Abstract
While the human quest for meaning in life is widely studied across various disciplines, research examining how children discursively construct and communicate this concept remains underexplored. Extensive cognitive linguistic research on meaning in life has primarily focused on the use of metaphors in adults. This study moves beyond figurative language to explore the broader range of linguistic features used by 10-year-old Hebrew native speakers (N = 10) when discussing life’s meaning during semi-structured, in-depth interviews. Using Cognitive Discourse Analysis (CODA) of rich interview data, we find that children navigated their understanding of meaning in life through polar oppositions, as well as metaphors involving opposing directional spatial relationships (e.g. a rollercoaster and a Ferris wheel). Crucially, in recounting significant life events, participants frequently adopted thematic positions characterized by affectedness rather than agentivity. This pattern suggests that, for children, meaning is derived from social recognition and appreciation. The detailed analysis of children’s discourse concerning existential concepts in this study exemplifies CODA’s potential for gaining insights into meaning-making processes.
Introduction
Language offers a critical window into the human mind. Consequently, the study of linguistic structures and patterns of language use, ranging from lexical choices and grammatical constructions to figurative language devices, provides invaluable insights, revealing underlying cognitive processes, conceptual systems, and mental representations (Tenbrink, 2020), interpreted through the context features of a situation (van Dijk, 2011).
Among the diverse linguistic phenomena providing such insights, conceptual metaphors stand out as fundamental cognitive mechanisms for making sense of abstract, complex, subjective, or emotionally charged experiences (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980). By systematically mapping knowledge and inferential patterns from typically concrete and familiar source domains (e.g. journeys, buildings, containers) onto abstract target domains (e.g. life, arguments, emotions), metaphors enable individuals to conceptualize, reason about, and articulate otherwise elusive experiences. The pervasive
While extensive linguistic research has illuminated how people use metaphors to make sense of life (e.g. Benczes and Ságvári, 2018a, 2018b; Benczes et al., 2024; Crego et al., 2022; Hoffman and Acosto-Orozco, 2015; Hoffman et al., 2019a, 2019b; Kövecses, 2005, 2010[2002]; Lakoff and Turner, 1989; Landau, 2018; Moser, 2007), less is known about how children use metaphors or any other linguistic features – beyond metaphors – to discuss meaning in life.
The pursuit of meaning and the quest to experience life as meaningful are central human motives (Frankl, 1985). Discussions of meaning frequently distinguish between two interrelated perspectives: the “meaning of life” and “meaning in life” (Landau, 2022; Metz, 2013). The first predominantly examines the cosmological, universal, and potentially transcendental aspects of human existence, often seeking an objective truth (Martela, 2020). The second relates to an individual’s subjective sense of purpose, coherence, and significance within the framework of their own life. Research on the meaning of life originates in philosophy and theology, dating back to Greek antiquity (Aristotle, 2013[350 B.C.E.]). Meanwhile, meaning in life, which is more amenable to scientific and empirical investigation, has increasingly garnered scholarly attention in recent decades. Data-driven research, for example, has found that the presence of a sense of meaning in life is crucial for psychological and physical well-being and for bolstering resilience in confronting adversity (Czekierda et al., 2017; Fischer et al., 2021; Yoon et al., 2021; Zika and Chamberlain, 1992).
The investigation into existential questions transcends age and life stage, as evidenced by research indicating that children as young as 6 years old begin to develop a sense of meaning (De Vogler and Ebersole, 1983; Shoshani and Russo-Netzer, 2017; Taylor and Ebersole, 1993). While this concept may appear highly abstract, empirical studies have illuminated that 9–12 year-olds can articulate their sources of significance (Russo-Netzer and Maoz-Israel, 2021). This highlights children’s capacity to engage with questions of meaning, warranting investigation into how they conceptualize these ideas using their available linguistic and cognitive resources.
Despite its pivotal role and the inherent potential of children to engage with it, empirical research into the ways in which children linguistically navigate this essential existential concern remains limited. While some studies have examined related areas, such as Benczes and Ságvári’s (2018b) research on Hungarian teenagers’ metaphorical conceptualizations of life (which highlighted the influence of social factors), investigations focusing specifically on how younger children discursively construct meaning in life are scarce.
A promising avenue for addressing the challenge of investigating this highly abstract, elusive, and subjective concept is found within Cognitive Discourse Analysis (CODA), a methodology that systematically scrutinizes natural language data to gain insights into patterns of mental representations and complex cognitive processes (Tenbrink, 2015, 2020). Applying this lens, the present study investigates how 10-year-old Hebrew-speaking children (N = 10) use diverse linguistic resources within in-depth interviews to construct and express their understanding of meaning in life. While CODA procedures have previously been applied to concepts such as space and time (Tenbrink and Seifert, 2011), speakers’ music descriptions (Wadley et al., 2024), and climate change perceptions (Tenbrink and Wilcock, 2023), its utilization in probing how people conceptualize meaning in life or other existential issues has not been explored. We use CODA to explore the specific conceptual tools, metaphors, and discursive strategies these children employ when navigating this complex domain.
Research on meaning in life in children
Meaning in life is a dynamic concept dependent on age and developmental stages (Ryff and Essex, 1992). The extent to which people search for a sense of meaning in life varies with age (Steger et al., 2009). As individuals mature, their sense of meaningfulness intensifies (Meier and Edwards, 1974; Reker, 2005; Reker et al., 1987). This may be the reason why meaning in life has been mostly investigated in adults, particularly senior individuals (cf. Battersby and Phillips, 2016; Boyle et al., 2009; Russo-Netzer and Littman-Ovadia, 2019; Ryff et al., 2016).
Another factor contributing to why meaning in life has been less investigated with children is the assumption that it constitutes a highly elusive concept, requiring complex cognitive capacities such as self-reflection and abstract thinking. However, few studies have challenged this assumption. De Vogler and Ebersole (1983) were the first to demonstrate that young adolescents were as capable as adults in producing coherent statements about meaning in their own lives. A decade later, Taylor and Ebersole (1993) have shown that even first graders could express a personal sense of meaning in life. More recently, Shoshani and Russo-Netzer (2017) found three sources of meaning in children aged 9–12: (1) creativity, (2) experience, and (3) attitude (how the child perceives the world).
Most psychological research in this area relies on pre-defined questions to study people’s life meaning and related constructs, such as the Meaning in Life Questionnaire (Steger et al., 2006), or the Satisfaction with Life Scale, adapted for children (Gadermann et al., 2010), leaving little room for children’s unconstrained narratives of meaning in life. The main goal of this study is to address this gap by investigating cognitive aspects, beyond metaphorical language, involved in children’s formulations of meaning in life in language. We focus on 10-year-olds as a particularly interesting age, as the period of latency (6–12 years) is characterized by significant cognitive development including self-reflection and the acquisition of self-worth (Erikson, 1968). At age 10, children exhibit an emerging awareness of their own agency and autonomy, recognizing their ability to shape their lives and make meaningful choices (Piaget, 1952). They begin to think critically about their experiences, relationships, values, and beliefs (Vygotsky, 1978).
As is well-known from previous research, the use of conceptual metaphors frequently aids the linguistic representation of abstract and intricate concepts. The next section offers a brief review outlining the foundational principles of Conceptual Metaphor Theory and the extensive body of existing research on life metaphors across various populations, adding to the relevant theoretical and empirical context.
Metaphors we find “meaning in life” by
Since the seminal work of Lakoff and Johnson (1980), the understanding of metaphor has undergone a significant transformation. Moving beyond its traditional conceptualization as a mere rhetorical flourish or ornamental device primarily belonging to literary domains, metaphor is now widely recognized as a fundamental cognitive tool essential for understanding, conceptualizing, and reasoning. CMT posits that metaphors structure our perception and comprehension by enabling us to grasp abstract, unfamiliar, subjective, or complex concepts in terms of more concrete, familiar, and physically grounded experiences.
This cognitive mechanism operates by mapping knowledge and inferential patterns from the source to the target domain, often encapsulated in the formula “A is B,” where A represents the abstract target and B the concrete source. This process allows humans to navigate complex issues, interpret abstract phenomena, and make sense of their experiences (Boroditsky, 2000), and it also impacts reasoning, decision-making, and overt action (Thibodeau and Boroditsky, 2011, 2013, 2015).
Metaphors also carry significant psychological and emotional weight. This is particularly evident in the domain of life metaphors. Research suggests that individuals who conceptualize their life as a journey tend to experience a greater sense of meaning in life (Baldwin et al., 2018). Complementing this finding, Landau et al. (2014) demonstrated through a metaphor-based intervention that actively employing the
While some life metaphors are based on universal human experiences and exhibit broad cross-linguistic prevalence (e.g. Crego et al., 2022; Hoffman et al., 2019a, 2019b; Kövecses, 2015; Kuczok, 2016; Schmidt and Brdar, 2009), extensive research has illuminated significant cultural variation in the specific metaphors for conceptualizing life. These differences are often attributed to distinct historical trajectories, cultural values, and societal narratives shaping collective experience (Kövecses, 2005).
Beyond this cultural-historical view, Benczes and Ságvári (2018b) highlighted the significant influence of social factors – such as type and location of school, socio-economic status, academic performance, and media consumption – on both the selection of specific metaphors and the general inclination to verbalize metaphorical conceptualizations at all. This suggests that within-culture variation driven by social context plays a vital role alongside cultural history. Benczes et al. (2024) furthermore revealed crucial age-related differences in metaphorical stability: younger adults (18–39) showed significant shifts in preferences, while older adults (40+) exhibited much greater resistance to change in their core life metaphors, even under extreme conditions. This suggests that our conceptual systems become more entrenched with age.
This combined body of research provides a rich, multi-faceted understanding of life metaphors, yet highlights several crucial gaps that motivate this study. Firstly, further exploration is needed into the broader repertoire of linguistic resources explicitly used to conceptualize meaning in life in natural discourse. Secondly, the developmental perspective requires significant expansion. Contrasting the findings of Benczes and Ságvári (2018b) on Hungarian teenagers with Benczes et al. (2024) on adults underscores the need to investigate how meaning conceptualization develops through childhood. Thirdly, despite growing cross-cultural work, the specific Hebrew linguistic and Israeli cultural context remains underexplored regarding these existential themes.
From a methodological perspective, there is a need to move beyond identifying conventional metaphors from corpora or surveys toward understanding their use and interpretation within natural discourse. While large-scale surveys provide invaluable data on prevalence and shifts, a deeper understanding requires exploring the reasoning behind metaphor choices in the moment. By allowing researchers to probe participants’ own interpretations and motivations for selecting specific metaphors, semi-structured interviews provide richer insight into the cognitive and discursive processes at play.
The present study aims to fill these gaps by investigating how Hebrew-speaking children use diverse linguistic resources, including metaphors, within in-depth interviews to articulate their understanding of meaning in life. Via the CODA framework, we seek to provide a more nuanced, developmentally informed, discursively grounded, and culturally situated perspective on the conceptualization of this fundamental human concern.
The language of 10-year-olds
Contrary to a once widespread Chomsky-inspired view that language acquisition is primarily completed by age three to five, more recent research shows that language development toward mastery of structure and language (i.e. pragmatics) continues throughout the school years (Berman, 2004; Nippold, 2007).
Age 10 marks transitioning from basic syntactic structures to more sophisticated language use, including complex sentences, nuanced vocabulary, and enhanced narrative and expository text abilities (Hoff, 2013). Research also indicates that 10-year-olds demonstrate increasing pragmatic mastery, making relevant conversational contributions, taking appropriate turns, and using contextually suitable registers (Blain-Briere et al., 2014). Their narratives become more cohesive, with clear beginnings, middles, and ends (Pearce et al., 2010). They can comprehend and produce complex syntax like embedded clauses (Kuiken and Vedder, 2014).
School-age children acquire knowledge of abstract vocabulary, which often conveys multiple or figurative meanings that preschool children do not understand, including idioms and metaphors (Berman, 2004; Dockrell and Messer, 2004; Ravid, 2004). Their discourse becomes more decontextualized, allowing hypothetical, abstract discussions (Milosky, 1987). This enhanced competence is also tied to developing a theory of mind and perspective-taking (Lecce et al., 2019).
Data and methods
Data collection and interview protocol
Ten in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted in Hebrew in 2021 and 2022 with five female and five male participants, each 10 years old. 2 The interview format allows participants to make unrestricted linguistic choices rather than selecting from predetermined options. Analysis of the linguistic features used, therefore, offers insight into participants’ natural conceptualizations and thought processes (Tenbrink, 2015), showing how their subjective experiences, personal perceptions, and interpretive understandings are constructed and conveyed (Seidman, 2006). The choice of interviews also hinges on Systematic Functional Linguistics’ conception (Halliday and Matthiessen, 2014) of language usage as a choice from a network of options, namely the repertoire of the linguistic system in the speaker’s mind.
Participants were recruited through social media platforms (Facebook and WhatsApp) using advertisements that outlined the general purpose of the study while minimizing potential influence on responses (Joselson, 2015). Participants were selected from various regions of Israel and different socioeconomic backgrounds, including secular, traditional, religious, and ultra-Orthodox families. For parents who requested additional information, preliminary telephone conversations were conducted to explain the study’s objectives and provide examples of interview questions. Five interviews were conducted face-to-face at participants’ residences, while five were held remotely via Zoom. Interview duration ranged from 10:30 to 40:52 minutes.
Each interview began with a brief introduction of the researcher who conducted the interviews and an explanation of the study’s aims, emphasizing the open-ended nature of the discussion about meaning in life. After obtaining consent for recording and ensuring anonymity, interviews commenced with general prompts (e.g. “Tell me about yourself”) to establish rapport and create an atmosphere conducive to open dialogue. The interview protocol included the following core questions:
What makes your life meaningful and worth living?
Can you tell me about a meaningful event or experience in your life?
Can you tell me about a meaningful character in your life (real or fictional)?
Can you think of a metaphor that describes your understanding of life’s meaning?
What are your dreams and future goals?
What aspects of your current life do you like or dislike?
Transcription and data preparation
Interviews were transcribed verbatim to ensure an accurate representation of what was said, including markers of hesitation (such as “hm” and “uh”) and similar expressions by the researcher who conducted the interviews. Each line in the transcription displays a breath unit, meaning what the speaker pronounced in one breath, following conventions employed in Conversation Analysis (Psathas and Anderson, 1990).
Conventional punctuation was applied to represent the discourse functions of intonations: a question mark for exclamations, commas for continuous intonation contours (even if the sentence is grammatically complete), and a full stop to indicate clear completions. Non-linguistic data was noted in brackets, such as (laughter) or (clearing throat), and embodied gestures like specific hand movements.
CODA analytical procedures
While behavioral researchers tend to refer to language use (interviews) as data (Ericsson and Simon, 1993), they rarely analyze it rigorously based on linguistic background knowledge or linguistics tools. This study adopts the central principles of CODA (Tenbrink, 2020). The analysis focused on the linguistic structure of speakers’ responses, aiming to identify linguistic strategies indicating cognitive aspects underlying their understanding of meaning in life. The analysis concentrated on the following key linguistic features:
Semantic relations, such as oppositions or analogies, between meaningful events participant chose to talk about.
Lexical Choices: examination of vocabulary and terminology used to describe events, objects, and abstract concepts.
Metaphors and image schemas used to frame meaning in life, when prompted explicitly by the researcher. Given the concept’s abstract nature, metaphors can facilitate understanding by bridging gaps and making sense of complex experiences (Gibbs, 1994).
Personal pronouns, grammatical tense, and thematic roles to examine children’s self-positioning. The syntactic structure allows, for example, to trace the positioning of participants in discourse at various stages. For example, a person can position themselves as an individual (I), distinguishing themselves from a group of other individuals (they) or as part of a group to which they feel a sense of belonging (we).
The analysis involved the following main stages, as exemplified in Tenbrink (2020):
a. Read all interview transcripts thoroughly multiple times to form a general impression.
b. Initial analysis inductively coded five randomly selected interviews for important linguistic features used by participants, following a grounded theory approach (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Strauss and Corbin, 1990). This open coding identified emergent themes and linguistic categories through close reading of basic units (words, phrases, metaphors) and larger text units like narratives, repetitions, logical connections, self-construction, etc. (De Fina et al., 2011).
c. Formulate a list of linguistic mechanisms and concepts from the initial analysis.
d. Identify suitable examples to demonstrate key phenomena.
e. Analysis results of the Hebrew language data were translated to English for presentation purposes.
Results
Polar oppositions
Children used polar oppositions as a central mechanism for establishing meaning and emphasizing value (positive or negative). This was reflected in their discussions about various meaningful aspects of their lives, where they frequently made distinctions between right or wrong, just or unjust, and good or bad. When Naomi 3 was asked what was important to her in life, she replied: la’asot tov (to do good). When prompted to explain what she meant by “doing good,” she simply stated that she dislikes ra (the opposite of tov, bad).
In another interview, Rotem consistently contrasted the word naxon (correct or just) with its negation lo naxon (incorrect or unjust), creating a sense of tension between the two. When asked to talk about a significant character in her life, Rotem chose a fictional character from the Diary of a Nerd book series. She shared her choice, expressing her desire to positively influence the character. According to Rotem, the character lo osa et ha-davar ha-naxon (never says or does the right thing). She used the word le-hefex (on the contrary) to emphasize her point.
An illuminating instance of the use of polar oppositions, characterized by contrasting directionality, is evident in Zehavit’s interview. When Zehavit was asked what she considered meaningful, she replied: mišpaxa, xaverim, bri’ut, ve-lemida (family, friends, health, and learning). She was then asked to explain why learning brings meaning to her life. In response, she shared a story about a challenging experience she faced at school. In this instance, she gave a wrong response to a question from her mathematics teacher, which unfortunately led to her being mocked by her classmates. The significance of this episode becomes more poignant when viewed alongside another noteworthy event that Zehavit chose to tell the interviewer about: the celebration of her sister’s Bat-Mitzvah.
Together with her father, she performed a song in front of her entire extended family. The comparative analysis of these two significant events is facilitated through the identification of their similarities and differences. Similarities pertain to the shared semantic framework of the two events. In both instances, Zehavit assumed the role of the lead actress, performing before an audience. During the first event, the “stage” was represented by the blackboard in the classroom, where Zehavit engaged in solving an exercise while being subjected to mockery by her classmates. Conversely, the second instance took place on a literal stage, where she performed live alongside her father, receiving applause from the audience.
When describing the outcome of the first event, Zehavit employed two Hebrew verbs to convey her sentiments: hišpilu, meaning humiliating someone, and horidu, which literally means to bring someone down. In stark contrast, when reflecting on the outcome of the latter significant event, Zehavit chose to use the verb herimu, which literally means “to bring someone up” and is used in slang to mean making someone happy or proud (see Figure 1). In its literal sense, the verb is used as a ditransitive verb, meaning to lift something somewhere (herim et X le-Y). However, in slang, the verb is used with one internal argument prefixed by the preposition le- (to) (herim le-x). It is also important to note the phonetic and semantic connections that exist between these two verbs, which arise from their occurrence within the same binyan (the canonical verb structure in Hebrew) commonly associated with causative implications.
Contrasting directionality – lifting up versus lowering.
While the internal dynamics – regarding the roles Zehavit assigned herself and the audience – are alike, the outcomes diverge. Bringing someone down relates to the direction downwards. It raises the connotation of a low, bent, and contracted body, which is commonly connected with sadness, unhappiness, etc. (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980), while bringing someone up is associated with an upraised body position associated with being happy. By juxtaposing these events, Zehavit underscored a pivotal contrast in her life – elevation versus humiliation – making a profound impact on her experience.
Another notable directional binary opposition within the connection between the two principal narratives selected by Zehavit is the concept of gathering, which signifies a sense of unity, as opposed to the idea of dissolution, which signifies a sense of separation (see Figure 2). The interview with Zehavit was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Zehavit described the first quarantine period as a time she would like to return to. When asked to explain this desire, she used verbs in the first-person plural (lines 1–3) to highlight the thing that was most significant to her during the first quarantine period – the feeling of togetherness: 1. ki ha’inu kulam be- yaxad kan, because everyone.we all of us in together here ‘Because we were all here together’ 2. ve- rainu televizia kulam be- yaxad and saw.we television all of us in Together ‘And we watched television together’ 3. asinu kol miney dvarim be- yaxad did.we all sorts of things in together ‘We did all sorts of things together’
Contrasting directionality – accumulation versus dissolution.
The theme of “togetherness” also emerged as a central motif in Zehavit’s account of her sister’s Bat Mitzvah celebration. This event served not merely as an uplifting experience but rather as a unique opportunity for the reunification of Zehavit’s extended family across both maternal and paternal lineages. The significance of familial belonging and cohesion is particularly emphasized through its juxtaposition with the process of disintegration within the paternal extended family. In explicating the profound meaning of her sister’s Bat Mitzvah, Zehavit underscored the presence of the entire extended family while highlighting the contrast between the cohesiveness characterizing the maternal side and the fragmentation prevalent on the paternal side.
Her lexical choice of the plural adjective meforakin (disassembled; line 9) resonates as the absolute antithesis to the desired state of familial unity that she described in her experiences during the pandemic. This is further exemplified through her consistent use of plural verbs and adjectives. The juxtaposition presents a clear directional contrast: an inward movement toward accumulation and unity, as opposed to an outward trajectory of disassembly and separation (see Figure 2).
4. ke’ilu haya šam mišpaxa mamaš murxevet. like was there family really extended ‘Like, there was a really big extended family there’ 5. me- ha- cad šel ima kulanu, from the side of mother everyone.we ‘Everyone from my mom’s side’ 6. aval me- ha- cad šel aba ani lo mekira kim’at af exad. but from the side of dad I not know.I.fem almost anyone ‘But I hardly know anyone from my dad’s side’ 7. ani ohevet še- niš’arati ada’in be- kešer im ha- mispaxa I love.fem. that stayed.I still in touch with the family ‘I love that I’m still in touch with the family’ 8. eh mi- cad aba eh from side dad ‘from my dad’s side of the family’ 9. ki eh anaxnu me’od meforakim because eh we very disassembled.plural ‘Because we’re really scattered’
A more complex example of this bidirectional thinking, yet one that also demonstrates the capacity for nuanced understanding, can be found in Ido’s interview. The contrasting nature of his thinking is evident from the very beginning of the interview. When asked to tell about himself, his first sentence was: “I am Ido,” followed by the next sentence: “I have two homes” (his parents reside apart). This juxtaposition immediately contrasts the unity of self and the division of his living situation.
Throughout the interview, Ido navigated between various polar oppositions: unity versus division, outside versus inside, and physical versus emotional realities. However, his expression of these oppositions was not simplistic. When discussing his two homes, he demonstrated ambivalence, stating that “it’s fun having two homes” but “sometimes it’s not fun,” recalling how when he was younger, he “was sad” about not being able to see one of his parents. This ambivalence was further developed when he discussed his dream of his parents living together. While maintaining the binary structure (one home vs two homes), he acknowledged the complexity of his feelings, suggesting that “there are those who want to have two homes and those who want to have one home,” ultimately concluding that both situations can be “fun.”
This complexity of polar thinking became even more apparent when Ido discussed his gender identity. The oppositions shift from spatial divisions to identity divisions (outer vs inner self). He introduced this theme by noting that he’s “not really like a boy,” explaining that he always plays with girls and engages in activities typically associated with girls. Later, he described himself as “a boy who deep inside is actually a girl” and “a boy on the outside but inside I’m a girl.”
Spatial metaphors
Generating a metaphor to encapsulate their perception of life’s meaning proved challenging for children, often leading them to focus more on the concept of life itself rather than “meaning in life.” Initially, to facilitate participants’ understanding of the request to produce metaphors, the interviewer provided specific examples. For instance, when given the metaphor “life is a roller coaster,” Ido first repeated the “roller coaster” metaphor but immediately afterward switched to the metaphor of “a Ferris wheel,” drawing from the semantic field of amusement park facilities.
This can be elucidated through the concept of resonance from the theory of dialogic syntax. According to this theory, speakers selectively reproduce aspects of previous utterances, including words and structures, influencing subsequent discourse (Du Bois, 2014). Given that the metaphor was prompted, we must be cautious about interpreting it since we cannot determine for certain whether the speaker intended it as a genuine metaphor or simply offered another example similar to the roller coaster metaphor. However, the benefit of open-ended interviews is that they allow us to ask participants to reflect on their lexical choices. These metalinguistic explanations can reveal deeper meanings that provide insights into their thinking processes.
Ido’s explanation of his metaphor choice reveals a metaphorical projection from the everyday experience of riding a Ferris wheel to his perception of his overall life experience. The opposing directions of ascent and descent in a Ferris wheel correspond to contrasts between positive and negative experiences and feelings. This directional opposition is rooted in spatial experience, where “up” is associated with abundance due to the physical concept that adding material or objects increases height (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980).
10. ha- xa’im šeli hem ktsat kmo galgal anak še- mistovev, the- life mine are a little like wheel huge that spins ‘My life is kind of like a spinning Ferris wheel’ 11. lif’amim hu lemala ve- lif’amim lemata, sometimes he up and sometimes down ‘Sometimes it’s up and sometimes it’s down’ 12. lif’amim ani margiš yoter tov ve- lif’amim paxot, sometimes I feel more good and sometimes less ‘Sometimes I feel better and sometimes worse’
Lior also used the metaphor of a rollercoaster. Interestingly, in his interview, this metaphor was not prompted. In this case, the interviewer used another example of metaphors, specifically war metaphors, to discuss arguments. When asked to explain his choice of a rollercoaster, Lior highlighted the ups and downs of life and noted that sometimes, not everything goes as planned, while other times, it does. He later added that he once heard the expression that “life is a roller coaster – there are ups and downs, but the choice to scream or to enjoy the ride is yours.” This highlights that metaphors for complex concepts like life are rarely invented afresh but often build on previous discourse in various ways (Semino, 2008), either instantly (e.g. following the interviewer’s prompt) or long-term by re-using a metaphor heard somewhere before.
Similar contrasting directionality was evident in Assaf’s choice of the metaphor “plane.” In this case, the spatial experience of ascent and descent mirrors life’s contrasting experiences of highs and lows. While Assaf was initially presented with example metaphors (“life is a roller coaster” and “life is a gift”) during the interview process, his independent choice of the “plane” metaphor and subsequent explanation emphasized the contrasting directionality between “ups” and “downs” in life.
Notably, Assaf provided an additional rationale for his use of the airplane metaphor by employing an analogy related to supply and demand processes. He explained that similar to how watermelons are sold and consumed in the summer but not in the winter, there exists a cyclical pattern. He illustrated this cycle with increased consumption during the summer months, contrasted with a decline in the winter months, followed by another rise. Thus, by selecting both the airplane and watermelon metaphors, he highlighted a mental schema characterized by alternating increases and decreases.
As the data collection process evolved, the protocol was adjusted to a more open-ended approach. Participants were simply asked to complete the sentence “Meaning in life is like . . .” This methodological refinement allowed for more spontaneous and potentially diverse metaphorical expressions. For prompts and metaphors produced, see Table 1 below.
Participants’ choice of metaphors for meaning in life.
Yoel used a metaphor of a “book.” This choice, potentially influenced by his Ultra-Orthodox Jewish background, where Torah study holds paramount importance in daily life, revealed interesting conceptual underpinnings when he explained it. Yoel emphasized that life, like a book, involves unidirectional movement – always forward, reading from beginning to end rather than vice versa. His explanation employed a path image schema that presupposes a beginning-middle-end structure and forward temporal progression. According to Conceptual Metaphor Theory, the metaphorical reasoning underlying his explanation closely aligns with the conventional metaphor life is a journey – featuring a starting point (birth), an endpoint (death), and a clear directional motion from past to future. It is particularly noteworthy that within his explanation, there exists a marked directional oppositionality between advancing and regressing.
Finally, the elicitation of metaphors for life’s meaning frequently prompted participants to generate figurative expressions that encapsulated the core themes emerging from their broader narratives, particularly regarding their conceptualization of the matters they consider to be most significant in life. These metaphors functioned as organizing figurative linguistic devices, enabling participants to “summarize and crystallize the meaning of self” (Kupferberg, 2016: 165). A notable illustration of this phenomenon can be found in Rotem’s case, who employed the distinctive metaphor of “a herd of elephants.” Within the broader context of her interview narrative, this metaphorical construction serves as a crystallized representation of her primary preoccupation – the paramount importance she attributes to social cohesion. Throughout the interview, Rotem consistently emphasized social bonding as a fundamental aspect of her life, demonstrating significant investment in pursuing this objective. When asked about the importance of social cohesion, she described instances where group bonding initiatives failed, characterizing these failures in stark terms of death, breakage, and destruction.
Positioning
All participants were asked to describe a significant event or experience from their personal lives. Eight participants (five girls and three boys) responded to this request. Interestingly, four girls chose to describe negative experiences, such as losing a grandmother, being laughed at, or being bullied. In contrast, one girl recounted a happy occasion – celebrating her birthday with friends. Among the boys, one shared a story of traveling abroad with his family and having an enjoyable time. At the same time, another described the experience of receiving a smartphone, which occurred after many of his friends had already received theirs. Notably, six out of the eight significant events described positioned the narrators as passive participants in the experiences they recounted – individuals affected by external circumstances rather than active agents shaping the events.
We used the Theta System theory from Generative Grammar to explore the thematic roles participants positioned themselves in within the experiences they shared (Chomsky, 1981). A particularly illustrative example emerges from Naomi’s considerations regarding the significance of leadership in her life. While leadership traditionally connotes active guidance and direction-setting, analysis reveals a more nuanced reality. Naomi’s explanation of her leadership aspirations consistently positions her in a thematic role as a Theme (i.e. a participant in an event that is affected by the action but does not cause any change) or a Goal (i.e. a recipient that can also serve as the endpoint of paths) rather than as an autonomous Agent (i.e. a participant who consciously performs or initiates an action and/or causes some change).
13. natnu li lihiyou axra’it al lilhaseder še haya, gave. to.me. to be responsible. on Passover Seder that was 3person.pl.Agent Goal fem ‘They put me in charge of the Passover Seder that took place’ 14. ve- natnu li lihiyou axra’it al eh, and gave. to.me.Goal to be responsible on eh 3person.pl.Agent ‘And they put me in charge of the eh’ 15. še- makšivim li. that listen. 3person.pl.Agent to.me.Goal ‘It gives me a sense that people are listening to me’ 16. še- zotomeret še- xošvim še- ani axra’it, that is to say that think.3person.pl.Agent that I responsible ‘That means they think I’m responsible’ 17. ki axšav ha- mora šeli me’od me’od somexet alay. because now the teacher.fem. of.me very very trust.she.Agent on.me.Goal ‘Because now my teacher really really trusts me.’
What seems to fulfill Naomi in leadership roles, such as participation in the student council or organization of holiday events, are not the active components of leadership but rather passive experiences: being entrusted with responsibility, being acknowledged, and being trusted by her teacher. This positioning generates an intriguing paradox; while she overtly discussed leadership roles, her linguistic choices indicate a more passive and receptive perspective.
This pattern becomes particularly evident in her verb choices, which predominantly employ impersonal subjects in neutral (impersonal) plural form (lines 13–14). The agency in these constructions consistently lies with external actors – typically older authority figures – who bestow trust or responsibility upon her. When asked to elaborate on this sense of fulfillment, she responded: 18. še- hi tir’e še- ani mevaca’at et
4
ze tov, that she see.she.future.Agent that I carry out.I.fem. ACC this good ‘That she will see that I am doing it well’ 19. hi tavin še- ze, she understand.she.future.Agent that it ‘She will understand that it is’ 20. efšar lismox alay ve- axrey ze hi titen li od possible to.count on.me and then this she give.she.future to.me. more .Agent Goal ‘I can be trusted and then she will give me more’
While initially referencing enjoyment derived from leadership roles, Naomi’s subsequent linguistic choices consistently position her in affected thematic roles – being trusted, seen, and given responsibility. Notably absent from her narrative are references to power, influence, or active initiative – elements typically associated with leadership. Instead, her desire for leadership appears rooted in its capacity to make her visible to others in a positive light.
Similar patterns emerge in Zahavit’s interview, where she consistently positioned herself as the object of observation. Whether describing a humiliating classroom incident or her sister’s bat mitzvah celebration, she constructed herself as “an actor on stage.” In discussing her sister’s bat mitzvah celebration, she returned to themes of visibility and public recognition. Significantly, she employed the same verb herima (lifted; line 21) that appeared earlier in her narrative, expressing the event’s meaningfulness through the validation of public attention – specifically, the audience’s applause and photography (lines 22–23), which, as in the previous example, is also described with impersonal verbs in the third person neutral.
21. herima li ve- le- aba, lifted.fem.Agent to.me.Goal and to dad ‘It cheered for me and my dad’ 22. maxa’u kapayim ve, clapped.3person.pl.Agent hands and ‘Clapped hand and’ 23. cilmu oti ve, photographed. 3person.pl.Agent me.ACC.Theme and ‘They photographed me and’
What does meaning in life mean to you?
In four of the interviews that allowed for deeper philosophical engagement, participants were invited to reflect on their understanding of the meaning of life, either as a general concept or as a personal construct. Analysis of their responses revealed the following conceptual frameworks utilized to grapple with existential meaning-making.
Life’s purpose
In four interviews, children emphasized collective emotional well-being. They consistently responded with variations of the idea that “everyone should be happy, cheerful, and satisfied.” This framework prioritizes harmony and shared positivity as central to their understanding of life’s purpose. In the interviews with Zehavit and Rotem, the meaning of life was viewed primarily through the lens of social connections and daily pleasures.
Reason and freedom
Assaf’s perspective was grounded in “why” questions: “Why do you do that? Why do you live? Why do you run? Why do you enjoy?” He also notably characterized childhood as a privileged period for meaning-making, describing it as a time of immense creative freedom – “thinking out of the box.” Assaf’s framework revealed an acute awareness of how different life stages influence the perception of meaning, particularly emphasizing childhood’s liberation from the constraints of responsibilities of adulthood.
Pro-active learning from experience
Naomi’s conceptualization of the meaning of life reflects a deeply integrated view that bridges the abstract with the concrete. Initially, she defines the meaning of life as “everything,” offering an all-encompassing broad and somewhat abstract assertion. However, through the dialogue, this abstract notion unfolds into a nuanced understanding of experiential learning, moral causality, and personal growth. Naomi highlights the importance of learning through challenges and mistakes, explaining how even painful moments, such as physical harm, contribute to a broader understanding of life: “Even if I get hurt, I can always remember it and know, for example, not to go here but to go there.”
Discussion
This study addressed how 10-year-old children conceptualize and articulate meaning in life through language. The findings reveal three distinctive patterns: the recurring use of polar oppositions; spatial metaphors and embodied experience; and the social construction of meaning. When considered together, these patterns suggest that children’s meaning-making emerges at the intersection of embodied cognition and social validation, offering new insights into how children conceptualize meaning in life and attribute significance to life experiences.
Polar oppositions seem to function not merely as a linguistic mechanism for meaning-making but as primary cognitive tools through which children organize and attribute meaning to their life experiences. This observation is particularly significant given that conceptual systems are typically characterized as open-ended, suggesting that the contrasting structure represents a distinct developmental feature of children’s meaning-making processes. This contrasting structure stems from basic physical experiences that lay the groundwork for the use of orientational metaphors to describe abstract concepts like well-being, meaning, and happiness. As infants transition from crawling to walking, they encounter successes and failures (usually, parents encourage their children when they manage to stand or walk), forming the basis for understanding abstract concepts in later development (Gibbs, 1994: 414).
The recurring nature of these polar oppositions also recalls de Saussure’s ([1974]1916) acknowledgment of binary opposition as an inherent principle of linguistic meaning. This notion of opposition emphasizes that signs have value only in relation to other signs. In accordance with Lakoff and Johnson’s (1980, 1999) work, our findings demonstrate how such binary structuring is deeply rooted in embodied experience.
However, the findings reveal a more nuanced picture than initially suggested. While some instances reflect apparent dichotomous thinking, the data also demonstrates a more complex engagement with binary frameworks, as participants show the capacity to navigate simultaneous opposing states and strategically employ these structural oppositions as tools for exploring and expressing nuanced experiences.
Turning to the use of spatial metaphors often linked to embodied experience, our findings offer further insights into children’s meaning-making processes, revealing both convergences with and divergences from established research on life-metaphors. While the participants employed a variety of metaphorical expressions, some resonate strongly with metaphors identified in adolescent and adult populations across different cultures. For instance, the use of
However, alongside these familiar themes, the study revealed potentially distinctive ways these 10-year-olds employed spatial and analogical reasoning to articulate meaning. Assaf’s choice of the airplane metaphor, for example, while also capturing contrasting directionality through the spatial experience of ascent and descent, mirroring life’s highs and lows, was further justified through a striking analogy not typically associated with conventional life metaphors. He explicitly mapped the cyclical demand for watermelons (high consumption in summer, low in winter, followed by another rise) onto the airplane metaphor, highlighting an underlying mental schema characterized by alternating increases and decreases that he perceived as analogous to life’s patterns. This use of a detailed, idiosyncratic analogy based on supply-and-demand cycles to explain a spatial metaphor for life suggests a sophisticated level of cognitive processing and meaning construction that goes beyond simply adopting conventional mappings.
Finally, the study reveals a striking pattern in children’s positioning of self within meaningful experiences. Rather than consistently positioning themselves as active Agents initiating events, the children predominantly adopted Theme or Goal thematic roles, casting themselves as recipients or endpoints of actions and experiences. This suggests that meaning at this developmental stage is heavily constructed through perceived social validation, aligning closely with Cooley’s (1983) seminal theory of the “looking-glass self.”
Cooley (1983) proposed that our self-concept emerges not primarily from solitary introspection, but rather from social interaction through a reflective process comprising three key elements: we imagine how we appear to others, we imagine their judgment of that appearance, and consequently, we experience self-feelings (such as pride or shame) based on these perceived judgments.
Our findings provide compelling linguistic evidence for such social mirroring processes in children’s meaning-making; the consistent self-positioning as Theme or Goal (being acted upon or evaluated) rather than Agent, coupled with the frequent use of impersonal plural forms (“they see,” “people appreciate”) and the framing of the self primarily as the object of others’ actions or perceptions, strongly indicates a deep reliance on perceived social recognition and appreciation for constructing significance. This demonstrates how the dynamics of the looking-glass self – the constitution of self and meaning through the imagined, reflected view of the other – are linguistically encoded and perhaps even grounded in embodied social experience during childhood, underscoring the inherently intersubjective nature.
Conclusions
This study employed CODA to investigate how 10-year-old Hebrew speakers linguistically construct the highly abstract and elusive concept of “meaning in life.” Through qualitative analysis of spontaneous discourse from in-depth interviews, we identified key patterns in children’s use of linguistic features and metaphors, notably the recurring use of polar oppositions, specific spatial metaphors, and distinct self-positioning strategies. The findings suggest that children’s meaning-making processes are neither purely cognitive nor exclusively social but rather emerge from the dynamic interaction between embodied experience and social validation.
The research contributes to cognitive linguistics and developmental psychology by illuminating the linguistic underpinnings of meaning-making processes in children. It also highlights the importance of considering language development in investigations of age-related changes in meaning construction and underscores the necessity of an interdisciplinary approach to investigating meaning in life, with language use as a crucial aspect. Our research further illustrates the efficacy of CODA as a methodology for the analysis of abstract concept construction within spontaneous discourse.
Future research could elucidate developmental shifts in meaning-making by applying similar linguistic analysis to different age groups. This would further our understanding of how the human pursuit of life’s significance evolves across the lifespan. Furthermore, cross-linguistic comparisons would be required to determine the role of language-specific features.
Footnotes
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This collaboration was supported by Welsh Government funding via the Bangor University Taith Research Mobility Programme.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.