A Cognitive Approach To Word Meaning Variation For Special Purpose

The research findings of cognitive semantics show that word meaning variation is the result of human cognitive categorization and conceptualization, and both of category and concept are constructed on the basis of human experience and by means of human cognitive and cultural models. Constructed concepts, associated with linguistic signs, acquire meanings and may continuously extend with the development of society, economy and culture. As a result, word meaning varies, hence polysemy. Great achievements have been made abroad and at home in the profound research on the roles played by human experience, cognitive and cultural models in categorization and conceptualization, the means of meaning variation of a word, and the semantic relation model, etc. However, few people have conducted the research on word meaning variation for special purpose.On the basis of the previous relevant research findings and under the guidance of the theories of cognitive linguistics, this thesis launches a probe of the meaning variations for special purpose of two nouns, two adjectives, and two verbs and reveals some laws. The experience is special, the speciality is diversified, and a special activity is complex; as the instrument of conceptual construction, metonymy is more frequently used than metaphor; the shiftability and splitability of a prototype or subprototype are very high, especially the shiftability, and the result of word meaning variation is usually transferring or narrowing; the varying means of a prototype or subprototype is complex, first in radials, then in chains or still in radials, and theoretically on the analogy of this. The subcategorizability and peripheralizability of a category are quite big, and in each a subcategory is there a subprototype; a subcategory may constitute a pattern of special knowledge; and the basic level of a category or subcategory inclines to downwardness with the prototype or subprototype varying. The semantic relation of a polysemant cannot be generalized by Austin's or Langacker's model, more complicated than we imagine; the subprototypes at the first level are closely related to the prototype, while they are loose in their relation; the meaning split from the prototype is closer in relation to the prototype than the one shifted from the prototype; the degree of the closeness in the relation of a variant to the prototype is subject to the number of meaning nodes between them, and the more meaning nodes, the less close the relation, even to such an extent that the relation is difficult to be recognized; the members ofdifferent subcategories generally have little to do with each other. Since word meaning variation for special purpose is motivated by special experience, cultural models, cognitive process and concepts, the learning of the polysemic words with special meanings can be combined with the motivations.