Idiomatic false friends in English and Modern Standard Arabic Ahmed Seddik Al-Wahy Ain Shams University
�. Introduction Te concept o alse riends (or faux amis amis,, as they are also called) is one o the most widely discussed in translation studies and language learning. Tough there t here is much literature on alse riends between European languages, nothing much has been written on alse riends in English and Arabic. Reasons or such lack o sufficient studies are understandable. First, the study o alse riends has generally been associated with genetically related languages, where cognate terms in different languages can semantically diverge rom their original senses and rom each other’s course o development. English and Arabic are not genetically related, since they belong to the Indo-European and Semitic amilies, respectively. Second, the writing systems used in the two languages are totally different. Tus, accidental similarity in orm due to orthographic actors, which constitutes the source o many alse riends among languages using the same orthographic system, is lacking with reerence to English and Arabic. False riends have also been typically associated with single words, though the concept o alse riends is in itsel applicable to multi-word units and even grammatical constructions. Although a number o researchers have dealt with different aspects o idioms in English and Arabic, the topic o idiomatic alse riends in the two languages has not been covered. Te present paper is based on the assumptio assumption n that alse riends are neither confined to cognate languages nor to single words. Te study examines alse riends in two genetically unrelated languages (English and Modern Standard Arabic (MSA)), with special reerence to multi-word units rather than single words. Recent research in linguistics, particularly in phraseology and corpus linguistics, has shown that set phrases o different kinds represent a greater propor-
���
Ahmed Seddik Al-Wahy
words to the higher rank o set phrases. O the different types o set phrases, the ocus o the study is on idiomatic alse riends (IFFs) in English and MSA. Te methodology adopted in the study is contrastiv contrastivee and taxonomic. Te study proposes a general taxonomy or IFFs and then applies it to English and MSA. Different types o IFFs in English and MSA are contrasted to show the semantic or socio-stylistic aspects o difference between them. Te study has as its theoretical ramework the Sinclairian distinction between the open choice principle and the idiom principle, which are both required or the production o normal texts (Sinclair 1987; 19 87; 1991). Te open choice principle states that “at “at each point where a unit is completed (a word or a phrase or a clause), a large range o choice opens up and the only restraint is that o grammaticalness” (Sinclair 1991: 109). According to this principle, a text is a series o slots, each o which can be filled with virtually any word rom the lexicon, provided that the result is a grammatical structure. Te idiom principle is that “a language user has available to him or her a large number o semi-preconstructed phrases that constitute single choices, even though they may appear to be analysable into segments” (Sinclair 1991: 110). All set phrases, including idioms, ollow the idiom principle.
�. Definitions False riends are generally defined in terms o similarity and difference: they are usually defined as words that are similar in orm but different in meaning. Both in translation studies and in language learning, alse riends have typically been associated with pairs o words rather than phrases. Nida (1964/2004: 157), or instance, defines alse riends as “borrowed or cognate words which seem to be equivalent but are not always so”. Newmark (1982: 162) deals with alse riends in terms o language intererence, which he describes describ es as “the translator’s translator’s worst problem, as it is the language learner’s”. Language intererence is responsible or creating new senses or existing words, which can ultimately result in the presence o alse riends in cognate languages. Te examples given by Newmark are o English words that can have other meanings when used in other languages like French or German. Instead o acilitating acil itating communication communication among speakers o such languages, the ormal similarity between alse riends makes them more opaque and nonmotivated motivat ed than strictly opaque words. Accordingg to Chamízo Domínguez and Nerlich (2002: 1834), alse riends are Accordin “words that seem to be the same or at least very similar similar,, in orm and meaning, but efined as “pairs or g
Idiomatic alse riends in English and Modern Standard Arabic
other but differ to varying degrees in meaning” (Nicholls 2002: 1). Tis last deinition highlights the act that there are degrees o difference in meaning in alse riends, ranging between total and partial semantic dissimilarity. Other related terms are sometimes used in the literature on language intererence, such as “deceptive cognates” and “alse cognates”. Granger and Swallow, or instance, use the term “deceptive cognates” in ree alternation with “alse riends”, defining both as reerring to “those pairs o words which are etymologically related, similar in orm but semantically divergent” (Granger and Swallow 1988: 108). Tis is also the position o Ferguson (1994), who confines alse riends to deceptive cognates, excluding any other cases o ormal similarity and semantic differences rom the range o alse riends. In Ferguson’s (1994: x) view, “alse riends are correctly defined as deceptive cognates”. Te argument given to support this view is that it excludes cases o accidental similarity between words in different languages, which resemble cases o homonymy in a single language, and which are unlikely to cause conusion among language learners. Te term “deceptive cognates” differs rom “alse riends” in that it assumes that the words in question are etymologically related. Te term “alse riends” is thus more general, since it includes both etymologically related words and words that are related only by accidental phonological or orthographic similarity. It is also more appropriate or the present study since the orms being contrasted are not necessarily “cognate” orms. As or the term “alse cognates”, it reers to words that are thought to be related in terms o their linguistic origin, while in actual act they are not. Tis particularly occurs in languages that are closely related genetically, such as English and German or French and Italian. Tough English and Arabic are not genetically related languages, cultural contact between the two languages has led to the presence o alse riends o different types, both lexical and idiomatic. Te term “lexical alse riends” is used here to reer to single words that are identical or very similar in two languages but have a different meaning in each language. While there are English and Arabic lexical alse riends, they are limited in number compared with those between English and French or German, or instance. Tough the main concern o the present paper is with idiomatic alse riends, it is relevant to illustrate the presence o lexical alse riends in English and MSA by some examples. Te Arabic loanword (‘smoking’), or instance, is quoted in Hill’s Dictionary of False Friends (DFF ) as a alse riend o the English word smoking , since the word in Arabic is used to reer to the kind o garment known in British English as dinner jacket. Some pseudoanglicisms, such as (‘auto-stop’), (assumingly rom the English auto-stop,
���
���
Ahmed Seddik Al-Wahy
origin in “indirect loans” (i.e. words borrowed rom one language through a third language (Stubbs 2002: 183)), since Arabic is not the only language that uses the above expressions in this way. Instead o limiting alse riends to single words, a more general definition is suggested here that allows or including set phrases and structures o different types. Tis definition also includes non-semantic eatures in which similar expressions can be different: Definition 1 False riends are expressions that have the same or similar orms in dierent languages but have different meanings or different sociolinguistic or stylistic eatures.
Tis definition has the advantage o providing an accurate ramework or dealing with idioms, which, as multi-word expressions, display a peculiar orm-meaning relationship. Idioms are exceptions among other combinations o words, whose meanings can be deduced rom the meanings o individual words. Seen more generally, however, they are in consistency with the principle o arbitrariness o language. Just as there is normally nothing natural about the way sounds combine together to make meaningul units (morphemes), so words in idioms combine together to orm unpredictable meanings. Following is the definition o idioms adopted here: Definition 2 Idioms are set phrases whose meanings cannot be derived rom the literal meanings o their constituent elements. Being set phrases, idioms are multi-word units which are relatively fixed and conventionalized in the speech community in which they are used.
Idioms are characterised by duality o meaning: they potentially have a literal meaning and an idiomatic one. Te relation between an idiom and its idiomatic meaning is arbitrary and conventionalized in the speech community. Idioms, thereore, ofen reflect aspects o the culture in which they emerge. As in lexical alse riends, IFFs are similar in orm but different in meaning. Te ollowing deinition is proposed or IFFs: Definition 3 Idiomatic alse riends (IFFs) are pairs o set phrases that have the same literal meaning in two languages but differ as regards their idiomatic meaning or their sociolinguistic and stylistic eatures.
Idiomatic alse riends in English and Modern Standard Arabic
�. Review of literature on idioms and false friends Te possibility o having idiomatic alse riends has been recognized by a number o phraseologists and translation studies theorists. For instance, Vinay and Darbelnet (1995/2004: 130) observe that fixed calques may become an integral part o the borrowing language afer a period o time and may undergo some semantic change, “turning them into faux amis”. Similarly, Fernando and Flavell observe that lexical and structural similarity o expressions across languages does not necessarily entail correlation o meaning. As they put it, “the faux amis beloved o textbook writers are to be ound as much among idioms as in single lexical items” (Fernando and Flavell 1981: 83). Tough Baker does not use the terms “alse riends” or “aux amis”, she observes that “superficially identical or similar idioms which have different meanings in the source and the target languages lay easy traps or the unwary translator who is not amiliar with the source-language idiom and who may be tempted simply to impose a target-language interpretation on it” (Baker 1992: 67). Other linguists have dealt with the relationship between idioms and alse riends, though their main concern remains with a single word within an idiom rather than the idiom in its entirety. Stubbs (2002: 185–8) shows that the semantic changes that can occur to loan-words may lead to the ormation o alse riends. Tough he reers to collocations, it is only to show how loan-words can have new meanings in the borrowing language by ocusing on the context o other words with which they co-occur. Stubbs is not concerned with cases in which a collocation as a whole is misunderstood in another language because a similar collocation is used there with a different meaning, but he reers to cases where the loan-word in a collocation acquires a meaning that is different rom its normal meaning in its source language. For example, in German, the word blitz originally means ‘lightening’. However, since it was borrowed into the English language it has acquired new senses in new collocations, such as advertising blitz or media blitz. It has also been used as a verb, as in the ories are to blitz seats in Scotland (Stubbs 2002: 186). Tis is different rom the treatment o alse riends in the present study, which is concerned with the different interpretations o entire idioms in two languages. Similarly, while Chamízo Domínguez and Nerlich deal with the relationship between idioms and alse riends, their main ocus is on single words. In their study, they reer to words “which are not alse riends at all when they are considered in isolation, but which become alse riends when they are part o an idiom”
���
���
Ahmed Seddik Al-Wahy
idioms, according to this understanding, would include alse riends, since words in idioms rarely keep their ordinary, literal sense which they have in other combinations. Tis, again, is different rom the present study, which is concerned with expressions that have the same wording in two languages and are used idiomatically in both, but differ in their idiomatic meaning. Like lexical alse riends, IFFs can cause problems or translators, who may be inclined to impose on them the meanings and stylistic eatures which such expressions have in the target language. It is important, thereore, to recognize different types o IFFs in different language pairs. Te recognition o IFFs is also important or language teaching, since they can be a source o communication breakdown between language learners and native speakers. While or Cornell the main problem that idioms present or the language learner is semantic opacity, he suggests that parallels between idiomatic expressions in the learner’s source language and target language can play a role in the process o language learning. In most cases, this role is a positive one, since similarity o idioms between languages can acilitate learning, though there are cases in which superficially similar idioms have dierent meanings, which can hinder communication. However, he believes that “it would be an exaggeration to say that such ‘alse riend idioms’ are very many in number”, and that a greater problem is presented by idioms that have “a substantial measure o similarity but enough divergence to make the task o memorization significant” (Cornell 1999: 9–10). Tis may be true o etymologically related languages (like English and German, with which Cornell is concerned), but in the language pair discussed here, IFFs outnumber lexical alse riends. Tey represent pitalls or the language learner as well as the translator, hence the importance o recognizing the differences between them in the two languages.
�. Idioms and multiple meanings Te presence o IFFs among different languages is mainly due to the semantic peculiarities that characterise idiomatic expressions. Reerence has been made to the semantic duality o idioms, by virtue o which an idiom can have both a literal and an idiomatic meaning. Apart rom this duality, which is typical o all idioms, an idiom can potentially have more than one idiomatic meaning, some o which are related (with a situation resembling polysemy in single words) and some unrelated (with a situation resembling homonymy). An example o the ormer case is at home, which can mean ‘ready to receive a visitor’ (as in We are always at home for our neighbours), or ‘comortable and amiliar’ (as in I’ve never been at home with
Idiomatic alse riends in English and Modern Standard Arabic
to the commissioners), or ‘accuse o’, (as in He was charged with creating a disturbance) (AHDI). Accordingly, the ambiguity o idioms is not only a theoretical assumption but also an actual act both across languages and within the same language. For instance, in English, in the dark is ambiguous: it can mean either in secrecy , as in All his dealings were done in the dark, or in ignorance, as in We were all kept in the dark about what was happening in the prison. Te corresponding Arabic idiom (lit., ‘in the dark’) means only in secrecy . Such idioms would be considered transparent by the native speakers o each language. Tis again proves that transparency is not determined by the lexical or grammatical structure o the idiom, but by the way native speakers interpret such structures according to the meaning they already know. In this context, it can be seen how comparative phraseology can contribute to psycholinguistic research on idioms. Results o some psychological research on the comprehension o idioms suggest that any idiom is potentially ambiguous. Among the different possible meanings it can carry, it is given the meaning (or meanings) that the speakers o the language in question happen to assign to it. Keysar and Bly argue that judgements o the transparency or opacity o the relationship between an idiom and its meaning depend mainly on the way it is conceived by the language user. An idiom can theoretically have different, and even opposite, meanings. Once one meaning is selected by the native speaker as the “right” meaning o the idiom, it will be perceived as transparent, i.e. the speaker will try to establish a logical relation between the literal and idiomatic meanings o the idiom. Te reason why native speakers would regard any different interpretation o idioms as opaque is that they already know what the idiom actually means; or “idioms could have transparently meant the opposite o what they mean – i they did not have the current idiomatic meaning” (Keysar and Bly, 1999: 1566).
�. A taxonomy for idiomatic false friends Given the diversity o IFFs, it is useul to classiy them into different categories based on the different ways they relate to each other in the language pair in which they occur. Te taxonomy o IFFs proposed here is based on evidence rom English and MSA, but it can also apply to pairs o IFFs in other languages. IFFs can be classified into two major groups: related IFFs and unrelated IFFs. Related IFFs are those which have the same origin, either because the idioms in
���
���
Ahmed Seddik Al-Wahy
IFFs
Related
Semantic
otal
Unrelated (typically total)
Cultural and stylistic (typically partial)
Partial
Figure 1. A general classification or idiomatic alse riends
or a different kind o use. Most related IFFs are partial alse riends: though they express a given common meaning, they are not totally identical semantically, since there are areas which the idiomatic expressions in the two languages do not share. Semantic differences, however, are not the only type o difference between related IFFs. Even those related IFFs that show total semantic similarity can differ as regards their cultural or stylistic aspects o use. Where such aspects are crucial or translation and/or appropriate communication (which they usually are), such idioms are not equivalent in the two languages, and it is in this sense that they are considered alse riends. Unrelated IFFs are those that developed independently in the two languages concerned, without there being a common source or the idiom or any influence rom either language on the other. Similarity in orm in unrelated IFFs is merely accidental. Te IFFs belonging to this category are typically total alse riends: their idiomatic meanings in the two languages are typically different. Te only kind o meaning they have in common is the literal meaning. Tese are similar to what Chamizo Dominguez and Nerlich call “chance alse riends”. Tis term, however, is not used here, first, because it has been suggested or single-word alse riends as defined by Chamizo Dominguez and Nerlich (2002: 1836), and, second, because it is opposed to “semantic alse riends”, a term which may overlap with differences in meaning that may exist between both related and unrelated IFFs. In the present taxonomy, the term “semantic alse riends” is opposed to “cultural and stylistic alse riends”. Te classification o IFFs proposed here is illustrated by Figure 1.
�.�. Related IFFs
Idiomatic alse riends in English and Modern Standard Arabic
by MSA borrowing rom English through loan-translation. Tey are divided here into two types: semantic IFFs (which are either total or partial) and cultural and stylistic IFFs (which are typically partial). Each o these types is discussed below.
�.�.�. otal IFFs: Calques with a change of meaning MSA has calqued a large number o idiomatic expressions rom English. Tough most o these calques are used in the same sense as they are in the English language, some o them have acquired a different meaning in the MSA speech community. Sometimes in this kind o semantic change the shif is towards a more transparent meaning o the expression. Tis kind o change toward a more literal meaning is present in (lit., ‘moment o truth’), an MSA idiom that was calqued rom English with a change o meaning. Te English idiom means “a critical or decisive time, at which one is put to the ultimate test” (AHDI). It is defined in MEDAL as “the time when you will find out i something has succeeded or happened”. Te origin o this idiom may also shed light on the way it is used in English. Tis idiom is originally a loan-translation o the Spanish expression el momento de la verdad (lit., ‘the moment o truth’), which “signifies the point in a bullfight when the matador makes the kill” (AHDI). In MSA, the meaning is more transparent; it reers to a moment when one is honest with onesel or with others. At the same time, it implies that such honesty is temporary and that in other circumstances one would not be so candid or open. Tis is shown by the ollowing example:1
(1)
.
‘Furthermore, at a moment of truth (= at a moment o honesty and candidness), Bush admitted that he had distorted the beautiul image o America.’ ( Al-Ahram 20 Jan. 2005) Similarly, the idiom to pull someone’s leg means to “play a joke on” or “tease” someone, and is understood as alluding to “tripping someone by so holding a stick or other object that one o his legs is pulled back” (AHDI). BEI gives two meanings o this idiom: “to say something that (1) beools, deceives, or is intended to deceive, a person; or (2) is not intended to be taken seriously: a sort o joke”. According to PDEI, the idiom means “to play a joke on someone, to tell someone a misleading story that momentarily shocks or rightens him or her but which amuses everybody else”. PDEI also gives an idiomatic nominal group based on the idiom: a “leg-pull”, which is “a joke or untrue story”, with the same meaning as the verbal idiom. Te corresponding MSA idiom (lit., ‘to pull someone’s leg’) reers to tricking someone into doing something, usually by dishonest means, as in
���
���
Ahmed Seddik Al-Wahy
(lit., ‘to pull the customer’s leg’), i.e. ‘to deceive the customer by making him/her buy something, even though it may not be in his/her interest’. It is not exactly related to teasing or playing jokes on someone, and is not intended to produce amusement, but rather to achieve some serious objectives. It can also mean ‘to implicate someone (in something)’. Sentences (2) and (3) below are examples:
(2)
:
‘Te Arab resident pulled the citizen’s leg (=implicated the citizen) during the investigation, saying, “He is my accomplice in drug-dealing”.’ ( Al-Rai Al-Aam, 22 Oct. 2004)
(3) .
‘Te Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu managed to pull the leg of (= to cunningly persuade) his ex-Minister o Foreign Affairs, David Levi, to the government once again.’ ( Al-Bayan, 6 Nov. 1998) Baker (1992: 67) observes that the idiom to pull someone’s leg “is identical on the surace to the idiom (‘pull his leg’) which is used in several Arabic dialects to mean tricking someone into talking about something s/he would have rather kept secret”. Tis usage is colloquial and its meaning is different rom the MSA version (lit., ‘to pull someone’s leg’) reerred to above. It is also different rom the Colloquial Egyptian idiom (lit., ‘to bring someone’s leg’), whose meaning is similar to the MSA version. Baker’s idioms, however, would represent English and Colloquial Arabic IFFs as the term is used here. A similar case is observed in the idiom to pull the rug out from under someone’s feet . Tis idiom reers to removing all support and assistance rom someone, usually suddenly (AHDI). Te expression metaphorically illustrates a situation in which a rug is pulled suddenly rom under someone standing on it, with the expected result o his/her alling down. PDEI’s definition o the idiom is “to take one’s opponent by surprise by suddenly depriving him o his advantage”. Both definitions have the idea o surprise action to the effect o depriving someone o some advantage. Tis idiom, which appeared in English in the mid-1900s (AHDI), was calqued into Arabic, but its original meaning does not seem to be recognized by Arab users or lexicographers. Te MSA version, (lit. to pull the rug rom under someone’s legs’), is defined in an MSA monolingual dictionary o idioms as “to remove someone rom a position o influence and take his place” (Dawood 2003 [my translation]). Te MSA loan-translation does not
Idiomatic alse riends in English and Modern Standard Arabic
idiom is also ofen used with reerence to non-human entities, which is a case o personification since the metaphor in the idiom is associated with human entities. Te idea o replacement is present in the ollowing example:
(4)
. ‘In addition, I don’t agree to the ofen-made claim that television has pulled the rug from under (= has taken the place o) the radio.’ ( Al -Watan, 11 Nov. 2003)
Te same idea applies to the English idiom to lose one’s nerve, which has almost the same lexical and grammatical structure as the MSA (lit., ‘to lose one’s nerves’), the only difference being that the MSA orm uses the plural o the noun (‘nerve’). Tough the MSA version is a loan-translation o the English idiom, the two idioms differ in meaning: while the English idiom means ‘to be rightened’ or ‘to lose one’s courage or audacity to do something’, the MSA idiom means ‘to lose sel-control’ or ‘to give way to one’s anger’. According to AHDI, the English expression employs the word nerve in the sense o “courage or boldness”. In this sense, the noun nerve is uncountable, and it is used in other idioms such as to have the nerve to do something and to have a lot of nerve. Te corresponding MSA noun (‘nerve’) is not used in this sense. A translator working rom Arabic into English, thereore, should not translate (lit., ‘to lose one’s nerves’) into the superficially similar idiom to lose one’s nerve. A more appropriate idiom would be to lose one’s temper , since it has the same idiomatic meaning as the MSA expression. On the other hand, a translator working rom English into Arabic should not use the MSA idiom as a translation equivalent or the English lose one’s nerve. A more appropriate rendition would be (lit., ‘to lose control o one’s heart), which is used idiomatically to mean ‘lose one’s courage and audacity’.
(5)
.
‘He started to lose his nerves (=to lose his temper) and knock at the door with his fists.’ ( Akhbar Al-Adab, 10/12/2000)
(6) .
‘Te US Secretary o State Collin Powell lost his nerves (=lost his temper) and his calm while deending the decision o the US President George Bush to invade Iraq.’ ( Al-Watan, 13 Feb. 2004) Te above cases o IFFs affirm the idea that when an expression is borrowed into a
���
���
Ahmed Seddik Al-Wahy
�.�.�. Partial IFFs: Calques of a single meaning Tis category includes related IFFs which share one meaning but differ in one or more other meanings. In most o these cases, an English idiom with multiple meanings is calqued into MSA but used in only one o its different senses in English. Calqued idioms, in this context, resemble loan-words, which, according to Newmark (1982: 163) “take up one sense, sometimes the less common one, and leave others behind”. Tis shif rom polysemy to monosemy is typical o most partial IFFs in English and MSA. A case in point is the English idiom blind trust . Te orm trust has two distinct senses, resulting in two different meanings o this set phrase. Te word trust can mean either ‘confidence in someone’s honesty or reliability’ or ‘money or property that someone manages or a person or an organization according to a legal arrangement’ (also ‘an organization that manages money or property so that it can help other people or organizations’) ( MEDAL). Tus, according to PDEI, to have blind trust in someone means “to trust someone absolutely and without question”, in which sense it has the idiomatic synonym blind faith. In the same dictionary, it is noted that the idiom a blind trust has acquired an additional meaning, namely “a trust which manages a politician’s private capital, making sure that there is no link between policy and donation, and thus preventing a conflict o interest”. It is only this recent meaning o the idiom that is cited by CED, MEDAL, and CCD. As ar as MSA is concerned, the corresponding orm (lit., ‘blind trust’) is used only in the sense o blind faith. Te two orms can be distinguished grammatically on the grounds that trust is uncountable i the idiom means ‘blind aith’ but countable in the other sense. In addition, the prepositional phrase in someone only occurs when the idiom is used in the first sense. A similar case is the idiomatic expression cover story . In one sense it reers to the “eatured story in a magazine that concerns the illustration on the cover”. In another, less requent sense, a cover story is “a alse story intended to mislead or deceive” or “an alibi” (AHDI). Tere is no MSA idiomatic equivalent to this latter sense, though the ormer sense is normally translated into the MSA (lit., ‘the cover topic’), which cannot reer to a alse story or an alibi. wo points are worth reerring to here. First, the word story in the sense o newspaper or magazine account is typically translated into MSA as (typically, ‘topic’), though in the other sense it is translated as (typically, ‘story’). Second, the word cover is polysemous in the sense that it can mean ‘the cover o a magazine’ or ‘something that conceals the truth’, which are translated into MSA as (‘cover’) and (‘cover’), respectively. It is this kind o polysemy that causes alse riend-
Idiomatic alse riends in English and Modern Standard Arabic
idiom means “understand or begin to understand something” or “see the merits o another’s explanation or decision”, and has its origin in the idea o religious con version, where light means “true religion”. MEDAL defines to see the light as “to suddenly realize or understand something” or “to start to have strong religious belies”. Te English idiom can also be regarded as a shortened version o to see the light of day , which means ‘to start to exist’ (MEDAL). It is only in this latter sense that the MSA idiom (lit., ‘to see the light’) is used. It is used to reer to an idea or a project that starts to be realized (Dawood 2003). Tis use is illustrated by the ollowing example:
(7)
.
‘Tey did not orget his benevolence to them and support o many o their [literary] works, which saw the light (= came into existence) by virtue o his sponsoring and encouragement.’ ( Al-Ahram, 24 Jan. 2005)
(8)
. ‘He presented me with Te Memoirs of Fakhry Bek Abdul-Nour , the book which saw the light (=came into existence) by virtue o his dedication, keenness on politics, and loyalty to his great ather’s message.’ ( Al-Ahram, 22 May 2003) I a orm used in the idiom has two distinct meanings related by homonymy, this can lead to different meanings o the same expression within one language. Since homonymous words do not normally have the same orm when translated into another language, a loan translation o such an idiom will result in partial idiomatic alse riendship. Tis applies to the English idiom an elastic term. Te word term can mean ‘a word or expression, especially when used in a particular field’ or ‘a division o the academic year in schools and universities’. Tus, PDEI (2001) provides two unrelated meanings o this idiom, which can be attributed to the homonymy relation between the above senses o term. With reerence to academic lie, an elastic term is a school or university term that is “flexible, possible to extend”. Applied to a word or expression, it means “not fixed; may be stretched to mean many things”. It is in the latter sense that the idiom was borrowed into Arabic through loan translation as (lit., ‘an elastic term’). Te word (‘term’) corresponds to the English term in the sense o ‘word or expression used in a particular field’, but not in the sense o ‘division o the academic year’, which is translated into Arabic as (lit., ‘a study term’). Te kind o difficulty
���
���
Ahmed Seddik Al-Wahy
orm corresponding to the Arabic idiom. I, on the other hand, the translation is rom English into Arabic, the translator should pay special attention to the exact meaning o the idiom, since the Arabic calque corresponds to only one o the two senses o the idiom. Sentence 9 is typical o the MSA use o the idiom:
(9)
“ ” ‘Under the current circumstances, this is an elastic term; or what does the term “national leadership” mean?’ ( Al -Sabah, 9 Sept. 2003)
Partial similarity is also present between the English idiom in the same breath (also in one breath) and its MSA counterpart (lit., ‘in one breath’). Te English idiom is given two distinct meanings in AHDI. Te first, “at or almost at the same time”, overlaps with the MSA version, though even in this sense the two orms are not identical. Te Arabic idiom is used to reer to two people saying the same thing at the same time. While the English idiom shares this meaning with the Arabic version, it can also be used o one person saying contradictory things at the same time. AHDI’s example is “Ed complains about having too much homework and in the same breath talks about going out every night”. Tis meaning o the idiom is not included in the MSA version. Te second meaning given in AHDI is used only in the negative: not in the same breath as means ‘not to be compared with’, as in “Karen’s a good runner, but you can’t speak of her in the same breath as an Olympic athlete”. Again, the MSA idiom is not used in this way. Tis is a case o partial similarity where the English idiom has three distinct senses o which only one sense is shared by the ormally identical MSA idiom. Another example o partial IFFs is the English idiom head over heels and its MSA counterpart (lit., ‘a head over a heel’), which is a loan-translation o the English idiom. Head over heels has more than one sense. First, it can mean ‘in a state o reversal or utter conusion’. Second, it can mean ‘totally’ or ‘completely’ (especially in head over heels in love). It is only the second sense that is given by dictionaries which tend to give the current meanings rather than the historical ones, such as PDEI, CALD, and CCAL, which indicates that it is the more common o the two senses. Furthermore, in all the examples given in CCAL fivemillion-word corpus (based on the COBUILD Bank o English), the idiom is used in the sense o ‘alling in love with someone’. However, Arabic has taken up the earlier sense o the idiom (the sense o ‘complete reversal and conusion’) and lef out the currently more common one. Te English and MSA versions are thus IFFs in a twoold manner. First, there is a semantic area which they do not share. Second, the meaning which they share differs as regards current use in the two lan-
Idiomatic alse riends in English and Modern Standard Arabic
Te illogicality o the orm o this idiom in the sense o reversal has been noted in ODI. Since the normal position is or the head to be over the heels, it would be more logical to say heels over head i one wants to express the meaning o re versal and conusion. AHDI states that the idiom originated in the 14th century as heels over head , and meant literally ‘being upside down’. Te current orm ( head over heels) and the current meaning (‘being completely in love’) are much more recent. It is observed that the MSA calque observes the ordering o the English idiom, even though it is not logical. Tis affirms the arbitrariness and non-derivability o idiomatic expressions in general. Partial similarity is also present in the idiom conspiracy of silence, which has been calqued into MSA as (lit., ‘a conspiracy o silence’). Te English idiom means “an explicit agreement to keep something secret” (AHDI). Tis is also the only sense o the idiom given in MEDAL, where it is defined as “an agreement between people to keep secret acts that should be publicly known”. However, there is another, earlier sense which is now not very common in English. According to AHDI, this idiom “was first used as a complaint about lack o attention, but today it more ofen reers to remaining silent about something unavorable or criminal”. It is the ormer sense (deliberate lack o attention) which has been borrowed into MSA. Te explanation here is that MSA calqued the earlier meaning o the idiom, which then acquired a new sense that became more dominant in English but did not enter MSA. Partial alse riendship also occurs when there is a single orm in one language that corresponds to two orms in the other. Tis applies to the MSA idiom (lit., ‘a happy accident/event’), which ormally corresponds to the English idioms a happy accident and a happy event. Semantically, however, the MSA orm is only equivalent to a happy event , since both mean ‘the birth o a child’. As or the English idiom a happy accident , it means ‘an unplanned pregnancy’ (PDEI), and has no idiomatic equivalent in MSA. A urther pitall or the translator and the language learner is that the Arabic orm (‘accident/event) is more typically translated into accident than event , which is typically translated as (‘event’). Tis regularity is not observed in the case o (lit., ‘a happy accident/event’).
�.�.�. Cultural and stylistic IFFs In addition to the above types o alse riends, whose source is either ull or partial difference in meaning, there are some IFFs that display cultural or stylistic differences, even though they have the same idiomatic meaning. Similar idioms across languages can differ in such aspects as whether the idiom is ormal or inormal,
���
���
Ahmed Seddik Al-Wahy
crucial to the message being conveyed. Knowledge o such differences can help the translator choose the right rendition o the idiom being translated. Similarly, the language learner should be aware o such differences in order to avoid inappropriate use o idioms in the oreign language. Differences between English and Arabic cultures can lead to IFFs o the above type. One example is the English idiom to live in sin and its corresponding MSA (lit., ‘to live in the sin’). Both the English and MSA expressions carry the meaning o cohabitation outside the ramework o marriage. Te English version is labelled “inormal” in CED.According to AHDI, the English idiom, which dates rom the early 1800s, “is mostly used in jocular ashion today, when customs and views are more liberal in this regard”. By contrast, the MSA version is neither inormal nor jocular. Te “customs and views” o the Arabic speech community in this regard are not so liberal as they are in the western culture. It would not be appropriate to translate the English expression into its MSA counterpart i its SL context was used to express inormality or humorous usage. Most English and MSA similar idioms that differ in the degree o ormality are inormal or spoken in English but ormal or typically written in MSA. For instance, to liquidate someone (i.e., to kill him/her) is inormal in English (MEDAL), while the corresponding orm in MSA, (lit., ‘to liquidate someone’), is ormal and typical o written language, especially with reerence to eliminating political opponents. Te same applies to other pairs o lexico-grammatically identical idioms. Examples include the English over my dead body (which is described as “ofen used jokingly” (AHDI)), though its Arabic calque (lit., ‘over my dead body’) is not normally used jokingly, but is rather used to denote strong commitment not to allow something to happen. Also related to cultural differences are expressions which may be politically incorrect in one language but acceptable in another. For instance, the English idiomatic expression Red Indians is now regarded as offensive and politically incorrect (e.g. MEDAL, CED). Its MSA counterpart, (lit., ‘the Red Indians’) is not unacceptable in the MSA speech community. Tough the MSA version is originally a loan-translation o the English expression, it has not acquired the same connotations as the English original. Te expression that is preerred in English now is Native Americans, which is used to reer to the original inhabitants o America or their descendants. Te distinction does not exist in MSA, since its historical reasons are lacking in the Arab culture. A similar case is the English idiom the weaker sex and its MSA counterpart, (lit., ‘the weak sex’), which has also entered MSA via loan-translation.
Idiomatic alse riends in English and Modern Standard Arabic
the West, the MSA expression (lit., ‘the weak sex’) is so ar not generally regarded as offensive. Related to this is the English idiom the fair sex , which is regarded in English as “old-ashioned” (MEDAL). Te MSA translations ( (lit., ‘the delicate sex’) and (lit., ‘the air s ex’) are commonly acceptable. Another pair o cultural IFFs is the English man of the house and the MSA ormally equivalent expression (lit., ‘the man o the house’). While at the ormal and semantic levels the two expressions are equivalent, at the cultural level they display some difference. Te English version is now rather old ashioned (MEDAL), while the MSA version can still be used without sounding outdated. Te reason is that, in western culture, the role o the man as the only person responsible or earning the living and taking the important decision in the amily has diminished. Tis role is still the norm in the Arab world. Tereore, i an English writer intends to use the expression man of the house to play on its oldashioned connotations, an MSA translation would lose these connotations i it simply gave the literal equivalent. Te translator should resort to an expression that sounds equally old-ashioned in MSA, such as (lit., ‘the master o the house’) to convey the connotations intended by the English expression. It is relevant in this context to reer to expressions that, due to different cultural contexts, have the same orm and denotation in the two languages but differ as regards their reerential meaning. Semanticists contrast denotation and reerence as two types o meaning, where the ormer indicates the general class (o persons, things, etc.) represented by an expression while the latter indicates the actual entity (the actual person, thing, etc.) represented by the expression in a particular context (Palmer 1981: 18). It is occasionally the case that two expressions in English and MSA have the same denotation, but due to culture-specific eatures, their intended reerence in each language is different. Tis can be illustrated by the English expression weekend , which has been calqued into MSA as (lit., ‘the end o the week’). While the two expressions have the same denotation (generally, the last two days o the week, in which one does not go to work), the cultural context in which the expression is used determines its reerential meaning, i.e. the actual days to which the expression reers. Within the English speech community, the expression weekend normally reers to Saturday and Sunday (this is how the expression is defined in MEDAL, CCAL, CED, CALD), while in the MSA speech community, (‘the end o the week’) is typically Tursday and Friday or Friday and Saturday. Te same holds true or midweek and the MSA corresponding expression (lit., ‘middle o the week’). Tese phrases resemble deictic expressions, whose exact interpretation depends on the context o situation
���
���
Ahmed Seddik Al-Wahy
has two corresponding English phrases. Used literally and technically, it is equivalent to the English spinal column. Idiomatically, however, it can only be translated as backbone. Te choice is to be made by the translator working rom Arabic into English, since in English-into-Arabic translation the target expression is the same, whether it is interpreted literally or idiomatically. For instance, in He had a spinal column injury and Oil is the backbone of Saudi economy , the expressions spinal column and backbone will be translated into (lit., ‘the spinal column’). On the other hand, the MSA expression should have two English translations in the ollowing two sentences: (10)
.
‘Industry represents the backbone of the Qatari economy.’ ( Al-Watan, 10 Apr. 2005) (11)
.
‘He is perorming his duties just as he used to beore the spinal column injury.’ ( Al-Ahram, 10 Jul. 2004)
�.�. Unrelated IFFs As noted above, unrelated IFFs are those that appeared independently in the two languages concerned. Unlike related IFFs, they do not have their origin in borrowing, but simply happened to be identical in orm in the two languages. Teir identity o orm can cause them to be pitalls or translators and language learners. Unrelated IFFs are normally ull alse riends. Te English for your eyes only and the MSA (lit., ‘or your eyes’) belong to this type. Te English idiom means that the person being addressed is ‘allowed to only see something, such as a letter or a document’ (MEDAL). Te MSA idiom means ‘or your sake’ and implies that the addressee is so dear to the addressor that something is being done only exceptionally or him/her. An example is: (12) .
‘Te US has its own economic, political, and social interests, and does not work for the eyes of (=or the sake o) the movement or the government.’ ( Al-Rai Al-Am, 3 Apr. 2004) Similarly, to take one’s chances means to “accept the risks” or to “resign onesel to whatever happens”, whereas to take a chance means to “risk something” or to “gamble” (AHDI). Tis is entirely different rom the ormally similar MSA idioms
Idiomatic alse riends in English and Modern Standard Arabic
Other unrelated alse riends are the English white water and the MSA (lit., ‘white water’). According to CED, the expression white water has two meanings: “1. a stretch o water with a broken oamy surace, as in rapids. 2. light-coloured sea water, esp. over shoals or shallows”. Neither o these two meanings can be expressed by the MSA idiom, which is another, non-technical expression or the ophthalmologic disease ‘cataract’. It is interesting that cataract is also used in English or ‘waterall’ (MEDAL). Another clear example is the MSA idiom (lit. ‘a white night’), which has two different idiomatic meanings. One is taken rom the colloquial varieties, meaning ‘a happy night’. Te other, rarely used, sense is inherited rom Classical Arabic, and means ‘a night in which the moon is shining’. Te English counterpart, which is itsel a calque o the French une nuit blanche (see Fernando and Flavell 1981: 84), means ‘a sleepless night’. Tus the translator who encounters either the MSA or English expression should provide the semantic equivalent rather than the ormal one. Another pair o unrelated alse riends is rom the ootball terminology. Te MSA terminological idiom (lit., ‘the penalty point’) reers to what in English is known as penalty spot , which is the point in the penalty area rom which the ball is kicked when a oul is made in the penalty area o the deending team. Te English idiom penalty point , on the other hand, reers to ‘an endorsement on a driving license due to a motoring offence’ (CED). Tis is a total alse riend o the MSA idiom (lit., ‘the penalty point’), since both have the same orm but completely different meanings. Proper names can also be a source o IFFs. I a proper name used in an idiom has different connotations in two languages, the idiomatic expressions will be ull alse riends. One such example is the Cinderella of , meaning ‘the least admired’ (PDEI), which is quite the opposite o its meaning in MSA. Te appearance o these IFFs in English and MSA is not the result o language intererence. Te idioms are related only in source, both alluding to the tale o beautiul Cinderella, who is orced by her stepmother to do housework while her stepsisters spend the time partying. Tis tale seems to have lef different impressions on the Arab and English audiences. Te Arab audience seems to ocus on Cinderella’s beauty and good nature. Tis is clear rom the expression (‘the Cinderella o the screen’), which is used avourably to reer to a amous Arab actress. Te English audience, on the other hand, ocuses on the undeserved, bad treatment o Cinderella at the hands o her stepmother and stepsisters. Tis is also the sense in which the word Cinderella is used in some compounds, such as a Cinderella disease
���
���
Ahmed Seddik Al-Wahy
Where proper names are treated purely connotatively, e.g. ‘He is a Croesus’, ‘She is a Niobe’, the proper name is normally translated by its connotation, unless it also has the same sense in the L.
Some proper names have the same connotations in both English and Arabic (such as Romeo, Don Juan, and Job (as in the patience of Job). Cinderella, as has been seen, does not belong to this category. Tereore, the translator (whether working rom English into Arabic or vice versa) has to resort to paraphrase to provide the intended meaning in the SL. Language learners should also be made aware o this difference to assure clearer understanding and to avoid wrong use o the idiom in speech or writing.
�. Conclusion I idioms in general represent one o the most problematic areas or translators, idiomatic alse riends are doubly difficult. Unless he/she is aware o the different meanings and stylistic eatures o such idioms, the translator may assume that, since the SL and L idioms are identical in orm, they must also be identical in meaning and stylistic effect. Tis paper has proposed a general taxonomy or IFFs, which have been defined as pairs o set phrases that have the same literal meaning in two or more languages but have different idiomatic meanings or different cultural and stylistic conditions o use. According to the proposed taxonomy, IFFs all into two categories: related and unrelated. Related IFFs, which result rom language intererence, are usually partial, and they differ semantically or stylistically. Unrelated IFFs are those that have appeared independently in each language, and they are typically total alse riends. Most English and MSA IFFs are partial alse riends. In this case, there is one semantic area shared by the similar idioms in the two languages, while there is one or more other meanings that an idiom has in one language (usually MSA in our case) but not in the other. Te explanation suggested here is that many MSA idioms calqued rom English pick up only one o two or more meanings o the English idiom, leaving out the other(s), with the result o partial similarity. Generally, partial IFFs can be more deceptive than ull IFFs because in the ormer the meanings are usually so close that the context may not provide any clue or the right interpretation. Te examples given here suggest that partial IFFs have a pattern o semantic overlap in which the MSA idiom is included in the English one. One explanation is that the borrowed sense may have been common in English at the time o bor-
Idiomatic alse riends in English and Modern Standard Arabic
over a heal’) and conspiracy of silence / (lit., ‘a conspiracy o silence’) . Cultural considerations can also prevent the use o a borrowed idiom in one o its senses in the donor language. Tus, the religious meanings o to see the light have not been included in the MSA (lit., ‘to see the light’). In addition, the presence o a homonymous orm can lead to the use o the idiom in two senses in the donor language. When such an idiom is calqued into another language, only one sense o the homonymous orm is used in the calque and the other sense is lef out. Tis is the case in the English expressions an elastic term and blind trust. Tese are the main actors that can lead to partial idiomatic alse riends in the light o the English and MSA idiomatic expressions discussed above. Like most studies on alse riends, the present contribution is applicable to a variety o language-related fields. Primarily, it has its implications or translation studies and language learning, since the recognition o IFFs is essential or the right interpretation and production o idiomatic orms and or avoiding communication breakdown. Te results o the study are also applicable to other fields, such as lexicography, semantics, and sociolinguistics. In addition, urther research on IFFs in other language pairs is needed or testing the universality o the taxonomy proposed in this study.
References
Books and articles Baker, Mona. 1992. In Other Words: A Coursebook on ranslation. London: Routledge. xii+304 pp. Butler, Christopher. 2003. “Multi-word sequences and their relevance or recent models o unctional grammar”. Functions of Language 10: 2.179–208. Chamízo Domínguez, Pedro. J. and Brigitte Nerlich. 2002. “False riends: Teir origin and semantics in some selected languages”. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1833–1849. Cornell, Alan. 1999. “Idioms: An approach to identiying major pitalls or learners”. IRAL 37: 1.1–22. Ferguson, Ronnie. 1994. Italian False Friends. oronto: University o oronto Press. xi+123 pp. Fernando, Chitra and Roger Flavell. 1981. On Idiom: Critical Views and Perspectives. Exeter Linguistic Studies. Ed. R. R. K. Hartmann. Exeter: University o Exeter. iii+94 pp. Granger, Sylviane and Helen Swallow. 1988. “False riends: A kaleidoscope o translation difficulties”. Le langage et l’homme 23: 2.108–20. Keysar, Boaz and Bridget Martin Bly. 1999. “Swimming against the current: Do idioms reflect conceptual structure?” Journal of Pragmatics 31: 1559–1578. Newmark, Peter. 1982. Approaches to ranslation. Oxord: Pergamon Press. xiii+200 pp.
���
���
Ahmed Seddik Al-Wahy
Nida, Eugene. 1964/2004. “Principles o correspondence”. InTe ranslation Studies Reader. 2nd ed. Ed. Lawrence Venuti, 153–67. New York: Routledge. Palmer, F. R. 1981. Semantics. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. viii+221 pp. Sinclair, John. 1987. “Collocation: a progress report”. In Language opics: Essays in Honour of Michael Halliday. Ed. Ross Steele and erry Treadgold. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Vol. II: 319–33. Sinclair, John. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxord: Oxord University Press. xviii + 179 pp. Stubbs, Michael. 2002. Words and Phrases: Corpus Studies of Lexical Semantics. Oxord: Blackwell. xix+200 pp. Vinay, Jean Paul and Jean Darbelnet (1995/2004). “A methodology or translation”. rans. J. C. Sager and M.-J. Hamel. In Te ranslation Studies Reader. 2nd ed. Ed. L. Venuti, 128–37. New York: Routledge. Wray, Alison. 2002. Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. xi + 332 pp.
Dictionaries AHDI. Te American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms. 1997. Christine Ammer. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. v+729 pp. BEI. A Book of English Idioms. 1958. 3rd ed. V. K. Collins. London: Longman. xiii+258 pp. CALD. Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. 2003. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. xii+1550 pp. CCAL. Collins COBUILD Advanced Learner’s English Dictionary . 2003. Glasgow: Harper Collins. xxiv+1712+30 pp. CED. Collins English Dictionary . 2003. 6th ed. Glasgow: Harper Collins. xvi+1872 pp. DFF. A Dictionary of False Friends. 1982. Robert Hill. London: Macmillan Press. viii+319 pp. MEDAL. Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners. 2002. Oxord: Macmillan. xiv+1692 pp. ODI. Te Oxford Dictionary of Idioms. 1999. Ed. Jennier Speake. Oxord: Oxord University Press. iv+395 pp. PDEI. Te Penguin Dictionary of English Idioms. 2001. Ed. Daphne M.Gulland and David HindsHowell. London: Penguin. vii+378 pp.
Arabic reerences .
.
:
.
.
.
(Dawood, Mohamed. 2003. Dictionary o Idioms in Contemporary Arabic. Cairo: Gharib. 687 pp.)
Abstract
Idiomatic alse riends in English and Modern Standard Arabic
differ as regards their idiomatic meaning or their sociolinguistic and stylistic eatures. Te study proposes a taxonomy or IFFs based on data rom English and Arabic, though it may also apply to IFFs in other language pairs. In the case o English and Arabic, IFFs are either related (typically partial) or unrelated (typically total). Related IFFs have their origin in loan-translation, with idioms being borrowed rom English into Arabic and then taking a different course o semantic development in each language. Tere are also cases in which the selection o a single sense o a polysemous idiom can be attributed to social and cultural actors. It is shown that, i idioms in general are among the most challenging units or translators, IFFs can be doubly difficult. Te translator may assume that since the source and target language idioms have the same orm, they can also have the same meaning or stylistic eatures.
Résumé Cet article examine les aux amis idiomatiques, dans deux langues n’ayant aucune parenté génétique, l’anglais et l’arabe. Les aux amis idiomatiques sont définis comme des syntagmes fixes dans deux langues. Leur signification littérale est la même mais ils diffèrent par leur signification idiomatique ou leurs caractéristiques sociolinguistiques et stylistiques. L’étude propose une taxonomie pour les aux amis idiomatiques, basée sur des données de l’anglais et de l’arabe, bien qu’elle puisse également s’appliquer à des aux amis idiomatiques dans d’autres combinaisons linguistiques. Dans le cas de l’anglais et de l’arabe, les aux amis idiomatiques sont soit apparentés (typiquement partiels), soit non apparentés (typiquement totaux). Les aux amis idiomatiques apparentés trouvent leur origine dans une traduction d’emprunt, des idiomes étant empruntés à l’anglais par l’arabe avant de suivre une voie de développement sémantique différente dans chaque langue. Dans certains cas, la sélection d’un seul sens pour un idiome polysémique peut être attribuée à des acteurs sociaux et culturels. L’article montre que si les idiomes en général comptent parmi les unités les plus complexes pour les traducteurs, les aux amis idiomatiques peuvent être doublement difficiles. Le traducteur peut supposer que puisque les idiomes ont la même orme dans la langue source et la langue cible, ils peuvent également avoir la même signification ou les mêmes caractéristiques stylistiques.
About the author Dr. Ahmed Seddik Al-Wahy is associate proessor o Linguistics, Faculty o Languages (Al-Alsun), Ain Shams University, Cairo. He also worked as assistant proessor o Linguistics, Riyadh Community College, King Saud University (2003–6). He has published a number o translations, articles and book reviews in English and Arabic. His research interests include translation studies, phraseology, lexicography, and comparative linguistics. Address: Dept. o English, College o Languages (Al-Alsun), Ain Shams University, Abbassia, Cairo, Egypt. E-mail :
[email protected];
[email protected]
���
