False Friends in Phraseology: An English-Polish Contrastive Study

Grz.egorz, Szpi.Lct.

Kraktiw

FALSE FRIENDS IN PHRASEOLOGY: AN ENGLISH_POLISH CONTRASTIVE STUDY

From our first contact with a loreign language till the stage of ortr mastet,int it we inevitably corne to formulate statetnents concerning similarities and dil'fbrences that obtain between the systetn of tlris language and that of olrr mother tongue. Analo_sies and discrcpancies can miir-rit'est themselves on all lęvels o1 linguistic comparison: plronology, morphology. sylltax and lexis. Fol a lirrguist a contrastive analysis of two or more languages is supposed to systematise the knowledge of tlrc parallels and difl-erer"rces within the group ol languages compared. Contrastive studies are not only the aim o1 purely linguistic investigatiorrs irr itsell, but thcy may also fortn abasis fbr the considerations of other sciences concęrned witlr a study of 1angua_ee. such as pragrnatics. translation, metlrodology of te acliing and lcxicography. As has beerr lnentioned. one of the areas in which similarities and dif'ferences becomc i.rpparent is the lexiccln. Contrłstive studies of the lexicril components cll' two or lnorc languages show. apart 1iom other types o1' ręlations, tlre existencc of false 1exical equi-

valence. This lir-rguistic phenornellon is colnmonly detined as the occurrence in lalrguagcs compared of lexical items of identical or similar phone tic or graphic shape wlrose rneanin_Ęs in respcctivc langttages do not allow us to classity them as fr"lll semantic equivalents. (The closeness 0r sameness clf 1brm has been madę tertiunl comparatiollls in the study of falsę lexical equivalence), The lexical itetns bctween which therę obtains thc rclation of false semantic eqttivtrlence are ref'erred to with the terms: Jalsc.friencls,.fuLse cognates or fLllse eEtivde tts. to name jrrst a few commonly used terms. False lexical equivaience lras attractęd tlre attention of linguists, which has produced a bulk of literature on the subject. The thctlrctical treattnent of false lexical cqlrivalence provided tlle stimulus 1br a study of the problem in the spherc of fbrei_en language teacliing, translation, as well as dictionary making, wlrich is intended to point at the si_gnificance o1'the problem for interlingual contacts. at least in the dornains metltioned above. Wlren studied l'rom a more practical perspective, lalse fiiends in thę lęxicon have been usually labellecl as one of the ma.jor sottlces of interference errors; the irnplications of a theoretical study o1' false friends lbr fbreign laneuage teaching, translation and lexicogtaphical practice lrave beęn o1'greirt importarrce. since they refer to lin_elristic problems which sl-rouid be given proper attentiorr witlr a view to steerin_q clear o1'ct,rors that in an obvious way may lead to misunclęrstanding ln intcrcultural communicłtion. TlTe study o1'false lexical cclrrivalence has been to date predolninantly irreoccupicd with a study of lexemes and, conseqtrently, tłle literature on lexemc falsę l'riends is in

18

abundance. At the same time, lrclwever, it lras been acknowledged tlrat ialsc semantic equivalence may be attested to in other splreres of the lexicon. including phraseolo_uy in its broader sense, i.e. phraseology scen as consistin_{ of establisIred collclcations, idiomatic phrases. provcrbs (cl'. Dolińska l988 : i96;Gldscr 1985 ]2; Grosbart 19t34 : 2t]; Łabno-Falęcka l995:255). Some lrave claimed that l'irlse semantic equivalence in phraseology has not been so far subjected to close scrutit-ty (Leorridova i983 : ]74). The aim oI'this piiper is then to look at the phraseological components of the En_elish and Polish lexicclns with a view to identil}ing and dcscribing the phenomenolr of {'alse sęmantic equivalence between idiorns of thę two languages. AlthoLrgh, as I llave already mentioned, phraseology is contemporarily understood as cornprised of various diltcrent structtlre types, I will conl'ine my presentatiorl to the analysis of phrasencs only. A plrraseme is a linguistic entity, consisting of at lęast two itelns, the meaning of which is clraractcrised by semantic irregularity. that is to say. the mcaning of a phrascmę is not arivcd at by the composition of the meanings of its lęxical constituents but it is understood as semantically indcpendent of these. The meaning clf a phraserne is a metaphoric entity strperimposed upon a syntactic structure o1' lęxical itęms. Other vcry important characteristics of phrasemes are that they are reproduced in their entirety and that they cannot 1brm a sentence on tl]eir own (Koller 197] : 12,Mateśićl981 : 11l), in this brief detinition I have consciously disregarded other pertinent f'ęatures of phrasemes, such as the diachronic aspect of metaphoric motivation and tlrę synchronic aspect of lexical and structural manipulation of idiomatic structures, In this presentatio1-l, I anrrlyse idioms as they appear in contemporary phraseological dicticlnaries and do not give thought to the factors motivating the production of their structural and/or sęmantic variants. In the ensuing presentatiol I will adduce examples ol' phrasemes that, l'rom thc word-class point ol'view, may be classil'ied as notninal, vcrbal, adjectival, or prepclsitional strttctures, dependirrg on which word-class representativc functions as the heacl ol a given idiomatic plrrase. Although in the contrasl_ive studięs of phraseolo_eical units the meanin_q o1'idioms has been defined as the primaty criteriorr o1 interlingual equivalencc, the higlrest degree of similarity is shown by thesc pairs of idiornatic strllctufes which overlap totally or almos| totally in the sphere o1'both lexical contęnt, syntactic shapc and semantics. Suclr idiorns in respective languages wcluld be called 1ormally and semantically identical (Rejakowa l983 : 293). Both English and Polish have phraseological Lrnits wliich arc classificd as true semantic equivalents. the fbrmal identity betweetr them being apparent, 1tlr instance, as u.gly- ąs a siltvs. hrz,vdki,jak grz,ecll śmiertelny, ąvvhite lie vs. białe kłanlstwo, staltd on one 's otvtt.fe et ys. stcrlrclĆ lru v,łasnych trcgach. Such pairs. 1ike in the case o1'equivalcrlt lexemes, cause the lcarners of English or Polislr as a tbreign language to belicvę tlrat semantic cortęspondence holds betwecll all formally sirnilar or iderrtical phraseological units in English and Polish. Consequclrtly, on thc first cncoLttlter, speakers o1'En,glish or Polish may be tcmptcd to treat all such structures cs selnantic ccluivalents, They l'ail tcl recognise the elemęnts of the following pairs as l'alse cognates: go ttp itl stnoke vs. p(ljść zdynrcln, on the LeveL vs. ttct poliolłtie, out oftltis ltorkl vs. itle z,te80 świcLt(L. It is srnall wondeą since even prol'essional dictionaries fail tcl provide accufate, if any. inlbrrnation conceming the meanin_es of f'alse phraseological equivalents. Take for instancc Słovvnik Jrazeologiczn1, polsko-angie lski by Tere sa Jaworska (Wydawnictwo Naukowo-Techniczne, 1999). This lexicclll dcles not record the two of the thrce idioms mentiolled abor,e, narnely na poz.ionlie and ttia z. tego świctttL. nor does it provide exhaustivc intbrlnation

-.... : "--'.' ,_,..

',:,

_

,:_

,:

_-_

).l:l',J.

_:-

]r],:] -_l] _'r), ]],:_*.. I(]\ < l Lill i.1: :

-

llO('i!c| .' /lO_§, .ic

]'

tic5 t\.

:::

:

Ir::-:. must l'- .of ct,:l-:_: sphcr., :

natcs j. ._. -rl.

l L]-

Iro]d

_

t,,.-..,,

pairs t;:.,-.

Sirl;::

lish icli,:: matic :::friends

.-_

settlcd r.: In thc

disregar; Amol,. grotlps

(]:

,

{i| ,l,&'

]!*!,

19

Ę

0s

#

§]i §|n,

,ti] -&;

,&|

j]l]l1lg the structure pój ŚĆ z. th,p,rn,r, rendered correctly in English as 8o Llp ill. smokc, . ll:rs atl additional idiomatic meaning of 'to lai1, end unsuccesst-ully', hencę it can-. ,re a|ed as the 1l,r1] ecluivaler-rt of the Polish structure. The sarnę could be said about -,,l,i . o1' bring sonleotrc to their kltees and rzttciĆ kogoŚ na kolutrl. .,, ;hraseology, the term,/a lse frien.cls would refer then to phraseological units in twcl ,r,e languages whose lexical and syntactic structurę is identical or similar but wlrich ::- ;ll tlre scope o1'their extension. Semantic incompatibility between 1bnnally similar _

_"ntical structures can result from different ways in which native spcakers perceived between an actual picture described iri an idiom and the messagc encoded in col1,semy o1 phraseological units (Leonidova 1983 : l75). A further discussion o1'

_ :--,1ltion

_

_

,rs eventLlating in the occurrence of 1alse semantic equivalence is not ęmbarked upon

,..--

prcsent paper.

I: is worth rememberil-tg that a high degree of eqr-rivalence and congruence obtains -_,,iecn phraserne false lricnds in both lcxicons to a lesser dcgree than in the casc o1' . ,-,nle fa]sę triencls, especially betwecn unrelated language s, 1or example, English ancl , .lsh. ln phrascology, thc lęxical and syntactic congrLlcnce betwccn both false and truc .l,rlds should bę ręlativisecl to account for the ditf'ęrences in the syntactic and lexical -..:rdi_ematic colloca[ions acceptable in respective 1an_euages. Nęvertheless, wę can atj): Io the pręscnce o1'idiorns with a high degree of similarities, tbr instance. ivor,v towe r -, vieżlt z, ko,(ci słortic.lwe.j, cut the Gordian knot ys. przeciąć węzeł gortlyjski. strike ,:ile th.e, irort i,s hot vs. lcLłĆ ż,elazo póki gorące, poke one's nose iltto somethiltg vs. }r^]- ,,t:lt, coś ntls, Tl-rese pairs show tliat idiomatization in both languages reflccts much the ,.!1ne cognitive proccsses (poke olte's nose into sometlting vs. lvtl,kaĆ w coŚ no"^) or tIlat ^,lth languages hal,e r-rscd literal translations of foreign rdiomatic phrases (,ivory toyver .,. lyieza z, kośc:i słoniowa.j). These can be rcf'crred to as intęrnational phrasernes (Basaj . !]85). The following examples fiom several languagcs i]lr_rstrate the point: cut the Gortl,;tt knot, pl,z.ecic1ć węz.eł gorc.|,jski, tlen gorclischen Knoten clurchhrltlen. trallch.er le ,loeud pfetnoLi gordicki, uz,el; poke one's nose in.to sonletlling, wtl,kać w coś ^gorclien. ,itls, seine Nase in etwas ,steckell, mettre ,son nez. dans qttelcltte chose, strkat nos do ćeho. In thę discussion o1'1alse semantic cquivalence in phraseology, both aspects clf idioms nlust be taken irrto consideration sincc the lexico-grammaticai structure and the semaniics ol'phrasemes are intertwined. It is the fbrmer tl-rat is responsible for thc appiication of correct or incorcct mcaning to the phrases being compared. As is the case in the sphere of lexemes. the phrascological units would not bę clzissitjed as trLie or 1'alse cognatęs if the two ot thcsc characteristic f-eatures did not come into play at the samę time. The aim clf this presellti.ltion is to point tlttt the main types o1 relaticlnslrips that rnay hold bctwecn false cognates in phraseology. The interrtion of this paper is not to lis{_ all pairs that can be established in Errglish and Poiish. Since the enslring plcsclltiition is not meatlt to suggcst translirtion strategies of Eriglish idioms into their trLre Polish cquivalents or vice versa, I will cschew proving idio-

matic structl-tres as scmantic explications. I wil] illustrate the semantics of thc l'alse friends under discl-1ssion usin_e non-idiomatic definitions, This kind of presentation is settled on also 1br rhe sake of clarity of semantic exposition. In the presentation I wi1l conccntrate on tlre semantjc aspect o1'the false friencls and disrcgard a discussiorr of their constituent structure, unless it detęnnines their meaning.

Among the collectecl fa]se liiends in English and Polish I distinguish two major

groups o1'mcatiillg rclation: the relirtion clf exclusion and the rclation of privativeness.

The first group, the group of ęxclusion, which is the most numerous, can bę divided into two well-marked ciasses. fhe first class contains such pairs of phraseological false friends between whos; membęrs there is no sęmantic equivalence: the respective meanings of English and Po]ish idioms do not overlap. Additionally, in this class, idiomatic phrases have one metlrphoric meaning, which distinguishes this class fiom the other one of this group. Tlri. type of relation can be illustrated by the fbllowing pairs (I will quote several pairs repr.,senting this type of semantic relation to slrow how numęrous this group is, although thc enumeration below is not to bę treated as exhaustivę): telL tales vs. o1lowiadać bajki: b, on the warpath vs. być rla wojerutej ściez.ce; on ice vs. na lodz,ie; hang in tlle air 'rr. wisieć w ]lowietrzu; cut one's teeth on somethiltg vs. potantać sobie ncl czs,m.śzęby; stel, in one's juice vs. smazyć się we własnym sosie; go on the streets vs. wyjśćna ulicei ottt o.r this world vs. nie z te go świata; have ąn itching palm vs. kogośręka świerz,bi,, on tltc level vs. n.a poziomie; tightell the screw on sotneorle vs. dociskclć śrubę;cloak and clag7er vs, płasz.czet i szpady; bread and blłtter ys. chleb z masłem; be under the impressiolt that vs. bvc pod wrazcllictn. For thę sakę ot more thorouglr elucidation of this relation, I will choose three pairs to show how dilfbrent their meanings are. In the pair stew in one's jlłice vs, smażyć się v.,e właslrym sosie,thę Engiish idiom means 'to deal with the consequences of onę's own. usually stupid, actions'. The Polish idiom ref-ers to a situation in which a person remains in the same circlę of people, sharing with them interests, doing the same job as they do, ętc. Bread antl butter in English means 'source of one's income', whllę chleb z masłenl in Polish rel'ęrs to an easy thing. Go on the streets describes a situation when a person becomes a prostitute, the Polish idtom wyiśćtta ulicę means 'to protest'.

It is easy to notice that somę of these structures can be, depending on the contexts of their application, interpreted literally, this can refer to both elements of the pair as well as to only one member, e.g. telL taLes ys. opowiadać bajki; wyiśćna ulicę, być na lodzie. A larger context in which an idiom is submerged is then responsible fbr the non-Iitęral

interpretation of the structure. Obviously, this remark applies also to thę idioms dis-

cussed later. The other subclass of this type of ręlation is represented by idioms which have more than one non-literal interpretation, either in English or in Poiish, or in both languages, but none has a semantic equivalent in the fbrm of thę similar strllcture in the other language. This relation is exempliiied by the two pairs: bring sonteone to their knees vs. rz.ucić kogośna kolana and.jmnp out of otte 'ssłin vs. wyskakiwcłć z.e skóry.In thę case o1 the first pair, the Engiislr element means 'to render someone weak and tired'. Its Polish fblse cognate has two mearrings. The first is 'to impress someone', the other 'to inf'lict a shattering defeat on someone'. Additionally, in the case of this pair, we can adduce here another English idiomatic structurę, namely to bring something to its knees, which means 'to rendęr something weak, inęfticient, paralysed'. Another pair is ,junlp out of- otle's słjn vs. wyskakiwać ze skóry. The English idiorn mean§ 'to be shocked, surprised'. The Polish idiom has two meanings. The first is 'to try hard to achięve something'. The other meaning is 'to be extremely happy'. The group of privativeness contains phraseme pairs in which at least one męmber has more than one meaning and both idioms could be regarded as full semantic equivalents in one meaning but l'alse cognates in others. This type of relation can be illrrstrated by the

1i'i]I

jii--. :].itr\ C;l C3j"]

].]IrlIl1

::ori e

n]l' ,a:n!

sre,j rn

S.rl,}ć!,]

.Ąpart ln rr

rr |1|g[ .-1-11,113ą1

in either l,.,ilh tutl

nar

tl ńt tr rn

b,e r,rern1

../r;96 i,.,a,.,. d\'e/ _§ / cr: _§arĘr In thr, firs _tłólr,,':c.

jr:c.'

_słon in i.,.rth The Polish iJ

onlr in the rrr

In the cł-