Alfred Nobel University Journal of Philology 2026 · 1(31) · pp. 258–272 Cognitive Linguistics

Metaphorical Representation of the Ambivalent Emotion Concept Benteha: A Cross-Cultural Perspective

A corpus-based study of the Ukrainian emotion concept benteha — a complex, diffuse, “bittersweet” feeling — built by comparing its metaphorical profile with the semantically related German concepts angst and sehnsucht.

Kostiantyn Mizin Hryhorii Skovoroda University in Pereiaslav (Ukraine) [email protected]
Liudmyla Slavova Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv (Ukraine) [email protected]
DOI 10.32342/anuJPh.2026.31.15 ISSN 3041-217X (print) ISSN 3041-2188 (online) CC BY 4.0 Published 04.06.2026
Key words bentehaambivalenceemotion concept conceptual metaphormetaphorical profilelanguage corpus UkrainianEnglishGerman
01 — Abstract

An emotion suspended between bitter and sweet

The article identifies the cross-cultural specificity of the Ukrainian emotion concept benteha by comparing its metaphorical profile with those of the semantically related German concepts angst and sehnsucht.

The comparative dimension of the study is motivated by the “dual” nature of the EC benteha, as it constitutes a complex and diffuse phenomenon encompassing a range of both negative and positive emotional experiences, including metaphysical fear, subconscious anxiety, embarrassment, agitation, interest, arousal (sexual desire), fascination, and amorous passion. It has been established that through its “bitter” semantic dimension, the EC benteha exhibits similarity to the German-specific EC angst, which conveys metaphysical fear (eeriness), anxiety, and vague foreboding. By contrast, through its “sweet” dimension, this concept exhibits similarities to the German-specific EC sehnsucht, as the latter represents a “bitter-sweet” emotion in which “sweet,” unsettling desires and dreams are closely intertwined with their “bitter” utopian prospect.

The metaphorical profiles of the compared ECs were modelled on the basis of a quantitative analysis of source domains (SDs) underlying 14 conceptual metaphors. The data were obtained through manual analysis of automatically generated concordances with the keywords benteha, Angst, and Sehnsucht extracted from the GRAC-19 and the DWDS-Kernkorpus 21 corpora. The analysis revealed substantial differences in the metaphorical profiles of the compared ECs in terms of the relevance of SDs; the few partial overlaps identified are based on fragmentary similarities between benteha, on the one hand, and angst, and, on the other hand, sehnsucht.

Central finding

The EC benteha is extensively metaphorised in Ukrainian culture both as a burden and as sweets (SD food), clearly demonstrating its ambivalent nature. Yet the high frequency of the collocation nepozbuvna benteha (“persistent anxiety”) makes a burden its most relevant source domain (28.88%) — indicating the dominance of negative meanings. Verification through source-domain valence confirmed that sehnsucht is more positive (25.65%) than benteha (19.77%), while angst is almost entirely negative.

Ukrainian · бентега

benteha

Ambivalent

A diffuse, “bittersweet” emotion uniting anxiety, agitation, fear, interest, and joy — at once agitating and calming the “restless Ukrainian soul.”

German · Angst

angst

Negative

Conveys metaphysical fear (eeriness), anxiety, and a vague sense of foreboding — and, unlike benteha, may also denote physical fear.

German · Sehnsucht

sehnsucht

Ambivalent

A “bitter-sweet” longing in which sweet desires and dreams are inextricably intertwined with the bitter prospect of their unattainability or utopia.

02 — Introduction

The unnamed emotions of Ukrainian culture

Cognitive linguistics treats emotion concepts (ECs) as cultural rather than universal — yet specifically Ukrainian emotions remain largely unstudied, even by Ukrainians themselves.

In cognitive linguistics, the notion of the “emotion concept” emerged as an alternative to the basic emotion theory in psychology. Rather than searching for universal basic emotions, culture-oriented fields regard ECs primarily as cultural or ethnopsychological concepts, on the view that the perception and linguistic expression of emotions differ among members of different cultures, since culture affects the ways in which languages are used to express emotion. The analysis of ethnically and linguoculturally marked ECs thus makes it possible to identify specific meanings that point to the distinctive features of the psychotype of a particular culture.

Against the background of growing interest among Ukrainian linguists in emotions, there is an almost total absence of studies devoted to ECs that represent specifically Ukrainian emotions. There is not even a basic list of specifically Ukrainian emotions. Paradoxically, these emotions exist in Ukrainian culture, yet they are largely ignored by Ukrainians themselves — a striking example being the emotion denoted by the lexeme benteha.

How the word entered the conversation

The relevance of this emotion is largely due to the expression nepozbuvna benteha (“persistent anxiety”), coined by O. Korol, the translator of J. Fowles’ novel The Magus. Its obscurity sparked a heated debate over translation quality — and the phrase became an internet meme, raising the question of how to translate literary works in a way that is both accessible to modern readers and faithful to the author’s style.

Whereas people in other cultures may feel embarrassment, nervousness, restlessness, or anxiety, for Ukrainians it is pervasive — benteha. The ambivalent, “bittersweet” nature of the emotion is revealed in the way nothing agitates and calms the restless Ukrainian soul at the same time quite like it. Psychologists, however, dispute this “naïve” perception, classifying it within the emotional cluster of sadness — a state of inner restlessness when a person senses that something is wrong but cannot determine its source.

Research questions

RQ 1

Which conceptual metaphors are the most relevant in the metaphorical profiles of the ECs benteha, angst and sehnsucht, and which of them clearly indicate the cultural specificity of the EC benteha?

RQ 2

How differently are the compared ECs perceived in their respective cultures in terms of valence, and which of the ambivalent concepts is more positive — benteha or sehnsucht?

03 — Aim, methods & material

Reading emotion through corpus concordances

The cross-cultural specificity of any EC is most clearly revealed through comparison with concepts close to it in semantic content. Profiles were built from two comparable corpora using a combined metaphor-identification procedure.

14
conceptual metaphors (source domains) compared across all three ECs
2 billion+
tokens in the Ukrainian corpus GRAC-19
15.4 M
tokens in DWDS-Kernkorpus 21 (German)
3
research samples manually constructed from concordances

Since nouns exhibit a greater propensity for metaphorisation, concordances were compiled by entering the nominative designations of the emotions — Ukr. benteha and Germ. Angst and Sehnsucht — into the Ukrainian corpus GRAC (General Regionally Annotated Corpus of Ukrainian; GRAC-19) and the German DWDS-Kernkorpus des 21. Jahrhunderts. The German corpus was chosen to ensure comparability by type, size, and — most importantly — genre: only its genre-compatible Belletristik (fiction) and Zeitung (newspaper) texts were used, while Wissenschaft and Gebrauchsliteratur were excluded.

From concordance to metaphor

After removing repetitions, non-metaphorical and homonymous uses, and “dead” metaphors, a share of each cleaned sample was identified as metaphorical via the Metaphor Identification Procedure (MIP) combined with metaphorical pattern analysis (MPA).

Raw → cleaned → metaphorical contexts: benteha 584 → 497 → 187 (37.63%); Angst 1920 → 1623 → 514 (31.67%); Sehnsucht 422 → 386 → 191 (49.48%).

1

Define the content

Determine, through contextual analysis, the content of the Ukrainian EC benteha and compare it with the main semantic clusters of the German ECs angst and sehnsucht.

2

Build the profiles

Identify, through manual analysis of automatically generated concordances, the metaphorical conceptualisation of each emotion — thereby establishing their metaphorical profiles.

3

Compare & weigh

Determine cross-cultural specificity by comparing the profiles and establishing the valence of the source domains of the metaphors representing each EC.

04 — The 14 conceptual metaphors

Source domains that structure an emotion

An abstract emotion (the target domain) is grasped through more concrete source domains. The study uses metaphors most typical for ECs in general, of the form emotion is X, so the three profiles stay strictly comparable. Each card shows that domain’s relevance (%) in all three concepts.

05 — Inside benteha

Five clusters, two facets

The EC benteha is represented by five core clusters. As a consequence of this multidimensionality, speakers of Ukrainian tend to have a rather vague and often diffuse understanding of what they experience.

anxiety agitation fear interest joy

The “bitter” facet

Benteha expresses uncertainty, anxiety, or sadness arising from difficult circumstances or internal conflicts. It is characteristic of situations in which a person worries not only about their own fate but about the fate of others — even of an entire nation — so it may function as collective pain or empathy, transmitted through shared experiences, including the current Russian-Ukrainian war. Its meanings of subconscious anxiety closely correlate with profound, metaphysical fear, aligning it with German angst.

+The “sweet” facet

Benteha also names a “sweetly disturbing” experience — sexual desire expressed through attraction to a partner, arousal, or even amorous passion. This dimension remains largely unfamiliar to a considerable part of Ukrainian culture, confirming the emotion’s elusive nature. These “sweet” meanings — anticipation of positive events, joyful bewilderment, the pleasant sensation of passion — underlie its similarity to German sehnsucht.

Voices from the corpus

Concordance lines from GRAC, reproduced with the authors’ English glosses, showing the emotion’s opposing charges.

[…] а вона дослухалася лише незрозумілої бентеги свого єства

‘[…] but she listened only to the incomprehensible anxiety of her being’.

(1)elusive content

Це маркер національної непозбувної бентеги

‘This is a marker of national persistent anxiety’.

(2)collective / national

Прогнозую попервах непозбувну бентегу, а то й панічний розпач, страх та ненависть вчителів-русистів

‘I predict persistent anxiety, and even panic, despair, fear and hatred among teachers of Russian language and literature’.

(4)bitter · negative cluster

Він аж захлинався від ніжності, від гарячої душевної бентеги

‘He was overwhelmed with tenderness, with hot soulful desire’.

(7)sweet · sexual desire

Я вже вся палаю від бентеги

‘I am already burning with desire’.

(9)sweet · heat / fire

Моя солодка бентега

‘My sweet desire’.

(10)sweet · food

06 — Metaphorical profiles

Three emotions, three signatures

The relevance of the 14 source domains (Table 1) reveals more divergences than similarities. Within benteha, the most salient domains are a burden (28.88%) and a physical object (15.51%).

Profile overlay — relevance of all 14 source domains

Percentage of metaphorical occurrences mapped to each source domain, for benteha, angst and sehnsucht. The radial “shape” is each concept’s metaphorical signature.

Side-by-side relevance

Each source domain compared across the three concepts (%).

The shape of benteha

Its own profile, ranked. The dominant burden against the warm, “sweet” domains of heat/fire and food captures the ambivalence at a glance.

The dominance of a burden in benteha (28.88%, against only 3.11% in angst and 3.14% in sehnsucht) is driven by the frequent collocation nepozbuvna benteha and its variants. The perception of this emotion as something difficult to get rid of has largely shaped its overall negative evaluation. By contrast, heat/fire (8.56%) and the relatively high food (4.28%) reflect the positive, “sweet” cluster of amorous passion. The single similarity between benteha and angst is the high share of a physical object (15.51% vs 23.15%) — emotions conceptualised as objects that can be transferred, received, sown, or dulled.

Але річ не в ньому, а в тій бентезі, яку він посіяв у мою юнацьку душу

‘But it’s not about him, it’s about the turmoil he sowed in my young soul’.

(11)benteha · a physical object

Mit jedem Schritt wuchs ihre Sehnsucht, sich einfach fallen zu lassen

‘With every step, her longing to just let go grew stronger’.

(13)sehnsucht · a living thing

Und ich bekam Sehnsucht nach der Sehnsucht von einst

‘And I longed for the longing of yesteryear’.

(18)sehnsucht · sought-after feeling

Table 1 — Relevance of the source domains of the ECs benteha, angst, and sehnsucht
# & abbr. Source domain benteha N=187% angst N=514% sehnsucht N=191%

Lacunae: benteha has no instances of a goal; sehnsucht lacks both cold and a wild (captured) animal. All 14 domains are instantiated only in angst.

07 — Valence

Weighing the bitter against the sweet

Valence — the (un)pleasantness of an emotional experience — was established manually for every contextual occurrence. The mean positive and negative shares (Table 2) verify which ambivalent concept is more positive.

Mean valence of each concept

Positive (sweet, right) versus negative (bitter, left) share of metaphorical contexts. Sehnsucht emerges as the most positive of the three; angst is almost entirely negative.

The mean valence values confirm the more positive profile of sehnsucht (25.65% positive) compared with benteha (19.77% positive). The positive meanings associated with sexual desire and concealed wishes do not compensate for the predominantly negative perception of benteha, where the emotion is conceptualised as a persistent burden and is further intensified by subconscious anxiety and metaphysical fear permeating a wide range of domains. Similar meanings have produced an almost entirely negative profile for angst (only 0.58% positive). Like benteha, sehnsucht is ambivalent — but, unlike it, can represent emotional nuances that individuals actively seek and wish to experience again.

Verified ranking · most → least positive

sehnsucht 25.65%  ›  benteha 19.77%  ›  angst 0.58%. The procedure also substantiated the relatively higher positive valence of benteha over angst, the latter exhibiting near-total negative valence through the dominance of subconscious anxiety and metaphysical fear.

Table 2 — Positive (pc) and negative (nc) valence indicators of the source domains
#SD бентега pc%nc% angst pc%nc% sehnsucht pc%nc%
mean (x̄) 19.7780.21 0.5899.38 25.6574.32

Here pc = positive context; nc = negative context. The sum of mean values approximates but does not reach 100%, as the valence indices for each SD were rounded to the hundredths place.

08 — Conclusions

A culturally specific emotion, confirmed

Despite overlapping, on one side, with the ambivalent sehnsucht and, on the other, with the predominantly negative angst, the metaphorical conceptualisation of benteha clearly demonstrates the cultural specificity of the concept it represents.

Two anchoring images

In Ukrainian culture benteha is metaphorised both as a burden and as something sweet (food), which clearly reflects its ambivalent nature.

Negativity prevails

A burden is the most relevant domain, and almost all of benteha’s domains are represented by metaphors that conceptualise anxiety and fear — indicating a predominance of negative meanings.

Sehnsucht is sweeter

The ambivalent sehnsucht is more positively charged, owing either to the absence of explicitly negative domains or to their low salience (e.g. an opponent/enemy or a burden).

Angst is the darkest

Valence indices confirm that sehnsucht is more positive than benteha, while angst shows an almost entirely negative valence dominated by subconscious anxiety and metaphysical fear.

The prospects of the present study lie in further refining the corpus-based methodology, which would make it possible to identify and conduct an in-depth analysis of other culture-specific emotion concepts in Ukrainian culture.

List of abbreviations

DWDSDigitales Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache
EC(s)emotion concept(s)
GRACgeneral regionally annotated corpus of Ukrainian
SD(s)source domain(s)
TD(s)target domain(s)
09 — References

References

  1. Becker, E. (2011). Angst. München, Basel: Ernst Reinhardt.
  2. Borysov, O.O. (2005). Movni zasoby vyrazhennia emotsiinoho kontseptu STRAKh: linhvokohnityvnyi aspekt (na materiali suchasnoi anhlomovnoi khudozhnoi prozy) [Linguistic means of expressing the emotional concept of FEAR: a linguistic-cognitive aspect]. PhD Thesis. Donetsk: DonNU Publ. (In Ukrainian)
  3. Doyle, C.M., Gendron, M., Lindquist, K.A. (2021). Language is a unique context for emotion perception. Affective Science, 2(2), 171-177.
  4. Ekman, P. (1992). An argument for basic emotions. Cognition & Emotion, 6, 169-200.
  5. Fabian, M. (2023). Anger emotion verbalization in English and Ukrainian ethnocultures. Contemporary Studies in Foreign Philology, 2(24), 165-177.
  6. Fowles, J. (2022). Mah [The Magus] / O. Korol (trans.). Kyiv: Book Chef. (In Ukrainian)
  7. Geyken, A. (Ed.). (2025). DWDS. Digitales Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. dwds.de/ressourcen/korpora
  8. Gibbs, R., Leggitt, J.S., Tuner, E.A. (2002). What’s special about figurative language in emotional communication? In S.R. Fussell (Ed.), The verbal communication of emotions: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 125-149). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
  9. Gibbs, R.W.Jr. (2006). Embodiment and Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  10. Girina, E. (2024). Linguocultorological reasons for the different levels of somatization of sadness in languages of the world. The Journal of V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University. Philology, 94, 57-62.
  11. Group, P. (2007). MIP: A Method for Identifying Metaphorically Used Words in Discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1-39.
  12. Hendricks, R.K., Demjén, Z., Semino, E., Boroditsky, L. (2018). Emotional implications of metaphor: Consequences of metaphor framing for mindset about cancer. Metaphor and Symbol, 33(4), 267-279.
  13. Kapranov, O. (2015). Conceptual metaphors in Ukrainian prime ministers’ discourse involving renewables. Topics in Linguistics, 16(1), 4-16.
  14. Kovalchuk, O. (2017). Borshchevskyi Serhii: Perekladachi vykonuvaly funktsiiu zberezhennia pamiati ta movy [Translators performed the function of preserving memory and language]. Varianty. (In Ukrainian)
  15. Kövecses, Z. (1986). Metaphors of anger, pride and love. A lexical approach to the structure of concepts. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  16. Kövecses, Z. (1990). Emotion concepts. New York: Springer.
  17. Kövecses, Z. (2014). Conceptualizing emotions. A revized cognitive linguistic perspective. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 50, 15-28.
  18. Kövecses, Z. (2020). Emotion concepts in a new light. Italian Journal of Philosophy of Language: SFL Language and emotions, 42-54.
  19. Krawczak, K. (2025). Corpus evidence for lexical and genre effects in the metaphorical conceptualization of negative self-evaluative emotions: The case of shame and embarrassment. Language and Cognition, 17: e23.
  20. Lakoff, G., Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  21. Maire, H., Agnoletti, M.-F., Zagar, D. (2019). L’embarras, émotion ambivalente et complexe: Une présentation théorique. L‘Année Psychologique, 119(2), 199-242.
  22. Mizin, K., Kononenko, V. (2025). Spetsyfika ukrainskoho emotsiinoho kontseptu бентега porivniano z nimetskymy angst i sehnsucht [The specificity of the Ukrainian emotion concept бентега in contrast to the German angst and sehnsucht]. Linguistic Studies, 50, 76-90. (In Ukrainian)
  23. Mizin, K., Letiucha, L., Petrov, O. (2019). Deutsche linguokulturelle Konzepte im Lichte der germanisch-ostslawischen Kontraste: Methode zur Feststellung von spezifischen bzw. einzigartigen Bedeutungen. Germanoslavica, 30(1), 49-70.
  24. Nikolaienko, L.I. (2021). Reprezentatsiia emotsii zazdrosti i spivchuttia v polskii, rosiiskii ta ukrainskii movakh: semantyko-kohnityvnyi i linhvoaksiolohichnyi vymiry [Representation of Emotions of Envy and Sympathy in Polish, Russian and Ukrainian Languages]. Kyiv: Dmytro Buraho Publishing House. (In Ukrainian)
  25. Ogarkova, A. (2013). Folk emotion concepts: Lexicalization of emotional experiences across languages and cultures. In J.R.J. Fontaine, K.R. Scherer, C. Soriano (Eds.), Components of emotional meaning. A sourcebook (pp. 46-61). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  26. Ogarkova, A., Soriano, C. (2014). Variation within universals: The ‘metaphorical profile’ approach to the study of ANGER concepts in English, Russian and Spanish. In A. Mussolf, F. MacArthur, G. Pagani (Eds.), Metaphor in Intercultural Communication (pp. 93-116). London: Bloomsbury.
  27. Oleniak, M. (2022). Mizh metaforoiu i lohichnym porivnianniam: svoieridnist obraznykh porivnian [Between Metaphor and Logical Comparison: Peculiarities of Simile]. Rasprave Instituta za hrvatski jezik, 48(2), 525-545. (In Ukrainian)
  28. Oster, U. (2010). Using corpus methodology for semantic and pragmatic analyses: What can corpora tell us about the linguistic expression of emotions? Cognitive Linguistics, 21, 727-763.
  29. Panasenko, N., Stashko, H., Zabuzhanska, I. (2023). Love and rhythm in poetry and music. Language and Emotion, 3(43), 1529-1557.
  30. Pinich, I., Morozova, O. (2024). ANGER in Ukrainian: He is getting into a bottle. In Z. Kövecses, R. Benczes, V. Szelid (Eds.), Metaphors of ANGER across languages: Universality and variation (pp. 1319-1394). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
  31. Puhach, Yu. (2024). The Verbalization of Emotions in English Phraseological Units. Scientific Journal of Mykhailo Dragomanov State University of Ukraine. Series 9. Current Trends in Language Development, 27, 38-50.
  32. Reijnierse, W.G., Burgers, C., Krennmayr, T., Steen, G.J. (2019). Metaphor in communication: The distribution of potentially deliberate metaphor across register and word class. Corpora, 14(3), 301-326.
  33. Robinson, C.J., Altarriba, J. (2015). Culture and language processing. In F. Sharifian (Ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Language and Culture (pp. 240-252). New York, NY: Routledge.
  34. Rohach, O., Lipych, O. (2024). Concept HATRED and its verbalization in the Ukrainian and English literary discourse. Research Trends in Modern Linguistics and Literature, 7, 33-47.
  35. Scheibe, S., Blanchard-Fields, F., Wiest, M., Freund, A.M. (2011). Is longing only for Germans? A cross-cultural comparison of Sehnsucht in Germany and the United States. Developmental Psychology, 47(3), 603-618.
  36. Semino, E. (2011). The adaptation of metaphors across genres. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 130-152.
  37. Shpolianska, K. (2024). Ukraintsi maiut tsikavi nazvy dlia riznykh vidtinkiv «piechali». U vas zhurba, tuha chy benteha? [Ukrainians have interesting names for different shades of «sadness»]. Telegraf. (In Ukrainian)
  38. Shvedova, M., von Waldenfels, R., Yarygin, S., Rysin, A., Starko, V., Nikolajenko, T. et al. (Eds.). (2017-2026). GRAC: General Regionally Annotated Corpus of Ukrainian. uacorpus.org/en
  39. SlovOpys. (2023). Benteha [Anxiety]. (In Ukrainian)
  40. Stefanowitsch, A. (2004). Happiness in English and German: A metaphorical-pattern analysis. In M. Achard, S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, Culture, and Mind (pp. 134-149). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
  41. Underhill, J.W. (2015). Ethnolinguistics and cultural concepts: Truth, love, hate and war. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  42. Wierzbicka, A. (1999). Emotions Across Languages and Cultures: Diversity and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  43. Zahnitko, A., Krasnobayeva-Chorna, Z. (2020). Emotyvnyi profil hnivu v ukrainskii frazeolohii [Emotive profile of anger in Ukrainian phraseology]. Przegląd Wschodnioeuropejski, 11(2), 433-444. (In Ukrainian)
  44. Zahnitko, A., Krasnobayeva-Chorna, Z. (2022). Sorom i vyna yak frahmenty emotyvnoi kartyny svitu (na materiali ukrainskoi frazemiky) [Shame and guilt as fragments of an emotive picture of the world]. Przegląd Wschodnioeuropejski, 13(1), 273-286. (In Ukrainian)