Masaryk University

Faculty of Arts
Department of English
and American Studies
English Language and Literature
Lenka Tycov
Towards a New False Friends Dictionary
Bachelors Diploma Thesis
Supervisor: Ing. gr. !i"# $am%ousek
!"
I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently,
using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.

&uthors signature
&ckno'ledgement:
I 'ould like to thank my supervisor Ing. gr. !i"# $am%ousek (or his patience) support)
valua%le advice and kind guidance.
Ta#le of $ontents
"%! &ntroduction%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%'
1.1 Motivation...................................................................................................................... 5
1.2 Objective ....................................................................................................................... 6
%! Defining the $oncept of (False Friends)%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%*
2.1 Putting it Right: False Friend or False ognate!......................................................."
+%! $lassification of False Friends, $ategori-ing the Uncategori-a#le. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%"
/%! Approaches to the Treatment of False Friends%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
'%! Towards a New $-ech0English0English0$-ech False Friends Dictionary%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%*
5.1 #co$e.......................................................................................................................... 2%
5.1.1 &he riterion o' For(al #i(ilarit)..........................................................................2*
5.1.2 &he riterion o' Falsit)........................................................................................+2
5.1.+ &he riterion o' Fre,uenc)....................................................................................+-
5.1.- &he riterion o' Fre,uenc) o' .rror.......................................................................+6
5.2 For(: Printed and o($uteri/ed False Friends 0ictionaries.......................................+*
5.+ 1a)out.......................................................................................................................... -2
5.- .ntr): &heoretical 3uidelines 'or False Friends 0ictionar) .ntr) o($ilation.............-5
5.-.1 Model False Friends 0ictionar) .ntr) ..................................................................-*
1%! $onclusion%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%'!
2orks $ited%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%'
34sum4 5English6%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%'*
3esum4 5$-ech6%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%'7
8ist of A##reviations
** *alse *riends
L+ *irst Language
L, Second Language
SL Source Language
TL Target Language
"%! &ntroduction
"%" Motivation
The phenomenon o( -(alse (riends. is more or less vaguely kno'n to most language
learners at all levels o( pro(iciency. These tricky 'ords seem to (orm an insepara%le part o(
second language ac/uisition0 they are a pit(all 'hich occasionally traps even those highly
pro(icient in their second language) including translators0 hence (alse (riends need to %e dealt
'ith 'ithin %oth the (ields o( language teaching and translation studies. 1et it is too o(ten the
case that little attention is dra'n to them) particularly i( the meaning divergences are
relatively su%tle. I( the learner does receive some 'arning instruction) it 'ould most likely %e
%ased on) or %y means o( re(erence to) a (alse (riends dictionary) 'hich is e2pected to (urnish
the learner 'ith all the necessary in(ormation.
3ative 45ech learners o( the English language have no' (or more than t'o decades
turned (or advice regarding (alse (riends to a dictionary authored %y !ose( 6ladk7 and entitled
Zrdn slova v anglitin 8+99:;. The slight %ook 'as pu%lished in +99:) %e(ore the age o(
rapid development in the computer science and corpus linguistics) and thus o'es its virtues to
nothing more than the single<handed scholarly e((ort o( its author. &s such) it remains a
remarka%le collection o( (alse (riends pairs0 ho'ever) ne' developments in the a%ove areas
8among others; have %rought a%out the perception o( its shortcomings. 1et other un(avoura%le
points may %e raised %y a learner) such as mysel() 'hen they chance upon some -(alse (riend.)
either in 45ech or English) su%se/uently (ailing to (ind it in 6ladk7s %ook.
y motivation (or 'riting this 'ork 'as a com%ination o( the a%ove points0 indeed all
o( them) (or it 'ould have %een a pity (or this e2tensive collection o( (alse (riends 'hich has
apparently served its purpose (or a num%er o( years to occupy a place on the shel( unopened)
o'ing largely to the -all<computeri5ed. mood o( recent years. In addition) it 'as the marginal
attention that the phenomenon o( (alse (riends sometimes receives) and the results thereo() that
=
prompted me to 'rite this thesis. &s a learner o( English) no' a student o( the English
language and literature) I have o(ten 'itnessed the 'rong use) on account o( (ormal similarity)
o( a 'ord %y my (ello' students 8and I am not so sel(<con(ident as to consider mysel( an
e2ception in this respect;. Thus) I argue that more attention should %e paid %y language
teachers to (ormally similar 'ord<pairs) and that an up<dated and user<(riendly (alse (riends
dictionary 'ould aid this aim.
"% 9#:ective
The primary o%>ective o( this thesis is to provide comprehensive theoretical guidelines
concerning (alse (riends dictionary content and compilation) (or this thesis is chie(ly designed
as a preparatory study (or the compilation o( a revised and computeri5ed version o( 6ladk7s
'ork 8+99:;. The revision and computeri5ation o( Zrdn slova v anglitin is a task that the
Department o( English and &merican Studies o( asaryk ?niversity in Brno has set itsel(.
The task o( a dictionary compilation is rarely undertaken or success(ully accomplished
%y a single person0 thus) it 'as o(ten thought use(ul) or even necessary) to present several
possi%le 'ays 8or vie's; o( approaching a particular aspect o( a (alse (riends dictionary
compilation) rather than advocating merely one. Indeed) in (ul(illing the a%ove stated
o%>ective there 'as an incessant need to account (or and %alance di((ering opinions) 'hether
these concerned the very term -(alse (riends.) categori5ation o( (alse (riends or the content o(
the -ideal. (alse (riend dictionary) 'hich diversity is partially caused %y the (act that -(alse
(riendship. is a language<speci(ic phenomenon) al'ays peculiar to the t'o languages
involved.
@
%! Defining the $oncept of (False Friends)
The topic o( (alse (riends is as old as languages themselves. 1et it 'as not until +9,A
that the term -(au2 amis 8du traducteur;.) 'hich is generally understood
+
to %e the *rench
e/uivalent o( the no' commonly used -(alse (riends.) 'as coined %y a2ime Boessler and
!ules Deroc/uigny in their 'ork entitled -Les *au2 &mis
,
. 84hami5o<Dom#ngue5) ,::A)
p. +;. The concept arose (rom the idea that a particular le2ical item in the learnerCtranslators
L, 8or a given TL; appears to %e in a -(riendly. relation to 8i.e. a correct translation e/uivalent
o(; a particular item in the learnerCtranslators L+) helping them to communicate in the (oreign
language. In actuality) ho'ever) the L, item proves to have a di((erent meaning8s; (rom those
predicted on the %asis o( (ormal similarity to the L+ item) thus revealing to %e only
deceptively -(riendly.. ost language learners 'ill have heard at some point or another) /uite
in accordance 'ith the a%ove) that (alse (riends are those pairs o( 'ords in t'o di((erent
languages 'hich look similar %ut their respective meanings di((er. The purpose o( this thesis)
ho'ever) re/uires a more ela%orate de(inition.
The term D(alse (riendsE ... re(ers to the speci(ic phenomenon o( linguistic inter(erence
consisting o( t'o given 'ords in t'o or more given natural languages DthatE are
graphically andCor phonetically the same or very alike0 yet) their meanings may %e
totally or partially di((erent. 84hami5o<Dom#ngue5) ,::A) p. +;
4hami5o<Dom#ngue5 provides a reasona%ly accurate de(inition 'hich manages to
em%race all the essential aspects o( -(alse (riends.. Even though in a %road sense) the concept
may %e used to descri%e multi<'ord units and even 'hole grammatical constructions) as
suggested %y &l<Fahy 8as cited %y 3ihal 1etkin) ,:++) ,:9;) this is not very common. ore
importantly) the de(inition includes partial di((erence in meaning 'hich tends to %e) (or the
1
4hami5o<Dom#ngue5 8,::A; e2plains that it is actually not a very good translation.
2
Les (au2 amis) ou) Les trahisons du voca%ulaire anglais 8conseils au2 traducteurs;
G
sake o( %revity) neglected %y some more concise de(initions. 6olmes H Iuerra $amos) to
name one e2ample) are contented 'ith stating that (alse (riends are -D'ords in t'o di((erent
languages that areE orthographically recogni5a%le) %ut totally di((erent in meaning. 8+99J) p.
AA;.
It is) naturally) the degree o( di((erence in meaning) or the degree o( mutual sense
overlap) %et'een look<alike 'ords in di((erent languages that governs the su%tlety o( this
linguistic phenomenon. The a%ove mentioned -overlap. is in turn dependent on ho' the
concept o( e/uivalence o( meaning is perceived. In the (ield o( translation studies the notion
o( -e/uivalence. has %een (re/uently scrutini5ed and assigned varying importance. Kpinions
di((er as to 'hat it consists o(0 nevertheless) it can %e sa(ely concluded that) as Lartington
notes) -some sort o( e/uivalence. is desira%le. &t the same time) ho'ever) it is generally
accepted that -complete e/uivalence o( message) (unction and (orm ... is rare) to say the least.
8Lartington) +99A) p. M9;. Lartington amply e2empli(ies this statement 'ith revealing that
even those (ormally similar cross<linguistic 'ord pairs 'hich have %een %elieved to %e -true
(riends.) meaning correct translation e/uivalents o( each other) may in (act %e used in slightly
di((erent 'ays and in di((erent conte2ts. &mong the 'ords he e2amined using corpora 'as the
English 'ord -correct. and its Italian look<alike -corretto.) the (ormer %eing (ound to %e o(ten
%est rendered %y -giusto. or -esatto.) 'hile the meaning o( the latter is (re/uently %est
e2pressed using -right.) -proper. or -(air. 8Lartington) +99A) p. =@;.
The (act that a%solute e/uivalents are rare to (ind has led some to o%serve that) %roadly
speaking) almost any L+ literal e/uivalent o( an L, 'ord is a (alse (riend. Despite all the
e2aggeration) the statement must %e granted its due -grain o( truth.0 at the very least) the
%oundaries o( the phenomenon o( (alse (riends are very (u55y indeed. *alse (riendship is
perhaps %est imagined in terms o( semantic continuum 8de Schryver) Iou's H Lrinsloo)
A
,::M;) 'here the -strongest. versions o( (alse (riends occupy one end o( the spectrum and
-true (riends. the other) the t'o phenomena gradually shading into each other.
%" ;utting it 3ight, (False Friend) or (False $ognate).
The term -(alse (riends.) though 'idely spread) is %y no means the only one used in
literature on the su%>ect. &ccording to Buncic) as /uoted %y 4hami5o<Dom#ngue5 8,::A)
p. ,;) -up to +@ more terms re(erring to the same or analogous phenomena. e2ist. K( these at
least (ive are misleading since they re(er to a di((erent concept.
The most nota%le as 'ell as (re/uent e2ample o( a simpli(ication o( this sort is the use
o( -(alseCdeceptive cognates. interchangea%ly 'ith or instead o( -(alse (riends.. $ing%om
8,::G;) (or instance) provides the term -(alse (riends. in inverted commas) as another 'ay o(
re(erring to -deceptive cognates. 8p. G=;) and 4asanovas 4atal H K3eill 8+99G; o%serve that
-'hen 'e speak a%out (alse (riends) 'e are normally re(erring to interlingual deceptive Dor
(alseE cognates. 8p. +:J;.
The inconsistency in terminology springs (rom the (act that the concept o( -cognate. is
vie'ed di((erently in di((erent lines o( research. In 'orks concerned 'ith %ilingual 'ord
processing the term -cognate. has %een used to denote -L+<L, translation pairs that share
%oth (orm and meaning. 8de Iroot) ,:++) p. +,+;0 (or 'ords sharing (orm %ut not meaning the
term -(alse (riends. has %een used. 6o'ever) the term -cognate. traditionally denotes those
'ords 'hich are etymologically related) that is) those 'hich share a common origin)
regardless o( their meanings. The original sources o( cognate voca%ulary in European
languages are mainly Latin) Ireek) and to a lesser e2tent) 6e%re' and &ra%ic 84hami5o<
Dom#ngue5) ,::A) p. @;.
De Iroot 8,:++; lists several -cognate. terms assigned) according to the traditional
-etymological. approach) to several related phenomena di((ering in the degree o( meaning
9
overlap %et'een the t'o 'ords involved: -true cognates.) -deceptive cognates. 8share some
meanings;) -(alse cognates. 8share no meanings; and the rather o2ymoronic -accidental
cognates. 'hich are no -cognates. in the (irst place) (or they -are not etymologically related
%ut >ust happen to share (orm. 8de Iroot) ,:++) pp. +,+<+,,;. The latter group) the only one
o( the -etymologically unrelated. type) comprises -(alse (riends. as vie'ed %y the
-processing. approach) along 'ith a hypothetical group o( non<e2istent L,<like 'ords devised
%y the learner) 'hich de Iroot 8,:++; terms -pseudocognates. 8p. +,:;.
It has to %e stressed) though) that not all authors 'ho consider the concept o( -(alse
(riends. (rom a diachronic vie'point are o( the opinion that (alse cognates are etymologically
related. 4hami5o<Dom#ngue5 8,::A;) (or instance) understands them to %e those cross<
linguistic 'ord pairs that are (ormally similar %ut -'ithout any semantic or etymological
reason 'hich may account (or this similarity. 8p. J;0 he seems to have in(erred that inso(ar as
-(alse (riends. only -appear to %e (riendly.) then the su%stance o( -(alse cognates. must %e
-8only; appearing to %e cognate.) that is) -8only; appearing to %e etymologically related.. 6is
vie' is (airly rare) despite the commonsensical logic %ehind it.
It is also 'orth noting at this point that) strictly speaking) many o( the cross<linguistic
'ord pairs that are commonly held to %e 8(alseCdeceptive; cognates 8in the sense advocated %y
de Iroot) ,:++; are loan'ords) that is) 'ords that have %een imported into a given language
(rom another one0 and as such should %e distinguished (rom -proper cognates.) 'hich have
independently developed (rom a common ancestor) 'hether these are -true. or -(alse.
meaning<'ise. Fhile 8(alseCdeceptive; cognates a%ound among languages that are historically
related) loan'ords are o(ten the cause o( (alse (riendship among those languages that are
'holly unrelated) such as English and !apanese) (or -once a 'ord ... is %orro'ed into a
language) 'e cannot predict ... its development. 8Baker) as /uoted %y Lartington) +99A) p. =,;.
+:
To sum up the a%ove) there e2ist at least three di((erent notions o( the status o( -(alse
cognates.. ost o(ten) they are presented as identical to -(alse (riends.) 'ith no signi(icant
di((erence o%served or ackno'ledged. In addition to this) de Iroot 8,:++; presents the terms
-(alse cognates. and -(alse (riends. as technically re(erring to dissimilar phenomena) 'hile
4hami5o<Dom#ngue5 8,::A; considers -(alse cognates. a hyponym o( -(alse (riends.) the
(ormer concept constituting a part o( the latter.
3evertheless) 'hether considered to %e historically related or not) -(alse cognates. are
indeed hyponymous to -(alse (riends.) precisely due to the (act that the /uestion o( etymology
is irrelevant to the concept o( -(alse (riends.0 (alse (riends may trace their origins %ack to a
common ancestor or they may not. *rom the vie'point o( the (oreign language learner the
aspect o( historical 8un;relatedness is certainly not relevant 8though it 'ould dou%tless %e
interesting to e2plore;) (or -'ords do not 'ear their historical origin on their sleeves. 84aroll)
as cited %y de Iroot 8,:++) p. +,J;;. Etymology aside) the term -(alse (riends. seems
pre(era%le 8to (alseCdeceptiveCaccidental cognate; since (ormal similarity accompanied %y
semantic dissimilarity should most appropriately %e considered as a single phenomenon rather
than a set o( distinct phenomena 8several types o( -cognates.;) given that its su%tlety is
governed %y the intricate concept o( e/uivalence) 'hich causes it to vary in degrees rather
than in categories.
++
+%! $lassification of False Friends, $ategori-ing the Uncategori-a#le.
Divergences in meaning %et'een t'o (ormally similar 'ords (rom t'o di((erent
languages may %e o%served (rom di((erent vie'points and at various levels0 this is re(lected
%y the (act that many diverse classi(ications o( (alse (riends have %een put (or'ard.
& ma>ority o( 'orks concerned 'ith the topic that are availa%le discuss (alse (riends
under the 8imaginary; heading -cognates.) taking in their organi5ation into account the
etymological criterion. Scott !arvis) (or instance) (irst distinguishes %et'een -true historical
cognates. and non<cognates) su%se/uently classi(ying cross<linguistic 'ord pairs (rom each
group -according to 'hether they are the same) similar or dissimilar in terms o( %oth (orm and
meaning. 8!arvis) ,::@) p. +:@;. Iiven that (alse (riends can %e (ormally either same
8identical; or similar and either similar or dissimilar meaning<'ise) %oth groups put together
yield eight types o( (alse (riends.
This classi(ication some'hat resem%les the one proposed %y Beltrn 8,::@;) 'ho
(urther distinguishes %et'een phonetic and graphic (alse (riends. This is done %ased on
'hether it is in pronunciation or in 'ritten (orm that the t'o 'ords o( a cross<linguistic 'ord
pair seem alike. &s (ar as semantics is concerned) he divides (alse (riends merely into the t'o
%roadest categories e2isting: total and partial (alse (riends. Due to disregarding the -degree.
o( (ormal similarity) his typology comprises (our types o( (alse (riends: total (alse (riends %oth
phonetic and graphic) and the same done 'ith partial (alse (riends. This typology) 'hich
strives to -(ind connections %et'een semantic) morpho<syntactic and phonological Dlevels o(
analysisE. 8p. JJ;) then seems to %e adopting a linguistic perspective rather than a pedagogic
one) despite his claiming other'ise.
The etymological criterion is taken as the point o( departure also %y 4hami5o<
Dom#ngue5 8,::A;. In his vie') (alse (riends (all into either o( the t'o %asic categories he
terms chance (alse (riends and semantic (alse (riends) the (ormer %eing those 'ords in given
+,
t'o languages that are similar %ut neither etymologically nor semantically related. Fhen there
is a semantic or etymological reason 'hich accounts (or the similarity o( a particular (alse
(riends pair) he speaks o( semantic (alse (riends. This group includes not only the -traditional.
(alseCdeceptive cognates 8'hich he himsel() as has already %een e2plained) considers a non<
cognate group; %ut also loan'ords. 6e o%serves that semantic (alse (riends tend to %e more
(re/uent than those 'hich sho' a purely accidental resem%lance. In addition) they are) (or
o%vious reasons) likely to retain the same meaning divergence8s; (or more than a given pair o(
languages. The Spanish 'ord -preservativo. has the same connotative meaning 8connotation;
as does its 45ech look<alike -pre5ervativ. and the Lolish -pre5er'aty'a.) all three %eing
(alse (riends o( -preservative. in English) al%eit only in the last (e' centuries0 in the +A
th

century) -preservative. 'as indeed used in English to re(er to condom. 4hami5o<
Dom#ngue5s 8,::A; a%undant e2amples some'hat >usti(y) though %y no means validate) the
presence o( the etymological criterion in 'orks on (alse (riends0 it seems that -(alse
(riendship. %et'een a pair o( semantic (alse (riends is much more comple2 and there(ore
pro%lematic than that %et'een chance (alse (riends. 4hami5o<Dom#ngue5s 8,::A; treatment
o( (alse (riends is almost entirely theoretical) 'ith (e' pedagogical or le2icographical
implications) and so it 'as intended to %e.
Kther scholars aim to present a more practically oriented classi(ication o( (alse (riends.
In his paper entitled -*alse *riends Dictionaries: & Tool (or Translators or Learners or Both.)
&ndre>s Neis%ergs 8+99@; distinguishes -(alse (riends proper) occasional 8accidental; (alse
(riends and pseudo (alse (riends. 8p. @,A;. E2cept (or the last group his division roughly
corresponds to that %y 4hami5o<Dom#ngue5 8,::A;. 3either o( the scholars (urther classi(ies
occasional 8chance; (alse (riends) (or) though they may account (or a considera%le percentage
o( (ormally similar voca%ulary %et'een certain languages) they -normally %elong to a
di((erent logico<su%>ect group. 8Neis%ergs) +99@) p. @,9;0 thus) their meanings are typically
+J
totally di((erent. &mong the 'ords that share the same or similar (orm %y pure coincidence
are (or instance the 45ech -m#sa. and the English -missa..
The e2istence o( pseudo (alse (riends is rarely ackno'ledged %y (alse (riends
classi(ications) although 'orks on %ilingual 'ord processing do discuss the -creative. coinage
o( -ne'. 'ords %y language learners. Fhile technically non<e2istent) these coinages 'ill at
some point %e a part o( the le2icon o( most learners) even those nearing pro(iciency. They
may result (rom the trans(er o( a (oreign<sounding L+ 'ord into the learners L,) o(ten 'ith
some alterations that the learner deems necessary0 thus) the 45ech -narkoman. is translated
into English as -narcoman.) -kompromitovat. as -compromite. 8discussed in detail in =.+.+;)
and -nadace. as -nadation.. &lternatively) a 'rong pre(i2 or ending may %e added to the right
stem as a result o( the learners attempt to reconstruct the L, e/uivalent o( an L+ 'ord)
providing these are (ormally similar.
&s (ar as -(alse (riends proper. are concerned) Neis%ergs 8+99@) pp. @,A<@,9; divides
them into -complete 8a%solute;.) -partial. and -nuance di((erentiated.) de(ining -complete
(alse (riends. as those cross<linguistic 'ord pairs 'hich are -monosemantic in %oth or one
language and this meaning di((ers (rom that o( its counterpart. 8p. @,A;. This type may %e
e2empli(ied %y the 45ech<English 'ord pair -pastaCpasta.0 the t'o can in no circumstances %e
considered translation e/uivalents. 6o'ever) Neis%ergss de(inition needs alteration. 3amely)
it is certainly possi%le (or -completely (alse. cross<linguistic pairs o( look<alikes to e2hi%it
t'o cases o( polysemy 'ithin one pair. Both the 45ech -resortCre5ort. and the English
-resort. are polysemous) and their meanings have thus (ar %een regarded as completely
divergent) despite the English -resort. in the sense o( -an area 'here many people go (or
recreation. 'hich has recently %egun to penetrate the 45ech language in the (orm o( -re5ort.)
sometimes assuming the place o( the more conventional -rekreaOn#Cturistick o%last. and
-pr5dninovP letovisko.. 1et) though understanda%le) it 'ill %e vie'ed as anglicism %y many.
+M
Fhile %oth pseudo and complete (alse (riends are (airly straight(or'ard) other types
may entail considera%le intricacy. This applies namely to 'hat Neis%ergs 8+99@) pp. @,A<@,9;
terms -nuance di((erentiated 'ord pairs.) and also to partial (alse (riends. 6e de(ines the latter
as -pairs o( 'ords in the respective languages D(or 'hich it is true thatE in one or several
meanings DtheyE are identical %ut in some meaning di((erent. 8p. @,A;. & case in point is the
45echCEnglish 'ord pair -orgnCorgan 8see E2ample +;.
E2ample +
J
K$IQ3CK$I&3
Fhen re(erring to %odily parts such as lungs or kidney) the t'o can sa(ely %e considered e/uivalents0
less so in the sense o( -an administrative unit o( government.) in 'hich the 45ech -orgn. is (re/uently used)
and usually %est rendered %y the English -authorityCauthorities. or -%ody.. 1et) occasionally) 'hen used to mean
-a government agency or instrument devoted to the per(ormance o( some speci(ic (unction.) the 45ech -orgn.
can indeed %e translated using its English look<alike. The num%er o( hits retrieved (rom the British 3ational
4orpus that contain the lemma -organ. in the a%ove mentioned sense is minor %ut not negligi%le) 'hich may
mislead or at %est pu55le learners as 'ell as translators. The English 'ord -organ. is also an e/uivalent o( the
45ech -varhany.. ?sed in this sense) either o( the pair has little propensity to cause con(usion and %e translated
incorrectly as a result thereo() e2cept perhaps (or the plural ending 'hich some learners may %e tempted to add
to -organ. due to its 45ech counterpart %eing technically in the plural 8plurale tantum;.
The a%ove descri%ed type o( partial (alse (riends) it needs to %e emphasi5ed) only
covers a part o( the phenomenon o( partial (riendship0 that o( -intersection.. In addition to
this) 4asanovas 4atal H K3eill 8+99G; speak o( -inclusion.) 'hich according to them
-occurs 'hen the meanings o( one 'ord a%sor% those o( the other. 8p.++:;. *or a given cross<
linguistic 'ord pair there are) naturally) t'o 'ays o( this happening: either the meaning8s; o(
the L+ 'ord constitute a su%set o( the meanings o( the L, 'ord) or vice versa. K(ten) %ut not
al'ays) the -su%set. 'ord %elongs to a rather specialised voca%ulary) as does) (or instance) the
45ech 'ord -divi5e. 8see E2ample ,;.
+
De(initions in these e2amples are taken (rom Lingea Le2ion =.
+=
E2ample ,
DINIRECDINISIK3
&ll o( the meanings o( the 45ech -divi5e.) that is) -an army unit.) -a league ranked %y /uality. and -an
administrative unit.) are 'ell rendered %y -division.) o( 'hich) ho'ever) none o( these is a primary meaning.
ore (re/uently) the English -division. is used to re(er to -the act or process o( dividing.) -one o( the portions
into 'hich something is regarded as divided. and -an arithmetic operation.) to name %ut a (e' o( its meanings.
6ere again) some other 45ech e2pressions are necessary.
&n inverse phenomenon seems) >udging %y 6ladk7s %ook 8+99:;) some'hat less
common (or the 45echCEnglish language pair. It may %e e2empli(ied %y the 45ech
-provi5orn#. and its English look<alike -provisional. 8see E2ample J;.
E2ample J
L$KNIRK$3SCL$KNISIK3&L
Fhen used to mean -under terms not (inal or (ully 'orked out or agreed upon.) the 45ech -provi5orn#.
may under certain circumstances %e translated using -provisional.0 -provi5orn# "eTen#.) (or instance) is /uite
nicely rendered %y -a provisional solution.. 1et) this -(riendship. is rather -(u55y. since the 45ech -provi5orn#.
is perceived as too in(ormal (or some conte2ts) and there(ore o(ten replaced 'ith other e2pressions such as
-pro5at#mn#.) as in -pro5at#mn# hranice. 8provisional %orders;. -Lrovisional.) on the other hand) is not
uncommonly a%andoned in (avour o( -tentative.) -interim. and -temporary.. 3evertheless) in its primary sense
-provi5orn#. re(ers to something that has %een hastily contrived to meet an urgent need) using 'hatever 'as
availa%le. &dmittedly) the product o( such activity is typically meant to serve a temporary purpose) and is thus)
in a 'ay) -provisional.) too0 ho'ever) the essence o( -provi5orn#. used in this sense is the implied lack o(
/uality resulting (rom the (act that some alternative means 'ere used. There(ore) a tree stump 'ould %e
descri%ed as -a makeshi(t ta%le. rather than a -provisional. one.
I( the pro%a%ility o( a student or translator dra'ing mistaken analogies is already
considera%le in the case o( partial (alse (riends) it is even greater in the case o( 'hat Neis%ergs
terms -nuance di((erentiated 'ord pairs. 8p. @,A;. These -%asically have the same denotative
meaning. 8Neis%ergs) +99@) p. @,A;0 yet) they may har%our an array o( slight semantic
di((erences. Some authors regard these di((erences as -a series o( (actors 'hich (urther
+@
compound Dthe pro%lemE. 86ay'ard H oulin) +9AJ) p. +9J;0 Iranger H S'allo') on the
other hand) have adopted a (airly novel approach o( classi(ying (alse (riends %ased on
Ieo((rey Leechs 8+9A+; -seven types o( meaning.) allotting many o( these di((erences their
o'n -groups.. Either 'ay) it is agreed that the -nuances. are related) among others) to
stylistic (eatures) 'hich are comprised mainly o( the degree o( (ormality) the (ield o(
discourse and -the temporal and geographical setting o( the language event. 8Iranger H
S'allo') +9AA) p. ++=;. &n incongruity in the level o( (ormality is the primary reason o( (alse
(riendship %et'een many *renchCEnglish look<alikes0 in English) many -/uasi<synonymous
dou%lets. 8Iranger H S'allo') +9AA) p. ++=; e2ist) such as -descendCgo do'n.) 'hich
consist o( one 'ord o( *rench 8or Latin; and the other o( Iermanic origin. The (ormer
e2pression) 'hich is usually (ormal or do'nright literary in English) is o(ten (ormally similar
to a 'ord commonly used in *rench 8descendre;.
*alse (riendship %ased solely on stylistic di((erences in general is (airly rare among
45echCEnglish look<alikes. & (ine e2ample is provided %y the -thPCtea. 'ord pair) 'here the
45ech e2pression is almost over'helmingly archaic. Kther cases) such as the 45echCEnglish
'ord<pair -drogaCdrug.) may %e less clear<cut as to 'hether the di((erences involved are
purely stylistic 8see E2ample M;.
E2ample M
D$KI&CD$?I
The English 'ord -drug. is e/uivalent to the 45ech -droga. 'hen the (ormer is used to re(er to a
narcotic) its primary meaning %eing -a su%stance that is used as a medicine.. Fhen -droga.) on the other hand) is
used in this latter sense) typically as a medical term) it (eels (ormal0 outside medical conte2t) it (eels literary and
even archaic. Some might rightly argue that) unlike -drug.) -droga. in this sense denotes a natural su%stance)
such as her%al e2tract) rather than a synthetic one) and the di((erence is there(ore not limited to the stylistic level.
Uuite interestingly) this di((erence appears to %e inherent in the archaic nature o( the 'ord and the concept it 8in
that particular sense; re(ers to0 (or in the past) synthetic medical su%stances had yet to come into e2istence.
+G
&nother source o( (alse (riendship is connected 'ith connotative meaning) 'hich is
de(ined %y Ieo((rey Leech as -the communicative value an e2pression has %y virtue o( 'hat
it re(ers to) over and a%ove its purely conceptual Dor denotativeE content. 8Leech) +9A+) p. +,;.
Disentangling this -communicative value. (rom the -denotative content. may re/uire
considera%le e((ort on the part o( the student or translator) particularly in the case o( a%stract
concepts) such as naivety0 here) the divergences %et'een the 45ech -naivn#. and the English
-naive. are not o( purely connotative character either 8see E2ample =;.
E2ample =
3&IN3SC3&INE
Fhile -naive. can %e used to descri%e something -lacking sophistication.) it is only in esta%lished
phrases such as -naivn# umVn#. that its 45ech -counterpart. has this meaning. It seems) there(ore) that this sense
is not inherent in the 45ech e2pression per se) %ut rather constitutes a separate -unit. 'hich has %een esta%lished
as a result o( literal translation (rom a (oreign language. In its pro%a%ly most common sense) -naivn#. re(ers to
something -marked %y or sho'ing una((ected simplicity and lack o( guile or 'orldly e2perience.) as in -naivn#
p"edstava. and -naivn# OlovVk.. In denoting this) or) lack o( e2perience in general) it agrees 'ith the English
-naive.0 ho'ever) di((erences e2ist %et'een the t'o in the degree o( negative connotations that each e2pression
entails. ?sually it is the 45ech e2pression that is marked %y a higher degree o( these connotations0 'hile -a naive
child. seems to com%ine ine2perience 'ith a certain degree o( innocence) -naivn# d#tV. com%ines ine2perience
'ith a certain degree o( reprimand (or this lack o( e2perience. Thus) although it is possi%le to translate) say)
-naivn# p"edstava. as -a naive idea.) sometimes a synonymous e2pression instead o( either -naivn#. and -naive.
'ould %e more appropriate0 all the more so %ecause -naive. is) according to the British and the 45ech 3ational
corpora) decisively less (re/uent than its 45ech look<alike is0 it appears in the B34 roughly seven hundred and
(i(ty times) 'hich renders it more than t'o times less (re/uent than -naivn#. 'ith its appro2imate num%er o(
occurrences in the W3B 8syn,:::; o( one thousand si2 hundred. In English) it appears) a range o( synonymous
or related e2pressions is used instead o( -naive.: gulli%le) callo') credulous) green) simple) innocent) childlike)
ingenuous) unin(ormed and ine2perienced) to name %ut a hand(ul o( them. -3aivn# "eTen#. might there(ore %etter
%e translated as -a simple solution. and -naivn# mlad#k. as -a callo' youth.. Though the English -naive. is
o(ten not devoid o( pe>orative connotations) it is occasionally) much to the pu55lement o( the 45ech learner)
purely neutral) as in: -& di((erentiation is %eing made %et'een naive and e2perienced users o( online
+A
catalogues.. 8B34; 6ardly a sentence more illustrating o( the use o( -naive. in a neutral sense could %e devised0
here) the 45ech -naivn#. 'ould %e clearly unsuita%le as a translational e/uivalent.
& yet another area o( (alse (riendship arises (rom the e2istence o( collocational
restrictions. &ccording to Borosado'ic5<Stu5ynska 8as /uoted %y Iranger H S'allo') +9AA)
p. ++,;) -the notion o( collocation is connected 'ith 'ord distri%ution and its pro%a%ility o(
occurrence in certain conte2ts.. The collocational spectrum ranges (rom 'ord com%inations
-the elements o( 'hich can commute (reely 'ith other le2ical items. 8Iranger H S'allo')
+9AA) p. ++,; to idioms) 'hich are -se/uences o( 'ords 'hose meaning cannot %e predicted
(rom the meanings o( the 'ords themselves. 8Lalmer) +9A+) p. J@;. The middle part o( the
spectrum consists o( restricted collocations) o( 'hich al'ays one element is not used in its
original) literal sense 8*ischer) +99A) p. MM;. &isenstadt 8as /uoted %y Iranger H S'allo')
+9AA; (urther e2plains the notion o( restricted collocations %y stating that these are -used in
one o( their regular) non<idiomatic meanings...and restricted in their commuta%ility ... %y
usage. 8p. ++,;. Iranger H S'allo' 8+9AA; assert that t'o distinct -(alse (riendship.
situations may arise as a result o( collocational restrictions0 either there is e/uivalence
%et'een the t'o look<alikes in a particular sense) 'ith the e2ception o( certain restricted
collocations 'here some other e2pression is used in either or %oth languages) or the
e/uivalence o( the t'o look<alikes is limited to a certain num%er o( restricted collocations. &
some'hat loose e2ample o( the (ormer situation is provided %y the cross<linguistic pair o( the
45ech -a%solutn#. and the English -a%solute.. 6ere) using a 'ord (ormally similar to the
45ech e2pression 'ill not impede understanding) %ut may render the te2t less natural 8see
E2ample @;.
E2ample @
&BSKL?T3SC&BSKL?TE
+9
In a vast num%er o( occurrences they %oth collocate 'ith the same e2pressions in their respective
languages0 thus) -a%solutn# vVtTina. is 'ell<rendered %y -an a%solute ma>ority. and -a%solutn# hodnota. %y
-a%solute value.. K(ten another alternative instead o( -a%solutn#Ca%solute. is availa%le in either or %oth
languages0 in 45ech) (or instance) ad>ectives such as -naprost7. are used) as in -naprost7 nesmysl. or -naprostP
ticho.) 'hich in certain circumstances seem to more descriptively evoke the concept they modi(y and may (eel
less in(ormal. In English) too) a range o( colour(ul ad>ectives may %e used instead o( -a%solute.0 among others
these are -sheer. and -pure. in connection 'ith -nonsense.) and -dead. and -utter. in connection 'ith
-silence.. &s regards the -a%solutn#Ca%solute. pair) collocational restrictions may /uite markedly result in the
e2istence o( a certain degree o( (alse (riendship %et'een the t'o look<alikes in those cases 'here a di((erent
English e2pression 8instead o( -a%solute.; is a (ar %etter collocate0 -a%solutn# priorita.) (or instance) translates as
-top priority. rather than -a%solute priority..
&n inverse situation) 'here e/uivalence %et'een t'o look<alikes is limited to a
num%er o( restricted collocations) is 'ell illustrated %y a cross<linguistic 'ord pair consisting
o( the 45ech -kontrolovat. and the English -control. 8see E2ample G;.
E2ample G
BK3T$KLKN&TC4K3T$KL
&dmittedly) certain English phrases containing the 'ord -control. may %e translated using the 45ech
-kontrola.0 -lose control 8o( something;.) (or instance) is 'ell<rendered %y -5tratit 8nad nVO#m; kontrolu.. It is)
ho'ever) merely in these phrases that the 45ech e2pression coincides in meaning 'ith the English -control.
'hen the latter is used to denote -the activity o( managing or e2erting control over something.. Typically) the
45ech -kontrola. in the sense o( -check8ing;. or -inspection.) 'hich is its decidedly most common meaning)
di((ers completely in meaning (rom the English -control.. 6o'ever) a (e' nota%le e2ceptions e2ist) such as
-pasov kontrola.) 'hich translates as -passport control..
To round up the concept o( (alse (riendship) yet another mani(estation o( nuance
di((erentiation %et'een cross<linguistic 'ord pairs must %e taken into consideration:
divergences in (re/uency. &s can %e in(erred (rom the a%ove) these usually 8and /uite
naturally; accompany other di((erences) such as those in the connotational sphere. 3uance
di((erences in general should %e regarded as an accompanying phenomenon rather than a
,:
distinct group o( (alse (riends) although they alone may) on occasion) result in the e2istence o(
(alse (riendship %et'een cross<linguistic look<alikes.
The a%ove presented categori5ation o( (alse (riends into pseudo (alse (riends) total
(alse (riends and three su%sets o( partial (alse (riends) along 'ith a set o( nuance di((erences
8see 4hart +;) aspires to provide a simple) yet all<em%racing system o( organi5ation o( this
multi<(aceted phenomenon. Such a system 'ill ena%le the learner or translator to gain a %etter
insight into (alse L+CL, analogy. &n a'areness o( all the categories that comprise the concept
o( (alse (riendship is no less important (or le2icographers aiming to compile a (alse (riends
dictionary.
Lseudo
(alse
(riends
Total (alse
(riends
Lartial (alse (riends
3uance
di((erentiated
'ord pairs
True
(riends
Intersection Inclusion Inclusion
3uance di((erentiation
Chart
,+

4
5
5
c
c
'
'
5
5
4
5

4
5
5
c
c
'
'

5
5
4
5

4
5
5
c
c
'
'
5
5
4
5
/%! Approaches to the Treatment of False Friends
In reminiscence o( the (alse (riends semantic continuum 'ith its t'o contrasting ends)
there e2ist t'o opposing vie's on the signi(icance o( cross<linguistic look<alikes. Some
scholars vie' it as a matter o( vital necessity (or learners and trainee translators to %e
su((iciently alerted to the e2istence o( (alse (riends. Kn the other hand) not only the scope and
the comple2ity o( the phenomenon o( -(au2 amis. are o(ten simpli(ied) as 'as indicated in the
previous chapter) %ut its signi(icance has %een some'hat do'nplayed as 'ell) in (avour o(
-true (riends.. The e2istence o( the t'o contrasting vie's on (ormally similar items in t'o
di((erent languages accentuates the need (or (alse (riends dictionaries to %e compiled0 they
may %e vie'ed as help(ul tools in striking a %alance %et'een the t'o approaches.
&mong the opponents o( the signi(icance o( (alse (riends is $ing%om 8,::G;) 'ho
voices his opinion that -D(alse (riendsE easily assume an importance in learners and teachers
minds that is out o( proportion to their signi(icance.) and that -the dangers o( D(alse (riendsE ...
should not %e e2aggerated. 8p. G=;. 6e concurs 'ith 3e'mark 8+99A; in that -true (riends are
more numerous than (alse (riends. 8p. +,=;. &lso) in the (ield o( language teaching it has %een
pointed out that -cognates Das vie'ed %y the traditional approachE) also the -not<true. ones)
may (acilitate voca%ulary learning. 8de Iroot) ,:++) p. +,,; and the learning o( a (oreign
language in general) since they -help (luency and sel(<con(idence 'ith speakers o( poorer
English) giving them a sense o( a%ility to communicate. 8Ioana) ,::G) p. 9G=;.
The a%ove attitude has) to an e2tent) replaced the one characteri5ed %y -stressDingE the
potentially detrimental e((ect o( cognates. 8de Iroot) ,:++) p. +,,;. &dvocates o( this latter
approach maintain that -DiEt is pre(era%le to mistrust all (riends as one cannot hope to kno' all
(alse (riends. 8Dodds) +999) p. @+) /uoting 3e'mark /uoting Seleskovitch H Lederer;.
Fhen used e2clusively) each approach has its dra'%acks. Fhile the (ormer approach
may) as 6olmes H Iuerra $amos 8+99J; have (ound) result in over<reliance on (ormal
,,
similarity and lead to learners -recklessly guessing. the meanings o( 'ords in a (oreign
language) the -conse/uences Do( the latterE could ... %e particularly dire in L+ to L,
translation) as little time and e((ort 'ould %e spent on other error sources. 8Dodds) +999)
p. @+;0 in other 'ords) i( too much attention is paid to avoiding literal 8(ormally similar; items)
mistakes not involving le2is 'ill likely elude the translator) 'ho may thus produce a
translation much 'orse than they 'ould i( (ormally similar items 'ere employed.
1et) on the other hand) the %oundary %et'een 3e'marks -true (riends. and -(alse
(riends. is precisely as (u55y as are those o( the phenomenon o( (alse (riends itsel() given that)
in his vie') -the degree o( di((erence D%et'een (alse (riendsE may vary (rom complete to
slight. and that -true (riends ... have precisely or appro2imately the same meanings.
83e'mark) +99A) p. +,=;. These de(initions clearly sho' ho' the t'o phenomena o( the
semantic continuum shade into each other0 -slight di((erence. may) in actuality) involve the
same degree o( di((erence as does -appro2imately the same.. There(ore) 'hile 3e'mark
maintains that -true (riends. outnum%er -(alse (riends.) it may) at least in certain cases) %e
disputa%le 'hether a particular cross<linguistic 'ord pair counts to true or (alse (riends) 'hich
is not even to mention the important 8and decidedly large; category o( partial (alse (riends)
that is) pairs that are -true (riends. in certain conte2ts and -(alse. in others.
3or is (alse (riendship) it might %e added) an unchanging phenomenon0 as a semantic
relation) it is su%>ect to the in(luence o( language dynamics 8de Schryver) Iou's H Lrinsloo)
,::M;. There%y (ormally similar cross<linguistic 'ord pairs e2perience various shi(ts 'ithin
the semantic continuum. *alse (riendship may thus gradually 'eaken or even vanish) or it
may arise %et'een t'o (ormerly e/uivalent items. &lthough diachrony may other'ise %e o(
no interest to either learners or translators) the a%ove (act needs to %e taken into consideration
particularly 'hen consulting (alse (riends dictionaries that are not o( recent compilation.
,J
The -(u55iness. and multi<(acetedness o( the phenomenon 8as illustrated in this and
the previous chapter; seem to make it sa(est to mistrust all (ormal similarity %et'een t'o
languages) especially i( the languages in /uestion are 'holly unrelated) as are 45ech and
English. This -mistrust.) ho'ever) must not %e understood as -avoiding at all costs.) (or it is)
a(ter all) possi%le under certain circumstances to translate) say) -provi5orn#. as -provisional..
$ather) it should take on the (orm o( initial mistrust that induces learners and translators to
veri(y the e2istence o( e/uivalence %et'een the given items in the given conte2t. This
veri(ication is important in %oth production and receptionCcomprehension (or %oth learners
and translators) although (or lo'<level learners even certain (alse (riends may serve as
communicative aids0 at higher levels) o%viously) communicative skills cannot %e developed at
the e2pense o( accuracy.
&s (ar as reception
M
is concerned) it is) as 4hacXn Beltrn points out in his paper
entitled -The E((ects o( *ocus on *orm in the Teaching o( Spanish<English *alse *riends.
8,::=;) vital (or learners to %e a'are o( the possi%le e2istence o( (alse (riendship %et'een
(ormally similar 'ord pairs) (or -'hen a learner is DsayE reading and interprets a !alse !riend
as a true D!riendE) it is almost impossi%le (or himCher to come up 'ith the mistake on hisCher
o'n i( negative evidence is not provided. 8p. @G;. Translators are not e2empt (rom the
-seductive. in(luence o( (ormal similarity) either. &s regards reception) erroneous
assumptions in comprehension o( an L, source te2t occur -especially 8%ut not e2clusively;
among novice translators. 8SchY((ner H &da%) ,:::) p. ,=;.
The a%ove in(luence) as SchY((ner H &da% e2plain) 'hen it occurs in production) is
t'o<directional0 it occurs in %oth L+<to<L, and L,<to<L+ direction. They particularly highlight
-
*or reasons o( convenience) the terms -reception. and -production. are used (or %oth the (ields o( language
teaching and translation) -reception. meaning -comprehension o( a te2t.) -production. meaning -production o( a
te2tCtranslation..
,M
-the hypnotic po'er 'hich the L, source te2t seems to e2ert on the translator) even 'hen he
or she is highly pro(icient and is translating (rom L, into L+. 8p. ,@;. Kn the level o( le2is) the
conse/uence o( this -hypnotic po'er. may) in the case o( the 45ech<English language pair) %e
the use in 45ech either o( a -(alse (riend. or o( 'hat tends to %e regarded as anglicisms and
(ro'n upon 8e.g. -pr5dninov7 re5ort. instead o( -pr5dninovP letovisko. or -rekreaOn#
o%last.;.
&s (ar as the other 8L+<to<L,; direction is concerned) it is pro%a%ly stating the o%vious
%oth in the (ield o( language teaching and translation that L+ inter(eres in the production o(
the te2t in L, 8SchY((ner H &da%) ,:::;0 especially in the case o( 'ords such as -(rakce.
8'hen used to denote -a dissenting cli/ue.;) the translator may %e tempted to preserve the
(ormal similarity) presuming 8or hoping; that the (ormally similar 'ord pair concur in a
particular acceptation) too. Such misunderstandings) in addition to resulting in errors not
involving le2is) may) too) lead to the 'rong employment o( a (ormally similar 'ord. & case in
point is the English -e((ectively.. ?nlike its partial (alse (riend) -e(ektivnV.) it is (re/uently
used to mean -in actuality or reality or (act.) 'hich meaning may tend to slip the translators
mind) especially 'hen the 45ech look<alike -o((ers itsel(.) as in -any people are e((ectively
'orking 'ithout any special tools..
Sometimes) translation errors made under the -spell. o( (ormal similarity may %e
solely due to the translators overcon(idence and la5iness to merely open their 8computer;
dictionary0 at other times) time<saving reasons come into play. These do not e2cuse a poor
translation0 at the same time) though) it has to %e admitted that the a%ove emphasi5ed
veri(ication 8in a conventional dictionary; may turn out to %e a (airly time<consuming process)
particularly i( the 'ord has a multitude o( meanings. &lso) in addition to consulting
monolingual and %ilingual dictionaries) the 8trainee; translator may need to use language
corpora and other sources. Simultaneously) they are running the risks o( either %ecoming
,=
unnecessarily preoccupied 'ith le2is to the point o( making mistakes in other areas) or
'rongly employing a (ormally similar item 'here another one 'ould (it %etter. K( course) the
search (or the most suita%le) or the most -appro2imate.) translation e/uivalent is among the
essential /uests o( the translator) >ust like (inding a reasona%le e/uivalent is among the
primary concerns o( a language learner) and none o( these is limited to (ormally similar items.
6o'ever) (alse (riends occupy a some'hat -special. status due to their comple2ity and
-treacherousness.. In addition to providing in one place all the relevant in(ormation) a /uality
(alse (riend dictionary is a relia%le re(erence 'ork0 one that 'ill (urnish learners 8and trainee
translators; 'ith (acts instead o( over<generali5ed tendencies.
,@
'%! Towards a New $-ech0English0English0$-ech False Friends Dictionary
The most (re/uently occurring !au" amis should %e listed) categori5ed and e2plained
%y means o( contrastive comparisons. It is only %y this sort o( analysis that advanced
learners can %e sensiti5ed to the di((iculty o( translating such innocuous<looking pairs
o( similar 'ords. 8Lerkins) as /uoted %y Iranger H S'allo') +9AA) p. ++9;
Despite occasional claims to the contrary 8as mentioned in M.:;) the importance o(
learners and translators a'areness o( (alse (riends and the need (or (alse (riends dictionaries
to %e compiled is usually generally ackno'ledged. It is perhaps rather surprising) then) that
not much has %een 'ritten on 'hat such a dictionary should actually look like. & compiler o(
a (alse (riends dictionary 8or o( a revision o( it; is thus le(t to use largely their o'n discretion)
e2perience and) importantly) the 'orks o( their predecessors. The pillar o( the 'hole o( this
chapter is Zrdn slova v anglitin %y !ose( 6ladk7 8+99:;. This 'ork is gradually analysed
and evaluated throughout the (our (ollo'ing su%chapters.
'%" Scope
&ccording to van $oey) a co<author 8together 'ith Iranger and S'allo'; o( a *rench<
English (alse (riends dictionary) the e2pectations o( learners and trainee translators regarding
a (alse (riends dictionary coverage are that it should -represent a scienti(ically and
pedagogically >usti(ied selection o( the most (re/uent and most misleading D(alse (riendsE.
8van $oey) +9AA) p. +@,;. 4ertainly) the /uestion o( the scope o( a (alse (riends dictionary can
%e seen as several(old. ?nless there are some (urther speci(ications) it appears to %e linked to
%asically (our concepts0 these are that o( (ormal similarity) -(alsity.) (re/uency and 'hat can
%e termed as -pro%lematicity.. In other 'ords) it depends upon 'hich cross<linguistic 'ord
pairs are perceived as (ormally similar0 o( these) 'hich are regarded as -(alse (riends.0 'hich
le2ical items participating in a (alse (riends pair are reasona%ly (re/uent 8in either or %oth
,G
languages;0 and 'hich tend to %e misused most o(ten. It must %e emphasi5ed that the (our
%elo' discussed aspects 8or criteria; linked to the /uestion o( the scope o( a (alse (riends
dictionary should never %e considered separately) %ut as parts contri%uting to the 'hole.
'%"%" The $riterion of Formal Similarity
&s regards the (irst o( the a%ove listed aspects) (ormal similarity) no universal criteria
are availa%le0 at least) none that 'ould %e applica%le (or the purpose o( a dictionary
compilation. Nan $oey mentions a suggestion in this respect that has %een put (or'ard %y
6ammer and onod) 'ho reserve the term !au" amis (or -pairs sho'ing a di((erence in
spelling (orm o( one letter at most 8disregarding recurrent a((i2es;. 8van $oey) +9AA) p. +@J;)
6o'ever) he o%serves that -DeE2perience 'ith *rench learners Do( EnglishE does not indicate
that the di((erence o() say) three letters 8in e.g. avisCadvice; makes D(alse (riendsE less
deceptive than the di((erence o( one single letter 8in e.g. dPlaiCdelay;. 8van $oey) +9AA)
p. +@J;. Thus) the selection (or le2icographic purposes o( -(ormally similar. 'ords
participating in (alse (riends 'ord pairs is usually impressionistic and empirical) %ased on the
compilers su%>ective >udgement and e2perience.
Though van $oey uses the 'ord -selection.) it 'ould perhaps have %een more
appropriate to speak o( -identi(ication.0 (or identi(ying (ormally similar items in %oth 8or all;
languages is the (irst step that needs to %e taken in compiling a (alse (riends dictionary. The
manner in 'hich this step 'as e2ecuted in the case o( Zrdn slova v anglitin is not
disclosed to the user0 yet) in his pre(ace to the %ook) 6ladk7 8+99:; states that the selection o(
head'ords roughly corresponds to #lovn$k spisovn% e&tiny pro &kolu a ve'e(nost 8Dictionary
o( Standard 45ech (or Schools and Lu%lic; (rom the year o( +9GA and the )ongman
*ictionary o! Contemporary +nglish 8Lrocter; (rom the same year. Since Zrdn slova v
anglitin appears to %e designed primarily as a 45ech<to<English dictionary) it seems
,A
>usti(ied to presume that the entries contained in the mentioned #lovn$k spisovn% e&tiny 'ere
manually e2amined) and -(oreign<sounding.) loan'ord items 'ere collected (or the inclusion
in the dictionary. This procedure yielded a considera%le num%er o( 'ords that are likely to
participate in (alse (riends 'ord pairs0 indeed) a pair o( 45ech<English 8non<pseudo; (alse
(riends that is not -in 6ladk7. is a rather uncommon sight. 1et) a comparison o( the 3 section
o( Zrdn slova v anglitin 8+99:;) 'hich is among the shortest) and the corresponding
section o( #lovn$k spisovn% e&tiny pro &kolu a ve'e(nost (rom +9GA revealed that inclusion o(
some more 'ords in Zrdn slova might %e considered) especially that o( -na(tal#n.) -ntura.
and -naturel.) and perhaps also o( -naordinovat.) as -ordinovat. is not contained in 6ladk7s
dictionary.
& shining e2ample o( the su%>ective nature o( (ormal similarity is provided %y the
a%sence (rom the dictionary o( the 'ord -kompromitovat.. Lresuma%ly) its usual translation
e/uivalent) -compromise.) appeared to %ear enough resem%lance to its 45ech e/uivalent (or it
to %e e2cluded (rom the group o( (alse (riends. 1et) it may %e sa(ely predicted that
-compromise. 'ill not %e the (irst 'ord to -pop up. in the mind o( a learner not
kno'ledgea%le o( the correct 8usual; English e/uivalent o( -kompromitovat.. &nd even i( the
learner does possess this a'areness) they may still make a mistake in the opposite direction o(
translation) (or the meaning o( the English -compromise. e2tends %eyond that o( its 45ech
-counterpart. to mean -e2pose or make lia%le to danger) suspicion or disrepute.. It seems
(rom the a%ove that mere comparison o( the e2isting -(orms. in the t'o languages is not
su((icient0 even during this initial stage the le2icographer needs to pay sensitive attention to
the direction o( translation) or) rather) to the speci(ic -position. o( the target user) 'ho in the
case o( Zrdn slova v anglitin is) as 6ladk7 8+99:; states in his pre(ace) a person 'ho has
mastered the %asics o( the English language and can regard themselves as an at least
moderately advanced learner.
,9
It may) in the case o( the a%ove descri%ed pair o( pseudo (alse (riends) %e dou%ted
'hether learners need to %e alerted to the -e2istence. o( non<e2istent 'ords) such as
-compromiting.. The reason %ehind the very inclusion o( such -%lacklist. 'ords is the hope
that upon seeing their 45ech counterparts the learner 'ill) at the very least) think t'ice %e(ore
recklessly guessing the English e/uivalent.
Zrdn slova v anglitin 8+99:; contains a num%er o( pseudo (alse (riends) the non<
e2istent 'ord %eing su%stituted (or a dash. ?n(ortunately) not all pairs presented as such are
pseudo (alse (riends0 (or instance) the 45ech -interrupce. o%viously has its (alse (riend
counterpart in English) though the %ook does not say so. The a%sence o( -interruption.)
ho'ever) hardly seems deli%erate) and is all the more disconcerting since there clearly e2ists a
semantic link %et'een the meanings o( the t'o (alse (riends. Like'ise) once the author had) a
little curiously) decided (or the inclusion in the dictionary o( -klav#r.) he should have supplied
its English look<alike -clavier.) i( only (or the sake o( completeness. The latter 'ord is)
admittedly) not listed in the )ongman *ictionary o! Contemporary +nglish 8Lrocter) +9GA;)
'hich is most likely the reason (or it %eing a%sent (rom 6ladk7s %ook 8+99:;0 the term
-clavichord.) on the other hand) 'hich does have an entry in the )ongman *ictionary)
pro%a%ly appeared too dissimilar (rom -klav#r..
In some cases) several (ormally similar -counterparts. o( one 'ord e2ist 8or may %e
devised %y the learner;. &n e2ceptionally intricate e2ample is provided %y the 45ech
-momentlnV. and its possi%le look<alikes) 'hich are -momentallyZ. and -momentarily.. The
e2istence o( the latter is) surprisingly enough) not ackno'ledged %y Zrdn slova v anglitin
8+99:;) 'hich is likely to irritate those o( the more advanced learners 'ho do have a'areness
o( its e2istence. The English -momentarily.
=
displays a considera%le degree o(
-treacherousness. %y not meaning -momentlnV. and) at the same time) %eing a possi%le
5
Similarly pro%lematic is the 45ech -momentln#.) 'hich has at least t'o look<alikes in English) -momentary.
and -momentous.) o( 'hich only the (ormer is included in Zrdn slova v anglitin.
J:
translation e/uivalent o( %oth -na moment. and -5a moment.) depending primarily on the
variety o( English0 in British English) -momentarily. is traditionally understood to mean -(or
>ust a very short time.) 'hile in &merican English) it o(ten denotes -in a moment.. Its
a%sence (rom Zrdn slova v anglitin constitutes yet another proo( o( the su%>ective nature
o( (ormal similarity. Thus it is clear that the search (or (ormally similar items in the t'o
languages given should not %e a one persons e((ort0 rather) it should %e conducted
collectively %y a group o( teachers) linguists or le2icographers0 language teaching e2perience
'ill de(initely aid this 'ork.
6ladk7s 8+99:; process o( identi(ying (alse (riends may) in addition to %eing
inevita%ly su%>ective) %e descri%ed as manual identi(ication. Time demanding though the
process may %e) it does not appear to stand much chance o( %eing (ully replaced 'ith an
automatic method any time soon) given the comple2 nature o( (alse (riendship. Neis%ergs
8+99@;) (or instance) asserts that -inclusion o( con(usa%les in a **s dictionary should %e ...
implemented on individual %asis only. 8p. @J,;. 3evertheless) 'ith the development o(
computational linguistics and electronic corpora) numerous attempts have %een made at
automatic identi(ication o( (alse (riends. E2ploring this topic in depth had %etter %e le(t to
computational linguists0 (or the purpose o( this 'ork) a %rie( mention 'ill su((ice. 3akov)
3akov H Laskaleva 8,::9;) (or instance) proposed several algorithms (or ac/uiring (alse
(riends pairs (rom parallel %i<te2ts. They also divide previous 'orks on e2tracting (alse
(riends (rom te2t into several categories) according to the methods used. In addition to
methods (or measuring phonetic and orthographic similarity) 'hich 'ere employed %y the
ma>ority o( recent research) there are semantic methods (or distinguishing %et'een -true
(riends. and -(alse (riends.0 little research has %een carried out on e2tracting (alse (riends
(rom parallel %i<te2ts 83akov) 3akov H Laskaleva) ,::9;. *run5a H Inkpen 8,::@;) to name
one more e2ample) present in their paper t'o methods o( partial (alse (riends disam%iguation.
J+
The success rate o( automatic methods o( (alse (riends identi(ication is generally increasing)
though it is hardly (ully satis(actory. It seems that care(ul scholarly 'ork 'ill al'ays play a
vital part in the identi(ication o( (alse (riends) although automatic processes may (unction as
help(ul complements.
'%"% The $riterion of (Falsity)
In addition to %eing dependent on ho' the concept o( (ormal similarity is perceived)
the scope o( a (alse (riends dictionary depends on 'hich (ormally similar 'ords are
considered to %e -(alse (riends.. The concept o( -(alsity. has already %een discussed
throughout the previous chapters) most nota%ly in ,.: 8De(ining the 4oncept o( -*alse
*riends.; and J.: 84lassi(ication o( *alse *riends;.
&s can %e seen (rom the latter 8J.:;) 'hich takes almost all e2amples (rom Zrdn
slova v anglitin) the semantic scope o( the phenomenon o( (alse (riends as understood %y
6ladk7 8+99:; is remarka%ly 'ide. Nie'ed %ased on the semantic relationships %et'een (alse
(riends included in the %ook) Zrdn slova v anglitin 'ell illustrates the e2istence o( the
(alse (riends semantic continuum0 it contains all types o( (alse (riends) ranging (rom pseudo
(alse (riends to nuance di((erentiated 'ord pairs. It) in (act) lists even those pairs o( 'ords the
(alse (riendship status o( 'hich may %e dou%ted) such as -a%solutn#Ca%solute. 8discussed in
J.:;.
&s has already %een implied in the previous chapter 8M.:;) there appears to %e) not
unreasona%ly) a tendency among those in the (ield o( translation studies to grant the status o(
(alse (riendship to a limited num%er o( 'ord pairs rather than ackno'ledge the (ull semantic
scope o( the phenomenon 'ith all o( its su%tleties. Stamenov 8,::9;) (or instance) states in his
chapter entitled -4ognates in language) in the mind and in a prompting dictionary (or
translation. that di((erences in the polysemous structure and collocational di((erences are
J,
-enough (or the practical purposes o( translation. 8p. ,JJ;0 %y this) he e((ectively disregards
most o( nuance di((erentiated 'ord pairs) pseudo<(alse (riends %eing hope(ully eradicated
among all sel(<respecting translators. It is necessary to point out) ho'ever) that his
-prompting. dictionary is %uilt on the assumption that -all the in(ormation related to the 'ord
in a te2t and its possi%le translation is kno'n to the users and they merely need to %e
reminded o( the correct translation match. 8Stamenov) ,::9) p. ,MA;.
The a%ove is o( course unlikely to %e al'ays the case o( novice or trainee translators)
let alone learners. These t'o groups) as van $oey suggests) 'ill %ene(it (rom a (alse (riends
dictionary that contains more in(ormation than the conventional %ilingual one does 8van $oey)
+9AA) p. +@,;) 'hich includes not only the in(ormation provided in each dictionary entry) %ut
also the entries as such0 in other 'ords) it also concerns 'hich items are considered -(alse
enough. to appear in the dictionary. &n important point that needs to %e taken into
consideration is the (act that the learning as 'ell as training period are essential in the lives o(
%oth (uture pro(icient %ilinguals and pro(essional translators. During this (ormation process)
learners and trainee translators should develop an a'areness o( the su%stantial as 'ell as
minor semantic di((erences that may e2ist %et'een look<alikes) so that they could) later on)
make an in(ormed choice a%out 'hether) in a particular conte2t) to use a (ormally similar
'ord or not. Fith that end in mind) a (alse (riends dictionary 8(or learners and trainee
translators; should %e designed to contain all types o( (alse (riends descri%ed in J.:) that is)
pseudo (alse (riends) total (alse (riends) three su%sets o( partial (alse (riends and) last %ut
certainly not least) nuance di((erentiated 'ord pairs. The latter group is comprised o( those
(ormally similar 'ords 'hich) although they can %e vie'ed as roughly e/uivalent in all o(
their acceptations) di((er 8as has already %een ela%orated on; 'ith respect to the degree o(
(ormality) the (ield o( discourse) connotative meaning) the collocations they enter into) or
'hich) 'hen used) may impair the naturalness o( the te2t in some 'ay. & pair o( (ormally
JJ
similar 'ords should %e e2cluded (rom the dictionary i( they may %e regarded as translation
e/uivalents o( each other in all o( their acceptations) and no signi(icant nuance di((erences
e2ist that 'ould prevent them (rom %eing so. Thus) pairs such as -a%solutn#Ca%solute. may %e
considered (or e2clusion.
'%"%+ The $riterion of Fre<uency
&nother criterion to take into account 'hen considering the scope o( a (alse (riends
dictionary is that o( (re/uency. The necessity (or the dictionary to contain only the reasona%ly
(re/uently occurring 'ords is o(ten highlighted. Nan $oey 8+9AA;) (or e2ample) claims to
have e2cluded (rom the mentioned *rench<English (alse (riends dictionary all -theoretically
deceptive. pairs) at least one mem%er o( 'hich is e2ceedingly rare 8p. +@J;. Ior%ahn<Krme H
6ausmann 8+99+;) to name another e2ample) 'ho are authors o( an entry entitled -The
dictionary o( (alse (riends. in an encyclopaedia o( le2icography) provide a summary o(
shortcomings o( dictionaries o( this kind0 among these is that they include -rare) unrealistic
and (anci(ul ** pairs. 'hich 'ill -mislead the uninitiated user and 'ill irritate the
e2perienced one. 8Ior%ahn<Krme H 6ausmann) +99+) p. ,AAM;.
The (re/uency o( occurrence is) in the age o( computeri5ed corpora) easily
ascertaina%le. 6o'ever) it is up to the le2icographer to decide ho' rare is -rare.. ?sing an
electronic corpus they may set a (re/uency threshold) 'hich 'ill help them to discard lo'<
(re/uency items. Kne possi%le 'ay o( determining this threshold is to look up the num%er o(
occurrences in a corpus o( a set o( 'ords participating in (alse (riends 'ord pairs that are
perceived 8%y a group o( individuals) pre(era%ly; as in(re/uent0 conceiva%ly) some o( these
'ords 'ill also %e marked as archaic in dictionaries. The highest num%er o( occurrences
among this sample 'ill then %e used as the threshold num%er that other candidate items need
to surpass in order to %e included in the dictionary. By 'ay o( e2ample) ten 'ords have %een
JM
chosen (rom the 45ech part o( Zrdn slova v anglitin 8+99:;: dia(ilm) epigon) eskamot[)
konspekt) meliorace) politura) polyhistor) po5Pr) sta([ and necesPr. The most (re/uent o(
these is -epigon.) 'ith its (orty<(ive occurrences in the 45ech 3ational 4orpus 8see Ta%le ,;.
Ta%le ,
,-ev tabulky
Lemma Kccurrences in the
W3B
8syn,:+:;
dia(ilm ,
epigon M=
eskamot[ ,+
konspekt +:
meliorace ,M
politura +J
polyhistor +A
po5Pr +M
sta([ M:
necesPr +=
It seems convenient) (or the purpose o( this e2periment) to set the threshold at (i(ty
occurrences in the corpus. ?sing this limit) other 'ords) such as -skreOovat.) 'hich only
appears in the W3B t'enty<one times) 'ill %e e2cluded (rom the list o( candidate items.
The English -counterparts. o( many o( the a%ove 'ords (all into the category o(
pseudo (alse (riends or have lo' (re/uency) too. 6o'ever) it need not al'ays %e so) in 'hich
case care must %e taken not to remove (rom either section 'ords 'hich) al%eit rare
themselves) have relatively (re/uent or even (airly common look<alikes. Thus) it seems that
the English -dPclassP.) (or instance) 'hich has 5ero occurrences in the British 3ational
4orpus and no entry in )ongman *ictionary o! Contemporary +nglish 8+9GA;) right(ully
appears in Zrdn slova v anglitin 8+99:;) (or its 45ech (ormally similar counterpart)
-deklasovat.) is comparatively (re/uent) occurring in the W3B a little (e'er than t'o hundred
times. The a%ove listed 45ech 'ord -meliorace. has t'o (ormally similar counterparts in
English: -melioration. and -amelioration.. The (ormer is rare) %ut the latter appears in the
J=
B34 seventy<nine times) 'hich renders the 'hole pair 8or trio; eligi%le) in accordance 'ith
the a%ove) (or inclusion in the dictionary0 all the more so as the ver% 8ameliorate; related to
-amelioration. is) 'ith its hundred and t'enty<three occurrences) even more (re/uent than the
noun.
4ontrary to the opinion stated a%ove) it may %e argued that even lo'<(re/uency items
should appear in (alse (riends dictionaries) (or it is precisely in the case o( these 'ords that the
learner or trainee 8novice; translator) o(ten having pro%lems understanding 'hat these terms
precisely re(er to) 'ill (eel tempted to use their (ormally similar -counterparts..
4learly) in deciding 'hether to include lo'er<(re/uency 'ords the needs o( the target
users must %e taken into account0 advanced learners and trainee translators) (or e2ample) are
rather likely to encounter and %e re/uired to render into the other language even those 'ords
that are in(re/uent) and 'ill e2pect the (alse (riends dictionary to (acilitate this task.
'%"%/ The $riterion of Fre<uency of Error
The last criterion 'hich is linked to the /uestion o( a (alse (riends dictionary scope is
that o( (re/uency o( error0 in other 'ords) the degree to 'hich a (alse (riends pair is -error<
conducive. 8van $oey) +9AA) p. +@J;. Ior%ahn<Krme H 6ausmann 8+99+; list this criterion as
the only one regarding a (alse (riends dictionary scope) stressing the importance o( e2perience
as opposed to -(anci(ul con>ecture. 8p. ,AAJ;.
Lresuma%ly) this -e2perience. is e2pected to %e accompanied %y manually keeping
record o( the 'ords that have %een misused %y learners on the %asis o( (ormal similarity. It
'as %y 'ay o( this method) supported %y the use o( standard %ilingual dictionaries) that
$o%ert !. 6ill compiled his 'ell<kno'n . *ictionary o! /alse /riends 8+9A,;
@
. This
6
The dictionary reveals a curious piece o( in(ormation) one that has already %een indicated in the chapter on
(alse (riends classi(ication: an English 'ord (re/uently has a meaning that di((ers (rom that o( most 8i( not all; o(
its 8cognate; look<alikes in other languages. &lthough the 45ech language is not included in the dictionary) it is)
J@
dictionary is almost invaria%ly cited %y ma>or 'orks on the topic o( (alse (riends 'ritten a(ter
+9A,. Fhat makes it uni/ue is its impressive scope: it lists (alse (riends %et'een English and
more than ten other languages) including Lortuguese) Dutch) Danish and Turkish. In the
introduction to his dictionary 6ill 'rites that -DmEany items (irst %ecame evident as (alse
(riends in the classroom.) indicating 8%y this and else'here; that his students 'ere most
help(ul suppliers o( (alse (riends. 6ills attitude to'ards compiling a (alse (riends dictionary
'as primarily that o( a language teacher rather than language scientist) the motley assortment
o( languages not'ithstanding.
Zrdn slova v anglitin 8+99:;) on the other hand) does seem to %e compiled 'ithout
much regard to 'hether the 'ord pairs included are actually likely to lead to misuse. The
45ech -klav#r.) (or instance) 'hich entry o( the dictionary has already %een discussed) does
not appear to %e a likely source o( pro%lems since -pino. is o(ten used instead) 'hich is
(ormally similar to its usual English e/uivalent) -piano.. &lso) the a%sence o( -compromise.
(rom the dictionary 8discussed in =.+.+; seems to indicate that the 45ech<to<English direction
o( translation may have %een (avoured over the other direction) (or it is precisely this other
direction that may cause pro%lems) the meaning scope o( -compromise. %eing 'ider than that
o( -kompromitovat..
6o'ever) the a%ove statements 8or those parts o( them concerning -pro%lematicity.) to
%e more precise; might %e regarded as an un(ounded con>ecture. *or the argument to %e
grounded in (act) it is necessary to either dra' on ones teaching e2perience orCand check 'ith
materials 8%oth oral and 'ritten) ideally) and in su((icient amount; produced %y 45ech learners
o( English. Kn an international scale) a nota%le corpus o( learner English has %een compiled
apparently) no e2ception. The 45ech 'ord -smoking. re(ers to a dinner >acket0 a meaning 'hich) according to
the dictionary) is shared %y at least t'elve other languages0 among these are odern Ireek) Turkish) &ra%ic and
3or'egian.
JG
and pu%lished %y The 4atholic ?niversity o( Louvain) Belgium) under the name o(
International corpus o! learner +nglish. It contains 'ritings %y E*L learners (rom si2teen
di((erent mother tongue %ackgrounds) including 45ech. Such a corpus may %e a valua%le
source o( in(ormation) though a corpus containing solely 'ritings %y 45ech 8Slovak; learners
o( English 'ould %e pre(era%le.
?nless such a corpus is availa%le) it is possi%le to either manually or electronically
compare learners 'ritings 'ith the collection o( 45ech<English (alse (riends compiled %y
6ladk70 (or Zrdn slova v anglitin 8+99:;) though not (la'less) remains a remarka%le
collection o( 45ech<English (alse (riends) unparalleled to this date.
'% Form, ;rinted and $omputeri-ed False Friends Dictionaries
*alse (riends dictionaries are most o(ten availa%le in paper (orm) as are all o( those
8e2isting; mentioned so (ar) including Zrdn slova v anglitin 8+99:;. Their primary
dra'%ack) in addition to the inconvenience o( use in comparison 'ith those in electronic
(orm) is the (act that they are less easily updated and possi%le mistakes in them recti(ied.
Indeed) a kno'ledgea%le compiler o( a ** dictionary should presuppose their dictionary to %e
imper(ect and incomplete) (or it appears highly likely that some corrections and additions 'ill
need to %e made. This is all the more true (or single<authored dictionaries) as are) (or instance)
Zrdn slova v anglitin and 6ills dictionary o( (alse (riends 8+9A,;. 6ill readily admits in
the introduction to his dictionary that -DiEn its very compilation) there has %een a great risk o(
errors in this dictionary.. K( course) occasional misprints) such as the -moderni5ace. instead
o( -moderni5e. appearing in Zrdn slova v anglitin on p. +:,) 'ill al'ays (ind their 'ay
into all 'ritten material. ore serious in the case o( 6ladk7s 'ork 8+99:; are the rather
numerous omissions o( 8e2isting; English look<alikes o( 45ech 'ords) including
JA
-momentarily. 8discussed in =.+.+; and -inventory. 8p. @@) entry -inventura.;) and also o(
'hole (alse (riends pairs) such as -e(ektivnVCe((ectively..
The need (or ** dictionaries to %e regularly updated is most stressed %y Neis%ergs
8+99@; and de Schryver) Iou's H Lrinsloo 8,::M;. 6aving indicated in =.+.J that even less
(re/uent or archaic 'ords may have its place in a (alse (riends dictionary) the mentioned
updating is o( prime importance particularly in the case o( those 8t'o; languages the semantic
relations o( 'hich are especially lia%le to constant changes %ecause the speakers o( these
languages (re/uently come into close contact 8de Schryver) Iou's H Lrinsloo) ,::M;.
Ior%ahn<Krme H 6ausmann 8+99+;) too) note that -DeE2amples Dprovided in the dictionaryE
should not re(lect outdated usage. 8p. ,AAM;0 that is) i( a 'ords meaning has took on some
nuance di((erences in the course o( time) or it ceased to %e used in a particular conte2t) this
should %e re(lected in the dictionary. Languages %eing living organisms) none o( them is
e2empt (rom the in(luence o( language dynamics) and hard (orm dictionaries are usually slo'
to react to changes resulting (rom this in(luence.
In addition to paper dictionaries) there e2ist various electronic sources o( (alse (riends.
ost advantages linked to (alse (riends dictionaries in computeri5ed (orm spring (rom the
convenience o( compilation) use and even (rom their e((iciency. Lerhaps most importantly)
they are more apt to react to the users needs0 (or even 'ith a 'hole team o( compilers e((ort
put into the dictionary compilation) it is almost impossi%le to avoid the need (or any (uture
additions or alterations. In order to create a truly use(ul ** dictionary) some sort o( (eed%ack
(rom the target users 'ill %e necessary. In addition) in electronic dictionaries several 'ays o(
sorting (alse (riends pairs may %e availa%le at the click o( a mouse) and one pair may thus
%elong to several di((erent groups at one time0 it may %e a partial (alse (riends pair as 'ell as a
nuance di((erentiated one. The user may choose to select all mem%ers o( one o( the three
partial (alse (riends groups 'hich di((er 'ith respect to the level o( (ormality0 or they may
J9
'ant to %e sho'n total (alse (riends pairs only. & nota%le positive o( computeri5ed (alse
(riends dictionaries is the possi%ility o( lending the user control over the amount o(
in(ormation that is presented to them. This possi%ility is made use o( %y Stamenov 8,::9; in
his outline o( a prompting dictionary (or translators 8discussed in =.+.+ and =.J.;. &lso)
computeri5ed 8(alse (riends; dictionaries allo' (or each entry to appear to the user
individually) and this prominence o( an entry on the computer screen may aid in(ormation
retention 8Lau(er) ,:::) p. A=,;.
&mong the more e2tensive online (alse (riends dictionaries is the English<$ussian
dictionary o( (alse (riends %y B.N. Brasnov 8,::M;) 'hich has originally %een pu%lished in
hard (orm and 'hich may %e accessed at http:CC(alse(riends.ru. 4ontaining more than a
thousand 'ord<pairs) many o( 'hich are simply hard<to<render or culture<speci(ic terms such
as -%aked &laska.) the 'ork e2ceeds in scope usual (alse (riends dictionaries and cannot %e
vie'ed as a (alse (riends dictionary in the true sense o( the 'ord. &n impressively e2tensive
collection o( (alse (riends 'hich is to %e (ound online is entitled /alse /riends o! the #lavist.
It has originally started as a personal pro>ect %y Daniel BunOi\) later on %eing trans(ormed
into a -'iki%ook.) to 'hich many other people have contri%uted) and 'hich contains lists o(
(alse (riends %et'een virtually all o( Slavic languages.
'%+ 8ayout
The per(ect dictionary is one in 'hich you can (ind the thing you are looking (or
pre(era%ly in the very (irst place you look. 86aas) as /uoted %y Stamenov) ,::9)
p. ,M:;
Ieneral layout o( a (alse (riends dictionary concerns the 'ay in 'hich the in(ormation
is presented to the user) starting (rom the 'ay in 'hich entries as units are ordered) to the
M:
order 'ithin individual entries. The layout may either %e (i2ed) not allo'ing (or any changes
to %e made) or) in computeri5ed dictionaries) it may %e (le2i%le 8as discussed in =.,;.
&s (ar as the entry layout is concerned) it needs to %e %orne in mind that) as 6ay'ard
H oulin 8+9AJ; point out) in every (alse (riends pair 8e2cluding pseudo (alse (riends;) an
a%solute minimum o( (our di((erent terms are involved. &ll participants in this 8at least;
(our(old relationship should %e presented in a 'ell<arranged) user<(riendly 'ay) i.e. spaced<
out 8Ior%ahn<Krme H 6ausmann) +99+) p. ,AAJ;. ?sually) there are t'o -halves.) or parts) o(
the entry) depending on the direction o( translation 8as) (or instance) 45ech<to<English and
English<to<45ech;. In Zrdn slova v anglitin 8+99:;) these t'o parts are placed
hori5ontally 8side %y side;) 'hile in /alse /riends o! the #lavist they are placed vertically 8see
*igure +;. It is vertical spacing that is more o(ten opted (or) %oth in the case o( online
dictionaries 8see a%ove; and printed ones) such as the *rench<English (alse (riends dictionary
co<authored %y van $oey and mentioned in the previous su%chapter. Because o( the vertical
spacing used 8see *igure ,;) van $oey 8+9AA; uses (or the dictionary the term -paralle2icon.
8van $oey) p. +@J;.
/igure
M+
a; 6ori5ontally spaced (our<(old entry in Zrdn slova v anglitin
%; Nertically spaced (our<(old entry in /alse /riends o! the #lavist
/igure 0
&ccording to Ior%ahn<Krme H 6ausmann 8+99+;) an e2emplary entry layout may %e
(ound in this *rench and English paralle2icon. The entry is divided into three parts) the (irst o(
'hich deals 'ith all the senses 'hich the particular t'o look<alikes have in common. It is
necessary to note at this point that this -true (riendship. includes also nuance di((erentiated
senses) in 'hich case the user needs to %e someho' in(ormed a%out the divergences. I( these
are o( a su%tle nature) a note %elo' the entry 8as in the paralle2icon; or) say) a hyperlinked
e2clamation mark 'ill do0 i( they are more pronounced) they must %e made visi%ly clear0 all
the more so since the user 'ill naturally presuppose the e2istence o( e/uivalence in the case
M,
o( all senses in section one. The second and third parts o( the entry deal 'ith those senses in
'hich the t'o look<alikes do not concur0 all additional senses o( each mem%er o( the (alse
(riends pair are discussed in one o( the sections and provided 'ith correct 8usual; e/uivalents.
&ny o( the three sections may remain %lank) sho'ing that no instances under the category in
/uestion e2ist. This appears to %e a (airly clear and help(ul arrangement) (or it immediately
in(orms the user o( the areas o( meaning overlap and divergence. The user may choose to %e
sho'n the (irst section only) and a /uick glance may %e su((icient to (ind out 'hether a term
may %e used as an e/uivalent o( its look<alike. Kccasionally) i( there are several (ormally
similar -counterparts. o( one 'ord) another separate entry 'ill need to %e created0 in any case)
priority should %e given to those items that actually do e2ist.
&s regards the entry layout) Zrdn slova v anglitin 8+99:; e2empli(ies a rather
con(using 'ay o( structuring entries) one 'hich has apparently %een taken directly (rom a
standard %ilingual dictionary) 'ith little regard (or discriminating %et'een total) partial and
nuance di((erentiated (alse (riends. The user is thus o(ten compelled to scrutini5e all o( the
acceptations o( %oth mem%ers o( the (alse (riends pair to (ind out 8and sometimes le(t to
mostly guess; 'hether the t'o look<alikes may under some circumstances %e e/uivalent or
not 8see *igure J;. This is an unnecessary 'aste o( the users time. &'are o( this (act) Edvard
Lotko) the author o( Zrdn slova v pol&tin a e&tin 8+9AG;) attempts to eliminate the a%ove
procedure %y visi%ly marking the e/uivalent senses 'ith a %lack dot) the second pair o(
concurring acceptations %eing allotted a %lack s/uare 8rectangle;.
/igure 1
In computeri5ed o((line dictionaries) the in(ormation contained in each entry may %e
presented to the user %y means o( several -%atches. o( in(ormation) or -prompts.) as in the
MJ
prompting dictionary (or pro(essional translators proposed %y Stamenov 8,::9; 8mentioned in
=.+., and =.,;. The idea o( prompting seems highly promising as to the convenience o( use0
instead o( adhering to le2icographic conventions) as does Zrdn slova v anglitin 8+99:;)
the prompting dictionary dra's on (indings in psycholinguistics regarding the 'ay in 'hich
the %ilingual mental le2icon 'orks. These include (or instance the (acts that (ormal similarity
and (re/uency aid 'ord recognition and that 'ords 'ith rich semantic representations 8e.g.
highly polysemous 'ords; are recogni5ed (aster than those 'ith poor representations
8Stamenov) ,::9) pp. ,JG<,JA;. &ccording to Stamenov 8,::9;) these (indings have)
surprisingly) not yet %een used (or optimi5ing the structure o( computeri5ed dictionaries. 6e
proposes to do so using a system o( prompts
G
. The (irst prompt has the (orm o( -the potential
target<language e/uivalent 8or at most t'o or three; ... that is most di((icultCpro%lematic
A
to
think o( during translation. 8Stamenov) ,::9) p. ,M=;0 this prompt 'ould appear a%ove the
'ord as soon as a pro%lem occurs. The second prompt) appearing in a separate 'indo')
'ould consist o( all translation e/uivalents o( the pro%lematic 'ord0 the third) (inal) prompt
'ould then provide the translator 'ith the phraseological component o( a dictionary entry.
&l%eit aimed at highly pro(icient %ilinguals 8as mentioned in =.+.,;) the structure o( the
prompting dictionary entry might prove help(ul (or advanced learners) too0 the -easiest.
senses o( a 'ord participating in a (alse (riends pair could %e le(t out (rom the (irst -prompt.)
gradually adding more -(amiliar. in(ormation.
%
Such a system might) o( course) %e made use o( in standard %ilingual dictionaries) too.
*
Since Stamenov is mainly interested in partial (alse (riends) -most di((icult. e/uivalents are) in his vie') -those
translation e/uivalents in the target language that deviate most (rom the shared meaning components....
8Stamenov) ,::9) p. ,,:;.
MM
'%/ Entry, Theoretical =uidelines for False Friends Dictionary Entry $ompilation
6aving decided 'hich 'ord<pairs should appear in the (alse (riends dictionary) it is
necessary to determine 'hat in(ormation should %e included in each entry. Fhen compiling a
dictionary) it is desira%le) 'ith respect to entries) to take into account %oth the /uestions o(
accuracy and convenience o( use on the one hand) and the /uestions o( technical (easi%ility
and time) space and e((ort demands on the other. Since this 'ork is primarily concerned 'ith
the contents o( a (alse (riends dictionary rather than 'ith the actual process o( its creation) and
since this su%chapter is) (or reasons stated in =.,) designed 'ith a computeri5ed dictionary in
mind) it 'ill disregard the latter. &s regards the (ormer -group.) it appears that creation o( a
help(ul entry consists in aiming (or ma2imum accuracy and convenience o( use0 in other
'ords) in providing as much relevant in(ormation as possi%le in as clear and %rie( a 'ay as
possi%le. It must also %e %orne in mind that the essential purpose o( a (alse (riend dictionary
consists in preventing the users (rom dra'ing erroneous analogies) 'here these might %e
dra'n) and there(ore most attention should %e paid to the -(alse. senses o( (alse (riends 'ord
pairs. It should perhaps %e reminded that understanding the scope and comple2ity o( the
phenomenon o( (alse (riends is a necessary prere/uisite (or success(ul completion o( the task
dealt 'ith in this chapter.
Ior%ahn<Krme H 6ausmann 8+99+; provide a summary o( demands that a (alse
(riends dictionary should meet. Those that concern the content o( a dictionary entry are listed
%elo' 8/uoted Ior%ahn<Krme H 6ausmann) shortened) order changed) pp. ,AAJ<,AAM;:
8a; Idiomatic and clear e2amples re(lecting present<day usage and their correct
translations are essential.
8%; 4ollocations and idiomatic e2pressions in 'hich the head'ords occur typically should
%e included.
8c; E2planations o( di((erences in meaning) i( necessary) should %e %rie( and to the point.
M=
8d; Lhonetic transcriptions should %e added 'here necessary.
8e; Irammatical in(ormation in easy<to<understand coding is important.
8(; La%els indicating style level) regional restrictions) speciali5ed usage etc. are essential)
especially 'here ta%oo 'ords are concerned.
8g; Terms relating to institutions o( one country that do not have an opposite num%er in
the other language should %e e2plained.
8h; The di((iculties that might arise (rom either o( the t'o languages should %e taken into
account.
The a%ove points may serve as general guidelines) and they may 8or rather) should; %e
modi(ied so as to %est meet the needs o( a particular target user group. It must %e emphasi5ed
that the content o( an entry need not adhere to the conventional le2icographic conventions0
'hen compiling a (alse (riends dictionary (or highly advanced users) (or instance) it is in (act
pre(era%le 8see also Stamenov in =.J; that it include only those pieces o( in(ormation that are
not universally kno'n to highly advanced users. &lternatively) the %asic in(ormation may %e
hidden %y de(ault) sho'ing only should the user 'ish (or it. Such a dictionary does not
necessarily have to serve as a (ully (ledged %ilingual dictionary.
Seemingly contrary to the a%ove statement) Neis%ergs 8+99@; speaks o( -avoiding the
necessity o( cross<re(erence in other dictionaries. 8p. @J+;0 this point sums up all o( the a%ove
points) although it should primarily re(er to the -(alse. aspects o( (alse (riends 'ord pairs.
&ccording Neis%ergs) there may %e ** mistakes in the general %ilingual dictionaries0 also) as
Iranger H S'allo' 8+9AA; point out) many %ilingual dictionaries make the mistake o( listing
the (ormally similar counterpart o( a head'ord among its %asic translation e/uivalents) or
even as the (irst 8p. ++M;. 3or do %ilingual or even monolingual dictionaries) according to
Neis%ergs) al'ays provide enough semantic e2planations (or >udging the meaning details
8'hich are o( particular importance in the case o( nuance di((erentiated 'ord pairs;.
M@
&lternatively) the in(ormation contained in them may %e e2haustive) %ut re/uires considera%le
time to e2amine in detail0 Stamenov 8,::9;) (or instance) points out that especially in
computeri5ed dictionaries) 'here the displayed in(ormation tends to %e dense) the search (or a
particular meaning may %ecome /uite a task. &lso) as may %e the case 'ith monolingual
dictionaries) the in(ormation in the dictionary employs voca%ulary so sophisticated as to
compel the user to carry out multiple dictionary searches.
In computeri5ed online (alse (riends dictionaries) much use(ul in(ormation may %e
provided to the user %y means o( links to other 8e2ternal; sources) such as other dictionaries)
corpora and others0 these may provide some additional %its o( kno'ledge) regarding) (or
instance) historical development o( the 'ord) and may help the user remem%er the di((erences
%et'een (alse (riends. 6o'ever) e2cessive linking should %e avoided) as it increases time
demands placed on the user and thus e((ectively eliminates one o( the primary positives
pertaining to the use o( a (alse (riends dictionary as opposed to the use o( a range o( other
sources) as discussed in M.:. This) moreover) is not to mention that the user may (or some
reason %e unsuccess(ul in accessing the hyperlinked sources. &lso) it is necessary to veri(y
'hether the user) o(ten ignorant o( the (acts kno'n to the compiler) is as likely as the latter to
easily (ind or in(er (rom the content o( the e2ternal sources the in(ormation they are supposed
to. In addition) care(ul guidelines should al'ays %e provided along 'ith all links0 and it is
pre(era%le that all the essential in(ormation %e included directly in the dictionary.
The content o( entries in Zrdn slova v anglitin o(ten leaves something to %e
desired0 most commonly it is e2amples and e2ample sentences 8or e2planations;) the lack o(
'hich prevents the user (rom >udging the meaning di((erences 8see =.J) *igure J;. In addition
to this) occasionally a note e2plaining style level etc. is missing. In the 45ech<to<English part
o( pedagogCpedagogue entry
9
) (or instance) the English -schoolmasterCschoolmistress. should
"
Lerhaps the user might also %e in(ormed that native English speakers are on most occasions /uite content 'ith
>ust one 'ord ] teacher ] and do not (eel compelled to su%stitute it (or other e2pressions) (or varietys sake0
MG
%e accompanied %y a note in(orming the user o( the archaic nature o( the 'ord0 such a note is
present even in the +9AG )ongman *ictionary o! Contemporary +nglish.
'%/%" Model False Friends Dictionary Entry
6aving thus) in the previous su%chapter) laid some theoretical %asis as to the content o(
a (alse (riends dictionary entry) and) e/ually importantly) having discussed selected (alse
(riends pairs in depth 8in J.:;) it is no' natural to proceed to presenting a model (alse (riends
dictionary entry. Belo' 8*igure M; is an outline o( 'hat might %e considered a -standard.
entry o( an online (alse (riends dictionary (or at least moderately advanced learners. It uses the
-section. layout advocated in =.J. The de(ault setting o( a (alse (riends dictionary (or
advanced learners 8and trainee translators; might %e stripped o( the entirety o( the (irst section)
unless there is a possi%ility o( some meanings (rom this section causing pro%lems on account
o( their similarity or relatedness to some meanings (rom other sections 8as happens to %e the
case o( the orgnCorgan entry;.
native speakers o( 45ech) on the other hand) use 'ords such as -vyuOu>#c#. and -pedagog..
MA
93=>N?93=AN @o,gAnB
section " $C orgDn E EN organ
"% FDst tGla H a part of oneIs #ody

K$I&3 or % vJkonnD organi-ace H an organi-ation that has a special purpose
&?T6K$IT1^ sttn# orgn _ an organ o( government
see also s% orgny palestinskP samosprvy _ the organs o( the Lalestinian &uthority
show more hide

+% Fasopis H a periodical 5pu#lished #y a special interest group6
Tyto noviny %yly o(iciln#m tiskov7m orgnem This paper 'as the o((icial organ
komunistickP strany. o( the 4ommunist Larty.
show more hide

section $C orgDn K EN organ
/% LMad H authorityN #ody
Larlament >e >edin7m a v7luOn7m Larliament is the sole
5konodrn7m orgnem W$. legislative %ody o( the 45ech $epu%lic.
show more hide

'% oso#a 5povGMenD FOm6 H a person 5deputed to do sth 6
police>n# orgn la'man) la' o((icer

section + EN organ K $C orgDn
1% an organ H varhany P Notice, The English QorganQ is singular when
we speak of 9NE piece of instrument%
organ pieceCpiece o( organ music sklad%a pro varhany
t'o organs dvo>e varhany
The organ resounded. Narhany se ro5e5vuOely.
show more hide

*% mouth organ H foukacO harmonika
7% #arrel organ H flaRinet
S% euph organ H penis

/igure 2. & model (alse (riends dictionary entry
M9
1%! $onclusion
The purpose o( this thesis 'as to provide theoretical %asis (or the compilation o( a
(alse (riends dictionary) 'hich can then %e used (or a revision o( the %ook Zrdn slova v
anglitin %y !ose( 6ladk7 8+99:;.
Despite the undenia%le /ualities that must %e granted to it 'ith respect to the time and
age in 'hich it 'as 'ritten) the 'ork %y 6ladk7 has %een proven in this thesis to %e
unsuita%le as a study material. Its dra'%acks concern %oth the in(ormation contained in it as
'ell as the manner in 'hich this in(ormation is presented to the user. any (alse (riends pairs
have eluded the compilers attention) and there is some evidence to suggest that the 45ech<to<
English direction o( translation 'as) 'hether consciously or not) (avoured over the other. In
addition) unsatis(actory amount o( in(ormation is o(ten provided in entries) the structure o(
'hich) moreover) inspires (ar (rom thorough understanding o( the meaning di((erences. The
latter t'o shortcomings are most likely due to space limitations and also le2icographic
conventions o( structuring entries) 'hich 6ladk7 apparently sa' no need in not adhering to.
The advancements in various (ields that have taken place over the t'enty odd years
(rom the compilation o( its original version) and (indings that have %een %rought to attention)
'ill allo' (or the planned version o( Zrdn slova v anglitin to %e more user<(riendly and
suita%le as a study material. Knce computeri5ed) the collection 'ill %e allo'ed to take up
more space than the original slight pu%lication allo'ed) and) importantly) alterations and
additions may %e easily made. & marked improvement 'ill %e achieved %y the section system
o( structuring entries and also %y the (le2i%ility o( layout in general. &lso) instead o( simply
listing the meanings o( mem%ers o( (alse (riends pairs) particular attention 'ill %e paid to
those senses that are most likely to cause pro%lems. The in(ormation provided in each entry
'ill %e accurate and precise enough as to lead to understanding the di((erences) yet not
e2ceedingly dense. Kverall) the dictionary 'ill %e more easily ad>usted to learners needs0 in
=:
(act) although (alse (riends dictionaries are normally designed (or study purposes and targeted
at language learners) it is the clear internal structure o( entries and su((iciently detailed
in(ormation 'hich may make the dictionary appealing and o( use not only to learners %ut also
to translators.
6o'ever) 'hile the use o( the outlined dictionary 'ill clearly %e marked %y more
convenience) its compilation retains some o( the pit(alls 'hich (aced 6ladk7 more than
t'enty years ago. &n important point made in this thesis is the (act that in compiling a (alse
(riends dictionary there is a great risk o( omissions %ecause o( the su%>ectivity contained to
some measure in almost all o( the criteria linked to the su%>ect o( a (alse (riends dictionary
scope: that o( -(alsity.) (ormal similarity) and even ] 'ithout a su((iciently large corpus o(
learners 'ritings at ones disposal ] (re/uency o( error. Thus it is necessary (or the
compilation o( the dictionary to %e team'ork instead o( a single persons e((ort.
The actual process o( compilation 8revision; 'ill dou%tless %ring a%out some /uestions
to %e settled 'hich 'ere not discussed in this thesis. &s regards the planned 45ech<English<
English<45ech (alse (riends dictionary) some o( these /uestions may %e linked to the (act that
an already e2isting dictionary 'ill %e used. *or instance) it has yet to %e decided in detail in
'hat 'ay the entries (rom Zrdn slova v anglitin) once converted into computeri5ed (orm)
'ill %e treated0 the process 'ill clearly %e a ma>or editing task) (or each entry 'ill have to %e
manually e2amined. &ns'ering these /uestions 'ill %e le(t to the compilers) (or ans'ering
the practical /uestions o( dictionary<making 'ould have (ar e2ceeded the scope o( this thesis.
It is the authors utmost hope that the in(ormation contained in this thesis 'ill prove
%ene(icial 'ith respect to the purpose 'ith 'hich it 'as 'ritten) and that the result o( 'ork
that 'ill %e invested in the compilation o( a revised version o( Zrdn slova v anglitin 'ill
%e help(ul not only to the Department o( English and &merican Studies o( asaryk
?niversity) %ut to all those 'ho may %ene(it (rom it.
=+
2orks $ited
&da%) B.) H SchY((ner) 4. 8,:::;. *eveloping 3ranslation Competence. &msterdam: !ohn
Ben>amins.
BunOi\) D. 8n.d.; /alse !riends o! the #lavist. $etrieved (rom
http:CCen.'iki%ooks.orgC'ikiC*alse`*riends`o(`the`Slavist
45674,C 4ritish ,ational Corpus. Brigham 1oung ?niversity: Lrovo. ,= ar ,:+,
a http:CCcorpus.%yu.eduC%ncC b.
4asanovas 4atal) .) H K3eill) . 8+99G;. *alse (riends: & historical perspective and
present implications (or le2ical ac/uisition. 4arcelona +nglish )anguage and
)iterature #tudies, 8) +:J<++=.
4hacXn Beltrn) $. 8,::=;. The e((ects o( (ocus on (orm in the teaching o( Spanish<English
(alse (riends. 9evista +spa:ola de )ing;$stica .plicada) <78) @=<G9.
4hacXn Beltrn) $. 8,::@;. To'ards a typological classi(ication o( (alse (riends 8Spanish<
English;. 9evista +spa:ola de )ing;$stica .plicada, =) ,9<J9.
4hami5o<Dom#ngue5) L. !. 8,::A;. #emantics and pragmatics o! !alse !riends. 3e' 1ork)
31: $outledge.
Wern) N.) DaneT) *.) H *ilipec) !. 8+9GA;. #lovn$k spisovn% e&tiny pro &kolu a ve'e(nost.
Lraha: &cademia.
>esk? nrodn$ korpus @ #5,. cstav WeskPho nrodn#ho korpusu ** ?B: Lraha. ,= ar ,:+,
a http:CCucnk.((.cuni.c5 b.
de Iroot) &. . B. 8,:++;. )anguage and cognition in bilinguals and multilingualsA .n
introduction. 3e' 1ork: Lsychology Lress.
de Schryver) I.) Iou's) $. 6.) H Lrinsloo) D. !. 8,::M;. *riends 'ill %e (riends d true or
(alse. Le2icographic approaches to the treatment o( (alse (riends. In S. Nessier H I.
=,
Filliams 8Eds.; Broceedings o! the +leventh +69.)+C International Congress,
+69.)+C 0DD2. 8pp. G9G<A:@; Lorient: ?niversitP de Bretagne Sud.
*ictionary, +ncyclopedia and 3hesaurus @ 3he /ree *ictionary. *arle2) Inc. A ar ,:+,
ahttp:CC'''.the(reedictionary.comCb.
Dodds) !. . 8+999;. *riends) (alse (riends and (oes or %ack to %asics in L+ to L, translation.
In I. &nderman H . $ogers 8eds.;) Eord, te"t, translationA )iber amicorum !or
Beter ,ewmark 8pp. =@<@=;. 4levedon: ultilingual atters.
*ischer) $. 8+99A;. )e"ical change in present7day +nglishA . corpus7based study o! the
motivation, institutionali-ation, and productivity o! creative neologisms. Tf%ingen:
Iunter 3arr.
*run5a) K.) H Inkpen) D. 8,::@;. Semi<supervised learning o( partial cognates using %ilingual
%ootstrapping. In 3. 4al5olari) 4. 4ardie H L. Isa%elle 8Eds.; Broceedings o! the 0st
International Con!erence on Computational )inguistics and 22th .nnual Feeting o!
the .ssociation !or Computational )inguistics. 8pp. MM+<MMA; Sydney: The &ssociation
(or 4omputational Linguistics.
Ior%ahn<Krme) &.) H 6ausmann) *. !. 8+99+;. The dictionary o( (alse (riends. In *. !.
6ausmann) K. $eichmann) 6. E. Fiegand H L. Rgusta 8Eds.;) *ictionariesA .n
International +ncyclopedia o! )e"icography. 8,AA,<,AAA;. Berlin: 6. 6eenemann.
Iranger) S. 8,::J;. The international corpus o( learner English: & ne' resource (or (oreign
language learning and teaching and second language ac/uisition research. 3+#G)
Huarterly, 18JG;) =JA<=M@.
Iranger) S.) H S'allo') 6. 8+9AA;. *alse (riends: & kaleidoscope o( translation di((iculties.
)angage et lIJomme, 01, +:A<+,:.
=J
6ay'ard) T.) H oulin) &. 8+9AJ;. *alse (riends invigorated. In $. $. B. 6artmann 8Ed.;
)+Ceter I81 proceedingsA International Con!erence on )e"icography at +"eter. 8pp.
+9:<+9A; Tf%ingen: a2 3iemeyer.
6ill) $. !. 8+9A,;. . dictionary o! !alse !riends. London: acmillan.
6ladk7) !. 8+99:;. Zrdn slova v anglitin. Lraha: Sttn# pedagogickP nakladatelstv#.
6olmes) !.) H Iuerra $amos) $. 8+99J;. *alse (riends and reckless guessers: K%serving
cognate recognition strategies. In T. 6uckin) . 6aynes H !. 4oady 8Eds.;) #econd
language reading and vocabulary learning 8pp. A@d+:G;. 3or'ood: &%le2 Lu%lishing.
Ioana) 6. 8,::G;. The threat o( -(alse (riends. in learning English. 3he Kournal o! the /aculty
o! +conomics @ +conomic #cience #eries, 0, 9G+<9G=.
!arvis) S. 8,::9;. Le2ical trans(er. In &. Lavlenko 8Ed.;) 3he bilingual mental le"iconA
Interdisciplinary approaches 8pp. 99<+,M;. 4levedon: ultilingual atters.
ghijklm) g. n. 8,::M;. okpql<hrjjstu jqlmihv qlwkxy zhr{|u }|h|mlz~tsi. $etrieved
(rom http:CC'''.(alse(riends.ruC
Lau(er) B. 8,:::;. Electronic dictionaries and incidental voca%ulary ac/uisition: Does
technology make a di((erence^ In S. Evert) ?. 6eid) E. Lehman H 4. $ohrer 8Eds.;
Broceedings o! the ,inth +69.)+C International Congress, +69.)+C 0DDD. 8pp.
AM9<A=M;. Stuttgart: Institut (fr achinelle Sprachverar%eitung.
Leech) I. 8+9A+;. #emanticsA 3he study o! meaning. 6armonds'orth: Lenguin Books.
)ingea )e"icon L. 8,::A; Lingea s.r.o.
Lotko) E. 8+9AG;. Zrdn slova v pol&tin a e&tin. Klomouc: $ektort university LalackPho
v Klomouci.
Facmillan *ictionary. acmillan Lu%lishers Limited ,::9d,:+,. ,: ar ,:+,
ahttp:CC'''.macmillandictionary.comb.
=M
e>st"#k) N. 8,::J;. #lovn$k spisovn% e&tiny pro &kolu a ve'e(nostA s dodatkem Finisterstva
&kolstv$, mldeMe a tlov?chovy >esk% republiky. Lraha: &cademia.
3akov) L.) 3akov S.) H Laskaleva) E. 8,::9;. ?nsupervised e2traction o( (alse (riends (rom
parallel %i<te2ts using the 'e% as a corpus. In I. &ngelova) B. Bontcheva) $. itkov)
3. 3icolov H 3. 3icolov 8Eds.; International Con!erence 9ecent .dvances in ,atural
)anguage Brocessing N0DD= proceedings. 8pp. ,9,<,9A; Shoumen: Incoma.
3e'mark) L. 8+99A;. Fore paragraphs on translation. 4levedon: ultilingual atters.
Lalmer) *. $. 8+9A+;. #emantics. 4am%ridge: 4am%ridge ?niversity Lress.
Lartington) &. 8+99A;. Batterns and meaningsA 6sing corpora !or +nglish language research
and teaching. &msterdam: !ohn Ben>amins.
Lrocter) L. 8+9GA;. )ongman dictionary o! contemporary +nglish. 6arlo': Longman.
$ing%om) 6. 8,::G;. Cross7linguistic similarity in !oreign language learning. 4levedon:
ultilingual atters.
Stamenov) . I. 8,::9;. 4ognates in language) in the mind and in a prompting dictionary (or
translation. In S. Ip(erich) &. L. !ako%sen H I. . ees 8Eds.;) 4ehind the mindA
Fethods, models, and results in translation process research. 8pp. ,+9<,=,;.
Bopenhagen: Sam(undslitteratur.
van $oey) !. 8+9AA;. Fork in progress: & paralle2icon o( English<*rench N!au" amisI. In .
Snell<6orn%y 8Ed.; Z;ri)+C I8O proceedingsA Bapers read at the +69.)+C
International Congress. 8pp. +@+<+@9; Tf%ingen: *rancke.
Neis%ergs) &. 8+99@;. *alse (riends dictionaries: & tool (or translators or learners or %oth. In
. Iellerstam) !. !Yr%org) S. almgren) B) 3orPn) L. $ogstrm H 4. $>der Lapmehl
8Eds.; +urale" N=O proceedingsA Bapers submitted to the #eventh +69.)+C
International Congress on )e"icography in PQteborg, #weden. 8pp. @,G<@JM;.
Ite%org: 3ovum Ira(iska.
==
1etkin) 3. 8,:++;. Lartial (alse (riends in English<Turkish translations: Diplomatic te2ts.
Kournal o! /aculty o! )etters, ) ,:G<,,,.
=@
34sum4 5English6
This %achelor thesis deals 'ith a phenomenon 'hich is kno'n as -(alse (riends. and
'ith the compilation o( a (alse (riends dictionary. The purpose o( this thesis is to lay the
ground'ork (or the compilation o( a revised version o( Zrdn slova v anglitin %y !ose(
6ladk7.
*irstly) the concept o( (alse (riends is de(ined and the term is compared 'ith other
terms re(erring to similar phenomena) primarily that o( (alse cognates. *ollo'ing is the
discussion o( categori5ation o( (alse (riends) 'herein the author proposes a division o( (alse
(riends into seven groups. The discussion employs e2tensive and detailed e2amples to
illustrate the di((erences %et'een these groups. Su%se/uently) t'o opposing approaches to the
treatment o( (alse (riends are presented: positive and negative. In this section the need (or
(alse (riends to %e dealt 'ith %oth in the (ield o( translation studies and language teaching is
accentuated.
The (inal chapter o( this thesis is devoted to the creation o( a (alse (riends dictionary.
This chapter is divided into (our su%chapters) each o( 'hich em%races 'hat is perceived as a
%asic aspect) or part) o( a (alse (riends dictionary: the scope) (ormat) layout and the dictionary
entry. The 'hole o( this chapter %oth (unctions as a detailed revie' o( Zrdn slova v
anglitin and contains guidelines (or the creation o( a (alse (riends dictionary. In addition)
aspects o( other (alse (riends dictionaries 'hich are considered %y the author as valua%le are
also presented. 4oncluding this chapter is a model o( a (alse (riends dictionary entry created
on the %asis o( the preceding su%chapters.
The thesis conclusion summari5es the potential %ene(its o( an updated and more user<
(riendly version o( Zrdn slova v anglitin) 'hich this thesis hopes to incentivise and
provide theoretical %ackground (or. &t the same time) ho'ever) it points to the (act that many
practical aspects o( dictionary making are not discussed in this thesis.
=G
3esum4 5$-ech6
Tato %akal"sk prce se 5a%7v >evem 5nm7m >ako (aleTn# p"telP- 8anglicky (alse
(riends-; a kompilac# slovn#ku (aleTn7ch p"tel. 4#lem tPto prce >e vytvo"it podklady pro
kompilaci p"epracovanP ver5e knihy Zrdn slova v anglitin od !ose(a 6ladkPho.
3e>d"#ve >e stanovena de(inice po>mu (aleTn# p"telP- a tento po>em >e porovnn
s dalT#mi v7ra5y) kterP popisu># podo%nP >evy0 to se t7k 5e>mPna term#nu nepravP kognty-
8anglicky (alse cognates-;. 3sledu>e po>ednn# o ro5t"#dVn# (aleTn7ch p"tel) v nVm[ autorka
prce navrhu>e ro5dVlovat (aleTnP p"tele do sedmi skupin. Lo>ednn# o%sahu>e OetnP a
podro%nP p"#klady) kterP ilustru># ro5d#ly me5i tVmito skupinami. LotP >sou p"edstaveny dva
protichdnP posto>e t7ka>#c# se p"#stupu k (aleTn7m p"telm: po5itivn# a negativn#. Tato sekce
vy5dvihu>e nutnost se (aleTn7mi p"teli 5a%7vat >ak v o%lasti translatologie) tak v o%lasti
v7uky >a5yka.
Losledn# kapitola tPto prce se vVnu>e tvor%V slovn#ku (aleTn7ch p"tel. Tato kapitola
>e ro5dVlena do Oty" podkapitol) 5 nich[ ka[d pokr7v >eden 5e 5kladn#ch aspekt Oi Ost#
slovn#ku (aleTn7ch p"tel: ro5sah) (ormt) ro5m#stVn# a slovn#kovP heslo. 4el tato kapitola
slou[# >ako podro%n recen5e knihy Zrdn slova v anglitin a souOasnV o%sahu>e instrukce
pro tvor%u slovn#ku (aleTn7ch p"tel. BromV toho >sou v tPto kapitole takP pre5entovny
nVkterP aspekty >in7ch slovn#k (aleTn7ch p"tel) kterP autorka pova[u>e 5a cennP a u[iteOnP.
N 5vVru tPto kapitoly se nach5# v5orovP heslo pro slovn#k (aleTn7ch p"tel) vytvo"enP na
5kladV p"edch5e>#c#ch podkapitol.
RvVr tPto prce shrnu>e mo[nP v7hody aktuali5ovanP a u[ivatelsky p"#>emnV>T# ver5e
Zrdn?ch slov v anglitin) >e>#[ v5nik tato prce usilu>e podn#tit a dodat pro tento Oel
teoretickP podklady. SouOasnV vTak 5vVr prce pouka5u>e na skuteOnost) [e se tato prce
ne5a%7v praktick7mi aspekty tvor%y slovn#k.
=A