Exploration Of Verbs With Multiple Semantic Variants Based On Subtrajectory Hypothesis

The reason of verbs having an array of interrelated senses hasalways been an important issue of scholar in linguistic field. Traditionalanalysis mainly focused on the phenomenon of polysemy caused bydifferent application of verbs in specific context or the extent ofprominence. The development and transformation of semantics mostlyoccurs at the level of lexis so that traditional lexical semantics attributesthe transformation of semantics to historical or social elements. Certainlythose are important reasons. They are, however, only external factors andinternal factors roots in cognition of language user. Social and historicalreasons just illustrate the necessity of such kind of transformation whilecognitive elements can reveal the intrinsic mechanisms and its possibility,which is the main point on words with multiple semantic variants ofcognitive linguistics. Obviously, the hottest topic in the area of polysemyor words with multiple semantic variants is metaphor mechanism, whichanalyzes such phenomenon from the perspective of meaning not fromcognitive grammar.During the period of reading Langacker’s book Foundations ofCognitive Grammar volume. I: Theoretical Prerequisites, I foundLangacker had presented different hypothesis that caused verbs with multiple semantic variants from the aspect of processual predicationtheory. He emphasizes four reasons why verbs has multiple semanticvariants. Firstly, the difference of syntagmatic combination, i.e. themeaning of some verbs differs from different syntagmatic collocation.Secondly, the difference of prominence degree. Thirdly, the diverse ofperfective process and imperfective process. A process is a relationshipscanned sequentially during its evolution through conceived time.Processes that involve a change through time will be called perfective,other processes will be called imperfective. The essential part ofperfective processes is that each state of verbs in all subtrajectories isconstant. Fourthly, the difference of subtrajectories which is the maintheoretical origin of this essay. The actions carried out by its trajector iscalled a trajectory, it is readily seen that this trajectory is complex andresolvable into two component subtrajectories. One subtrajectory isreflexive while the other, nonreflexive, consists of the trajector’s motionthrough space relative to his surroundings. Obviously, the two arecoordinated and closely interrelated. So we can see to some degree thepresence of a subtrajectory in one variant that is lacking in another mayinfluence the meaning of a verb.However, the issue that what kind of action trajectory multiplevariants based on and whether the subtrajectory hypothesis can apply toall types of verbs or not, Langacker didn’t mention in details in his masterpiece. This essay analyzes selected samples of three traditionaltypes of verb: transitive verbs, intransitive verbs and verbs bothintransitive and transitive from the perspective of SubtrajectoryHypothesis. Finally, I find that Langacker’s Subtrajectory Hypothesis hasits limitation and most of the verbs which can be analyzed by thehypothesis are the ones to be both intransitive and transitive.