Cogent Arts & Humanities

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/oaah20

A cross-cultural linguistic analysis of the gendered

representations of “Wife” in Egyptian Arabic and
American English Proverbs

Waheed M. A Altohami

To cite this article: Waheed M. A Altohami (2023) A cross-cultural linguistic analysis of the
gendered representations of “Wife” in Egyptian Arabic and American English Proverbs, Cogent
Arts & Humanities, 10:1, 2174481, DOI: 10.1080/23311983.2023.2174481

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2174481

© 2023 The Author(s). This open access

article is distributed under a Creative
Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.

Published online: 08 Feb 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oaah20
Altohami, Cogent Arts & Humanities (2023), 10: 2174481
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2174481
Received: 10 January 2023
Accepted: 26 January 2023
*Corresponding author: Waheed
M. A Altohami, Department of
English, College of Science and
Humanities in Al-Kharj, Prince Sattam
Bin Abdulaziz University, Al-Kharj
11942, Saudi Arabia; Department of
Foreign Languages, Faculty of
Education, Mansoura University,
Mansoura 35516, Egypt
E-mail: w.m.altohami@gmail.com
Reviewing editor:
Jeroen van de Weijer, School of
Foreign Languages, Shenzhen
University, Shenzhen CHINA
Additional information is available at
the end of the article
Waheed M. A Altohami
LITERATURE, LINGUISTICS & CRITICISM | RESEARCH ARTICLE
A cross-cultural linguistic analysis of the
gendered representations of “Wife” in Egyptian
Arabic and American English Proverbs
Waheed M. A Altohami1,2*
Abstract: This study investigates how language, gender, and culture are intertwined in
two purpose-built corpora of Egyptian Arabic and American English proverbs. It dis­
cusses the ideological representations of the potentially gendered term “wife” in such
proverbs, as well as the cultural affinities and discrepancies around them. The study
has methodically operated at three stages, drawing on theoretical insights from
feminist critical discourse analysis and conceptual metaphor theory: (1) determining
the frequency of Arabic and English proverbs that represent the social actor “wife” in
terms of the various socio-cultural roles assigned to them; (2) demarcating and com­
paring the principal themes and ideologies associated with the proverbial usage of the
lexical term “wife” in Egyptian and American cultures; and (3) describing the underlying
source domains that conceptually underpin and discursively legitimatize such themes
and ideologies. Results revealed that, firstly, not all of the social functions associated
with “wife” are covered in the American-English corpus due to cultural differences
regarding the concept of the extended family. Second, the Egyptian-Arabic corpus
often portrays the social actor “wife” negatively. Thirdly, to control the public mind
regarding gender power dynamics, both corpora shared certain source domains. The
wife’s negative portrayals are also used to justify gender hegemony and keep women
suppressed, marginalized, and stigmatized.
Subjects: Language & Linguistics; English Language; Interdisciplinary Language Studies
Keywords: American English; conceptual metaphor theory; Egyptian Arabic; feminist
critical discourse analysis; gender; proverbs; wife
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Waheed M. A Altohami is currently an assistant professor of linguistics in the Department of English,
College of Science and Humanities in Al-Kharj, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia.
I am a standing lecturer of linguistics and English language in the Faculty of Education, Mansoura
University, Egypt. In 2015, He got PhD in linguistics from Egypt. Since then, he has published in
international journals like Studies About Languages, Journal of English Language and Linguistics,
International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and its Applications, Educational Research
International, and World Journal of English Language. My research interests are general linguistics,
cognitive linguistics, critical discourse analysis, and translation.
© 2023 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons
Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
Page 1 of 19
Altohami, Cogent Arts & Humanities (2023), 10: 2174481
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2174481

1. Introduction
Myriads of publications addressed the relationship among language, gender, and culture, and most
focused on gendered differences in patterns of language use (Cameron, 2007; Eckert & Mcconnell-
Ginet, 2003; Holmes, 1998; Kendall & Tannen, 2001; Nakamura, 2014). This whole body of research
has proven that diverse cultural elements are copiously deployed in language which, in specific
contexts, demonstrates social practices of gender polarization (Bem, 1993) and dichotomization
(Lomotey & Chachu, 2020), or more particularly, male chauvinism or misogyny (Dundes, 1975). As
a universal constituent of language and culture, proverbs represent a reservoir of common social
beliefs, norms, and values governing gender hierarchy and power relations. They are used in
everyday interactions, movies, novels, dramas, newspapers, and many other domains of expres­
sion to argue for or against an issue, legitimize a viewpoint, create humor, impose a local ethical
code, and perpetuate customs and traditions. Proverbs’ popularity resides in covering many topics
shaping male-female interaction for gender construction and deconstruction. Still, as Webster
(1982) maintains, proverbs should be regarded as “tantalizing shadows of the culture which
spawned them.”

According to Kerschen (2012), proverbs are the finest markers of beliefs and attitudes about
women, and they are an ideal subject to study in order to uncover the historical image of women.
Indeed, many scholars (Lomotey & Chachu, 2020; Schipper, 2004; Webster, 1982; Zheng, 2018)
assert that proverbs involve sexist tendencies concerning gender relations. Therefore, the current
study focuses on the language framing women in the genre of proverbs. As language mirrors
culture, any two languages would demonstrate differences concerning the representations of
women in proverbs. Such representations are claimed to maintain gender-based social asymmetry
and negotiate ethnic identities and power in everyday interaction.

Though different related studies revealed particular women-related ideologies in proverbs (see,
Section 2), the contrastive cultural dimension between Arabic and English proverbs received little
attention, particularly insofar as the social actor of “wife” is concerned. Given the potentially
gendered meanings associated with this social actor, scant research has been conducted to reveal
how the different representations of “wife” are ideologically constructed in Arabic and English
proverbs. Therefore, the current study aims to fill in this research gap and contribute to the large
literature on gender studies by answering one main question:

How are the gendered meanings of wifeliness proverbially constructed across Egyptian Arabic
and American English?

The preceding main question can be subdivided into two sub-questions: (1) What is the frequency
of Egyptian Arabic and American English wife-specific proverbs? (2) How is the social actor “wife”
ideologically represented and cognitively framed in these proverbs? Thus, to answer this study’s
main question, we need to address the proposed two sub-questions. This entails using quantitative
and qualitative methods that would aid in highlighting how proverbs manifest the gendered
ideologies and cultural perspectives associated with wifeliness in Egyptian Arabic and American
English proverbs. This can help us detect intercultural affinities or differences regarding gender
hierarchy and power structure concerning the issue of what is befitting a wife in two cultures.
Furthermore, the study will demonstrate how the producers of such proverbs intended the social
actor “wife” to be cognitively framed in the collective minds corresponding to both cultures.

Given the study questions mentioned above, the present study adopts a comparative, cross-
cultural approach. It synergizes two analytical approaches to integrate the analysis’s discursive,
social, and cognitive levels. The first is Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis (FCDA; Lazar, 2005,
2007, 2008) which addresses the ideologies underlying gender hierarchy and power relations as
represented in proverbs and the linguistic strategies through which such ideologies are commu­
nicated. The second is Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT; Lakoff, 1993; Lazar, 2008) which
accounts for the cognitive basis of inherently metaphorical proverbs. Though the contexts of

Page 2 of 19
Altohami, Cogent Arts & Humanities (2023), 10: 2174481
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2174481

proverbs are not always definite, Schipper (2004) avers that the key message of a proverb remains
relatively constant despite the changing contexts. Besides, Mieder (2004) assures that “many
(cross-culturally) equivalent proverbs [. . .] might have different images and structures, but that
means the same thing!”.

The present study uses two languages: Egyptian Arabic and American English. While the former
is originally a Semitic language, the latter is Germanic. Each variety is representative of its own
underlying culture. The Egyptian culture is generally conservative as it is mostly shaped by the
teachings of Islam, folk traditions, and conservative socialization practices that generally prioritize
males, especially in rural regions. Some aspects of Christianity are easily traced in the Egyptian
culture and Egyptian proverbs by an extension (e.g., ‫ ﺟﻴﺰة ﻧﺼﺎري‬ǧīzat naṣāra; A Christian marriage,
i.e., an eternal relationship). However, the Egyptian culture is not only the incarnation of
Christianity and Islam teachings, it is also deeply rooted in pharaonic civilization. For example,
given the focus of the present study, in ancient Egypt, women were equal to men in every aspect of
life except jobs. (Brier & Hobbs, 2013). Conversely, American culture is informed by the teachings of
Christianity as well as folk traditions which could be traced back to ancient native Americans as
well as other races that had been in contact. In this regard, Shi and Zhang (2017) regard the Bible
as “the root of sexism.” Though proverbs are claimed to be too old to account for the gender
hierarchy and power relations in society, they survived the ravages of time as they circulate and
“remain in currency through the language” (Sil, 2019).

The remainder of the paper is structured as follows—section 2 reviews related literature about
women’s ideologies in Arabic and English proverbs. Section 3 discusses the study’s theoretical
underpinnings as it focuses on the cultural aspect of ideology, sexist language, and the cognitive
dimension of proverbs. It also shows how the synergy of FCDA and CMT will inform data analysis.
Section 4 represents the study’s methodology in terms of the data sources and collection as well
as the procedure of analysis. Section 5 analyses the data. Section 6 discusses the findings.

2. Literature review
The study of the linkage between proverbs and gender representations received remarkable
scholarly attention. Given the present study’s focus, the bulk of related studies can be categorized
into two clusters. The first cluster focuses on how men and women are ideologically represented in
proverbs in Arabic (Ambu-Saidi, 2010; Belfatmi, 2013; Ennaji, 2008; Webster, 1982) and English
(Kirsanova, 2018; Shi & Zhang, 2017; Zheng, 2018). The second cluster focuses on comparing the
representations of ideological gender in Arabic and English (Ismael Taher, 2019). Similar studies
are conducted on other languages (Lomotey & Chachu, 2020; Nakhavaly & Sharifi, 2013;
Sanauddin, 2015; Storm, 1992).

Webster (1982) worked on a collection of 93 Moroccan Arabic proverbs addressing issues related
to women, sex, and marriage. The study was more sociologically—rather than linguistically—
oriented. Findings showed that proverbs distributed Moroccan women on a cline with three distinct
phases: pre-child-bearing, during-child-bearing, and post-child-bearing, which are associated with
positive, neutral, and negative attributes, respectively. Moroccan women were generally stereo­
typed as having insatiable sexual desires through which they could control and damage men. To
intensify the Godly punishment of incest, women were equated to sacred religious sites such as
Kaaba and Jerusalem.

Furthermore, proverbs were found to focus on the traits of a good wife rather than those of
a husband. Relatedly, Ennaji (2008) explored the images of women in Moroccan Arabic and
Berber (Tamazight) proverbs using content analysis. Moroccan proverbs represented women
more negatively than Berber proverbs. Berber proverbs focused on women’s beauty, chastity,
and bravery. Contrarily, Moroccan Arabic proverbs associated women with laziness, hypocrisy,
and wickedness.

Page 3 of 19
Altohami, Cogent Arts & Humanities (2023), 10: 2174481
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2174481

Similar findings are reported by Belfatmi (2013) as she explored women’s representations in
Moroccan proverbs as part of popular culture using content analysis. She showed that Moroccan
women are negatively perceived within the boundaries of the private domestic (rather than public)
sphere, just like pets and servants. The study has demonstrated how Moroccan society—as typical
of patriarchal ideologies—dominantly stereotypes women as evil, intellectually less qualified
creatures on the one hand. Men have been portrayed as predators, profiteers, and tyrants, on
the other hand. Furthermore, Ambu-Saidi (2010), using quantitative and qualitative methods,
explored gender representations of 63 Omani Arabic proverbs as performative speech acts.
Findings showed that the majority of proverbs represented women negatively. As such, proverbs
were commonly used as face-threatening acts. Proverbs associate Omani women with weakness,
meddlesomeness, and talkativeness. However, surveys and interviews with Omani women
revealed a decline in the negative connotations attached to women in Omani proverbs.

Shi and Zhang (2017) studied linguistic sexism as manifested in the English proverbs comparing
men and women based on social status, behavior, age, and marriage. Within a very limited number of
proverbs, findings showed that women’s appearance is satirized, their intellect is downplayed, and
their beauty is oppressed, while men are given priority. Such gender bias has been proved to be
motivated by historical (patriarchy), cultural (the Bible), social (education), and psychological (submis­
siveness) reasons. Zheng (2018) reached similar findings, but he focused on the cultural specificity of
English proverbs, and therefore they might cause intercultural conflicts if used in China.

Kirsanova (2018) compared the representations of men and women in English proverbs and
anti-proverbs (i.e., proverbs that have undergone structural and semantic changes) to explore
aspects of androcentric culture. Employing quantitative and qualitative methods, the study
explored the lexical units describing the biological, moral, psychological, and social characteristics
of men and women in a corpus of proverbs from published books and dictionaries. Findings
showed that proverbs about women were much more frequent, and they emphasized their
negative characteristics, especially on the moral and psychological levels. Anti-proverbs reflected
women’s ironic view of men as they started having equal rights.

The only study that compared representations of women in Arabic and English proverbs is
Ismael Taher (2019). She explored how the meaning of proverbs is constructed in terms of socio-
cultural factors. She did not consider the representations of women in particular, but she
approached women as a key component of social life. Insights from Conceptual Metaphor
Theory and Conceptual Integration Theory informed the analysis. Findings showed that women
are negatively represented in Arabic and English as roots of evil, the Devil’s net, and commodities.

Based on this literature review, we claim that no study has conducted a cross-cultural analysis of
the gendered representation of the social actors of “woman/women” and/or “wife” in Egyptian
Arabic and American English proverbs. Most of the available studies focused on the sociological
aspects of proverbs as a part of folklore, and they were much concerned with the thematic views
proposed in available proverbs. Even the studies that addressed gender hierarchy in other lan­
guages focused on the surface structure of these proverbs without accounting for the cognitive
basis underlying their formation, i.e., how the ideological meanings associated with gendered
social actors communicated via these proverbs are mentally represented in the mind of the
proverbs’ producers and users. Therefore, the current study attempts to integrate the linguistic,
social, and cognitive aspects of Arabic and English proverbs as a reservoir of culture.

But it should be made clear here that we will focus on the social actor “wife” to exclude other
woman-specific social actors, e.g., “daughter,” “sister,” and “mother.” The reason why we elected
this social actor to examine its gendered representations can be ascribed to the fact that “wife”
has the potential for gendered representations. These representations emerge principally from the
social contract the actor “wife” typically develops in subjugation to other social actors such as
“husband” and “man”/“men”; the latter actors are historically reckoned to be part of the wide-

Page 4 of 19
Altohami, Cogent Arts & Humanities (2023), 10: 2174481
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2174481

Table 1. Frequency of proverbs in the Arabic and English corpora

Egyptian-Arabic Corpus American-English Corpus
Cluster Frequency Cluster Frequency
Daughter 34 Wife 114
Wife 35 Mother 23
Mother 19 Daughter 19
Mother-In-Law 16 Mother-In-Law 9
Sister 7 Daughter-In-Law 4
Sister-In-Law 6 Grandmother 4
Co-Wife 3 Step-Mother 2
Step-Mother 3 Sister 1
Daughter-In-Law 3
Aunt 1
Total 127 Total 176

scale patriarchal discourse and its hegemonic practices in different cultures. Another additional
reason for selecting the social actor “wife” is quantitatively oriented, as shown in Table 1 (see,
Section 4).

The theoretical framework adopted in the present study is outlined in the coming section with
a focus on the concept of “proverbs” and the two models of Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis
(FCDA) Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT).

3. Theoretical framework

3.1. Proverbs: An overview

Most linguists and paremiologists agree that the term “proverb” is too complicated to define as
a proverb does not keep a definite structure, content, or purpose (Gibbs & Beitel, 1995). Proverbs
generally refer to traditional, pithy, succinct, colorful, formulaic, aphoristic, often figurative, and
self-contained statements with a moral precept (Norrick, 1985), representing the holistic view of
society toward an idea or a sentiment. The discipline that studies proverbs and proverbial expres­
sions in terms of their origin, structure, collection, classification, and socio-historical significance is
known as “paremiology.” As a universal phenomenon, the study of proverbs works on the interface
of diverse disciplines, including sociolinguistics, anthropology, sociology, folkloristics, philology, and
cognitive science (Mieder, 2004). Krikmann (1974) claims that proverbs are contextually specific as
they “manifest themselves only in concrete actualizations” based on their “semantic potential.”
Conversely, other scholars (Akbarian, 2012) argue that proverbs are not context-bound, i.e., they
do not have a unitary meaning as they may develop new associations in different contexts.

Most proverbs are easily memorized due to their specific linguistic structure. Litovkina (1996)
maintains that proverbs are structurally identified in terms of a set of phonological (e.g., rhyme,
alliteration, etc.), lexical (e.g., archaic lexemes), syntactic (e.g., parallel syntax and conditional
clauses), and semantic (e.g., metaphor, irony, etc.) markers. Still, the same proverb may have
variant forms within the same language. They can be “added to, transformed, and abbreviated”
(Akbarian, 2012). For instance, based on the proverb “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” the
proverbs “Every mother’s child is handsome” and “No mother has a homely child” are co-variant in
English. Similarly, ‫ ’اﻟﻘﺮد ﻓﻰ ﻋﻴﻦ أﻣﻪ‬Il-ʾird fy ʿīn ʾumuh ġazāl’ (In the eyes of its mother, a baby monkey is
a cute fawn) and ‫“ ﺧﻨﻔﺴﺔ ﺷﺎﻓﺖ وﻻدﻫﺎ ﻋﻠﻲ اﻟﺤﻴﻂ ﻗﺎﻟﺖ دە ﻟﻮﻟﻲ ﻓﻰ ﺧﻴﻂ‬Ḫunfisah šāfit wilādha ʿala al-ḥīt ʾālit
dah lūly malḍūm fy ḫīt” (A ladybug saw its offspring on the wall, she said, “This is a pearl tied with
a thread”) are co-variants in colloquial Egyptian Arabic.

Page 5 of 19
Altohami, Cogent Arts & Humanities (2023), 10: 2174481
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2174481

While Akbarian (2012) regards proverbs as an ornament of language, Tair and Edwards (2006)
assure that they are not “folkloric relics, verbal decorations, or collector’s items.” Indeed, proverbs
are reported to serve diverse strategic sociolinguistic and cultural functions. They are intended to
perform social functions, including asserting social norms, values, and beliefs and highlighting the
governing moralist code and related socially accepted behaviors. Furthermore, Webster (1982)
considers proverbs as clues about people’s “character and culture” as they “open paths of com­
munication.” In communication, proverbs are strategically manipulated to support arguments,
rationalize pitfalls, satirize problems, persuade the masses, and express generalizations (Mieder,
2004). Tair and Edwards (2006) add that proverbs can “propose a course of action, affect a change
of attitude, or provoke a change in perspective” as they represent a society’s wisdom and record of
experience. In this context, Lomotey and Chachu (2020) state that proverbs create ideologies and
stereotypes effectively since they are “true reflections of a society’s values and are accepted as
authoritative creeds that cannot be challenged.”

Tair and Edwards (2006) stress that the semantic complexity of proverbs is due to their
metaphorical or figurative basis that is initiated in the mind of the proverb’s producers and
narrators. Furthermore, proverbs form a part of “the cognitive system of the culture in which
they occur” (Webster, 1982). Based on this understanding, the theoretical framework offered by
Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT; Gibbs, 1994; Lakoff, 1993; Lazar, 2008) may adduce a better
understanding of the cognitive basis of proverbs as metaphors. In this regard, Gibbs and Beitel
(1995, p. 139) argue against the typical paraphrases of proverbs, and they assure that proverbs
“are partly motivated by conceptual metaphors.”

In its simplest form, CMT proposes that in a metaphor, two conceptual spheres interact, i.e., one
generally abstract concept (target domain or vehicle) is understood in terms of another concrete
concept (source domain or tenor) usually associated with everyday experiences. According to
Lakoff (1993), the general metaphor theory characterizes what is technically termed “cross-
domain mapping.” Crucially, a metaphorical expression indicates “a linguistic expression (a word,
phrase, or sentence) that is the surface realization of such a cross-domain mapping” (Lakoff,
1993). Recognizably, underlying systematic correspondences or metaphorical mappings experien­
tially arise between source and target domains. A conceptual metaphor is phrased as TARGET
DOMAIN IS SOURCE DOMAIN; it is situationally manifested in interaction through diverse linguistic
expressions. In our case, proverbs are regarded as linguistic expressions. Gibbs and Beitel (1995)
demonstrate that the proverb “A rolling stone gathers no moss” is motivated by two conceptual
metaphors applicable in different contexts: LIFE IS A JOURNEY, and PEOPLE ARE INANIMATE
OBJECTS. As metaphors differ cross-culturally, proverbs behave as such. The present study is
confined to exploring the source domains that proverbs’ producers (consciously or unconsciously)
used to represent “wife” as a target domain. These source domains will contribute to revealing the
cognitive basis of the target proverbs.

3.2. Proverbs, culture, and gender ideologies

Culture is deeply rooted in any human language. Through language, social relations are marked,
and identities are established (Ahearn, 2001). Any culture has its motivated gender hierarchy, i.e.,
how men and women are represented. “Representations of aspects of the world which contribute
to establishing and maintaining relations of power, domination, and exploitation” are known as
ideologies that are essentially cultural beliefs (Fairclough, 2003). Granbom-Herranen (2010) argues
that most recent research on women’s representations in proverbs showed that they are under­
estimated and stereotyped as “the object of negative proverbial speech.”

Similarly, Yksel (1993) states, “Almost every proverb that touches on women contains a severe
negation of the value of women in society.” Furthermore, Kerschen (2012) maintains that proverbs
about women are characteristically derogatory as they portray them as “sharp-tongued, long-
winded, empty-headed, toy-like creatures,” thereby reflecting a typical patriarchal worldview.
Therefore, proverbs are critiqued for motivating “a system of gender hegemony that supports

Page 6 of 19
Altohami, Cogent Arts & Humanities (2023), 10: 2174481
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2174481

masculine superiority and feminine subordination”. Schipper (2004) and Granbom-Herranen

(2010), among others, ascribe these negative representations to the fact that most of the available
proverbs originated from men who controlled everything for ages.

Accordingly, such proverbs could be claimed to be underlain by a sexist ideology that forms the
basis for reproducing unequal gender relations. Sexism represents a system of beliefs governing
the behavior, language, and perception of men and women in society. Sexist ideology constitutes
an aspect of sexist (or gendered) culture that is perpetuated, propagated, and reproduced by
language (i.e., linguistic sexism). Atkinson et al. (1993) approaches linguistic sexism as “a wide
range of verbal practices, including not only how women are labeled and referred to, but also how
language strategies in mixed-sex interaction may serve to silence or depreciate women as inter­
actants.” Eagleton (2007) offers a set of discursive strategies through which gender hierarchy and
power structure in society are maintained. Through the discursive strategies of legitimization,
rationalization, naturalization (stereotyping), and universalization, oppression is internalized;
a superordinate-subordinate position is justified; social roles are stereotyped, and ideologies are
universalized, respectively.

Feminists identify societies accepting male domination as patriarchal. The concept of “patriarchy”
(Walby, 1990) is intended to describe all sorts of gender inequality, discrimination, marginalization,
and prejudice in favor of men. It starts during socialization and is then affirmed in education and
employment. Related to the concept of patriarchy are the concepts of “hegemonic masculinity” and
“hegemonic femininity” (Connell, 1995) that configure the social practices legitimizing patriarchy and
sustaining “the dominant position of men and the subordination of women” (Schippers, 2007). Such
androcentric and misogynous ideologies are sustained as women accept them and are then “inte­
grated with laws, rules, norms, habits, and even a consensus” (Van Dijk, 2001).

However, with the increasing rise of feminist movements and social shifts since the publication
of Lakoff’s Language and Woman’s Place (1975), which propagated the deficiency of female
speech, the concepts of patriarchy and hegemonic masculinity became relatively historical as
women are now getting socially empowered. Therefore, such terms have been criticized as they
ignore the power dynamics in a society, i.e., men and women are powerful in different senses.
Based on this viewpoint, new critical discourse analytic approaches emerged to defy patriarchal
societies by revealing all biased gender differences. In fact, every theoretical framework that falls
under the purview of critical discourse analysis (CDA) affirms that discourse both reflects and
shapes social activities. CDA is mainly concerned with reproducing social problems in discourse,
e.g., inequality, racism, discrimination, power abuse, etc. (Fairclough, 2007; Litosseliti, 2006;
Sunderland, 2004; Van Dijk, 2001). As feminist studies received their due attention, the paradigm
of CDA has been extended to cover social problems from a feminist perspective (Diabah & Appiah
Amfo, 2015), and it came to be known as Feminist CDA (FCDA; Lazar, 2005, 2007, 2008).

FCDA works at the interface of critical discourse studies and feminist studies. Within the frame of
FCDA, gender is not approached as an isolated phenomenon. Rather, it is envisaged as a link
among identity, sexuality, ideology, and social class. It is mainly concerned with the reproduction,
negotiation, and contestation of gender-based ideologies and power relations in discourse. It
“critiques from a feminist perspective hierarchically ordered gender structures sustained in/
through language and other forms of communication” (Lazar, 2008).

Furthermore, it examines how gendered assumptions are discursively produced, reproduced,

and challenged. It addresses discourses that privilege men as a social group to sustain
a patriarchal social order (Lazar, 2005) where women are marginalized, segregated, and disem­
powered. Lazar (2005) avers that by rendering such gender ideologies transparent, they would be
socially contested and resisted.

Page 7 of 19
Altohami, Cogent Arts & Humanities (2023), 10: 2174481
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2174481

As mentioned in section (3.1), proverbs are employed to communicate meanings and beliefs
that cannot be voiced directly since each discourse has its hidden agenda. Therefore, FCDA fits the
main objective of this study, as it can reveal both explicit and implicit hegemonic ideologies
espoused in proverbs.

4. Methodology

4.1. Data
The Arabic and English proverbs used in the present study are culled from published books and
encyclopedias. On the one hand, Egyptian Arabic proverbs are collected from Mawsūʿat Al-ʾAmṯāl
Al-Šaʿbīyah Al-Miṣrīyah wa Al-Taʿbīrāt Al-Sāʾirah (Encyclopedia of Egyptian Colloquial Proverbs and
Dictums; Šaʿlān, 2003). This five-volume encyclopedia has been particularly selected as all the
included proverbs are collected from almost all previously published sources of Egyptian proverbs,
including books, anthologies, newspapers, periodicals, books, and manuscripts. Also, all proverbs
are thematically categorized (e.g., money, family, love, etc.). On the other hand, American English
proverbs are collected from American Proverbs about Women (Kerschen, 2012) and Never Marry
a Woman with Big Feet: Women in Proverbs from Around the World (Schipper, 2004). These two
books offer an encyclopedia on women-related proverbs in American English. Kerschen (2012)
classifies American proverbs about women into clusters about their nature, roles, and qualities.
Schipper (2004) clusters proverbs into five groups: the female body, phases of life, basics of life,
female power, and messages of metaphors. These Arabic and English sources of proverbs offer
detailed spatiotemporal information (place and time) on the actual context marking their use.

To avoid overgeneralized representations, the present study does not target general proverbs
about women (i.e., WOMAN or WOMEN do not appear as keywords) since, for instance, mothers
and wives are not assumed to be represented similarly. Therefore, the data is confined to explicit
proverbs about women’s specific social role as a “wife.” The rationale for selecting the social actor
“wife” is twofold. On a qualitative level, as explained above (Section 4), there are potentials for the
gendered representations underlying the use of “wife.” Such representations stem from a socio-
culturally given social contract whereby “wife” is typically subjugated to other social actors such as
“husband” and “man”/“men.” Also, on a quantitative level, the gender term “wife” has had top
frequency in the two data sets of Egyptian Arabic (35 occurrences) and American English (114
occurrences); this may prove the thematic saliency of “wife” as a prestigious sign in the proverbial
discourse of both Egyptians and Americans.

In addition to the above qualitative-quantitative parameter for selecting “wife,” there is another
parameter for selecting the proverbs themselves for analysis. They should be culturally significant;
all of them should have a gender component represented by explicit lexemes showing social roles
and kinship terms used as keywords. Proverbs that are not motivated by gendered ideologies are
discarded (e.g., ‫ اﻟﺮاﺟﻞ وﻣﺮاﺗﻪ زي اﻟﻘﺒﺮ وزﻣﺎﻣﻪ‬Ir-ragil wi-mirātuh zai il-ʾabr wi zimāmuh—A husband and
his wife are like the grave and its affairs). Yet, if a proverb includes more than a social role or
a kinship term, it will be considered relevant to the scope of our analysis accordingly. Based on
these parameters, the final data is subdivided into two sets of proverbs on the social actor’ wife,’
namely, an Egyptian-Arabic corpus set consisting of 35 proverbs and an American-English corpus
of 114 proverbs.

As displayed in Table 1, both corpora share seven clusters of proverbs, including (1) Mother, (2)
Wife, (3) Daughter, (4) Mother-In-Law, (5) Daughter-In-Law, (6) Step-Mother, And (7) Sister. Since
the present study seeks a cross-cultural analysis of the gendered representations underlying the
term “wife” in Egyptian Arabic and American English proverbs, data analysis will be confined to
examining such wife-bound representations.

Page 8 of 19
Altohami, Cogent Arts & Humanities (2023), 10: 2174481
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2174481

4.2. Procedure
The present study adopts a quantitative-qualitative method for investigating how the social actor
“wife” is represented across Egyptian Arabic and American English proverbs. The data analysis
relies on insights from FCDA and CMT. The procedure of the current study methodically operates in
three stages. Firstly, both corpora will be initially investigated to calculate the frequency of
proverbs associated with each of the gender term “wife” shown in Table 1, and then the term’s
key themes, as covered in each corpus, will be explained and compared. Secondly, a feminist
critical discourse analysis approach will be adopted to reveal the ideologies associated with “wife”
in Egyptian and American cultures.

Representative proverbial examples of “wife” from both corpora will be offered and dis­
cussed. Dynamic equivalents for the Arabic proverbs (if any) will be provided. Otherwise,
communicative translations will be provided. Also, Egyptian Arabic proverbs will be given in
(colloquial Egyptian) Arabic and then transliterated using Brill’s simple Arabic transliteration
system (Rietbroek, 2010; cf. Table A1). Thirdly, how wife-specific gendered ideologies are
mentally represented in the proverbs producers’ minds will be examined by exploring the
source domains projected via mappings with the target domains represented by the output
clusters of wife’s social roles and kinship terms, thereby comprehending the cognitive basis of
these proverbs. These source domains will be compared and contrasted to highlight positive,
negative, and neutral representations.

5. Data analysis
Let us begin our analysis by offering a general view of the social roles assigned to the generic term
“women” and its related social actors in the present data sets. Both corpora show that the
Egyptian and American cultures acknowledge specific social roles for women. The Arabic corpus
shows ten clusters of women-related social roles, while the English corpus shows eight. The
mutual clusters are (1) Mother, (2) Wife, (3) Daughter, (4) Mother-In-Law, (5) Daughter-In-Law,
(6) Step-Mother, And (7) Sister. The cluster of Co-Wife is only covered in the Arabic corpus, as
Islamic teachings allow polygamy, while Christian teachings prohibit having a co-wife.

Also, the Egyptian culture supports extended families allowing brothers to share the same
house with their wives, so sisters-in-law are often in contact. Even if brothers have separate
houses, they regularly gather in their parents’ houses. Conversely, the American culture sup­
ports having separate houses for most family members. This may justify the absence of
proverbs under the cluster of Sister-In-Law in the English corpus. Moreover, the cluster of
Aunt does not appear in the English corpus. Though grandmothers have a special position in
the Egyptian family, no proverbs addressed them. We may argue here that this might be
ascribed to their highly-esteemed position, and therefore no gender components are asso­
ciated with them. Table 2 below shows the frequency of the seven mutual clusters of proverbs
in the Arabic and English corpora.

Now, let us focus on the social actor “wife” as the focus of the present analysis. While the
Arabic corpus has around 35 (29.91%) proverbs covering diverse themes about wives, the
English corpus has 114 (66.27%) proverbs. In colloquial Egyptian Arabic proverbs, wife is
referred to as ‫ ’اﻟﻤﺮە‬il-marah’, ‫ ’وﻟﻴﻪ‬wilīyah,’ or ‫ ’اﻟﻤﺘﺠﻮزة‬il-mitgawizah.’ A good wife is described
as ‫“ ﺑﻨﺖ اﻷﺻﻮل‬bint il-ʾuṣūl” (cf. ‫ ﺧﺪ ﺑﻨﺖاﻷﺻﻮل ﻣﻊ اﻟﺰﻣﻦ ﺗﺪور‬Ḫud bint il-ʾuṣūl maʿa az-zaman tidūr—
Marry a highbred wife who bears life hardships) and “bint il-ḥarāyir” (cf. ‫ ﺑﻨﺎتاﻟﺤﺮاﯾﺮ دﺧﺎﻳﺮ‬Banāt il-
ḥarāyer daḫāyir—Highborn wives are savings). A bad wife is described as ‫“ ﺑﻨﺖ اﻟﻬﻔﺎﻳﺔ‬bint il-
hifāyah” (cf. ‫ ﻣﺎ ﺗﺸﺮﺑﺶ اﻟﺼﻔﺎﻳﺔ وﻻ ﺗﺎﺧﺪ ﺑﻨﺖاﻟﮭﻔﺎﯾﺔ‬Mātišrabš iṣ-ṣifāyah wa-lā taḫud bint il-hifāyah [Don’t
drink settlings, nor marry an ill-bred wife]). Similarly, in the American culture, marriage is seen
as a matter of luck, and the wife is viewed as her husband’s best or worst fortune (e.g., A good
wife and health are a man’s best wealth). Egyptian wives are suppressed and silenced by their
husbands. Consider the following proverbs.

Page 9 of 19
Altohami, Cogent Arts & Humanities (2023), 10: 2174481
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2174481

Table 2. Frequency of mutual clusters of women-related proverbs in the Arabic and English
corpora
Cluster Arabic corpus English corpus
Frequency % Frequency %
Wife 35 29.91% 114 66.27%
Daughter 34 29.05% 19 11.04%
Mother 19 16.23% 23 13.37%
Mother-In-Law 16 13.67% 9 5.23%
Daughter-In-Law 3 2.56% 4 2.32%
Step-Mother 3 2.56% 2 1.16%
Sister 7 5.98% 1 0.58%
Total 117 100% 172 100%

(1) ‫إن ﻛﺎن اﻟﻤﺮه ﻟﻬﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﻮن ﻓﻰ اﻟﺒﻴﺖ ﻫﺪە‬

In kān il-marah lihā kānūn fy il-bīt hiduh (If your wife has a clay-made stove in the
house, destroy it)

(2) ‫إن ﻛﺎن ﻟﺴﺎن اﻟﻤﺮه ﺟﻬﺮ اﻗﻄﻌﻪ‬

In kān lisān il-marahǧahar iʾtaʿuh (If your wife’s voice becomes mannishly loud, make
her dumb)

In proverb 1, husbands are recommended not to make their wives independent just to keep them
subservient. Such a form of independence is motivated by having a source of power represented by
‫“ اﻟﻜﺎﻧﻮن‬il-kānūn” (a clay-made stove) that is a marked cultural indicator of the rural regions in
Egypt. Further to this, the clay-made stove is viewed as a substantial sign of sharing money and
also as a source of power for the wife to have control over her husband. In destroying a clay-made
stove, a husband will not be indebted for his wife. Proverb 2 urges husbands to silence their wives
by symbolically cutting their tongues. However, suppressing wives is not fully supported in
American culture. Although cutting a wife’s tongue is used figuratively to secure that she does
not talk nor discuss any issues with her husband, physical aggression against wives is recom­
mended (e.g., Wring a wife’s and a hen’s neck, if you want them good). Moreover, dogs are regarded
as more sensitive than wives, and therefore a relentless husband who “kicks” a dog would “beat”
his wife (e.g., A man who kicks his dog will beat his wife). If a woman is married to a young man,
she is explicitly represented as a “slave” for a young husband (e.g., A wife is a young man’s slave
and an old man’s darling). Unlike the Egyptian corpus, most of the American proverbs motivate
wives to control the house (e.g., The husband is the head of the house, but the wife is the neck—and
the neck moves the head) and her husband (e.g., The cunning wife makes her husband her apron).
But, one proverb considers husbands accepting their wives’ mastery as fools (e.g., When a man’s
a fool, his wife will rule).

(3) ‫اﻟﻠﻲ ﻳﺴﻜﺖ وﻣﻴﺴﺄﻟﺶ اﻟﻤﺮه ﻟﻴﻪ؟ رﺣﻤﺔ اﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‬

Ili yuskut wi maiyʾulš li-mirātuh līh? raḥmatu Allah ʿalīh (A husband who remains silent
and does not ask his wife why he is no longer a man)

In proverb 3, husbands should always follow-up their wives, who might be disloyal. If not censored,
wives might negatively compare their husbands to other men. Still, one solution for a disloyal wife
is to grant her much freedom (e.g., ‫ اﻟﻤﺮه اﻟﺨﺎﻳﻨﺔ إدﻳﻠﻬﺎ اﻟﻤﻔﺎﺗﻴﺢ‬Il-marah il-ḫaiynah idilhā il-mafātīḥ—
A faithless wife should be given the house keys). Conversely, the American culture stigmatizes

Page 10 of 19
Altohami, Cogent Arts & Humanities (2023), 10: 2174481
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2174481

wives as it regards their disloyalty as the norm, especially when the husband is outside the house
(e.g., When the husband’s away, the wife will play), thereby causing the downfall of the family (e.g.,
A faithless wife is the shipwreck of the home). Only old wives, like old dogs that are common
constituents of American families, are faithful (e.g., There are three faithful friends—an old wife, an
old dog, and ready money). Contrarily, husbands are generally faithful, and their faithfulness is
their wives’ responsibility (e.g., A kind wife makes a faithful husband).

(4) ‫ﺑﻮس ﻣﺮاﺗﻚ ﻓﻰ اﻟﻔﺮﺷﺔ وﻻ ﺗﺒﻮﺳﻬﺎش ﻓﻰ اﻟﺠﻠﺴﺔ‬

Būs rās mirātak fy il-faršah wa-lā tibushāš fy il-ǧalsah (Kiss your wife’s head in bed, but
never in public)

(5) ‫اﺑﻨﻚ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺎ ﺗﺮﺑﻴﻪ وﻣﺮاﺗﻚ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺎ ﺗﻌﻮدﻫﺎ‬

Ibnak ʿala mā trabīh wi-mirātakʿala mā tiʿawdha (Your son copies your model just as
your wife follows your lifestyle)

In proverb 4, a true Egyptian husband does not express his feelings toward his wife publicly.
Conversely, American husbands are recommended to always praise their wives (e.g., The man who
never praises his wife deserves to have a poor one). To avoid any mismatch between husbands and
wives, proverb (5) invites husbands to get their wives accustomed to their lifestyle as they do with
their kids. Equated to kids, wives are represented as intellectually inferior to their husbands.
Accordingly, Egyptian wives should not be consulted as their bits or pieces of advice seldom lead
to success (e.g., ‫ اﻟﻠﻲ ﻳﺴﻤﻊ ﻛﻼم ﻣﺮاﺗﮫ ﺗﻜﺘﺮ ﻧﻜﺒﺎﺗﻪ‬Illy yismaʿ kalām mirātuh tiktar nakbātuh -Husbands who
listen to their wives will always suffer). Perhaps, in this way, wives are used as scapegoats to justify
men’s failures. In fact, proverb 5 has the same structure of another proverb calling upon wives to
get their husbands accustomed to their lifestyle, ‫ اﺑﻨﻚ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺎﺗﺮﺑﻴﻪ وﺟﻮزك ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺎﺗﻌﻮدﻳﻪ‬Ibnak ʿala mā trabīh
wi-ǧuzik ʿala mā tiʿawdiha (Your son copies your model just as your husband follows your lifestyle).
This juxtaposition highlights the clashing societal views on who should be responsible for the
family. Conversely, husbands of American wives are recommended to consult them (e.g., A man
must ask his wife to thrive). In return, bad wives do not accept their husbands’ advice (e.g., A no-
accountwife takes advice from everyone but her husband). Another proverb regards American
wives as fools (e.g., He who wishes to chastise a fool gets a wife).

The Arabic corpus confirms that Egyptian women, be they married or unmarried, are emotionally
unstable and always complain (e.g., ‫ ﺟﺖ اﻟﻌﺰﺑﺔ ﺗﺸﺘﻜﻲ ﻟﻘﺖ اﻟﻤﺘﺠﻮزة ﺑﺘﺒﻜﻲ‬Gāt il-ʿāzbah tišky laʾat il-
mitgauwizah bi-tibky—A single woman came to a married woman to complain; she found her
crying). Furthermore, relying on the source domain of WAR, wives are negatively represented as
َ
inborn enemies (e.g., ‫ ﺻﺪﻳﻘﻚ اﻟﻜﻠﺐ وﻛﺘﺎم أﺳﺮارك اﻟﺤﻤﺎر وﻋﺪوﺗﻚ ﻣﺮاﺗﻚ وإن اﻟﻤﻠﺢ دّود اﻟﺒﻐﻠﺔ ﺗﻮﻟﺪ‬Ṣadīʾak il-kalb wa-
kattām asrārak il-ḥumār wi-ʿaduwitak mirātak wi-ʾin il-malḥ dawid il-baġlah tiwlid [The dog is your
friend; the donkey is the keeper of your secrets; your wife is your enemy. If salt catches worms,
a female mule may foal]). That is, while dogs and donkeys might be good friends and secret
keepers, respectively, women cannot behave as such. American proverbs regard husbands disclos­
ing everything to their wives as inexperienced (e.g., He that tells his wife news is but newly
married). Furthermore, based on the frame of the snakes and ladders game that is common in
the American culture, one proverb represents having a wife as moving down the ladder while
having a friend as going up (e.g., Go down the ladder when you choose a wife; go up when you
choose a friend).

Furthermore, in case of a husband’s death, old Egyptian wives would be sad, i.e., a young wife
might seek another husband (e.g., ‫ اﻟﻤﺮه ﻣﺎ ﺗﺤﺰن ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﻮزﻫﺎ إﻻ إذا ﻛﺎن ﻓﺮط ﻓﻴﻪ اﻟﻔﺮط‬Il-marah mā tiḥzan ʿala
guzhā ʾilā ʾizā kān farraṭ fīhā il-farṭ [A wife never feels sad for her ceased husband except if she is
old]). In the American culture, wives who joy after their husband’s death are bad wives (e.g., A bad
wife likes to see her husband’s heels turned to the door). However, in both corpora, in case of

Page 11 of 19
Altohami, Cogent Arts & Humanities (2023), 10: 2174481
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2174481

a wife’s death, husbands would lead a happy life as in ‫’ﺑﻌﺪ ﻣﺎ ﻣﺎﺗﺖ ﻣﺮاﺗﮫ أﺣﻤﺮت ﻣﺨﺪاﺗﻪ‬
Baʿd mā mātit mīrātuh iḥmarat maḫadātuh’ (After his wife passed away, his pillows turned red)
and “Two good days for a man in his life: when he weds, and when he buries his wife.” Losing a wife
—especially a nagging wife (e.g., It’s a sweet sorrow to bury a nagging wife)—is as much welcomed
as having a mare foaling (e.g., When the wife dies and the mare foals, prosperity begins). It is
noteworthy that breeding foals are a common practice in American culture. Conversely, to some
Egyptian husbands, a wife’s death is a disaster, especially if she is obedient (e.g., ‫ﻣﻮت اﻟﻤﺮه اﻟﻠﻲ ﻣﺶ‬
‫ ﻣﻮاﻓﻘﺔ ﻣﺼﻴﺒﺔ إﻳﺶ ﺣﺎل اﻟﻤﻮاﻓﻘﺔ‬Mūt il-marah illy miš muwafʾah muṣībah iš ḥāl il-muwāfʾah—A nagging
wife’s death is a disaster. What about an obedient wife?).

Though it is scientifically confirmed that men’s chromosomes identify the sex of the baby, the
Arabic corpus holds women responsible for giving birth to girls (‫ أم اﻟﺒﻨﺎت‬ʾum il-banāt and ‫ﻣﺨﻠﻔﺔ اﻟﺒﻨﺎت‬
miḫalifah il-banāt). Giving birth to girls is socio-culturally unwelcomed as they are perceived as ‫ﻫﻢ‬
‫ ’ﻟﻠﻤﻤﺎت‬ham lil-mamāt’ (a burden to death), especially for mothers (e.g., ‫ أماﻟﺒﻨﺎت ﺷﺎﻳﻠﺔ اﻟﻬﻢ ﻟﻠﻤﻤﺎت‬ʾUm il-
banāt šaiylah al-ham lil-mamāt—Girl’s mothers will be distressed until death(. Furthermore,
Egyptians believe that a motherless person is dejected (‫ اﻟﻠﻰ ﻣﻦ ﻏﻴﺮ أم ﺣﺎﻟﻪ ﻳﻐﻢ‬illy min ġair ʾum ḥaluh
yi-ġum) as mothers shoulder the responsibility of all family members, especially her children.
Conversely, American mothers feel happy as they care for their daughters even after they get
married (e.g., A daughter is a daughter all the days of her life, but a son is a son until he gets him
a wife) as they become weaker in her husband’s house (e.g., A diamond daughter turns to glass as
a wife).

In the Arabic corpus, good wives belonging to good families are regarded as savings (daḫāyir)
that would help husbands in hard times (e.g., ‫ ﺑﻨﺎتاﻟﺤﺮاﯾﺮ دﺧﺎﻳﺮ‬Banāt il-ḥarāyer daḫāyir [Highborn
wives are savings]). Therefore, a wife belonging to a notorious family is not recommended (e.g., ‫ﻣﺎ‬
‫ ﺗﺸﺮﺑﺶ اﻟﺼﻔﺎﻳﺔ وﻻ ﺗﺎﺧﺪ بنتالهفاية‬Mā tišrabš iṣ-ṣifāyah wa-lā taḫud bint il-hifāyah—Don’t drink
settings, and don’t marry an ill-bred wife); but, if a husband decides to marry her, he should avoid
her family (e.g., ‫ ﺧﺪ ﺑﻨﺖاﻟﻨﺪل وﺧﺎﺻﻤﻪ‬Ḫud bint an-nadl wi-ḫāṣmuh [Marry a villain’s daughter and then
regard him as an adverse]). Hence, wives are judged in terms of their families rather than their
personal qualities. Still, some Arabic proverbs represent wives positively as a resource of emotional
support and security. Consider the following proverbs.

(6) ‫إذا ﻛﺎن اﻟﺮاﺟﻞ ﺑﺤﺮ ﺗﻜﻮن اﻟﻤﺮه ﺟﺴﺮ‬

ʾIzā kān ir-rāgil baḥr tikūn il-marahǧisr (If a husband is a sea, a wife is a bridge)

(7) ‫اﻟﻠﻲ ﻣﻠﻮش ﻣﺮه ﻣﻴﺴﻮاش ﻣﺮه‬

Illy malūš marah mā yiswāš marah (A wifeless man is not equal to a woman)

(8) ‫ﻣﺮاﺗﻲ دﻓﺎﻳﺎ وﻏﻄﺎﻳﺎ‬

Mirāty dafāyā wi-ġaṭāyā (My wife is my shelter)

(9) ‫ﺑﻠﺪك ﻓﻴﻦ ﻳﺎ ﺟﺤﺎ؟ اﻟﻠﻲ ﻓﻴﻬﺎﻣﺮاﺗﻲ‬

Baladak fīn ya-ǧuḥā? ʾāl illy fīhā mirāty (Where are you from Juha? From my wife’s town)

In proverb 6, based on the source domain of NATURE, a wife is metaphorized as a bridge that leads
to safety in her husband’s troubled life, which is metaphorized as a sea. Though proverb 7 seems to
favor wives, it denigrates them. That is, a husband without a wife is inferior to a woman. While
proverb 8 represents a wife as a source of warmth, proverb 9 represents her as the homeland of
her husband.

Page 12 of 19
Altohami, Cogent Arts & Humanities (2023), 10: 2174481
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2174481

Furthermore, the Arabic corpus affirms that happy marriage relies on mutual love. Based on the
source domains of NATURE and HEAVEN, happy marriage is metaphorized as having a sunny day
(e.g., ‫ اﻟﻠﻲ ﺟﻮزﻫﺎ ﻳﺤﺒﻬﺎ اﻟﺸﻤﺲ ﺗﻄﻠﻌﻠﻬﺎ‬Illy ǧuzhā yiḥibhā iš-šams tiṭlaʿlahā [She whose husband loves her,
the sun will rise for her]) and a paradise (e.g., ‫ إن ﺣﺒﺘﻚ اﻟﺒﻨﺖوأﻣﮭﺎ ﻟﻚ اﻟﺠﻨﺔ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ‬ʾIn ḥabatak il-bint wi-
ʾumahā lak il-ǧanah kulahā [If your wife and her mother love you, you will live in paradise]). Families
should support the husband’s and wife’s independence to sustain this happy life. Having an
independent life is spatially metaphorized as a small wringing room (il-maʿṣarah) only accommo­
dating husband and wife (e.g., ‫ إن ﻛﺎﻧﺖ اﻷودة أد اﻟﻤﻌﺼﺮة ﻣﺎﺗﺴﻌﺶ ﻏﻴﺮ اﻟﺮاﺟﻞ واﻟﻤﺮه‬ʾIn kānit il-ʾuḍah ʾad il-
maʿṣarah ma tasaʿš ġair ir-raǧil wi-il-marah—If the room is just like a wringing room, it only
accommodates a husband and a wife).

In the American corpus, lenience is the basis of happy life between husbands and wives who
should forgive the blemishes of one another (e.g., A deaf husband and a blind wife are always
a happy couple). Approaching the notions of mutual forgiveness through the source domains of
DEAFNESS and BLINDNESS implies that wives are always complaining and husbands’ actions are
not always satisfying. Forgiving one another’s faults will support compatibility (e.g., A warm-back
husband and a cold-footwife should easily lead a compatible life). Also, based on the source domain
of ANIMALS, respect is highlighted as a basis of communication between a husband and a wife
(e.g., If you make your wife an ass, she will make you an ox). Husbands are responsible for keeping
such balance (e.g., If the wife sins, the husband is equally guilty). Otherwise, clashes among them
would remain (e.g., Give your wife the short knife, keep the long one yourself); still, the upper hand
would be to the husband.

Like the Arabic corpus, the English corpus represents wives as the basis of homes (e.g., Where
there is no wife, there is no home) as she cares for her husband and compensates for any fault in
his personality (e.g., A man without a wife is but half a man). Even if a husband is wealthy, his life
without a wife would be meaningless (e.g., A good wife and health are a man’s best wealth).
Equally important, American proverbs are much concerned with the qualities of good and bad
wives. Consider the following instances:

(10) Three things are as rare as gold: a good melon, a good friend, and a good wife.
(11) There is one good wife in the country, and every man thinks he hath her.
(12) He that has a good wife has an angel by his side; he that has a bad one has a devil at his
elbow.
(13) Who has a bad wife has purgatory for a neighbor.
(14) A true wife is her husband’s better half/a flower of beauty/heart’s treasure

Proverbs 10 to 11 affirm that it is hard to have a good wife. Proverb 14 regards a good wife as rare
as a good melon and a good friend. The same idea is affirmed in proverb 15, as each man thinks
that his wife is the best, while other wives are not. Bad wives are like devils (see proverb 12), and
hence they would offend their husbands and neighbors (see proverb 13). The lexical item “purga­
tory” has Catholic Christian associations, as it recalls where dead people suffer their sins before
they go to heaven. Another proverb affirms that wives, in general, render life an inescapable hell
(e.g., If you take a wife from hell, she will bring you back). However, a good wife saves her husband
from hell (e.g., When a man takes a wife, he ceases to dread hell). Proverb 14 holds that a true wife
is her husband’s beauty and heart treasure. God supports husbands who have angelic wives who—
if lost—much of God’s graces will vanish (e.g., A good wife lost is God’s gift lost).

Moreover, based on the source domain of INDUSTRY, good husbands are perceived as the
creations of good wives (e.g., A good wife is the workmanship of a good husband) and vice versa
(e.g., Good wives and good plantations are made by good husbands). Additionally, a good wife is
stereotypically represented as a “lady” in a living room, a “cook” in the kitchen, and a “whore” in
bed (e.g., A wife should be a lady in the parlor, a mother in the kitchen, and a whore in bed). It is

Page 13 of 19
Altohami, Cogent Arts & Humanities (2023), 10: 2174481
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2174481

noteworthy that the Arabic corpus never represented wives as sex objects due to the generally
conservative ideologies marking the Egyptian culture.

Unlike the Arabic corpus, some proverbs in the English corpus are more concerned with wives’
physical beauty and their personality features. Consider the following instances:

(15) A hairy man’s rich. A hairy wife’s a witch.

(16) If you marry a beautiful wife, you marry trouble.

(17) If you want to know a bad husband, look at his wife’s countenance.

(18) Choose a wife on a Saturday rather than on a Sunday.

(19) The blind man’s wife needs no make-up.

Proverb 15 denigrates hairy wives, describing them as witches, and favors hairy husbands. In
proverb 16, a beautiful wife is a curse that brings trouble to her husband. Proverb 17 holds that
a husband’s ill-treatment affects his wife’s beauty. Yet, wives’ beauty might be unreal and
deceptive, and therefore, in Proverb 18, husbands are advised not to choose wives on Sundays
when women are well-dressed before going to church. Proverb 19 affirms that wives use make-up
only to amuse their husbands rather than themselves. Therefore, wives whose husbands do not
care for their wives do not need to wear make-up. Also, wives who are always occupied with their
beauty are not skillful in doing housework (e.g., The wife who loves the looking glass hates the
saucepan). Therefore, their house would always be messy and unclean (e.g., When the housewife is
a slattern, the cat is a glutton). Furthermore, pretty wives are stereotyped as so thriftless they
cause their husbands to be poor (e.g., A nice wife and a back door oft do make a rich man poor).
Therefore, wives are advised to be good planners (e.g., Wife, make thine own candles, spare penny
to handle).

6. Findings and conclusion

The analysis of proverbs showed a discrepancy in the frequency of proverbs in each of the clusters
of women-related proverbs in both Arabic and English corpora. In both corpora, the most frequent
proverbs fall under the cluster of Wife. This affirms the social weight of wives in the Egyptian and
American cultures, as women spend most of their lives as wives. In the Arabic corpus, the least
frequent proverbs fall under the clusters of Step-Mother and Daughter-In-Law since their relation­
ship with other family members is generally limited. However, in the English corpus, the least
frequent proverbs fall under the cluster of Sister due to the lack of the concept of extended family
in American culture. Furthermore, the analysis showed that there are notable differences in the
representations of women regarding their social roles in Egyptian and American cultures.

Synergizing FCDA and CMT proved to be empirically successful in revealing the representations of
women in Egyptian and American proverbs. Based on the propositional meaning and the marked
context in which each proverb is used, Table 3 below shows the frequency of positive, negative,
and neutral representations of women distributed over the clusters of social roles marking them in
both corpora.

The proverbs that propagate neutral representations are context-based, i.e., they may have
positive or negative associations based on the context, e.g., ‫ اﻛﻔﻲ اﻟﻘﺪرة ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﻤﻬﺎ ﺗﻄﻠﻊ اﻟﺒﻨﺖ ﻷﻣﻬﺎ‬Ikfy il-
ʾidrah ʿala fumahā tiṭlaʿ il-bint lumahā (Like mother, like daughter). Furthermore, proverbs classified
as neutral might include a description of two contrastive states (e.g., He that has a good wife has
an angel by his side; he that has a bad one has a devil at his elbow), or are simply descriptive (e.g.,
When the husband earns well, the wife spends well).

Page 14 of 19
Altohami, Cogent Arts & Humanities (2023), 10: 2174481
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2174481

Table 3. Frequency of positive (+), negative (-), and neutral (±) representations of women in
the Arabic and English corpora
Cluster Arabic corpus English corpus
Frequency + - ± Frequency + - ±
1 Wife 35 12 23 0 114 46 57 11
2 Daughter 34 12 22 0 19 9 7 3
3 Mother 19 11 2 6 23 13 6 4
4 Mother-in-law 16 4 12 0 9 0 8 1
5 Daughter-in-law 3 0 3 0 4 1 0 3
6 Step-mother 3 0 3 0 2 0 2 0
7 Sister 7 2 5 0 1 0 1 0
Total 117 41 70 6 172 69 81 22

Many of the cultural signs in the Arabic corpus, including clay-made stoves, donkeys, mules,
clay-made drinking vessels, etc., show that most of the proverbs are created and used in the rural,
rather than urban, regions in Egypt. In general, both corpora represent wives, mothers-in-law,
step-mothers, and sisters negatively. All in all, comparing the total number of positive, negative,
and neutral proverbs in both corpora, it becomes clear that the Egyptian Arabic corpus is more
negative about “wife” as far as the representations of the mentioned clusters are considered.

Unlike the Arabic corpus, the English corpus relies on the positive source domains of FOOTWEAR
(e.g., A bad wife likes to see her husband’s heels turned to the door), DEAFNESS AND BLINDNESS
(e.g., A deaf husband and a blind wife are always a happy couple), INDUSTRY (e.g., A good wife is the
workmanship of a good husband), WEALTH (e.g., A good wife and health are man’s best wealth),
HUMAN BODY (e.g., Husband and wife are one flesh), CUTLERY (e.g., A man without a wife is like
a fork without a knife), BUILDING (e.g., Where there is no wife there is no home), and PLANTS (e.g.,
A true wife is her husband’s flower of beauty).

Unlike the English corpus, the Arabic corpus relies on particular source domains that support the
wife’s negative representations, BUILDING (e.g., ‫ إن اﻟﻤﺮە ﻟﻬﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﻮن ﻓﻰ اﻟﺒﻴﺖ ﻫﺪە‬ʾIn kān il-marah lihā
kānūn fy il-bīt hiduh—If your wife has a clay-made stove in the house, destroy it), COLOUR (e.g., ‫ﺑﻌﺪ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ ﻣﺎﺗﺖ ﻣﺮاﺗﻪ اﺣﻤﺮت ﻣﺨﺪاﺗﻪ‬Baʿd mā mātit mīrātuh ʾiḥmarat maḫadātuh—After his wife passed away, his
pillows turned red), CRISIS (e.g., ‫ اﻟﻠﻲ ﻳﺴﻤﻊ ﻛﻼم ﻣﺮاﺗﻪ ﺗﻜﺘﺮ ﻧﻜﺒﺎﺗﻪ‬Illy yismaʿ kalām mirātuh tiktar nakbātuh
—Husbands who listen to their wives will always suffer), ENEMY (e.g., ‫ﺻﺪﻳﻘﻚ اﻟﻜﻠﺐ وﻛﺘﺎم أﺳﺮارك‬
َ
‫ وإن اﻟﻤﻠﺢ دّود اﻟﺒﻐﻠﺔ ﺗﻮﻟﺪ‬,‫ اﻟﺤﻤﺎروﻋﺪوﺗﻚ ﻣﺮاﺗﻚ‬Ṣadīʾak il-kalb wa-kattām asrārak il-ḥumār wi ʿaduwitak
mirātak wi-ʾin il-malḥ dawid il-baġlah tiwlid—The dog is your friend; the donkey is the keeper of
your secrets; your wife is your enemy. If salt catches worms, a female mule may foal), BURDEN (e.g.,
‫ أم اﻟﺒﻨﺎت ﺷﺎﻳﻠﺔ اﻟﻬﻢ ﻟﻠﻤﻤﺎت‬ʾUm il-banāt šaiylah il-ham lil-mamāt—Girl’s mothers will be distressed until
death), FOOD (e.g., ‫ ﻣﺎﺗﺸﺮﺑﺶ اﻟﺼﻔﺎﻳﺔ وﻻ ﺗﺎﺧﺪ ﺑﻨﺖ اﻟﻬﻔﺎﻳﺔ‬Mā tišrabš iṣ-ṣifāyah wa-lā taḫud bint il-
hifāyah—Don’t drink settings, nor marry an ill-bred wife), GHOSTS (e.g., ‫ اﻟﺒﻨﺎت ﺗﺤﺘﻬﻢ ﻋﻔﺎرﻳﺖ‬Il-banāt
taḥtihum ʿafārīt—Daughters are surrounded by ghosts), and COVER (e.g., ‫ ﺟﻮاز اﻟﺒﻨﺎت ﺳﺘﺮة‬Ǧawāz il-
banāt sutrah—Girls’ marriage is a shelter).

Maintaining the same negative representations of “wife,” the English corpus, unlike the Arabic corpus,
relies on the source domains of CLOTHES (e.g., The cunning wife makes her husband her (an) apron),
PROPERTY (e.g., Generally when a man feels the need of economy he thinks it ought, to begin with, his wife),
WAR (e.g., Give your wife the short knife, keep the long one yourself), DEVIL (e.g., He that has a bad one has
a devil at his elbow), HOUSEWARES (e.g., The wife who loves the looking-glass hates the saucepan), GAME
(e.g., Go down the ladder when you choose a wife; go up when you choose a friend), NATURE (e.g., Mother-in
-law and daughter-in-law are a tempest and a hailstorm), MATERIALS (e.g., A diamond daughter turns to
glass as a wife), and FURNITURE (e.g., A father to his desk, a mother to her dishes).

Page 15 of 19
Altohami, Cogent Arts & Humanities (2023), 10: 2174481
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2174481

In conclusion, most of the proverbs in both corpora represent the social actor “wife” as belong­
ing to a socially inferior and non-dominant group with less power and lower social status. The
sources mentioned above are employed to manipulate the public mind regarding the socially
acceptable position of women. It can be argued that negative representations are manifested
through various discursive strategies, including marginalization, stigmatization, pejoration, hege­
monization, moralization, stereotypification, and scapegoating. Though in modern Egyptian and
American societies, women in general, and wives in particular, have already gained much of their
freedom and empowerment, proverbs are still circulated, and related ideologies might be rekindled
or reinvented. Women could construct and negotiate their identities by highlighting the ideologies
underlying the negative gendered representations of wives in Egyptian and American cultures.
Therefore, gender relations could be socio-culturally restructured.

Funding Eagleton, T. (2007). Ideology: An introduction. National

The author received no direct funding for this research.
Author details
Waheed M. A Altohami1,2
E-mail: w.m.altohami@gmail.com
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8742-1366
1
Department of English, College of Science and
Humanities in Al-Kharj, Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz
University, Al-Kharj, Saudi Arabia.
2
Department of Foreign Languages, Faculty of Education,
Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the
author(s).
Citation information
Cite this article as: A cross-cultural linguistic analysis of
the gendered representations of “Wife” in Egyptian Arabic
and American English Proverbs, Waheed M. A Altohami,
Cogent Arts & Humanities (2023), 10: 2174481.
References
Ahearn, L. M. (2001). Language and agency. Annual
Review of Anthropology, 30(1), 109–137. https://doi.
org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.30.1.109
Akbarian, I. (2012). What counts as a proverb? The case
of NTC’s dictionary of proverbs and Clichés. Lexikos,
22(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.5788/22-1-994
Ambu-Saidi, S. (2010). A gender and language analysis of
Omani proverbs. MA Thesis, University of Florida.
Atkinson, K. et al. (1993). Language and gender. In
S. Jackson (Eds.), Women’s studies: A reader (pp. 13–
27). Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Belfatmi, M. (2013). The representation of women in
Moroccan proverbs. IOSR Journal of Humanities and
Social Science, 17(1), 15–21. https://doi.org/10.9790/
0837-1711521
Bem, S. L. (1993). The lenses of gender: Transforming the
debate on sexual inequality. Yale University Press.
Brier, B., & Hobbs, H. (2013). Ancient Egypt: Everyday life in
the land of the Nile. Sterling.
Cameron, D. (2007). The myth of Mars and Venus: Do men
and women really speak different languages? Oxford
University Press.
Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Polity Press.
Diabah, G., & Appiah Amfo, N. A. A. (2015). Caring sup­
porters or daring usurpers? Representation of women
in Akan proverbs. Discourse & Society, 26(1), 3–28.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926514541343
Dundes, A. (1975). On the structure of proverbs. In
W. Mieder & A. Dundes (Eds.), (1994), The wisdom of
many: Essays on the proverb (pp. 43–64). University of
Wisconsin Press.
Geographic Books.
Eckert, P., & Mcconnell-Ginet, S. (2003). Language and
gender. Cambridge University Press.
Ennaji, M. (2008). Representations of women in Moroccan
Arabic and Berber proverbs. The International Journal
of the Sociology of Language, 190, 167–181. https://
doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.2008.017
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analyzing discourse: Textual analy­
sis for social research. Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (2007). Discourse and contemporary social
change. Peter Lang.
Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative
thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge
University Press.
Gibbs, R. W., & Beitel, D. (1995). What proverb under­
standing reveals about how people think.
Psychological Bulletin, 118(1), 133–154. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0033-2909.118.1.133
Granbom-Herranen, L. (2010). Women’s place in Finnish
proverbs from childhood. Folklore: Electronic Journal
of Folklore, 46, 95–110. https://doi.org/10.7592/
fejf2010.46.granbom
Holmes, J. (1998). Women’s talk: The question of socio­
linguistic universals. In J. Coates (Ed.), Language and
gender: A Reader (pp. 81–99). Blackwell.
Ismael Taher, I. (2019). A cognitive semantic study of the
impact of socio-cultural factors on meaning con­
struction in selected English and Arabic proverbs:
A contrastive study. Arab World English Journal, 248
(1–300). https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/th.248
Kendall, S., & Tannen, D. (2001). Discourse and gender. In
D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The
handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 248–267).
Blackwell.
Kerschen, L. (2012). American proverbs about women:
A reference guide. Greenwood Publishing Group.
Kirsanova, M. (2018). Androcentrism of English proverbs
and anti-proverbs with gender components. Journal
of Language and Education, 4(2), 82–91. https://doi.
org/10.17323/2411-7390-2018-4-2-82-91
Krikmann, A. (1974). On denotative indefiniteness of
proverbs: Remarks on proverb semantics 1. en
Proverbium, 1, 47–91.
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman’s place. Harper.
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor.
In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp.
202–251). Cambridge University Press.
Lazar, M. M. (2005). Feminist critical discourse analysis:
Gender, power, and ideology in discourse. Palgrave
Macmillan.
Lazar, M. M. (2007). Feminist critical discourse analysis:
Articulating a feminist discourse praxis. Critical
Discourse Studies, 4(2), 141–164. https://doi.org/10.
1080/17405900701464816

Page 16 of 19
Altohami, Cogent Arts & Humanities (2023), 10: 2174481
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2174481
Lazar, M. M. (2008). Language, communication and the
public sphere: A perspective from feminist critical
discourse analysis. Handbook of Communication in
the Public Sphere, 89–112. https://doi.org/10.1515/
9783110198980.1.89
Litosseliti, L. (2006). Gender and language: Theory and
practice. Routledge.
Litovkina, A. T. (1996). A few aspects of a semiotic approach
to proverbs with special reference to two important
American publications. Semiotica, 108(3/4), 307–380.
Lomotey, B. A., & Chachu, S. (2020). Gender ideologies
and power relations in proverbs: A cross-cultural
study. Journal of Pragmatics, 168, 69–80. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.07.001
Mieder, W. (2004). Proverbs: A handbook. Greenwood
Publishing Group.
Nakamura, M. (2014). Gender, language, and ideology:
A genealogy of Japanese women’s language. John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
Nakhavaly, F., & Sharifi, S. (2013). On sex discrimination in
Persian proverbs. Theory and Practice in Language Studies,
3(1), 195–200. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.3.1.195-200
Norrick, N. R. (1985). How proverbs mean: Semantic stu­
dies in English proverbs. Mouton Publishers.
Rietbroek, P. (2010). Brill’s simple Arabic transliteration
system. Available online at https://brill.com/fileasset/
downloads_static/static_fonts_simple_arabic_transli
teration.pdf
Sanauddin, N. (2015). Proverbs and patriarchy: Analysis of
linguistic sexism and gender relations among the
Pashtuns of Pakistan. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis.
University of Glasgow.
Šaʿlān, ʾ. I. ʾ. A. (2003). Mawsūʿat Al-ʾAmṯāl Al-Šaʿbīyah Al-
Miṣrīyah wa Al-Taʿbīrāt Al-Sāʾirah (Encyclopedia of
Egyptian Colloquial Proverbs and Dictums). Dār Al-
ʾAfāq Al-ʿarabīyah.
Schipper, M. (2004). Never marry a woman with big feet:
Women in proverbs from around the world. Yale
University Press.
Schippers, M. (2007). Recovering the feminine other:
Masculinity, femininity, and gender hegemony.
Theory and Society, 36(1), 85–102.
Shi, W., & Zhang, H. (2017). A sociolinguistic study of
linguistic sexism in English proverbs. Saudi Journal of
Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(6), 459–461.
https://doi.org/10.21276/sjhss
Sil, S. (2019). Women in oral literature: A comparative
study of Bengali and French proverbs. Research
Scholar, 7(1), 13–20.
Storm, H. (1992). Women in Japanese proverbs. Asian
Folklore Studies, 5(51), 167–182. https://doi.org/10.2307/
1178330
Sunderland, J. (2004). Gendered discourses. Palgrave
Macmillan.
Tair, M. N., & Edwards, T. C. (2006). Rohi mataluna: Pashto
proverbs. Pashto Academy.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Tannen,
D. Schiffrin, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook of dis­
course analysis (pp. 352–371). Blackwell.
Walby, S. (1990). Theorizing patriarchy. Blackwell.
Webster, S. K. (1982). Women, sex, and marriage in
Moroccan proverbs. International Journal of Middle
East Studies, 14(2), 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0020743800000647
Yksel, W. (1993). Women in proverbs. Oxford University Press.
Zheng, X. (2018). The analysis of sexism in English proverbs.
Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 9(2),
352–357. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0902.17
Page 17 of 19
Altohami, Cogent Arts & Humanities (2023), 10: 2174481
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2174481

Table A1. Brill’s simple Arabic transliteration system (Rietbroek, 2010) with phonetic description
1. Consonants
Arabic letter Transliteration symbol Phonetic description
‫ء‬ ʾ voiceless glottal stop
‫ب‬ b voiced bilabial stop
‫ت‬ t voiceless dental stop
‫ث‬ ṯ voiceless dental fricative
‫ج‬ ǧ voiced post-alveolar fricative
‫ح‬ ḥ voiceless pharyngeal fricative
‫خ‬ ḫ voiceless uvular fricative
‫د‬ d voiced dental stop
‫ذ‬ ḏ voiced dental fricative
‫ر‬ r voiced alveolar trill
‫ز‬ z voiced dental fricative
‫س‬ s voiceless dental fricative
‫ش‬ š voiceless palatal fricative
‫ص‬ ṣ voiceless (emphatic) dental
fricative
‫ض‬ ḍ voiced (emphatic) dental stop
‫ط‬ ṭ voiceless (emphatic) dental stop
‫ظ‬ ẓ voiced (emphatic) dental fricative
‫ع‬ ʿ voiced pharyngeal fricative
‫غ‬ ġ voiced velar fricative
‫ف‬ f voiceless labiodentals fricative
‫ق‬ q voiceless uvular stop
‫ك‬ k voiceless velar stop
‫ل‬ l voiced alveolar lateral
‫م‬ m voiced bilabial nasal
‫ن‬ n voiced alveolar nasal
‫ﻫـ‬ h voiceless glottal fricative
‫و‬ w voiced bilabial glide
‫ي‬ y voiced palatal glide
2. Vowels
Arabic symbol Transliteration symbol Phonetic description
‫ى‬ á front-open long slightly rounded
vowel
- u half-close back short rounded
vowel
- i close-front short unrounded vowel
- a half-front open short unrounded
vowel
-‫ُو‬ ū close-back long rounded vowel
‫ﹻﻲ‬ ī close-front long unrounded vowel
‫ﹷﺎ‬ ā back-open long unrounded vowel

Page 18 of 19
Altohami, Cogent Arts & Humanities (2023), 10: 2174481
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2174481

© 2023 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
You are free to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format.
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.
You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions
You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

Cogent Arts & Humanities (ISSN: 2331-1983) is published by Cogent OA, part of Taylor & Francis Group.
Publishing with Cogent OA ensures:
• Immediate, universal access to your article on publication
• High visibility and discoverability via the Cogent OA website as well as Taylor & Francis Online
• Download and citation statistics for your article
• Rapid online publication
• Input from, and dialog with, expert editors and editorial boards
• Retention of full copyright of your article
• Guaranteed legacy preservation of your article
• Discounts and waivers for authors in developing regions
Submit your manuscript to a Cogent OA journal at www.CogentOA.com

Page 19 of 19