Cognitive Semiotic Analysis of Metaphorical Conceptualization in English and Chinese Cultural Idioms

The cognitive semiotic theoretical framework for metaphorical conceptualization integrates core insights from cognitive linguistics and semiotics, constructing a systematic analytical model that explains how metaphorical meaning is generated, represented, and transmitted across cultural contexts. At its foundational level, this framework defines metaphorical conceptualization as a cognitive-semiotic process: individuals map abstract target domains onto concrete, experientially grounded source domains through semiotic signs, with the mapping constrained by both universal embodied cognition and culturally specific semiotic systems.

Cognitive linguistics provides the framework’s core principles of embodied cognition and conceptual mapping. Embodied cognition posits that human conceptual systems are rooted in bodily experiences—for example, the universal experience of “upward movement” (a bodily action) underpins cross-cultural metaphorical mappings like “HAPPINESS IS UP” (e.g., English “I’m on top of the world” and Chinese “高高兴兴” [literally “high high happy happy”]). Conceptual mapping, as proposed by Lakoff and Johnson, refers to the systematic projection of attributes from the source domain to the target domain; this projection is not arbitrary but guided by bodily and situational experiences. However, cognitive linguistics alone cannot account for how these mappings are encoded into shared cultural signs, nor how these signs are interpreted across contexts—gaps that semiotics addresses.

Semiotics, particularly the triadic model of Charles Peirce, supplements cognitive principles by clarifying the sign-based nature of metaphorical expression. Peirce’s model defines a sign as a triad of representamen (the sign vehicle, e.g., the linguistic form “on top of the world”), object (the referent, e.g., the abstract emotion of happiness), and interpretant (the mental effect generated by the sign, e.g., the listener’s understanding of the speaker’s positive state). In metaphorical conceptualization, the representamen does not directly denote the target object but mediates a mapping between the source and target domains through the interpretant: for instance, the Chinese idiom “井底之蛙” (a frog in a well) uses the representamen of “frog confined to a well” (source domain: limited physical space) to evoke the interpretant of “a person with narrow vision” (target domain: limited cognitive scope). Here, the semiotic triad transforms a cognitive mapping into a shared cultural sign that can be communicated and understood within a linguistic community.

To operationalize this framework for analyzing cultural idioms, a sequential analytical pathway is employed. First, the idiom’s semiotic components are deconstructed: identifying the representamen (the idiom’s lexical form), its literal object (the concrete entity or scenario described), and its cultural interpretant (the abstract meaning assigned by the community). Second, the cognitive mapping between the source and target domains is delineated: for example, in the English idiom “break a leg,” the source domain of “physical action (breaking a leg)” is mapped to the target domain of “performance success,” with the mapping mediated by the cultural interpretant of “avoiding jinxes” (a context-specific semiotic convention). Third, the cultural contingency of the mapping is examined: universal embodied cognition may explain the use of physical actions as source domains, but the specific choice of “breaking a leg” (instead of another action) reflects English-speaking communities’ historical taboos against direct wishes for success, while the Chinese idiom “龙马精神” (dragon-horse spirit) uses “dragon” and “horse” (source domains rooted in Chinese mythological semiotics) to map to “vigor and vitality”—a choice unconstrained by universal experience but shaped by cultural sign systems.

The importance of this framework lies in its ability to bridge universal cognitive foundations and cultural specificity. Unlike purely cognitive approaches that overemphasize universality or purely semiotic approaches that focus on sign form in isolation, it reveals how metaphorical idioms are both products of shared bodily experiences and unique cultural semiotic practices. For applied research, this framework provides a standardized tool to compare metaphorical conceptualization across English and Chinese: by analyzing the overlap and divergence in semiotic triads and cognitive mappings, scholars can identify cross-cultural commonalities (e.g., shared reliance on bodily experiences) and differences (e.g., mythological vs. everyday source domains), thereby deepening understanding of how culture shapes the interface between cognition and language.

Cognitive semiotic mapping in English cultural idioms refers to the dynamic semiotic-cognitive process by which linguistic signifiers (idiomatic expressions) connect source domains (concrete, experientially grounded concepts) to target domains (abstract, culturally meaningful concepts) through iconic, indexical, and symbolic sign relations, while generating interpretants rooted in English cultural values. As defined in Chapter 1’s framework, each idiom functions as a triadic sign: the signifier is the fixed linguistic form; the signified encompasses the source-target domain pairing; and the interpretant is the context-dependent cognitive effect shaped by English cultural norms such as individualism, industrialization, or maritime history. This mapping process is not arbitrary but anchored in embodied experience and cultural practice, with mappings categorized into ontological, spatial, and structural types to clarify how abstract concepts are structured through concrete sign systems.

A representative corpus of English idioms, curated from the Oxford Dictionary of Idioms, COCA corpus, and authentic discourse, includes “break a leg,” “smooth sailing,” “hit the nail on the head,” and “burn the midnight oil.” Taking “break a leg” as a primary example: its signifier is the fixed phrase “break a leg,” a non-literal expression used to wish performers good luck. The signified pairs the source domain of theatrical performance (rooted in ancient Greek and Elizabethan theatrical traditions where superstition discouraged direct “good luck” wishes) with the target domain of desired positive outcomes in performance. The interpretant here is the cognitive effect of acknowledging theatrical subcultural norms—English theatrical history’s emphasis on ritualized indirectness to avoid jinxes, reflecting a cultural value of respecting subcultural traditions within broader individualistic expression. The cognitive semiotic mapping mechanism relies on symbolic sign relations: the phrase does not iconically resemble luck nor indexically link to actual physical harm, but symbolically encodes the theatrical community’s shared superstition, making it an ontological mapping that attributes the abstract concept of “performance luck” to the ritualized symbolic act of uttering the phrase.

Another example, “smooth sailing,” drawn from COCA’s maritime discourse corpus, has the signifier “smooth sailing” and a signified pairing the source domain of maritime navigation (a core experience in English colonial and trade history) with the target domain of unobstructed progress in abstract contexts like career or projects. The interpretant reflects English cultural values tied to maritime dominance: the idiom frames progress as a voyage, emphasizing self-reliance (a key individualistic trait) in navigating challenges, as sailors historically relied on personal skill to traverse seas. The mapping mechanism combines iconic and indexical relations: the sign “sailing” iconically resembles the concrete experience of moving through water, while the adjective “smooth” indexically links to the absence of obstacles (e.g., calm seas index safe travel), making this a spatial mapping that uses the spatial domain of navigation to structure the abstract target of progress.

“Hit the nail on the head,” sourced from the Oxford Dictionary of Idioms and authentic workplace discourse, has the signifier “hit the nail on the head” and a signified pairing the source domain of carpentry (a foundational craft in English industrialization) with the target domain of accurate communication or problem-solving. The interpretant reflects English cultural values of practicality and precision, rooted in the Industrial Revolution’s emphasis on skilled craftsmanship and efficiency. The mapping mechanism involves iconic and indexical relations: the noun “nail” iconically resembles the concrete object of carpentry, while the verb phrase “hit on the head” indexically links to the causal result of carpentry (driving a nail correctly ensures structural stability), making this a structural mapping that transfers the source domain’s action-result logic (accurate hammering = stable structure) to the target domain (accurate speech = effective understanding).

“Burn the midnight oil,” from literary discourse (e.g., Charles Dickens’ Hard Times), has the signifier “burn the midnight oil” and a signified pairing the source domain of pre-electrical lighting (oil lamps as a historical tool for nighttime work in 18th–19th century England) with the target domain of diligent, prolonged effort. The interpretant reflects English cultural values of individual achievement and work ethic, tied to the Industrial Revolution’s normalization of extended labor hours for personal advancement. The mapping mechanism combines iconic and symbolic relations: “burning oil” iconically resembles the concrete act of using oil lamps, while “midnight” symbolically encodes the cultural norm of sacrificing rest for productivity, making this an ontological mapping that attributes the abstract concept of “diligent effort” to the historical concrete practice of nighttime oil lamp use.

Across these examples, cognitive semiotic mapping mechanisms interact to encode cultural meaning: iconic signs ground idioms in embodied experience (e.g., “nail” as a concrete carpentry object), indexical signs link source actions to target outcomes (e.g., “smooth” seas indexing progress), and symbolic signs embed cultural norms (e.g., theatrical superstition in “break a leg”). Mappings are categorized by type: ontological mappings (e.g., “break a leg,” “burn the midnight oil”) attribute abstract properties to concrete entities; spatial mappings (e.g., “smooth sailing”) use spatial relations to structure abstract concepts; and structural mappings (e.g., “hit the nail on the head”) transfer the internal structure of source domains to target domains. Together, these mappings demonstrate how English cultural idioms function as semiotic-cognitive artifacts, bridging linguistic form, embodied experience, and cultural values through systematic sign relations.

Cognitive semiotic mapping in Chinese cultural idioms refers to the systematic process of linking signifiers (linguistic and symbolic forms of idioms), signifieds (culture-specific source and target conceptual domains), and interpretants (cognitive inferences rooted in cultural values) to construct metaphorical meanings. Based on the framework outlined in Chapter 1, this analysis draws on a parallel corpus of idioms selected from the Chinese Idiom Dictionary, the CCL corpus, and authentic media/literature—all featuring prominent metaphorical conceptualization—to unpack how semiotic elements interact to reflect Chinese cultural epistemology. A signifier in this context encompasses not only the written form of Chinese characters but also their phonetic connotations and symbolic associations; for example, the character “龙” (lóng, dragon) functions as a core signifier, carrying phonetic resonance with terms like “隆” (lóng, prosperity) and symbolic ties to ancient imperial authority. Signifieds are defined by source domains rooted in Chinese cultural practices (e.g., agricultural labor, Confucian ritual) and target domains representing abstract concepts (e.g., social status, moral virtue), while interpretants are cognitive implications shaped by traditions such as Confucian ethics, agricultural civilization, or clan-based social structures. This mapping process adheres to the categorization in Section 2.1, distinguishing between iconic mapping (form resemblance between signifier and signified), indexical mapping (causal or contextual association), and symbolic mapping (arbitrary but culturally conventionalized links).

Take the idiom “望子成龙” (wàng zǐ chéng lóng, hoping one’s child becomes a dragon) as an example. Its signifiers include the characters “望” (hope), “子” (child), “成” (become), and “龙” (dragon). The character “龙” is a key symbolic signifier: its written form evokes the coiled, majestic image of the mythical creature, and its phonetic proximity to “隆” (prosperity) reinforces positive connotations. The signifieds involve a source domain of “dragon” (a culturally sacred creature associated with imperial power, rainfall, and agricultural abundance) and a target domain of “outstanding social status.” The interpretant here is tied to Confucian ethics of filial piety and parental responsibility: parents’ hope for their child to “become a dragon” reflects the cultural expectation that offspring will achieve success to honor the family, a core tenet of Confucian clan values. Semiotically, this is a symbolic-indexical mapping: the symbolic signifier “龙” (conventionally linked to power) indexically maps to the child’s potential social ascent, as the idiom’s context of parental upbringing causally associates familial effort with the child’s future status.

Another example is “种瓜得瓜，种豆得豆” (zhòng guā dé guā, zhòng dòu dé dòu, planting melons yields melons, planting beans yields beans). The signifiers here are the characters for agricultural crops (“瓜,” melon; “豆,” bean) and verbs of cultivation (“种,” plant; “得,” obtain), with phonetic neutrality that emphasizes the literalness of the agricultural source domain. The signifieds pair the source domain of farming (rooted in China’s millennia-old agricultural civilization) with the target domain of moral retribution. The interpretant is the cognitive implication of “causality between actions and outcomes,” a concept aligned with Confucian “ren” (benevolence) and the agricultural tradition of reaping what one sows. Semiotically, this is iconic-indexical mapping: the iconic resemblance between planting (action) and harvesting (result) in agriculture indexically maps to the causal link between human behavior and its consequences, as the idiom’s agricultural imagery directly mirrors the abstract logic of moral accountability.

The idiom “三纲五常” (sān gāng wǔ cháng, three cardinal guides and five constant virtues) further illustrates semiotic mapping. Its signifiers are the characters “三” (three), “纲” (guidelines), “五” (five), and “常” (constants), with “纲” carrying symbolic connotations of “main rope” (from its original meaning of securing a net), evoking hierarchy. The signifieds include the source domain of “family hierarchy” (father-son, husband-wife, ruler-subject) and the target domain of “social order.” The interpretant is the cognitive inference that familial ritual (a core Confucian practice) serves as the foundation of societal stability. Here, the mapping is indexical-symbolic: the indexical link between family hierarchy (a tangible social unit) and social order (an abstract system) is conventionalized symbolically, as Confucian doctrine frames familial obedience as the prerequisite for national governance.

A final example is “愚公移山” (yú gōng yí shān, Foolish Old Man moves mountains). The signifiers are “愚公” (a fictional elderly man named Foolish), “移” (move), and “山” (mountain), with “山” symbolizing insurmountable obstacles and “愚公” carrying ironic phonetic connotations (the character “愚” means foolish, but the idiom redefines it as perseverance). The signifieds pair the source domain of “manual mountain-moving” (a seemingly impossible physical task) with the target domain of “perseverance in achieving long-term goals.” The interpretant is the cognitive implication that collective effort (rooted in agricultural communities’ reliance on group labor) can overcome adversity—a value celebrated in both traditional and modern Chinese discourse. Semiotically, this is iconic-symbolic mapping: the iconic resemblance between the laborious mountain-moving task and the struggle against challenges is symbolically linked to the cultural ideal of resilience, as the idiom’s narrative frames individual persistence as part of a larger communal pursuit.

These examples demonstrate that cognitive semiotic mapping in Chinese idioms is not arbitrary but deeply embedded in cultural traditions. By analyzing signifiers, signifieds, and interpretants, we reveal how semiotic patterns—whether iconic, indexical, or symbolic—reflect the interplay between language, cognition, and Chinese cultural identity.

The contrastive analysis of cross-cultural cognitive semiotic mechanisms in English and Chinese idiomatic metaphors begins with clarifying the fundamental definition of this framework: it refers to the systematic comparison of how semiotic signs (iconic, indexical, symbolic) interact with conceptual mappings (the projection of source domain structures onto target domains) across two cultural-linguistic systems, with a focus on identifying shared cognitive foundations and culturally specific divergences. At its core, this analysis rests on the principle that metaphorical conceptualization is not merely a linguistic phenomenon but a semiotic-cognitive process shaped by both universal cognitive capacities and culturally embedded interpretive practices.

A primary point of comparison lies in mapping patterns, where spatial metaphor mappings reveal striking similarities rooted in embodied cognition. Both English and Chinese idioms conceptualize time as space—a universal semiotic principle of iconicity, where the source domain (space, a tangible, embodied experience) is selected for its structural resemblance to the target domain (time, an abstract concept). For example, English idioms like “look forward to” and “fall behind schedule” project forward/backward spatial orientations onto temporal progression, while Chinese idioms such as “qianfanghouji” (literally “front path, back accumulation,” meaning learning from past experience for future progress) and “tuo hou” (literally “drag behind,” meaning delay) employ identical front-back spatial mappings. This consistency reflects the iconicity of source domain selection: embodied interactions with physical space (e.g., moving forward through a path) provide a universal semiotic basis for conceptualizing abstract time, aligning with the core tenet of cognitive semiotics that iconic signs prioritize structural similarity to enhance conceptual accessibility.

In contrast, ontological mappings—where abstract entities are framed as concrete objects or systems—exhibit sharp cultural divergences, mediated by cultural values as key semiotic mediators. English idioms frequently frame life as competition, such as “survival of the fittest” and “climb the career ladder,” where the source domain (competition, a system of individual striving) reflects the cultural mediator of individualism. This shapes interpretant differences: the English interpretant of “life” emphasizes personal achievement and adversarial dynamics. In contrast, Chinese idioms conceptualize life as family lineage, as seen in “zi sun wan dai” (literally “children and grandchildren for ten thousand generations,” meaning enduring family legacy) and “guang zhong yao zu” (literally “glorify ancestors and honor the clan,” meaning upholding family reputation). Here, the source domain (family lineage, a system of intergenerational continuity) is rooted in the cultural mediator of collectivism, leading to an interpretant that frames life as a contribution to familial continuity rather than individual success.

Beyond mapping patterns, semiotic sign usage reveals universal principles and language-specific variations. The universal principle of iconicity extends to source domain selection across both languages: for instance, English “break a leg” (a wish for success) and Chinese “da ji hao yun” (literally “hit big good luck,” meaning wish for great fortune) both use physical action (breaking, hitting) as an iconic source domain for abstract luck, as embodied actions are universally accessible semiotic resources. However, language-specific variations emerge in sign dominance: Chinese idioms prioritize symbolic signs tied to cultural heritage, such as “long feng cheng xiang” (literally “dragon and phoenix form an auspicious image,” meaning prosperity), where “dragon” and “phoenix” are symbolic signs with deep roots in Chinese mythological traditions, carrying meanings untranslatable through literal iconic or indexical connections. In contrast, English idioms exhibit indexical sign salience: “the early bird catches the worm” uses the indexical relationship between early rising (a behavior) and obtaining resources (a consequence) to frame opportunity, where the sign’s meaning relies on a causal, context-dependent link rather than cultural symbolism.

Cultural mediators are critical to explaining these divergences. English individualism fosters interpretants that prioritize individual agency in metaphorical mappings, enhancing the salience of indexical signs (which emphasize personal cause-effect relationships). Chinese collectivism, by contrast, shapes interpretants that prioritize intergenerational and communal continuity, elevating symbolic signs (which carry shared cultural meanings) as primary semiotic resources. Synthesizing these findings reveals that cultural contexts mediate the interaction between semiotic signs and conceptual mappings by filtering which semiotic resources are activated and how they are interpreted: universal iconicity provides a foundational semiotic framework, but cultural values reorient indexical/symbolic sign usage and ontological mapping choices, resulting in both cross-cultural commonalities and distinct metaphorical conceptualizations of abstract domains like life and time. This analysis underscores the practical importance of integrating semiotic and cultural perspectives: it not only explains why metaphorical idioms are interpreted differently across cultures but also provides a standardized framework for cross-cultural communication and translation, ensuring that the semiotic-cognitive nuances of idiomatic expressions are preserved rather than lost in linguistic transfer.

This study’s cognitive semiotic analysis of metaphorical conceptualization in English and Chinese cultural idioms reveals that metaphor is not merely a rhetorical device but a fundamental cognitive mechanism that constructs and reflects cultural worldviews through semiotic systems. By integrating cognitive linguistics’ conceptual metaphor theory with semiotics’ focus on sign relationships, the research has unpacked how idioms— as complex, culturally embedded signs— encode shared bodily experiences while being shaped by unique historical, social, and ecological contexts.

At the core of this analysis lies the recognition that conceptual metaphors derive from embodied experiences, a principle that unifies the metaphorical structures of both languages. For instance, the universal mapping of “TIME IS MONEY” in English (e.g., “time flies”) and its functional equivalent in Chinese (e.g., “一寸光阴一寸金,” meaning “an inch of time is an inch of gold”) stems from the shared human experience of valuing limited resources, where time, like money, is conceptualized as a tangible, spendable entity. Similarly, the metaphor “ARGUMENT IS WAR” is reflected in English idioms such as “win an argument” and Chinese expressions like “唇枪舌剑” (lit. “lip spears and tongue swords”), both rooted in the embodied experience of conflict as a struggle for dominance. These findings confirm that embodied cognition provides a universal foundation for metaphorical meaning-making, bridging linguistic and cultural divides.

Yet, the study also highlights how cultural specificities reframe these universal metaphors into idioms that carry unique semiotic meanings. English idioms tied to maritime culture, such as “all hands on deck” (originating from ship navigation, now meaning collective effort), encode the historical dependence of English-speaking societies on seafaring for trade and survival. In contrast, Chinese idioms like “愚公移山” (Yu Gong Moves the Mountains, symbolizing perseverance against overwhelming odds) draw on ancient mythological narratives that emphasize communal resilience—a value deeply rooted in China’s agrarian past, where collective labor was essential for taming natural landscapes. These cultural semiotic layers mean that even when idioms share a core conceptual metaphor, their signified meanings (the cultural values they represent) are irreducibly tied to the historical and social contexts of their origin.

Practically, this analysis offers valuable insights for cross-cultural communication and language education. In intercultural interactions, misinterpreting the cultural semiotic of an idiom can lead to misunderstanding: for example, an English speaker might take “打破砂锅问到底” (lit. “break a clay pot to ask to the bottom,” meaning to inquire relentlessly) as a reference to destruction, rather than recognizing its cultural connotation of persistent curiosity. In language teaching, framing idioms as cognitive-semiotic constructs—rather than arbitrary phrases—helps learners grasp not just their literal meanings but their cultural logic, fostering deeper linguistic and intercultural competence.

Limitations of the study include its focus on a selected corpus of common idioms, which may not capture the full diversity of metaphorical expressions in regional dialects or contemporary slang. Future research could expand the corpus to include understudied varieties of English and Chinese, or explore how digital communication reshapes metaphorical idioms (e.g., the emergence of new online idioms that blend traditional metaphors with digital experiences).

In sum, this research advances the understanding of metaphor as a cognitive-semiotic bridge between language, culture, and embodied experience. It underscores that to fully comprehend idioms, one must look beyond their surface structure to the interplay of universal cognitive principles and unique cultural signs—a perspective that enriches both theoretical linguistics and practical cross-cultural engagement.