Tautology (language)

In literary criticism and rhetoric, a tautology is a statement which repeats an idea, using near-synonymous morphemes, words or phrases, effectively "saying the same thing twice".[1][2] Tautology and pleonasm are not consistently differentiated in literature.[3] Like pleonasm, tautology is often considered a fault of style when unintentional. Intentional repetition may emphasize a thought or help the listener or reader understand a point.[4] Sometimes logical tautologies like "Boys will be boys" are conflated with language tautologies, but a language tautology is not inherently true, while a logical tautology always is.[4]

This article is about tautology in language. For other uses, see Tautology (disambiguation).

Acronym
Main article: RAS syndrome

Abbreviations whose last abbreviated word is often redundantly included anyway

  • ATM machine
  • DVD disc
  • GPS system
  • HIV virus
  • ISBN number
  • PIN number
  • Please R.S.V.P.
  • RAS syndrome
  • SARS syndrome
  • UPC code
  • VIN number

Etymology

The word was coined in Hellenistic Greek from ταὐτός ('the same') plus λόγος ('word' or 'idea'), and transmitted through 3rd-century Latin: tautologia and French: tautologie. It first appeared in English in the 16th century. The use of the term logical tautology was introduced in English by Wittgenstein in 1919, perhaps following Auguste Comte's usage in 1835.[5]

Examples
  • "Only time will tell if we stand the test of time," from the Van Halen song "Why Can't This Be Love"
  • "This tautological statement has repeated an idea."

  • "There once was a fellow from Perth
    Who was born on the day of his birth.
    He got married, they say
    On his wife's wedding day,
    And died when he quitted the earth."

  • "...A forget-me-not, to remind me to remember not to forget." from the Benny Hill song "My Garden of Love"
  • Assless chaps. Chaps by definition are separate leg-coverings; a similar garment joined at the seat would instead be called a pair of trousers.

Discussion

Intentional repetition of meaning intends to amplify or emphasize a particular, usually significant fact about what is being discussed. For example, a gift is, by definition, free of charge; using the phrase "free gift" might emphasize that there are no hidden conditions or fine print (such as the expectation of money or reciprocation) or that the gift is being given by volition.

This is related to the rhetorical device of hendiadys, where one concept is expressed through the use of two descriptive words or phrases. For example, using "goblets and gold" to mean wealth, or "this day and age" to refer to the present time. Superficially, these expressions may seem tautological, but they are stylistically sound because the repeated meaning is just a way to emphasize the same idea.

The use of tautologies, however, is usually unintentional. For example, the phrases "mental telepathy", "planned conspiracies", and "small dwarfs" imply that there are such things as "physical telepathy, spontaneous conspiracies, and giant dwarfs" which are oxymorons.[6]

Parallelism is not tautology, but rather a particular stylistic device. Much Old Testament poetry is based on parallelism: the same thing said twice, but in slightly different ways (Fowler describes this as pleonasm).[1] However, modern biblical study emphasizes that there are subtle distinctions and developments between the two lines, such that they are usually not truly the "same thing". Parallelism can be found wherever there is poetry in the Bible: Psalms, the Books of the Prophets, and in other areas as well.

See also

References
  1. Fowler, Henry Watson (1 April 1983). Gowers, Sir Ernest (ed.). Modern English Usage (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-281389-3.
  2. Bryson, Bill (29 July 1999). The Mother Tongue: The English Language. Penguin Books. ISBN 978-0-14-014305-8.
  3. Szymanek, Bogdan (2015). "Remarks on Tautology in Word-Formation". In Bauer, Laurie; Körtvélyessy, Lívia; Štekauer, Pavol (eds.). Semantics of Complex Words. Studies in Morphology. 3. pp. 143–161. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-14102-2_8. ISBN 978-3319141022.
  4. Bascom, John (1866). Philosophy of Rhetoric. Boston, Crosby and Ainsworth. p. 241. OL 1853537W – via Internet Archive.
  5. Oxford English Dictionary (3rd ed.). 2014 http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/198205. Missing or empty |title= (help)
  6. Kallan, Richard (2005). Armed Gunmen, True Facts, and Other Ridiculous Nonsense: A Compiled Compendium of Repetitive Redundancies. Pantheon Books. p. x. ISBN 978-0-375-42352-9.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.