“At the risk of repeating myself, …”

How many of us have irritated an audience with ill-judged or unthinking repetition?  For myself, I plead guilty as charged. By way of penance then (not pedantry of course), this post explores some of the ways repetition can either enhance or undermine communication.

Repetition as a rhetorical tool

Several rhetorical devices employ different forms of repetition to achieve a certain impact or effect.  Definitions and examples of a selection of these are offered in the chart below.

Although you may not have known the linguistic term for each device, you will recognise most of them. You’re also likely to have a good understanding of why certain word patterns work in specific situations, but not in others. Repetition that works in a formal speech may not work for an informal one, nor for a document such as a board paper. Some terms describe valid uses of repetition, while others relate to faulty framing.

Other terms describe fine distinctions between very similar types of repetition. An example of this is the repetition of the same word with different meanings, which could be either antistasis or ploce. These devices differ in how they play with the meanings of the repeated words.

• Ploce focuses on emphasizing a word through repetition in different contexts (“If it wasn’t in Vogue, it wasn’t in vogue.”).
• Antistasis plays on the word’s meaning to create a contrasting or punning effect (“We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately” – Benjamin Franklin).

While working for a health profession, I was introduced to various expressions or sayings that were styled for mnemonic effect. For example:

“People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care” (antimetabole, parallelism, chiasmus)

(parallelism, anaphora, antithesis, epistrophe, and symploce)

“Get Tested. Get Treated. Get Cured.” (Anaphora and parallelism)

Epigrams often employ rhetorical repetition, and this can be a key factor in their memorability and communication effectiveness. Examples include:

“It is better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for what you are not.” — André Gide (Antithesis and parallelism)

Rhetorical licence

Poetic license permits a poet the freedom to breach conventional rules of language when speaking or writing to create an effect. Artistic license refers to an artist’s deviation from fact or form for artistic purposes. Rhetorical license, likewise, permits a writer or speaker to not follow certain grammar, punctuation or spelling norms to generate impact with the reader or audience. The common factor here is that the poet, artist, or author must be very familiar with the rules and norms to be able to judge when and where they can be bent or broken to achieve a deliberate effect.

Some possible forms of rhetorical license are suggested in the following chart, which illustrates how rarely such breaking of convention might sometimes be permissible. (While sarcasm is included, I wonder whether it should be excluded, as it never improves communication or relationships.  This is often demonstrated by comedians who don’t know where the line is until they step over it).

Using rhetorical license can make speech or writing more engaging and memorable by breaking conventional patterns and expectations. It may also help to emphasise key points and ideas through creative and varied expression. It sometimes enhances the persuasive power of rhetoric by appealing to emotions, humor, and intellectual curiosity. Used wisely (sparingly), it allows speakers and writers to develop a unique voice or style, distinguishing their rhetoric from others.

Feel free to use the Rhetorical License provided (in the header image above) where appropriate.

Bridging or filler phrases

Sometimes the repetition involves the use of stock phrases. These can take many forms, and often we use them as buffering or delaying devices to bridge from one message or thought to another.  We may do this as a signal that we are changing focus from the previous point to a new one, or simply to buy time during an interview so we can think about what to say next. Repeating the same phrase in these circumstances may undermine our impact as it is likely to sound scripted or ‘wooden’.

At their worst, these bridging phrases can cause our audience to switch off. Instead of creating a thought-pause, they may be identified as pet hates, and so colour anything else you have to say. Cliches, platitudes or truisms are rarely helpful communication tools. They usually undermine the speaker or writer’s credibility and impact.

‘Tautophrases’

In conversations or debates, the use of tautophrases (a portmanteau combining ‘tautological’ and ‘phrases’) is one such trigger. While a tautology involves the unnecessary repetition of an idea using different words, tautophrases repeat an idea with the same words, as in ‘business is business’, or ‘rules are rules’.

The term ‘tautophrases’ has been attributed to William Safire, New York Times journalist, who first used it in an article in 2006. (Safire, William (2006). “On language: Tautophrases” The New York Times, May 7, 2006.) Jerry Seinfeld did a great standup rant on these often ‘meaningless’ phrases that’s still available on YouTube.

Safire notes that ‘assertions of fixity’ like ‘I can only feel as I feel’ do not qualify as tautophrases. Expressions describing a state of being (using words like ‘is’, ‘am’, ‘are’, and ‘will be’) link the repeated words to create a tautophrase.

“It is what it is” may be one of the more common examples. This statement can be heard as one of complacency or unbudging conservatism – the belief that circumstances cannot be changed.  (Thank you, Bruce Hornsby, for the response in your song “The way it is” – “Ha, but don’t you believe them!”)  

Depending on the context, however, it might hold deeper significance. For example, if the intention is to convey the message that what has happened cannot be changed, but rather we now need to respond appropriately to the changed circumstances.  This could also be expressed using another tautophrase – ‘What’s done is done’.

Valid rhetorical repetition

Based on research which suggests that understanding and recall improve with successive reiterations, presenters are sometimes urged to apply a version of the rule of three to the repetition of their main message/s. This has been summarised as “Tell them what you are going to tell them, tell them, then tell them what you told them”.  (Quote Investigator suggests that this was misattributed to Aristotle. It was actually proposed by an English lay preacher early in the 20th century).

Aristotle may not have been the source of that quote, but he did encourage reiteration. His writing on rhetoric included this advice:

“Finally you have to review what you have already said. Here you may properly do what some wrongly recommend doing in the introduction-repeat your points frequently so as to make them easily understood. What you should do in your introduction is to state your subject, in order that the point to be judged may be quite plain; in the epilogue you should summarize the arguments by which your case has been proved.”

https://kairos.technorhetoric.net/stasis/2017/honeycutt/aristotle/rhet3-19.html#:~:text=What%20you%20should%20do%20in,what%20you%20undertook%20to%20do.

Instead of telling your audience exactly the same thing three times, the recommendation is:

• first, define your subject/focus and outline the scope of your presentation,
• proceed to make your key points with supporting arguments and evidence,
• And finally, summarise and paraphrase those key points to drive home your key messages.

Valid uses of rhetorical repetition are suggested in the next chart.

Pleonasms and Palilogia

Pleonasms use more words than are required to express a given meaning. This may be done unintentionally or for emphasis e.g. ‘watchful guardian’. There are two main types of pleonasms: syntactic and semantic.  (Note a pleonasm bears no relation to its anagram ‘neoplasm’, which is an abnormal growth of bodily tissue that may be either benign or malignant. Although poetically, a pleonasm might be considered a form of ‘word cancer’).

Syntactic pleonasms are involved when certain grammatical forms are not needed because of the arrangement of words in a sentence e.g. in ‘I know (that) you are coming’, the word ‘that’ is optional.  (Sub-variant forms include overinflection, multiple negation, multiple affirmation, double possession, and multiple quality gradation).

Semantic pleonasms occur when there is redundancy or unnecessary repetition of something in a sentence e.g. ‘true facts’, ‘new innovation’, ‘ATM machine’, ‘PIN number’, ‘written document’. (Sub-variants include overlap and prolixity).

While pleonasms relate to the use of superfluous words or phrases like ‘burning fire’, tautologies tend to refer to the repetition of a logical argument or assertion in a complete sentence, like “I am the youngest here, because everyone else was born before me”. In everyday discourse, these terms tend to be used interchangeably.

Palilogia (AKA epizeuxis) involves the repetition of a word or phrase in immediate succession, usually in the same sentence, for emphasis (or comic effect). E.g., “Never give in – never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense.” – Winston Churchill.

Repetition versus Redundancy

While repetition may be helpful for emphasis, or to improve understanding (especially if the original point is reframed in other words), redundancy adds nothing of value. It simply clutters up the space. I could have said ‘nothing of meaningful value’ here, but that would have been a semantic pleonasm.

Repudiating Redundant Repetition

Unintentional redundancy can obscure meaning rather than clarify it, or add emphasis. Tautological writing or speech can appear sloppy or a sign of fuzzy thinking, suggesting that the speaker or writer has not taken the time to refine their message, or is not capable of doing so.

Repeating an idea without adding new information or perspective can weaken an argument. For instance, saying “future plans” is redundant since plans are by definition for the future. The lists below include examples of tautophrases and semantic neoplasms, both of which illustrate rhetorical redundancy.

Your readers or listeners may become frustrated or disengaged if they feel the repetition is unnecessary, as it does not contribute to the development of the argument or narrative.  How do you respond when you hear a presenter say …

•       “To put it another way…”
•       “I would like to stress again that…”
•       “Just to be clear…”
•       “Allow me to repeat…”
•       “As I mentioned earlier…”
•       “To reiterate my point…”
•       “For emphasis, let me say again…”
•       “Let me remind you that…”

Ridiculous ‘Redun-dances’

Don Hauptman has curated a collection of redundancies intended to be humorous, which he names ‘redun-dances’.  These include some that he has coined, like:

• “It’s strange yet bizarre …”
• “Was it chance – or coincidence? You be the judge.”
• “That suggestion is as obvious as it is self-evident.”

See also: https://www.inspiredinsider.com/don-hauptman-one-question-inspires/

Best practices

The ‘Rhetoric Star Wheel’ offered below, summarises the numerous elements an author or speaker has at their disposal when choosing their rhetorical approach. As you can see from this illustration, the range of possible combinations of rhetorical modes, situations, canons, appeals, and devices is very large.

A partial list of recommendations for the use of rhetorical devices is offered below as an antidote to rhetorical excess.

Epilogue or Afterword?

So, this is the section in which, having told you what I was going to tell you, and then telling you, I tell you again.  So (with as much irony as I can muster), here it is …

Avoid redundant tautologies!

See also: