Domains in the Encyclopedic Semantics of some English and Arabic Equivalent Culture-Specific Words
Abdullah A. Al-Jashami
Department of English Language and Literature, Islamic University of Najaf. Iraq, Najaf

Google Scholar Download Pdf

The present study aims at finding interpretations for some inquiries in the field of encyclopedic semantics. It is an academic reflection of language exchange between English and Arabic which is one of the most prevalent interests of the recent cognitive linguistic researches. Particularly, it analyzes the way culture-specific words of two different languages can comparatively be understood. The single-method is adopted for the methodological approach of the study. The data collection is conducted according to a content analysis by extracting some CSWs that are referred to in some comparative culture-specific studies of English and Arabic. It is found that (1) there can be more than one domain matrix for equivalent CSWs; (2) the exact comparison between CSWs lies in the profile-base organization (3) the two or multi-dimensional domains are configurational; (4) the culture-specific standards locate the diversity between the domain matrixes of equivalent CSWs. Some key conclusions to draw is that (1) the domain matrix of a CSW depends on to the culture-specific norms; (2) the distinctive point of the tripartite (profile, base and concept) is the profile rather than the base; (3) image-schematic domains indicate the object material domains; (4) culture-specific norms are affected by religious and historical factors which control the inventory knowledge for the CSWs.


culture-specific words, domains, domain matrix, encyclopedic semantics, profile-base organization.


1) Aajami, F. (2019). A Cognitive Semantic Analysis of Meaning Interrelationship. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3367534.

2) Abu-Ssaydeh, A. (2014). Equivalence Procedures for Culture - Specific Words and Their Application in the Arabic - English Dictionary. University Of Sharjah Journal for Humanities And Social Sciences, 11(1), 15-50. doi: 10.12816/0007445.

3) Bahumaid, S. (2017). Culture-bound Terms in Arabic-English Translation: Difficulties and Implications, Applied Linguistics vol. 6 (2017), pp. 25-39.

4) Blasco, M. (2015). A Cognitive Linguistic Analysis of the Cooking Domain and its Implementation in the EFL Classroom as a Way of Enhancing Effective Vocabulary Teaching. Procedia - Social And Behavioral Sciences, 178, 70-77.

5) Clausner, T., & Croft, W. (1999). Domains and image schemas. Cognitive Linguistics, 10(1), 1-31. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1999.001.

6) Croft, W. (2003). Typology and Universals, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

7) Elkateb, S. (2016). English Vs. Arabic Culture-Specific Concepts. University Bulletin – ISSUE No.18- - 227 - Vol. (1)

8) Evans, V. & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press Ltd.

9) Evans, V. (2007). A glossary of cognitive linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

10) Evans, V. (2009). How words mean. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

11) Fillmore, C. (1975) ‘An alternative to checklist theories of meaning’, Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Amsterdam: North Holland, pp. 123–31.

12) Fillmore, C. (1977) ‘Scenes-and-frames semantics’, in A. Zampolli (ed.), Linguistic Structures Processing. Amsterdam: North Holland, pp. 55–82.

13) Fillmore, C. (1982) ‘Frame semantics’, in Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing, pp. 111–37.

14) Fillmore, C. (1985a). ‘Frames and the semantics of understanding’, Quaderni di Semantica, 6, 222–54.

15) Fillmore, C. & Atkins, B. (1992) ‘Toward a frame-based lexicon: the semantics of RISK and its neighbors’, in A. Lehrer and E. F. Kittay (eds), Frames, Fields and Contrasts. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 75–102.

16) Geeraerts, D., & Cuyckens, H. (2007). The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

17) Haiman, J. (1980). Dictionaries and encylopedias. Lingua, 50, 329–57.

18) Johnson, M. (1987). The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination and Reason. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

19) Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

20) Lakoff, G. and Turner, M. (1989). More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

21) Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume I. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

22) Langacker, R. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume II. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

23) Langacker, R. (1993). Reference-point constructions, Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 1–38.

24) Litosseliti, L. (2010). Research methods in linguistics. New York, Continuum.

25) Lowe, I. (2008). Domain Theory of Language. SIL International, 1-43.

26) Misiaczek, P. (2005). Strategies and Methods in Dealing with Culture Specific Expressions. Proceedings from the Eighth Conference of British, American and Canadian Studies. Brno: Masarykova univerzita Magdalena PaluszkiewiczMisiaczek 244.

27) Mohammed, H. (2016). Translating Arabic/English Individual Cultural References: Strategies and Parameters. 1. 1-24.

28) Krüger, R. (2013). A Cognitive Linguistic Perspective on Explicitation and Implicitation in Scientific and Technical Translation. trans-kom. 6. 285-314.

29) Taylor, J. (2002). Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

30) Tyler, A. & Evans, V. (2003). The Semantics of English Prepositions: Spatial Scenes, Embodied Meaning and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

31) Wu, Q. (2002). Interaction Between Language and the Mind Through Translation: A Perspective from Profile/Base Organization. Meta, 47(4), 532–563.


Indexed In

Avatar Avatar Avatar Avatar Avatar Avatar Avatar Avatar Avatar Avatar Avatar Avatar Avatar Avatar Avatar Avatar