g., a simple head shake can negate a statement). Learners frequently underestimate
the importance of NMMs, often focusing solely on manual components. This oversight leads
to "flat" or ungrammatical signing, as NMMs are integral to ASL's syntax and emotional
expression (Baker & Padden, 1978).
ACQUISITION CHALLENGES FOR NOVICE LEARNERS: The integrated
complexity of these parameters presents several significant challenges for hearing novice
learners:
INTERFERENCE FROM SPOKEN LANGUAGE: Learners accustomed to linear-
temporal, auditory-vocal phonology must adapt to a visual-spatial, multi-dimensional
cherological system. This shift requires a fundamental reconceptualization of how language is
structured and processed.
MOTOR CONTROL AND PROPRIOCEPTION: Developing the precise fine motor
skills for handshapes, movements, and orientations, often performed simultaneously or in rapid
succession, requires extensive practice and proprioceptive awareness.
SIMULTANEOUS PROCESSING: The most significant hurdle is often the
simultaneous integration of all five parameters, particularly NMMs with manual signs. This
demands a high degree of cognitive processing and coordination not typically required in
spoken language production.
VISUAL-SPATIAL GRAMMAR: Understanding how space is used grammatically
(e.g., for verb agreement, referencing, narrative sequencing) is a departure from the largely
sequential grammar of spoken English.
PEDAGOGICAL STRATEGIES: Effective ASL
instruction for beginners must explicitly address each parameter, providing ample
opportunities for visual discrimination, guided practice, and feedback. Immersion in the Deaf
community and consistent exposure to fluent signers are invaluable for developing an intuitive
understanding of parameter integration, especially NMMs. Drills focusing on minimal pairs
that differ by only one parameter can enhance learners' cherological awareness.
COGNITIVE BENEFITS AND CROSS-LINGUISTIC IMPLICATIONS: Learning
ASL has been shown to enhance visual-spatial reasoning, attention to detail, and the ability to
process information across multiple modalities. From a cross-linguistic perspective, the study
of ASL cherology provides compelling evidence for the universal principles of language
organization, demonstrating that complex linguistic systems can manifest in diverse modalities.
It challenges glottocentric biases and enriches our understanding of human language capacity.
CONCLUSION
The cherological parameters of Handshape, Location, Movement, Orientation, and
Non-Manual Markers are the foundational building blocks of American Sign Language,
endowing it with the full linguistic complexity and expressive power of any natural language.
This project has elucidated how these parameters function individually and synergistically to
create meaning, and critically examined the specific challenges they pose for novice hearing
learners. The transition from a spoken language phonological system to a visual-spatial
cherological one demands not only motoric precision but also a profound cognitive shift in how
language is perceived and produced. Effective ASL acquisition hinges upon a deep,
linguistically informed understanding of these parameters. Pedagogical approaches must move
beyond rote vocabulary memorization to emphasize explicit instruction, extensive practice in
parameter differentiation, and immersion that fosters the simultaneous integration of all five
components, particularly the often-underestimated Non-Manual Markers. The difficulties
encountered by beginners underscore the sophisticated nature of ASL's structure and the
cognitive demands of mastering a language in a visual-spatial modality. Ultimately, the study
of ASL's cherological system not only facilitates more effective language acquisition but also
enriches our broader understanding of linguistic universals, cognitive flexibility, and the
remarkable diversity of human communication. ASL stands as a testament to the brain's
capacity for language, irrespective of modality, and its continued study offers invaluable
insights into the very nature of language itself.
The linguistic study of American Sign Language (ASL) fundamentally shifted from a
perception of ASL as a derivative of spoken English or a system of pantomime to its recognition
as a fully autonomous natural language with the pioneering work of William C. Stokoe in the
1960s (Stokoe, 1960). Stokoe’s seminal research at Gallaudet University introduced the
concept of "cheremes"—analogous to phonemes in spoken languages—which he categorized
into three primary components: Tab (Location), Dez (Handshape), and Sig (Movement). This
groundbreaking framework established a scientific basis for analyzing ASL’s internal
structure, demonstrating its systematicity and rule-governed nature. Subsequent research
expanded upon Stokoe’s model, leading to the widely accepted five-parameter model of ASL
phonology (or cherology). These parameters include Handshape (HS), Location (LOC),
Movement (MOV), Orientation (ORI), and Non-Manual Markers (NMMs) (Battison, 1978;
Liddell & Johnson, 1989). Battison's work, particularly his identification of the "Symmetry
Condition" and "Dominance Condition," provided crucial insights into the morphological
constraints and well-formedness rules governing ASL signs, demonstrating systematicity
beyond mere individual parameters. The "Movement-Hold" model proposed by Liddell and
Johnson (1989) further refined the understanding of ASL phonology by segmenting signs into
sequential holds and movements, analogous to consonant and vowel distinctions in spoken
language, offering a more granular analysis of temporal organization within signs. Neuro-
linguistic studies have further corroborated ASL’s status as a language, revealing that sign
language processing, much like spoken language, primarily engages left-hemisphere brain
regions associated with language functions (Poizner et al., 1987; Hickok et al., 1996). This
evidence refutes earlier notions that signed languages were purely spatial or visual, instead
highlighting their complex linguistic organization. Studies on ASL acquisition, both by native
signers (Deaf children of Deaf parents) and second language learners (hearing individuals),
reveal distinct developmental trajectories and challenges. Native acquisition often mirrors
milestones in spoken language acquisition, while second language learners frequently grapple
with transferring phonological awareness from an auditory-vocal modality to a visual-spatial
one (Padden & Humphries, 1988). Pedagogical approaches to ASL have evolved to incorporate
these linguistic insights. Early methods often focused solely on vocabulary memorization, akin
to rote learning in foreign language education. However, contemporary ASL pedagogy
emphasizes immersion, contextual learning, and explicit instruction on the five parameters,
recognizing that a deep understanding of these foundational elements is crucial for accurate
production and comprehension (Humphries & Padden, 2005). Challenges for hearing learners
include overcoming glottocentric biases, developing precise motor control for handshapes and
movements, and integrating NMMs, which often function adverbially or syntactically in ASL,
differing significantly from their role in spoken language. The literature consistently points to
the necessity of recognizing ASL as a unique linguistic system, not merely a translation of
English, to facilitate effective and respectful acquisition.
METHODOLOGY/APPROACH
This project employs a comprehensive theoretical and analytical synthesis approach,
integrating established linguistic theories with insights from cognitive science and pedagogical
research. The primary objective is to deconstruct the cherological parameters of ASL and
analyze their implications for novice learner acquisition and cross-linguistic understanding.
The research design is qualitative, drawing upon a robust body of existing scholarly literature
rather than generating new empirical data. The methodology involves:
1. LITERATURE REVIEW AND SYNTHESIS: Extensive review of foundational
texts and peer-reviewed articles from prominent academic databases (e.g., Google Scholar,
JSTOR, PsycINFO). Key search terms included "ASL phonology," "cherology," "sign
language linguistics," "ASL acquisition," "non-manual markers," and "visual-spatial language
processing." This synthesis aims to consolidate diverse perspectives on ASL’s linguistic
structure and pedagogical challenges.
2. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK: The five-parameter model (Handshape, Location,
Movement, Orientation, and Non-Manual Markers) serves as the core analytical framework.
Each parameter is individually examined for its linguistic function, variability, and specific
challenges it presents to beginning ASL learners.
3. COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS PERSPECTIVE: The analysis incorporates a
comparative lens, contrasting ASL’s cherological system with the phonological systems of
spoken languages to highlight both universal linguistic principles and modality-specific
differences. This approach illuminates the unique cognitive demands and advantages of visual-
spatial language processing.
4. PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS: Research on ASL teaching methodologies and
second language acquisition is integrated to identify effective strategies for parameter
instruction and to explain common errors and difficulties faced by hearing learners. Cognitive
load theory is implicitly considered when discussing the simultaneous processing demands of
ASL.
5. DATA SOURCES: Primary sources include seminal works by Stokoe (1960),
Battison (1978), Liddell and Johnson (1989), and Padden and Humphries (1988). Secondary
sources comprise contemporary articles from journals such as Sign Language Studies, Journal
of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, and Language Learning, alongside textbooks on ASL
linguistics and pedagogy. By systematically synthesizing these multi-disciplinary sources, this
project aims to provide a nuanced understanding of ASL's linguistic architecture and its
profound implications for both language education and broader linguistic theory.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The analysis of ASL's cherological parameters reveals a complex, highly structured
linguistic system that presents distinct challenges and opportunities for novice learners. Each
parameter contributes uniquely to the meaning and grammatical structure of a sign, and their
precise execution is paramount for accurate communication.
1. HANDSHAPE (HS): This parameter refers to the configuration of the hand(s) used
in a sign. ASL possesses a finite set of approximately 40 distinct handshapes, many of which
are derived from the American Manual Alphabet (Stokoe, 1960). Handshapes serve a
contrastive function; for example, the signs for "TRAIN" (two U-handshapes rubbing together)
and "CHAIR" (two H-handshapes tapping) differ only in handshape. Novice learners often
struggle with the fine motor control required to produce precise handshapes and maintaining
consistency, particularly with less common or more complex configurations.
Mispronunciation, akin to a spoken language accent, can occur if handshapes are not accurately
formed, leading to ambiguity or misunderstanding.
2. LOCATION (LOC): This parameter specifies where a sign is produced in relation
to the signer's body or in neutral signing space. Locations can be on the head (e.g., "KNOW"
at the temple, "THINK" at the forehead), torso (e.g., "FEEL" at the chest), or in the neutral
space in front of the signer (e.g., "SIGN"). Location is crucial for distinguishing minimal pairs
(e.g., "SUMMER" at the forehead vs. "DRY" at the chin) and for grammatical functions such
as verb agreement and spatial referencing. Beginning learners often face challenges in
accurately identifying and maintaining consistent signing locations, especially when signs
involve movement across different locations.
3. MOVEMENT (MOV): Movement refers to the path, direction, and repetition of the
hand(s) during a sign. It is a highly dynamic parameter, conveying not only lexical meaning
but also grammatical information such as aspect (e.g., continuous, iterative, punctual action).
For instance, the sign "WALK" can be modified by repeating the movement to indicate
"WALK CONTINUOUSLY" or "WALKING FOR A WHILE." Directionality in movement is
also critical for verb agreement (e.g., "ASK-YOU" vs. "ASK-ME"). Learners frequently
struggle with the nuanced precision of movement, including its speed, tension, and trajectory,
which can impact the intended meaning or grammatical function of a sign.
4. ORIENTATION (ORI): This parameter describes the direction the palm and/or
fingers are facing during a sign. While often subtle, orientation can be contrastive. For example,
the signs for "NAME" (H-handshape tapping on the other H-handshape) and "CHAIR" (same
handshape, different movement, but also subtle orientation differences) illustrate its
importance. A slight change in palm orientation can differentiate between signs that are
otherwise identical in handshape, location, and movement. Novice learners often overlook the
subtle but critical role of orientation, leading to signs that are grammatically incorrect or
semantically ambiguous.
5. NON-MANUAL MARKERS (NMMs): NMMs encompass facial expressions (e.g.,
raised eyebrows for questions, furrowed brows for "wh"-questions), head tilts, body posture,
and mouth movements (e.g., "cha" for large, "mm" for normal). Unlike the manual parameters,
NMMs are often produced simultaneously with manual signs and carry significant grammatical
and semantic weight. They can function as adverbs, adjectives, or even complete syntactic
structures (e.g., a simple head shake can negate a statement). Learners frequently underestimate
the importance of NMMs, often focusing solely on manual components. This oversight leads
to "flat" or ungrammatical signing, as NMMs are integral to ASL's syntax and emotional
expression (Baker & Padden, 1978).
ACQUISITION CHALLENGES FOR NOVICE LEARNERS: The integrated
complexity of these parameters presents several significant challenges for hearing novice
learners:
INTERFERENCE FROM SPOKEN LANGUAGE: Learners accustomed to linear-
temporal, auditory-vocal phonology must adapt to a visual-spatial, multi-dimensional
cherological system. This shift requires a fundamental reconceptualization of how language is
structured and processed.
MOTOR CONTROL AND PROPRIOCEPTION: Developing the precise fine motor
skills for handshapes, movements, and orientations, often performed simultaneously or in rapid
succession, requires extensive practice and proprioceptive awareness.
SIMULTANEOUS PROCESSING: The most significant hurdle is often the
simultaneous integration of all five parameters, particularly NMMs with manual signs. This
demands a high degree of cognitive processing and coordination not typically required in
spoken language production.
VISUAL-SPATIAL GRAMMAR: Understanding how space is used grammatically
(e.g., for verb agreement, referencing, narrative sequencing) is a departure from the largely
sequential grammar of spoken English.
PEDAGOGICAL STRATEGIES: Effective ASL
instruction for beginners must explicitly address each parameter, providing ample
opportunities for visual discrimination, guided practice, and feedback. Immersion in the Deaf
community and consistent exposure to fluent signers are invaluable for developing an intuitive
understanding of parameter integration, especially NMMs. Drills focusing on minimal pairs
that differ by only one parameter can enhance learners' cherological awareness.
COGNITIVE BENEFITS AND CROSS-LINGUISTIC IMPLICATIONS: Learning
ASL has been shown to enhance visual-spatial reasoning, attention to detail, and the ability to
process information across multiple modalities. From a cross-linguistic perspective, the study
of ASL cherology provides compelling evidence for the universal principles of language
organization, demonstrating that complex linguistic systems can manifest in diverse modalities.
It challenges glottocentric biases and enriches our understanding of human language capacity.
CONCLUSION
The cherological parameters of Handshape, Location, Movement, Orientation, and
Non-Manual Markers are the foundational building blocks of American Sign Language,
endowing it with the full linguistic complexity and expressive power of any natural language.
This project has elucidated how these parameters function individually and synergistically to
create meaning, and critically examined the specific challenges they pose for novice hearing
learners. The transition from a spoken language phonological system to a visual-spatial
cherological one demands not only motoric precision but also a profound cognitive shift in how
language is perceived and produced. Effective ASL acquisition hinges upon a deep,
linguistically informed understanding of these parameters. Pedagogical approaches must move
beyond rote vocabulary memorization to emphasize explicit instruction, extensive practice in
parameter differentiation, and immersion that fosters the simultaneous integration of all five
components, particularly the often-underestimated Non-Manual Markers. The difficulties
encountered by beginners underscore the sophisticated nature of ASL's structure and the
cognitive demands of mastering a language in a visual-spatial modality. Ultimately, the study
of ASL's cherological system not only facilitates more effective language acquisition but also
enriches our broader understanding of linguistic universals, cognitive flexibility, and the
remarkable diversity of human communication. ASL stands as a testament to the brain's
capacity for language, irrespective of modality, and its continued study offers invaluable
insights into the very nature of language itself.
The linguistic study of American Sign Language (ASL) fundamentally shifted from a
perception of ASL as a derivative of spoken English or a system of pantomime to its recognition
as a fully autonomous natural language with the pioneering work of William C. Stokoe in the
1960s (Stokoe, 1960). Stokoe’s seminal research at Gallaudet University introduced the
concept of "cheremes"—analogous to phonemes in spoken languages—which he categorized
into three primary components: Tab (Location), Dez (Handshape), and Sig (Movement). This
groundbreaking framework established a scientific basis for analyzing ASL’s internal
structure, demonstrating its systematicity and rule-governed nature. Subsequent research
expanded upon Stokoe’s model, leading to the widely accepted five-parameter model of ASL
phonology (or cherology). These parameters include Handshape (HS), Location (LOC),
Movement (MOV), Orientation (ORI), and Non-Manual Markers (NMMs) (Battison, 1978;
Liddell & Johnson, 1989). Battison's work, particularly his identification of the "Symmetry
Condition" and "Dominance Condition," provided crucial insights into the morphological
constraints and well-formedness rules governing ASL signs, demonstrating systematicity
beyond mere individual parameters. The "Movement-Hold" model proposed by Liddell and
Johnson (1989) further refined the understanding of ASL phonology by segmenting signs into
sequential holds and movements, analogous to consonant and vowel distinctions in spoken
language, offering a more granular analysis of temporal organization within signs. Neuro-
linguistic studies have further corroborated ASL’s status as a language, revealing that sign
language processing, much like spoken language, primarily engages left-hemisphere brain
regions associated with language functions (Poizner et al., 1987; Hickok et al., 1996). This
evidence refutes earlier notions that signed languages were purely spatial or visual, instead
highlighting their complex linguistic organization. Studies on ASL acquisition, both by native
signers (Deaf children of Deaf parents) and second language learners (hearing individuals),
reveal distinct developmental trajectories and challenges. Native acquisition often mirrors
milestones in spoken language acquisition, while second language learners frequently grapple
with transferring phonological awareness from an auditory-vocal modality to a visual-spatial
one (Padden & Humphries, 1988). Pedagogical approaches to ASL have evolved to incorporate
these linguistic insights. Early methods often focused solely on vocabulary memorization, akin
to rote learning in foreign language education. However, contemporary ASL pedagogy
emphasizes immersion, contextual learning, and explicit instruction on the five parameters,
recognizing that a deep understanding of these foundational elements is crucial for accurate
production and comprehension (Humphries & Padden, 2005). Challenges for hearing learners
include overcoming glottocentric biases, developing precise motor control for handshapes and
movements, and integrating NMMs, which often function adverbially or syntactically in ASL,
differing significantly from their role in spoken language. The literature consistently points to
the necessity of recognizing ASL as a unique linguistic system, not merely a translation of
English, to facilitate effective and respectful acquisition.
METHODOLOGY/APPROACH
This project employs a comprehensive theoretical and analytical synthesis approach,
integrating established linguistic theories with insights from cognitive science and pedagogical
research. The primary objective is to deconstruct the cherological parameters of ASL and
analyze their implications for novice learner acquisition and cross-linguistic understanding.
The research design is qualitative, drawing upon a robust body of existing scholarly literature
rather than generating new empirical data. The methodology involves:
1. LITERATURE REVIEW AND SYNTHESIS: Extensive review of foundational
texts and peer-reviewed articles from prominent academic databases (e.g., Google Scholar,
JSTOR, PsycINFO). Key search terms included "ASL phonology," "cherology," "sign
language linguistics," "ASL acquisition," "non-manual markers," and "visual-spatial language
processing." This synthesis aims to consolidate diverse perspectives on ASL’s linguistic
structure and pedagogical challenges.
2. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK: The five-parameter model (Handshape, Location,
Movement, Orientation, and Non-Manual Markers) serves as the core analytical framework.
Each parameter is individually examined for its linguistic function, variability, and specific
challenges it presents to beginning ASL learners.
3. COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS PERSPECTIVE: The analysis incorporates a
comparative lens, contrasting ASL’s cherological system with the phonological systems of
spoken languages to highlight both universal linguistic principles and modality-specific
differences. This approach illuminates the unique cognitive demands and advantages of visual-
spatial language processing.
4. PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS: Research on ASL teaching methodologies and
second language acquisition is integrated to identify effective strategies for parameter
instruction and to explain common errors and difficulties faced by hearing learners. Cognitive
load theory is implicitly considered when discussing the simultaneous processing demands of
ASL.
5. DATA SOURCES: Primary sources include seminal works by Stokoe (1960),
Battison (1978), Liddell and Johnson (1989), and Padden and Humphries (1988). Secondary
sources comprise contemporary articles from journals such as Sign Language Studies, Journal
of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, and Language Learning, alongside textbooks on ASL
linguistics and pedagogy. By systematically synthesizing these multi-disciplinary sources, this
project aims to provide a nuanced understanding of ASL's linguistic architecture and its
profound implications for both language education and broader linguistic theory.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The analysis of ASL's cherological parameters reveals a complex, highly structured
linguistic system that presents distinct challenges and opportunities for novice learners. Each
parameter contributes uniquely to the meaning and grammatical structure of a sign, and their
precise execution is paramount for accurate communication.
1. HANDSHAPE (HS): This parameter refers to the configuration of the hand(s) used
in a sign. ASL possesses a finite set of approximately 40 distinct handshapes, many of which
are derived from the American Manual Alphabet (Stokoe, 1960). Handshapes serve a
contrastive function; for example, the signs for "TRAIN" (two U-handshapes rubbing together)
and "CHAIR" (two H-handshapes tapping) differ only in handshape. Novice learners often
struggle with the fine motor control required to produce precise handshapes and maintaining
consistency, particularly with less common or more complex configurations.
Mispronunciation, akin to a spoken language accent, can occur if handshapes are not accurately
formed, leading to ambiguity or misunderstanding.
2. LOCATION (LOC): This parameter specifies where a sign is produced in relation
to the signer's body or in neutral signing space. Locations can be on the head (e.g., "KNOW"
at the temple, "THINK" at the forehead), torso (e.g., "FEEL" at the chest), or in the neutral
space in front of the signer (e.g., "SIGN"). Location is crucial for distinguishing minimal pairs
(e.g., "SUMMER" at the forehead vs. "DRY" at the chin) and for grammatical functions such
as verb agreement and spatial referencing. Beginning learners often face challenges in
accurately identifying and maintaining consistent signing locations, especially when signs
involve movement across different locations.
3. MOVEMENT (MOV): Movement refers to the path, direction, and repetition of the
hand(s) during a sign. It is a highly dynamic parameter, conveying not only lexical meaning
but also grammatical information such as aspect (e.g., continuous, iterative, punctual action).
For instance, the sign "WALK" can be modified by repeating the movement to indicate
"WALK CONTINUOUSLY" or "WALKING FOR A WHILE." Directionality in movement is
also critical for verb agreement (e.g., "ASK-YOU" vs. "ASK-ME"). Learners frequently
struggle with the nuanced precision of movement, including its speed, tension, and trajectory,
which can impact the intended meaning or grammatical function of a sign.
4. ORIENTATION (ORI): This parameter describes the direction the palm and/or
fingers are facing during a sign. While often subtle, orientation can be contrastive. For example,
the signs for "NAME" (H-handshape tapping on the other H-handshape) and "CHAIR" (same
handshape, different movement, but also subtle orientation differences) illustrate its
importance. A slight change in palm orientation can differentiate between signs that are
otherwise identical in handshape, location, and movement. Novice learners often overlook the
subtle but critical role of orientation, leading to signs that are grammatically incorrect or
semantically ambiguous.
5. NON-MANUAL MARKERS (NMMs): NMMs encompass facial expressions (e.g.,
raised eyebrows for questions, furrowed brows for "wh"-questions), head tilts, body posture,
and mouth movements (e.g., "cha" for large, "mm" for normal). Unlike the manual parameters,
NMMs are often produced simultaneously with manual signs and carry significant grammatical
and semantic weight. They can function as adverbs, adjectives, or even complete syntactic
structures (e.g., a simple head shake can negate a statement). Learners frequently underestimate
the importance of NMMs, often focusing solely on manual components. This oversight leads
to "flat" or ungrammatical signing, as NMMs are integral to ASL's syntax and emotional
expression (Baker & Padden, 1978).
ACQUISITION CHALLENGES FOR NOVICE LEARNERS: The integrated
complexity of these parameters presents several significant challenges for hearing novice
learners:
INTERFERENCE FROM SPOKEN LANGUAGE: Learners accustomed to linear-
temporal, auditory-vocal phonology must adapt to a visual-spatial, multi-dimensional
cherological system. This shift requires a fundamental reconceptualization of how language is
structured and processed.
MOTOR CONTROL AND PROPRIOCEPTION: Developing the precise fine motor
skills for handshapes, movements, and orientations, often performed simultaneously or in rapid
succession, requires extensive practice and proprioceptive awareness.
SIMULTANEOUS PROCESSING: The most significant hurdle is often the
simultaneous integration of all five parameters, particularly NMMs with manual signs. This
demands a high degree of cognitive processing and coordination not typically required in
spoken language production.
VISUAL-SPATIAL GRAMMAR: Understanding how space is used grammatically
(e.g., for verb agreement, referencing, narrative sequencing) is a departure from the largely
sequential grammar of spoken English.
PEDAGOGICAL STRATEGIES: Effective ASL
instruction for beginners must explicitly address each parameter, providing ample
opportunities for visual discrimination, guided practice, and feedback. Immersion in the Deaf
community and consistent exposure to fluent signers are invaluable for developing an intuitive
understanding of parameter integration, especially NMMs. Drills focusing on minimal pairs
that differ by only one parameter can enhance learners' cherological awareness.
COGNITIVE BENEFITS AND CROSS-LINGUISTIC IMPLICATIONS: Learning
ASL has been shown to enhance visual-spatial reasoning, attention to detail, and the ability to
process information across multiple modalities. From a cross-linguistic perspective, the study
of ASL cherology provides compelling evidence for the universal principles of language
organization, demonstrating that complex linguistic systems can manifest in diverse modalities.
It challenges glottocentric biases and enriches our understanding of human language capacity.
CONCLUSION
The cherological parameters of Handshape, Location, Movement, Orientation, and
Non-Manual Markers are the foundational building blocks of American Sign Language,
endowing it with the full linguistic complexity and expressive power of any natural language.
This project has elucidated how these parameters function individually and synergistically to
create meaning, and critically examined the specific challenges they pose for novice hearing
learners. The transition from a spoken language phonological system to a visual-spatial
cherological one demands not only motoric precision but also a profound cognitive shift in how
language is perceived and produced. Effective ASL acquisition hinges upon a deep,
linguistically informed understanding of these parameters. Pedagogical approaches must move
beyond rote vocabulary memorization to emphasize explicit instruction, extensive practice in
parameter differentiation, and immersion that fosters the simultaneous integration of all five
components, particularly the often-underestimated Non-Manual Markers. The difficulties
encountered by beginners underscore the sophisticated nature of ASL's structure and the
cognitive demands of mastering a language in a visual-spatial modality. Ultimately, the study
of ASL's cherological system not only facilitates more effective language acquisition but also
enriches our broader understanding of linguistic universals, cognitive flexibility, and the
remarkable diversity of human communication. ASL stands as a testament to the brain's
capacity for language, irrespective of modality, and its continued study offers invaluable
insights into the very nature of language itself.
The linguistic study of American Sign Language (ASL) fundamentally shifted from a
perception of ASL as a derivative of spoken English or a system of pantomime to its recognition
as a fully autonomous natural language with the pioneering work of William C. Stokoe in the
1960s (Stokoe, 1960). Stokoe’s seminal research at Gallaudet University introduced the
concept of "cheremes"—analogous to phonemes in spoken languages—which he categorized
into three primary components: Tab (Location), Dez (Handshape), and Sig (Movement). This
groundbreaking framework established a scientific basis for analyzing ASL’s internal
structure, demonstrating its systematicity and rule-governed nature. Subsequent research
expanded upon Stokoe’s model, leading to the widely accepted five-parameter model of ASL
phonology (or cherology). These parameters include Handshape (HS), Location (LOC),
Movement (MOV), Orientation (ORI), and Non-Manual Markers (NMMs) (Battison, 1978;
Liddell & Johnson, 1989). Battison's work, particularly his identification of the "Symmetry
Condition" and "Dominance Condition," provided crucial insights into the morphological
constraints and well-formedness rules governing ASL signs, demonstrating systematicity
beyond mere individual parameters. The "Movement-Hold" model proposed by Liddell and
Johnson (1989) further refined the understanding of ASL phonology by segmenting signs into
sequential holds and movements, analogous to consonant and vowel distinctions in spoken
language, offering a more granular analysis of temporal organization within signs. Neuro-
linguistic studies have further corroborated ASL’s status as a language, revealing that sign
language processing, much like spoken language, primarily engages left-hemisphere brain
regions associated with language functions (Poizner et al., 1987; Hickok et al., 1996). This
evidence refutes earlier notions that signed languages were purely spatial or visual, instead
highlighting their complex linguistic organization. Studies on ASL acquisition, both by native
signers (Deaf children of Deaf parents) and second language learners (hearing individuals),
reveal distinct developmental trajectories and challenges. Native acquisition often mirrors
milestones in spoken language acquisition, while second language learners frequently grapple
with transferring phonological awareness from an auditory-vocal modality to a visual-spatial
one (Padden & Humphries, 1988). Pedagogical approaches to ASL have evolved to incorporate
these linguistic insights. Early methods often focused solely on vocabulary memorization, akin
to rote learning in foreign language education. However, contemporary ASL pedagogy
emphasizes immersion, contextual learning, and explicit instruction on the five parameters,
recognizing that a deep understanding of these foundational elements is crucial for accurate
production and comprehension (Humphries & Padden, 2005). Challenges for hearing learners
include overcoming glottocentric biases, developing precise motor control for handshapes and
movements, and integrating NMMs, which often function adverbially or syntactically in ASL,
differing significantly from their role in spoken language. The literature consistently points to
the necessity of recognizing ASL as a unique linguistic system, not merely a translation of
English, to facilitate effective and respectful acquisition.
METHODOLOGY/APPROACH
This project employs a comprehensive theoretical and analytical synthesis approach,
integrating established linguistic theories with insights from cognitive science and pedagogical
research. The primary objective is to deconstruct the cherological parameters of ASL and
analyze their implications for novice learner acquisition and cross-linguistic understanding.
The research design is qualitative, drawing upon a robust body of existing scholarly literature
rather than generating new empirical data. The methodology involves:
1. LITERATURE REVIEW AND SYNTHESIS: Extensive review of foundational
texts and peer-reviewed articles from prominent academic databases (e.g., Google Scholar,
JSTOR, PsycINFO). Key search terms included "ASL phonology," "cherology," "sign
language linguistics," "ASL acquisition," "non-manual markers," and "visual-spatial language
processing." This synthesis aims to consolidate diverse perspectives on ASL’s linguistic
structure and pedagogical challenges.
2. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK: The five-parameter model (Handshape, Location,
Movement, Orientation, and Non-Manual Markers) serves as the core analytical framework.
Each parameter is individually examined for its linguistic function, variability, and specific
challenges it presents to beginning ASL learners.
3. COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS PERSPECTIVE: The analysis incorporates a
comparative lens, contrasting ASL’s cherological system with the phonological systems of
spoken languages to highlight both universal linguistic principles and modality-specific
differences. This approach illuminates the unique cognitive demands and advantages of visual-
spatial language processing.
4. PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS: Research on ASL teaching methodologies and
second language acquisition is integrated to identify effective strategies for parameter
instruction and to explain common errors and difficulties faced by hearing learners. Cognitive
load theory is implicitly considered when discussing the simultaneous processing demands of
ASL.
5. DATA SOURCES: Primary sources include seminal works by Stokoe (1960),
Battison (1978), Liddell and Johnson (1989), and Padden and Humphries (1988). Secondary
sources comprise contemporary articles from journals such as Sign Language Studies, Journal
of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, and Language Learning, alongside textbooks on ASL
linguistics and pedagogy. By systematically synthesizing these multi-disciplinary sources, this
project aims to provide a nuanced understanding of ASL's linguistic architecture and its
profound implications for both language education and broader linguistic theory.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The analysis of ASL's cherological parameters reveals a complex, highly structured
linguistic system that presents distinct challenges and opportunities for novice learners. Each
parameter contributes uniquely to the meaning and grammatical structure of a sign, and their
precise execution is paramount for accurate communication.
1. HANDSHAPE (HS): This parameter refers to the configuration of the hand(s) used
in a sign. ASL possesses a finite set of approximately 40 distinct handshapes, many of which
are derived from the American Manual Alphabet (Stokoe, 1960). Handshapes serve a
contrastive function; for example, the signs for "TRAIN" (two U-handshapes rubbing together)
and "CHAIR" (two H-handshapes tapping) differ only in handshape. Novice learners often
struggle with the fine motor control required to produce precise handshapes and maintaining
consistency, particularly with less common or more complex configurations.
Mispronunciation, akin to a spoken language accent, can occur if handshapes are not accurately
formed, leading to ambiguity or misunderstanding.
2. LOCATION (LOC): This parameter specifies where a sign is produced in relation
to the signer's body or in neutral signing space. Locations can be on the head (e.g., "KNOW"
at the temple, "THINK" at the forehead), torso (e.g., "FEEL" at the chest), or in the neutral
space in front of the signer (e.g., "SIGN"). Location is crucial for distinguishing minimal pairs
(e.g., "SUMMER" at the forehead vs. "DRY" at the chin) and for grammatical functions such
as verb agreement and spatial referencing. Beginning learners often face challenges in
accurately identifying and maintaining consistent signing locations, especially when signs
involve movement across different locations.
3. MOVEMENT (MOV): Movement refers to the path, direction, and repetition of the
hand(s) during a sign. It is a highly dynamic parameter, conveying not only lexical meaning
but also grammatical information such as aspect (e.g., continuous, iterative, punctual action).
For instance, the sign "WALK" can be modified by repeating the movement to indicate
"WALK CONTINUOUSLY" or "WALKING FOR A WHILE." Directionality in movement is
also critical for verb agreement (e.g., "ASK-YOU" vs. "ASK-ME"). Learners frequently
struggle with the nuanced precision of movement, including its speed, tension, and trajectory,
which can impact the intended meaning or grammatical function of a sign.
4. ORIENTATION (ORI): This parameter describes the direction the palm and/or
fingers are facing during a sign. While often subtle, orientation can be contrastive. For example,
the signs for "NAME" (H-handshape tapping on the other H-handshape) and "CHAIR" (same
handshape, different movement, but also subtle orientation differences) illustrate its
importance. A slight change in palm orientation can differentiate between signs that are
otherwise identical in handshape, location, and movement. Novice learners often overlook the
subtle but critical role of orientation, leading to signs that are grammatically incorrect or
semantically ambiguous.
5. NON-MANUAL MARKERS (NMMs): NMMs encompass facial expressions (e.g.,
raised eyebrows for questions, furrowed brows for "wh"-questions), head tilts, body posture,
and mouth movements (e.g., "cha" for large, "mm" for normal). Unlike the manual parameters,
NMMs are often produced simultaneously with manual signs and carry significant grammatical
and semantic weight. They can function as adverbs, adjectives, or even complete syntactic
structures (e.g., a simple head shake can negate a statement). Learners frequently underestimate
the importance of NMMs, often focusing solely on manual components. This oversight leads
to "flat" or ungrammatical signing, as NMMs are integral to ASL's syntax and emotional
expression (Baker & Padden, 1978).
ACQUISITION CHALLENGES FOR NOVICE LEARNERS: The integrated
complexity of these parameters presents several significant challenges for hearing novice
learners:
INTERFERENCE FROM SPOKEN LANGUAGE: Learners accustomed to linear-
temporal, auditory-vocal phonology must adapt to a visual-spatial, multi-dimensional
cherological system. This shift requires a fundamental reconceptualization of how language is
structured and processed.
MOTOR CONTROL AND PROPRIOCEPTION: Developing the precise fine motor
skills for handshapes, movements, and orientations, often performed simultaneously or in rapid
succession, requires extensive practice and proprioceptive awareness.
SIMULTANEOUS PROCESSING: The most significant hurdle is often the
simultaneous integration of all five parameters, particularly NMMs with manual signs. This
demands a high degree of cognitive processing and coordination not typically required in
spoken language production.
VISUAL-SPATIAL GRAMMAR: Understanding how space is used grammatically
(e.g., for verb agreement, referencing, narrative sequencing) is a departure from the largely
sequential grammar of spoken English.
PEDAGOGICAL STRATEGIES: Effective ASL
instruction for beginners must explicitly address each parameter, providing ample
opportunities for visual discrimination, guided practice, and feedback. Immersion in the Deaf
community and consistent exposure to fluent signers are invaluable for developing an intuitive
understanding of parameter integration, especially NMMs. Drills focusing on minimal pairs
that differ by only one parameter can enhance learners' cherological awareness.
COGNITIVE BENEFITS AND CROSS-LINGUISTIC IMPLICATIONS: Learning
ASL has been shown to enhance visual-spatial reasoning, attention to detail, and the ability to
process information across multiple modalities. From a cross-linguistic perspective, the study
of ASL cherology provides compelling evidence for the universal principles of language
organization, demonstrating that complex linguistic systems can manifest in diverse modalities.
It challenges glottocentric biases and enriches our understanding of human language capacity.
CONCLUSION
The cherological parameters of Handshape, Location, Movement, Orientation, and
Non-Manual Markers are the foundational building blocks of American Sign Language,
endowing it with the full linguistic complexity and expressive power of any natural language.
This project has elucidated how these parameters function individually and synergistically to
create meaning, and critically examined the specific challenges they pose for novice hearing
learners. The transition from a spoken language phonological system to a visual-spatial
cherological one demands not only motoric precision but also a profound cognitive shift in how
language is perceived and produced. Effective ASL acquisition hinges upon a deep,
linguistically informed understanding of these parameters. Pedagogical approaches must move
beyond rote vocabulary memorization to emphasize explicit instruction, extensive practice in
parameter differentiation, and immersion that fosters the simultaneous integration of all five
components, particularly the often-underestimated Non-Manual Markers. The difficulties
encountered by beginners underscore the sophisticated nature of ASL's structure and the
cognitive demands of mastering a language in a visual-spatial modality. Ultimately, the study
of ASL's cherological system not only facilitates more effective language acquisition but also
enriches our broader understanding of linguistic universals, cognitive flexibility, and the
remarkable diversity of human communication. ASL stands as a testament to the brain's
capacity for language, irrespective of modality, and its continued study offers invaluable
insights into the very nature of language itself.
The linguistic study of American Sign Language (ASL) fundamentally shifted from a
perception of ASL as a derivative of spoken English or a system of pantomime to its recognition
as a fully autonomous natural language with the pioneering work of William C. Stokoe in the
1960s (Stokoe, 1960). Stokoe’s seminal research at Gallaudet University introduced the
concept of "cheremes"—analogous to phonemes in spoken languages—which he categorized
into three primary components: Tab (Location), Dez (Handshape), and Sig (Movement). This
groundbreaking framework established a scientific basis for analyzing ASL’s internal
structure, demonstrating its systematicity and rule-governed nature. Subsequent research
expanded upon Stokoe’s model, leading to the widely accepted five-parameter model of ASL
phonology (or cherology). These parameters include Handshape (HS), Location (LOC),
Movement (MOV), Orientation (ORI), and Non-Manual Markers (NMMs) (Battison, 1978;
Liddell & Johnson, 1989). Battison's work, particularly his identification of the "Symmetry
Condition" and "Dominance Condition," provided crucial insights into the morphological
constraints and well-formedness rules governing ASL signs, demonstrating systematicity
beyond mere individual parameters. The "Movement-Hold" model proposed by Liddell and
Johnson (1989) further refined the understanding of ASL phonology by segmenting signs into
sequential holds and movements, analogous to consonant and vowel distinctions in spoken
language, offering a more granular analysis of temporal organization within signs. Neuro-
linguistic studies have further corroborated ASL’s status as a language, revealing that sign
language processing, much like spoken language, primarily engages left-hemisphere brain
regions associated with language functions (Poizner et al., 1987; Hickok et al., 1996). This
evidence refutes earlier notions that signed languages were purely spatial or visual, instead
highlighting their complex linguistic organization. Studies on ASL acquisition, both by native
signers (Deaf children of Deaf parents) and second language learners (hearing individuals),
reveal distinct developmental trajectories and challenges. Native acquisition often mirrors
milestones in spoken language acquisition, while second language learners frequently grapple
with transferring phonological awareness from an auditory-vocal modality to a visual-spatial
one (Padden & Humphries, 1988). Pedagogical approaches to ASL have evolved to incorporate
these linguistic insights. Early methods often focused solely on vocabulary memorization, akin
to rote learning in foreign language education. However, contemporary ASL pedagogy
emphasizes immersion, contextual learning, and explicit instruction on the five parameters,
recognizing that a deep understanding of these foundational elements is crucial for accurate
production and comprehension (Humphries & Padden, 2005). Challenges for hearing learners
include overcoming glottocentric biases, developing precise motor control for handshapes and
movements, and integrating NMMs, which often function adverbially or syntactically in ASL,
differing significantly from their role in spoken language. The literature consistently points to
the necessity of recognizing ASL as a unique linguistic system, not merely a translation of
English, to facilitate effective and respectful acquisition.
METHODOLOGY/APPROACH
This project employs a comprehensive theoretical and analytical synthesis approach,
integrating established linguistic theories with insights from cognitive science and pedagogical
research. The primary objective is to deconstruct the cherological parameters of ASL and
analyze their implications for novice learner acquisition and cross-linguistic understanding.
The research design is qualitative, drawing upon a robust body of existing scholarly literature
rather than generating new empirical data. The methodology involves:
1. LITERATURE REVIEW AND SYNTHESIS: Extensive review of foundational
texts and peer-reviewed articles from prominent academic databases (e.g., Google Scholar,
JSTOR, PsycINFO). Key search terms included "ASL phonology," "cherology," "sign
language linguistics," "ASL acquisition," "non-manual markers," and "visual-spatial language
processing." This synthesis aims to consolidate diverse perspectives on ASL’s linguistic
structure and pedagogical challenges.
2. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK: The five-parameter model (Handshape, Location,
Movement, Orientation, and Non-Manual Markers) serves as the core analytical framework.
Each parameter is individually examined for its linguistic function, variability, and specific
challenges it presents to beginning ASL learners.
3. COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS PERSPECTIVE: The analysis incorporates a
comparative lens, contrasting ASL’s cherological system with the phonological systems of
spoken languages to highlight both universal linguistic principles and modality-specific
differences. This approach illuminates the unique cognitive demands and advantages of visual-
spatial language processing.
4. PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS: Research on ASL teaching methodologies and
second language acquisition is integrated to identify effective strategies for parameter
instruction and to explain common errors and difficulties faced by hearing learners. Cognitive
load theory is implicitly considered when discussing the simultaneous processing demands of
ASL.
5. DATA SOURCES: Primary sources include seminal works by Stokoe (1960),
Battison (1978), Liddell and Johnson (1989), and Padden and Humphries (1988). Secondary
sources comprise contemporary articles from journals such as Sign Language Studies, Journal
of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, and Language Learning, alongside textbooks on ASL
linguistics and pedagogy. By systematically synthesizing these multi-disciplinary sources, this
project aims to provide a nuanced understanding of ASL's linguistic architecture and its
profound implications for both language education and broader linguistic theory.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The analysis of ASL's cherological parameters reveals a complex, highly structured
linguistic system that presents distinct challenges and opportunities for novice learners. Each
parameter contributes uniquely to the meaning and grammatical structure of a sign, and their
precise execution is paramount for accurate communication.
1. HANDSHAPE (HS): This parameter refers to the configuration of the hand(s) used
in a sign. ASL possesses a finite set of approximately 40 distinct handshapes, many of which
are derived from the American Manual Alphabet (Stokoe, 1960). Handshapes serve a
contrastive function; for example, the signs for "TRAIN" (two U-handshapes rubbing together)
and "CHAIR" (two H-handshapes tapping) differ only in handshape. Novice learners often
struggle with the fine motor control required to produce precise handshapes and maintaining
consistency, particularly with less common or more complex configurations.
Mispronunciation, akin to a spoken language accent, can occur if handshapes are not accurately
formed, leading to ambiguity or misunderstanding.
2. LOCATION (LOC): This parameter specifies where a sign is produced in relation
to the signer's body or in neutral signing space. Locations can be on the head (e.g., "KNOW"
at the temple, "THINK" at the forehead), torso (e.g., "FEEL" at the chest), or in the neutral
space in front of the signer (e.g., "SIGN"). Location is crucial for distinguishing minimal pairs
(e.g., "SUMMER" at the forehead vs. "DRY" at the chin) and for grammatical functions such
as verb agreement and spatial referencing. Beginning learners often face challenges in
accurately identifying and maintaining consistent signing locations, especially when signs
involve movement across different locations.
3. MOVEMENT (MOV): Movement refers to the path, direction, and repetition of the
hand(s) during a sign. It is a highly dynamic parameter, conveying not only lexical meaning
but also grammatical information such as aspect (e.g., continuous, iterative, punctual action).
For instance, the sign "WALK" can be modified by repeating the movement to indicate
"WALK CONTINUOUSLY" or "WALKING FOR A WHILE." Directionality in movement is
also critical for verb agreement (e.g., "ASK-YOU" vs. "ASK-ME"). Learners frequently
struggle with the nuanced precision of movement, including its speed, tension, and trajectory,
which can impact the intended meaning or grammatical function of a sign.
4. ORIENTATION (ORI): This parameter describes the direction the palm and/or
fingers are facing during a sign. While often subtle, orientation can be contrastive. For example,
the signs for "NAME" (H-handshape tapping on the other H-handshape) and "CHAIR" (same
handshape, different movement, but also subtle orientation differences) illustrate its
importance. A slight change in palm orientation can differentiate between signs that are
otherwise identical in handshape, location, and movement. Novice learners often overlook the
subtle but critical role of orientation, leading to signs that are grammatically incorrect or
semantically ambiguous.
5. NON-MANUAL MARKERS (NMMs): NMMs encompass facial expressions (e.g.,
raised eyebrows for questions, furrowed brows for "wh"-questions), head tilts, body posture,
and mouth movements (e.g., "cha" for large, "mm" for normal). Unlike the manual parameters,
NMMs are often produced simultaneously with manual signs and carry significant grammatical
and semantic weight. They can function as adverbs, adjectives, or even complete syntactic
structures (e.g., a simple head shake can negate a statement). Learners frequently underestimate
the importance of NMMs, often focusing solely on manual components. This oversight leads
to "flat" or ungrammatical signing, as NMMs are integral to ASL's syntax and emotional
expression (Baker & Padden, 1978).
ACQUISITION CHALLENGES FOR NOVICE LEARNERS: The integrated
complexity of these parameters presents several significant challenges for hearing novice
learners:
INTERFERENCE FROM SPOKEN LANGUAGE: Learners accustomed to linear-
temporal, auditory-vocal phonology must adapt to a visual-spatial, multi-dimensional
cherological system. This shift requires a fundamental reconceptualization of how language is
structured and processed.
MOTOR CONTROL AND PROPRIOCEPTION: Developing the precise fine motor
skills for handshapes, movements, and orientations, often performed simultaneously or in rapid
succession, requires extensive practice and proprioceptive awareness.
SIMULTANEOUS PROCESSING: The most significant hurdle is often the
simultaneous integration of all five parameters, particularly NMMs with manual signs. This
demands a high degree of cognitive processing and coordination not typically required in
spoken language production.
VISUAL-SPATIAL GRAMMAR: Understanding how space is used grammatically
(e.g., for verb agreement, referencing, narrative sequencing) is a departure from the largely
sequential grammar of spoken English.
PEDAGOGICAL STRATEGIES: Effective ASL
instruction for beginners must explicitly address each parameter, providing ample
opportunities for visual discrimination, guided practice, and feedback. Immersion in the Deaf
community and consistent exposure to fluent signers are invaluable for developing an intuitive
understanding of parameter integration, especially NMMs. Drills focusing on minimal pairs
that differ by only one parameter can enhance learners' cherological awareness.
COGNITIVE BENEFITS AND CROSS-LINGUISTIC IMPLICATIONS: Learning
ASL has been shown to enhance visual-spatial reasoning, attention to detail, and the ability to
process information across multiple modalities. From a cross-linguistic perspective, the study
of ASL cherology provides compelling evidence for the universal principles of language
organization, demonstrating that complex linguistic systems can manifest in diverse modalities.
It challenges glottocentric biases and enriches our understanding of human language capacity.
CONCLUSION
The cherological parameters of Handshape, Location, Movement, Orientation, and
Non-Manual Markers are the foundational building blocks of American Sign Language,
endowing it with the full linguistic complexity and expressive power of any natural language.
This project has elucidated how these parameters function individually and synergistically to
create meaning, and critically examined the specific challenges they pose for novice hearing
learners. The transition from a spoken language phonological system to a visual-spatial
cherological one demands not only motoric precision but also a profound cognitive shift in how
language is perceived and produced. Effective ASL acquisition hinges upon a deep,
linguistically informed understanding of these parameters. Pedagogical approaches must move
beyond rote vocabulary memorization to emphasize explicit instruction, extensive practice in
parameter differentiation, and immersion that fosters the simultaneous integration of all five
components, particularly the often-underestimated Non-Manual Markers. The difficulties
encountered by beginners underscore the sophisticated nature of ASL's structure and the
cognitive demands of mastering a language in a visual-spatial modality. Ultimately, the study
of ASL's cherological system not only facilitates more effective language acquisition but also
enriches our broader understanding of linguistic universals, cognitive flexibility, and the
remarkable diversity of human communication. ASL stands as a testament to the brain's
capacity for language, irrespective of modality, and its continued study offers invaluable
insights into the very nature of language itself.
The linguistic study of American Sign Language (ASL) fundamentally shifted from a
perception of ASL as a derivative of spoken English or a system of pantomime to its recognition
as a fully autonomous natural language with the pioneering work of William C. Stokoe in the
1960s (Stokoe, 1960). Stokoe’s seminal research at Gallaudet University introduced the
concept of "cheremes"—analogous to phonemes in spoken languages—which he categorized
into three primary components: Tab (Location), Dez (Handshape), and Sig (Movement). This
groundbreaking framework established a scientific basis for analyzing ASL’s internal
structure, demonstrating its systematicity and rule-governed nature. Subsequent research
expanded upon Stokoe’s model, leading to the widely accepted five-parameter model of ASL
phonology (or cherology). These parameters include Handshape (HS), Location (LOC),
Movement (MOV), Orientation (ORI), and Non-Manual Markers (NMMs) (Battison, 1978;
Liddell & Johnson, 1989). Battison's work, particularly his identification of the "Symmetry
Condition" and "Dominance Condition," provided crucial insights into the morphological
constraints and well-formedness rules governing ASL signs, demonstrating systematicity
beyond mere individual parameters. The "Movement-Hold" model proposed by Liddell and
Johnson (1989) further refined the understanding of ASL phonology by segmenting signs into
sequential holds and movements, analogous to consonant and vowel distinctions in spoken
language, offering a more granular analysis of temporal organization within signs. Neuro-
linguistic studies have further corroborated ASL’s status as a language, revealing that sign
language processing, much like spoken language, primarily engages left-hemisphere brain
regions associated with language functions (Poizner et al., 1987; Hickok et al., 1996). This
evidence refutes earlier notions that signed languages were purely spatial or visual, instead
highlighting their complex linguistic organization. Studies on ASL acquisition, both by native
signers (Deaf children of Deaf parents) and second language learners (hearing individuals),
reveal distinct developmental trajectories and challenges. Native acquisition often mirrors
milestones in spoken language acquisition, while second language learners frequently grapple
with transferring phonological awareness from an auditory-vocal modality to a visual-spatial
one (Padden & Humphries, 1988). Pedagogical approaches to ASL have evolved to incorporate
these linguistic insights. Early methods often focused solely on vocabulary memorization, akin
to rote learning in foreign language education. However, contemporary ASL pedagogy
emphasizes immersion, contextual learning, and explicit instruction on the five parameters,
recognizing that a deep understanding of these foundational elements is crucial for accurate
production and comprehension (Humphries & Padden, 2005). Challenges for hearing learners
include overcoming glottocentric biases, developing precise motor control for handshapes and
movements, and integrating NMMs, which often function adverbially or syntactically in ASL,
differing significantly from their role in spoken language. The literature consistently points to
the necessity of recognizing ASL as a unique linguistic system, not merely a translation of
English, to facilitate effective and respectful acquisition.
METHODOLOGY/APPROACH
This project employs a comprehensive theoretical and analytical synthesis approach,
integrating established linguistic theories with insights from cognitive science and pedagogical
research. The primary objective is to deconstruct the cherological parameters of ASL and
analyze their implications for novice learner acquisition and cross-linguistic understanding.
The research design is qualitative, drawing upon a robust body of existing scholarly literature
rather than generating new empirical data. The methodology involves:
1. LITERATURE REVIEW AND SYNTHESIS: Extensive review of foundational
texts and peer-reviewed articles from prominent academic databases (e.g., Google Scholar,
JSTOR, PsycINFO). Key search terms included "ASL phonology," "cherology," "sign
language linguistics," "ASL acquisition," "non-manual markers," and "visual-spatial language
processing." This synthesis aims to consolidate diverse perspectives on ASL’s linguistic
structure and pedagogical challenges.
2. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK: The five-parameter model (Handshape, Location,
Movement, Orientation, and Non-Manual Markers) serves as the core analytical framework.
Each parameter is individually examined for its linguistic function, variability, and specific
challenges it presents to beginning ASL learners.
3. COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS PERSPECTIVE: The analysis incorporates a
comparative lens, contrasting ASL’s cherological system with the phonological systems of
spoken languages to highlight both universal linguistic principles and modality-specific
differences. This approach illuminates the unique cognitive demands and advantages of visual-
spatial language processing.
4. PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS: Research on ASL teaching methodologies and
second language acquisition is integrated to identify effective strategies for parameter
instruction and to explain common errors and difficulties faced by hearing learners. Cognitive
load theory is implicitly considered when discussing the simultaneous processing demands of
ASL.
5. DATA SOURCES: Primary sources include seminal works by Stokoe (1960),
Battison (1978), Liddell and Johnson (1989), and Padden and Humphries (1988). Secondary
sources comprise contemporary articles from journals such as Sign Language Studies, Journal
of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, and Language Learning, alongside textbooks on ASL
linguistics and pedagogy. By systematically synthesizing these multi-disciplinary sources, this
project aims to provide a nuanced understanding of ASL's linguistic architecture and its
profound implications for both language education and broader linguistic theory.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The analysis of ASL's cherological parameters reveals a complex, highly structured
linguistic system that presents distinct challenges and opportunities for novice learners. Each
parameter contributes uniquely to the meaning and grammatical structure of a sign, and their
precise execution is paramount for accurate communication.
1. HANDSHAPE (HS): This parameter refers to the configuration of the hand(s) used
in a sign. ASL possesses a finite set of approximately 40 distinct handshapes, many of which
are derived from the American Manual Alphabet (Stokoe, 1960). Handshapes serve a
contrastive function; for example, the signs for "TRAIN" (two U-handshapes rubbing together)
and "CHAIR" (two H-handshapes tapping) differ only in handshape. Novice learners often
struggle with the fine motor control required to produce precise handshapes and maintaining
consistency, particularly with less common or more complex configurations.
Mispronunciation, akin to a spoken language accent, can occur if handshapes are not accurately
formed, leading to ambiguity or misunderstanding.
2. LOCATION (LOC): This parameter specifies where a sign is produced in relation
to the signer's body or in neutral signing space. Locations can be on the head (e.g., "KNOW"
at the temple, "THINK" at the forehead), torso (e.g., "FEEL" at the chest), or in the neutral
space in front of the signer (e.g., "SIGN"). Location is crucial for distinguishing minimal pairs
(e.g., "SUMMER" at the forehead vs. "DRY" at the chin) and for grammatical functions such
as verb agreement and spatial referencing. Beginning learners often face challenges in
accurately identifying and maintaining consistent signing locations, especially when signs
involve movement across different locations.
3. MOVEMENT (MOV): Movement refers to the path, direction, and repetition of the
hand(s) during a sign. It is a highly dynamic parameter, conveying not only lexical meaning
but also grammatical information such as aspect (e.g., continuous, iterative, punctual action).
For instance, the sign "WALK" can be modified by repeating the movement to indicate
"WALK CONTINUOUSLY" or "WALKING FOR A WHILE." Directionality in movement is
also critical for verb agreement (e.g., "ASK-YOU" vs. "ASK-ME"). Learners frequently
struggle with the nuanced precision of movement, including its speed, tension, and trajectory,
which can impact the intended meaning or grammatical function of a sign.
4. ORIENTATION (ORI): This parameter describes the direction the palm and/or
fingers are facing during a sign. While often subtle, orientation can be contrastive. For example,
the signs for "NAME" (H-handshape tapping on the other H-handshape) and "CHAIR" (same
handshape, different movement, but also subtle orientation differences) illustrate its
importance. A slight change in palm orientation can differentiate between signs that are
otherwise identical in handshape, location, and movement. Novice learners often overlook the
subtle but critical role of orientation, leading to signs that are grammatically incorrect or
semantically ambiguous.
5. NON-MANUAL MARKERS (NMMs): NMMs encompass facial expressions (e.g.,
raised eyebrows for questions, furrowed brows for "wh"-questions), head tilts, body posture,
and mouth movements (e.g., "cha" for large, "mm" for normal). Unlike the manual parameters,
NMMs are often produced simultaneously with manual signs and carry significant grammatical
and semantic weight. They can function as adverbs, adjectives, or even complete syntactic
structures (e.g., a simple head shake can negate a statement). Learners frequently underestimate
the importance of NMMs, often focusing solely on manual components. This oversight leads
to "flat" or ungrammatical signing, as NMMs are integral to ASL's syntax and emotional
expression (Baker & Padden, 1978).
ACQUISITION CHALLENGES FOR NOVICE LEARNERS: The integrated
complexity of these parameters presents several significant challenges for hearing novice
learners:
INTERFERENCE FROM SPOKEN LANGUAGE: Learners accustomed to linear-
temporal, auditory-vocal phonology must adapt to a visual-spatial, multi-dimensional
cherological system. This shift requires a fundamental reconceptualization of how language is
structured and processed.
MOTOR CONTROL AND PROPRIOCEPTION: Developing the precise fine motor
skills for handshapes, movements, and orientations, often performed simultaneously or in rapid
succession, requires extensive practice and proprioceptive awareness.
SIMULTANEOUS PROCESSING: The most significant hurdle is often the
simultaneous integration of all five parameters, particularly NMMs with manual signs. This
demands a high degree of cognitive processing and coordination not typically required in
spoken language production.
VISUAL-SPATIAL GRAMMAR: Understanding how space is used grammatically
(e.g., for verb agreement, referencing, narrative sequencing) is a departure from the largely
sequential grammar of spoken English.
PEDAGOGICAL STRATEGIES: Effective ASL
instruction for beginners must explicitly address each parameter, providing ample
opportunities for visual discrimination, guided practice, and feedback. Immersion in the Deaf
community and consistent exposure to fluent signers are invaluable for developing an intuitive
understanding of parameter integration, especially NMMs. Drills focusing on minimal pairs
that differ by only one parameter can enhance learners' cherological awareness.
COGNITIVE BENEFITS AND CROSS-LINGUISTIC IMPLICATIONS: Learning
ASL has been shown to enhance visual-spatial reasoning, attention to detail, and the ability to
process information across multiple modalities. From a cross-linguistic perspective, the study
of ASL cherology provides compelling evidence for the universal principles of language
organization, demonstrating that complex linguistic systems can manifest in diverse modalities.
It challenges glottocentric biases and enriches our understanding of human language capacity.
CONCLUSION
The cherological parameters of Handshape, Location, Movement, Orientation, and
Non-Manual Markers are the foundational building blocks of American Sign Language,
endowing it with the full linguistic complexity and expressive power of any natural language.
This project has elucidated how these parameters function individually and synergistically to
create meaning, and critically examined the specific challenges they pose for novice hearing
learners. The transition from a spoken language phonological system to a visual-spatial
cherological one demands not only motoric precision but also a profound cognitive shift in how
language is perceived and produced. Effective ASL acquisition hinges upon a deep,
linguistically informed understanding of these parameters. Pedagogical approaches must move
beyond rote vocabulary memorization to emphasize explicit instruction, extensive practice in
parameter differentiation, and immersion that fosters the simultaneous integration of all five
components, particularly the often-underestimated Non-Manual Markers. The difficulties
encountered by beginners underscore the sophisticated nature of ASL's structure and the
cognitive demands of mastering a language in a visual-spatial modality. Ultimately, the study
of ASL's cherological system not only facilitates more effective language acquisition but also
enriches our broader understanding of linguistic universals, cognitive flexibility, and the
remarkable diversity of human communication. ASL stands as a testament to the brain's
capacity for language, irrespective of modality, and its continued study offers invaluable
insights into the very nature of language itself.
The linguistic study of American Sign Language (ASL) fundamentally shifted from a
perception of ASL as a derivative of spoken English or a system of pantomime to its recognition
as a fully autonomous natural language with the pioneering work of William C. Stokoe in the
1960s (Stokoe, 1960). Stokoe’s seminal research at Gallaudet University introduced the
concept of "cheremes"—analogous to phonemes in spoken languages—which he categorized
into three primary components: Tab (Location), Dez (Handshape), and Sig (Movement). This
groundbreaking framework established a scientific basis for analyzing ASL’s internal
structure, demonstrating its systematicity and rule-governed nature. Subsequent research
expanded upon Stokoe’s model, leading to the widely accepted five-parameter model of ASL
phonology (or cherology). These parameters include Handshape (HS), Location (LOC),
Movement (MOV), Orientation (ORI), and Non-Manual Markers (NMMs) (Battison, 1978;
Liddell & Johnson, 1989). Battison's work, particularly his identification of the "Symmetry
Condition" and "Dominance Condition," provided crucial insights into the morphological
constraints and well-formedness rules governing ASL signs, demonstrating systematicity
beyond mere individual parameters. The "Movement-Hold" model proposed by Liddell and
Johnson (1989) further refined the understanding of ASL phonology by segmenting signs into
sequential holds and movements, analogous to consonant and vowel distinctions in spoken
language, offering a more granular analysis of temporal organization within signs. Neuro-
linguistic studies have further corroborated ASL’s status as a language, revealing that sign
language processing, much like spoken language, primarily engages left-hemisphere brain
regions associated with language functions (Poizner et al., 1987; Hickok et al., 1996). This
evidence refutes earlier notions that signed languages were purely spatial or visual, instead
highlighting their complex linguistic organization. Studies on ASL acquisition, both by native
signers (Deaf children of Deaf parents) and second language learners (hearing individuals),
reveal distinct developmental trajectories and challenges. Native acquisition often mirrors
milestones in spoken language acquisition, while second language learners frequently grapple
with transferring phonological awareness from an auditory-vocal modality to a visual-spatial
one (Padden & Humphries, 1988). Pedagogical approaches to ASL have evolved to incorporate
these linguistic insights. Early methods often focused solely on vocabulary memorization, akin
to rote learning in foreign language education. However, contemporary ASL pedagogy
emphasizes immersion, contextual learning, and explicit instruction on the five parameters,
recognizing that a deep understanding of these foundational elements is crucial for accurate
production and comprehension (Humphries & Padden, 2005). Challenges for hearing learners
include overcoming glottocentric biases, developing precise motor control for handshapes and
movements, and integrating NMMs, which often function adverbially or syntactically in ASL,
differing significantly from their role in spoken language. The literature consistently points to
the necessity of recognizing ASL as a unique linguistic system, not merely a translation of
English, to facilitate effective and respectful acquisition.
METHODOLOGY/APPROACH
This project employs a comprehensive theoretical and analytical synthesis approach,
integrating established linguistic theories with insights from cognitive science and pedagogical
research. The primary objective is to deconstruct the cherological parameters of ASL and
analyze their implications for novice learner acquisition and cross-linguistic understanding.
The research design is qualitative, drawing upon a robust body of existing scholarly literature
rather than generating new empirical data. The methodology involves:
1. LITERATURE REVIEW AND SYNTHESIS: Extensive review of foundational
texts and peer-reviewed articles from prominent academic databases (e.g., Google Scholar,
JSTOR, PsycINFO). Key search terms included "ASL phonology," "cherology," "sign
language linguistics," "ASL acquisition," "non-manual markers," and "visual-spatial language
processing." This synthesis aims to consolidate diverse perspectives on ASL’s linguistic
structure and pedagogical challenges.
2. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK: The five-parameter model (Handshape, Location,
Movement, Orientation, and Non-Manual Markers) serves as the core analytical framework.
Each parameter is individually examined for its linguistic function, variability, and specific
challenges it presents to beginning ASL learners.
3. COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS PERSPECTIVE: The analysis incorporates a
comparative lens, contrasting ASL’s cherological system with the phonological systems of
spoken languages to highlight both universal linguistic principles and modality-specific
differences. This approach illuminates the unique cognitive demands and advantages of visual-
spatial language processing.
4. PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS: Research on ASL teaching methodologies and
second language acquisition is integrated to identify effective strategies for parameter
instruction and to explain common errors and difficulties faced by hearing learners. Cognitive
load theory is implicitly considered when discussing the simultaneous processing demands of
ASL.
5. DATA SOURCES: Primary sources include seminal works by Stokoe (1960),
Battison (1978), Liddell and Johnson (1989), and Padden and Humphries (1988). Secondary
sources comprise contemporary articles from journals such as Sign Language Studies, Journal
of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, and Language Learning, alongside textbooks on ASL
linguistics and pedagogy. By systematically synthesizing these multi-disciplinary sources, this
project aims to provide a nuanced understanding of ASL's linguistic architecture and its
profound implications for both language education and broader linguistic theory.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The analysis of ASL's cherological parameters reveals a complex, highly structured
linguistic system that presents distinct challenges and opportunities for novice learners. Each
parameter contributes uniquely to the meaning and grammatical structure of a sign, and their
precise execution is paramount for accurate communication.
1. HANDSHAPE (HS): This parameter refers to the configuration of the hand(s) used
in a sign. ASL possesses a finite set of approximately 40 distinct handshapes, many of which
are derived from the American Manual Alphabet (Stokoe, 1960). Handshapes serve a
contrastive function; for example, the signs for "TRAIN" (two U-handshapes rubbing together)
and "CHAIR" (two H-handshapes tapping) differ only in handshape. Novice learners often
struggle with the fine motor control required to produce precise handshapes and maintaining
consistency, particularly with less common or more complex configurations.
Mispronunciation, akin to a spoken language accent, can occur if handshapes are not accurately
formed, leading to ambiguity or misunderstanding.
2. LOCATION (LOC): This parameter specifies where a sign is produced in relation
to the signer's body or in neutral signing space. Locations can be on the head (e.g., "KNOW"
at the temple, "THINK" at the forehead), torso (e.g., "FEEL" at the chest), or in the neutral
space in front of the signer (e.g., "SIGN"). Location is crucial for distinguishing minimal pairs
(e.g., "SUMMER" at the forehead vs. "DRY" at the chin) and for grammatical functions such
as verb agreement and spatial referencing. Beginning learners often face challenges in
accurately identifying and maintaining consistent signing locations, especially when signs
involve movement across different locations.
3. MOVEMENT (MOV): Movement refers to the path, direction, and repetition of the
hand(s) during a sign. It is a highly dynamic parameter, conveying not only lexical meaning
but also grammatical information such as aspect (e.g., continuous, iterative, punctual action).
For instance, the sign "WALK" can be modified by repeating the movement to indicate
"WALK CONTINUOUSLY" or "WALKING FOR A WHILE." Directionality in movement is
also critical for verb agreement (e.g., "ASK-YOU" vs. "ASK-ME"). Learners frequently
struggle with the nuanced precision of movement, including its speed, tension, and trajectory,
which can impact the intended meaning or grammatical function of a sign.
4. ORIENTATION (ORI): This parameter describes the direction the palm and/or
fingers are facing during a sign. While often subtle, orientation can be contrastive. For example,
the signs for "NAME" (H-handshape tapping on the other H-handshape) and "CHAIR" (same
handshape, different movement, but also subtle orientation differences) illustrate its
importance. A slight change in palm orientation can differentiate between signs that are
otherwise identical in handshape, location, and movement. Novice learners often overlook the
subtle but critical role of orientation, leading to signs that are grammatically incorrect or
semantically ambiguous.
5. NON-MANUAL MARKERS (NMMs): NMMs encompass facial expressions (e.g.,
raised eyebrows for questions, furrowed brows for "wh"-questions), head tilts, body posture,
and mouth movements (e.g., "cha" for large, "mm" for normal). Unlike the manual parameters,
NMMs are often produced simultaneously with manual signs and carry significant grammatical
and semantic weight. They can function as adverbs, adjectives, or even complete syntactic
structures (e.g., a simple head shake can negate a statement). Learners frequently underestimate
the importance of NMMs, often focusing solely on manual components. This oversight leads
to "flat" or ungrammatical signing, as NMMs are integral to ASL's syntax and emotional
expression (Baker & Padden, 1978).
ACQUISITION CHALLENGES FOR NOVICE LEARNERS: The integrated
complexity of these parameters presents several significant challenges for hearing novice
learners:
INTERFERENCE FROM SPOKEN LANGUAGE: Learners accustomed to linear-
temporal, auditory-vocal phonology must adapt to a visual-spatial, multi-dimensional
cherological system. This shift requires a fundamental reconceptualization of how language is
structured and processed.
MOTOR CONTROL AND PROPRIOCEPTION: Developing the precise fine motor
skills for handshapes, movements, and orientations, often performed simultaneously or in rapid
succession, requires extensive practice and proprioceptive awareness.
SIMULTANEOUS PROCESSING: The most significant hurdle is often the
simultaneous integration of all five parameters, particularly NMMs with manual signs. This
demands a high degree of cognitive processing and coordination not typically required in
spoken language production.
VISUAL-SPATIAL GRAMMAR: Understanding how space is used grammatically
(e.g., for verb agreement, referencing, narrative sequencing) is a departure from the largely
sequential grammar of spoken English.
PEDAGOGICAL STRATEGIES: Effective ASL
instruction for beginners must explicitly address each parameter, providing ample
opportunities for visual discrimination, guided practice, and feedback. Immersion in the Deaf
community and consistent exposure to fluent signers are invaluable for developing an intuitive
understanding of parameter integration, especially NMMs. Drills focusing on minimal pairs
that differ by only one parameter can enhance learners' cherological awareness.
COGNITIVE BENEFITS AND CROSS-LINGUISTIC IMPLICATIONS: Learning
ASL has been shown to enhance visual-spatial reasoning, attention to detail, and the ability to
process information across multiple modalities. From a cross-linguistic perspective, the study
of ASL cherology provides compelling evidence for the universal principles of language
organization, demonstrating that complex linguistic systems can manifest in diverse modalities.
It challenges glottocentric biases and enriches our understanding of human language capacity.
CONCLUSION
The cherological parameters of Handshape, Location, Movement, Orientation, and
Non-Manual Markers are the foundational building blocks of American Sign Language,
endowing it with the full linguistic complexity and expressive power of any natural language.
This project has elucidated how these parameters function individually and synergistically to
create meaning, and critically examined the specific challenges they pose for novice hearing
learners. The transition from a spoken language phonological system to a visual-spatial
cherological one demands not only motoric precision but also a profound cognitive shift in how
language is perceived and produced. Effective ASL acquisition hinges upon a deep,
linguistically informed understanding of these parameters. Pedagogical approaches must move
beyond rote vocabulary memorization to emphasize explicit instruction, extensive practice in
parameter differentiation, and immersion that fosters the simultaneous integration of all five
components, particularly the often-underestimated Non-Manual Markers. The difficulties
encountered by beginners underscore the sophisticated nature of ASL's structure and the
cognitive demands of mastering a language in a visual-spatial modality. Ultimately, the study
of ASL's cherological system not only facilitates more effective language acquisition but also
enriches our broader understanding of linguistic universals, cognitive flexibility, and the
remarkable diversity of human communication. ASL stands as a testament to the brain's
capacity for language, irrespective of modality, and its continued study offers invaluable
insights into the very nature of language itself.
The linguistic study of American Sign Language (ASL) fundamentally shifted from a
perception of ASL as a derivative of spoken English or a system of pantomime to its recognition
as a fully autonomous natural language with the pioneering work of William C. Stokoe in the
1960s (Stokoe, 1960). Stokoe’s seminal research at Gallaudet University introduced the
concept of "cheremes"—analogous to phonemes in spoken languages—which he categorized
into three primary components: Tab (Location), Dez (Handshape), and Sig (Movement). This
groundbreaking framework established a scientific basis for analyzing ASL’s internal
structure, demonstrating its systematicity and rule-governed nature. Subsequent research
expanded upon Stokoe’s model, leading to the widely accepted five-parameter model of ASL
phonology (or cherology). These parameters include Handshape (HS), Location (LOC),
Movement (MOV), Orientation (ORI), and Non-Manual Markers (NMMs) (Battison, 1978;
Liddell & Johnson, 1989). Battison's work, particularly his identification of the "Symmetry
Condition" and "Dominance Condition," provided crucial insights into the morphological
constraints and well-formedness rules governing ASL signs, demonstrating systematicity
beyond mere individual parameters. The "Movement-Hold" model proposed by Liddell and
Johnson (1989) further refined the understanding of ASL phonology by segmenting signs into
sequential holds and movements, analogous to consonant and vowel distinctions in spoken
language, offering a more granular analysis of temporal organization within signs. Neuro-
linguistic studies have further corroborated ASL’s status as a language, revealing that sign
language processing, much like spoken language, primarily engages left-hemisphere brain
regions associated with language functions (Poizner et al., 1987; Hickok et al., 1996). This
evidence refutes earlier notions that signed languages were purely spatial or visual, instead
highlighting their complex linguistic organization. Studies on ASL acquisition, both by native
signers (Deaf children of Deaf parents) and second language learners (hearing individuals),
reveal distinct developmental trajectories and challenges. Native acquisition often mirrors
milestones in spoken language acquisition, while second language learners frequently grapple
with transferring phonological awareness from an auditory-vocal modality to a visual-spatial
one (Padden & Humphries, 1988). Pedagogical approaches to ASL have evolved to incorporate
these linguistic insights. Early methods often focused solely on vocabulary memorization, akin
to rote learning in foreign language education. However, contemporary ASL pedagogy
emphasizes immersion, contextual learning, and explicit instruction on the five parameters,
recognizing that a deep understanding of these foundational elements is crucial for accurate
production and comprehension (Humphries & Padden, 2005). Challenges for hearing learners
include overcoming glottocentric biases, developing precise motor control for handshapes and
movements, and integrating NMMs, which often function adverbially or syntactically in ASL,
differing significantly from their role in spoken language. The literature consistently points to
the necessity of recognizing ASL as a unique linguistic system, not merely a translation of
English, to facilitate effective and respectful acquisition.
METHODOLOGY/APPROACH
This project employs a comprehensive theoretical and analytical synthesis approach,
integrating established linguistic theories with insights from cognitive science and pedagogical
research. The primary objective is to deconstruct the cherological parameters of ASL and
analyze their implications for novice learner acquisition and cross-linguistic understanding.
The research design is qualitative, drawing upon a robust body of existing scholarly literature
rather than generating new empirical data. The methodology involves:
1. LITERATURE REVIEW AND SYNTHESIS: Extensive review of foundational
texts and peer-reviewed articles from prominent academic databases (e.g., Google Scholar,
JSTOR, PsycINFO). Key search terms included "ASL phonology," "cherology," "sign
language linguistics," "ASL acquisition," "non-manual markers," and "visual-spatial language
processing." This synthesis aims to consolidate diverse perspectives on ASL’s linguistic
structure and pedagogical challenges.
2. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK: The five-parameter model (Handshape, Location,
Movement, Orientation, and Non-Manual Markers) serves as the core analytical framework.
Each parameter is individually examined for its linguistic function, variability, and specific
challenges it presents to beginning ASL learners.
3. COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS PERSPECTIVE: The analysis incorporates a
comparative lens, contrasting ASL’s cherological system with the phonological systems of
spoken languages to highlight both universal linguistic principles and modality-specific
differences. This approach illuminates the unique cognitive demands and advantages of visual-
spatial language processing.
4. PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS: Research on ASL teaching methodologies and
second language acquisition is integrated to identify effective strategies for parameter
instruction and to explain common errors and difficulties faced by hearing learners. Cognitive
load theory is implicitly considered when discussing the simultaneous processing demands of
ASL.
5. DATA SOURCES: Primary sources include seminal works by Stokoe (1960),
Battison (1978), Liddell and Johnson (1989), and Padden and Humphries (1988). Secondary
sources comprise contemporary articles from journals such as Sign Language Studies, Journal
of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, and Language Learning, alongside textbooks on ASL
linguistics and pedagogy. By systematically synthesizing these multi-disciplinary sources, this
project aims to provide a nuanced understanding of ASL's linguistic architecture and its
profound implications for both language education and broader linguistic theory.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The analysis of ASL's cherological parameters reveals a complex, highly structured
linguistic system that presents distinct challenges and opportunities for novice learners. Each
parameter contributes uniquely to the meaning and grammatical structure of a sign, and their
precise execution is paramount for accurate communication.
1. HANDSHAPE (HS): This parameter refers to the configuration of the hand(s) used
in a sign. ASL possesses a finite set of approximately 40 distinct handshapes, many of which
are derived from the American Manual Alphabet (Stokoe, 1960). Handshapes serve a
contrastive function; for example, the signs for "TRAIN" (two U-handshapes rubbing together)
and "CHAIR" (two H-handshapes tapping) differ only in handshape. Novice learners often
struggle with the fine motor control required to produce precise handshapes and maintaining
consistency, particularly with less common or more complex configurations.
Mispronunciation, akin to a spoken language accent, can occur if handshapes are not accurately
formed, leading to ambiguity or misunderstanding.
2. LOCATION (LOC): This parameter specifies where a sign is produced in relation
to the signer's body or in neutral signing space. Locations can be on the head (e.g., "KNOW"
at the temple, "THINK" at the forehead), torso (e.g., "FEEL" at the chest), or in the neutral
space in front of the signer (e.g., "SIGN"). Location is crucial for distinguishing minimal pairs
(e.g., "SUMMER" at the forehead vs. "DRY" at the chin) and for grammatical functions such
as verb agreement and spatial referencing. Beginning learners often face challenges in
accurately identifying and maintaining consistent signing locations, especially when signs
involve movement across different locations.
3. MOVEMENT (MOV): Movement refers to the path, direction, and repetition of the
hand(s) during a sign. It is a highly dynamic parameter, conveying not only lexical meaning
but also grammatical information such as aspect (e.g., continuous, iterative, punctual action).
For instance, the sign "WALK" can be modified by repeating the movement to indicate
"WALK CONTINUOUSLY" or "WALKING FOR A WHILE." Directionality in movement is
also critical for verb agreement (e.g., "ASK-YOU" vs. "ASK-ME"). Learners frequently
struggle with the nuanced precision of movement, including its speed, tension, and trajectory,
which can impact the intended meaning or grammatical function of a sign.
4. ORIENTATION (ORI): This parameter describes the direction the palm and/or
fingers are facing during a sign. While often subtle, orientation can be contrastive. For example,
the signs for "NAME" (H-handshape tapping on the other H-handshape) and "CHAIR" (same
handshape, different movement, but also subtle orientation differences) illustrate its
importance. A slight change in palm orientation can differentiate between signs that are
otherwise identical in handshape, location, and movement. Novice learners often overlook the
subtle but critical role of orientation, leading to signs that are grammatically incorrect or
semantically ambiguous.
5. NON-MANUAL MARKERS (NMMs): NMMs encompass facial expressions (e.g.,
raised eyebrows for questions, furrowed brows for "wh"-questions), head tilts, body posture,
and mouth movements (e.g., "cha" for large, "mm" for normal). Unlike the manual parameters,
NMMs are often produced simultaneously with manual signs and carry significant grammatical
and semantic weight. They can function as adverbs, adjectives, or even complete syntactic
structures (e.g., a simple head shake can negate a statement). Learners frequently underestimate
the importance of NMMs, often focusing solely on manual components. This oversight leads
to "flat" or ungrammatical signing, as NMMs are integral to ASL's syntax and emotional
expression (Baker & Padden, 1978).
ACQUISITION CHALLENGES FOR NOVICE LEARNERS: The integrated
complexity of these parameters presents several significant challenges for hearing novice
learners:
INTERFERENCE FROM SPOKEN LANGUAGE: Learners accustomed to linear-
temporal, auditory-vocal phonology must adapt to a visual-spatial, multi-dimensional
cherological system. This shift requires a fundamental reconceptualization of how language is
structured and processed.
MOTOR CONTROL AND PROPRIOCEPTION: Developing the precise fine motor
skills for handshapes, movements, and orientations, often performed simultaneously or in rapid
succession, requires extensive practice and proprioceptive awareness.
SIMULTANEOUS PROCESSING: The most significant hurdle is often the
simultaneous integration of all five parameters, particularly NMMs with manual signs. This
demands a high degree of cognitive processing and coordination not typically required in
spoken language production.
VISUAL-SPATIAL GRAMMAR: Understanding how space is used grammatically
(e.g., for verb agreement, referencing, narrative sequencing) is a departure from the largely
sequential grammar of spoken English.
PEDAGOGICAL STRATEGIES: Effective ASL
instruction for beginners must explicitly address each parameter, providing ample
opportunities for visual discrimination, guided practice, and feedback. Immersion in the Deaf
community and consistent exposure to fluent signers are invaluable for developing an intuitive
understanding of parameter integration, especially NMMs. Drills focusing on minimal pairs
that differ by only one parameter can enhance learners' cherological awareness.
COGNITIVE BENEFITS AND CROSS-LINGUISTIC IMPLICATIONS: Learning
ASL has been shown to enhance visual-spatial reasoning, attention to detail, and the ability to
process information across multiple modalities. From a cross-linguistic perspective, the study
of ASL cherology provides compelling evidence for the universal principles of language
organization, demonstrating that complex linguistic systems can manifest in diverse modalities.
It challenges glottocentric biases and enriches our understanding of human language capacity.
CONCLUSION
The cherological parameters of Handshape, Location, Movement, Orientation, and
Non-Manual Markers are the foundational building blocks of American Sign Language,
endowing it with the full linguistic complexity and expressive power of any natural language.
This project has elucidated how these parameters function individually and synergistically to
create meaning, and critically examined the specific challenges they pose for novice hearing
learners. The transition from a spoken language phonological system to a visual-spatial
cherological one demands not only motoric precision but also a profound cognitive shift in how
language is perceived and produced. Effective ASL acquisition hinges upon a deep,
linguistically informed understanding of these parameters. Pedagogical approaches must move
beyond rote vocabulary memorization to emphasize explicit instruction, extensive practice in
parameter differentiation, and immersion that fosters the simultaneous integration of all five
components, particularly the often-underestimated Non-Manual Markers. The difficulties
encountered by beginners underscore the sophisticated nature of ASL's structure and the
cognitive demands of mastering a language in a visual-spatial modality. Ultimately, the study
of ASL's cherological system not only facilitates more effective language acquisition but also
enriches our broader understanding of linguistic universals, cognitive flexibility, and the
remarkable diversity of human communication. ASL stands as a testament to the brain's
capacity for language, irrespective of modality, and its continued study offers invaluable
insights into the very nature of language itself.
The linguistic study of American Sign Language (ASL) fundamentally shifted from a
perception of ASL as a derivative of spoken English or a system of pantomime to its recognition
as a fully autonomous natural language with the pioneering work of William C. Stokoe in the
1960s (Stokoe, 1960). Stokoe’s seminal research at Gallaudet University introduced the
concept of "cheremes"—analogous to phonemes in spoken languages—which he categorized
into three primary components: Tab (Location), Dez (Handshape), and Sig (Movement). This
groundbreaking framework established a scientific basis for analyzing ASL’s internal
structure, demonstrating its systematicity and rule-governed nature. Subsequent research
expanded upon Stokoe’s model, leading to the widely accepted five-parameter model of ASL
phonology (or cherology). These parameters include Handshape (HS), Location (LOC),
Movement (MOV), Orientation (ORI), and Non-Manual Markers (NMMs) (Battison, 1978;
Liddell & Johnson, 1989). Battison's work, particularly his identification of the "Symmetry
Condition" and "Dominance Condition," provided crucial insights into the morphological
constraints and well-formedness rules governing ASL signs, demonstrating systematicity
beyond mere individual parameters. The "Movement-Hold" model proposed by Liddell and
Johnson (1989) further refined the understanding of ASL phonology by segmenting signs into
sequential holds and movements, analogous to consonant and vowel distinctions in spoken
language, offering a more granular analysis of temporal organization within signs. Neuro-
linguistic studies have further corroborated ASL’s status as a language, revealing that sign
language processing, much like spoken language, primarily engages left-hemisphere brain
regions associated with language functions (Poizner et al., 1987; Hickok et al., 1996). This
evidence refutes earlier notions that signed languages were purely spatial or visual, instead
highlighting their complex linguistic organization. Studies on ASL acquisition, both by native
signers (Deaf children of Deaf parents) and second language learners (hearing individuals),
reveal distinct developmental trajectories and challenges. Native acquisition often mirrors
milestones in spoken language acquisition, while second language learners frequently grapple
with transferring phonological awareness from an auditory-vocal modality to a visual-spatial
one (Padden & Humphries, 1988). Pedagogical approaches to ASL have evolved to incorporate
these linguistic insights. Early methods often focused solely on vocabulary memorization, akin
to rote learning in foreign language education. However, contemporary ASL pedagogy
emphasizes immersion, contextual learning, and explicit instruction on the five parameters,
recognizing that a deep understanding of these foundational elements is crucial for accurate
production and comprehension (Humphries & Padden, 2005). Challenges for hearing learners
include overcoming glottocentric biases, developing precise motor control for handshapes and
movements, and integrating NMMs, which often function adverbially or syntactically in ASL,
differing significantly from their role in spoken language. The literature consistently points to
the necessity of recognizing ASL as a unique linguistic system, not merely a translation of
English, to facilitate effective and respectful acquisition.
METHODOLOGY/APPROACH
This project employs a comprehensive theoretical and analytical synthesis approach,
integrating established linguistic theories with insights from cognitive science and pedagogical
research. The primary objective is to deconstruct the cherological parameters of ASL and
analyze their implications for novice learner acquisition and cross-linguistic understanding.
The research design is qualitative, drawing upon a robust body of existing scholarly literature
rather than generating new empirical data. The methodology involves:
1. LITERATURE REVIEW AND SYNTHESIS: Extensive review of foundational
texts and peer-reviewed articles from prominent academic databases (e.g., Google Scholar,
JSTOR, PsycINFO). Key search terms included "ASL phonology," "cherology," "sign
language linguistics," "ASL acquisition," "non-manual markers," and "visual-spatial language
processing." This synthesis aims to consolidate diverse perspectives on ASL’s linguistic
structure and pedagogical challenges.
2. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK: The five-parameter model (Handshape, Location,
Movement, Orientation, and Non-Manual Markers) serves as the core analytical framework.
Each parameter is individually examined for its linguistic function, variability, and specific
challenges it presents to beginning ASL learners.
3. COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS PERSPECTIVE: The analysis incorporates a
comparative lens, contrasting ASL’s cherological system with the phonological systems of
spoken languages to highlight both universal linguistic principles and modality-specific
differences. This approach illuminates the unique cognitive demands and advantages of visual-
spatial language processing.
4. PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS: Research on ASL teaching methodologies and
second language acquisition is integrated to identify effective strategies for parameter
instruction and to explain common errors and difficulties faced by hearing learners. Cognitive
load theory is implicitly considered when discussing the simultaneous processing demands of
ASL.
5. DATA SOURCES: Primary sources include seminal works by Stokoe (1960),
Battison (1978), Liddell and Johnson (1989), and Padden and Humphries (1988). Secondary
sources comprise contemporary articles from journals such as Sign Language Studies, Journal
of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, and Language Learning, alongside textbooks on ASL
linguistics and pedagogy. By systematically synthesizing these multi-disciplinary sources, this
project aims to provide a nuanced understanding of ASL's linguistic architecture and its
profound implications for both language education and broader linguistic theory.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The analysis of ASL's cherological parameters reveals a complex, highly structured
linguistic system that presents distinct challenges and opportunities for novice learners. Each
parameter contributes uniquely to the meaning and grammatical structure of a sign, and their
precise execution is paramount for accurate communication.
1. HANDSHAPE (HS): This parameter refers to the configuration of the hand(s) used
in a sign. ASL possesses a finite set of approximately 40 distinct handshapes, many of which
are derived from the American Manual Alphabet (Stokoe, 1960). Handshapes serve a
contrastive function; for example, the signs for "TRAIN" (two U-handshapes rubbing together)
and "CHAIR" (two H-handshapes tapping) differ only in handshape. Novice learners often
struggle with the fine motor control required to produce precise handshapes and maintaining
consistency, particularly with less common or more complex configurations.
Mispronunciation, akin to a spoken language accent, can occur if handshapes are not accurately
formed, leading to ambiguity or misunderstanding.
2. LOCATION (LOC): This parameter specifies where a sign is produced in relation
to the signer's body or in neutral signing space. Locations can be on the head (e.g., "KNOW"
at the temple, "THINK" at the forehead), torso (e.g., "FEEL" at the chest), or in the neutral
space in front of the signer (e.g., "SIGN"). Location is crucial for distinguishing minimal pairs
(e.g., "SUMMER" at the forehead vs. "DRY" at the chin) and for grammatical functions such
as verb agreement and spatial referencing. Beginning learners often face challenges in
accurately identifying and maintaining consistent signing locations, especially when signs
involve movement across different locations.
3. MOVEMENT (MOV): Movement refers to the path, direction, and repetition of the
hand(s) during a sign. It is a highly dynamic parameter, conveying not only lexical meaning
but also grammatical information such as aspect (e.g., continuous, iterative, punctual action).
For instance, the sign "WALK" can be modified by repeating the movement to indicate
"WALK CONTINUOUSLY" or "WALKING FOR A WHILE." Directionality in movement is
also critical for verb agreement (e.g., "ASK-YOU" vs. "ASK-ME"). Learners frequently
struggle with the nuanced precision of movement, including its speed, tension, and trajectory,
which can impact the intended meaning or grammatical function of a sign.
4. ORIENTATION (ORI): This parameter describes the direction the palm and/or
fingers are facing during a sign. While often subtle, orientation can be contrastive. For example,
the signs for "NAME" (H-handshape tapping on the other H-handshape) and "CHAIR" (same
handshape, different movement, but also subtle orientation differences) illustrate its
importance. A slight change in palm orientation can differentiate between signs that are
otherwise identical in handshape, location, and movement. Novice learners often overlook the
subtle but critical role of orientation, leading to signs that are grammatically incorrect or
semantically ambiguous.
5. NON-MANUAL MARKERS (NMMs): NMMs encompass facial expressions (e.g.,
raised eyebrows for questions, furrowed brows for "wh"-questions), head tilts, body posture,
and mouth movements (e.g., "cha" for large, "mm" for normal). Unlike the manual parameters,
NMMs are often produced simultaneously with manual signs and carry significant grammatical
and semantic weight. They can function as adverbs, adjectives, or even complete syntactic
structures (e.g., a simple head shake can negate a statement). Learners frequently underestimate
the importance of NMMs, often focusing solely on manual components. This oversight leads
to "flat" or ungrammatical signing, as NMMs are integral to ASL's syntax and emotional
expression (Baker & Padden, 1978).
ACQUISITION CHALLENGES FOR NOVICE LEARNERS: The integrated
complexity of these parameters presents several significant challenges for hearing novice
learners:
INTERFERENCE FROM SPOKEN LANGUAGE: Learners accustomed to linear-
temporal, auditory-vocal phonology must adapt to a visual-spatial, multi-dimensional
cherological system. This shift requires a fundamental reconceptualization of how language is
structured and processed.
MOTOR CONTROL AND PROPRIOCEPTION: Developing the precise fine motor
skills for handshapes, movements, and orientations, often performed simultaneously or in rapid
succession, requires extensive practice and proprioceptive awareness.
SIMULTANEOUS PROCESSING: The most significant hurdle is often the
simultaneous integration of all five parameters, particularly NMMs with manual signs. This
demands a high degree of cognitive processing and coordination not typically required in
spoken language production.
VISUAL-SPATIAL GRAMMAR: Understanding how space is used grammatically
(e.g., for verb agreement, referencing, narrative sequencing) is a departure from the largely
sequential grammar of spoken English.
PEDAGOGICAL STRATEGIES: Effective ASL
instruction for beginners must explicitly address each parameter, providing ample
opportunities for visual discrimination, guided practice, and feedback. Immersion in the Deaf
community and consistent exposure to fluent signers are invaluable for developing an intuitive
understanding of parameter integration, especially NMMs. Drills focusing on minimal pairs
that differ by only one parameter can enhance learners' cherological awareness.
COGNITIVE BENEFITS AND CROSS-LINGUISTIC IMPLICATIONS: Learning
ASL has been shown to enhance visual-spatial reasoning, attention to detail, and the ability to
process information across multiple modalities. From a cross-linguistic perspective, the study
of ASL cherology provides compelling evidence for the universal principles of language
organization, demonstrating that complex linguistic systems can manifest in diverse modalities.
It challenges glottocentric biases and enriches our understanding of human language capacity.
CONCLUSION
The cherological parameters of Handshape, Location, Movement, Orientation, and
Non-Manual Markers are the foundational building blocks of American Sign Language,
endowing it with the full linguistic complexity and expressive power of any natural language.
This project has elucidated how these parameters function individually and synergistically to
create meaning, and critically examined the specific challenges they pose for novice hearing
learners. The transition from a spoken language phonological system to a visual-spatial
cherological one demands not only motoric precision but also a profound cognitive shift in how
language is perceived and produced. Effective ASL acquisition hinges upon a deep,
linguistically informed understanding of these parameters. Pedagogical approaches must move
beyond rote vocabulary memorization to emphasize explicit instruction, extensive practice in
parameter differentiation, and immersion that fosters the simultaneous integration of all five
components, particularly the often-underestimated Non-Manual Markers. The difficulties
encountered by beginners underscore the sophisticated nature of ASL's structure and the
cognitive demands of mastering a language in a visual-spatial modality. Ultimately, the study
of ASL's cherological system not only facilitates more effective language acquisition but also
enriches our broader understanding of linguistic universals, cognitive flexibility, and the
remarkable diversity of human communication. ASL stands as a testament to the brain's
capacity for language, irrespective of modality, and its continued study offers invaluable
insights into the very nature of language itself.
The linguistic study of American Sign Language (ASL) fundamentally shifted from a
perception of ASL as a derivative of spoken English or a system of pantomime to its recognition
as a fully autonomous natural language with the pioneering work of William C. Stokoe in the
1960s (Stokoe, 1960). Stokoe’s seminal research at Gallaudet University introduced the
concept of "cheremes"—analogous to phonemes in spoken languages—which he categorized
into three primary components: Tab (Location), Dez (Handshape), and Sig (Movement). This
groundbreaking framework established a scientific basis for analyzing ASL’s internal
structure, demonstrating its systematicity and rule-governed nature. Subsequent research
expanded upon Stokoe’s model, leading to the widely accepted five-parameter model of ASL
phonology (or cherology). These parameters include Handshape (HS), Location (LOC),
Movement (MOV), Orientation (ORI), and Non-Manual Markers (NMMs) (Battison, 1978;
Liddell & Johnson, 1989). Battison's work, particularly his identification of the "Symmetry
Condition" and "Dominance Condition," provided crucial insights into the morphological
constraints and well-formedness rules governing ASL signs, demonstrating systematicity
beyond mere individual parameters. The "Movement-Hold" model proposed by Liddell and
Johnson (1989) further refined the understanding of ASL phonology by segmenting signs into
sequential holds and movements, analogous to consonant and vowel distinctions in spoken
language, offering a more granular analysis of temporal organization within signs. Neuro-
linguistic studies have further corroborated ASL’s status as a language, revealing that sign
language processing, much like spoken language, primarily engages left-hemisphere brain
regions associated with language functions (Poizner et al., 1987; Hickok et al., 1996). This
evidence refutes earlier notions that signed languages were purely spatial or visual, instead
highlighting their complex linguistic organization. Studies on ASL acquisition, both by native
signers (Deaf children of Deaf parents) and second language learners (hearing individuals),
reveal distinct developmental trajectories and challenges. Native acquisition often mirrors
milestones in spoken language acquisition, while second language learners frequently grapple
with transferring phonological awareness from an auditory-vocal modality to a visual-spatial
one (Padden & Humphries, 1988). Pedagogical approaches to ASL have evolved to incorporate
these linguistic insights. Early methods often focused solely on vocabulary memorization, akin
to rote learning in foreign language education. However, contemporary ASL pedagogy
emphasizes immersion, contextual learning, and explicit instruction on the five parameters,
recognizing that a deep understanding of these foundational elements is crucial for accurate
production and comprehension (Humphries & Padden, 2005). Challenges for hearing learners
include overcoming glottocentric biases, developing precise motor control for handshapes and
movements, and integrating NMMs, which often function adverbially or syntactically in ASL,
differing significantly from their role in spoken language. The literature consistently points to
the necessity of recognizing ASL as a unique linguistic system, not merely a translation of
English, to facilitate effective and respectful acquisition.
METHODOLOGY/APPROACH
This project employs a comprehensive theoretical and analytical synthesis approach,
integrating established linguistic theories with insights from cognitive science and pedagogical
research. The primary objective is to deconstruct the cherological parameters of ASL and
analyze their implications for novice learner acquisition and cross-linguistic understanding.
The research design is qualitative, drawing upon a robust body of existing scholarly literature
rather than generating new empirical data. The methodology involves:
1. LITERATURE REVIEW AND SYNTHESIS: Extensive review of foundational
texts and peer-reviewed articles from prominent academic databases (e.g., Google Scholar,
JSTOR, PsycINFO). Key search terms included "ASL phonology," "cherology," "sign
language linguistics," "ASL acquisition," "non-manual markers," and "visual-spatial language
processing." This synthesis aims to consolidate diverse perspectives on ASL’s linguistic
structure and pedagogical challenges.
2. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK: The five-parameter model (Handshape, Location,
Movement, Orientation, and Non-Manual Markers) serves as the core analytical framework.
Each parameter is individually examined for its linguistic function, variability, and specific
challenges it presents to beginning ASL learners.
3. COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS PERSPECTIVE: The analysis incorporates a
comparative lens, contrasting ASL’s cherological system with the phonological systems of
spoken languages to highlight both universal linguistic principles and modality-specific
differences. This approach illuminates the unique cognitive demands and advantages of visual-
spatial language processing.
4. PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS: Research on ASL teaching methodologies and
second language acquisition is integrated to identify effective strategies for parameter
instruction and to explain common errors and difficulties faced by hearing learners. Cognitive
load theory is implicitly considered when discussing the simultaneous processing demands of
ASL.
5. DATA SOURCES: Primary sources include seminal works by Stokoe (1960),
Battison (1978), Liddell and Johnson (1989), and Padden and Humphries (1988). Secondary
sources comprise contemporary articles from journals such as Sign Language Studies, Journal
of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, and Language Learning, alongside textbooks on ASL
linguistics and pedagogy. By systematically synthesizing these multi-disciplinary sources, this
project aims to provide a nuanced understanding of ASL's linguistic architecture and its
profound implications for both language education and broader linguistic theory.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The analysis of ASL's cherological parameters reveals a complex, highly structured
linguistic system that presents distinct challenges and opportunities for novice learners. Each
parameter contributes uniquely to the meaning and grammatical structure of a sign, and their
precise execution is paramount for accurate communication.
1. HANDSHAPE (HS): This parameter refers to the configuration of the hand(s) used
in a sign. ASL possesses a finite set of approximately 40 distinct handshapes, many of which
are derived from the American Manual Alphabet (Stokoe, 1960). Handshapes serve a
contrastive function; for example, the signs for "TRAIN" (two U-handshapes rubbing together)
and "CHAIR" (two H-handshapes tapping) differ only in handshape. Novice learners often
struggle with the fine motor control required to produce precise handshapes and maintaining
consistency, particularly with less common or more complex configurations.
Mispronunciation, akin to a spoken language accent, can occur if handshapes are not accurately
formed, leading to ambiguity or misunderstanding.
2. LOCATION (LOC): This parameter specifies where a sign is produced in relation
to the signer's body or in neutral signing space. Locations can be on the head (e.g., "KNOW"
at the temple, "THINK" at the forehead), torso (e.g., "FEEL" at the chest), or in the neutral
space in front of the signer (e.g., "SIGN"). Location is crucial for distinguishing minimal pairs
(e.g., "SUMMER" at the forehead vs. "DRY" at the chin) and for grammatical functions such
as verb agreement and spatial referencing. Beginning learners often face challenges in
accurately identifying and maintaining consistent signing locations, especially when signs
involve movement across different locations.
3. MOVEMENT (MOV): Movement refers to the path, direction, and repetition of the
hand(s) during a sign. It is a highly dynamic parameter, conveying not only lexical meaning
but also grammatical information such as aspect (e.g., continuous, iterative, punctual action).
For instance, the sign "WALK" can be modified by repeating the movement to indicate
"WALK CONTINUOUSLY" or "WALKING FOR A WHILE." Directionality in movement is
also critical for verb agreement (e.g., "ASK-YOU" vs. "ASK-ME"). Learners frequently
struggle with the nuanced precision of movement, including its speed, tension, and trajectory,
which can impact the intended meaning or grammatical function of a sign.
4. ORIENTATION (ORI): This parameter describes the direction the palm and/or
fingers are facing during a sign. While often subtle, orientation can be contrastive. For example,
the signs for "NAME" (H-handshape tapping on the other H-handshape) and "CHAIR" (same
handshape, different movement, but also subtle orientation differences) illustrate its
importance. A slight change in palm orientation can differentiate between signs that are
otherwise identical in handshape, location, and movement. Novice learners often overlook the
subtle but critical role of orientation, leading to signs that are grammatically incorrect or
semantically ambiguous.
5. NON-MANUAL MARKERS (NMMs): NMMs encompass facial expressions (e.g.,
raised eyebrows for questions, furrowed brows for "wh"-questions), head tilts, body posture,
and mouth movements (e.g., "cha" for large, "mm" for normal). Unlike the manual parameters,
NMMs are often produced simultaneously with manual signs and carry significant grammatical
and semantic weight. They can function as adverbs, adjectives, or even complete syntactic
structures (e.g., a simple head shake can negate a statement). Learners frequently underestimate
the importance of NMMs, often focusing solely on manual components. This oversight leads
to "flat" or ungrammatical signing, as NMMs are integral to ASL's syntax and emotional
expression (Baker & Padden, 1978).
ACQUISITION CHALLENGES FOR NOVICE LEARNERS: The integrated
complexity of these parameters presents several significant challenges for hearing novice
learners:
INTERFERENCE FROM SPOKEN LANGUAGE: Learners accustomed to linear-
temporal, auditory-vocal phonology must adapt to a visual-spatial, multi-dimensional
cherological system. This shift requires a fundamental reconceptualization of how language is
structured and processed.
MOTOR CONTROL AND PROPRIOCEPTION: Developing the precise fine motor
skills for handshapes, movements, and orientations, often performed simultaneously or in rapid
succession, requires extensive practice and proprioceptive awareness.
SIMULTANEOUS PROCESSING: The most significant hurdle is often the
simultaneous integration of all five parameters, particularly NMMs with manual signs. This
demands a high degree of cognitive processing and coordination not typically required in
spoken language production.
VISUAL-SPATIAL GRAMMAR: Understanding how space is used grammatically
(e.g., for verb agreement, referencing, narrative sequencing) is a departure from the largely
sequential grammar of spoken English.
PEDAGOGICAL STRATEGIES: Effective ASL
instruction for beginners must explicitly address each parameter, providing ample
opportunities for visual discrimination, guided practice, and feedback. Immersion in the Deaf
community and consistent exposure to fluent signers are invaluable for developing an intuitive
understanding of parameter integration, especially NMMs. Drills focusing on minimal pairs
that differ by only one parameter can enhance learners' cherological awareness.
COGNITIVE BENEFITS AND CROSS-LINGUISTIC IMPLICATIONS: Learning
ASL has been shown to enhance visual-spatial reasoning, attention to detail, and the ability to
process information across multiple modalities. From a cross-linguistic perspective, the study
of ASL cherology provides compelling evidence for the universal principles of language
organization, demonstrating that complex linguistic systems can manifest in diverse modalities.
It challenges glottocentric biases and enriches our understanding of human language capacity.
CONCLUSION
The cherological parameters of Handshape, Location, Movement, Orientation, and
Non-Manual Markers are the foundational building blocks of American Sign Language,
endowing it with the full linguistic complexity and expressive power of any natural language.
This project has elucidated how these parameters function individually and synergistically to
create meaning, and critically examined the specific challenges they pose for novice hearing
learners. The transition from a spoken language phonological system to a visual-spatial
cherological one demands not only motoric precision but also a profound cognitive shift in how
language is perceived and produced. Effective ASL acquisition hinges upon a deep,
linguistically informed understanding of these parameters. Pedagogical approaches must move
beyond rote vocabulary memorization to emphasize explicit instruction, extensive practice in
parameter differentiation, and immersion that fosters the simultaneous integration of all five
components, particularly the often-underestimated Non-Manual Markers. The difficulties
encountered by beginners underscore the sophisticated nature of ASL's structure and the
cognitive demands of mastering a language in a visual-spatial modality. Ultimately, the study
of ASL's cherological system not only facilitates more effective language acquisition but also
enriches our broader understanding of linguistic universals, cognitive flexibility, and the
remarkable diversity of human communication. ASL stands as a testament to the brain's
capacity for language, irrespective of modality, and its continued study offers invaluable
insights into the very nature of language itself.
The linguistic study of American Sign Language (ASL) fundamentally shifted from a
perception of ASL as a derivative of spoken English or a system of pantomime to its recognition
as a fully autonomous natural language with the pioneering work of William C. Stokoe in the
1960s (Stokoe, 1960). Stokoe’s seminal research at Gallaudet University introduced the
concept of "cheremes"—analogous to phonemes in spoken languages—which he categorized
into three primary components: Tab (Location), Dez (Handshape), and Sig (Movement). This
groundbreaking framework established a scientific basis for analyzing ASL’s internal
structure, demonstrating its systematicity and rule-governed nature. Subsequent research
expanded upon Stokoe’s model, leading to the widely accepted five-parameter model of ASL
phonology (or cherology). These parameters include Handshape (HS), Location (LOC),
Movement (MOV), Orientation (ORI), and Non-Manual Markers (NMMs) (Battison, 1978;
Liddell & Johnson, 1989). Battison's work, particularly his identification of the "Symmetry
Condition" and "Dominance Condition," provided crucial insights into the morphological
constraints and well-formedness rules governing ASL signs, demonstrating systematicity
beyond mere individual parameters. The "Movement-Hold" model proposed by Liddell and
Johnson (1989) further refined the understanding of ASL phonology by segmenting signs into
sequential holds and movements, analogous to consonant and vowel distinctions in spoken
language, offering a more granular analysis of temporal organization within signs. Neuro-
linguistic studies have further corroborated ASL’s status as a language, revealing that sign
language processing, much like spoken language, primarily engages left-hemisphere brain
regions associated with language functions (Poizner et al., 1987; Hickok et al., 1996). This
evidence refutes earlier notions that signed languages were purely spatial or visual, instead
highlighting their complex linguistic organization. Studies on ASL acquisition, both by native
signers (Deaf children of Deaf parents) and second language learners (hearing individuals),
reveal distinct developmental trajectories and challenges. Native acquisition often mirrors
milestones in spoken language acquisition, while second language learners frequently grapple
with transferring phonological awareness from an auditory-vocal modality to a visual-spatial
one (Padden & Humphries, 1988). Pedagogical approaches to ASL have evolved to incorporate
these linguistic insights. Early methods often focused solely on vocabulary memorization, akin
to rote learning in foreign language education. However, contemporary ASL pedagogy
emphasizes immersion, contextual learning, and explicit instruction on the five parameters,
recognizing that a deep understanding of these foundational elements is crucial for accurate
production and comprehension (Humphries & Padden, 2005). Challenges for hearing learners
include overcoming glottocentric biases, developing precise motor control for handshapes and
movements, and integrating NMMs, which often function adverbially or syntactically in ASL,
differing significantly from their role in spoken language. The literature consistently points to
the necessity of recognizing ASL as a unique linguistic system, not merely a translation of
English, to facilitate effective and respectful acquisition.
METHODOLOGY/APPROACH
This project employs a comprehensive theoretical and analytical synthesis approach,
integrating established linguistic theories with insights from cognitive science and pedagogical
research. The primary objective is to deconstruct the cherological parameters of ASL and
analyze their implications for novice learner acquisition and cross-linguistic understanding.
The research design is qualitative, drawing upon a robust body of existing scholarly literature
rather than generating new empirical data. The methodology involves:
1. LITERATURE REVIEW AND SYNTHESIS: Extensive review of foundational
texts and peer-reviewed articles from prominent academic databases (e.g., Google Scholar,
JSTOR, PsycINFO). Key search terms included "ASL phonology," "cherology," "sign
language linguistics," "ASL acquisition," "non-manual markers," and "visual-spatial language
processing." This synthesis aims to consolidate diverse perspectives on ASL’s linguistic
structure and pedagogical challenges.
2. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK: The five-parameter model (Handshape, Location,
Movement, Orientation, and Non-Manual Markers) serves as the core analytical framework.
Each parameter is individually examined for its linguistic function, variability, and specific
challenges it presents to beginning ASL learners.
3. COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS PERSPECTIVE: The analysis incorporates a
comparative lens, contrasting ASL’s cherological system with the phonological systems of
spoken languages to highlight both universal linguistic principles and modality-specific
differences. This approach illuminates the unique cognitive demands and advantages of visual-
spatial language processing.
4. PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS: Research on ASL teaching methodologies and
second language acquisition is integrated to identify effective strategies for parameter
instruction and to explain common errors and difficulties faced by hearing learners. Cognitive
load theory is implicitly considered when discussing the simultaneous processing demands of
ASL.
5. DATA SOURCES: Primary sources include seminal works by Stokoe (1960),
Battison (1978), Liddell and Johnson (1989), and Padden and Humphries (1988). Secondary
sources comprise contemporary articles from journals such as Sign Language Studies, Journal
of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, and Language Learning, alongside textbooks on ASL
linguistics and pedagogy. By systematically synthesizing these multi-disciplinary sources, this
project aims to provide a nuanced understanding of ASL's linguistic architecture and its
profound implications for both language education and broader linguistic theory.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The analysis of ASL's cherological parameters reveals a complex, highly structured
linguistic system that presents distinct challenges and opportunities for novice learners. Each
parameter contributes uniquely to the meaning and grammatical structure of a sign, and their
precise execution is paramount for accurate communication.
1. HANDSHAPE (HS): This parameter refers to the configuration of the hand(s) used
in a sign. ASL possesses a finite set of approximately 40 distinct handshapes, many of which
are derived from the American Manual Alphabet (Stokoe, 1960). Handshapes serve a
contrastive function; for example, the signs for "TRAIN" (two U-handshapes rubbing together)
and "CHAIR" (two H-handshapes tapping) differ only in handshape. Novice learners often
struggle with the fine motor control required to produce precise handshapes and maintaining
consistency, particularly with less common or more complex configurations.
Mispronunciation, akin to a spoken language accent, can occur if handshapes are not accurately
formed, leading to ambiguity or misunderstanding.
2. LOCATION (LOC): This parameter specifies where a sign is produced in relation
to the signer's body or in neutral signing space. Locations can be on the head (e.g., "KNOW"
at the temple, "THINK" at the forehead), torso (e.g., "FEEL" at the chest), or in the neutral
space in front of the signer (e.g., "SIGN"). Location is crucial for distinguishing minimal pairs
(e.g., "SUMMER" at the forehead vs. "DRY" at the chin) and for grammatical functions such
as verb agreement and spatial referencing. Beginning learners often face challenges in
accurately identifying and maintaining consistent signing locations, especially when signs
involve movement across different locations.
3. MOVEMENT (MOV): Movement refers to the path, direction, and repetition of the
hand(s) during a sign. It is a highly dynamic parameter, conveying not only lexical meaning
but also grammatical information such as aspect (e.g., continuous, iterative, punctual action).
For instance, the sign "WALK" can be modified by repeating the movement to indicate
"WALK CONTINUOUSLY" or "WALKING FOR A WHILE." Directionality in movement is
also critical for verb agreement (e.g., "ASK-YOU" vs. "ASK-ME"). Learners frequently
struggle with the nuanced precision of movement, including its speed, tension, and trajectory,
which can impact the intended meaning or grammatical function of a sign.
4. ORIENTATION (ORI): This parameter describes the direction the palm and/or
fingers are facing during a sign. While often subtle, orientation can be contrastive. For example,
the signs for "NAME" (H-handshape tapping on the other H-handshape) and "CHAIR" (same
handshape, different movement, but also subtle orientation differences) illustrate its
importance. A slight change in palm orientation can differentiate between signs that are
otherwise identical in handshape, location, and movement. Novice learners often overlook the
subtle but critical role of orientation, leading to signs that are grammatically incorrect or
semantically ambiguous.
5. NON-MANUAL MARKERS (NMMs): NMMs encompass facial expressions (e.g.,
raised eyebrows for questions, furrowed brows for "wh"-questions), head tilts, body posture,
and mouth movements (e.g., "cha" for large, "mm" for normal). Unlike the manual parameters,
NMMs are often produced simultaneously with manual signs and carry significant grammatical
and semantic weight. They can function as adverbs, adjectives, or even complete syntactic
structures (e.g., a simple head shake can negate a statement). Learners frequently underestimate
the importance of NMMs, often focusing solely on manual components. This oversight leads
to "flat" or ungrammatical signing, as NMMs are integral to ASL's syntax and emotional
expression (Baker & Padden, 1978).
ACQUISITION CHALLENGES FOR NOVICE LEARNERS: The integrated
complexity of these parameters presents several significant challenges for hearing novice
learners:
INTERFERENCE FROM SPOKEN LANGUAGE: Learners accustomed to linear-
temporal, auditory-vocal phonology must adapt to a visual-spatial, multi-dimensional
cherological system. This shift requires a fundamental reconceptualization of how language is
structured and processed.
MOTOR CONTROL AND PROPRIOCEPTION: Developing the precise fine motor
skills for handshapes, movements, and orientations, often performed simultaneously or in rapid
succession, requires extensive practice and proprioceptive awareness.
SIMULTANEOUS PROCESSING: The most significant hurdle is often the
simultaneous integration of all five parameters, particularly NMMs with manual signs. This
demands a high degree of cognitive processing and coordination not typically required in
spoken language production.
VISUAL-SPATIAL GRAMMAR: Understanding how space is used grammatically
(e.g., for verb agreement, referencing, narrative sequencing) is a departure from the largely
sequential grammar of spoken English.
PEDAGOGICAL STRATEGIES: Effective ASL
instruction for beginners must explicitly address each parameter, providing ample
opportunities for visual discrimination, guided practice, and feedback. Immersion in the Deaf
community and consistent exposure to fluent signers are invaluable for developing an intuitive
understanding of parameter integration, especially NMMs. Drills focusing on minimal pairs
that differ by only one parameter can enhance learners' cherological awareness.
COGNITIVE BENEFITS AND CROSS-LINGUISTIC IMPLICATIONS: Learning
ASL has been shown to enhance visual-spatial reasoning, attention to detail, and the ability to
process information across multiple modalities. From a cross-linguistic perspective, the study
of ASL cherology provides compelling evidence for the universal principles of language
organization, demonstrating that complex linguistic systems can manifest in diverse modalities.
It challenges glottocentric biases and enriches our understanding of human language capacity.
CONCLUSION
The cherological parameters of Handshape, Location, Movement, Orientation, and
Non-Manual Markers are the foundational building blocks of American Sign Language,
endowing it with the full linguistic complexity and expressive power of any natural language.
This project has elucidated how these parameters function individually and synergistically to
create meaning, and critically examined the specific challenges they pose for novice hearing
learners. The transition from a spoken language phonological system to a visual-spatial
cherological one demands not only motoric precision but also a profound cognitive shift in how
language is perceived and produced. Effective ASL acquisition hinges upon a deep,
linguistically informed understanding of these parameters. Pedagogical approaches must move
beyond rote vocabulary memorization to emphasize explicit instruction, extensive practice in
parameter differentiation, and immersion that fosters the simultaneous integration of all five
components, particularly the often-underestimated Non-Manual Markers. The difficulties
encountered by beginners underscore the sophisticated nature of ASL's structure and the
cognitive demands of mastering a language in a visual-spatial modality. Ultimately, the study
of ASL's cherological system not only facilitates more effective language acquisition but also
enriches our broader understanding of linguistic universals, cognitive flexibility, and the
remarkable diversity of human communication. ASL stands as a testament to the brain's
capacity for language, irrespective of modality, and its continued study offers invaluable
insights into the very nature of language itself.
The linguistic study of American Sign Language (ASL) fundamentally shifted from a
perception of ASL as a derivative of spoken English or a system of pantomime to its recognition
as a fully autonomous natural language with the pioneering work of William C. Stokoe in the
1960s (Stokoe, 1960). Stokoe’s seminal research at Gallaudet University introduced the
concept of "cheremes"—analogous to phonemes in spoken languages—which he categorized
into three primary components: Tab (Location), Dez (Handshape), and Sig (Movement). This
groundbreaking framework established a scientific basis for analyzing ASL’s internal
structure, demonstrating its systematicity and rule-governed nature. Subsequent research
expanded upon Stokoe’s model, leading to the widely accepted five-parameter model of ASL
phonology (or cherology). These parameters include Handshape (HS), Location (LOC),
Movement (MOV), Orientation (ORI), and Non-Manual Markers (NMMs) (Battison, 1978;
Liddell & Johnson, 1989). Battison's work, particularly his identification of the "Symmetry
Condition" and "Dominance Condition," provided crucial insights into the morphological
constraints and well-formedness rules governing ASL signs, demonstrating systematicity
beyond mere individual parameters. The "Movement-Hold" model proposed by Liddell and
Johnson (1989) further refined the understanding of ASL phonology by segmenting signs into
sequential holds and movements, analogous to consonant and vowel distinctions in spoken
language, offering a more granular analysis of temporal organization within signs. Neuro-
linguistic studies have further corroborated ASL’s status as a language, revealing that sign
language processing, much like spoken language, primarily engages left-hemisphere brain
regions associated with language functions (Poizner et al., 1987; Hickok et al., 1996). This
evidence refutes earlier notions that signed languages were purely spatial or visual, instead
highlighting their complex linguistic organization. Studies on ASL acquisition, both by native
signers (Deaf children of Deaf parents) and second language learners (hearing individuals),
reveal distinct developmental trajectories and challenges. Native acquisition often mirrors
milestones in spoken language acquisition, while second language learners frequently grapple
with transferring phonological awareness from an auditory-vocal modality to a visual-spatial
one (Padden & Humphries, 1988). Pedagogical approaches to ASL have evolved to incorporate
these linguistic insights. Early methods often focused solely on vocabulary memorization, akin
to rote learning in foreign language education. However, contemporary ASL pedagogy
emphasizes immersion, contextual learning, and explicit instruction on the five parameters,
recognizing that a deep understanding of these foundational elements is crucial for accurate
production and comprehension (Humphries & Padden, 2005). Challenges for hearing learners
include overcoming glottocentric biases, developing precise motor control for handshapes and
movements, and integrating NMMs, which often function adverbially or syntactically in ASL,
differing significantly from their role in spoken language. The literature consistently points to
the necessity of recognizing ASL as a unique linguistic system, not merely a translation of
English, to facilitate effective and respectful acquisition.
METHODOLOGY/APPROACH
This project employs a comprehensive theoretical and analytical synthesis approach,
integrating established linguistic theories with insights from cognitive science and pedagogical
research. The primary objective is to deconstruct the cherological parameters of ASL and
analyze their implications for novice learner acquisition and cross-linguistic understanding.
The research design is qualitative, drawing upon a robust body of existing scholarly literature
rather than generating new empirical data. The methodology involves:
1. LITERATURE REVIEW AND SYNTHESIS: Extensive review of foundational
texts and peer-reviewed articles from prominent academic databases (e.g., Google Scholar,
JSTOR, PsycINFO). Key search terms included "ASL phonology," "cherology," "sign
language linguistics," "ASL acquisition," "non-manual markers," and "visual-spatial language
processing." This synthesis aims to consolidate diverse perspectives on ASL’s linguistic
structure and pedagogical challenges.
2. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK: The five-parameter model (Handshape, Location,
Movement, Orientation, and Non-Manual Markers) serves as the core analytical framework.
Each parameter is individually examined for its linguistic function, variability, and specific
challenges it presents to beginning ASL learners.
3. COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS PERSPECTIVE: The analysis incorporates a
comparative lens, contrasting ASL’s cherological system with the phonological systems of
spoken languages to highlight both universal linguistic principles and modality-specific
differences. This approach illuminates the unique cognitive demands and advantages of visual-
spatial language processing.
4. PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS: Research on ASL teaching methodologies and
second language acquisition is integrated to identify effective strategies for parameter
instruction and to explain common errors and difficulties faced by hearing learners. Cognitive
load theory is implicitly considered when discussing the simultaneous processing demands of
ASL.
5. DATA SOURCES: Primary sources include seminal works by Stokoe (1960),
Battison (1978), Liddell and Johnson (1989), and Padden and Humphries (1988). Secondary
sources comprise contemporary articles from journals such as Sign Language Studies, Journal
of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, and Language Learning, alongside textbooks on ASL
linguistics and pedagogy. By systematically synthesizing these multi-disciplinary sources, this
project aims to provide a nuanced understanding of ASL's linguistic architecture and its
profound implications for both language education and broader linguistic theory.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The analysis of ASL's cherological parameters reveals a complex, highly structured
linguistic system that presents distinct challenges and opportunities for novice learners. Each
parameter contributes uniquely to the meaning and grammatical structure of a sign, and their
precise execution is paramount for accurate communication.
1. HANDSHAPE (HS): This parameter refers to the configuration of the hand(s) used
in a sign. ASL possesses a finite set of approximately 40 distinct handshapes, many of which
are derived from the American Manual Alphabet (Stokoe, 1960). Handshapes serve a
contrastive function; for example, the signs for "TRAIN" (two U-handshapes rubbing together)
and "CHAIR" (two H-handshapes tapping) differ only in handshape. Novice learners often
struggle with the fine motor control required to produce precise handshapes and maintaining
consistency, particularly with less common or more complex configurations.
Mispronunciation, akin to a spoken language accent, can occur if handshapes are not accurately
formed, leading to ambiguity or misunderstanding.
2. LOCATION (LOC): This parameter specifies where a sign is produced in relation
to the signer's body or in neutral signing space. Locations can be on the head (e.g., "KNOW"
at the temple, "THINK" at the forehead), torso (e.g., "FEEL" at the chest), or in the neutral
space in front of the signer (e.g., "SIGN"). Location is crucial for distinguishing minimal pairs
(e.g., "SUMMER" at the forehead vs. "DRY" at the chin) and for grammatical functions such
as verb agreement and spatial referencing. Beginning learners often face challenges in
accurately identifying and maintaining consistent signing locations, especially when signs
involve movement across different locations.
3. MOVEMENT (MOV): Movement refers to the path, direction, and repetition of the
hand(s) during a sign. It is a highly dynamic parameter, conveying not only lexical meaning
but also grammatical information such as aspect (e.g., continuous, iterative, punctual action).
For instance, the sign "WALK" can be modified by repeating the movement to indicate
"WALK CONTINUOUSLY" or "WALKING FOR A WHILE." Directionality in movement is
also critical for verb agreement (e.g., "ASK-YOU" vs. "ASK-ME"). Learners frequently
struggle with the nuanced precision of movement, including its speed, tension, and trajectory,
which can impact the intended meaning or grammatical function of a sign.
4. ORIENTATION (ORI): This parameter describes the direction the palm and/or
fingers are facing during a sign. While often subtle, orientation can be contrastive. For example,
the signs for "NAME" (H-handshape tapping on the other H-handshape) and "CHAIR" (same
handshape, different movement, but also subtle orientation differences) illustrate its
importance. A slight change in palm orientation can differentiate between signs that are
otherwise identical in handshape, location, and movement. Novice learners often overlook the
subtle but critical role of orientation, leading to signs that are grammatically incorrect or
semantically ambiguous.
5. NON-MANUAL MARKERS (NMMs): NMMs encompass facial expressions (e.g.,
raised eyebrows for questions, furrowed brows for "wh"-questions), head tilts, body posture,
and mouth movements (e.g., "cha" for large, "mm" for normal). Unlike the manual parameters,
NMMs are often produced simultaneously with manual signs and carry significant grammatical
and semantic weight. They can function as adverbs, adjectives, or even complete syntactic
structures (e.g., a simple head shake can negate a statement). Learners frequently underestimate
the importance of NMMs, often focusing solely on manual components. This oversight leads
to "flat" or ungrammatical signing, as NMMs are integral to ASL's syntax and emotional
expression (Baker & Padden, 1978).
ACQUISITION CHALLENGES FOR NOVICE LEARNERS: The integrated
complexity of these parameters presents several significant challenges for hearing novice
learners:
INTERFERENCE FROM SPOKEN LANGUAGE: Learners accustomed to linear-
temporal, auditory-vocal phonology must adapt to a visual-spatial, multi-dimensional
cherological system. This shift requires a fundamental reconceptualization of how language is
structured and processed.
MOTOR CONTROL AND PROPRIOCEPTION: Developing the precise fine motor
skills for handshapes, movements, and orientations, often performed simultaneously or in rapid
succession, requires extensive practice and proprioceptive awareness.
SIMULTANEOUS PROCESSING: The most significant hurdle is often the
simultaneous integration of all five parameters, particularly NMMs with manual signs. This
demands a high degree of cognitive processing and coordination not typically required in
spoken language production.
VISUAL-SPATIAL GRAMMAR: Understanding how space is used grammatically
(e.g., for verb agreement, referencing, narrative sequencing) is a departure from the largely
sequential grammar of spoken English.
PEDAGOGICAL STRATEGIES: Effective ASL
instruction for beginners must explicitly address each parameter, providing ample
opportunities for visual discrimination, guided practice, and feedback. Immersion in the Deaf
community and consistent exposure to fluent signers are invaluable for developing an intuitive
understanding of parameter integration, especially NMMs. Drills focusing on minimal pairs
that differ by only one parameter can enhance learners' cherological awareness.
COGNITIVE BENEFITS AND CROSS-LINGUISTIC IMPLICATIONS: Learning
ASL has been shown to enhance visual-spatial reasoning, attention to detail, and the ability to
process information across multiple modalities. From a cross-linguistic perspective, the study
of ASL cherology provides compelling evidence for the universal principles of language
organization, demonstrating that complex linguistic systems can manifest in diverse modalities.
It challenges glottocentric biases and enriches our understanding of human language capacity.
CONCLUSION
The cherological parameters of Handshape, Location, Movement, Orientation, and
Non-Manual Markers are the foundational building blocks of American Sign Language,
endowing it with the full linguistic complexity and expressive power of any natural language.
This project has elucidated how these parameters function individually and synergistically to
create meaning, and critically examined the specific challenges they pose for novice hearing
learners. The transition from a spoken language phonological system to a visual-spatial
cherological one demands not only motoric precision but also a profound cognitive shift in how
language is perceived and produced. Effective ASL acquisition hinges upon a deep,
linguistically informed understanding of these parameters. Pedagogical approaches must move
beyond rote vocabulary memorization to emphasize explicit instruction, extensive practice in
parameter differentiation, and immersion that fosters the simultaneous integration of all five
components, particularly the often-underestimated Non-Manual Markers. The difficulties
encountered by beginners underscore the sophisticated nature of ASL's structure and the
cognitive demands of mastering a language in a visual-spatial modality. Ultimately, the study
of ASL's cherological system not only facilitates more effective language acquisition but also
enriches our broader understanding of linguistic universals, cognitive flexibility, and the
remarkable diversity of human communication. ASL stands as a testament to the brain's
capacity for language, irrespective of modality, and its continued study offers invaluable
insights into the very nature of language itself.
The linguistic study of American Sign Language (ASL) fundamentally shifted from a
perception of ASL as a derivative of spoken English or a system of pantomime to its recognition
as a fully autonomous natural language with the pioneering work of William C. Stokoe in the
1960s (Stokoe, 1960). Stokoe’s seminal research at Gallaudet University introduced the
concept of "cheremes"—analogous to phonemes in spoken languages—which he categorized
into three primary components: Tab (Location), Dez (Handshape), and Sig (Movement). This
groundbreaking framework established a scientific basis for analyzing ASL’s internal
structure, demonstrating its systematicity and rule-governed nature. Subsequent research
expanded upon Stokoe’s model, leading to the widely accepted five-parameter model of ASL
phonology (or cherology). These parameters include Handshape (HS), Location (LOC),
Movement (MOV), Orientation (ORI), and Non-Manual Markers (NMMs) (Battison, 1978;
Liddell & Johnson, 1989). Battison's work, particularly his identification of the "Symmetry
Condition" and "Dominance Condition," provided crucial insights into the morphological
constraints and well-formedness rules governing ASL signs, demonstrating systematicity
beyond mere individual parameters. The "Movement-Hold" model proposed by Liddell and
Johnson (1989) further refined the understanding of ASL phonology by segmenting signs into
sequential holds and movements, analogous to consonant and vowel distinctions in spoken
language, offering a more granular analysis of temporal organization within signs. Neuro-
linguistic studies have further corroborated ASL’s status as a language, revealing that sign
language processing, much like spoken language, primarily engages left-hemisphere brain
regions associated with language functions (Poizner et al., 1987; Hickok et al., 1996). This
evidence refutes earlier notions that signed languages were purely spatial or visual, instead
highlighting their complex linguistic organization. Studies on ASL acquisition, both by native
signers (Deaf children of Deaf parents) and second language learners (hearing individuals),
reveal distinct developmental trajectories and challenges. Native acquisition often mirrors
milestones in spoken language acquisition, while second language learners frequently grapple
with transferring phonological awareness from an auditory-vocal modality to a visual-spatial
one (Padden & Humphries, 1988). Pedagogical approaches to ASL have evolved to incorporate
these linguistic insights. Early methods often focused solely on vocabulary memorization, akin
to rote learning in foreign language education. However, contemporary ASL pedagogy
emphasizes immersion, contextual learning, and explicit instruction on the five parameters,
recognizing that a deep understanding of these foundational elements is crucial for accurate
production and comprehension (Humphries & Padden, 2005). Challenges for hearing learners
include overcoming glottocentric biases, developing precise motor control for handshapes and
movements, and integrating NMMs, which often function adverbially or syntactically in ASL,
differing significantly from their role in spoken language. The literature consistently points to
the necessity of recognizing ASL as a unique linguistic system, not merely a translation of
English, to facilitate effective and respectful acquisition.
METHODOLOGY/APPROACH
This project employs a comprehensive theoretical and analytical synthesis approach,
integrating established linguistic theories with insights from cognitive science and pedagogical
research. The primary objective is to deconstruct the cherological parameters of ASL and
analyze their implications for novice learner acquisition and cross-linguistic understanding.
The research design is qualitative, drawing upon a robust body of existing scholarly literature
rather than generating new empirical data. The methodology involves:
1. LITERATURE REVIEW AND SYNTHESIS: Extensive review of foundational
texts and peer-reviewed articles from prominent academic databases (e.g., Google Scholar,
JSTOR, PsycINFO). Key search terms included "ASL phonology," "cherology," "sign
language linguistics," "ASL acquisition," "non-manual markers," and "visual-spatial language
processing." This synthesis aims to consolidate diverse perspectives on ASL’s linguistic
structure and pedagogical challenges.
2. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK: The five-parameter model (Handshape, Location,
Movement, Orientation, and Non-Manual Markers) serves as the core analytical framework.
Each parameter is individually examined for its linguistic function, variability, and specific
challenges it presents to beginning ASL learners.
3. COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS PERSPECTIVE: The analysis incorporates a
comparative lens, contrasting ASL’s cherological system with the phonological systems of
spoken languages to highlight both universal linguistic principles and modality-specific
differences. This approach illuminates the unique cognitive demands and advantages of visual-
spatial language processing.
4. PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS: Research on ASL teaching methodologies and
second language acquisition is integrated to identify effective strategies for parameter
instruction and to explain common errors and difficulties faced by hearing learners. Cognitive
load theory is implicitly considered when discussing the simultaneous processing demands of
ASL.
5. DATA SOURCES: Primary sources include seminal works by Stokoe (1960),
Battison (1978), Liddell and Johnson (1989), and Padden and Humphries (1988). Secondary
sources comprise contemporary articles from journals such as Sign Language Studies, Journal
of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, and Language Learning, alongside textbooks on ASL
linguistics and pedagogy. By systematically synthesizing these multi-disciplinary sources, this
project aims to provide a nuanced understanding of ASL's linguistic architecture and its
profound implications for both language education and broader linguistic theory.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The analysis of ASL's cherological parameters reveals a complex, highly structured
linguistic system that presents distinct challenges and opportunities for novice learners. Each
parameter contributes uniquely to the meaning and grammatical structure of a sign, and their
precise execution is paramount for accurate communication.
1. HANDSHAPE (HS): This parameter refers to the configuration of the hand(s) used
in a sign. ASL possesses a finite set of approximately 40 distinct handshapes, many of which
are derived from the American Manual Alphabet (Stokoe, 1960). Handshapes serve a
contrastive function; for example, the signs for "TRAIN" (two U-handshapes rubbing together)
and "CHAIR" (two H-handshapes tapping) differ only in handshape. Novice learners often
struggle with the fine motor control required to produce precise handshapes and maintaining
consistency, particularly with less common or more complex configurations.
Mispronunciation, akin to a spoken language accent, can occur if handshapes are not accurately
formed, leading to ambiguity or misunderstanding.
2. LOCATION (LOC): This parameter specifies where a sign is produced in relation
to the signer's body or in neutral signing space. Locations can be on the head (e.g., "KNOW"
at the temple, "THINK" at the forehead), torso (e.g., "FEEL" at the chest), or in the neutral
space in front of the signer (e.g., "SIGN"). Location is crucial for distinguishing minimal pairs
(e.g., "SUMMER" at the forehead vs. "DRY" at the chin) and for grammatical functions such
as verb agreement and spatial referencing. Beginning learners often face challenges in
accurately identifying and maintaining consistent signing locations, especially when signs
involve movement across different locations.
3. MOVEMENT (MOV): Movement refers to the path, direction, and repetition of the
hand(s) during a sign. It is a highly dynamic parameter, conveying not only lexical meaning
but also grammatical information such as aspect (e.g., continuous, iterative, punctual action).
For instance, the sign "WALK" can be modified by repeating the movement to indicate
"WALK CONTINUOUSLY" or "WALKING FOR A WHILE." Directionality in movement is
also critical for verb agreement (e.g., "ASK-YOU" vs. "ASK-ME"). Learners frequently
struggle with the nuanced precision of movement, including its speed, tension, and trajectory,
which can impact the intended meaning or grammatical function of a sign.
4. ORIENTATION (ORI): This parameter describes the direction the palm and/or
fingers are facing during a sign. While often subtle, orientation can be contrastive. For example,
the signs for "NAME" (H-handshape tapping on the other H-handshape) and "CHAIR" (same
handshape, different movement, but also subtle orientation differences) illustrate its
importance. A slight change in palm orientation can differentiate between signs that are
otherwise identical in handshape, location, and movement. Novice learners often overlook the
subtle but critical role of orientation, leading to signs that are grammatically incorrect or
semantically ambiguous.
5. NON-MANUAL MARKERS (NMMs): NMMs encompass facial expressions (e.g.,
raised eyebrows for questions, furrowed brows for "wh"-questions), head tilts, body posture,
and mouth movements (e.g., "cha" for large, "mm" for normal). Unlike the manual parameters,
NMMs are often produced simultaneously with manual signs and carry significant grammatical
and semantic weight. They can function as adverbs, adjectives, or even complete syntactic
structures (e.g., a simple head shake can negate a statement). Learners frequently underestimate
the importance of NMMs, often focusing solely on manual components. This oversight leads
to "flat" or ungrammatical signing, as NMMs are integral to ASL's syntax and emotional
expression (Baker & Padden, 1978).
ACQUISITION CHALLENGES FOR NOVICE LEARNERS: The integrated
complexity of these parameters presents several significant challenges for hearing novice
learners:
INTERFERENCE FROM SPOKEN LANGUAGE: Learners accustomed to linear-
temporal, auditory-vocal phonology must adapt to a visual-spatial, multi-dimensional
cherological system. This shift requires a fundamental reconceptualization of how language is
structured and processed.
MOTOR CONTROL AND PROPRIOCEPTION: Developing the precise fine motor
skills for handshapes, movements, and orientations, often performed simultaneously or in rapid
succession, requires extensive practice and proprioceptive awareness.
SIMULTANEOUS PROCESSING: The most significant hurdle is often the
simultaneous integration of all five parameters, particularly NMMs with manual signs. This
demands a high degree of cognitive processing and coordination not typically required in
spoken language production.
VISUAL-SPATIAL GRAMMAR: Understanding how space is used grammatically
(e.g., for verb agreement, referencing, narrative sequencing) is a departure from the largely
sequential grammar of spoken English.
PEDAGOGICAL STRATEGIES: Effective ASL
instruction for beginners must explicitly address each parameter, providing ample
opportunities for visual discrimination, guided practice, and feedback. Immersion in the Deaf
community and consistent exposure to fluent signers are invaluable for developing an intuitive
understanding of parameter integration, especially NMMs. Drills focusing on minimal pairs
that differ by only one parameter can enhance learners' cherological awareness.
COGNITIVE BENEFITS AND CROSS-LINGUISTIC IMPLICATIONS: Learning
ASL has been shown to enhance visual-spatial reasoning, attention to detail, and the ability to
process information across multiple modalities. From a cross-linguistic perspective, the study
of ASL cherology provides compelling evidence for the universal principles of language
organization, demonstrating that complex linguistic systems can manifest in diverse modalities.
It challenges glottocentric biases and enriches our understanding of human language capacity.
CONCLUSION
The cherological parameters of Handshape, Location, Movement, Orientation, and
Non-Manual Markers are the foundational building blocks of American Sign Language,
endowing it with the full linguistic complexity and expressive power of any natural language.
This project has elucidated how these parameters function individually and synergistically to
create meaning, and critically examined the specific challenges they pose for novice hearing
learners. The transition from a spoken language phonological system to a visual-spatial
cherological one demands not only motoric precision but also a profound cognitive shift in how
language is perceived and produced. Effective ASL acquisition hinges upon a deep,
linguistically informed understanding of these parameters. Pedagogical approaches must move
beyond rote vocabulary memorization to emphasize explicit instruction, extensive practice in
parameter differentiation, and immersion that fosters the simultaneous integration of all five
components, particularly the often-underestimated Non-Manual Markers. The difficulties
encountered by beginners underscore the sophisticated nature of ASL's structure and the
cognitive demands of mastering a language in a visual-spatial modality. Ultimately, the study
of ASL's cherological system not only facilitates more effective language acquisition but also
enriches our broader understanding of linguistic universals, cognitive flexibility, and the
remarkable diversity of human communication. ASL stands as a testament to the brain's
capacity for language, irrespective of modality, and its continued study offers invaluable
insights into the very nature of language itself.
The linguistic study of American Sign Language (ASL) fundamentally shifted from a
perception of ASL as a derivative of spoken English or a system of pantomime to its recognition
as a fully autonomous natural language with the pioneering work of William C. Stokoe in the
1960s (Stokoe, 1960). Stokoe’s seminal research at Gallaudet University introduced the
concept of "cheremes"—analogous to phonemes in spoken languages—which he categorized
into three primary components: Tab (Location), Dez (Handshape), and Sig (Movement). This
groundbreaking framework established a scientific basis for analyzing ASL’s internal
structure, demonstrating its systematicity and rule-governed nature. Subsequent research
expanded upon Stokoe’s model, leading to the widely accepted five-parameter model of ASL
phonology (or cherology). These parameters include Handshape (HS), Location (LOC),
Movement (MOV), Orientation (ORI), and Non-Manual Markers (NMMs) (Battison, 1978;
Liddell & Johnson, 1989). Battison's work, particularly his identification of the "Symmetry
Condition" and "Dominance Condition," provided crucial insights into the morphological
constraints and well-formedness rules governing ASL signs, demonstrating systematicity
beyond mere individual parameters. The "Movement-Hold" model proposed by Liddell and
Johnson (1989) further refined the understanding of ASL phonology by segmenting signs into
sequential holds and movements, analogous to consonant and vowel distinctions in spoken
language, offering a more granular analysis of temporal organization within signs. Neuro-
linguistic studies have further corroborated ASL’s status as a language, revealing that sign
language processing, much like spoken language, primarily engages left-hemisphere brain
regions associated with language functions (Poizner et al., 1987; Hickok et al., 1996). This
evidence refutes earlier notions that signed languages were purely spatial or visual, instead
highlighting their complex linguistic organization. Studies on ASL acquisition, both by native
signers (Deaf children of Deaf parents) and second language learners (hearing individuals),
reveal distinct developmental trajectories and challenges. Native acquisition often mirrors
milestones in spoken language acquisition, while second language learners frequently grapple
with transferring phonological awareness from an auditory-vocal modality to a visual-spatial
one (Padden & Humphries, 1988). Pedagogical approaches to ASL have evolved to incorporate
these linguistic insights. Early methods often focused solely on vocabulary memorization, akin
to rote learning in foreign language education. However, contemporary ASL pedagogy
emphasizes immersion, contextual learning, and explicit instruction on the five parameters,
recognizing that a deep understanding of these foundational elements is crucial for accurate
production and comprehension (Humphries & Padden, 2005). Challenges for hearing learners
include overcoming glottocentric biases, developing precise motor control for handshapes and
movements, and integrating NMMs, which often function adverbially or syntactically in ASL,
differing significantly from their role in spoken language. The literature consistently points to
the necessity of recognizing ASL as a unique linguistic system, not merely a translation of
English, to facilitate effective and respectful acquisition.
METHODOLOGY/APPROACH
This project employs a comprehensive theoretical and analytical synthesis approach,
integrating established linguistic theories with insights from cognitive science and pedagogical
research. The primary objective is to deconstruct the cherological parameters of ASL and
analyze their implications for novice learner acquisition and cross-linguistic understanding.
The research design is qualitative, drawing upon a robust body of existing scholarly literature
rather than generating new empirical data. The methodology involves:
1. LITERATURE REVIEW AND SYNTHESIS: Extensive review of foundational
texts and peer-reviewed articles from prominent academic databases (e.g., Google Scholar,
JSTOR, PsycINFO). Key search terms included "ASL phonology," "cherology," "sign
language linguistics," "ASL acquisition," "non-manual markers," and "visual-spatial language
processing." This synthesis aims to consolidate diverse perspectives on ASL’s linguistic
structure and pedagogical challenges.
2. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK: The five-parameter model (Handshape, Location,
Movement, Orientation, and Non-Manual Markers) serves as the core analytical framework.
Each parameter is individually examined for its linguistic function, variability, and specific
challenges it presents to beginning ASL learners.
3. COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS PERSPECTIVE: The analysis incorporates a
comparative lens, contrasting ASL’s cherological system with the phonological systems of
spoken languages to highlight both universal linguistic principles and modality-specific
differences. This approach illuminates the unique cognitive demands and advantages of visual-
spatial language processing.
4. PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS: Research on ASL teaching methodologies and
second language acquisition is integrated to identify effective strategies for parameter
instruction and to explain common errors and difficulties faced by hearing learners. Cognitive
load theory is implicitly considered when discussing the simultaneous processing demands of
ASL.
5. DATA SOURCES: Primary sources include seminal works by Stokoe (1960),
Battison (1978), Liddell and Johnson (1989), and Padden and Humphries (1988). Secondary
sources comprise contemporary articles from journals such as Sign Language Studies, Journal
of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, and Language Learning, alongside textbooks on ASL
linguistics and pedagogy. By systematically synthesizing these multi-disciplinary sources, this
project aims to provide a nuanced understanding of ASL's linguistic architecture and its
profound implications for both language education and broader linguistic theory.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The analysis of ASL's cherological parameters reveals a complex, highly structured
linguistic system that presents distinct challenges and opportunities for novice learners. Each
parameter contributes uniquely to the meaning and grammatical structure of a sign, and their
precise execution is paramount for accurate communication.
1. HANDSHAPE (HS): This parameter refers to the configuration of the hand(s) used
in a sign. ASL possesses a finite set of approximately 40 distinct handshapes, many of which
are derived from the American Manual Alphabet (Stokoe, 1960). Handshapes serve a
contrastive function; for example, the signs for "TRAIN" (two U-handshapes rubbing together)
and "CHAIR" (two H-handshapes tapping) differ only in handshape. Novice learners often
struggle with the fine motor control required to produce precise handshapes and maintaining
consistency, particularly with less common or more complex configurations.
Mispronunciation, akin to a spoken language accent, can occur if handshapes are not accurately
formed, leading to ambiguity or misunderstanding.
2. LOCATION (LOC): This parameter specifies where a sign is produced in relation
to the signer's body or in neutral signing space. Locations can be on the head (e.g., "KNOW"
at the temple, "THINK" at the forehead), torso (e.g., "FEEL" at the chest), or in the neutral
space in front of the signer (e.g., "SIGN"). Location is crucial for distinguishing minimal pairs
(e.g., "SUMMER" at the forehead vs. "DRY" at the chin) and for grammatical functions such
as verb agreement and spatial referencing. Beginning learners often face challenges in
accurately identifying and maintaining consistent signing locations, especially when signs
involve movement across different locations.
3. MOVEMENT (MOV): Movement refers to the path, direction, and repetition of the
hand(s) during a sign. It is a highly dynamic parameter, conveying not only lexical meaning
but also grammatical information such as aspect (e.g., continuous, iterative, punctual action).
For instance, the sign "WALK" can be modified by repeating the movement to indicate
"WALK CONTINUOUSLY" or "WALKING FOR A WHILE." Directionality in movement is
also critical for verb agreement (e.g., "ASK-YOU" vs. "ASK-ME"). Learners frequently
struggle with the nuanced precision of movement, including its speed, tension, and trajectory,
which can impact the intended meaning or grammatical function of a sign.
4. ORIENTATION (ORI): This parameter describes the direction the palm and/or
fingers are facing during a sign. While often subtle, orientation can be contrastive. For example,
the signs for "NAME" (H-handshape tapping on the other H-handshape) and "CHAIR" (same
handshape, different movement, but also subtle orientation differences) illustrate its
importance. A slight change in palm orientation can differentiate between signs that are
otherwise identical in handshape, location, and movement. Novice learners often overlook the
subtle but critical role of orientation, leading to signs that are grammatically incorrect or
semantically ambiguous.
5. NON-MANUAL MARKERS (NMMs): NMMs encompass facial expressions (e.g.,
raised eyebrows for questions, furrowed brows for "wh"-questions), head tilts, body posture,
and mouth movements (e.g., "cha" for large, "mm" for normal). Unlike the manual parameters,
NMMs are often produced simultaneously with manual signs and carry significant grammatical
and semantic weight. They can function as adverbs, adjectives, or even complete syntactic
structures (e.g., a simple head shake can negate a statement). Learners frequently underestimate
the importance of NMMs, often focusing solely on manual components. This oversight leads
to "flat" or ungrammatical signing, as NMMs are integral to ASL's syntax and emotional
expression (Baker & Padden, 1978).
ACQUISITION CHALLENGES FOR NOVICE LEARNERS: The integrated
complexity of these parameters presents several significant challenges for hearing novice
learners:
INTERFERENCE FROM SPOKEN LANGUAGE: Learners accustomed to linear-
temporal, auditory-vocal phonology must adapt to a visual-spatial, multi-dimensional
cherological system. This shift requires a fundamental reconceptualization of how language is
structured and processed.
MOTOR CONTROL AND PROPRIOCEPTION: Developing the precise fine motor
skills for handshapes, movements, and orientations, often performed simultaneously or in rapid
succession, requires extensive practice and proprioceptive awareness.
SIMULTANEOUS PROCESSING: The most significant hurdle is often the
simultaneous integration of all five parameters, particularly NMMs with manual signs. This
demands a high degree of cognitive processing and coordination not typically required in
spoken language production.
VISUAL-SPATIAL GRAMMAR: Understanding how space is used grammatically
(e.g., for verb agreement, referencing, narrative sequencing) is a departure from the largely
sequential grammar of spoken English.
PEDAGOGICAL STRATEGIES: Effective ASL
instruction for beginners must explicitly address each parameter, providing ample
opportunities for visual discrimination, guided practice, and feedback. Immersion in the Deaf
community and consistent exposure to fluent signers are invaluable for developing an intuitive
understanding of parameter integration, especially NMMs. Drills focusing on minimal pairs
that differ by only one parameter can enhance learners' cherological awareness.
COGNITIVE BENEFITS AND CROSS-LINGUISTIC IMPLICATIONS: Learning
ASL has been shown to enhance visual-spatial reasoning, attention to detail, and the ability to
process information across multiple modalities. From a cross-linguistic perspective, the study
of ASL cherology provides compelling evidence for the universal principles of language
organization, demonstrating that complex linguistic systems can manifest in diverse modalities.
It challenges glottocentric biases and enriches our understanding of human language capacity.
CONCLUSION
The cherological parameters of Handshape, Location, Movement, Orientation, and
Non-Manual Markers are the foundational building blocks of American Sign Language,
endowing it with the full linguistic complexity and expressive power of any natural language.
This project has elucidated how these parameters function individually and synergistically to
create meaning, and critically examined the specific challenges they pose for novice hearing
learners. The transition from a spoken language phonological system to a visual-spatial
cherological one demands not only motoric precision but also a profound cognitive shift in how
language is perceived and produced. Effective ASL acquisition hinges upon a deep,
linguistically informed understanding of these parameters. Pedagogical approaches must move
beyond rote vocabulary memorization to emphasize explicit instruction, extensive practice in
parameter differentiation, and immersion that fosters the simultaneous integration of all five
components, particularly the often-underestimated Non-Manual Markers. The difficulties
encountered by beginners underscore the sophisticated nature of ASL's structure and the
cognitive demands of mastering a language in a visual-spatial modality. Ultimately, the study
of ASL's cherological system not only facilitates more effective language acquisition but also
enriches our broader understanding of linguistic universals, cognitive flexibility, and the
remarkable diversity of human communication. ASL stands as a testament to the brain's
capacity for language, irrespective of modality, and its continued study offers invaluable
insights into the very nature of language itself.
The linguistic study of American Sign Language (ASL) fundamentally shifted from a
perception of ASL as a derivative of spoken English or a system of pantomime to its recognition
as a fully autonomous natural language with the pioneering work of William C. Stokoe in the
1960s (Stokoe, 1960). Stokoe’s seminal research at Gallaudet University introduced the
concept of "cheremes"—analogous to phonemes in spoken languages—which he categorized
into three primary components: Tab (Location), Dez (Handshape), and Sig (Movement). This
groundbreaking framework established a scientific basis for analyzing ASL’s internal
structure, demonstrating its systematicity and rule-governed nature. Subsequent research
expanded upon Stokoe’s model, leading to the widely accepted five-parameter model of ASL
phonology (or cherology). These parameters include Handshape (HS), Location (LOC),
Movement (MOV), Orientation (ORI), and Non-Manual Markers (NMMs) (Battison, 1978;
Liddell & Johnson, 1989). Battison's work, particularly his identification of the "Symmetry
Condition" and "Dominance Condition," provided crucial insights into the morphological
constraints and well-formedness rules governing ASL signs, demonstrating systematicity
beyond mere individual parameters. The "Movement-Hold" model proposed by Liddell and
Johnson (1989) further refined the understanding of ASL phonology by segmenting signs into
sequential holds and movements, analogous to consonant and vowel distinctions in spoken
language, offering a more granular analysis of temporal organization within signs. Neuro-
linguistic studies have further corroborated ASL’s status as a language, revealing that sign
language processing, much like spoken language, primarily engages left-hemisphere brain
regions associated with language functions (Poizner et al., 1987; Hickok et al., 1996). This
evidence refutes earlier notions that signed languages were purely spatial or visual, instead
highlighting their complex linguistic organization. Studies on ASL acquisition, both by native
signers (Deaf children of Deaf parents) and second language learners (hearing individuals),
reveal distinct developmental trajectories and challenges. Native acquisition often mirrors
milestones in spoken language acquisition, while second language learners frequently grapple
with transferring phonological awareness from an auditory-vocal modality to a visual-spatial
one (Padden & Humphries, 1988). Pedagogical approaches to ASL have evolved to incorporate
these linguistic insights. Early methods often focused solely on vocabulary memorization, akin
to rote learning in foreign language education. However, contemporary ASL pedagogy
emphasizes immersion, contextual learning, and explicit instruction on the five parameters,
recognizing that a deep understanding of these foundational elements is crucial for accurate
production and comprehension (Humphries & Padden, 2005). Challenges for hearing learners
include overcoming glottocentric biases, developing precise motor control for handshapes and
movements, and integrating NMMs, which often function adverbially or syntactically in ASL,
differing significantly from their role in spoken language. The literature consistently points to
the necessity of recognizing ASL as a unique linguistic system, not merely a translation of
English, to facilitate effective and respectful acquisition.
METHODOLOGY/APPROACH
This project employs a comprehensive theoretical and analytical synthesis approach,
integrating established linguistic theories with insights from cognitive science and pedagogical
research. The primary objective is to deconstruct the cherological parameters of ASL and
analyze their implications for novice learner acquisition and cross-linguistic understanding.
The research design is qualitative, drawing upon a robust body of existing scholarly literature
rather than generating new empirical data. The methodology involves:
1. LITERATURE REVIEW AND SYNTHESIS: Extensive review of foundational
texts and peer-reviewed articles from prominent academic databases (e.g., Google Scholar,
JSTOR, PsycINFO). Key search terms included "ASL phonology," "cherology," "sign
language linguistics," "ASL acquisition," "non-manual markers," and "visual-spatial language
processing." This synthesis aims to consolidate diverse perspectives on ASL’s linguistic
structure and pedagogical challenges.
2. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK: The five-parameter model (Handshape, Location,
Movement, Orientation, and Non-Manual Markers) serves as the core analytical framework.
Each parameter is individually examined for its linguistic function, variability, and specific
challenges it presents to beginning ASL learners.
3. COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS PERSPECTIVE: The analysis incorporates a
comparative lens, contrasting ASL’s cherological system with the phonological systems of
spoken languages to highlight both universal linguistic principles and modality-specific
differences. This approach illuminates the unique cognitive demands and advantages of visual-
spatial language processing.
4. PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS: Research on ASL teaching methodologies and
second language acquisition is integrated to identify effective strategies for parameter
instruction and to explain common errors and difficulties faced by hearing learners. Cognitive
load theory is implicitly considered when discussing the simultaneous processing demands of
ASL.
5. DATA SOURCES: Primary sources include seminal works by Stokoe (1960),
Battison (1978), Liddell and Johnson (1989), and Padden and Humphries (1988). Secondary
sources comprise contemporary articles from journals such as Sign Language Studies, Journal
of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, and Language Learning, alongside textbooks on ASL
linguistics and pedagogy. By systematically synthesizing these multi-disciplinary sources, this
project aims to provide a nuanced understanding of ASL's linguistic architecture and its
profound implications for both language education and broader linguistic theory.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The analysis of ASL's cherological parameters reveals a complex, highly structured
linguistic system that presents distinct challenges and opportunities for novice learners. Each
parameter contributes uniquely to the meaning and grammatical structure of a sign, and their
precise execution is paramount for accurate communication.
1. HANDSHAPE (HS): This parameter refers to the configuration of the hand(s) used
in a sign. ASL possesses a finite set of approximately 40 distinct handshapes, many of which
are derived from the American Manual Alphabet (Stokoe, 1960). Handshapes serve a
contrastive function; for example, the signs for "TRAIN" (two U-handshapes rubbing together)
and "CHAIR" (two H-handshapes tapping) differ only in handshape. Novice learners often
struggle with the fine motor control required to produce precise handshapes and maintaining
consistency, particularly with less common or more complex configurations.
Mispronunciation, akin to a spoken language accent, can occur if handshapes are not accurately
formed, leading to ambiguity or misunderstanding.
2. LOCATION (LOC): This parameter specifies where a sign is produced in relation
to the signer's body or in neutral signing space. Locations can be on the head (e.g., "KNOW"
at the temple, "THINK" at the forehead), torso (e.g., "FEEL" at the chest), or in the neutral
space in front of the signer (e.g., "SIGN"). Location is crucial for distinguishing minimal pairs
(e.g., "SUMMER" at the forehead vs. "DRY" at the chin) and for grammatical functions such
as verb agreement and spatial referencing. Beginning learners often face challenges in
accurately identifying and maintaining consistent signing locations, especially when signs
involve movement across different locations.
3. MOVEMENT (MOV): Movement refers to the path, direction, and repetition of the
hand(s) during a sign. It is a highly dynamic parameter, conveying not only lexical meaning
but also grammatical information such as aspect (e.g., continuous, iterative, punctual action).
For instance, the sign "WALK" can be modified by repeating the movement to indicate
"WALK CONTINUOUSLY" or "WALKING FOR A WHILE." Directionality in movement is
also critical for verb agreement (e.g., "ASK-YOU" vs. "ASK-ME"). Learners frequently
struggle with the nuanced precision of movement, including its speed, tension, and trajectory,
which can impact the intended meaning or grammatical function of a sign.
4. ORIENTATION (ORI): This parameter describes the direction the palm and/or
fingers are facing during a sign. While often subtle, orientation can be contrastive. For example,
the signs for "NAME" (H-handshape tapping on the other H-handshape) and "CHAIR" (same
handshape, different movement, but also subtle orientation differences) illustrate its
importance. A slight change in palm orientation can differentiate between signs that are
otherwise identical in handshape, location, and movement. Novice learners often overlook the
subtle but critical role of orientation, leading to signs that are grammatically incorrect or
semantically ambiguous.
5. NON-MANUAL MARKERS (NMMs): NMMs encompass facial expressions (e.g.,
raised eyebrows for questions, furrowed brows for "wh"-questions), head tilts, body posture,
and mouth movements (e.g., "cha" for large, "mm" for normal). Unlike the manual parameters,
NMMs are often produced simultaneously with manual signs and carry significant grammatical
and semantic weight. They can function as adverbs, adjectives, or even complete syntactic
structures (e.g., a simple head shake can negate a statement). Learners frequently underestimate
the importance of NMMs, often focusing solely on manual components. This oversight leads
to "flat" or ungrammatical signing, as NMMs are integral to ASL's syntax and emotional
expression (Baker & Padden, 1978).
ACQUISITION CHALLENGES FOR NOVICE LEARNERS: The integrated
complexity of these parameters presents several significant challenges for hearing novice
learners:
INTERFERENCE FROM SPOKEN LANGUAGE: Learners accustomed to linear-
temporal, auditory-vocal phonology must adapt to a visual-spatial, multi-dimensional
cherological system. This shift requires a fundamental reconceptualization of how language is
structured and processed.
MOTOR CONTROL AND PROPRIOCEPTION: Developing the precise fine motor
skills for handshapes, movements, and orientations, often performed simultaneously or in rapid
succession, requires extensive practice and proprioceptive awareness.
SIMULTANEOUS PROCESSING: The most significant hurdle is often the
simultaneous integration of all five parameters, particularly NMMs with manual signs. This
demands a high degree of cognitive processing and coordination not typically required in
spoken language production.
VISUAL-SPATIAL GRAMMAR: Understanding how space is used grammatically
(e.g., for verb agreement, referencing, narrative sequencing) is a departure from the largely
sequential grammar of spoken English.
PEDAGOGICAL STRATEGIES: Effective ASL
instruction for beginners must explicitly address each parameter, providing ample
opportunities for visual discrimination, guided practice, and feedback. Immersion in the Deaf
community and consistent exposure to fluent signers are invaluable for developing an intuitive
understanding of parameter integration, especially NMMs. Drills focusing on minimal pairs
that differ by only one parameter can enhance learners' cherological awareness.
COGNITIVE BENEFITS AND CROSS-LINGUISTIC IMPLICATIONS: Learning
ASL has been shown to enhance visual-spatial reasoning, attention to detail, and the ability to
process information across multiple modalities. From a cross-linguistic perspective, the study
of ASL cherology provides compelling evidence for the universal principles of language
organization, demonstrating that complex linguistic systems can manifest in diverse modalities.
It challenges glottocentric biases and enriches our understanding of human language capacity.
CONCLUSION
The cherological parameters of Handshape, Location, Movement, Orientation, and
Non-Manual Markers are the foundational building blocks of American Sign Language,
endowing it with the full linguistic complexity and expressive power of any natural language.
This project has elucidated how these parameters function individually and synergistically to
create meaning, and critically examined the specific challenges they pose for novice hearing
learners. The transition from a spoken language phonological system to a visual-spatial
cherological one demands not only motoric precision but also a profound cognitive shift in how
language is perceived and produced. Effective ASL acquisition hinges upon a deep,
linguistically informed understanding of these parameters. Pedagogical approaches must move
beyond rote vocabulary memorization to emphasize explicit instruction, extensive practice in
parameter differentiation, and immersion that fosters the simultaneous integration of all five
components, particularly the often-underestimated Non-Manual Markers. The difficulties
encountered by beginners underscore the sophisticated nature of ASL's structure and the
cognitive demands of mastering a language in a visual-spatial modality. Ultimately, the study
of ASL's cherological system not only facilitates more effective language acquisition but also
enriches our broader understanding of linguistic universals, cognitive flexibility, and the
remarkable diversity of human communication. ASL stands as a testament to the brain's
capacity for language, irrespective of modality, and its continued study offers invaluable
insights into the very nature of language itself.
The linguistic study of American Sign Language (ASL) fundamentally shifted from a
perception of ASL as a derivative of spoken English or a system of pantomime to its recognition
as a fully autonomous natural language with the pioneering work of William C. Stokoe in the
1960s (Stokoe, 1960). Stokoe’s seminal research at Gallaudet University introduced the
concept of "cheremes"—analogous to phonemes in spoken languages—which he categorized
into three primary components: Tab (Location), Dez (Handshape), and Sig (Movement). This
groundbreaking framework established a scientific basis for analyzing ASL’s internal
structure, demonstrating its systematicity and rule-governed nature. Subsequent research
expanded upon Stokoe’s model, leading to the widely accepted five-parameter model of ASL
phonology (or cherology). These parameters include Handshape (HS), Location (LOC),
Movement (MOV), Orientation (ORI), and Non-Manual Markers (NMMs) (Battison, 1978;
Liddell & Johnson, 1989). Battison's work, particularly his identification of the "Symmetry
Condition" and "Dominance Condition," provided crucial insights into the morphological
constraints and well-formedness rules governing ASL signs, demonstrating systematicity
beyond mere individual parameters. The "Movement-Hold" model proposed by Liddell and
Johnson (1989) further refined the understanding of ASL phonology by segmenting signs into
sequential holds and movements, analogous to consonant and vowel distinctions in spoken
language, offering a more granular analysis of temporal organization within signs. Neuro-
linguistic studies have further corroborated ASL’s status as a language, revealing that sign
language processing, much like spoken language, primarily engages left-hemisphere brain
regions associated with language functions (Poizner et al., 1987; Hickok et al., 1996). This
evidence refutes earlier notions that signed languages were purely spatial or visual, instead
highlighting their complex linguistic organization. Studies on ASL acquisition, both by native
signers (Deaf children of Deaf parents) and second language learners (hearing individuals),
reveal distinct developmental trajectories and challenges. Native acquisition often mirrors
milestones in spoken language acquisition, while second language learners frequently grapple
with transferring phonological awareness from an auditory-vocal modality to a visual-spatial
one (Padden & Humphries, 1988). Pedagogical approaches to ASL have evolved to incorporate
these linguistic insights. Early methods often focused solely on vocabulary memorization, akin
to rote learning in foreign language education. However, contemporary ASL pedagogy
emphasizes immersion, contextual learning, and explicit instruction on the five parameters,
recognizing that a deep understanding of these foundational elements is crucial for accurate
production and comprehension (Humphries & Padden, 2005). Challenges for hearing learners
include overcoming glottocentric biases, developing precise motor control for handshapes and
movements, and integrating NMMs, which often function adverbially or syntactically in ASL,
differing significantly from their role in spoken language. The literature consistently points to
the necessity of recognizing ASL as a unique linguistic system, not merely a translation of
English, to facilitate effective and respectful acquisition.
METHODOLOGY/APPROACH
This project employs a comprehensive theoretical and analytical synthesis approach,
integrating established linguistic theories with insights from cognitive science and pedagogical
research. The primary objective is to deconstruct the cherological parameters of ASL and
analyze their implications for novice learner acquisition and cross-linguistic understanding.
The research design is qualitative, drawing upon a robust body of existing scholarly literature
rather than generating new empirical data. The methodology involves:
1. LITERATURE REVIEW AND SYNTHESIS: Extensive review of foundational
texts and peer-reviewed articles from prominent academic databases (e.g., Google Scholar,
JSTOR, PsycINFO). Key search terms included "ASL phonology," "cherology," "sign
language linguistics," "ASL acquisition," "non-manual markers," and "visual-spatial language
processing." This synthesis aims to consolidate diverse perspectives on ASL’s linguistic
structure and pedagogical challenges.
2. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK: The five-parameter model (Handshape, Location,
Movement, Orientation, and Non-Manual Markers) serves as the core analytical framework.
Each parameter is individually examined for its linguistic function, variability, and specific
challenges it presents to beginning ASL learners.
3. COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS PERSPECTIVE: The analysis incorporates a
comparative lens, contrasting ASL’s cherological system with the phonological systems of
spoken languages to highlight both universal linguistic principles and modality-specific
differences. This approach illuminates the unique cognitive demands and advantages of visual-
spatial language processing.
4. PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS: Research on ASL teaching methodologies and
second language acquisition is integrated to identify effective strategies for parameter
instruction and to explain common errors and difficulties faced by hearing learners. Cognitive
load theory is implicitly considered when discussing the simultaneous processing demands of
ASL.
5. DATA SOURCES: Primary sources include seminal works by Stokoe (1960),
Battison (1978), Liddell and Johnson (1989), and Padden and Humphries (1988). Secondary
sources comprise contemporary articles from journals such as Sign Language Studies, Journal
of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, and Language Learning, alongside textbooks on ASL
linguistics and pedagogy. By systematically synthesizing these multi-disciplinary sources, this
project aims to provide a nuanced understanding of ASL's linguistic architecture and its
profound implications for both language education and broader linguistic theory.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The analysis of ASL's cherological parameters reveals a complex, highly structured
linguistic system that presents distinct challenges and opportunities for novice learners. Each
parameter contributes uniquely to the meaning and grammatical structure of a sign, and their
precise execution is paramount for accurate communication.
1. HANDSHAPE (HS): This parameter refers to the configuration of the hand(s) used
in a sign. ASL possesses a finite set of approximately 40 distinct handshapes, many of which
are derived from the American Manual Alphabet (Stokoe, 1960). Handshapes serve a
contrastive function; for example, the signs for "TRAIN" (two U-handshapes rubbing together)
and "CHAIR" (two H-handshapes tapping) differ only in handshape. Novice learners often
struggle with the fine motor control required to produce precise handshapes and maintaining
consistency, particularly with less common or more complex configurations.
Mispronunciation, akin to a spoken language accent, can occur if handshapes are not accurately
formed, leading to ambiguity or misunderstanding.
2. LOCATION (LOC): This parameter specifies where a sign is produced in relation
to the signer's body or in neutral signing space. Locations can be on the head (e.g., "KNOW"
at the temple, "THINK" at the forehead), torso (e.g., "FEEL" at the chest), or in the neutral
space in front of the signer (e.g., "SIGN"). Location is crucial for distinguishing minimal pairs
(e.g., "SUMMER" at the forehead vs. "DRY" at the chin) and for grammatical functions such
as verb agreement and spatial referencing. Beginning learners often face challenges in
accurately identifying and maintaining consistent signing locations, especially when signs
involve movement across different locations.
3. MOVEMENT (MOV): Movement refers to the path, direction, and repetition of the
hand(s) during a sign. It is a highly dynamic parameter, conveying not only lexical meaning
but also grammatical information such as aspect (e.g., continuous, iterative, punctual action).
For instance, the sign "WALK" can be modified by repeating the movement to indicate
"WALK CONTINUOUSLY" or "WALKING FOR A WHILE." Directionality in movement is
also critical for verb agreement (e.g., "ASK-YOU" vs. "ASK-ME"). Learners frequently
struggle with the nuanced precision of movement, including its speed, tension, and trajectory,
which can impact the intended meaning or grammatical function of a sign.
4. ORIENTATION (ORI): This parameter describes the direction the palm and/or
fingers are facing during a sign. While often subtle, orientation can be contrastive. For example,
the signs for "NAME" (H-handshape tapping on the other H-handshape) and "CHAIR" (same
handshape, different movement, but also subtle orientation differences) illustrate its
importance. A slight change in palm orientation can differentiate between signs that are
otherwise identical in handshape, location, and movement. Novice learners often overlook the
subtle but critical role of orientation, leading to signs that are grammatically incorrect or
semantically ambiguous.
5. NON-MANUAL MARKERS (NMMs): NMMs encompass facial expressions (e.g.,
raised eyebrows for questions, furrowed brows for "wh"-questions), head tilts, body posture,
and mouth movements (e.g., "cha" for large, "mm" for normal). Unlike the manual parameters,
NMMs are often produced simultaneously with manual signs and carry significant grammatical
and semantic weight. They can function as adverbs, adjectives, or even complete syntactic
structures (e.g., a simple head shake can negate a statement). Learners frequently underestimate
the importance of NMMs, often focusing solely on manual components. This oversight leads
to "flat" or ungrammatical signing, as NMMs are integral to ASL's syntax and emotional
expression (Baker & Padden, 1978).
ACQUISITION CHALLENGES FOR NOVICE LEARNERS: The integrated
complexity of these parameters presents several significant challenges for hearing novice
learners:
INTERFERENCE FROM SPOKEN LANGUAGE: Learners accustomed to linear-
temporal, auditory-vocal phonology must adapt to a visual-spatial, multi-dimensional
cherological system. This shift requires a fundamental reconceptualization of how language is
structured and processed.
MOTOR CONTROL AND PROPRIOCEPTION: Developing the precise fine motor
skills for handshapes, movements, and orientations, often performed simultaneously or in rapid
succession, requires extensive practice and proprioceptive awareness.
SIMULTANEOUS PROCESSING: The most significant hurdle is often the
simultaneous integration of all five parameters, particularly NMMs with manual signs. This
demands a high degree of cognitive processing and coordination not typically required in
spoken language production.
VISUAL-SPATIAL GRAMMAR: Understanding how space is used grammatically
(e.g., for verb agreement, referencing, narrative sequencing) is a departure from the largely
sequential grammar of spoken English.
PEDAGOGICAL STRATEGIES: Effective ASL
instruction for beginners must explicitly address each parameter, providing ample
opportunities for visual discrimination, guided practice, and feedback. Immersion in the Deaf
community and consistent exposure to fluent signers are invaluable for developing an intuitive
understanding of parameter integration, especially NMMs. Drills focusing on minimal pairs
that differ by only one parameter can enhance learners' cherological awareness.
COGNITIVE BENEFITS AND CROSS-LINGUISTIC IMPLICATIONS: Learning
ASL has been shown to enhance visual-spatial reasoning, attention to detail, and the ability to
process information across multiple modalities. From a cross-linguistic perspective, the study
of ASL cherology provides compelling evidence for the universal principles of language
organization, demonstrating that complex linguistic systems can manifest in diverse modalities.
It challenges glottocentric biases and enriches our understanding of human language capacity.
CONCLUSION
The cherological parameters of Handshape, Location, Movement, Orientation, and
Non-Manual Markers are the foundational building blocks of American Sign Language,
endowing it with the full linguistic complexity and expressive power of any natural language.
This project has elucidated how these parameters function individually and synergistically to
create meaning, and critically examined the specific challenges they pose for novice hearing
learners. The transition from a spoken language phonological system to a visual-spatial
cherological one demands not only motoric precision but also a profound cognitive shift in how
language is perceived and produced. Effective ASL acquisition hinges upon a deep,
linguistically informed understanding of these parameters. Pedagogical approaches must move
beyond rote vocabulary memorization to emphasize explicit instruction, extensive practice in
parameter differentiation, and immersion that fosters the simultaneous integration of all five
components, particularly the often-underestimated Non-Manual Markers. The difficulties
encountered by beginners underscore the sophisticated nature of ASL's structure and the
cognitive demands of mastering a language in a visual-spatial modality. Ultimately, the study
of ASL's cherological system not only facilitates more effective language acquisition but also
enriches our broader understanding of linguistic universals, cognitive flexibility, and the
remarkable diversity of human communication. ASL stands as a testament to the brain's
capacity for language, irrespective of modality, and its continued study offers invaluable
insights into the very nature of language itself.
The linguistic study of American Sign Language (ASL) fundamentally shifted from a
perception of ASL as a derivative of spoken English or a system of pantomime to its recognition
as a fully autonomous natural language with the pioneering work of William C. Stokoe in the
1960s (Stokoe, 1960). Stokoe’s seminal research at Gallaudet University introduced the
concept of "cheremes"—analogous to phonemes in spoken languages—which he categorized
into three primary components: Tab (Location), Dez (Handshape), and Sig (Movement). This
groundbreaking framework established a scientific basis for analyzing ASL’s internal
structure, demonstrating its systematicity and rule-governed nature. Subsequent research
expanded upon Stokoe’s model, leading to the widely accepted five-parameter model of ASL
phonology (or cherology). These parameters include Handshape (HS), Location (LOC),
Movement (MOV), Orientation (ORI), and Non-Manual Markers (NMMs) (Battison, 1978;
Liddell & Johnson, 1989). Battison's work, particularly his identification of the "Symmetry
Condition" and "Dominance Condition," provided crucial insights into the morphological
constraints and well-formedness rules governing ASL signs, demonstrating systematicity
beyond mere individual parameters. The "Movement-Hold" model proposed by Liddell and
Johnson (1989) further refined the understanding of ASL phonology by segmenting signs into
sequential holds and movements, analogous to consonant and vowel distinctions in spoken
language, offering a more granular analysis of temporal organization within signs. Neuro-
linguistic studies have further corroborated ASL’s status as a language, revealing that sign
language processing, much like spoken language, primarily engages left-hemisphere brain
regions associated with language functions (Poizner et al., 1987; Hickok et al., 1996). This
evidence refutes earlier notions that signed languages were purely spatial or visual, instead
highlighting their complex linguistic organization. Studies on ASL acquisition, both by native
signers (Deaf children of Deaf parents) and second language learners (hearing individuals),
reveal distinct developmental trajectories and challenges. Native acquisition often mirrors
milestones in spoken language acquisition, while second language learners frequently grapple
with transferring phonological awareness from an auditory-vocal modality to a visual-spatial
one (Padden & Humphries, 1988). Pedagogical approaches to ASL have evolved to incorporate
these linguistic insights. Early methods often focused solely on vocabulary memorization, akin
to rote learning in foreign language education. However, contemporary ASL pedagogy
emphasizes immersion, contextual learning, and explicit instruction on the five parameters,
recognizing that a deep understanding of these foundational elements is crucial for accurate
production and comprehension (Humphries & Padden, 2005). Challenges for hearing learners
include overcoming glottocentric biases, developing precise motor control for handshapes and
movements, and integrating NMMs, which often function adverbially or syntactically in ASL,
differing significantly from their role in spoken language. The literature consistently points to
the necessity of recognizing ASL as a unique linguistic system, not merely a translation of
English, to facilitate effective and respectful acquisition.
METHODOLOGY/APPROACH
This project employs a comprehensive theoretical and analytical synthesis approach,
integrating established linguistic theories with insights from cognitive science and pedagogical
research. The primary objective is to deconstruct the cherological parameters of ASL and
analyze their implications for novice learner acquisition and cross-linguistic understanding.
The research design is qualitative, drawing upon a robust body of existing scholarly literature
rather than generating new empirical data. The methodology involves:
1. LITERATURE REVIEW AND SYNTHESIS: Extensive review of foundational
texts and peer-reviewed articles from prominent academic databases (e.g., Google Scholar,
JSTOR, PsycINFO). Key search terms included "ASL phonology," "cherology," "sign
language linguistics," "ASL acquisition," "non-manual markers," and "visual-spatial language
processing." This synthesis aims to consolidate diverse perspectives on ASL’s linguistic
structure and pedagogical challenges.
2. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK: The five-parameter model (Handshape, Location,
Movement, Orientation, and Non-Manual Markers) serves as the core analytical framework.
Each parameter is individually examined for its linguistic function, variability, and specific
challenges it presents to beginning ASL learners.
3. COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS PERSPECTIVE: The analysis incorporates a
comparative lens, contrasting ASL’s cherological system with the phonological systems of
spoken languages to highlight both universal linguistic principles and modality-specific
differences. This approach illuminates the unique cognitive demands and advantages of visual-
spatial language processing.
4. PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS: Research on ASL teaching methodologies and
second language acquisition is integrated to identify effective strategies for parameter
instruction and to explain common errors and difficulties faced by hearing learners. Cognitive
load theory is implicitly considered when discussing the simultaneous processing demands of
ASL.
5. DATA SOURCES: Primary sources include seminal works by Stokoe (1960),
Battison (1978), Liddell and Johnson (1989), and Padden and Humphries (1988). Secondary
sources comprise contemporary articles from journals such as Sign Language Studies, Journal
of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, and Language Learning, alongside textbooks on ASL
linguistics and pedagogy. By systematically synthesizing these multi-disciplinary sources, this
project aims to provide a nuanced understanding of ASL's linguistic architecture and its
profound implications for both language education and broader linguistic theory.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The analysis of ASL's cherological parameters reveals a complex, highly structured
linguistic system that presents distinct challenges and opportunities for novice learners. Each
parameter contributes uniquely to the meaning and grammatical structure of a sign, and their
precise execution is paramount for accurate communication.
1. HANDSHAPE (HS): This parameter refers to the configuration of the hand(s) used
in a sign. ASL possesses a finite set of approximately 40 distinct handshapes, many of which
are derived from the American Manual Alphabet (Stokoe, 1960). Handshapes serve a
contrastive function; for example, the signs for "TRAIN" (two U-handshapes rubbing together)
and "CHAIR" (two H-handshapes tapping) differ only in handshape. Novice learners often
struggle with the fine motor control required to produce precise handshapes and maintaining
consistency, particularly with less common or more complex configurations.
Mispronunciation, akin to a spoken language accent, can occur if handshapes are not accurately
formed, leading to ambiguity or misunderstanding.
2. LOCATION (LOC): This parameter specifies where a sign is produced in relation
to the signer's body or in neutral signing space. Locations can be on the head (e.g., "KNOW"
at the temple, "THINK" at the forehead), torso (e.g., "FEEL" at the chest), or in the neutral
space in front of the signer (e.g., "SIGN"). Location is crucial for distinguishing minimal pairs
(e.g., "SUMMER" at the forehead vs. "DRY" at the chin) and for grammatical functions such
as verb agreement and spatial referencing. Beginning learners often face challenges in
accurately identifying and maintaining consistent signing locations, especially when signs
involve movement across different locations.
3. MOVEMENT (MOV): Movement refers to the path, direction, and repetition of the
hand(s) during a sign. It is a highly dynamic parameter, conveying not only lexical meaning
but also grammatical information such as aspect (e.g., continuous, iterative, punctual action).
For instance, the sign "WALK" can be modified by repeating the movement to indicate
"WALK CONTINUOUSLY" or "WALKING FOR A WHILE." Directionality in movement is
also critical for verb agreement (e.g., "ASK-YOU" vs. "ASK-ME"). Learners frequently
struggle with the nuanced precision of movement, including its speed, tension, and trajectory,
which can impact the intended meaning or grammatical function of a sign.
4. ORIENTATION (ORI): This parameter describes the direction the palm and/or
fingers are facing during a sign. While often subtle, orientation can be contrastive. For example,
the signs for "NAME" (H-handshape tapping on the other H-handshape) and "CHAIR" (same
handshape, different movement, but also subtle orientation differences) illustrate its
importance. A slight change in palm orientation can differentiate between signs that are
otherwise identical in handshape, location, and movement. Novice learners often overlook the
subtle but critical role of orientation, leading to signs that are grammatically incorrect or
semantically ambiguous.
5. NON-MANUAL MARKERS (NMMs): NMMs encompass facial expressions (e.g.,
raised eyebrows for questions, furrowed brows for "wh"-questions), head tilts, body posture,
and mouth movements (e.g., "cha" for large, "mm" for normal). Unlike the manual parameters,
NMMs are often produced simultaneously with manual signs and carry significant grammatical
and semantic weight. They can function as adverbs, adjectives, or even complete syntactic
structures (e.g., a simple head shake can negate a statement). Learners frequently underestimate
the importance of NMMs, often focusing solely on manual components. This oversight leads
to "flat" or ungrammatical signing, as NMMs are integral to ASL's syntax and emotional
expression (Baker & Padden, 1978).
ACQUISITION CHALLENGES FOR NOVICE LEARNERS: The integrated
complexity of these parameters presents several significant challenges for hearing novice
learners:
INTERFERENCE FROM SPOKEN LANGUAGE: Learners accustomed to linear-
temporal, auditory-vocal phonology must adapt to a visual-spatial, multi-dimensional
cherological system. This shift requires a fundamental reconceptualization of how language is
structured and processed.
MOTOR CONTROL AND PROPRIOCEPTION: Developing the precise fine motor
skills for handshapes, movements, and orientations, often performed simultaneously or in rapid
succession, requires extensive practice and proprioceptive awareness.
SIMULTANEOUS PROCESSING: The most significant hurdle is often the
simultaneous integration of all five parameters, particularly NMMs with manual signs. This
demands a high degree of cognitive processing and coordination not typically required in
spoken language production.
VISUAL-SPATIAL GRAMMAR: Understanding how space is used grammatically
(e.g., for verb agreement, referencing, narrative sequencing) is a departure from the largely
sequential grammar of spoken English.
PEDAGOGICAL STRATEGIES: Effective ASL
instruction for beginners must explicitly address each parameter, providing ample
opportunities for visual discrimination, guided practice, and feedback. Immersion in the Deaf
community and consistent exposure to fluent signers are invaluable for developing an intuitive
understanding of parameter integration, especially NMMs. Drills focusing on minimal pairs
that differ by only one parameter can enhance learners' cherological awareness.
COGNITIVE BENEFITS AND CROSS-LINGUISTIC IMPLICATIONS: Learning
ASL has been shown to enhance visual-spatial reasoning, attention to detail, and the ability to
process information across multiple modalities. From a cross-linguistic perspective, the study
of ASL cherology provides compelling evidence for the universal principles of language
organization, demonstrating that complex linguistic systems can manifest in diverse modalities.
It challenges glottocentric biases and enriches our understanding of human language capacity.
CONCLUSION
The cherological parameters of Handshape, Location, Movement, Orientation, and
Non-Manual Markers are the foundational building blocks of American Sign Language,
endowing it with the full linguistic complexity and expressive power of any natural language.
This project has elucidated how these parameters function individually and synergistically to
create meaning, and critically examined the specific challenges they pose for novice hearing
learners. The transition from a spoken language phonological system to a visual-spatial
cherological one demands not only motoric precision but also a profound cognitive shift in how
language is perceived and produced. Effective ASL acquisition hinges upon a deep,
linguistically informed understanding of these parameters. Pedagogical approaches must move
beyond rote vocabulary memorization to emphasize explicit instruction, extensive practice in
parameter differentiation, and immersion that fosters the simultaneous integration of all five
components, particularly the often-underestimated Non-Manual Markers. The difficulties
encountered by beginners underscore the sophisticated nature of ASL's structure and the
cognitive demands of mastering a language in a visual-spatial modality. Ultimately, the study
of ASL's cherological system not only facilitates more effective language acquisition but also
enriches our broader understanding of linguistic universals, cognitive flexibility, and the
remarkable diversity of human communication. ASL stands as a testament to the brain's
capacity for language, irrespective of modality, and its continued study offers invaluable
insights into the very nature of language itself.
The linguistic study of American Sign Language (ASL) fundamentally shifted from a
perception of ASL as a derivative of spoken English or a system of pantomime to its recognition
as a fully autonomous natural language with the pioneering work of William C. Stokoe in the
1960s (Stokoe, 1960). Stokoe’s seminal research at Gallaudet University introduced the
concept of "cheremes"—analogous to phonemes in spoken languages—which he categorized
into three primary components: Tab (Location), Dez (Handshape), and Sig (Movement). This
groundbreaking framework established a scientific basis for analyzing ASL’s internal
structure, demonstrating its systematicity and rule-governed nature. Subsequent research
expanded upon Stokoe’s model, leading to the widely accepted five-parameter model of ASL
phonology (or cherology). These parameters include Handshape (HS), Location (LOC),
Movement (MOV), Orientation (ORI), and Non-Manual Markers (NMMs) (Battison, 1978;
Liddell & Johnson, 1989). Battison's work, particularly his identification of the "Symmetry
Condition" and "Dominance Condition," provided crucial insights into the morphological
constraints and well-formedness rules governing ASL signs, demonstrating systematicity
beyond mere individual parameters. The "Movement-Hold" model proposed by Liddell and
Johnson (1989) further refined the understanding of ASL phonology by segmenting signs into
sequential holds and movements, analogous to consonant and vowel distinctions in spoken
language, offering a more granular analysis of temporal organization within signs. Neuro-
linguistic studies have further corroborated ASL’s status as a language, revealing that sign
language processing, much like spoken language, primarily engages left-hemisphere brain
regions associated with language functions (Poizner et al., 1987; Hickok et al., 1996). This
evidence refutes earlier notions that signed languages were purely spatial or visual, instead
highlighting their complex linguistic organization. Studies on ASL acquisition, both by native
signers (Deaf children of Deaf parents) and second language learners (hearing individuals),
reveal distinct developmental trajectories and challenges. Native acquisition often mirrors
milestones in spoken language acquisition, while second language learners frequently grapple
with transferring phonological awareness from an auditory-vocal modality to a visual-spatial
one (Padden & Humphries, 1988). Pedagogical approaches to ASL have evolved to incorporate
these linguistic insights. Early methods often focused solely on vocabulary memorization, akin
to rote learning in foreign language education. However, contemporary ASL pedagogy
emphasizes immersion, contextual learning, and explicit instruction on the five parameters,
recognizing that a deep understanding of these foundational elements is crucial for accurate
production and comprehension (Humphries & Padden, 2005). Challenges for hearing learners
include overcoming glottocentric biases, developing precise motor control for handshapes and
movements, and integrating NMMs, which often function adverbially or syntactically in ASL,
differing significantly from their role in spoken language. The literature consistently points to
the necessity of recognizing ASL as a unique linguistic system, not merely a translation of
English, to facilitate effective and respectful acquisition.
METHODOLOGY/APPROACH
This project employs a comprehensive theoretical and analytical synthesis approach,
integrating established linguistic theories with insights from cognitive science and pedagogical
research. The primary objective is to deconstruct the cherological parameters of ASL and
analyze their implications for novice learner acquisition and cross-linguistic understanding.
The research design is qualitative, drawing upon a robust body of existing scholarly literature
rather than generating new empirical data. The methodology involves:
1. LITERATURE REVIEW AND SYNTHESIS: Extensive review of foundational
texts and peer-reviewed articles from prominent academic databases (e.g., Google Scholar,
JSTOR, PsycINFO). Key search terms included "ASL phonology," "cherology," "sign
language linguistics," "ASL acquisition," "non-manual markers," and "visual-spatial language
processing." This synthesis aims to consolidate diverse perspectives on ASL’s linguistic
structure and pedagogical challenges.
2. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK: The five-parameter model (Handshape, Location,
Movement, Orientation, and Non-Manual Markers) serves as the core analytical framework.
Each parameter is individually examined for its linguistic function, variability, and specific
challenges it presents to beginning ASL learners.
3. COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS PERSPECTIVE: The analysis incorporates a
comparative lens, contrasting ASL’s cherological system with the phonological systems of
spoken languages to highlight both universal linguistic principles and modality-specific
differences. This approach illuminates the unique cognitive demands and advantages of visual-
spatial language processing.
4. PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS: Research on ASL teaching methodologies and
second language acquisition is integrated to identify effective strategies for parameter
instruction and to explain common errors and difficulties faced by hearing learners. Cognitive
load theory is implicitly considered when discussing the simultaneous processing demands of
ASL.
5. DATA SOURCES: Primary sources include seminal works by Stokoe (1960),
Battison (1978), Liddell and Johnson (1989), and Padden and Humphries (1988). Secondary
sources comprise contemporary articles from journals such as Sign Language Studies, Journal
of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, and Language Learning, alongside textbooks on ASL
linguistics and pedagogy. By systematically synthesizing these multi-disciplinary sources, this
project aims to provide a nuanced understanding of ASL's linguistic architecture and its
profound implications for both language education and broader linguistic theory.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The analysis of ASL's cherological parameters reveals a complex, highly structured
linguistic system that presents distinct challenges and opportunities for novice learners. Each
parameter contributes uniquely to the meaning and grammatical structure of a sign, and their
precise execution is paramount for accurate communication.
1. HANDSHAPE (HS): This parameter refers to the configuration of the hand(s) used
in a sign. ASL possesses a finite set of approximately 40 distinct handshapes, many of which
are derived from the American Manual Alphabet (Stokoe, 1960). Handshapes serve a
contrastive function; for example, the signs for "TRAIN" (two U-handshapes rubbing together)
and "CHAIR" (two H-handshapes tapping) differ only in handshape. Novice learners often
struggle with the fine motor control required to produce precise handshapes and maintaining
consistency, particularly with less common or more complex configurations.
Mispronunciation, akin to a spoken language accent, can occur if handshapes are not accurately
formed, leading to ambiguity or misunderstanding.
2. LOCATION (LOC): This parameter specifies where a sign is produced in relation
to the signer's body or in neutral signing space. Locations can be on the head (e.g., "KNOW"
at the temple, "THINK" at the forehead), torso (e.g., "FEEL" at the chest), or in the neutral
space in front of the signer (e.g., "SIGN"). Location is crucial for distinguishing minimal pairs
(e.g., "SUMMER" at the forehead vs. "DRY" at the chin) and for grammatical functions such
as verb agreement and spatial referencing. Beginning learners often face challenges in
accurately identifying and maintaining consistent signing locations, especially when signs
involve movement across different locations.
3. MOVEMENT (MOV): Movement refers to the path, direction, and repetition of the
hand(s) during a sign. It is a highly dynamic parameter, conveying not only lexical meaning
but also grammatical information such as aspect (e.g., continuous, iterative, punctual action).
For instance, the sign "WALK" can be modified by repeating the movement to indicate
"WALK CONTINUOUSLY" or "WALKING FOR A WHILE." Directionality in movement is
also critical for verb agreement (e.g., "ASK-YOU" vs. "ASK-ME"). Learners frequently
struggle with the nuanced precision of movement, including its speed, tension, and trajectory,
which can impact the intended meaning or grammatical function of a sign.
4. ORIENTATION (ORI): This parameter describes the direction the palm and/or
fingers are facing during a sign. While often subtle, orientation can be contrastive. For example,
the signs for "NAME" (H-handshape tapping on the other H-handshape) and "CHAIR" (same
handshape, different movement, but also subtle orientation differences) illustrate its
importance. A slight change in palm orientation can differentiate between signs that are
otherwise identical in handshape, location, and movement. Novice learners often overlook the
subtle but critical role of orientation, leading to signs that are grammatically incorrect or
semantically ambiguous.
5. NON-MANUAL MARKERS (NMMs): NMMs encompass facial expressions (e.g.,
raised eyebrows for questions, furrowed brows for "wh"-questions), head tilts, body posture,
and mouth movements (e.g., "cha" for large, "mm" for normal). Unlike the manual parameters,
NMMs are often produced simultaneously with manual signs and carry significant grammatical
and semantic weight. They can function as adverbs, adjectives, or even complete syntactic
structures (e.g., a simple head shake can negate a statement). Learners frequently underestimate
the importance of NMMs, often focusing solely on manual components. This oversight leads
to "flat" or ungrammatical signing, as NMMs are integral to ASL's syntax and emotional
expression (Baker & Padden, 1978).
ACQUISITION CHALLENGES FOR NOVICE LEARNERS: The integrated
complexity of these parameters presents several significant challenges for hearing novice
learners:
INTERFERENCE FROM SPOKEN LANGUAGE: Learners accustomed to linear-
temporal, auditory-vocal phonology must adapt to a visual-spatial, multi-dimensional
cherological system. This shift requires a fundamental reconceptualization of how language is
structured and processed.
MOTOR CONTROL AND PROPRIOCEPTION: Developing the precise fine motor
skills for handshapes, movements, and orientations, often performed simultaneously or in rapid
succession, requires extensive practice and proprioceptive awareness.
SIMULTANEOUS PROCESSING: The most significant hurdle is often the
simultaneous integration of all five parameters, particularly NMMs with manual signs. This
demands a high degree of cognitive processing and coordination not typically required in
spoken language production.
VISUAL-SPATIAL GRAMMAR: Understanding how space is used grammatically
(e.g., for verb agreement, referencing, narrative sequencing) is a departure from the largely
sequential grammar of spoken English.
PEDAGOGICAL STRATEGIES: Effective ASL
instruction for beginners must explicitly address each parameter, providing ample
opportunities for visual discrimination, guided practice, and feedback. Immersion in the Deaf
community and consistent exposure to fluent signers are invaluable for developing an intuitive
understanding of parameter integration, especially NMMs. Drills focusing on minimal pairs
that differ by only one parameter can enhance learners' cherological awareness.
COGNITIVE BENEFITS AND CROSS-LINGUISTIC IMPLICATIONS: Learning
ASL has been shown to enhance visual-spatial reasoning, attention to detail, and the ability to
process information across multiple modalities. From a cross-linguistic perspective, the study
of ASL cherology provides compelling evidence for the universal principles of language
organization, demonstrating that complex linguistic systems can manifest in diverse modalities.
It challenges glottocentric biases and enriches our understanding of human language capacity.
CONCLUSION
The cherological parameters of Handshape, Location, Movement, Orientation, and
Non-Manual Markers are the foundational building blocks of American Sign Language,
endowing it with the full linguistic complexity and expressive power of any natural language.
This project has elucidated how these parameters function individually and synergistically to
create meaning, and critically examined the specific challenges they pose for novice hearing
learners. The transition from a spoken language phonological system to a visual-spatial
cherological one demands not only motoric precision but also a profound cognitive shift in how
language is perceived and produced. Effective ASL acquisition hinges upon a deep,
linguistically informed understanding of these parameters. Pedagogical approaches must move
beyond rote vocabulary memorization to emphasize explicit instruction, extensive practice in
parameter differentiation, and immersion that fosters the simultaneous integration of all five
components, particularly the often-underestimated Non-Manual Markers. The difficulties
encountered by beginners underscore the sophisticated nature of ASL's structure and the
cognitive demands of mastering a language in a visual-spatial modality. Ultimately, the study
of ASL's cherological system not only facilitates more effective language acquisition but also
enriches our broader understanding of linguistic universals, cognitive flexibility, and the
remarkable diversity of human communication. ASL stands as a testament to the brain's
capacity for language, irrespective of modality, and its continued study offers invaluable
insights into the very nature of language itself.
The linguistic study of American Sign Language (ASL) fundamentally shifted from a
perception of ASL as a derivative of spoken English or a system of pantomime to its recognition
as a fully autonomous natural language with the pioneering work of William C. Stokoe in the
1960s (Stokoe, 1960). Stokoe’s seminal research at Gallaudet University introduced the
concept of "cheremes"—analogous to phonemes in spoken languages—which he categorized
into three primary components: Tab (Location), Dez (Handshape), and Sig (Movement). This
groundbreaking framework established a scientific basis for analyzing ASL’s internal
structure, demonstrating its systematicity and rule-governed nature. Subsequent research
expanded upon Stokoe’s model, leading to the widely accepted five-parameter model of ASL
phonology (or cherology). These parameters include Handshape (HS), Location (LOC),
Movement (MOV), Orientation (ORI), and Non-Manual Markers (NMMs) (Battison, 1978;
Liddell & Johnson, 1989). Battison's work, particularly his identification of the "Symmetry
Condition" and "Dominance Condition," provided crucial insights into the morphological
constraints and well-formedness rules governing ASL signs, demonstrating systematicity
beyond mere individual parameters. The "Movement-Hold" model proposed by Liddell and
Johnson (1989) further refined the understanding of ASL phonology by segmenting signs into
sequential holds and movements, analogous to consonant and vowel distinctions in spoken
language, offering a more granular analysis of temporal organization within signs. Neuro-
linguistic studies have further corroborated ASL’s status as a language, revealing that sign
language processing, much like spoken language, primarily engages left-hemisphere brain
regions associated with language functions (Poizner et al., 1987; Hickok et al., 1996). This
evidence refutes earlier notions that signed languages were purely spatial or visual, instead
highlighting their complex linguistic organization. Studies on ASL acquisition, both by native
signers (Deaf children of Deaf parents) and second language learners (hearing individuals),
reveal distinct developmental trajectories and challenges. Native acquisition often mirrors
milestones in spoken language acquisition, while second language learners frequently grapple
with transferring phonological awareness from an auditory-vocal modality to a visual-spatial
one (Padden & Humphries, 1988). Pedagogical approaches to ASL have evolved to incorporate
these linguistic insights. Early methods often focused solely on vocabulary memorization, akin
to rote learning in foreign language education. However, contemporary ASL pedagogy
emphasizes immersion, contextual learning, and explicit instruction on the five parameters,
recognizing that a deep understanding of these foundational elements is crucial for accurate
production and comprehension (Humphries & Padden, 2005). Challenges for hearing learners
include overcoming glottocentric biases, developing precise motor control for handshapes and
movements, and integrating NMMs, which often function adverbially or syntactically in ASL,
differing significantly from their role in spoken language. The literature consistently points to
the necessity of recognizing ASL as a unique linguistic system, not merely a translation of
English, to facilitate effective and respectful acquisition.
METHODOLOGY/APPROACH
This project employs a comprehensive theoretical and analytical synthesis approach,
integrating established linguistic theories with insights from cognitive science and pedagogical
research. The primary objective is to deconstruct the cherological parameters of ASL and
analyze their implications for novice learner acquisition and cross-linguistic understanding.
The research design is qualitative, drawing upon a robust body of existing scholarly literature
rather than generating new empirical data. The methodology involves:
1. LITERATURE REVIEW AND SYNTHESIS: Extensive review of foundational
texts and peer-reviewed articles from prominent academic databases (e.g., Google Scholar,
JSTOR, PsycINFO). Key search terms included "ASL phonology," "cherology," "sign
language linguistics," "ASL acquisition," "non-manual markers," and "visual-spatial language
processing." This synthesis aims to consolidate diverse perspectives on ASL’s linguistic
structure and pedagogical challenges.
2. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK: The five-parameter model (Handshape, Location,
Movement, Orientation, and Non-Manual Markers) serves as the core analytical framework.
Each parameter is individually examined for its linguistic function, variability, and specific
challenges it presents to beginning ASL learners.
3. COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS PERSPECTIVE: The analysis incorporates a
comparative lens, contrasting ASL’s cherological system with the phonological systems of
spoken languages to highlight both universal linguistic principles and modality-specific
differences. This approach illuminates the unique cognitive demands and advantages of visual-
spatial language processing.
4. PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS: Research on ASL teaching methodologies and
second language acquisition is integrated to identify effective strategies for parameter
instruction and to explain common errors and difficulties faced by hearing learners. Cognitive
load theory is implicitly considered when discussing the simultaneous processing demands of
ASL.
5. DATA SOURCES: Primary sources include seminal works by Stokoe (1960),
Battison (1978), Liddell and Johnson (1989), and Padden and Humphries (1988). Secondary
sources comprise contemporary articles from journals such as Sign Language Studies, Journal
of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, and Language Learning, alongside textbooks on ASL
linguistics and pedagogy. By systematically synthesizing these multi-disciplinary sources, this
project aims to provide a nuanced understanding of ASL's linguistic architecture and its
profound implications for both language education and broader linguistic theory.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The analysis of ASL's cherological parameters reveals a complex, highly structured
linguistic system that presents distinct challenges and opportunities for novice learners. Each
parameter contributes uniquely to the meaning and grammatical structure of a sign, and their
precise execution is paramount for accurate communication.
1. HANDSHAPE (HS): This parameter refers to the configuration of the hand(s) used
in a sign. ASL possesses a finite set of approximately 40 distinct handshapes, many of which
are derived from the American Manual Alphabet (Stokoe, 1960). Handshapes serve a
contrastive function; for example, the signs for "TRAIN" (two U-handshapes rubbing together)
and "CHAIR" (two H-handshapes tapping) differ only in handshape. Novice learners often
struggle with the fine motor control required to produce precise handshapes and maintaining
consistency, particularly with less common or more complex configurations.
Mispronunciation, akin to a spoken language accent, can occur if handshapes are not accurately
formed, leading to ambiguity or misunderstanding.
2. LOCATION (LOC): This parameter specifies where a sign is produced in relation
to the signer's body or in neutral signing space. Locations can be on the head (e.g., "KNOW"
at the temple, "THINK" at the forehead), torso (e.g., "FEEL" at the chest), or in the neutral
space in front of the signer (e.g., "SIGN"). Location is crucial for distinguishing minimal pairs
(e.g., "SUMMER" at the forehead vs. "DRY" at the chin) and for grammatical functions such
as verb agreement and spatial referencing. Beginning learners often face challenges in
accurately identifying and maintaining consistent signing locations, especially when signs
involve movement across different locations.
3. MOVEMENT (MOV): Movement refers to the path, direction, and repetition of the
hand(s) during a sign. It is a highly dynamic parameter, conveying not only lexical meaning
but also grammatical information such as aspect (e.g., continuous, iterative, punctual action).
For instance, the sign "WALK" can be modified by repeating the movement to indicate
"WALK CONTINUOUSLY" or "WALKING FOR A WHILE." Directionality in movement is
also critical for verb agreement (e.g., "ASK-YOU" vs. "ASK-ME"). Learners frequently
struggle with the nuanced precision of movement, including its speed, tension, and trajectory,
which can impact the intended meaning or grammatical function of a sign.
4. ORIENTATION (ORI): This parameter describes the direction the palm and/or
fingers are facing during a sign. While often subtle, orientation can be contrastive. For example,
the signs for "NAME" (H-handshape tapping on the other H-handshape) and "CHAIR" (same
handshape, different movement, but also subtle orientation differences) illustrate its
importance. A slight change in palm orientation can differentiate between signs that are
otherwise identical in handshape, location, and movement. Novice learners often overlook the
subtle but critical role of orientation, leading to signs that are grammatically incorrect or
semantically ambiguous.
5. NON-MANUAL MARKERS (NMMs): NMMs encompass facial expressions (e.g.,
raised eyebrows for questions, furrowed brows for "wh"-questions), head tilts, body posture,
and mouth movements (e.g., "cha" for large, "mm" for normal). Unlike the manual parameters,
NMMs are often produced simultaneously with manual signs and carry significant grammatical
and semantic weight. They can function as adverbs, adjectives, or even complete syntactic
structures (e.g., a simple head shake can negate a statement). Learners frequently underestimate
the importance of NMMs, often focusing solely on manual components. This oversight leads
to "flat" or ungrammatical signing, as NMMs are integral to ASL's syntax and emotional
expression (Baker & Padden, 1978).
ACQUISITION CHALLENGES FOR NOVICE LEARNERS: The integrated
complexity of these parameters presents several significant challenges for hearing novice
learners:
INTERFERENCE FROM SPOKEN LANGUAGE: Learners accustomed to linear-
temporal, auditory-vocal phonology must adapt to a visual-spatial, multi-dimensional
cherological system. This shift requires a fundamental reconceptualization of how language is
structured and processed.
MOTOR CONTROL AND PROPRIOCEPTION: Developing the precise fine motor
skills for handshapes, movements, and orientations, often performed simultaneously or in rapid
succession, requires extensive practice and proprioceptive awareness.
SIMULTANEOUS PROCESSING: The most significant hurdle is often the
simultaneous integration of all five parameters, particularly NMMs with manual signs. This
demands a high degree of cognitive processing and coordination not typically required in
spoken language production.
VISUAL-SPATIAL GRAMMAR: Understanding how space is used grammatically
(e.g., for verb agreement, referencing, narrative sequencing) is a departure from the largely
sequential grammar of spoken English.
PEDAGOGICAL STRATEGIES: Effective ASL
instruction for beginners must explicitly address each parameter, providing ample
opportunities for visual discrimination, guided practice, and feedback. Immersion in the Deaf
community and consistent exposure to fluent signers are invaluable for developing an intuitive
understanding of parameter integration, especially NMMs. Drills focusing on minimal pairs
that differ by only one parameter can enhance learners' cherological awareness.
COGNITIVE BENEFITS AND CROSS-LINGUISTIC IMPLICATIONS: Learning
ASL has been shown to enhance visual-spatial reasoning, attention to detail, and the ability to
process information across multiple modalities. From a cross-linguistic perspective, the study
of ASL cherology provides compelling evidence for the universal principles of language
organization, demonstrating that complex linguistic systems can manifest in diverse modalities.
It challenges glottocentric biases and enriches our understanding of human language capacity.
CONCLUSION
The cherological parameters of Handshape, Location, Movement, Orientation, and
Non-Manual Markers are the foundational building blocks of American Sign Language,
endowing it with the full linguistic complexity and expressive power of any natural language.
This project has elucidated how these parameters function individually and synergistically to
create meaning, and critically examined the specific challenges they pose for novice hearing
learners. The transition from a spoken language phonological system to a visual-spatial
cherological one demands not only motoric precision but also a profound cognitive shift in how
language is perceived and produced. Effective ASL acquisition hinges upon a deep,
linguistically informed understanding of these parameters. Pedagogical approaches must move
beyond rote vocabulary memorization to emphasize explicit instruction, extensive practice in
parameter differentiation, and immersion that fosters the simultaneous integration of all five
components, particularly the often-underestimated Non-Manual Markers. The difficulties
encountered by beginners underscore the sophisticated nature of ASL's structure and the
cognitive demands of mastering a language in a visual-spatial modality. Ultimately, the study
of ASL's cherological system not only facilitates more effective language acquisition but also
enriches our broader understanding of linguistic universals, cognitive flexibility, and the
remarkable diversity of human communication. ASL stands as a testament to the brain's
capacity for language, irrespective of modality, and its continued study offers invaluable
insights into the very nature of language itself.
The linguistic study of American Sign Language (ASL) fundamentally shifted from a
perception of ASL as a derivative of spoken English or a system of pantomime to its recognition
as a fully autonomous natural language with the pioneering work of William C. Stokoe in the
1960s (Stokoe, 1960). Stokoe’s seminal research at Gallaudet University introduced the
concept of "cheremes"—analogous to phonemes in spoken languages—which he categorized
into three primary components: Tab (Location), Dez (Handshape), and Sig (Movement). This
groundbreaking framework established a scientific basis for analyzing ASL’s internal
structure, demonstrating its systematicity and rule-governed nature. Subsequent research
expanded upon Stokoe’s model, leading to the widely accepted five-parameter model of ASL
phonology (or cherology). These parameters include Handshape (HS), Location (LOC),
Movement (MOV), Orientation (ORI), and Non-Manual Markers (NMMs) (Battison, 1978;
Liddell & Johnson, 1989). Battison's work, particularly his identification of the "Symmetry
Condition" and "Dominance Condition," provided crucial insights into the morphological
constraints and well-formedness rules governing ASL signs, demonstrating systematicity
beyond mere individual parameters. The "Movement-Hold" model proposed by Liddell and
Johnson (1989) further refined the understanding of ASL phonology by segmenting signs into
sequential holds and movements, analogous to consonant and vowel distinctions in spoken
language, offering a more granular analysis of temporal organization within signs. Neuro-
linguistic studies have further corroborated ASL’s status as a language, revealing that sign
language processing, much like spoken language, primarily engages left-hemisphere brain
regions associated with language functions (Poizner et al., 1987; Hickok et al., 1996). This
evidence refutes earlier notions that signed languages were purely spatial or visual, instead
highlighting their complex linguistic organization. Studies on ASL acquisition, both by native
signers (Deaf children of Deaf parents) and second language learners (hearing individuals),
reveal distinct developmental trajectories and challenges. Native acquisition often mirrors
milestones in spoken language acquisition, while second language learners frequently grapple
with transferring phonological awareness from an auditory-vocal modality to a visual-spatial
one (Padden & Humphries, 1988). Pedagogical approaches to ASL have evolved to incorporate
these linguistic insights. Early methods often focused solely on vocabulary memorization, akin
to rote learning in foreign language education. However, contemporary ASL pedagogy
emphasizes immersion, contextual learning, and explicit instruction on the five parameters,
recognizing that a deep understanding of these foundational elements is crucial for accurate
production and comprehension (Humphries & Padden, 2005). Challenges for hearing learners
include overcoming glottocentric biases, developing precise motor control for handshapes and
movements, and integrating NMMs, which often function adverbially or syntactically in ASL,
differing significantly from their role in spoken language. The literature consistently points to
the necessity of recognizing ASL as a unique linguistic system, not merely a translation of
English, to facilitate effective and respectful acquisition.
METHODOLOGY/APPROACH
This project employs a comprehensive theoretical and analytical synthesis approach,
integrating established linguistic theories with insights from cognitive science and pedagogical
research. The primary objective is to deconstruct the cherological parameters of ASL and
analyze their implications for novice learner acquisition and cross-linguistic understanding.
The research design is qualitative, drawing upon a robust body of existing scholarly literature
rather than generating new empirical data. The methodology involves:
1. LITERATURE REVIEW AND SYNTHESIS: Extensive review of foundational
texts and peer-reviewed articles from prominent academic databases (e.g., Google Scholar,
JSTOR, PsycINFO). Key search terms included "ASL phonology," "cherology," "sign
language linguistics," "ASL acquisition," "non-manual markers," and "visual-spatial language
processing." This synthesis aims to consolidate diverse perspectives on ASL’s linguistic
structure and pedagogical challenges.
2. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK: The five-parameter model (Handshape, Location,
Movement, Orientation, and Non-Manual Markers) serves as the core analytical framework.
Each parameter is individually examined for its linguistic function, variability, and specific
challenges it presents to beginning ASL learners.
3. COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS PERSPECTIVE: The analysis incorporates a
comparative lens, contrasting ASL’s cherological system with the phonological systems of
spoken languages to highlight both universal linguistic principles and modality-specific
differences. This approach illuminates the unique cognitive demands and advantages of visual-
spatial language processing.
4. PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS: Research on ASL teaching methodologies and
second language acquisition is integrated to identify effective strategies for parameter
instruction and to explain common errors and difficulties faced by hearing learners. Cognitive
load theory is implicitly considered when discussing the simultaneous processing demands of
ASL.
5. DATA SOURCES: Primary sources include seminal works by Stokoe (1960),
Battison (1978), Liddell and Johnson (1989), and Padden and Humphries (1988). Secondary
sources comprise contemporary articles from journals such as Sign Language Studies, Journal
of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, and Language Learning, alongside textbooks on ASL
linguistics and pedagogy. By systematically synthesizing these multi-disciplinary sources, this
project aims to provide a nuanced understanding of ASL's linguistic architecture and its
profound implications for both language education and broader linguistic theory.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The analysis of ASL's cherological parameters reveals a complex, highly structured
linguistic system that presents distinct challenges and opportunities for novice learners. Each
parameter contributes uniquely to the meaning and grammatical structure of a sign, and their
precise execution is paramount for accurate communication.
1. HANDSHAPE (HS): This parameter refers to the configuration of the hand(s) used
in a sign. ASL possesses a finite set of approximately 40 distinct handshapes, many of which
are derived from the American Manual Alphabet (Stokoe, 1960). Handshapes serve a
contrastive function; for example, the signs for "TRAIN" (two U-handshapes rubbing together)
and "CHAIR" (two H-handshapes tapping) differ only in handshape. Novice learners often
struggle with the fine motor control required to produce precise handshapes and maintaining
consistency, particularly with less common or more complex configurations.
Mispronunciation, akin to a spoken language accent, can occur if handshapes are not accurately
formed, leading to ambiguity or misunderstanding.
2. LOCATION (LOC): This parameter specifies where a sign is produced in relation
to the signer's body or in neutral signing space. Locations can be on the head (e.g., "KNOW"
at the temple, "THINK" at the forehead), torso (e.g., "FEEL" at the chest), or in the neutral
space in front of the signer (e.g., "SIGN"). Location is crucial for distinguishing minimal pairs
(e.g., "SUMMER" at the forehead vs. "DRY" at the chin) and for grammatical functions such
as verb agreement and spatial referencing. Beginning learners often face challenges in
accurately identifying and maintaining consistent signing locations, especially when signs
involve movement across different locations.
3. MOVEMENT (MOV): Movement refers to the path, direction, and repetition of the
hand(s) during a sign. It is a highly dynamic parameter, conveying not only lexical meaning
but also grammatical information such as aspect (e.g., continuous, iterative, punctual action).
For instance, the sign "WALK" can be modified by repeating the movement to indicate
"WALK CONTINUOUSLY" or "WALKING FOR A WHILE." Directionality in movement is
also critical for verb agreement (e.g., "ASK-YOU" vs. "ASK-ME"). Learners frequently
struggle with the nuanced precision of movement, including its speed, tension, and trajectory,
which can impact the intended meaning or grammatical function of a sign.
4. ORIENTATION (ORI): This parameter describes the direction the palm and/or
fingers are facing during a sign. While often subtle, orientation can be contrastive. For example,
the signs for "NAME" (H-handshape tapping on the other H-handshape) and "CHAIR" (same
handshape, different movement, but also subtle orientation differences) illustrate its
importance. A slight change in palm orientation can differentiate between signs that are
otherwise identical in handshape, location, and movement. Novice learners often overlook the
subtle but critical role of orientation, leading to signs that are grammatically incorrect or
semantically ambiguous.
5. NON-MANUAL MARKERS (NMMs): NMMs encompass facial expressions (e.g.,
raised eyebrows for questions, furrowed brows for "wh"-questions), head tilts, body posture,
and mouth movements (e.g., "cha" for large, "mm" for normal). Unlike the manual parameters,
NMMs are often produced simultaneously with manual signs and carry significant grammatical
and semantic weight. They can function as adverbs, adjectives, or even complete syntactic
structures (e.g., a simple head shake can negate a statement). Learners frequently underestimate
the importance of NMMs, often focusing solely on manual components. This oversight leads
to "flat" or ungrammatical signing, as NMMs are integral to ASL's syntax and emotional
expression (Baker & Padden, 1978).
ACQUISITION CHALLENGES FOR NOVICE LEARNERS: The integrated
complexity of these parameters presents several significant challenges for hearing novice
learners:
INTERFERENCE FROM SPOKEN LANGUAGE: Learners accustomed to linear-
temporal, auditory-vocal phonology must adapt to a visual-spatial, multi-dimensional
cherological system. This shift requires a fundamental reconceptualization of how language is
structured and processed.
MOTOR CONTROL AND PROPRIOCEPTION: Developing the precise fine motor
skills for handshapes, movements, and orientations, often performed simultaneously or in rapid
succession, requires extensive practice and proprioceptive awareness.
SIMULTANEOUS PROCESSING: The most significant hurdle is often the
simultaneous integration of all five parameters, particularly NMMs with manual signs. This
demands a high degree of cognitive processing and coordination not typically required in
spoken language production.
VISUAL-SPATIAL GRAMMAR: Understanding how space is used grammatically
(e.g., for verb agreement, referencing, narrative sequencing) is a departure from the largely
sequential grammar of spoken English.
PEDAGOGICAL STRATEGIES: Effective ASL
instruction for beginners must explicitly address each parameter, providing ample
opportunities for visual discrimination, guided practice, and feedback. Immersion in the Deaf
community and consistent exposure to fluent signers are invaluable for developing an intuitive
understanding of parameter integration, especially NMMs. Drills focusing on minimal pairs
that differ by only one parameter can enhance learners' cherological awareness.
COGNITIVE BENEFITS AND CROSS-LINGUISTIC IMPLICATIONS: Learning
ASL has been shown to enhance visual-spatial reasoning, attention to detail, and the ability to
process information across multiple modalities. From a cross-linguistic perspective, the study
of ASL cherology provides compelling evidence for the universal principles of language
organization, demonstrating that complex linguistic systems can manifest in diverse modalities.
It challenges glottocentric biases and enriches our understanding of human language capacity.
CONCLUSION
The cherological parameters of Handshape, Location, Movement, Orientation, and
Non-Manual Markers are the foundational building blocks of American Sign Language,
endowing it with the full linguistic complexity and expressive power of any natural language.
This project has elucidated how these parameters function individually and synergistically to
create meaning, and critically examined the specific challenges they pose for novice hearing
learners. The transition from a spoken language phonological system to a visual-spatial
cherological one demands not only motoric precision but also a profound cognitive shift in how
language is perceived and produced. Effective ASL acquisition hinges upon a deep,
linguistically informed understanding of these parameters. Pedagogical approaches must move
beyond rote vocabulary memorization to emphasize explicit instruction, extensive practice in
parameter differentiation, and immersion that fosters the simultaneous integration of all five
components, particularly the often-underestimated Non-Manual Markers. The difficulties
encountered by beginners underscore the sophisticated nature of ASL's structure and the
cognitive demands of mastering a language in a visual-spatial modality. Ultimately, the study
of ASL's cherological system not only facilitates more effective language acquisition but also
enriches our broader understanding of linguistic universals, cognitive flexibility, and the
remarkable diversity of human communication. ASL stands as a testament to the brain's
capacity for language, irrespective of modality, and its continued study offers invaluable
insights into the very nature of language itself.
The linguistic study of American Sign Language (ASL) fundamentally shifted from a
perception of ASL as a derivative of spoken English or a system of pantomime to its recognition
as a fully autonomous natural language with the pioneering work of William C. Stokoe in the
1960s (Stokoe, 1960). Stokoe’s seminal research at Gallaudet University introduced the
concept of "cheremes"—analogous to phonemes in spoken languages—which he categorized
into three primary components: Tab (Location), Dez (Handshape), and Sig (Movement). This
groundbreaking framework established a scientific basis for analyzing ASL’s internal
structure, demonstrating its systematicity and rule-governed nature. Subsequent research
expanded upon Stokoe’s model, leading to the widely accepted five-parameter model of ASL
phonology (or cherology). These parameters include Handshape (HS), Location (LOC),
Movement (MOV), Orientation (ORI), and Non-Manual Markers (NMMs) (Battison, 1978;
Liddell & Johnson, 1989). Battison's work, particularly his identification of the "Symmetry
Condition" and "Dominance Condition," provided crucial insights into the morphological
constraints and well-formedness rules governing ASL signs, demonstrating systematicity
beyond mere individual parameters. The "Movement-Hold" model proposed by Liddell and
Johnson (1989) further refined the understanding of ASL phonology by segmenting signs into
sequential holds and movements, analogous to consonant and vowel distinctions in spoken
language, offering a more granular analysis of temporal organization within signs. Neuro-
linguistic studies have further corroborated ASL’s status as a language, revealing that sign
language processing, much like spoken language, primarily engages left-hemisphere brain
regions associated with language functions (Poizner et al., 1987; Hickok et al., 1996). This
evidence refutes earlier notions that signed languages were purely spatial or visual, instead
highlighting their complex linguistic organization. Studies on ASL acquisition, both by native
signers (Deaf children of Deaf parents) and second language learners (hearing individuals),
reveal distinct developmental trajectories and challenges. Native acquisition often mirrors
milestones in spoken language acquisition, while second language learners frequently grapple
with transferring phonological awareness from an auditory-vocal modality to a visual-spatial
one (Padden & Humphries, 1988). Pedagogical approaches to ASL have evolved to incorporate
these linguistic insights. Early methods often focused solely on vocabulary memorization, akin
to rote learning in foreign language education. However, contemporary ASL pedagogy
emphasizes immersion, contextual learning, and explicit instruction on the five parameters,
recognizing that a deep understanding of these foundational elements is crucial for accurate
production and comprehension (Humphries & Padden, 2005). Challenges for hearing learners
include overcoming glottocentric biases, developing precise motor control for handshapes and
movements, and integrating NMMs, which often function adverbially or syntactically in ASL,
differing significantly from their role in spoken language. The literature consistently points to
the necessity of recognizing ASL as a unique linguistic system, not merely a translation of
English, to facilitate effective and respectful acquisition.
METHODOLOGY/APPROACH
This project employs a comprehensive theoretical and analytical synthesis approach,
integrating established linguistic theories with insights from cognitive science and pedagogical
research. The primary objective is to deconstruct the cherological parameters of ASL and
analyze their implications for novice learner acquisition and cross-linguistic understanding.
The research design is qualitative, drawing upon a robust body of existing scholarly literature
rather than generating new empirical data. The methodology involves:
1. LITERATURE REVIEW AND SYNTHESIS: Extensive review of foundational
texts and peer-reviewed articles from prominent academic databases (e.g., Google Scholar,
JSTOR, PsycINFO). Key search terms included "ASL phonology," "cherology," "sign
language linguistics," "ASL acquisition," "non-manual markers," and "visual-spatial language
processing." This synthesis aims to consolidate diverse perspectives on ASL’s linguistic
structure and pedagogical challenges.
2. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK: The five-parameter model (Handshape, Location,
Movement, Orientation, and Non-Manual Markers) serves as the core analytical framework.
Each parameter is individually examined for its linguistic function, variability, and specific
challenges it presents to beginning ASL learners.
3. COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS PERSPECTIVE: The analysis incorporates a
comparative lens, contrasting ASL’s cherological system with the phonological systems of
spoken languages to highlight both universal linguistic principles and modality-specific
differences. This approach illuminates the unique cognitive demands and advantages of visual-
spatial language processing.
4. PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS: Research on ASL teaching methodologies and
second language acquisition is integrated to identify effective strategies for parameter
instruction and to explain common errors and difficulties faced by hearing learners. Cognitive
load theory is implicitly considered when discussing the simultaneous processing demands of
ASL.
5. DATA SOURCES: Primary sources include seminal works by Stokoe (1960),
Battison (1978), Liddell and Johnson (1989), and Padden and Humphries (1988). Secondary
sources comprise contemporary articles from journals such as Sign Language Studies, Journal
of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, and Language Learning, alongside textbooks on ASL
linguistics and pedagogy. By systematically synthesizing these multi-disciplinary sources, this
project aims to provide a nuanced understanding of ASL's linguistic architecture and its
profound implications for both language education and broader linguistic theory.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The analysis of ASL's cherological parameters reveals a complex, highly structured
linguistic system that presents distinct challenges and opportunities for novice learners. Each
parameter contributes uniquely to the meaning and grammatical structure of a sign, and their
precise execution is paramount for accurate communication.
1. HANDSHAPE (HS): This parameter refers to the configuration of the hand(s) used
in a sign. ASL possesses a finite set of approximately 40 distinct handshapes, many of which
are derived from the American Manual Alphabet (Stokoe, 1960). Handshapes serve a
contrastive function; for example, the signs for "TRAIN" (two U-handshapes rubbing together)
and "CHAIR" (two H-handshapes tapping) differ only in handshape. Novice learners often
struggle with the fine motor control required to produce precise handshapes and maintaining
consistency, particularly with less common or more complex configurations.
Mispronunciation, akin to a spoken language accent, can occur if handshapes are not accurately
formed, leading to ambiguity or misunderstanding.
2. LOCATION (LOC): This parameter specifies where a sign is produced in relation
to the signer's body or in neutral signing space. Locations can be on the head (e.g., "KNOW"
at the temple, "THINK" at the forehead), torso (e.g., "FEEL" at the chest), or in the neutral
space in front of the signer (e.g., "SIGN"). Location is crucial for distinguishing minimal pairs
(e.g., "SUMMER" at the forehead vs. "DRY" at the chin) and for grammatical functions such
as verb agreement and spatial referencing. Beginning learners often face challenges in
accurately identifying and maintaining consistent signing locations, especially when signs
involve movement across different locations.
3. MOVEMENT (MOV): Movement refers to the path, direction, and repetition of the
hand(s) during a sign. It is a highly dynamic parameter, conveying not only lexical meaning
but also grammatical information such as aspect (e.g., continuous, iterative, punctual action).
For instance, the sign "WALK" can be modified by repeating the movement to indicate
"WALK CONTINUOUSLY" or "WALKING FOR A WHILE." Directionality in movement is
also critical for verb agreement (e.g., "ASK-YOU" vs. "ASK-ME"). Learners frequently
struggle with the nuanced precision of movement, including its speed, tension, and trajectory,
which can impact the intended meaning or grammatical function of a sign.
4. ORIENTATION (ORI): This parameter describes the direction the palm and/or
fingers are facing during a sign. While often subtle, orientation can be contrastive. For example,
the signs for "NAME" (H-handshape tapping on the other H-handshape) and "CHAIR" (same
handshape, different movement, but also subtle orientation differences) illustrate its
importance. A slight change in palm orientation can differentiate between signs that are
otherwise identical in handshape, location, and movement. Novice learners often overlook the
subtle but critical role of orientation, leading to signs that are grammatically incorrect or
semantically ambiguous.
5. NON-MANUAL MARKERS (NMMs): NMMs encompass facial expressions (e.g.,
raised eyebrows for questions, furrowed brows for "wh"-questions), head tilts, body posture,
and mouth movements (e.g., "cha" for large, "mm" for normal). Unlike the manual parameters,
NMMs are often produced simultaneously with manual signs and carry significant grammatical
and semantic weight. They can function as adverbs, adjectives, or even complete syntactic
structures (e.g., a simple head shake can negate a statement). Learners frequently underestimate
the importance of NMMs, often focusing solely on manual components. This oversight leads
to "flat" or ungrammatical signing, as NMMs are integral to ASL's syntax and emotional
expression (Baker & Padden, 1978).
ACQUISITION CHALLENGES FOR NOVICE LEARNERS: The integrated
complexity of these parameters presents several significant challenges for hearing novice
learners:
INTERFERENCE FROM SPOKEN LANGUAGE: Learners accustomed to linear-
temporal, auditory-vocal phonology must adapt to a visual-spatial, multi-dimensional
cherological system. This shift requires a fundamental reconceptualization of how language is
structured and processed.
MOTOR CONTROL AND PROPRIOCEPTION: Developing the precise fine motor
skills for handshapes, movements, and orientations, often performed simultaneously or in rapid
succession, requires extensive practice and proprioceptive awareness.
SIMULTANEOUS PROCESSING: The most significant hurdle is often the
simultaneous integration of all five parameters, particularly NMMs with manual signs. This
demands a high degree of cognitive processing and coordination not typically required in
spoken language production.
VISUAL-SPATIAL GRAMMAR: Understanding how space is used grammatically
(e.g., for verb agreement, referencing, narrative sequencing) is a departure from the largely
sequential grammar of spoken English.
PEDAGOGICAL STRATEGIES: Effective ASL
instruction for beginners must explicitly address each parameter, providing ample
opportunities for visual discrimination, guided practice, and feedback. Immersion in the Deaf
community and consistent exposure to fluent signers are invaluable for developing an intuitive
understanding of parameter integration, especially NMMs. Drills focusing on minimal pairs
that differ by only one parameter can enhance learners' cherological awareness.
COGNITIVE BENEFITS AND CROSS-LINGUISTIC IMPLICATIONS: Learning
ASL has been shown to enhance visual-spatial reasoning, attention to detail, and the ability to
process information across multiple modalities. From a cross-linguistic perspective, the study
of ASL cherology provides compelling evidence for the universal principles of language
organization, demonstrating that complex linguistic systems can manifest in diverse modalities.
It challenges glottocentric biases and enriches our understanding of human language capacity.
CONCLUSION
The cherological parameters of Handshape, Location, Movement, Orientation, and
Non-Manual Markers are the foundational building blocks of American Sign Language,
endowing it with the full linguistic complexity and expressive power of any natural language.
This project has elucidated how these parameters function individually and synergistically to
create meaning, and critically examined the specific challenges they pose for novice hearing
learners. The transition from a spoken language phonological system to a visual-spatial
cherological one demands not only motoric precision but also a profound cognitive shift in how
language is perceived and produced. Effective ASL acquisition hinges upon a deep,
linguistically informed understanding of these parameters. Pedagogical approaches must move
beyond rote vocabulary memorization to emphasize explicit instruction, extensive practice in
parameter differentiation, and immersion that fosters the simultaneous integration of all five
components, particularly the often-underestimated Non-Manual Markers. The difficulties
encountered by beginners underscore the sophisticated nature of ASL's structure and the
cognitive demands of mastering a language in a visual-spatial modality. Ultimately, the study
of ASL's cherological system not only facilitates more effective language acquisition but also
enriches our broader understanding of linguistic universals, cognitive flexibility, and the
remarkable diversity of human communication. ASL stands as a testament to the brain's
capacity for language, irrespective of modality, and its continued study offers invaluable
insights into the very nature of language itself.
REFERENCES
Baker, C., & Padden, C. (1978). Focusing on the nonmanual components of American
Sign Language. In P. Siple (Ed.), Understanding language through sign language research (pp.
27-50). Academic Press. Battison, R. (1978). Lexical borrowing in American Sign Language.
Linstok Press. Hickok, G., Love, T., & Scambler, M. (1996). Neural substrates of sign language
processing: The case of ASL. Brain and Language, 55(1), 126-128. Humphries, T. L., &
Padden, C. A. (2005). Learning American Sign Language. In C. Lucas (Ed.), The
Sociolinguistics of Sign Languages (pp. 147-164). Cambridge University Press. Liddell, S. K.,
& Johnson, R. E. (1989). American Sign Language: The phonological base. Sign Language
Studies, 64, 195-278. Padden, C. A., & Humphries, T. L. (1988). Deaf in America: Voices
from a Culture. Harvard University Press. Poizner, H., Klima, E. S., & Bellugi, U. (1987).
What the hands reveal about the brain. MIT Press. Stokoe, W. C. (1960). Sign language
structure: An outline of the visual communication systems of the American Deaf. Studies in
Linguistics, Occasional Papers, 8. University of Buffalo Press.
