Talking Metaphors of Anger Across Languages: An Interview with Veronika Jávor-Szelid

Drawing on a large-scale comparative study of 25 languages, Jávor-Szelid explored how anger is metaphorically framed across cultures and how religious and moral concepts shape these understandings. Her presentation highlighted striking cross-cultural differences, showing that anger may be construed as an evil force, demonic influence, sin, or even divinely sanctioned wrath, while such interpretations are largely absent in other traditions. By combining lexical and corpus-based approaches, the talk offered valuable insights into the persistence, transformation, and cultural significance of metaphorical models of emotion.

To complement the themes of her presentation, we asked Veronika Jávor-Szelid about the origins of her research, the challenges and surprises she encountered along the way, and the broader significance of studying religious metaphors in the conceptualization of emotions.

CRC 1475: How did you come to choose the topic of your presentation—what sparked your interest in it?

Jávor-Szelid: My interest in this topic grew out of a large cross-linguistic project on the conceptualization of ANGER in 25 languages. While comparing the metaphorical patterns across the languages, I noticed that many cultures conceptualize ANGER not only as a bodily or psychological experience, but also as a moral and spiritual phenomenon. In several languages, ANGER was linked to devils, demons, evil spirits, djinns, or supernatural powers. This raised fascinating questions about the relationship between emotion, morality, religion, and culture. I became particularly interested in understanding why some cultures frame ANGER in such terms while others do not, and what this reveals about different cultural models of emotion.

CRC 1475: What has surprised or confused you most in the course of your work on this topic?

Jávor-Szelid: One of the most surprising findings was the extent to which religious and supernatural imagery appeared across very different linguistic and cultural traditions. At the same time, some languages showed almost no trace of such conceptualizations. Another unexpected result came from comparing lexical data (based on dictionaries) with corpus data (actual language use). In several languages, traditional religious imagery survives in idioms and conventional expressions, but is much less visible in contemporary discourse. This raises intriguing questions about the relationship between cultural memory and present-day conceptualization. It also raises a broader question: why do some cultures appear to draw much more heavily on religious and supernatural imagery when talking about anger than others?

CRC 1475: What do you consider the key takeaway from your presentation?

Jávor-Szelid: Metaphorical patterns can reveal not only how people conceptualize emotions, but also how cultural models persist and change over time. This is perhaps the main idea I would like the audience to take away from the presentation. By comparing lexical and corpus data across languages, we can begin to distinguish between inherited metaphorical traditions and those that remain productive in contemporary discourse. This provides a unique perspective on how cultures preserve, transform, or abandon particular ways of understanding emotions. More broadly, the study highlights the value of combining lexical and usage-based approaches when investigating cultural continuity and conceptual change.

CRC 1475: Have you recently come across a metaphor in your daily life that you found particularly interesting? What was it—and why?

Jávor-Szelid: Recently, I have become interested in the growing tendency to describe social and political phenomena in quasi-religious terms. Public figures are portrayed as saviors, prophets, or false messiahs; political movements are accused of being cults; and technological innovations are discussed in terms of salvation or doom. Expressions such as AI apocalypse, tech evangelist, algorithmic gods, digital salvation, or climate heresy show how religious source domains are recruited to make sense of emerging technologies and social transformations. What fascinates me is that these metaphors often appear in highly secular settings, suggesting that religious conceptual structures remain remarkably productive even when explicit religious belief is not at stake. Rather than disappearing, such structures may be increasingly redirected toward worldly concerns, providing conceptual tools for understanding contemporary social and technological realities. They remind us that metaphorical patterns can survive and evolve long after the cultural contexts in which they first arose.

CRC 1475: Do you have a favorite metaphor from your research material? If so, which one—and what makes it particularly interesting to you?

Jávor-Szelid: My favorite example is the Romanian expression that inspired the title of the talk: “the devil roasts snakes on somebody’s heart.” I find it remarkable because it combines several powerful images—evil forces, bodily experience, pain, and emotional suffering—into a single metaphorical scene. It is both culturally specific and immediately understandable. More broadly, it illustrates how metaphor can condense complex cultural beliefs and emotional experiences into a striking and memorable image.