Exploring Age-Related Differences in Word Association Networks
Among Middle-Aged and Older Chinese-English Bilinguals
Xu Huang
School of Foreign Languages, Soochow University, Suzhou, China
School of Humanities and Law, Wuxi Taihu University, Wuxi, China
Abstract： This study investigates age-related differences in the lexical organization of
English and Chinese among middle-aged and older university English teachers, using a word
association task. The findings reveal that: 1) Word associations in both languages are
predominantly semantic for both age groups, with Chinese associations more inclined towards
paradigmatic relationships, while English associations tend to reflect stronger syntagmatic
patterns. 2) Older participants exhibit significantly fewer complementary associations than
middle-aged participants, and there is an increase in superordinate and coordinate relations in
Chinese as age increases. 3) Non-semantic associations also demonstrate age-related effects in
both English and Chinese. 4) Interaction effects between age and language type are evident in
instructional associations. These results provide empirical evidence on the age-related
development of lexical association networks in both English and Chinese.
Keywords: Word Associations in Chinese and English; Organizational Pattern； Middle-Aged
and Older Bilinguals； Semantic Analysis
1. Introduction
Ageing is associated with a variety of cognitive and linguistic changes, which affect how
vocabulary is organized and accessed [1, 2]. The vocabulary acquired over a lifetime is stored
in the brain according to distinct patterns, and these patterns serve as the foundation for both
language comprehension and production [3]. Across different age groups, the organization of
this lexical knowledge demonstrates notable variations, especially in middle-aged and older
bilinguals, whose language development has become a focal point in studies addressing
global ageing [4]. Lexical association, often studied through the Word Association Task,
provides a lens to observe the paradigmatic and syntagmatic relationships that connect words.
These relationships, however, are dynamic and subject to changes with ageing [5, 6]. Previous
research on how ageing impacts word association norms has primarily compared younger and
older adults [7, 8]. However, the differences between middle-aged and older groups have not
been adequately explored. At the same time, the impact of language type remains an
Manuscript Click here to access/download;Manuscript;HUANG XUmanuscript.rtf2
important but underexplored factor. Existing studies predominantly focus on native language
(L1) speakers, with not the same results [9, 10], and systematic analyses of second-language
(L2) word association norms in middle-aged and older individuals are noticeably absent. To
address these limitations, this study investigates the effects of age and language type on word
association norms by comparing the English and Chinese lexical association patterns of
middle-aged and older adults. This research aims to contribute new insights into the evolving
language abilities of middle-aged and elderly bilinguals.
2. Literature Review
2.1 Age Factors and Word Association Organizational Patterns
Across different stages of language development, variations in lexical organization are
particularly pronounced among children and adults [11]. Age-related differences in language
processing are often revealed through Word Association Tasks. Variations in lexical
organization are particularly pronounced at different stages of language development,
especially between children and adults. Age-related differences in language processing are
often revealed through Word Association Tasks. However, research on word association
responses across age groups has produced inconsistent findings. For example, some studies
found no significant differences between children and adults in their word association
responses [12]. In contrast, other research involving a word association task with 60
English-speaking children (ages 3-8) and an adult group observed that younger children
exhibited variability between syntagmatic and paradigmatic responses, with a significant shift
toward paradigmatic associations by age 6 [13]. This suggests that as children age, both the
types and complexity of their word associations evolve. Additionally, other research found
that children tend to produce more syntagmatic associations, while adults primarily rely on
paradigmatic ones [14]. Furthermore, children demonstrate unique lexical connection patterns
that are rarely found in adult association norms.
Comparative studies of word association responses between younger and older adults
have also produced mixed findings. Research based on corpus analysis has revealed
significant differences in the organization within the mental lexicon of older and younger
adults [2, 15], providing theoretical support for age-related changes in language abilities.
Existing studies have focused on the distribution of paradigmatic and syntagmatic
relationships among speakers of different native languages. The research shows that
English-speaking older adults demonstrate greater variability in word association responses
and a higher proportion of paradigmatic relationships compared to younger adults [16].
Furthermore, through an enhanced experimental design, it was found that although the
proportion of response types in English-speaking young and older adults was similar, younger3
adults demonstrated greater response diversity and lower within-group consistency. A
comparative analysis suggests that older adults rely more on semantic paradigmatic response
patterns during word association tasks, revealing a stronger dependence on established
semantic networks in their language processing mechanisms [2]. In contrast, studies on
Spanish-speaking older adults reveal a preference for paradigmatic relationships linked to
contextual words, reflecting the integration of linguistic knowledge and personal experience
in their lexical networks [17]. However, German-speaking older adults exhibit a decline in
paradigmatic relationships [18]. One study found that while Spanish-speaking older adults
exhibit lower associative strength and fewer paradigmatic relationships compared to younger
adults, these differences were not statistically significant [1]. In the area, Chinese researchers
established a database of word association norms and observed that older adults produce
significantly more paradigmatic relationships than younger adults [7]. These studies suggest
that individuals with different native languages exhibit distinct lexical collocations, and the
influence of age on word association norms varies across languages. However, little research
has examined differences in the paradigmatic and syntagmatic relationships of middle-aged
and older adults, highlighting a critical gap in the literature.
2.2 Language Type and Word Association Organizational Patterns
Studies on word association norms in L1 contexts generally report consistent findings.
Researchers have observed that from childhood to adulthood, word association norms
transition from non-semantic to predominantly semantic responses, with a shift from
syntagmatic to paradigmatic relationships [19]. In contrast, studies on L2 word associations
often focus on comparing L2 patterns to those in L1, resulting in three distinct perspectives.
The “phonological view” posits that L2 mental lexicons are fundamentally different from
those of L1, with phonological associations playing a much more prominent role in L2 [20].
The “semantic theory” suggests that L2 mental lexicons develop similarly to L1, following a
semantic connection framework [21]. Finally, the “hybrid theory” argues that L2 lexical
knowledge evolves uniquely, combining both semantic and phonological elements [22].
Subsequent studies have identified non-native-like patterns in L2 word associations, with
inconsistent findings regarding the syntagmatic-to-paradigmatic shift. It has been observed
that L2 learners are more likely to produce semantic associations when encountering
unfamiliar words, syntagmatic associations for somewhat familiar words, and paradigmatic
associations for highly familiar words. This pattern suggests that paradigmatic relationships
become more prominent at advanced stages of vocabulary development [21]. However, a
study of Danish learners of English (aged 17–19) using high-frequency nouns, adjectives, and
verbs as stimulus words, and found that syntagmatic relationships significantly outnumbered4
paradigmatic ones [23]. Thus, previous studies examining the effects of human factors
(e.g., language level and age, etc.) and word dimensions (language type, word class,
word frequency, lexical specificity, etc.) of these factors on the results of L2 lexical
associations have led to inconsistent conclusions.
Research on the development of semantic organization within the mental lexicon has
primarily focused on L2 learners in junior and senior high school as well as in vocational
college, and university. These studies reveal that as learners advance in proficiency, they
develop coexisting semantic and non-semantic association networks. However, semantic
responses in these learners show simultaneous growth in paradigmatic and syntagmatic
representations, with syntagmatic knowledge lagging behind paradigmatic knowledge [24].
The participants, students from Chinese higher vocational technical schools, were categorized
into the low-to-intermediate proficiency group, with 10 high-frequency nouns, verbs, and
adjectives selected as stimulus words. The study revealed that this group had developed both
semantic and non-semantic association networks. Within the semantic responses, however,
syntagmatic knowledge lagged behind paradigmatic knowledge [24]. As second language
proficiency increases, the associative responses of second language learners gradually become
more similar to those of native speakers, although form-based (phonological) responses
remain dominant [25]. Other studies suggest that intermediate-level learners are more likely
to produce syntagmatic associations than both advanced learners and native speakers in the
second language [26]. In contrast, research on the mental lexicon of middle-aged and older L2
learners remains limited. Existing studies have mainly concentrated on the impact of
accumulated knowledge and cognitive abilities on vocabulary size [27, 28, 29], processing
speed [30, 31], and the role of bilingualism in delaying dementia symptoms [32]. These
studies have explored phenomena and mechanisms related to L2 mental lexicons, focusing on
language decline due to cognitive ageing and the benefits of bilingualism for maintaining
mental health in older adults. Little research has specifically examined the interaction
between age and language type in shaping word association norms.
Given these gaps, this study employs the Word Association Task to compare the English
and Chinese mental lexicon organizational patterns of middle-aged and older adults, focusing
on the following questions:
1) Are there differences in the word association organizational patterns of Chinese between
middle-aged and older adults?
2) Are there differences in the word association organizational patterns of English between
middle-aged and older adults?5
3) Is there an interaction between age and language type in shaping word association
organizational patterns?
3. Research Design
3.1 Participants
The participants in this study were English teachers from universities in Jiangsu Province, all
of whom were native Chinese speakers with self-reported proficiency in English. These
participants were healthy, without any notable neurological conditions, and were able to live
independently. The participants were divided into two age groups: the middle-aged group
(aged 51-60, comprising 30 active teachers) and the older adult group (aged 61-70, consisting
of 27 retired teachers). The average age for the middle-aged group was 54.6 years, and for the
older adult group, it was 65.2 years. All participants held at least a university degree, and their
academic rank was no lower than associate professor.
3.2 Materials
This study used 30 high-frequency stimulus words for both the English and Chinese word
association tasks, based on Zhang (2009) [33]. The words were evenly split into nouns, verbs,
and adjectives, with half being concrete and half abstract to ensure balance in word class. The
English word association task was administered first, followed by the Chinese word
association task after a gap of six months. To minimize potential order effects, the sequence
of the stimulus words was randomized in both tests.
3.3 Data Collection
Data were collected using an online app, with multiple pilot tests conducted beforehand to
ensure that the test structure, word order, instructions, font size, and line spacing met the
needs of the middle-aged and older participants, thereby ensuring objective results. The app
had several notable features: First, it allowed participants to conveniently take the test online,
greatly expanding the pool of eligible participants. Second, to ensure the thoroughness of the
responses, participants were required to generate at least three response words for each
stimulus before proceeding to the next. Third, to reduce cognitive load on older participants, a
voice-to-text feature was included, allowing them to accurately input their responses. Lastly,
the app featured real-time data analysis functions, which enabled efficient processing and
review of the collected data. The categorization of response words was based on the
framework provided by Zhang, as well as the classifications proposed by Zareva and Wolter
[22, 26]. During the word association tests, some older participants generated phrase-based
responses, most of which were paradigmatic. These were retained in their original form for
analysis.6
The data analyzed in this study consisted of fully anonymized word association responses,
with no personally identifiable information (e.g., names, contact details, or biometric data).
This exemption is based on the following: all personally identifiable information was
removed, and only aggregated demographic data was retained for analysis. The study
involved a retrospective analysis of existing anonymized data, with no experimental
interventions or collection of sensitive information.
3.4 Data Analysis
The classification of response words was carried out by two doctoral students based on a
multi-layer classification framework from Zhang and Zhang & Ma [5, 22]. The English and
Chinese response words were classified into semantic associations and non-semantic
associations. Semantic associations were further subdivided into syntagmatic and
paradigmatic response types. In light of the characteristics of the middle-aged and older
participants, slight modifications were made to the original classification framework to better
accommodate the specific traits of this group. The modifications were as follows: 1.
Non-semantic associations refer to responses that have no clear semantic relationship with the
stimulus word, such as phonological/orthography, other, derivational, inflectional, and L1
mediation associations. 2. Syntagmatic subcategory associations extend beyond simple word
pairings and include associations influenced by social and cultural contexts, such as modifiers,
agreements, features, complements, locations, instruments, and context.
4. Results
This study analyzed a total of 10,260 response words in both English and Chinese. The group
of 51-60-year-old in-service university English teachers produced 2,700 English and Chinese
response words, while the group of 61-70-year-old retired university English teachers
produced 2,430 responses in both languages. The statistical tools used in the analysis were
SPSS 27, with independent samples t-tests and ANOVA tests applied.
4.1 Chinese Mental Lexicon Organizational Patterns
Table 1 illustrates the results of semantic associations in the Chinese mental lexicon for 51-60
and 61-70-year-old university English teachers. In both groups, the proportion of semantic
responses exceeded that of non-semantic responses, with no marked disparity between the
two types. This implies that the mental lexicons of both middle-aged and older adults in their
native language (Chinese) are predominantly structured by semantic associations.
Table 1: Semantic Word Association Results in Chinese between the Age Groups
First-layer
Middle-aged Older
t p Cohen’s d
NR % NR %7
SR 2629 97.37 2318 95.40 -.456 .651 -.122
non-SR 71 2.63 112 4.61 .456 .651 .122
Note. NR: number of responses; SR: semantically related; NSR: non-semantically related
Table 2 contrasts the semantic sub responses across the two age groups. The variations in
syntagmatic and paradigmatic responses between the groups were not substantial, with
syntagmatic responses being more dominant than paradigmatic ones. This suggests that,
within the age range of 51-70, the organization of the Chinese mental lexicon remains
relatively constant, with syntagmatic relationships being the more prominent feature.
Furthermore, the analysis of non-semantic sub responses revealed notable discrepancies in
phonology/orthography (p = .000***) and other response types (p = .004**), with the older
group showing a higher frequency of phonology/orthography responses and a reduced
occurrence of other types of responses compared to the middle-aged group.
Table 2: Semantic and Non-Semantic Surresponses in Chinese between the Age Groups
First-layer Second-layer
Middle-Aged Older
t p Cohen’s d
NR % NR %
SR
Syntagmatic 1633 62.11 1299 56.04 .142 .887 .039
Paradigmatic 996 37.89 1019 43.96 .316 .754 .086
NSR
Phonology/ Orthography 8 11.27 21 18.75 3.387 .000*** 1.027
Other 63 88.73 91 81.25 3.045 .004** 0.808
Note. NR: number of responses; SR: semantically related; NSR: non-semantically related
Table 3 provides an overview of the distribution of syntagmatic and paradigmatic sub
responses in the two groups’ Chinese mental lexicons. In the syntagmatic sub responses, both
groups predominantly generated modifier and agreement responses, which together accounted
for more than half of the total syntagmatic responses, while complement and
instrument-related responses were the least frequent. The intergroup comparison revealed no
noteworthy differences in the distribution of response types, indicating that both age groups
exhibit similar organizational patterns in their syntagmatic lexical knowledge. In the
paradigmatic subcategory, clear differences were observed in hypernymy/hyponymy (p
= .043*) and co-hyponymy (p = .005**), with the older group producing more of these
relations. Within-group analysis revealed that synonymy and co-hyponymy were the most
prevalent, while hypernymy/hyponymy and meronymy relations occurred less frequently.
Table 3: Third-Layer Associative Response Results in Chinese between the Age Groups
Second-layer Third-layer
Middle-Aged Older
t p Cohen’s d
NR % NR %
SYN Modifier 706 43.23 561 43.19 1.016 .314 .2708
Agreement 404 24.74 293 22.56 1.751 .087 .465
Feature 146 8.94 126 9.70 .297 .768 .079
Complement 8 0.49 6 0.46 .326 .746 .086
Location 55 3.37 56 4.31 -.702 .486 .186
Instrument 49 3.00 28 2.16 1.913 .061 .508
Context 265 16.23 229 17.63 .307 .760 .081
PAR
Hypernymy/
Hyponymy
62 6.22 79 7.75 -2.069 .043* .549
Co-hyponymy 305 30.62 390 38.27 -2.920 .005** .774
Synonymy 357 35.84 329 32.29 -.701 .487 .186
Antonymy 176 17.67 162 15.90 -.349 .728 .093
Meronymy 96 9.64 59 5.79 .464 .644 .123
Note. NR: number of responses; SYN: Syntagmatic; PAR: Paradigmatic
4.2 English Mental Lexicon Organizational Patterns
Table 4 presents the results of semantic associations in the English mental lexicons of both
the middle-aged and older groups. Independent samples t-tests showed no substantial
differences in the proportion of semantic and non-semantic responses between the two groups.
The non-semantic responses made up less than 30%, indicating that both groups primarily
organize their L2 mental lexicons semantically. Non-semantic associations play a secondary
role, suggesting a more complex semantic organizational structure.
Table 4: Semantic Word Association Results in English between the Age Groups
First-layer
Middle-Aged Older
t p Cohen’s d
NR % NR %
SR 2051 75.96 1896 78.02 -.462 .646 .122
NSR 649 24.04 534 21.98 .462 .646 .122
Note. NR: number of responses; SR: semantically related; NSR: non-Semantically related
Table 5 reveals that no meaningful differences were found between the two groups in
terms of syntagmatic and paradigmatic relationships. However, paradigmatic relationships
were more dominant in both groups. Further analysis of non-semantic responses revealed
notable differences in derivational (p = .047*), inflectional (p = .002**), and L1 mediation (p
= .035*) responses. Specifically, the older group showed a marked decrease in the use of
derivational and inflectional forms, while relying more heavily on their L1 to mediate
responses.
Table 5: Semantic and Non-Semantic Sub Responses in English between the Age Groups
First-layer Second-layer
Middle-Aged Older
t p Cohen’s d
NR % NR %
SR
Syntagmatic 952 46.42 850 44.83 .068 .946 .018
Paradigmatic 1099 53.58 1046 55.17 -.506 .615 .1349
NSR
Phonology/ Orthography 108 16.64 110 20.60 -.185 .854 .049
Others 313 48.23 331 61.99 -.800 .427 .212
Derivation 151 23.27 50 9.36 2.031 .047* .539
Inflection 58 8.94 3 0.56 3.341 .002** .886
L1 Mediation 19 2.93 40 7.49 -2.167 .035* .575
Note. NR: number of responses; SR: semantically related; NSR: non-Semantically related
Table 6 shows the overall distribution of syntagmatic subcategory responses.
Independent samples t-tests revealed a clear difference in complement responses (p = .032*),
with the older group producing fewer such responses. The within-group analysis showed that
syntagmatic responses were predominantly characterized by modifier, agreement, feature, and
context relations. Finally, no significant differences were observed between the two groups in
the distribution of subcategories within paradigmatic responses. Synonymy, co-hyponymy,
and antonymy relations were more common, while hypernymy/hyponymy and meronymy
relations each accounted for over 6%.
Table 6: Third-Level Associative Response Results in English between the Age Groups
Second-layer Third-layer
Middle-Aged Older
t p Cohen’s d
NR % NR %
SYN
Modifier 420 44.12 351 41.29 .471 .639 .125
Agreement 227 23.84 186 21.88 .542 .590 .144
Feature 98 10.29 99 11.65 .648 .520 .172
Complement 31 3.26 11 1.29 2.196 .032* .583
Location 49 5.15 46 5.41 -.200 .842 .053
Instrument 25 2.63 30 3.53 -1.111 .271 .295
Context 102 10.71 127 14.94 -1.713 .092 .454
PAR
Hypernymy/
Hyponymy
60 5.46 44 4.21 .818 .417 .217
Co-hyponymy 197 17.93 176 16.83 .041 .967 .011
Synonymy 580 52.78 623 59.56 -1.267 .211 .336
Antonymy 208 18.93 143 13.67 1.398 .168 .371
Meronymy 54 4.91 60 5.74 -.918 .363 .243
Note. NR: number of responses; SYN: Syntagmatic; PAR: Paradigmatic
4.3 Interaction Effects of Age and Language Type on Mental Lexicon Organizational
Patterns
The results of the two-way ANOVA examining the effects of age and language type on
semantic responses in word association organizational patterns revealed a strong main effect
of language type on semantic responses (F = 70.962, p = .000***, η² = .40). It was found that10
the number of semantic responses in Chinese far exceeded that in English for both age groups,
although both groups predominantly relied on semantic relationships.
In the analysis of syntagmatic responses, the two-way ANOVA indicated a significant
effect of language type (F = 45.595, p = .000***, η² = .30), with no significant main effect of
age (F = 1.918, p = .169). Additionally, no interaction between age and language type was
observed (F = .500, p = .481). This suggests that syntagmatic responses in Chinese were
notably higher than in English. For paradigmatic responses, neither age nor language type had
a significant effect, and no interaction was found between these two factors.
In the interaction analysis for syntagmatic subcategories, language type showed a
significant main effect on modifier (F = 24.996, p = .000, η² = .19), agreement (F = 26.249, p
= .000, η² = .19), feature (F = 8.308, p = .004, η² = .07), and context relations (F = 45.731, p
= .000, η² = .29). However, age did not have a main effect, nor was there any interaction
effect between age and language type.
Age did have a significant effect on complement relations (F = 4.502, p = .036, η² = .04),
and language type also had a main effect (F = 9.696, p = .002, η² = .08), but no interaction
was found between the two. An interaction effect was observed between age, language type,
and instrument relations (F = 4.786, p = .003, η² = .04). Regarding the paradigmatic
subcategories, language type had a significant main effect on synonymy (F = 23.580, p = .000,
η² = .18) and co-hyponymy (F = 27.798, p = .000, η² = .04), while age did not exhibit a main
effect or interaction for these relations. The number of synonymic responses was notably
higher in English than in Chinese, while the reverse was true for co-hyponymy responses,
which were more frequent in Chinese than in English. Furthermore, neither age nor language
type showed significant main effects or interactions for hypernymy/ hyponymy, antonymy, or
meronymy relationships.
5. Discussion
5.1 Ageing Characteristics of the Chinese Lexical Association Patterns in Middle-aged
and Older Adults
This study compares the word association organizational patterns in the mental lexicon of
middle-aged and older adults, revealing that both groups exhibit a complex organizational
structure, primarily based on semantic associations, with non-semantic associations playing a
secondary role. The results are consistent with the findings of the Chinese mental lexicon in
university students, which also showed that the word association organizational pattern in
Chinese native speakers is primarily based on semantic associations, with non-semantic
associations playing a secondary role. These findings further support the conclusions of
previous research, which suggests that semantic memory remains stable and dominant
throughout the lifespan [34].11
In both groups, semantic associations were primarily syntagmatic, with paradigmatic
relationships being secondary. This finding is consistent with previous research, which
observed that both younger and older English-speaking adults primarily rely on syntagmatic
associations, with younger adults exhibiting only a 10% higher frequency of paradigmatic
associations [2]. The results indicate that semantic memory organization shows signs of
ageing, but these changes are not substantial. In contrast, research on Chinese older and
younger adults has found significant age-related differences in both the types of word
association responses and the strength of those associations [7]. Additionally, older Spanish
speakers tend to favor paradigmatic relationships, which might be attributed to differences in
the selection of stimulus words and classification criteria [17].
As individuals transition into older age, there is a noticeable increase in
phonology/orthography responses, which is related to their extensive language usage
experience [30]. The middle-aged group, on the other hand, produced more “other” types of
responses, likely reflecting the close connection between their word association organization
and life experiences. Research has shown that individuals over the age of 50 experience
similar cognitive gains at work as younger adults [35], which may make middle-aged people
more reliant on other information related to their personal experiences during associative
processes.
There were no notable differences between the two age groups in syntagmatic responses,
with modifier responses clearly dominating. This suggests that modifier relationships are the
most prevalent in actual language use, forming the central connections within the word
association network. The findings of this study highlight the importance of modifier
relationships in the semantic connections of Chinese [36]. The knowledge we accumulate
over our lives contributes to our semantic memory, encompassing a wide range of cognitive
aspects related to objects. These memories include both relatively stable elements and
dynamic components that change with age and cultural experiences [37]. This suggests that
older adults maintain a strong dynamic capacity in language use, especially when it comes to
understanding hypernymy/hyponymy relationships [17]. In both middle-aged and older adults,
paradigmatic associations primarily involve synonymy, antonymy, and co-hyponymy
relationships. These associations are typically formed during the early stages of language
learning and are reinforced through daily communication. Although the importance of
synonymy, antonymy, and co-hyponymy remains consistent across age groups, older adults
tend to make more use of hypernymy/hyponymy and co-hyponymy relationships, likely due
to the long-term accumulation of life experiences and memories.12
5.2 Ageing Characteristics of English Lexical Association Patterns in Middle-aged and
Older Adults
Similar to the findings of Chinese, the study revealed that age did not have a substantial
impact on semantic associations in English. Both groups exhibited a complex mixed
organization of lexical associations, with semantic associations taking precedence and
non-semantic associations being secondary. These findings align with the hybrid theory of L2
lexical organization pattern [38].
However, the results for semantic responses in English diverged from those seen in
Chinese. In both groups, paradigmatic responses dominated, occurring more frequently than
syntagmatic associations. This is consistent with previous research, which found that second
language word association responses in adults are primarily paradigmatic, reflecting a
tendency to rely on conceptual knowledge from their native language [39]. This suggests that
these associations are primarily grounded in meanings directly linked to the words.
Regarding non-semantic responses, the older group exhibited a notably higher frequency
of L1 mediated associations compared to the middle-aged group. This suggests a potential
decline in L2 proficiency among retired English teachers in the 61-70 age range. L1 meditated
associations reflect the older adults’ dependence on their metaphoric ability, life experiences,
linguistic reserves, and cognitive traits, leading them to more frequently display word
associations influenced by their L1 and culture during word association tasks.
Ageing effects were also observed in derivational and inflectional associations. The
older group showed a noticeable decrease in these types of associations, contrasting with
native language studies. For instance, elderly French speakers demonstrated similar
processing abilities to younger speakers in terms of regular inflectional morphology [40].
Consequently, older adults may rely less on derivational or inflectional associations when
constructing their L2 mental lexicon.
In terms of syntagmatic responses, both middle-aged and older groups produced fewer
complement relationships. The older group generated only 11 complement responses,
significantly fewer than the middle-aged group. Complement relationships generally provide
additional explanations in semantic expression, and thus their associative strength is weaker.
The older group’s reduced frequency of complement relations indicates that this relationship
is less stable in syntagmatic associations and more susceptible to decline.
Moreover, the older group demonstrated a considerable increase in contextual responses
compared to the middle-aged group. This suggests two potential age-related influences on L2
context responses: first, older adults often possess a broader store of L2 vocabulary
knowledge and reading experience [41], which enables them to use prior context more13
effectively when interpreting L2 sentences. Second, as cognitive function declines with age,
older adults may rely more on context to compensate for reduced processing abilities [42].
Hypernymy/hyponymy and meronymy relationships in English are intricate and play a
crucial role in categorizing the real world. These relationships reflect the complex interplay
between reality, cognition, and language [43]. Due to this complexity, both middle-aged and
older university English teachers tend to exhibit fewer hypernymy/hyponymy and meronymy
relationships in their language output. Instead, both groups favor more intuitive and
commonly used word associations, such as co-hyponymic, synonymous, and antonymous
relationships, which are aligned with the needs of everyday communication.
5.3 Interaction Effects of Age and Language Type on Lexical Association Patterns
The comparison of age, language type, and lexical association organizational patterns
demonstrated that semantic responses in Chinese, as the native language, were significantly
stronger than those in English, the second language. This finding aligns with previous
research, which suggests that semantic networks in L2 tend to exhibit lower density and
stability compared to those in L1 [44].
With regard to syntagmatic associations, language type had a substantial main effect. L2
speakers exhibited fewer and less varied syntagmatic associations than monolingual speakers.
Other studies have demonstrated the profound influence of the L1 on the mental lexicon of L2
learners [45]. The structural and grammatical characteristics of the native language facilitate a
broader range of syntagmatic relationships. For instance, Chinese, as a native language,
supports more complex associative pathways, whereas English, as a second language,
generates fewer syntagmatic associations. This suggests that lexical associations in L2 tend to
be more stable than those in native languages [46].
Furthermore, language type significantly influenced various relational types, including
modifier, agreement, feature, context, and complement relationships, revealing considerable
differences in syntagmatic associations between Chinese and English. In Chinese, word
association norms are more flexible, particularly in adjective-noun and subject-verb
combinations, a feature also observed in similar constructions in Turkish [47]. In contrast,
English modifier, feature, and agreement relations are more rigid, adhering to stricter
grammatical rules. Additionally, language type had a notable impact on complement
relationships, with English showing more frequent complement associations than Chinese,
where context plays a more central role.
Moreover, middle-aged individuals, with their more flexible cognitive processing
abilities, demonstrated an enhanced ability to integrate their language experiences, resulting
in a higher number of complement relations. In contrast, older adults exhibited fewer14
complement relations. Middle-aged adults also produced more tool-related associations in
Chinese than in English, while older adults displayed the opposite pattern. These results
suggest that age, language background, and the use of instrument-related associations are
interrelated in complex ways. The changes in cognitive flexibility and information processing
that occur with age may explain why the older group generated fewer tool-related responses
in Chinese, while they showed a higher number of such responses in English, likely due to
increased familiarity with English expressions over time.
Finally, the number of synonymous responses was considerably higher in English than in
Chinese. Although this diversity enriches the vocabulary, it also results in a concentration of
synonym usage, leading to fewer synonymous responses in lexical association tasks. In
contrast, English synonyms are more closely linked to its historical development [43]. In
Chinese, co-hyponymic relationships are more prominent and typically expressed through
coordinate structures, while English tends to use more complex syntactic structures, which
may explain the lower frequency of co-hyponymic responses in English.
6. Conclusion
This study compares the semantic organizational patterns within the mental lexicon of
middle-aged and older Chinese-English bilinguals, and the main conclusions are as follows:
(1) The mental lexicon of both middle-aged and older adults in Chinese is primarily organized
through semantic associations, with a predominance of syntagmatic relationships. As
individuals age, there is a notable increase in phonology/orthography responses, suggesting a
greater reliance on familiar phonological forms, word forms, and personal experiences.
(2) Older adults tend to rely more on their L1 as a mediator in L2 word associations, with a
significant decrease in the proportion of inflectional and derivational words, as well as
complement relationships.
(3) Although age has a significant main effect on some relationships, language type has a
more pronounced impact on semantic and syntagmatic responses. This research provides
empirical evidence on the changes in linguistic abilities across middle-aged and older adults,
offering insights into potential strategies for mitigating the decline in language skills during
ageing.
Due to the challenges in recruiting bilingual older adult participants, this study's
sample is notably age-biased, with a higher proportion of younger participants and a
relative scarcity of those aged 70 and above. This sample characteristic limits the
generalizability of the findings to the older population. To address this limitation,
future research should expand the age range of the sample, with particular emphasis
on including a larger cohort of older adults. Additionally, it is recommended that15
interdisciplinary methods, such as social network analysis, be employed to
systematically compare the semantic organizational structures of the mental lexicons
of English-Chinese bilingual older adults. Overall, the conclusions of this study
require further theoretical exploration and empirical validation to refine and enhance
their robustness.
Acknowledgments
I would like to express my gratitude to my doctoral advisor, Professor Ping Zhang,
for her valuable assistance, including her guidance on topic selection and revisions.
References
1. Arias-Trejo N, Bel-Enguix G, Barrón-Martínez JB, Minto-García A, Arias-Carrión Ó,
González-González MM. Word association norms in Mexican older adults. The Mental
Lexicon. 2022.
2. Hirsh KW, Tree JJ. Word association norms for two cohorts of British adults. J
Neurolinguist. 2001;14(1):1-44.
3. Aitchison J, editor Words in the Mind: An Introduction to the Mental Lexicon. 1987.
4. Wulff DU, De Deyne S, Aeschbach S, Mata R. Using Network Science to Understand the
Aging Lexicon: Linking Individuals' Experience, Semantic Networks, and Cognitive
Performance. Top Cogn Sci. 2022;14(1):93-110.
5. Zhang P , Ma Y H. A Diachronic Comparison of the Organazational Pttern and Network
Structure of Chinese EFL Learners’ Word Associations. Foreign Language Learning Theory
and Practice. 2024(03):10-8+9.
6. Henriksen B. THREE DIMENSIONS OF VOCABULARY DEVELOPMENT. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition. 1999;21(2):303-17.
7. Zhou L et al. . Study of word association for young and old people. Chinese Journal of
Rehabilitation Medicine. 2008;23(4):297-300.
8. Karimkhani F, Rahmani H, Zare A, Sahebnassagh R, Aghakasiri K. Tarvajeh: Word
Association Norms for Persian Words. J Psycholinguist Res. 2021;50(4):863-82.
9. De Deyne S, Navarro DJ, Perfors A, Brysbaert M, Storms G. The "Small World of
Words" English word association norms for over 12,000 cue words. Behav Res Methods.
2019;51(3):987-1006.
10. Krethlow G, Fargier R, Laganaro M. Age-Specific Effects of Lexical–Semantic16
Networks on Word Production. Cognitive Science. 2020;44(11):e12915.
11. Zortea M, Salles JFd. Semantic word association: comparative data for Brazilian children
and adults. Psychology and Neuroscience. 2012;5:77-81.
12. Koff RH. SYSTEMATIC CHANGES IN CHILDREN'S WORD-ASSOCIATION
NORMS 1916-63. Child Dev. 1965;36:299-305.
13. Wojcik EH, Kandhadai P. Paradigmatic associations and individual variability in early
lexical-semantic networks: Evidence from a free association task. Dev Psychol.
2020;56(1):53-69.
14. Fitzpatrick N, Floccia C. Comparing child word associations to adult associative norms:
Evidence for child-specific associations with a strong priming effect in 3-year-olds. Behav
Res Methods. 2024;56(7):7168-218.
15. Dubossarsky H, De Deyne S, Hills TT. Quantifying the structure of free association
networks across the life span. Dev Psychol. 2017;53(8):1560-70.
16. Burke DM, Peters L. Word associations in old age: evidence for consistency in semantic
encoding during adulthood. Psychol Aging. 1986;1(4):283-92.
17. Minto-García A, Arias-Trejo N, Vargas-García EM. Lexical Relations in
Spanish-Speaking Older Adults. J Psycholinguist Res. 2020;49(4):663-716.
18. Riegel KF, Riegel RM. Changes in Associative Behavior during Later Years of Life: a
Cross-sectional Analysis. Vita Humana. 1964;7(1):1-32.
19. Deese J, editor The structure of associations in language and thought1966.
20. Meara P, editor Word Associations in a Foreign Language1982.
21. Singleton D. Exploring the Second Language Mental Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press; 1999.
22. Zhang, P., 2010. A comparative study of word association patterns in Chinese EFL
learners’ mental lexicon. Foreign Language Teaching and Research. 4242(01):9-16+80.
23. Nissen HB, Henriksen B. Word class influence on word association test results.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics. 2006;16(3):389-408.
24. Zhang P , Fang N. Effects of lexical frequency, semantic congruency, and language
proficiency on English collocational processing by Chinese EFL learners. Foreign Language
Teaching and Research. 2020;52(04):532-45+640.
25. Fitzpatrick T. Habits and rabbits, Word associations and the L2 lexicon. EUROSLA
Yearbook. 2006.
26. Zareva A, Wolter B. The 'promise' of three methods of word association analysis to L2
lexical research. Second Language Research. 2012;28(1):41-67.
27. Fjell AM, Sneve MH, Grydeland H, Storsve AB, Walhovd KB. The Disconnected Brain17
and Executive Function Decline in Aging. Cereb Cortex. 2017;27(3):2303-17.
28. Jeong H, Jiang N. Representation and processing of lexical bundles: Evidence from word
monitoring. System. 2019;80:188-98.
29. Veríssimo J, Heyer V, Jacob G, Clahsen H. Selective Effects of Age of Acquisition on
Morphological Priming: Evidence for a Sensitive Period. Lang Acquis. 2018;25:315 - 26.
30. Gollan TH, Weissberger GH, Runnqvist E, Montoya RI, Cera CM. Self-ratings of
Spoken Language Dominance: A Multi-Lingual Naming Test (MINT) and Preliminary Norms
for Young and Aging Spanish-English Bilinguals. Biling (Camb Engl). 2012;15(3):594-615.
31. Johns BT, Sheppard CL, Jones MN, Taler V. The Role of Semantic Diversity in Word
Recognition across Aging and Bilingualism. Front Psychol. 2016;7.
32. Jafari Z, Esmaili M, Toufan R, Aghamollaei M. Bilingual proficiency and cognitive
reserve in Persian-English bilingual older adults. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2015;27(3):351-7.
33. Zhang, P., 2009. Word Association Patterns in Chinese EFL Learners’ Mental Lexicon.
Southeast University Press, Nanjing.
34. Cosgrove AL, Beaty RE, Diaz MT, Kenett YN. Age differences in semantic network
structure: Acquiring knowledge shapes semantic memory. Psychol Aging. 2023;38(2):87-102.
35. Avolio BJ, Sosik JJ. Chapter 11 - A Life-Span Framework for Assessing the Impact of
Work on White-Collar Workers. In: Willis SL, Reid JD, editors. Life in the Middle. San Diego:
Academic Press; 1999. p. 249-74.
36. Liu C Q et al..Study on Correlation between the Productive Richness of Nouns and
Aging. China Language Strategies. 2023;10(01):149-61.
37. Vivas L, Yerro M, Romanelli S, García Coni A, Comesaña A, Lizarralde F, et al. New
Spanish semantic feature production norms for older adults. Behav Res Methods.
2022;54(2):970-86.
38. Wolter B. Lexical Network Structures and L2 Vocabulary Acquisition: The Role of L1
Lexical/Conceptual Knowledge. Applied Linguistics. 2006;27:741-7.
39. Cremer M, Dingshoff D, de Beer MC, Schoonen R. Do word associations assess word
knowledge? A comparison of L1 and L2, child and adult word associations. International
Journal of Bilingualism. 2011;15:187 - 204.
40. Royle P, Steinhauer K, Dessureault É, Herbay AC, Brambati SM. Aging and Language:
Maintenance of Morphological Representations in Older Adults. Frontiers in Communication.
2019;4.
41. Stanovich KE, Stanovich PJ. How research might inform the debate about early reading
acquisition. Journal of Research in Reading. 1995;18:87-105.
42. Norman T, Degani T. Context effects in the L2: Evidence for compensatory mechanisms.18
International Journal of Bilingualism. 2023;28:279 - 315.
43. Shao B. Contrastive studies of English and Chinese lexis. Beijing: Foreign Lnguage
Teaching And Rearch Press; 2020.
44. Borodkin K, Kenett YN, Faust M, Mashal N. When pumpkin is closer to onion than to
squash: The structure of the second language lexicon. Cognition. 2016;156:60-70.
45. Xiang L, Nam H. L1 mediation in Chinese English learners' mental lexicon: Evidence
from word association tests. Lang Teach Res. 2022.
46. Wang X, Zhang P. ‘Did I repeat so many English words?’: Stability of L1 and L2 word
association responses over time and across response positions. Lingua. 2024;310:103804.
47. Cangır H, Durrant P. Cross-linguistic collocational networks in the L1 Turkish–L2
English mental lexicon. Lingua. 2021.
No comments:
Post a Comment