前人的研究已確定了不同口語中構成空間基模的許多因素，本文擬進一步仔細研究這些因素組成的系統。口語的空間系統有幾個重要的屬性。首先，這個系統有一個各語言共通、相對有限的集合，包含了可以組成整個空間基模的基本元素。其次，這些基本元素出現在相對有限的幾個類別中。最後，每個類別只包含了相對有限的少數元素，因而只能標誌少數的空間區分。相對的，在視覺感知景像處理的結構特徵方面，手語裡空間的表達結構與口語有系統性的差異。舉例來說，手語有較多的基本元素、較多的類別，每個類別也包含較多的元素，因而可以標誌更細微的空間差異。手語可在一個片語中表達更多的空間區分。同時，這些區分有獨立的表達方式，不是透過事先設定好的基模。此外，手語的空間表徵跟視覺的空間特徵也有很大程度的對應。這些發現顯示，口語跟手語並非基於腦中某個單一的語言模組，而可能是由一個共同的核心語言系統跟與之連結的、不同的子系統分別負責口語或手語的語言功能。由於口語、手語這兩種語言模式背後的腦神經系統有本質上的差異，其行為表現自然有所不同。

　　　　　Linguistic research to date has determined many of the factors that structure the spatial schemas found across spoken languages. It is now feasible to determine the comprehensive system that these factors constitute. Among its features, this system has a relatively closed, universally available inventory of fundamental spatial elements that are combined to form whole schemas; it has a relatively closed set of categories that these elements appear in; and it, therefore, has a relatively closed, small number of particular elements in each category of spatial distinctions that each category can ever mark. By contrast, the structural representation of space in signed language systematically differs from that in spoken language in the direction of what appear to be the structural characteristics of scene parsing in visual perception. Among such differences, signed language can mark finer spatial distinctions with its greater inventory of structural elements, categories, and elements per category. It represents many more of these distinctions in any particular expression. It also represents these distinctions independently in the expression, not bundled together into "pre-packaged" schemas. And its spatial representations are largely iconic with visible spatial characteristics. The findings suggest that instead of some discrete whole-language module, spoken language and signed language are both based on some more limited core linguistic system that then connects with different further subsystems for the full functioning of the two different language modalities. The different behaviors of the two language modalities are plausible, given the apparently different intrinsic properties of the neural systems underlying them.