{{Short description|Redundancy in linguistic expression}} {{Use dmy dates|date=August 2018}} {{Distinguish|Neoplasm}} {{Lead too short|date=August 2023}} '''Pleonasm''' ({{IPAc-en|ˈ|p|l|iː|.|ə|ˌ|n|æ|z|əm}}; {{etymology|grc|''{{wikt-lang|grc|πλεονασμός}}'' {{grc-transl|πλεονασμός}}|}}, {{etymology||''{{wikt-lang|grc|πλέον}}'' {{grc-transl|πλέον}}|to be in excess}})<ref>{{Cite book|last=Latham|first=Robert Gordon|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=IzVLAQAAMAAJ&dq=%22Pleonasm%22+%22Greek%22+%22Excess%22&pg=PA295|title=A Hand-book of the English Language: For the Use of Students of the Universities and Higher Classes of Schools|date=1855|publisher=Walton & Maberly|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=2014-02-14|title=Pleonasm – Definition and Examples of Pleonasm|url=https://literarydevices.net/pleonasm/|access-date=2021-05-18|website=Literary Devices|language=en-US}}</ref> is redundancy in linguistic expression, such as "black darkness", "burning fire", or "the man he said"<ref>{{cite book |title=Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary |publisher=Merriam-Webster, Incorporated |isbn=978-0-87779-808-8 |edition=11th |location=Springfield, Massachusetts |publication-date=2003-07-01 |page=952 |language=en}}</ref>. It is a manifestation of tautology by traditional rhetorical criteria.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Okopień-Sławińska|first=Aleksandra|chapter=Pleonazm|title=Słownik terminów literackich|editor-first=Janusz|editor-last=Słowiński|location=Wrocław|year=2008|pages=390–391|language=pl}}</ref> Pleonasm may also be used for emphasis, or because the phrase has become established in a certain form. Tautology and pleonasm are not consistently differentiated in literature.<ref>{{Cite encyclopedia|first=Bogdan|last=Szymanek|encyclopedia=Studies in Morphology|title=Semantics of Complex Words|chapter=Remarks on Tautology in Word-Formation|date=2015|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XLkPBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA146|editor1-first=Laurie|editor1-last=Bauer|editor1-link=Laurie Bauer|editor2-first=Lívia|editor2-last=Körtvélyessy|editor3-first=Pavol|editor3-last=Štekauer|publisher=Springer International Publishing|volume=3|isbn=978-3-319-14102-2|page=146|access-date=October 27, 2020|quote=The concept of tautology is defined here, rather loosely, as 'expressing the same idea twice in different words'... However, according to some other accounts, such expressions should rather be viewed as instances of pleonasm.}}</ref>
==Usage== Most often, ''pleonasm'' is understood to mean a word or phrase which is useless, clichéd, or repetitive, but a pleonasm can also be simply an unremarkable use of idiom. It can aid in achieving a specific linguistic effect, be it social, poetic or literary. Pleonasm sometimes serves the same function as rhetorical repetition—it can be used to reinforce an idea, contention or question, rendering writing clearer and easier to understand. Pleonasm can serve as a redundancy check; if a word is unknown, misunderstood, misheard, or if the medium of communication is poor—a static-filled radio transmission or sloppy handwriting—pleonastic phrases can help ensure that the meaning is communicated even if some of the words are lost.{{citation needed|date=April 2022}}
===Idiomatic expressions=== Some pleonastic phrases are part of a language's idiom, such as ''tuna fish'', ''chain mail'' and ''safe haven'' in American English. They are so common that their use is unremarkable for native speakers, although in many cases the redundancy can be dropped with no loss of meaning.
When expressing possibility, English speakers often use potentially pleonastic expressions such as ''It might be possible'' or ''perhaps it's possible'', where both terms (verb ''might'' or adverb ''perhaps'' along with the adjective ''possible'') have the same meaning under certain constructions. Many speakers of English use such expressions for possibility in general, such that most instances of such expressions by those speakers are in fact pleonastic. Others, however, use this expression only to indicate a distinction between ontological possibility and epistemic possibility, as in "Both the ontological possibility of X under current conditions and the ontological impossibility of X under current conditions are epistemically possible" (in logical terms, "I am not aware of any facts inconsistent with the truth of proposition X, but I am likewise not aware of any facts inconsistent with the truth of the negation of X"). The habitual use of the double construction to indicate possibility ''per se'' is far less widespread among speakers of most{{citation needed|reason = There are thousands of languages.|date=June 2022}} other languages (except in Spanish; see examples); rather, almost all speakers of those languages use one term in a single expression:{{dubious|reason = These are not all examples of possibility, but have inadvertently expanded to include general pleonasms. Needs rewriting.|date=June 2022}} * French: ''{{Lang|fr|Il est possible}}'' or ''{{Lang|fr|il peut arriver}}''. * Portuguese: ''{{Lang|pt|O que é que}}'', lit. "What is it that", a more emphatic way of saying "what is"; ''{{Lang|pt|O que}}'' usually suffices. * Romanian: ''{{Lang|ro|Este posibil}}'' or ''{{Lang|ro|se poate întâmpla}}''. * Typical Spanish pleonasms ** {{Lang|es|Voy a subir arriba}} – I am going to go up upstairs, "''{{Lang|es|arriba}}''" not being necessary. ** {{Lang|es|Entra adentro}} – enter inside, "{{Lang|es|adentro}}" not being necessary. * Turkish has many pleonastic constructs because certain verbs necessitate objects: ** {{Lang|tr|yemek yemek}} – to eat food. ** ''{{Lang|tr|yazı yazmak}}'' – to write writing. ** {{Lang|tr|dışarı çıkmak}} – to exit outside. ** {{Lang|tr|içeri girmek}} – to enter inside. ** {{Lang|tr|oyun oynamak}} – to play a game.
In a satellite-framed language such as English, verb phrases containing particles that denote direction of motion are so frequent that even when such a particle is pleonastic, it seems natural to include it (e.g. "enter into").
===Professional and scholarly use=== Some pleonastic phrases, when used in professional or scholarly writing, may reflect a standardized usage that has evolved or a meaning familiar to specialists but not necessarily to those outside that discipline. Such examples as "null and void", "each and every", "cease and desist" are legal doublets that are part of legally operative language that is often drafted into legal documents. A classic example of such usage was that by the Lord Chancellor at the time (1864), Lord Westbury, in the English case of ''{{lang|la|ex parte}} Gorely'',<ref>''Ex p Gorely'', (1864) 4 De G L & S 477.</ref> when he described a phrase in an Act as "redundant and pleonastic". This type of usage may be favored in certain contexts. However, it may also be disfavored when used gratuitously to portray false erudition, obfuscate, or otherwise introduce verbiage, especially in disciplines where imprecision may introduce ambiguities (such as the natural sciences).<ref name="Partridge">{{Cite book | last1 = Partridge | first1 = Eric | author1-link = Eric Partridge | last2 = Whitcut | first2 = Janet | title = Usage and Abusage: A Guide to Good English | publisher = W. W. Norton & Company | year = 1995 | isbn = 0-393-03761-4 | url = https://archive.org/details/usageabusagegui00part }}</ref>
===Literary uses===
Examples from Baroque, Mannerist, and Victorian provide a counterpoint to Strunk's advocacy of concise writing: * "This was the most unkindest cut of all." — William Shakespeare, ''Julius Caesar'' (Act 3, Scene 2, 183) * "I will be brief: your noble son is mad:/Mad call I it; for, to define true madness,/What is't but to be nothing else but mad?" — ''Hamlet'' (Act 2, Scene 2) * "Let me tell you this, when social workers offer you, free, gratis and for nothing, something to hinder you from swooning, which with them is an obsession, it is useless to recoil ..." — Samuel Beckett, ''Molloy''
==Types== {{Original research section|date=September 2010}} There are various kinds of pleonasm, including '''bilingual tautological expressions''', '''syntactic pleonasm''', '''semantic pleonasm''' and '''morphological pleonasm''':
===Bilingual tautological expressions=== A bilingual tautological expression is a phrase that combines words that mean the same thing in two different languages.<ref name="language">{{cite book |author-link=Ghil'ad Zuckermann |last=Zuckermann |first=Ghil'ad |date=2003 |title=Language Contact and Lexical Enrichment in Israeli Hebrew |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |isbn=9781403917232}}</ref>{{rp|138}} An example of a bilingual tautological expression is the Yiddish expression {{lang|yi|מים אחרונים וואַסער}} {{lang|yi-Latn|mayim akhroynem vaser}}. It literally means 'water last water' and refers to 'water for washing the hands after meal, grace water'.<ref name="language"/>{{rp|138}} Its first element, {{lang|he-Latn|mayim}}, derives from the Hebrew {{lang|he|מים}} {{IPA|he|majim|}} 'water'. Its second element, {{lang|yi-Latn|vaser}}, derives from the Middle High German word {{Lang|gmh|vaser}} 'water'.
According to Ghil'ad Zuckermann, Yiddish abounds with both bilingual tautological compounds and bilingual tautological first names.<ref name="language"/>{{rp|138}}
The following are examples of bilingual tautological compounds in Yiddish: * {{lang|yi|פֿינצטער חושך}} {{lang|yi-Latn|fíntster khóyshekh}} 'very dark', literally 'dark darkness', traceable back to the Middle High German word {{Lang|gmh|vinster}} 'dark' and the Hebrew word {{lang|he|חושך}} {{lang|he-Latn|ħōshekh}} 'darkness'.<ref name="language"/>{{rp|138}} * {{lang|yi|חמור־אייזל}} {{lang|yi-Latn|khamer-éyzļ}} 'womanizer', literally 'donkey-donkey', traceable back to the Hebrew word {{lang|he|חמור}} {{IPA|he|ħă'mōr|}} 'donkey' and the Middle High German word {{Lang|gmh|esel}} 'donkey'.<ref name="language"/>{{rp|138}}
The following are examples of bilingual tautological first names in Yiddish: * {{Script/Hebrew|דוב־בער}} {{lang|yi-Latn|Dov-Ber}}, literally 'bear-bear', traceable back to the Hebrew word {{lang|he|דב}} {{lang|he-Latn|dov}} 'bear' and the Middle High German word {{Lang|gmh|bër}} 'bear'.<ref name="language"/>{{rp|138}} * {{Script/Hebrew|צבי־הירש}} {{lang|yi-Latn|Tsvi-Hirsh}}, literally 'deer-deer', traceable back to the Hebrew word {{lang|he|צבי}} {{lang|he-Latn|tsvi}} 'deer' and the Middle High German word {{Lang|gmh|hirz}} 'deer'.<ref name="language"/>{{rp|138}} * {{Script/Hebrew|זאב־וואָלף}} {{lang|yi-Latn|Ze'ev-Volf}}, literally 'wolf-wolf', traceable back to the Hebrew word {{lang|he|זאב}} {{lang|he-Latn|ze'ev}} 'wolf' and the Middle High German word {{Lang|gmh|volf}} 'wolf'.<ref name="language"/>{{rp|138}} * {{Script/Hebrew|אריה־לייב}} {{lang|yi-Latn|Aryeh-Leib}}, literally 'lion-lion', traceable back to the Hebrew word {{lang|he|אריה}} {{lang|he-Latn|arye}} 'lion' and the Middle High German word {{Lang|gmh|lewe}} 'lion'.<ref name="language"/>{{rp|138}}
===Syntactic pleonasm=== Syntactic pleonasm occurs when the grammar of a language makes certain function words optional.{{cn|date=December 2024}} For example, consider the following English sentences: * "I know you're coming." * "I know that you're coming."
In this construction, the conjunction ''that'' is optional when joining a sentence to a verb phrase with ''know''. Both sentences are grammatically correct, but the word ''that'' is pleonastic in this case. By contrast, when a sentence is in spoken form and the verb involved is one of assertion, the use of ''that'' makes clear that the present speaker is making an indirect rather than a direct quotation, such that he is not imputing particular words to the person he describes as having made an assertion; the demonstrative adjective ''that'' also does not fit such an example. Also, some writers may use "that" for technical clarity reasons.<ref>{{cite book|title=Possible Worlds: an introduction to Logic and its Philosophy|year=1979|url=https://www.sfu.ca/~swartz/pw/index.htm|author=Norman Swartz & Raymond Bradley}}</ref> In some languages, such as French, the word is not optional and should therefore not be considered pleonastic.
The same phenomenon occurs in Spanish with subject pronouns. Since Spanish is a null-subject language, which allows subject pronouns to be deleted when understood, the following sentences mean the same: * "{{lang|es|Yo te amo.}}" * "{{lang|es|Te amo.}}"
In this case, the pronoun {{lang|es|yo}} ('I') is grammatically optional; both sentences mean "I love you" (however, they may not have the same tone or ''intention''—this depends on pragmatics rather than grammar). Such differing but syntactically equivalent constructions, in many languages, may also indicate a difference in register.
The process of deleting pronouns is called ''pro-dropping'', and it also happens in many other languages, such as Korean, Japanese, Hungarian, Latin, Italian, Portuguese, Swahili, Slavic languages, and the Lao language.
In contrast, formal English requires an overt subject in each clause. A sentence may not need a subject to have valid meaning, but to satisfy the syntactic requirement for an explicit subject a pleonastic (or dummy pronoun) is used; only the first sentence in the following pair is acceptable English: * "It's raining." * "Is raining."
In this example the pleonastic "it" fills the subject function, but it contributes no meaning to the sentence. The second sentence, which omits the pleonastic '''it''' is marked as ungrammatical although no meaning is lost by the omission.<ref>Haegeman, L. (1991). ''Introduction to Government and Binding Theory''. Blackwell Publishing. p. 62.</ref> Elements such as "it" or "there", serving as empty subject markers, are also called (syntactic) expletives, or dummy pronouns. Compare: * "There is rain." * "Today is rain."
The pleonastic {{lang|fr|ne}} ({{lang|fr|ne pléonastique}}), expressing uncertainty in formal French, works as follows: * "{{lang|fr|Je crains qu'il ne pleuve.}}"<br />('I fear it may rain.') * "{{lang|fr|Ces idées sont plus difficiles à comprendre que je ne pensais.}}"<br />('These ideas are harder to understand than I thought.')
Two more striking examples of French pleonastic construction are {{lang|fr|aujourd'hui}} and {{lang|fr|Qu'est-ce que c'est?}}.
The word {{lang|fr|aujourd'hui}}/{{lang|fr|au jour d'hui}} is translated as 'today', but originally means "on the day of today" since the now obsolete {{lang|fr|hui}} means "today". The expression {{lang|fr|au jour d'aujourd'hui}} (translated as "on the day of today") is common in spoken language and demonstrates that the original construction of {{lang|fr|aujourd'hui}} is lost. It is considered a pleonasm.
The phrase {{lang|fr|Qu'est-ce que c'est?}} meaning 'What's that?' or 'What is it?', while literally, it means "What is it that it is?".
There are examples of the pleonastic, or dummy, negative in English, such as the construction, heard in the New England region of the United States, in which the phrase "So don't I" is intended to have the same positive meaning as "So do I."<ref>Horn, Laurence R. ''Universals of Human Language'', Volume I, edited by Joseph H. Greenberg, p. 176</ref><ref>Wood, Jim P. (2008), "''So''-inversion as Polarity Focus"; in Michael Grosvald and Dianne Soares (eds.), ''Proceedings of the 38th Western Conference on Linguistics''; Fresno, California: University of California Press; pp. 304–317</ref>
When Robert South said, "It is a pleonasm, a figure usual in Scripture, by a multiplicity of expressions to signify one notable thing",<ref>{{Cite book|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ukIVAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA368|chapter=Sermon XIII Preached at St. Mary's, Oxford, on Sept. 12, 1658 |title=Five additional volumes of sermons preached upon several occasions|volume=8|first=Robert |last=South|date=1744|page=368}}</ref> he was observing the Biblical Hebrew poetic propensity to repeat thoughts in different words, since written Biblical Hebrew was a comparatively early form of written language and was written using oral patterning, which has many pleonasms. In particular, very many verses of the Psalms are split into two halves, each of which says much the same thing in different words. The complex rules and forms of written language as distinct from spoken language were not as well-developed as they are today when the books making up the Old Testament were written.<ref>Ong, Walter J., ''Orality and Literacy (New Accents)'', p. 38, {{ISBN|0-415-28129-6}}</ref><ref>McWhorter, John C. ''Doing Our Own Thing'', p. 19. {{ISBN|1-59240-084-1}}</ref> See also parallelism (rhetoric).
===Semantic pleonasm=== Semantic pleonasm is a question more of style and usage than of grammar.<ref>Evans, Bergen, Evans, Cor Nelia, and others, (1957), ''A dictionary of contemporary American usage'', Random House</ref> Linguists usually call this ''redundancy'' to avoid confusion with syntactic pleonasm, a more important phenomenon for theoretical linguistics. It usually takes one of two forms: Overlap or prolixity.
'''Overlap''': One word's semantic component is subsumed by the other: * "Receive a '''free gift''' with every purchase."; a gift is usually already free. * "A '''tuna fish''' sandwich." * "The plumber fixed our '''hot''' water '''heater'''." (This pleonasm was famously attacked by American comedian George Carlin,<ref>{{cite web |at="'‘George Carlin at USC'’ (1978)" section |title=Divine Comedy: 25 Best Stand-Up Specials and Movies |first1=Steve |last1=Ciabattoni |first2=David |last2=Fear |first3=Tim |last3=Grierson |first4=Matthew |last4=Love |first5=Noel |last5=Murray |first6=Scott |last6=Tobias |work=Rolling Stone |publisher=Penske Business Media |date=29 July 2015 |access-date=27 July 2018|url=https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-lists/divine-comedy-25-best-stand-up-specials-and-movies-70696/}}</ref> but is not truly redundant; a device that increases the temperature of cold water to room temperature would also be a water heater.) * ''The '''Big''' Friendly '''Giant''''' (title of a children's book by Roald Dahl); giants are inherently already "big".
'''Prolixity''': A phrase may have words which add nothing, or nothing logical or relevant, to the meaning. * "I'm going '''down''' south."<br />(South is not really "down", it is just drawn that way on maps by convention.) * "You can't seem to face '''up to''' the facts." * "He entered '''into''' the room." * "Every '''mother's''' child" (as in ''The Christmas Song'' by Nat King Cole', also known as ''Chestnuts roasting...'').<ref>{{cite web|title=The Christmas Song by Nat King Cole|url=https://genius.com/Nat-king-cole-the-christmas-song-lyrics|website=Lyrics|access-date=26 March 2018}}</ref> (Being a child, or a human at all, generally implies being the child of/to a mother. So the redundancy here is used to broaden the context of the child's curiosity regarding the sleigh of Santa Claus, including the concept of maternity. The full line goes: "And every mother's child is gonna spy, to see if reindeer really know how to fly". One can furthermore argue that the word "mother" is included for the purpose of lyrical flow, adding two syllables, which make the line sound complete, as "every child" would be too short to fit the lyrical/rhyme scheme.) * "Ilk man and '''mother's son''' take heed" from ''Tam o' Shanter'' written by Robert Burns in 1790 (''Ilk'' is a now-archaic Scots determiner meaning ''each'' or ''every'', so this adds a second pleonasm to the ''mother's child'' example above, double-emphasising that he means ''absolutely every man'', as well as fitting the metre of that verse) * "What therefore God hath joined '''together''', let no man put asunder." * "He raised '''up''' his hands in a gesture of surrender." * "Where are you '''at'''?" * "Located" or similar before a preposition: "the store is '''located''' on Main St." The preposition contains the idea of locatedness and does not need a servant. * "The house '''itself'''" for "the house", and similar: unnecessary re-specifiers. * "'''Actual''' fact": fact. * "On a daily basis": daily. * "This '''particular''' item": this item. * "Different" or "separate" after numbers: for example: ** "Four '''different''' species" are merely "four species", as two non-different species are together one same species. (However, in "a discount if you buy ten different items", "different" has meaning, because if the ten items include two packets of frozen peas of the same weight and brand, those ten items are not all different.) ** "Nine '''separate''' cars": cars are always separate. * "Despite the fact that": although.
An expression such as "tuna fish", however, might elicit one of many possible responses, such as: # It will simply be accepted as '''synonymous''' with "tuna". # It will be perceived as '''redundant''' (and thus perhaps silly, illogical, ignorant, inefficient, dialectal, odd, and/or intentionally humorous). # It will imply a '''distinction'''. A reader of "tuna fish" could properly wonder: "Is there a kind of tuna which is not a fish? There is, after all, a dolphin mammal and a dolphin fish." This assumption turns out to be correct, as a "tuna" can also mean a prickly pear.<ref name="MW Tuna">{{cite web |url= http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tuna |title=tuna |work=Merriam-Webster.com |date=12 June 2018 |access-date=17 July 2018}}</ref> Further, "tuna fish" is sometimes used to refer to the flesh of the animal as opposed to the animal itself (similar to the distinction between ''beef'' and ''cattle'').<ref name="MW Tuna" /> Similarly, while all sound-making horns use air, an "air horn" has a special meaning: one that uses ''compressed'' air specifically; while most clocks tell time, a "time clock" specifically means one that keeps track of workers' presence at the workplace. # It will be perceived as a verbal clarification, since the word "tuna" is quite short, and may, for example, be misheard as "tune" followed by an aspiration, or (in dialects that drop the final ''-r'' sound) as "tuner".
==See also== {{div col}} * {{annotated link|Ambiguity}} * {{annotated link|Buzzword}} * {{annotated link|Elegant variation}} * {{annotated link|Error correction code}} * {{annotated link|Figure of speech}} * {{annotated link|Glossary of rhetorical terms}} * {{annotated link|Graphomania}} * {{annotated link|Hypergraphia}} * {{annotated link|Irish bull}} * {{annotated link|List of tautological place names}} * {{annotated link|Logorrhea (psychology)}} * {{annotated link|Purple prose}} * {{annotated link|RAS syndrome}} * {{annotated link|Redundancy (linguistics)}} * {{annotated link|Reduplication}} * {{annotated link|Verbosity}} {{div col end}}
==References== ===Citations=== {{Reflist|30em}}
===Bibliography=== * {{cite book |last = Smyth |first = Herbert Weir |author-link = Herbert Weir Smyth |orig-year = 1920 |year = 1984 |title = Greek Grammar |publisher = Harvard University Press |location = Cambridge |isbn = 0-674-36250-0 |pages = 681–682 |section=§3042 |url = http://cdn.textkit.net/hws_Greek_Grammar_AR5.pdf}}
==External links== * {{Wiktionary-inline|pleonasm}}
{{Figures of speech}} {{Authority control}}
Category:Figures of speech Category:Linguistics Category:Rhetoric Category:Semantics Category:Syntax