DIFSIM: Differentiating Between Similar Items

    From The Encyclopedia of Arabic Rhetoric

    التفريق
    DIFSIM: Differentiating Between Similar Items
    CategoryLinguistic Embellishments
    (‘ilm al-badī‘)
    SubcategoryGrouping & Distinguishing
    Built upon6 sources
      
    Annotation Unit
    ARDT CodeDIFSIM
    Level1
      
    Included in Taxonomy
    ARDTv0.1.1
    v0.1.0
      
    External Identifiers
    BALAGHAScoreCB-4
    BalaghaBaseQ87
    OpenAlexW4415372669
      
    Cite this page
    🔗 Live DOI10.64393/balagha.Q87
     
    Use this page
    DownloadPDF
    JSON

    Definition

    Differentiating Between Similar Items (al-tafrīq) is an Arabic rhetorical device where the communicator takes two things of one type and produces a contrast between them.[1][2][3][4][5]

    Linguistic Operations

    • The device requires two things belonging to the same type or category (nawʿ wāḥid).[1][2][3][4][5]
    • The communicator then produces a contrast (tabāyun) between them.[4][5]
    • This contrast serves a rhetorical purpose by distinguishing one from the other, sometimes producing preferential weighting (tarjīḥ).[4]
    • The device can be deployed in praise, blame, nasīb, or other literary contexts, as long as the two items share a common genus and are differentiated by the contrast.[4][5]

    In this encyclopedia, the mechanism may be summarised as follows:

    • Step 1 — Shared type: two entities are presented as belonging to the same category or activity (e.g. both give, both are water, both are patient).
    • Step 2 — Expression of distinction: the text introduces wording that establishes non-equivalence between the two.
    • Step 3 — Elaboration of the contrast: the specific qualitative or quantitative difference is articulated, effecting the differentiation.

    Recognition

    Differentiating Between Similar Items may be present when:

    • Two things or persons of the same type or category are present in the text.[1][2][3][4][5]
    • A contrast (tabāyun) is produced and explicitly articulated between them, despite their belonging to the same genus.[4][5]

    The following diagnostic aids identification:

    • Identify the two subjects: do they belong to the same category or perform the same activity?
    • Identify a marker of non-equivalence in the text (e.g. mā … ka-, wa-mā yastawī, or an explicit negation of equality).
    • Confirm that the distinction is elaborated in the wording of the text.

    Diagnostic Communicative Enhancements

    • Preferential weighting (tarjīḥ) and elevation of one party over another.[4]
    • Rhetorical benefit (fāʾida maʿnawiyya) for the communicator's purpose, whether in praise, blame, or other genres.[4]

    Applying the Recognition Framework

    The information on this page can be used to evaluate whether this device is present in a candidate lexical item using the Specific Device Recognition part of the Universal Framework for Identifying Arabic Rhetorical Devices:

    • Use the Definition, Mechanism, and Recognition sections of this page in Step 1.
    • Apply the substitution test in Step 2.
    • Consider contextual indicators in Step 3.
    • Use the Diagnostic Communicative Enhancements section of this page in Step 4.

    Instances of of Differentiating Between Similar Items

    DIFSIM-LU:Combining the Like and the Unlike (jamʿ al-muʾtalif wa-al-mukhtalif)

    In this form, the communicator first presents two praised persons as equal through congruous qualities, then gives preference to one of them by introducing an additional excellence that does not diminish the praise of the other.[6]

    جَارَى أَبَاهُ فَأَقْبَلَا وَهُمَا      يَتَعَاوَرَانِ مُلَاءَةَ الفَخْرِ
    وَهُمَا وَقَدْ بَرَزَا كَأَنَّهُمَا      صَقْرَانِ قَدْ حَطَّا عَلَى وَكْرِ
    أَوْلَى فَأَوْلَى أَنْ يُسَاوِيَهُ      لَوْلَا جَلَالُ السِّنِّ وَالكِبَرِ

    He emulated his father, so they came forth, sharing the mantle of glory. They appeared together as though they were two hawks come down upon the same nest. Worthy indeed was he of being his equal, but for the dignity of age and seniority.

    — al-Khansāʾ

    Explanation
    Ṣakhr and his father are first presented as equals in glory through congruous praise. The final line then differentiates them by giving the father precedence through age and seniority, without diminishing Ṣakhr's praise.[6]

    كان الأخوانِ شجاعَيْنِ كريمَيْنِ وفيَّيْنِ، غيرَ أنَّ الأكبرَ امتازَ بفضيلةٍ أخرى: كان عندَ الخطرِ يُقدِّمُ غيرَه على نفسِه.

    "Both brothers were brave, generous, and loyal; but the elder was distinguished by one further virtue: in danger, he put others before himself."

    Explanation
    The two brothers are first presented as equal through shared qualities of bravery, generosity, and loyalty. The communicator then gives preference to the elder by introducing an additional excellence — selflessness in danger — without diminishing the praise of the younger.

    "Both brothers were brave, generous, and loyal; but the elder had one further virtue — in danger, he thought first of everyone else."

    Explanation
    The two brothers are first presented as equal through shared qualities of bravery, generosity, and loyalty. The communicator then gives preference to the elder by adding a further excellence—selflessness in danger—without diminishing the praise already given to the younger.

    Examples

    ما نوالُ الغمامِ وقتَ ربيعٍ كَنَوالِ الأميرِ يومَ سَخاءِ
    فَنَوالُ الأميرِ بَدرَةُ عَينٍ ونَوالُ الغِمامِ قَطرَةُ ماءِ

    The gift of the clouds at some time in the rainy season is not like the gift of the prince on a day of generosity; for the gift of the prince is a camel-load of dinars and the gift of the clouds a drop of water.

    — Rashīd al-Dīn al-Waṭwāṭ[1][2][3][4][7]

    Explanation
    Both the clouds and the prince give (nawāl) — they are of one type. The communicator then produces a contrast: the prince's gift is a purse of gold, the cloud's gift a drop of water.[4]

    وَمَا يَسْتَوِي الْبَحْرَانِ هَـٰذَا عَذْبٌ فُرَاتٌ سَائِغٌ شَرَابُهُ وَهَـٰذَا مِلْحٌ أُجَاجٌ.

    The two seas are not equal: one is fresh and sweet, pleasant to drink, and this one is salty and bitter.

    — Qur'an 35:12[2]

    Explanation
    Both are seas (one type), yet they are differentiated by the contrast between sweetness and salinity.

    فَجُــودُ كَفَيْــهِ لَمْ تَقْلَعْ سَحَــائِبُهُ عَنِ الْعِبَادِ وَجُودُ السَّحْبِ لَمْ يَدُمِ

    The generosity of his two hands — its clouds have never ceased to pour upon the servants of God; whereas the generosity of the (rain)clouds has not lasted.

    — Ṣafī al-Dīn al-Ḥillī, in praise of the Prophet[4]

    Explanation
    The two things of one type are the generosity (jūd) of the Prophet's hands and the generosity of the rainclouds — both instances of giving. The communicator produces a contrast by distinguishing their duration: the Prophet's generosity is unceasing and perpetual, while the clouds' generosity is intermittent and does not last. The differentiation serves to elevate the praised subject.[4]

    وَإِنَّ الَّذِي سَمَّى عَلِيًّا لَمُنْصِفُ وَإِنَّ الَّذِي سَمَّاهُ سَيْفًا لَظَالِمُهُ
    وَمَا كُلُّ سَيْفٍ يَقْطَعُ الهَامَ حَدُّهُ وَتَقْطَعُ لُزْبَاتُ الزَّمَانِ مَكَارِمُهُ

    He who named him 'Alī (the exalted) was just; but he who named him a sword did him wrong. For not every sword cuts skulls with its blade — yet his noble qualities cut through the hardships of time.

    — al-Mutanabbī[3][4]

    Explanation
    The two things of one type are the praised person and a sword — both things that cut. The communicator produces a contrast: an ordinary sword cuts only with its physical blade, but the praised person's noble qualities (makārim) cut through the hardships of time itself. The differentiation elevates the praised person far above the sword by showing the superior scope of what he "cuts".[3][4]

    قَاسُوكَ بِالغُصْنِ فِي التَّثَنِّي قِيَاسٌ جَهْلٌ بِلَا انْتِصَافِ
    هَذَاكَ غُصْنُ الخِلَافِ يُدْعَى وَأَنْتَ غُصْنٌ بِلَا خِلَافِ

    They compared you to a branch in its swaying — a comparison born of ignorance and injustice. For that is called the branch of the khilāf tree, whereas you are a branch without any khilāf (disagreement).

    — Anon.[3]

    Explanation
    The two things of one type are the praised person and a branch of the khilāf tree (a willow-like tree, Salix aegyptiaca) — both described as swaying branches. The communicator produces a contrast by exploiting the double meaning of khilāf: the tree branch carries the name khilāf (disagreement / contrariness), while the praised person is a branch free of any khilāf. The differentiation serves to elevate the praised person by distancing him from the negative connotation of the tree's name. The rhetorical purpose (tarjīḥ) is to show the praised person's superiority to the very thing he is compared with.[3]

    ما صبرُ الجاهلِ على الأذى كصبرِ العالِمِ؛ فصبرُ الجاهلِ عجزٌ وضعفٌ، وصبرُ العالِمِ حكمةٌ وسموٌّ.

    The patience of the ignorant person under hardship is not like the patience of the scholar; for the patience of the ignorant is helplessness and weakness, while the patience of the scholar is wisdom and elevation.

    Explanation
    Both are instances of patience (one type), but the communicator differentiates them: the first is cast negatively, the second positively.

    "Both teachers were patient, but one waited because he had no answer, while the other waited because he knew the student would find it."

    Explanation
    Both teachers display patience, placing them within the same type. The communicator then differentiates between the two instances by showing that one arises from uncertainty while the other arises from deliberate confidence.

    Different From

    • GRPDIV: Grouping Then Dividing: particularly Type 1, may resemble the special instance of Combining the Like and the Unlike because both can begin by placing multiple entities under a shared description. The difference is that Grouping Then Dividing distributes a shared governing judgement by assigning distinct applications to the gathered entities, whereas Combining the Like and the Unlike first establishes equality in praise and then gives one party an additional excellence that creates preferential distinction without cancelling the praise of the other.

    See Also

    Notes

    • The term al-tafrīq, literally "separation" or "differentiation", is in the technical (iṣṭilāḥī) sense the contrary of al-jamʿ ("gathering / combination"), a related badīʿ device.[4]
    • This definition is drawn from al-Sakkākī's formulation as reported by Atīq (2002): that the communicator intends two things of one type such that a contrast arises between them (huwa an taqṣuda ilā shayʾayn min nawʿ wāḥid fa-yūqiʿa baynahumā tabāyunan).[4] Al-Qazwīnī similarly defined it as producing a contrast between two things of one type (īqāʿ tabāyin bayna amrayn min nawʿ), though he restricted this to the context of praise (al-madḥ).[4] The broader application to blame, nasīb, and other literary purposes is attested in later authorities and adopted by Atīq (2002).[4]
    • The English translation "camel-load of dinars" for badra, used in Heinrichs (1998)[7], follows that source's rendering. The term badra refers to a leather pouch filled with ten thousand dirhams or similar coin.
    • Source traditions vary between shayʾayn and amrayn in wording, but no material difference in scope is indicated.[4]
    • Cachia records jamʿ al-muʾtalif wa-al-mukhtalif (“Combining the Like and the Unlike”) as a form in which two praised persons are first equated and one is subsequently given preference without diminishing the praise of the other. The source explicitly cross-references this form to al-tafrīq.[6]

    References

    1. ↑ a b c d Ḥafnī Nāṣif, Muḥammad Diyāb, Sultan Muḥammad and Muṣṭafā Ṭammām, Durūs al-Balāgha (Beirut: Dār Ibn Ḥazm, 2012), 110, ISBN 9786144162798.
    2. ↑ a b c d e Aḥmad al-Hāshimī, Jawāhir al-Balāgha fī al-Maʿānī wa-al-Bayān wa-al-Badīʿ (Windsor: Hindāwī Foundation, 2019), 374-375, ISBN 9781527316386.
    3. ↑ a b c d e f g h Inʿām Fawwāl ʿAkkāwī, Al-Muʿjam al-Mufaṣṣal fī ʿUlūm al-Balāgha: Al-Badīʿ wa-al-Bayān wa-al-Maʿānī (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1996), 402.
    4. ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Atīq, ʿIlm al-Badīʿ (Beirut: Dār al-Nahḍa al-ʿArabiyya lil-Ṭibāʿa wa-al-Nashr wa-al-Tawzīʿ, 2002), 106-108.
    5. ↑ a b c d e f Pierre Cachia, The Arch Rhetorician: Or The Schemer’s Skimmer: A Handbook of Late Arabic Badīʻ Drawn from ʻAbd al-Ghanī an-Nābulsī’s Nafaḥāt al-Azhār ʻala Nasamāt al-Asḥār, Studies in Arabic Language and Literature 3 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1998), p. 49; §75, ISBN 9783447040327.
    6. ↑ a b c Pierre Cachia, The Arch Rhetorician: Or The Schemer’s Skimmer: A Handbook of Late Arabic Badīʻ Drawn from ʻAbd al-Ghanī an-Nābulsī’s Nafaḥāt al-Azhār ʻala Nasamāt al-Asḥār, Studies in Arabic Language and Literature 3 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1998), p. 49; §74, ISBN 9783447040327.
    7. ↑ a b W. P. Heinrichs, ‘Rhetorical Figures’, in Encyclopedia of Arabic Literature, ed. Julie Scott Meisami and Paul Starkey (London: Routledge, 1998), 659, ISBN 0415068088. DOI: 10.4324/9780203020425



    Page History

    You are viewing the live version of this page. Would you like to view the version included in the Arabic Rhetorical Device Taxonomy (v0.1.1)?
    Retrieved from "https://al-balagha.com/index.php?title=DIFSIM:_Differentiating_Between_Similar_Items&oldid=13029"