University of Isfahan Literary Arts 20088027 18 1 2026 03 21 Pseudo-Paronomasia Pseudo-Paronomasia 81 104 30147 10.22108/liar.2025.146267.2496 FA Reza Rezaei Moghadam PH. D. Student of Persian Language and Literature, Faculty of Literature and Foreign Languages, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran Siavash Haghjou Associate Professor, Department of Persian Language and Literature, Faculty of Persian Literature and Foreign Languages, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran Ahmad Ghanipourmalekshah Professor, Department of Persian Language and Literature, Faculty of Persian Literature and Foreign Languages, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran Shahram Ahmadi Associate Professor, Department of Persian Language and Literature, Faculty of Persian Literature and Foreign Languages, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran Journal Article 2025 08 09 In the study of literary texts, one sometimes encounters words that, in their outward form, resemble certain types of paronomasia (jinas). However, since they do not fulfill all the required conditions of paronomasia, they cannot be classified under this rhetorical device or considered among its subcategories. On the other hand, in their non-visual or underlying form, these words also resemble another rhetorical figure in badīʿ, namely repetition; yet again, because they lack some of the defining criteria of repetition, they cannot be subsumed under that category either. The dual manifestation of these words may create the impression of the presence of paronomasia or repetition for the reader; nevertheless, in reality, neither device is fully realized. In other words, these paired words, which stand opposite one another as if they were the structural elements of paronomasia or repetition, are in fact neither paronomasia nor repetition. In this study, the authors examine the relationship between such word pairs and explain the reasons why, despite their strong resemblance to paronomasia and repetition, they cannot be classified under either rhetorical device. For clearer identification, they also propose a specific term for these ambiguous word pairs. The research method adopted in this study is library-based and relies on data analysis, with data extracted from documents and literary texts. The results of the analysis indicate that, at times, men of letters deliberately avoided direct word repetition in poetic verses due to stylistic necessities, instead employing different forms of the same word within a single verse. The use of two forms of a single word in this manner ultimately gives rise to what is termed pseudo-paronomasia. Keywords: Pseudo-paronomasia, Paronomasia, Repetition, Rhetorical Device, Badīʿ. Introduction Paronomasia (pun) and repetition are two frequently occurring badīʿ devices in literary texts and, within traditional classifications of badīʿ, are regarded as branches of verbal ornamentation. The formation and application of each device are governed by specific conditions and rules; the absence of any of these conditions compromises the integrity of the device and renders it invalid. The present study focuses precisely on such partial deficiencies and the resulting disruption in the full realization of the two devices—paronomasia and repetition—which may create the mistaken impression that a paronomasia has been formed on a formal level, or that repetition has been achieved on a semantic level. In reality, however, neither device is genuinely realized. Instead, such word pairs require a distinct designation, so that readers—made aware of both their similarities to and differences from paronomasia and repetition—can correctly identify them and avoid misclassification. Materials and Methods The research methodology adopted in this study is descriptive–analytical, grounded in data analysis and argumentative reasoning. Initially, by consulting classical and modern badīʿ treatises in Arabic and Persian, the study presents established definitions of paronomasia and repetition in order to recall their conceptual foundations and provide a theoretical framework for the analysis. Subsequently, the proposed designation—pseudo-paronomasia—is defined and explicated. The study then examines selected textual evidence, analyzes representative examples, and finally presents its findings and conclusions. Research Findings The findings of this study demonstrate that certain word pairs in literary texts exhibit a distinctive dual relationship: formally—both phonologically and orthographically—they closely resemble the rhetorical device of paronomasia, while semantically they do not display the semantic divergence required for paronomasia and instead resemble repetition. This formal resemblance often leads readers to misidentify such word pairs as instances of paronomasia. To prevent this confusion, these word pairs are designated as pseudo-paronomasia. A pseudo-paronomastic structure consists of two or more words that formally resemble paronomasia and semantically resemble repetition, yet in reality fulfill the necessary conditions of neither device. The primary criterion distinguishing pseudo-paronomasia from genuine paronomasia is semantic: unlike paronomasia, no meaningful semantic difference exists between the constituent elements of a pseudo-paronomastic pair. Conversely, the distinguishing criterion between pseudo-paronomasia and repetition is formal: although the elements share identical meaning, they differ in form and are not exact repetitions in appearance. From this perspective, pseudo-paronomasia may be described as possessing the formal characteristic of paronomasia and the semantic characteristic of repetition. The authors’ preference for the term pseudo-paronomasia is therefore grounded in its formal resemblance to paronomasia rather than its semantic affinity with repetition. Discussion of Results and Conclusions As demonstrated above, the formal and semantic relationship between certain word pairs in literary texts constitutes a hybrid configuration of paronomasia and repetition, which may prompt readers to assume the presence of one or the other rhetorical device. Such word pairs arise through various linguistic processes, including momāl; taʿrīb and tafrīs; phonemic reduction (takhfīf) and augmentation (tazyīd); taqlīb; ishtiqāq (derivation); and phonemic transformation. Superficially, these processes cause the resulting forms to closely resemble specific subtypes of paronomasia. The primary motivations underlying these formal modifications include the preservation of metrical structure and rhyme in poetry, as well as the avoidance of overt lexical repetition in ornamental parallelism and rhetorical balance. In order to identify this category of word pairs and clearly distinguish them from genuine instances of paronomasia and repetition, the present study introduces the term pseudo-paronomasia (jinas-namā). This designation enables readers to recognize such structures as a distinct rhetorical phenomenon and prevents inadvertent confusion. Accordingly, the research questions may be answered as follows: Formally, pseudo-paronomasia resembles the device of paronomasia; semantically, however, it differs from it. Semantically, pseudo-paronomasia resembles repetition; formally, however, it differs from repetition. Because pseudo-paronomasia lacks the sufficient conditions required for either paronomasia or repetition, it cannot be subsumed under either device. Finally, it should be noted that additional word pairs of this type may also be classified under the category of pseudo-paronomasia through other linguistic procedures, a possibility that opens new avenues for further research. In the study of literary texts, one sometimes encounters words that, in their outward form, resemble certain types of paronomasia (jinas). However, since they do not fulfill all the required conditions of paronomasia, they cannot be classified under this rhetorical device or considered among its subcategories. On the other hand, in their non-visual or underlying form, these words also resemble another rhetorical figure in badīʿ, namely repetition; yet again, because they lack some of the defining criteria of repetition, they cannot be subsumed under that category either. The dual manifestation of these words may create the impression of the presence of paronomasia or repetition for the reader; nevertheless, in reality, neither device is fully realized. In other words, these paired words, which stand opposite one another as if they were the structural elements of paronomasia or repetition, are in fact neither paronomasia nor repetition. In this study, the authors examine the relationship between such word pairs and explain the reasons why, despite their strong resemblance to paronomasia and repetition, they cannot be classified under either rhetorical device. For clearer identification, they also propose a specific term for these ambiguous word pairs. The research method adopted in this study is library-based and relies on data analysis, with data extracted from documents and literary texts. The results of the analysis indicate that, at times, men of letters deliberately avoided direct word repetition in poetic verses due to stylistic necessities, instead employing different forms of the same word within a single verse. The use of two forms of a single word in this manner ultimately gives rise to what is termed pseudo-paronomasia. Keywords: Pseudo-paronomasia, Paronomasia, Repetition, Rhetorical Device, Badīʿ. Introduction Paronomasia (pun) and repetition are two frequently occurring badīʿ devices in literary texts and, within traditional classifications of badīʿ, are regarded as branches of verbal ornamentation. The formation and application of each device are governed by specific conditions and rules; the absence of any of these conditions compromises the integrity of the device and renders it invalid. The present study focuses precisely on such partial deficiencies and the resulting disruption in the full realization of the two devices—paronomasia and repetition—which may create the mistaken impression that a paronomasia has been formed on a formal level, or that repetition has been achieved on a semantic level. In reality, however, neither device is genuinely realized. Instead, such word pairs require a distinct designation, so that readers—made aware of both their similarities to and differences from paronomasia and repetition—can correctly identify them and avoid misclassification. Materials and Methods The research methodology adopted in this study is descriptive–analytical, grounded in data analysis and argumentative reasoning. Initially, by consulting classical and modern badīʿ treatises in Arabic and Persian, the study presents established definitions of paronomasia and repetition in order to recall their conceptual foundations and provide a theoretical framework for the analysis. Subsequently, the proposed designation—pseudo-paronomasia—is defined and explicated. The study then examines selected textual evidence, analyzes representative examples, and finally presents its findings and conclusions. Research Findings The findings of this study demonstrate that certain word pairs in literary texts exhibit a distinctive dual relationship: formally—both phonologically and orthographically—they closely resemble the rhetorical device of paronomasia, while semantically they do not display the semantic divergence required for paronomasia and instead resemble repetition. This formal resemblance often leads readers to misidentify such word pairs as instances of paronomasia. To prevent this confusion, these word pairs are designated as pseudo-paronomasia. A pseudo-paronomastic structure consists of two or more words that formally resemble paronomasia and semantically resemble repetition, yet in reality fulfill the necessary conditions of neither device. The primary criterion distinguishing pseudo-paronomasia from genuine paronomasia is semantic: unlike paronomasia, no meaningful semantic difference exists between the constituent elements of a pseudo-paronomastic pair. Conversely, the distinguishing criterion between pseudo-paronomasia and repetition is formal: although the elements share identical meaning, they differ in form and are not exact repetitions in appearance. From this perspective, pseudo-paronomasia may be described as possessing the formal characteristic of paronomasia and the semantic characteristic of repetition. The authors’ preference for the term pseudo-paronomasia is therefore grounded in its formal resemblance to paronomasia rather than its semantic affinity with repetition. Discussion of Results and Conclusions As demonstrated above, the formal and semantic relationship between certain word pairs in literary texts constitutes a hybrid configuration of paronomasia and repetition, which may prompt readers to assume the presence of one or the other rhetorical device. Such word pairs arise through various linguistic processes, including momāl; taʿrīb and tafrīs; phonemic reduction (takhfīf) and augmentation (tazyīd); taqlīb; ishtiqāq (derivation); and phonemic transformation. Superficially, these processes cause the resulting forms to closely resemble specific subtypes of paronomasia. The primary motivations underlying these formal modifications include the preservation of metrical structure and rhyme in poetry, as well as the avoidance of overt lexical repetition in ornamental parallelism and rhetorical balance. In order to identify this category of word pairs and clearly distinguish them from genuine instances of paronomasia and repetition, the present study introduces the term pseudo-paronomasia (jinas-namā). This designation enables readers to recognize such structures as a distinct rhetorical phenomenon and prevents inadvertent confusion. Accordingly, the research questions may be answered as follows: Formally, pseudo-paronomasia resembles the device of paronomasia; semantically, however, it differs from it. Semantically, pseudo-paronomasia resembles repetition; formally, however, it differs from repetition. Because pseudo-paronomasia lacks the sufficient conditions required for either paronomasia or repetition, it cannot be subsumed under either device. Finally, it should be noted that additional word pairs of this type may also be classified under the category of pseudo-paronomasia through other linguistic procedures, a possibility that opens new avenues for further research.

https://liar.ui.ac.ir/article_30147_fe78615d728ef0064e8800ae8ed1d806.pdf