Age-related differences in metaphor types of response words among L2 English users: a semiotic perspective

2.1 Lexical metaphor research

Lexical metaphor, serving as a crucial vehicle for linguistic cognition, is intimately linked to human intelligence. In recent years, researchers have largely converged on the understanding that metaphor processing involves multiple cognitive mechanisms, including conceptual blending, semantic transfer, and analogical reasoning (Bowdle and Gentner 2005). Ichien et al. (2025) further assert that metaphor comprehension fundamentally relies on word meaning integration mechanisms akin to those used for literal language. They highlight the decisive role of crystallized intelligence (e.g., vocabulary size and linguistic experience) in this process, particularly demonstrating a stable advantage in understanding conventional metaphors. In contrast, fluid intelligence appears to play a more critical role in processing novel or creative metaphors, indicating that metaphor processing is characterized by stages and type-specific differences.

These cognitive distinctions are also evident across different age groups. Stamenković et al. (2019), in their comparative study of literary and non-literary metaphor comprehension difficulty, found that literary metaphors were generally more challenging to understand regardless of age. This could be attributed to their weaker iconicity and more complex pathways for interpretant generation. Such studies provide crucial insights into the typological features of metaphor comprehension from a psycholinguistic perspective, paving the way for the subsequent integration of semiotic mechanisms into the analysis.

2.2 Metaphorical characteristics in older adults

With advancements in cognitive aging research, the cognitive characteristics of metaphor comprehension in older adults have garnered increasing attention. The early “two-factor theory of intelligence” proposed by Horn and Cattell (1967) suggests that while fluid intelligence tends to decline with age, crystallized intelligence remains relatively stable or even improves. Healthy older adults often possess richer vocabulary reserves, consequently exhibiting certain advantages in language comprehension tasks.

Ichien et al. (2025) further employed mixed-effects models and discovered that older adults scored significantly higher than younger adults in comprehending complex literary metaphors. This result indicates that older individuals rely more heavily on the density and depth of their linguistic knowledge networks, compensating for a decrease in processing speed by activating a broader array of semantic nodes. This compensatory mechanism suggests that the relationship between metaphor comprehension and age is not a linear decline but is modulated by multiple cognitive factors.

Yang et al. (2022) conducted a systematic review of nearly four decades of research on metaphorical abilities in older adults, noting that most empirical studies employed behavioral paradigms such as semantic interpretation, semantic judgment, and semantic selection, focusing on dimensions like identification speed, depth of explanation, and creativity. However, research findings have been markedly inconsistent: some studies suggest no significant differences between older and younger adults in metaphor identification ability (Maki et al. 2013), while others report a disadvantage for older adults in processing novel metaphors (Monetta et al. 2007). Regarding explanatory creativity, results are also polarized, with some researchers like Mashal and Coblentz (2014) finding older adults’ metaphorical explanations to be more comprehensive, while others such as Kramer and Woodruff (1984) observed no significant differences. These inconsistencies likely stem from variations in research design, types of metaphorical materials, and sample backgrounds.

Despite these insights, the aforementioned studies predominantly focus on cognitive variables, often overlooking the potential interplay between language experience and semiotic processing abilities. Furthermore, they rarely address the experiential differences and semiotic pathways involved in metaphor comprehension within bilingual populations.

2.3 Semiotic mechanisms of metaphor

From a semiotic perspective, metaphor is not merely a semantic mapping phenomenon but a manifestation of deeper cognitive-semiotic mechanisms. Peirce’s triadic theory of signs provides a fundamental framework for analyzing these mechanisms. He posited that the construction of a sign’s meaning is jointly generated by three components: the representamen (the sign itself), the object (what the sign refers to), and the interpretant (the effect or meaning produced in the mind of the interpreter). Building on this, Wang and Zhou (2011) proposed that metaphor should be regarded as a type of “hypoicon”, specifically a “metaphorical hypoicon”, whose core mechanism lies in the establishment of cross-domain iconicity. This iconicity is achieved through structural or functional similarities between the source and target domains, enabling a semiotic substitution between objects.

For instance, in the Chinese phrase “山腰” (shānyāo, literally “mountain’s waist”), the “waist” (腰) activates embodied experience, creating a spatial structural mapping with the “middle section of the mountain”. This iconicity is not a direct, image-level resemblance but what Peirce termed a “metaphorical hypoicon”, where meaning is generated through structural correspondence. Liszka (1996) further elaborated that metaphor falls under the category of an “iconic legisign”, implying that a consensual iconicity is formed at the level of semantic categories.

Taking the classic example “Time is money”, the representamen “money” activates interpretants related to resources being exchangeable and quantifiable, which are then projected onto the object “time”, thereby constructing the cognitive understanding that “time can be spent/saved”. This abductive path of metaphorical construction is essentially an interpretant generation system, whose recursive mechanism allows linguistic signs to continuously update and derive new meanings, as seen in expressions like “invest time” or “budget your day” that evolve from this core metaphor.

Shen and Teng (2025), through visualization analysis, found that the scope of semiotic research has continuously expanded over the past decade. Metaphor studies have begun to integrate multimodal analysis, digital discourse, and contexts from design and film, thereby promoting the integration of semiotics from static structures towards dynamic cognitive mechanisms. Nevertheless, empirical research in China concerning “intergenerational differences in metaphorical signs” and “interpretant generation in bilingual contexts” remains scarce.

By integrating Peirce’s triadic semiotics with conceptual metaphor theory, this study attempts to explain the cognitive mechanisms underlying the metaphor type preferences of L2 English Users at different age stages through the lens of semiotic structure. This approach aims to bridge theoretical gaps in existing interdisciplinary research between cognitive linguistics and semiotics.

3.1 Data collection and participant information

This study investigated Chinese bilingual English teachers from universities in Jiangsu Province, China. This population was selected due to their high English proficiency and relatively consistent language use backgrounds, which helped to control for confounding variables related to cultural and linguistic input. The sample was divided into two age groups: a younger group of 30 participants aged 30–40 years (M = 36.26, SD = 3.42) and an older group of 27 participants aged 61–70 years (M = 65.04, SD = 2.83). All participants were native Chinese speakers with English proficiency at or above Level Eight of the Test for English Majors (TEM-8), indicating an advanced level of English. Furthermore, all participants reported good physical and cognitive health with no history of neurodegenerative diseases.

Regarding academic ranks, the sample comprised 12 associate professors, 16 professors, and 29 lecturers. In terms of educational attainment, 8 participants held bachelor’s degrees, while 49 participants possessed master’s degrees or higher. This sample structure facilitated a focused examination of the influence of age on metaphor generation while controlling for variations in linguistic knowledge background.

Data were collected using a Word Association Task (WAT). The experimental materials consisted of 30 high-frequency English stimulus words adopted from Zhang (2010). These stimulus words were selected from Nation’s (1990) word frequency list, with strict controls for word frequency, part of speech, and concreteness. The experimental word set included 10 nouns, 10 verbs, and 10 adjectives, as well as 15 concrete and 15 abstract words, ensuring a balanced distribution across word categories and concreteness levels.

3.2 Metaphor type classification and analytical framework

For metaphor type identification, this study employed a dual-framework classification system, integrating Conceptual Metaphor Theory (Lakoff and Johnson 1980) with Peirce’s semiotics (Liszka 1996). On one hand, metaphors were categorized into structural, orientational, and ontological metaphors based on classical cognitive linguistics classifications. On the other hand, Peirce’s triadic sign categories (icon, index, symbol) were used to identify their iconic mechanisms and interpretant generation patterns, thereby enhancing the explanatory power of the semiotic analysis.

4.1 Comparison of metaphor type distribution

The results from the word association task demonstrate clear age-related differences in the use of metaphor types among Chinese bilingual English teachers (see Table 1). The frequency of ontological metaphor use was significantly higher in the older group (61–70 years) compared to the younger group (30–40 years), at 49.7 % and 39.8 %, respectively (p = 0.019). This finding suggests that older bilinguals tend to employ more ontological metaphors during metaphor generation, which may be related to their richer linguistic experience and long-term cognitive accumulation. In contrast, the younger group showed a preference for structural metaphor use (38.7 % vs. 32.1 %, p = 0.082), a phenomenon that likely reflects the younger population’s reliance on more systematic and structured metaphorical models when comprehending abstract concepts. Furthermore, the use of orientational metaphors showed less difference between the two groups, with the older group at 18.2 % and the younger group at 21.5 % (p = 0.267), indicating a relatively consistent pattern in the use of spatial orientation metaphors across the cognitive strategies of both groups.

4.2 Semiotic explanation of metaphor type usage

The observed distributional differences in metaphor types between younger and older participants can be meaningfully interpreted through the lens of Peirce’s triadic model of signs, which frames meaning-making as the interplay between a sign (representamen), its referent (object), and the effect it produces in the mind of the interpreter (interpretant).

Participants in the younger group demonstrated a greater tendency toward structural metaphors, which typically involve mapping complex abstract domains onto more concrete, rule-based frameworks. This pattern suggests a semiotic process in which the representamen (e.g., a metaphorical expression such as journey or game) activates an object grounded in abstract domains like LOVE, while the resulting interpretant reveals a preference for goal-directed, procedural, and often technologized understandings. Such interpretants indicate a cognitive style that privileges instrumental rationality and symbolic manipulation, traits frequently associated with individuals immersed in digital and educational environments that emphasize linear progress and systematization.

In contrast, the older group produced a higher proportion of ontological metaphors, indicating a different semiotic orientation. These metaphors often treat abstract experiences as discrete entities or bounded spaces. From a Peircean perspective, the representamen may take the form of words like light, space, or container, while the object is an internal state such as BELIEF, or MENTAL. The interpretant in these cases tends to emerge from culturally accumulated semiotic resources, resulting in metaphors that reify internal experiences along ecological, spiritual, or moral dimensions. This suggests a semiotic process that is not merely grounded in personal cognition but also reflects intergenerational symbolic transmission – where meaning accrues over time through sedimented cultural experience.

In this study, younger participants’ responses to the stimulus SMILE such as up, rise, lift, and open – reflected perceptually grounded mappings aligned with metaphors like HAPPINESS IS UP or POSITIVE EMOTION IS VERTICAL ELEVATION. These signs produce immediate and sensorimotor-based interpretants, suggesting a reliance on embodied spatial schemas to conceptualize emotional states. In contrast, older participants responded to the stimulus PEACE with terms such as inner, calm, and up, indicating a more abstract form of mapping. Here, the metaphorical interpretations shift from physical space to internal and symbolic dimensions, as seen in expressions like PEACE IS INNER STABILITY or TRANQUILITY IS SPIRITUAL HEIGHT. The interpretants generated in these cases are not only spatial but also introspective, pointing to a deeper integration of emotional and conceptual experience. This shift likely reflects the symbolic enrichment afforded by accumulated bilingual and life experience, which enhances the capacity to extract abstract meaning from concrete spatial cues.

Overall, the triadic model of signs offers a coherent explanation for these metaphorical preferences: age-related variation in metaphor use stems not only from linguistic choice but also from differential semiotic processes underlying representation and interpretation. The younger group’s responses are shaped by symbol systems emphasizing clarity, structure, and control, while the older group’s metaphor production reflects symbol systems enriched by experience, introspection, and cultural resonance. These findings affirm the utility of Peirce’s semiotics in uncovering the cognitive and cultural dynamics embedded in metaphorical thinking.

5.1 Age differences and metaphor type preferences

The results of this study demonstrate an influence of age on the utilization of metaphor types, with notable divergences in the use of structural and ontological metaphors between the older and younger participant groups. Specifically, the older group exhibited a higher prevalence of ontological metaphor usage (49.7 % vs. 39.8 %), whereas the younger group displayed a more pronounced tendency toward structural metaphors (38.7 % vs. 32.1 %).

The observation that older adults demonstrated a greater propensity for ontological metaphors resonates with studies suggesting that older individuals may leverage their accumulated life experiences and crystallized intelligence in linguistic processing. Ontological metaphors, which involve understanding abstract concepts in terms of concrete entities (e.g., “The mind is a machine”), often rely on deep-seated cognitive schemata and embodied experiences (Brandt 1993; Grady 1997). The enhanced use of these metaphors by the older group could be attributed to their extensive real-world exposure, allowing them to more readily conceptualize abstract emotional and psychological states as tangible objects or substances. This aligns with Ichien et al. (2025), who found that older adults often show an advantage in comprehending complex and unfamiliar metaphors, benefiting from their augmented crystallized intelligence within the linguistic system. This prolonged accumulation of linguistic and life experience seemingly equips older individuals with a richer repository for understanding and generating abstract metaphors, contrasting with younger adults who may rely more on fluid intelligence for creative metaphorical processing.

Conversely, the younger group’s more prominent use of structural metaphors, which map a well-understood source domain onto a less familiar target domain while preserving relational structure (e.g., ARGUMENT IS WAR), suggests a reliance on systematic reasoning and abstract structural models. This preference could stem from their developing linguistic experience and cultural background, which might lead them to depend more on abstract cognitive frameworks to interpret complex concepts. This reliance on systematic and logical mapping, rather than direct experiential grounding, is characteristic of fluid intelligence, which is typically more dominant in younger adulthood.

It is also plausible that the observed preferences reflect different cognitive strategies employed by each age group in word association tasks. Older adults, with their vast semantic networks and extensive exposure to various linguistic contexts, might spontaneously access more concrete representations when faced with abstract prompts, leading to a higher incidence of ontological metaphors. In contrast, younger adults, potentially more accustomed to formal education settings and problem-solving through logical deduction, might naturally gravitate towards relational and structural mappings. Furthermore, differences in educational experiences and the prevalence of specific metaphorical expressions within their respective cultural cohorts could also contribute to these distinct patterns (Gibbs 2017).

5.2 Semiotic mechanisms and language experience

The semiotic analysis, grounded in Peirce’s theory, offers a deeper understanding of the mechanisms underlying the observed age-related differences. Our findings suggest that older L2 English Users, with their more extensive language experience, demonstrate superior semiotic decoding abilities and interpretant generation capacities in metaphor production. Peirce (1931/1958) posits that a sign (representamen) evokes an interpretant in the mind of the interpreter, which in turn refers to an object. In the context of metaphor, Liszka (1996) characterizes metaphor as a form of “hypoicon”, whose essence lies in the establishment of cross-domain iconicity–achieving metaphor generation through structural or functional similarities between the source and target domains.

Older L2 English Users, by virtue of their dual language experience, appear to be better equipped to understand and generate these cross-domain mappings, thereby exhibiting an advantage in metaphorical tasks. Their prolonged engagement with two distinct linguistic systems likely enhances their ability to perceive subtle similarities and construct novel relationships between seemingly disparate concepts. This rich linguistic exposure fosters a more flexible and robust interpretative capacity, enabling them to generate a wider range of interpretants for a given sign, particularly in the complex domain of metaphor. This echoes research by Biederman and Shiffrar (1987), who highlighted the role of extensive experience in developing “expert” perceptual abilities, a principle that can be extended to linguistic and cognitive domains. The ability to fluidly switch between and integrate two linguistic systems may also lead to enhanced cognitive control and a more nuanced understanding of semantic nuances, which are crucial for effective metaphor generation and comprehension (Bialystok 2017a).

Conversely, the younger group’s reliance on structured and systematic symbols in their metaphor generation process, particularly evident in the prominence of structural metaphors, highlights a different semiotic strategy. This process emphasizes the analogical and inferential nature of signs, relying more on logical frameworks than intuitive, experience-based accumulation. For younger individuals, their linguistic development might be characterized by a greater emphasis on rule-governed systems and logical deductions, reflecting a more formal and less experientially grounded approach to language. This is consistent with theories of cognitive development, where formal operational thought, which involves systematic reasoning and abstract problem-solving, becomes more prominent in adolescence and early adulthood (Piaget 1972).

Furthermore, the dual language experience of older L2 English Users may contribute to their enhanced “abductive reasoning”, a key concept in Peircean semiotics. Abduction, as the process of forming explanatory hypotheses, is crucial for understanding and generating novel metaphors. Older L2 English Users, having navigated complex linguistic and cultural nuances across two languages for decades, may possess a heightened ability to infer the most plausible connections between disparate domains, leading to the creation of richer and more nuanced metaphorical expressions. This suggests that the longevity of bilingualism itself may cultivate a unique cognitive advantage in semiotic processing (Marian and Shook 2012).

In contrast, while younger L2 English Users also benefit from dual language exposure, their relatively shorter tenure as L2 English Users may mean they are still developing the depth of semantic interconnectedness and cross-linguistic flexibility seen in their older counterparts. Their semiotic processes might be more geared towards efficient categorization and systematic mapping, which are hallmarks of structural metaphors, rather than the more generative and nuanced interpretant production characteristic of ontological metaphors. This can be conceptualized as a difference in the “breadth” versus “depth” of semiotic processing, with younger individuals prioritizing breadth (efficiently categorizing and structuring information) and older individuals leveraging depth (drawing on extensive experience to generate richer interpretations).

5.3 Cognitive aging and bilingualism: a semiotic lens

This study contributes to the burgeoning field of bilingual cognitive aging by offering a novel semiotic explanatory pathway. The observed advantages of older L2 English Users in ontological metaphor usage and semiotic interpretant generation suggest that the lifelong experience of navigating two linguistic systems might confer unique cognitive benefits that evolve with age. While some theories of cognitive aging predict a general decline in cognitive functions, our findings, particularly through the semiotic lens, indicate that certain linguistic and cognitive abilities, especially those relying on accumulated knowledge and experience, may be preserved or even enhanced in older L2 English Users.

The sustained engagement with two languages throughout the lifespan could lead to a more robust and flexible cognitive control system, which is crucial for managing the complexities of metaphor (Green and Abutalebi 2013). This enhanced cognitive control might enable older L2 English Users to more efficiently suppress irrelevant information and focus on the salient features that facilitate metaphorical mapping, particularly for the more concrete and experiential nature of ontological metaphors. This aligns with the “bilingual advantage” hypothesis, which posits that bilingualism can lead to improved executive functions, including selective attention, inhibition, and cognitive flexibility, all of which are pertinent to complex linguistic tasks like metaphor comprehension and production (Bialystok 2017b; Bak et al. 2014). Our study extends this hypothesis by demonstrating how these advantages might manifest specifically in the domain of metaphorical language, and how they may interact with the aging process.

Furthermore, the ability of older L2 English Users to leverage their extensive double language experience for enhanced interpretant generation capability in metaphor understanding and generation points towards a unique form of cognitive resilience. This resilience may be rooted in the continuous engagement with complex semantic networks and the constant need to negotiate meaning across different linguistic frameworks. This ongoing mental exercise might act as a cognitive reserve, mitigating some of the age-related declines observed in monolingual populations (Valian 2015). The semiotic perspective provides a nuanced explanation for this phenomenon, highlighting how the qualitative aspects of meaning-making-specifically the generation and interpretation of signs-are influenced by the dynamic interplay of age and bilingual experience.

Future research could further explore the neurocognitive underpinnings of these semiotic advantages in older L2 English Users, perhaps utilizing neuroimaging techniques to identify brain regions associated with different metaphor types and semiotic processing. Additionally, longitudinal studies would provide invaluable insights into the developmental trajectory of metaphorical abilities in L2 English Users across the lifespan, offering a more complete picture of how language experience shapes cognitive processes over time. Exploring the impact of different levels of bilingual proficiency and contexts of language acquisition on these metaphorical patterns would also be a fruitful avenue for further investigation.