Idiomatic false friends in English

and Modern Standard Arabic

AhmedSeddik Al-Wahy
Ain Shams University

1. Introduction
The concept of false friends (or faux amis, as they are also called) is one of the
most widely discussed in translation studies and language learning. Though there
is much literature on false friends between European languages, nothing much
has been written on false friends in English and Arabic. Reasons for such lack of
sufficient studies are understandable. First, the study of false friends has generally been associated with genetically related languages, where cognate terms in
different languages can semantically diverge from their original senses and from
each others course of development. English and Arabic are not genetically related, since they belong to the Indo-European and Semitic families, respectively.
Second, the writing systems used in the two languages are totally different. Thus,
accidental similarity in form due to orthographic factors, which constitutes the
source of many false friends among languages using the same orthographic system, is lacking with reference to English and Arabic. False friends have also been
typically associated with single words, though the concept of false friends is in
itself applicable to multi-word units and even grammatical constructions. Although a number of researchers have dealt with different aspects of idioms in
English and Arabic, the topic of idiomatic false friends in the two languages has
not been covered.
The present paper is based on the assumption that false friends are neither
confined to cognate languages nor to single words. The study examines false
friends in two genetically unrelated languages (English and Modern Standard
Arabic (MSA)), with special reference to multi-word units rather than single
words. Recent research in linguistics, particularly in phraseology and corpus linguistics, has shown that set phrases of different kinds represent a greater proportion of the language people use than was previously assumed (e.g. Stubbs 2002,
Wray 2002, Butler 2003). It is normal, given such developments, that researchers
in semantics and translation studies shift their attention from the rank of single
Babel 55:2 (2009), 101123. Fdration des Traducteurs (fit) Revue Babel
doi 10.1075/babel.55.2.01wah issn 05219744 e-issn 15699668

102 AhmedSeddik Al-Wahy

words to the higher rank of set phrases. Of the different types of set phrases, the
focus of the study is on idiomatic false friends (IFFs) in English and MSA.
The methodology adopted in the study is contrastive and taxonomic. The
study proposes a general taxonomy for IFFs and then applies it to English and
MSA. Different types of IFFs in English and MSA are contrasted to show the semantic or socio-stylistic aspects of difference between them. The study has as its
theoretical framework the Sinclairian distinction between the open choice principle and the idiom principle, which are both required for the production of normal texts (Sinclair 1987; 1991). The open choice principle states that at each point
where a unit is completed (a word or a phrase or a clause), a large range of choice
opens up and the only restraint is that of grammaticalness (Sinclair 1991: 109).
According to this principle, a text is a series of slots, each of which can be filled
with virtually any word from the lexicon, provided that the result is a grammatical
structure. The idiom principle is that a language user has available to him or her a
large number of 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, follow the idiom principle.

2. Definitions
False friends are generally defined in terms of similarity and difference: they are
usually defined as words that are similar in form but different in meaning. Both
in translation studies and in language learning, false friends have typically been
associated with pairs of words rather than phrases. Nida (1964/2004: 157), for
instance, defines false friends as borrowed or cognate words which seem to be
equivalent but are not always so. Newmark (1982: 162) deals with false friends in
terms of language interference, which he describes as the translators worst problem, as it is the language learners. Language interference is responsible for creating new senses for existing words, which can ultimately result in the presence of
false friends in cognate languages. The examples given by Newmark are of English
words that can have other meanings when used in other languages like French or
German. Instead of facilitating communication among speakers of such languages,
the formal similarity between false friends makes them more opaque and nonmotivated than strictly opaque words.
According to Chamzo Domnguez and Nerlich (2002: 1834), false friends are
words that seem to be the same or at least very similar, in form and meaning, but
in reality are not. False friends have also been defined as pairs or groups of words
occurring in two or more languages which look and/or sound very similar to each

Idiomatic false friends in English and Modern Standard Arabic  103

other but differ to varying degrees in meaning (Nicholls 2002: 1). This last definition highlights the fact that there are degrees of difference in meaning in false
friends, ranging between total and partial semantic dissimilarity.
Other related terms are sometimes used in the literature on language interference, such as deceptive cognates and false cognates. Granger and Swallow, for
instance, use the term deceptive cognates in free alternation with false friends,
defining both as referring to those pairs of words which are etymologically related, similar in form but semantically divergent (Granger and Swallow 1988:
108). This is also the position of Ferguson (1994), who confines false friends to
deceptive cognates, excluding any other cases of formal similarity and semantic
differences from the range of false friends. In Fergusons (1994: x) view, false
friends are correctly defined as deceptive cognates. The argument given to support this view is that it excludes cases of accidental similarity between words in
different languages, which resemble cases of homonymy in a single language, and
which are unlikely to cause confusion among language learners. The term deceptive cognates differs from false friends in that it assumes that the words in question are etymologically related. The term false friends 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 for
the present study since the forms being contrasted are not necessarily cognate
forms. As for the term false cognates, it refers to words that are thought to be related in terms of their linguistic origin, while in actual fact they are not. This particularly occurs in languages that are closely related genetically, such as English
and German or French and Italian.
Though English and Arabic are not genetically related languages, cultural contact between the two languages has led to the presence of false friends of different
types, both lexical and idiomatic. The term lexical false friends is used here to
refer 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 false friends, they are limited in number compared with those between English
and French or German, for instance. Though the main concern of the present paper is with idiomatic false friends, it is relevant to illustrate the presence of lexical
false friends in English and MSA by some examples. The Arabic loanword
(smoking), for instance, is quoted in Hills Dictionary of False Friends (DFF ) as a
false friend of the English word smoking, since the word in Arabic is used to refer
to the kind of garment known in British English as dinner jacket. Some pseudoanglicisms, such as ( auto-stop), (assumingly from the English auto-stop,
and used to refer to what in English is known as hitch-hiking), have also appeared
in spoken Arabic. Such false friends and pseudo-anglicisms probably have their

104 AhmedSeddik Al-Wahy

origin in indirect loans (i.e. words borrowed from 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 of limiting false friends to single words, a more general definition is
suggested here that allows for including set phrases and structures of different
types. This definition also includes non-semantic features in which similar expressions can be different:
Definition 1
False friends are expressions that have the same or similar forms in different languages but have different meanings or different sociolinguistic
or stylistic features.
This definition has the advantage of providing an accurate framework for dealing
with idioms, which, as multi-word expressions, display a peculiar form-meaning
relationship. Idioms are exceptions among other combinations of words, whose
meanings can be deduced from the meanings of individual words. Seen more generally, however, they are in consistency with the principle of arbitrariness of language. Just as there is normally nothing natural about the way sounds combine
together to make meaningful units (morphemes), so words in idioms combine
together to form unpredictable meanings. Following is the definition of idioms
adopted here:
Definition 2
Idioms are set phrases whose meanings cannot be derived from the literal meanings of 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 of meaning: they potentially have a literal
meaning and an idiomatic one. The relation between an idiom and its idiomatic meaning is arbitrary and conventionalized in the speech community. Idioms,
therefore, often reflect aspects of the culture in which they emerge. As in lexical
false friends, IFFs are similar in form but different in meaning. The following definition is proposed for IFFs:
Definition 3
Idiomatic false friends (IFFs) are pairs of set phrases that have the same
literal meaning in two languages but differ as regards their idiomatic
meaning or their sociolinguistic and stylistic features.

Idiomatic false friends in English and Modern Standard Arabic  105

3. Review of literature on idioms and false friends

The possibility of having idiomatic false friends has been recognized by a number
of phraseologists and translation studies theorists. For instance, Vinay and Darbelnet (1995/2004: 130) observe that fixed calques may become an integral part
of the borrowing language after a period of time and may undergo some semantic change, turning them into faux amis. Similarly, Fernando and Flavell observe that lexical and structural similarity of expressions across languages does
not necessarily entail correlation of meaning. As they put it, the faux amis beloved of textbook writers are to be found as much among idioms as in single lexical items (Fernando and Flavell 1981: 83). Though Baker does not use the terms
false friends or faux amis, she observes that superficially identical or similar
idioms which have different meanings in the source and the target languages lay
easy traps for the unwary translator who is not familiar 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 false
friends, though their main concern remains with a single word within an idiom
rather than the idiom in its entirety. Stubbs (2002: 1858) shows that the semantic
changes that can occur to loan-words may lead to the formation of false friends.
Though he refers to collocations, it is only to show how loan-words can have new
meanings in the borrowing language by focusing on the context of 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 refers to cases where the
loan-word in a collocation acquires a meaning that is different from 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 Tories are to blitz seats in Scotland (Stubbs 2002: 186). This is different from the treatment of false friends in
the present study, which is concerned with the different interpretations of entire
idioms in two languages.
Similarly, while Chamzo Domnguez and Nerlich deal with the relationship
between idioms and false friends, their main focus is on single words. In their
study, they refer to words which are not false friends at all when they are considered in isolation, but which become false friends when they are part of an idiom
(Chamzo Domnguez and Nerlich 2002: 1845). Their concern, therefore, is with
idioms in one language that can be misleading to the non-native speaker of that
language because they can be understood literally and not idiomatically. Most

106 AhmedSeddik Al-Wahy

i dioms, according to this understanding, would include false friends, since words
in idioms rarely keep their ordinary, literal sense which they have in other combinations. This, again, is different from 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 false friends, IFFs can cause problems for translators, who may be
inclined to impose on them the meanings and stylistic features which such expressions have in the target language. It is important, therefore, to recognize different
types of IFFs in different language pairs. The recognition of IFFs is also important
for language teaching, since they can be a source of communication breakdown
between language learners and native speakers. While for Cornell the main problem that idioms present for the language learner is semantic opacity, he suggests
that parallels between idiomatic expressions in the learners source language and
target language can play a role in the process of language learning. In most cases,
this role is a positive one, since similarity of idioms between languages can facilitate learning, though there are cases in which superficially similar idioms have different meanings, which can hinder communication. However, he believes that it
would be an exaggeration to say that such false friend idioms are very many in
number, and that a greater problem is presented by idioms that have a substantial measure of similarity but enough divergence to make the task of memorization significant (Cornell 1999: 910). This may be true of etymologically related
languages (like English and German, with which Cornell is concerned), but in the
language pair discussed here, IFFs outnumber lexical false friends. They represent
pitfalls for the language learner as well as the translator, hence the importance of
recognizing the differences between them in the two languages.

4. Idioms and multiple meanings

The presence of IFFs among different languages is mainly due to the semantic peculiarities that characterise idiomatic expressions. Reference has been made to the
semantic duality of idioms, by virtue of which an idiom can have both a literal and
an idiomatic meaning. Apart from this duality, which is typical of all idioms, an
idiom can potentially have more than one idiomatic meaning, some of which are
related (with a situation resembling polysemy in single words) and some unrelated (with a situation resembling homonymy). An example of the former case is at
home, which can mean ready to receive a visitor (as in We are always at home for
our neighbours), or comfortable and familiar (as in Ive never been at home with
his style of management) (AHDI). An example of the latter is charge with, meaning either impose a duty or task on, (as in He was charged with getting his message

Idiomatic false friends in English and Modern Standard Arabic  107

to the commissioners), or accuse of , (as in He was charged with creating a disturbance) (AHDI).
Accordingly, the ambiguity of idioms is not only a theoretical assumption but
also an actual fact 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. The corresponding Arabic idiom
(lit., in the dark) means only in secrecy. Such idioms would be considered transparent by the native speakers of each language. This again proves that transparency is not determined by the lexical or grammatical structure of 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 of some psychological research
on the comprehension of 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 of the language in question happen to assign to
it. Keysar and Bly argue that judgements of the transparency or opacity of 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 of 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
of the idiom. The reason why native speakers would regard any different interpretation of idioms as opaque is that they already know what the idiom actually means;
for idioms could have transparently meant the opposite of what they mean if
they did not have the current idiomatic meaning (Keysar and Bly, 1999: 1566).

5. A taxonomy for idiomatic false friends

Given the diversity of IFFs, it is useful to classify them into different categories
based on the different ways they relate to each other in the language pair in which
they occur. The taxonomy of IFFs proposed here is based on evidence from English and MSA, but it can also apply to pairs of 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
both languages are taken from one source or because one of the idioms was borrowed from one language into the other through calque, or loan-translation, but
then each idiomatic expression in the language pair acquired a different meaning

108 AhmedSeddik Al-Wahy

IFFs

Related

Semantic

Total

Unrelated (typically total)

Cultural and stylistic (typically partial)

Partial

Figure 1. A general classification for idiomatic false friends

or a different kind of use. Most related IFFs are partial false friends: 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 of difference between related
IFFs. Even those related IFFs that show total semantic similarity can differ as regards their cultural or stylistic aspects of use. Where such aspects are crucial for
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 false friends.
Unrelated IFFs are those that developed independently in the two languages
concerned, without there being a common source for the idiom or any influence
from either language on the other. Similarity in form in unrelated IFFs is merely
accidental. The IFFs belonging to this category are typically total false friends: their
idiomatic meanings in the two languages are typically different. The only kind of
meaning they have in common is the literal meaning. These are similar to what
Chamizo Dominguez and Nerlich call chance false friends. This term, however,
is not used here, first, because it has been suggested for single-word false friends as
defined by Chamizo Dominguez and Nerlich (2002: 1836), and, second, because it
is opposed to semantic false friends, 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 false friends is opposed to cultural and stylistic
false friends. The classification of IFFs proposed here is illustrated by F
igure1.

5.1. Related IFFs

Most English and MSA IFFs belong to this category. As will be seen from the
examples below, the source of such idioms is language interference, represented

Idiomatic false friends in English and Modern Standard Arabic  109

by MSA borrowing from English through loan-translation. They are divided here
into two types: semantic IFFs (which are either total or partial) and cultural and
stylistic IFFs (which are typically partial). Each of these types is discussed below.

5.1.1. Total IFFs: Calques with a change of meaning

MSA has calqued a large number of idiomatic expressions from English. Though
most of these calques are used in the same sense as they are in the English language, some of them have acquired a different meaning in the MSA speech community. Sometimes in this kind of semantic change the shift is towards a more
transparent meaning of the expression. This kind of change toward a more literal
meaning is present in ( lit., moment of truth), an MSA idiom that was
calqued from English with a change of meaning. The 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 if something has succeeded or happened. The origin of this idiom may also shed light on the way it is used in English.
This idiom is originally a loan-translation of the Spanish expression el momento de
la verdad (lit., the moment of truth), which signifies the point in a bullfight when
the matador makes the kill (AHDI). In MSA, the meaning is more transparent;
it refers to a moment when one is honest with oneself 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. This is shown by the following example:1

(1) .
Furthermore, at a moment of truth (= at a moment of honesty and candidness), Bush admitted that he had distorted the beautiful image of
America. (Al-Ahram 20 Jan. 2005)

Similarly, the idiom to pull someones 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 of his legs is pulled back (AHDI). BEI gives two meanings
of this idiom: to say something that (1) befools, deceives, or is intended to deceive, a person; or (2) is not intended to be taken seriously: a sort of joke. According to PDEI, the idiom means to play a joke on someone, to tell someone a misleading story that momentarily shocks or frightens 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. The corresponding MSA idiom ( lit., to pull someones leg) refers to tricking someone into doing something, usually by dishonest means, as in
1. In this and the following examples, the literal translation of the MSA idiom in question is
given in italics, while its idiomatic meaning is provided between brackets.

110 AhmedSeddik Al-Wahy

( lit., to pull the customers 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) :
The Arab resident pulled the citizens leg (=implicated the citizen) during
the investigation, saying, He is my accomplice in drug-dealing. (Al-Rai
Al-Aam, 22 Oct. 2004)

(3) 
.
The Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu managed to pull the leg
of (= to cunningly persuade) his ex-Minister of Foreign Affairs, David
Levi, to the government once again. (Al-Bayan, 6 Nov. 1998)

Baker (1992: 67) observes that the idiom to pull someones leg is identical on the
surface 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. This usage is colloquial and its meaning is different from the MSA
version ( lit., to pull someones leg) referred to above. It is also different from the Colloquial Egyptian idiom ( lit., to bring someones leg),
whose meaning is similar to the MSA version. Bakers 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 someones feet. This idiom refers to removing all support and assistance from someone,
usually suddenly (AHDI). The expression metaphorically illustrates a situation in
which a rug is pulled suddenly from under someone standing on it, with the expected result of his/her falling down. PDEIs definition of the idiom is to take
ones opponent by surprise by suddenly depriving him of his advantage. Both
definitions have the idea of surprise action to the effect of depriving someone of
some advantage. This 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. The MSA version, ( lit.
to pull the rug from under someones legs), is defined in an MSA monolingual
dictionary of idioms as to remove someone from a position of influence and take
his place (Dawood 2003 [my translation]). The MSA loan-translation does not
have the same meaning as its source language idiom. While the English idiom focuses on sudden removal of advantages, the MSA version highlights the idea of
replacement of the advantage in favour of the party that pulls the rug. The MSA

Idiomatic false friends in English and Modern Standard Arabic  111

idiom is also often used with reference to non-human entities, which is a case of
personification since the metaphor in the idiom is associated with human entities.
The idea of replacement is present in the following example:

(4) .
In addition, I dont agree to the often-made claim that television has
pulled the rug from under (= has taken the place of) the radio. (Al-Watan,
11 Nov. 2003)

The same idea applies to the English idiom to lose ones nerve, which has almost
the same lexical and grammatical structure as the MSA ( lit., to lose ones
nerves), the only difference being that the MSA form uses the plural of the noun
( nerve). Though the MSA version is a loan-translation of the English idiom,
the two idioms differ in meaning: while the English idiom means to be frightened
or to lose ones courage or audacity to do something, the MSA idiom means to
lose self-control or to give way to ones anger. According to AHDI, the English
expression employs the word nerve in the sense of 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. The corresponding MSA noun
( nerve) is not used in this sense. A translator working from Arabic into English, therefore, should not translate ( lit., to lose ones nerves) into the superficially similar idiom to lose ones nerve. A more appropriate idiom would be to
lose ones temper, since it has the same idiomatic meaning as the MSA expression.
On the other hand, a translator working from English into Arabic should not use
the MSA idiom as a translation equivalent for the English lose ones nerve. A more
appropriate rendition would be ( lit., to lose control of ones heart),
which is used idiomatically to mean lose ones 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) 
.
The US Secretary of State Collin Powell lost his nerves (=lost his temper)
and his calm while defending the decision of the US President George
Bush to invade Iraq. (Al-Watan, 13 Feb. 2004)

The above cases of IFFs affirm the idea that when an expression is borrowed into a
foreign language, it can develop a new sense that the expression does not have in
the donor language. This has been observed with reference to lexical false friends
(e.g. Stubbs 2002), but has been shown here to apply to idioms as well.

112

AhmedSeddik Al-Wahy

5.1.2. Partial IFFs: Calques of a single meaning

This category includes related IFFs which share one meaning but differ in one
or more other meanings. In most of these cases, an English idiom with multiple
meanings is calqued into MSA but used in only one of 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. This shift from polysemy to monosemy is typical of most partial IFFs in English and MSA.
A case in point is the English idiom blind trust. The form trust has two distinct
senses, resulting in two different meanings of this set phrase. The word trust can
mean either confidence in someones honesty or reliability or money or property that someone manages for 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). Thus, 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 politicians private capital, making sure that there is no
link between policy and donation, and thus preventing a conflict of interest. It is
only this recent meaning of the idiom that is cited by CED, MEDAL, and CCD. As
far as MSA is concerned, the corresponding form ( lit., blind trust) is used
only in the sense of blind faith. The two forms can be distinguished grammatically
on the grounds that trust is uncountable if the idiom means blind faith 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 refers
to the featured story in a magazine that concerns the illustration on the cover.
In another, less frequent sense, a cover story is a false story intended to mislead
or deceive or an alibi (AHDI). There is no MSA idiomatic equivalent to this
latter sense, though the former sense is normally translated into the MSA
( lit., the cover topic), which cannot refer to a false story or an alibi. Two
points are worth referring to here. First, the word story in the sense of 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 of a magazine or
something that conceals the truth, which are translated into MSA as ( cover)
and ( cover), respectively. It is this kind of polysemy that causes false friendship between the MSA expression and the English idiom in the second sense.
Another pair of partial false friends is the English see the light and its MSA
formal equivalent ( lit., to see the light). According to AHDI, the English

Idiomatic false friends in English and Modern Standard Arabic  113

idiom means understand or begin to understand something or see the merits of

anothers explanation or decision, and has its origin in the idea of religious conversion, 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 beliefs. The English idiom can also be regarded as a shortened version of 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 refer to an
idea or a project that starts to be realized (Dawood 2003). This use is illustrated by
the following example:

(7) .
They did not forget his benevolence to them and support of many of
their [literary] works, which saw the light (= came into existence) by virtue of his sponsoring and encouragement. (Al-Ahram, 24 Jan. 2005)

(8) 
.
He presented me with The Memoirs of Fakhry Bek Abdul-Nour, the book
which saw the light (=came into existence) by virtue of his dedication,
keenness on politics, and loyalty to his great fathers message. (Al-Ahram,
22 May 2003)

If a form used in the idiom has two distinct meanings related by homonymy,
this can lead to different meanings of the same expression within one language.
Since homonymous words do not normally have the same form when translated
into another language, a loan translation of such an idiom will result in partial
idiomatic false friendship. This applies to the English idiom an elastic term. The
word term can mean a word or expression, especially when used in a particular
field or a division of the academic year in schools and universities. Thus, PDEI
(2001) provides two unrelated meanings of this idiom, which can be attributed to
the homonymy relation between the above senses of term. With reference to academic life, 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). The word
(term) corresponds to the English term in the sense of word or expression used
in a particular field, but not in the sense of division of the academic year, which
is translated into Arabic as ( lit., a study term). The kind of difficulty
this situation may cause to translators or language learners is unidirectional. If
the translation is being done from Arabic into English, there is no difficulty particularly associated with this idiomatic expression, since there is only one English

114 AhmedSeddik Al-Wahy

form corresponding to the Arabic idiom. If, on the other hand, the translation is
from English into Arabic, the translator should pay special attention to the exact
meaning of the idiom, since the Arabic calque corresponds to only one of the two
senses of the idiom. Sentence 9 is typical of the MSA use of the idiom:

(9)
Under the current circumstances, this is an elastic term; for 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). The
English idiom is given two distinct meanings in AHDI. The first, at or almost at
the same time, overlaps with the MSA version, though even in this sense the two
forms are not identical. The Arabic idiom is used to refer 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 of one person saying contradictory things
at the same time. AHDIs example is Ed complains about having too much homework and in the same breath talks about going out every night. This meaning of the
idiom is not included in the MSA version. The 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 Karens a good runner, but you cant speak of her in the same breath as
an Olympic athlete. Again, the MSA idiom is not used in this way. This is a case of
partial similarity where the English idiom has three distinct senses of which only
one sense is shared by the formally identical MSA idiom.
Another example of partial IFFs is the English idiom head over heels and its
MSA counterpart ( lit., a head over a heel), which is a loan-translation
of the English idiom. Head over heels has more than one sense. First, it can mean
in a state of reversal or utter confusion. 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 of the two senses. Furthermore, in all the examples given in CCAL five-
million-word corpus (based on the COBUILD Bank of English), the idiom is used
in the sense of falling in love with someone. However, Arabic has taken up the
earlier sense of the idiom (the sense of complete reversal and confusion) and left
out the currently more common one. The English and MSA versions are thus IFFs
in a twofold 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 languages. While ( lit., a head over a heel) has currency in MSA, the English idiom in the sense of in a state of reversal is not as common as it is in the
sense of completely in love.

Idiomatic false friends in English and Modern Standard Arabic  115

The illogicality of the form of this idiom in the sense of reversal has been noted in ODI. Since the normal position is for the head to be over the heels, it would
be more logical to say heels over head if one wants to express the meaning of reversal and confusion. AHDI states that the idiom originated in the 14th century as
heels over head, and meant literally being upside down. The current form (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 of the English
idiom, even though it is not logical. This affirms the arbitrariness and non-derivability of 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 of silence). The English
idiom means an explicit agreement to keep something secret (AHDI). This is
also the only sense of the idiom given in MEDAL, where it is defined as an agreement between people to keep secret facts 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 of attention,
but today it more often refers to remaining silent about something unfavorable or
criminal. It is the former sense (deliberate lack of attention) which has been borrowed into MSA. The explanation here is that MSA calqued the earlier meaning of
the idiom, which then acquired a new sense that became more dominant in English but did not enter MSA.
Partial false friendship also occurs when there is a single form in one language
that corresponds to two forms in the other. This applies to the MSA idiom
( lit., a happy accident/event), which formally corresponds to the English idioms a happy accident and a happy event. Semantically, however, the MSA form is
only equivalent to a happy event, since both mean the birth of a child. As for the
English idiom a happy accident, it means an unplanned pregnancy (PDEI), and
has no idiomatic equivalent in MSA. A further pitfall for the translator and the language learner is that the Arabic form ( accident/event) is more typically translated into accident than event, which is typically translated as ( event). This
regularity is not observed in the case of ( lit., a happy accident/event).

5.1.3. Cultural and stylistic IFFs

In addition to the above types of false friends, whose source is either full 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 formal or informal,
technical or non-technical, dated or modern, humorous or serious, politically correct or incorrect, and so on. Therefore, direct translation of such idioms from one
language into another would cause change or loss of such aspects, which could be

116 AhmedSeddik Al-Wahy

crucial to the message being conveyed. Knowledge of such differences can help the
translator choose the right rendition of the idiom being translated. Similarly, the
language learner should be aware of such differences in order to avoid inappropriate use of idioms in the foreign language.
Differences between English and Arabic cultures can lead to IFFs of 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 of cohabitation outside the framework of marriage. The English version is labelled informal in CED. According to AHDI, the English idiom, which
dates from the early 1800s, is mostly used in jocular fashion today, when customs
and views are more liberal in this regard. By contrast, the MSA version is neither
informal nor jocular. The customs and views of 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 if its SL
context was used to express informality or humorous usage.
Most English and MSA similar idioms that differ in the degree of formality are
informal or spoken in English but formal or typically written in MSA. For instance,
to liquidate someone (i.e., to kill him/her) is informal in English (MEDAL), while
the corresponding form in MSA, ( lit., to liquidate someone), is formal and typical of written language, especially with reference to eliminating political opponents. The same applies to other pairs of lexico-grammatically identical
idioms. Examples include the English over my dead body (which is described as
often 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 idio
matic 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. Though the MSA version is originally a loan-translation of the English expression, it has not acquired the same connotations as the English original. The expression that is preferred in English now is
Native Americans, which is used to refer to the original inhabitants of America or
their descendants. The 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.
The English expression, which appeared before movements of equality between
men and women, is now regarded as both old-fashioned and offensive (MEDAL). Since feminist movements in the Arab world are not as strong as they are in

Idiomatic false friends in English and Modern Standard Arabic  117

the West, the MSA expression ( lit., the weak sex) is so far not generally regarded as offensive. Related to this is the English idiom the fair sex, which is regarded in English as old-fashioned (MEDAL). The MSA translations (
(lit., the delicate sex) and ( lit., the fair sex) are commonly acceptable.
Another pair of cultural IFFs is the English man of the house and the MSA
formally equivalent expression ( lit., the man of the house). While at the
formal and semantic levels the two expressions are equivalent, at the cultural level they display some difference. The English version is now rather old fashioned
(MEDAL), while the MSA version can still be used without sounding outdated.
The reason is that, in western culture, the role of the man as the only person responsible for earning the living and taking the important decision in the family has diminished. This role is still the norm in the Arab world. Therefore, if an
English writer intends to use the expression man of the house to play on its oldfashioned connotations, an MSA translation would lose these connotations if it
simply gave the literal equivalent. The translator should resort to an expression
that sounds equally old-fashioned in MSA, such as ( lit., the master of the
house) to convey the connotations intended by the English expression.
It is relevant in this context to refer to expressions that, due to different cultural contexts, have the same form and denotation in the two languages but differ
as regards their referential meaning. Semanticists contrast denotation and reference as two types of meaning, where the former indicates the general class (of 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 features, their
intended reference in each language is different. This can be illustrated by the English expression weekend, which has been calqued into MSA as ( lit., the
end of the week). While the two expressions have the same denotation (generally, the last two days of the week, in which one does not go to work), the cultural
context in which the expression is used determines its referential meaning, i.e. the
actual days to which the expression refers. Within the English speech community,
the expression weekend normally refers to Saturday and Sunday (this is how the
expression is defined in MEDAL, CCAL, CED, CALD), while in the MSA speech
community, ( the end of the week) is typically Thursday and Friday or
Friday and Saturday. The same holds true for midweek and the MSA corresponding expression ( lit., middle of the week). These phrases resemble
deictic expressions, whose exact interpretation depends on the context of situation
in which they occur.
The presence of technical and non-technical uses of a single form can also lead
to IFFs. By way of illustration, the Arabic form ( lit., the spinal column)

118

AhmedSeddik 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. The choice is to be made by the translator working from 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
following two sentences:
(10) .
Industry represents the backbone of the Qatari economy. (Al-Watan,
10Apr. 2005)
(11) .
He is performing his duties just as he used to before the spinal column
injury. (Al-Ahram, 10 Jul. 2004)

5.2. 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 form in the two languages. Their
identity of form can cause them to be pitfalls for translators and language learners.
Unrelated IFFs are normally full false friends.
The English for your eyes only and the MSA ( lit., for your eyes) belong to this type. The English idiom means that the person being addressed is allowed to only see something, such as a letter or a document (MEDAL). The MSA
idiom means for your sake and implies that the addressee is so dear to the addressor that something is being done only exceptionally for him/her. An example is:
(12)
.
The US has its own economic, political, and social interests, and does not
work for the eyes of (=for the sake of) the movement or the government.
(Al-Rai Al-Am, 3 Apr. 2004)
Similarly, to take ones chances means to accept the risks or to resign oneself
to whatever happens, whereas to take a chance means to risk something or to
gamble (AHDI). This is entirely different from the formally similar MSA idioms
( lit., to take a chance) or ( lit., to take ones chance). The Arabic
idioms mean to have or to be given an opportunity.

Idiomatic false friends in English and Modern Standard Arabic  119

Other unrelated false friends are the English white water and the MSA
(lit., white water). According to CED, the expression white water has two meanings: 1. a stretch of water with a broken foamy surface, as in rapids. 2. light-coloured sea water, esp. over shoals or shallows. Neither of these two meanings can
be expressed by the MSA idiom, which is another, non-technical expression for
the ophthalmologic disease cataract. It is interesting that cataract is also used in
English for waterfall (MEDAL).
Another clear example is the MSA idiom ( lit. a white night), which
has two different idiomatic meanings. One is taken from the colloquial varieties,
meaning a happy night. The other, rarely used, sense is inherited from Classical
Arabic, and means a night in which the moon is shining. The English counterpart,
which is itself a calque of the French une nuit blanche (see Fernando and Flavell
1981: 84), means a sleepless night. Thus the translator who encounters either the
MSA or English expression should provide the semantic equivalent rather than
the formal one.
Another pair of unrelated false friends is from the football terminology. The
MSA terminological idiom ( lit., the penalty point) refers to what in English is known as penalty spot, which is the point in the penalty area from which
the ball is kicked when a foul is made in the penalty area of the defending team.
The English idiom penalty point, on the other hand, refers to an endorsement on a
driving license due to a motoring offence (CED). This is a total false friend of the
MSA idiom ( lit., the penalty point), since both have the same form but
completely different meanings.
Proper names can also be a source of IFFs. If a proper name used in an idiom
has different connotations in two languages, the idiomatic expressions will be full
false friends. One such example is the Cinderella of, meaning the least admired
(PDEI), which is quite the opposite of its meaning in MSA. The appearance of
these IFFs in English and MSA is not the result of language interference. The idioms are related only in source, both alluding to the tale of beautiful Cinderella, who is forced by her stepmother to do housework while her stepsisters spend
the time partying. This tale seems to have left different impressions on the Arab
and English audiences. The Arab audience seems to focus on Cinderellas beauty
and good nature. This is clear from the expression ( the Cinderella of
the screen), which is used favourably to refer to a famous Arab actress. The English audience, on the other hand, focuses on the undeserved, bad treatment of
Cinderella at the hands of her stepmother and stepsisters. This is also the sense
in which the word Cinderella is used in some compounds, such as a Cinderella
disease (i.e. one which receives less attention and funding than it deserves (PDEI)).
Generally, in translating proper names used idiomatically, the translator
should benefit by the following technique suggested by Newmark (1982: 151):

120 AhmedSeddik 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 TL.

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. Therefore, the translator (whether working
from 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 of this
difference to assure clearer understanding and to avoid wrong use of the idiom in
speech or writing.

6. Conclusion
If idioms in general represent one of the most problematic areas for translators,
idiomatic false friends are doubly difficult. Unless he/she is aware of the different meanings and stylistic features of such idioms, the translator may assume that,
since the SL and TL idioms are identical in form, they must also be identical in
meaning and stylistic effect. This paper has proposed a general taxonomy for IFFs,
which have been defined as pairs of set phrases that have the same literal meaning in two or more languages but have different idiomatic meanings or different
cultural and stylistic conditions of use. According to the proposed taxonomy, IFFs
fall into two categories: related and unrelated. Related IFFs, which result from language interference, 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 false friends.
Most English and MSA IFFs are partial false friends. 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. The explanation suggested here is that many MSA
idioms calqued from English pick up only one of two or more meanings of the
English idiom, leaving out the other(s), with the result of partial similarity. Generally, partial IFFs can be more deceptive than full IFFs because in the former the
meanings are usually so close that the context may not provide any clue for the
right interpretation.
The examples given here suggest that partial IFFs have a pattern of 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 of borrowing but then came to be superseded by another sense which has not been borrowed into MSA. This applies to the pair head over heels / ( lit., a head

Idiomatic false friends in English and Modern Standard Arabic  121

over a heal) and conspiracy of silence / ( lit., a conspiracy of silence) .

Cultural considerations can also prevent the use of a borrowed idiom in one of its
senses in the donor language. Thus, the religious meanings of to see the light have
not been included in the MSA ( lit., to see the light). In addition, the presence of a homonymous form can lead to the use of the idiom in two senses in the
donor language. When such an idiom is calqued into another language, only one
sense of the homonymous form is used in the calque and the other sense is left out.
This is the case in the English expressions an elastic term and blind trust. These are
the main factors that can lead to partial idiomatic false friends in the light of the
English and MSA idiomatic expressions discussed above.
Like most studies on false friends, the present contribution is applicable to
a variety of language-related fields. Primarily, it has its implications for translation studies and language learning, since the recognition of IFFs is essential for
the right interpretation and production of idiomatic forms and for avoiding communication breakdown. The results of the study are also applicable to other fields,
such as lexicography, semantics, and sociolinguistics. In addition, further research
on IFFs in other language pairs is needed for testing the universality of the taxonomy proposed in this study.

References
Books and articles
Baker, Mona. 1992. In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. London: Routledge. xii+304
pp.
Butler, Christopher. 2003. Multi-word sequences and their relevance for recent models of functional grammar. Functions of Language 10: 2.179208.
Chamzo Domnguez, Pedro. J. and Brigitte Nerlich. 2002. False friends: Their origin and semantics in some selected languages. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 18331849.
Cornell, Alan. 1999. Idioms: An approach to identifying major pitfalls for learners. IRAL 37:
1.122.
Ferguson, Ronnie. 1994. Italian False Friends. Toronto: University of Toronto 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 of Exeter. iii+94 pp.
Granger, Sylviane and Helen Swallow. 1988. False friends: A kaleidoscope of translation difficulties. Le langage et lhomme 23: 2.10820.
Keysar, Boaz and Bridget Martin Bly. 1999. Swimming against the current: Do idioms reflect
conceptual structure? Journal of Pragmatics 31: 15591578.
Newmark, Peter. 1982. Approaches to Translation. Oxford: Pergamon Press. xiii+200 pp.
Nicholls, Diane. 2002. Friend or foe? False friends and the language learner. MED Magazine.
Issue 3. http://www.macmillandictionary.com/med-magazine/December 2002/03-language interference-false-friends.htm. Accessed 11th March 2005.

122 AhmedSeddik Al-Wahy

Nida, Eugene. 1964/2004. Principles of correspondence. In The Translation Studies Reader. 2nd
ed. Ed. Lawrence Venuti, 15367. 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 Topics: Essays in Honour of
Michael Halliday. Ed. Ross Steele and Terry Threadgold. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Vol.II: 31933.
Sinclair, John. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. xviii
+ 179 pp.
Stubbs, Michael. 2002. Words and Phrases: Corpus Studies of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell. xix+200 pp.
Vinay, Jean Paul and Jean Darbelnet (1995/2004). A methodology for translation. Trans. J. C.
Sager and M.-J. Hamel. In The Translation Studies Reader. 2nd ed. Ed. L. Venuti, 12837.
New York: Routledge.
Wray, Alison. 2002. Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. xi + 332 pp.

Dictionaries
AHDI. The 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 Learners Dictionary. 2003. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. xii+1550 pp.
CCAL. Collins COBUILD Advanced Learners 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. Oxford: Macmillan.
xiv+1692 pp.
ODI. The Oxford Dictionary of Idioms. 1999. Ed. Jennifer Speake. Oxford: Oxford University
Press. iv+395 pp.
PDEI. The Penguin Dictionary of English Idioms. 2001. Ed. Daphne M. Gulland and David HindsHowell. London: Penguin. vii+378 pp.

Arabic references
. . : . . .

(Dawood, Mohamed. 2003. Dictionary of Idioms in Contemporary Arabic. Cairo: Gharib.

687pp.)

Abstract
This paper discusses idiomatic false friends (IFFs) in two genetically unrelated languages, English
and Arabic. IFFs are defined as set phrases in two languages that have the same literal meaning but

Idiomatic false friends in English and Modern Standard Arabic  123

differ as regards their idiomatic meaning or their sociolinguistic and stylistic features. The study
proposes a taxonomy for IFFs based on data from English and Arabic, though it may also apply to
IFFs in other language pairs.
In the case of 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 from
English into Arabic and then taking a different course of semantic development in each language.
There are also cases in which the selection of a single sense of a polysemous idiom can be attributed to social and cultural factors.
It is shown that, if idioms in general are among the most challenging units for translators, IFFs
can be doubly difficult. The translator may assume that since the source and target language idioms have the same form, they can also have the same meaning or stylistic features.

Rsum
Cet article examine les faux amis idiomatiques, dans deux langues nayant aucune parent gntique, langlais et larabe. Les faux amis idiomatiques sont dfinis comme des syntagmes fixes dans
deux langues. Leur signification littrale est la mme mais ils diffrent par leur signification idiomatique ou leurs caractristiques sociolinguistiques et stylistiques. Ltude propose une taxonomie pour les faux amis idiomatiques, base sur des donnes de langlais et de larabe, bien quelle
puisse galement sappliquer des faux amis idiomatiques dans dautres combinaisons linguistiques.
Dans le cas de langlais et de larabe, les faux amis idiomatiques sont soit apparents (typiquement partiels), soit non apparents (typiquement totaux). Les faux amis idiomatiques apparents trouvent leur origine dans une traduction demprunt, des idiomes tant emprunts langlais
par larabe avant de suivre une voie de dveloppement smantique diffrente dans chaque langue.
Dans certains cas, la slection dun seul sens pour un idiome polysmique peut tre attribue des
facteurs sociaux et culturels.
Larticle montre que si les idiomes en gnral comptent parmi les units les plus complexes
pour les traducteurs, les faux amis idiomatiques peuvent tre doublement difficiles. Le traducteur
peut supposer que puisque les idiomes ont la mme forme dans la langue source et la langue cible,
ils peuvent galement avoir la mme signification ou les mmes caractristiques stylistiques.

About the author

Dr. Ahmed Seddik Al-Wahy is associate professor of Linguistics, Faculty of Languages (Al-Alsun), Ain Shams University, Cairo. He also worked as assistant professor of Linguistics, Riyadh
Community College, King Saud University (20036). He has published a number of translations,
articles and book reviews in English and Arabic. His research interests include translation studies, phraseology, lexicography, and comparative linguistics.
Address: Dept. of English, College of Languages (Al-Alsun), Ain Shams University, Abbassia,
Cairo, Egypt.
E-mail: ahmedsedd@yahoo.com; alwahyas@asunet.shams.edu.eg