The opposition between relatively static elements and relatively dynamic elements in signs was first reported in the work of Newkirk (1998 [1981]), and the idea that ASL signs have a formal unit like the syllable can be traced back to Chinchor (1978). The first comprehensive model to encode such a distinction is that of Liddell (1984b). That model, developed in Liddell and Johnson (1989 [1985]), makes the radical claim that there is a sequentially organized static–dynamic alternation that can be compared to consonants (holds) and vowels (movements), leading to the concept of a sequentially organized syllable in ASL, adopted also by Sandler (1989) and Perlmutter (1992). Others conceive of a sign syllable that is simultaneously organized, one that is projected from, and organized in relation to, a dynamic element (Brentari 1990, Corina 1990b). The notion of sonority has also been employed in describing syllables of sign language (e.g., Brentari 1990, 1998, Corina 1990b, Perlmutter 1992, Sandler 1993d).

But is use of the terms “syllable” and “sonority,” “consonants” and “vowels” with regard to sign language merely metaphorical, or should we understand the analogy with those concepts in spoken language to be direct, and therefore approachable through the general assumptions of linguistic theory? We will show first that there is such a thing as a syllable that is distinct from the morpheme and the word.