meanings in their lexical uses (visual perception, bright light, smell, and physical resemblance, respectively), have developed more subjective senses, one indication that a form has become more grammatical. For example, the Catalan Sign Lan- guage grammatical morpheme PRESENTIR expresses the speaker’s inferences about actions or intentions: (1) PRO.3 DIR ANAR HOLANDA NO [pause] PRESENTIR CANVI.IDEA [pause] MARXAR SEGUR She said she wouldn’t go to Holland, but I feel she’ll change her mind. I’m sure she’ll go. These Catalan Sign Language forms have sources in metaphorical or enacting gestures indicating the eyes and visual perception, bright light, the nose and the sense of smell, and facial appearance. Once again, the full grammaticization path is from gesture to lexical morpheme to grammatical morpheme. 7. Future Directions Although we have learned much in the past fifty years about the structure of signed languages, especially those in more developed countries, linguists have only begun to investigate the world’s signed languages. For the cognitive linguist, signed languages provide an ideal source of data for studying the influence of perception on cognition and the grammatical structure of languages; usage-based models of language; the relation between form and structure; the complex interactions among metaphor, metonymy, and iconicity; and the evolution of language from embodied, gestural sources. Figure 42.3. 1855 French Sign Language sign IL FAUT (Brouland 1855) 1130 sherman wilcox REFERENCES Aarons, Debra, and Robert Morgan. 2000. The interaction of classifiers and syntax in South African Sign Language. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics 33: 1–20. Anderson, Diane E., and Judy S. Reilly. 1998. Pah! The acquisition of adverbials in ASL. Sign Language and Linguistics 1: 117–42. Ann, Jean. 1993. The phonetics of fingerspelling. Language and Speech 36: 471–75. Armstrong, David E., William C. Stokoe, and Sherman Wilcox. 1995. Gesture and the nature of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baker, Charlotte, and Dennis Cokely. 1980. American Sign Language: A teacher’s resource text on grammar and culture. Silver Spring, MD: T. J. Publishers. Figure 42.4. Roman gesture meaning ‘insistence’ signed languages 1131 Battison, Robbin. 1978. Lexical borrowing in American Sign Language. Silver Spring, MD: Linkstok Press. Bouchard, Denis. 1996. Sign languages and language universals: The status of order and position in grammar. Sign Language Studies 91: 101–60. Brentari, Diane. 1998. A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Brentari, Diane, and Carol Padden. 2001. A lexicon with multiple origins: Native and foreign vocabulary in American Sign Language. In Diane Brentari, ed., Foreign vo- cabulary in sign languages: A cross-linguistic investigation of word formation 87–119. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Brouland, Josephı ´ ne. 1855. Langage mimique: Spe ´ cimen d’un dictionaire des signes. Wash- ington, DC: Gallaudet Archives. Browman, Catherine P., and Louis M. Goldstein. 1989. Articulatory gestures as phono- logical units. Phonology 6: 201–51. Calbris, Genevie ` ve. 1985. Espace-temps: Expression gestuelle du temps. Semiotica 55: 43–73. Calbris, Genevie ` ve. 1990. The semiotics of French gestures. Bloomington: Indiana Univer- sity Press. Celo, Pietro. 1996. Linguistic and pragmatic aspects of the interrogative form in Italian Sign Language. In Ceil Lucas, ed., Multicultural aspects of sociolinguistics in deaf commu- nities 132–51. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. Charrow, Veda R., and Ronnie B. Wilbur. 1989. The deaf child as a linguistic minority. In Sherman Wilcox, ed., American Deaf culture: An anthology 103–15. Burtonsville, MD: Linstok Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1972. Language and mind. Enlarged ed. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Coulter, Geoffrey R. 1983. A conjoined analysis of American Sign Language relative clauses. Discourse Processes 6: 305–18. Croft, William. 1990. Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. de Jorio, Andrea. 2000. Gesture in Naples and gesture in classical antiquity [La mimica degli antichi investigata nel gestire napoletano]. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. DeMatteo, Asa. 1977. Visual imagery and visual analogues. In Lynn Friedman, ed., On the other hand: New perspectives on American Sign Language 109–36. New York: Academic Press. Dodwell, C. Reginald. 2000. Anglo-Saxon gestures and the Roman stage. Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press. Duncan, Susan D. 2002. Gesture, verb aspect, and the nature of iconic imagery in natural discourse. Gesture 2: 183–206. Emmorey, Karen, and Judy Riley, eds. 1995. Sign, gesture, and space. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth. 1993. Space in Danish Sign Language: The semantics and morphosyntax of the use of space in a visual language. Hamburg: SIGNUM-Verlag. Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner. 1996. Blending as a central process of grammar. In Adele E. Goldberg, ed., Conceptual structure, discourse and language 113–30. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Frishberg, Nancy. 1975. Arbitrariness and iconicity: Historical change in American Sign Language. Language 51: 676–710. Girod, Michel. 1997. La langue des signes. Vol. 2. Paris: Edition Marketing. Givo ´ n, Talmy. 1989. Mind, code and context: Essays in pragmatics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 1132 sherman wilcox Goldsmith, John. 1991. Qu’est-ce qu’une phonologie d’une langue des signes? Revue que- becoise de linguistique theorique et appliquee 10: 11–20. Greftegreff, Irene. 1992. Orientation in indexical signs in Norwegian Sign Language. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 15: 159–82. Grimes, Bernard. 1996. Ethnologue. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Haiman, John, ed. 1985. Iconicity in syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hanson, Vicky L., Isabelle Y. Liberman, and Donald Shankweiler. 1983. Linguistic coding by deaf children in relation to beginning reading success. Haskins Laboratories Status Report on Speech Research 73: 141–56. Hockett, Charles. 1966. The problem of universals in language. In Joseph Greenberg, ed., Universals of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Humphries, Tom, Carol Padden, and Terence O’Rourke. 1980. A basic course in American Sign Language. Silver Spring, MD: T. J. Publishers. Janzen, Terry. 1997. Pragmatic and syntactic features of topics in American Sign Language. Meta 42: 502–14. Janzen, Terry. 1999. The grammaticization of topics in American Sign Language. Studies in Language 23: 271–306. Janzen, Terry, and Barbara Shaffer. 2002. Gesture as the substrate in the process of ASL grammaticization. In Richard Meier, Kelly Cormier, and David Quinto-Pozos, eds., Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages 199–223. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Janzen, Terry, Barbara Shaffer, and Sherman Wilcox. 2000. Signed language pragmatics. In Jef Verschueren, Jan-Ola O ¨ stman, Jan Blommaert, and Chris Bulcaen, eds., Handbook of pragmatics 1–20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Johnston, Trevor. 2001. Nouns and verbs in Australian Sign Language: An open and shut case? Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 6: 235–57. Kendon, Adam. 1972. Some relationships between body motion and speech. In Aron Sigman and Benjamin Pope, eds., Studies in dyadic communication 177–210. New York: Permamon Press. Kendon, Adam. 1980. Gesticulation and speech: Two aspects of the process of utter- ance. In M. R. Kay, ed., The relation between verbal and nonverbal communication 206–27. The Hague: Mouton. Kendon, Adam. 1981. Geography of gesture. Semiotica 37: 129–63. Kendon, Adam. 1988. How gestures can become like words. In Fernando Poyatos, ed., Cross-cultural perspectives in nonverbal communication 131–41. Toronto: Hogrefe. Kendon, Adam. 2000. Language and gesture: Unity or duality? In David McNeill, ed., Language and gesture 47–63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. King, Barbara. 2004. The dynamic dance: Nonvocal social communication in African great apes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Klima, Edward, and Ursula Bellugi. 1979. The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Krebs, John R., and Nicholas B. Davies. 1993. An introduction to behavioural ecology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Lane, Harlan, Robert Hoffmeister, and Ben Bahan. 1996. A journey into the deaf-world. San Diego, CA: DawnSignPress. Langacker, Ronald W. 1972. Fundamentals of linguistic analysis. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1, Theoretical prereq- uisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. signed languages 1133 Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 2, Descriptive appli- cation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Liddell, Scott K. 1984a. THINK and BELIEVE: Sequentiality in American Sign Language. Language 60: 372–99. Liddell, Scott K. 1984b. Unrealized-inceptive aspect in American Sign Language: Feature insertion in syllabic frames. Chicago Linguistic Society 20: 257–70. Liddell, Scott K. 1998. Grounded blends, gestures, and conceptual shifts. Cognitive Lin- guistics 9: 283–314. Liddell, Scott K. 2000. Blended spaces and deixis in sign language discourse. In David McNeill, ed., Language and gesture 331–57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Liddell, Scott K., and Robert Johnson. 1989. American Sign Language: The phonological base. Sign Language Studies 64: 195–278. Mandel, Mark A. 1977. Iconic devices in American Sign Language. In Lynn Friedman, ed., On the other hand: New perspectives on American Sign Language 57–108. New York: Academic Press. McNeill, David. 1985. So you think gestures are nonverbal? Psychological Review 92: 350–71. McNeill, David. 1992. Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. McNeill, David, ed. 2000. Language and gesture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Meier, Richard, Kelly Cormier, and David Quinto-Pozos, eds. 2002. Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Meir, Irit. 2002. A cross-modality perspective on verb agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 413–50. Morris, Desmond, Peter Collett, Peter Marsh, and Marie O’Shaughnessy. 1979. Gestures: Their origin and distribution. New York: Stein and Day. Myklebust, Helmer. 1957. The psychology of deafness. New York: Grune and Stratton. Neisser, Ulrich. 1967. Cognitive psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Newport, Elisa L., and Richard Meier. 1985. The acquisition of American Sign Language. In Dan I. Slobin, ed., The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition, vol. 1, The data 881–938. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Padden, Carol, and Tom Humphries. 1988. Deaf in America: Voices from a culture. Cam- bridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Padden, Carol A., and Barbara Le Master. 1985. An alphabet on hand: The acquisition of fingerspelling in deaf children. Sign Language Studies 47: 161–72. Padden, Carol A., and David M. Perlmutter. 1987. American Sign Language and the ar- chitecture of phonological theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5: 335–75. Padden, Carol, and Claire Ramsey. 1998. Reading ability in signing deaf children. Topics in Language Disorders 18: 30–46. Pietrandrea, Paola. 2002. Iconicity and arbitrariness in Italian Sign Language. Sign Lan- guage Studies 2: 296–321. Pizzuto, Elena, and Serena Corazza. 1996. Noun morphology in Italian Sign Language (LIS). Lingua 98: 169–96. Reilly, Judy S., Marina McIntire, and Ursula Bellugi. 1990. The acquisition of conditionals in American Sign Language: Grammaticized facial expressions. Applied Psycholin- guistics 11: 369–92. Russo, Tommaso. 1999. Immagini e metafore nelle parlate e segnate: Modelli semiotici e applicazioni alla LIS (Lingua Italiana dei Segni). PhD dissertation, Universities of Palermo, Calabria, and Rome 3. 1134 sherman wilcox Russo, Tommaso, Rosaria Giurana, and Elena Pizzuto. 2001. Italian sign language (LIS) poetry. Sign Language Studies 2: 85–112. Sandler, Wendy. 1986. The spreading hand autosegment of American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 50: 1–28. Sandler, Wendy. 1999. Prosody in two natural language modalities. Language and Speech 42: 127–42. Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World. Senghas, Ann, Marie Coppola, Elisa Newport, and Ted Supalla. 1997. Argument struc- ture in Nicaraguan Sign Language: The emergence of grammatical devices. Proceed- ings of the Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development 21: 550–61. Shaffer, Barbara. 2002. CAN’T: The negation of modal notions in ASL. Sign Language Studies 3: 34–53. Stokoe, William C. 1960. Sign language structure. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press. Stokoe, William C. 1986. Where should we look for language? Sign Language Studies 51: 171–81. Studdert-Kennedy, Michael. 1987. The phoneme as a perceptuomotor structure. In David A. Allport, ed., Language perception and production: Relationships between listening, speaking, reading, and writing 67–84. New York: Academic Press. Supalla, Ted, and Elisa L. Newport. 1978. How many seats in a chair? In Patrica Siple, ed., Understanding language through sign language research 91–132. New York: Academic Press. Sutton Spence, Rachel. 1999. The influence of English on British Sign Language. Interna- tional Journal of Bilingualism 3: 363–94. Sutton Spence, Rachel, Bencie Woll, and Lorna Allsop. 1990. Variation and recent change in fingerspelling in British Sign Language. Language Variation and Change 2: 313–30. Taub, Sarah. 2001. Language in the body: Iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Valli, Clayton, and Ceil Lucas. 1995. Linguistics of American Sign Language: An introduction. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. van Hoek, Karen. 1992. Conceptual spaces and pronominal reference in American Sign Language. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 15: 183–99. Wallin, Lars. 1990. Polymorphemic predicates in Swedish Sign Language. In Ceil Lucas, ed., Sign language research: Theoretical issues 133–48. Washington, DC: Gallaudet Uni- versity Press. Wilbur, Ronnie B. 1987. American Sign Language: Linguistic and applied dimensions. Bos- ton: College-Hill Press. Wilbur, Ronnie B. 1990. Why syllables? What the notion means for ASL research. In Susan D. Fischer and Patricia Siple, eds., Theoretical issues in sign language research, vol. 1, Linguistics 81 –108. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wilbur, Ronnie B. 1997. A prosodic/pragmatic explanation for word order variation in ASL with typological implications. In Marjolijn Verspoor, Kee Dong Lee, and Eve Sweetser, eds., Lexical and syntactical constructions and the construction of meaning 89–104. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wilbur, Ronnie B. 1999a. A functional journey with a formal ending: What do brow raises do in American Sign Language? In Michael Darnell, Edith Moravcsik, Frederick Newmeyer, Michael Noonan, and Kathleen Wheatley, eds., Functionalism and for- malism in linguistics, vol. 2, Case studies 294–314. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. signed languages 1135 Wilbur, Ronnie B. 1999 b. Stress in ASL: Empirical evidence and linguistic issues. Language and Speech 42: 229–50. Wilcox, Phyllis P. 2000. Metaphor in American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. Wilcox, Phyllis P., and Sherman Wilcox. 1995. The gestural expression of modality in American Sign Language. In Joan L. Bybee and Suzanne Fleischman, eds., Modality in grammar and discourse 125–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wilcox, Sherman. 1989. American Deaf Culture: An anthology. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press. Wilcox, Sherman. 1992. The phonetics of fingerspelling. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wilcox, Sherman. 2002a. The gesture-language interface: Evidence from signed languages. In Rolf Schulmeister and Heimo Reinitzer, eds., Progress in sign language research: In honor of Siegmund Prillwitz / Fortschritte in der Geb € ardensprachforschung: Festschrift f € ur Siegmund Prillwitz 63–81. Hamburg: SIGNUM-Verlag. Wilcox, Sherman. 2002b. The iconic mapping of space and time in signed languages. In Liliana Albertazzi, ed., Unfolding perceptual continua 255–81. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1136 sherman wilcox part vi APPLIED AND INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES This page intentionally left blank chapter 43 COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS AND APPLIED LINGUISTICS martin pu ¨ tz 1. Introduction: Definition and Outline The term ‘‘applied linguistics’’ as defined in The Encyclopedic Dictionary of Ap- plied Linguistics refers ‘‘somewhat exclusively to the field of language teaching and learning, rather than to any field where language is a relevant consideration’’ (Johnson and Johnson 1998: 9). Likewise, for the purpose of the present chapter, Applied Cognitive Linguistics is concerned with the acquisitional and pedagogical implications of Cognitive Linguistics in Second and Foreign Language Teaching/ Learning. Some broader applied topics are dealt with in other chapters of the sec- tion ‘‘Applied and Interdisciplinary Perspectives’’ of the present Handbook. Recently, Langacker (2001a) has recognized the importance of the applied and didactic implications of cognitive linguistic theory. Generally he sees ‘‘the effective- ness of pedagogical applications as an important empirical test for linguistic theo- ries,’’ and self-assuredly he expects that ‘‘in the long run, cognitive grammar will not fare badly in this regard’’ (3). In the past, there have been several fruitful attempts to integrate Cognitive Linguistics into the realm of applied linguistic knowledge. How- ever, it must equally be stated that, as yet, the application of cognitive linguistic . 1998: 9). Likewise, for the purpose of the present chapter, Applied Cognitive Linguistics is concerned with the acquisitional and pedagogical implications of Cognitive Linguistics in Second and. dealt with in other chapters of the sec- tion ‘‘Applied and Interdisciplinary Perspectives’’ of the present Handbook. Recently, Langacker (2001a) has recognized the importance of the applied and didactic. the world’s signed languages. For the cognitive linguist, signed languages provide an ideal source of data for studying the influence of perception on cognition and the grammatical structure of