Design Principles of the Encyclopedia of Arabic Rhetoric

Page information
🔗 DOI	10.64393/balagha.design.principles
Date	14 February 2026

Introduction

The Encyclopedia of Arabic Rhetoric is a curated compendium of Arabic rhetorical devices. It is designed primarily as a structured resource to assist in the identification of Arabic rhetorical devices in a way that is:

• Accurate - a rhetorical device should be correctly identified (a separate document specifies the Principles for Identifying Arabic Rhetorical Devices),
• Consistent - the same rhetorical device should be identified in the same way each time, and
• Reproducible - different analysts should agree on their identification of the same rhetorical device.

Because the Encyclopedia departs in certain ways from the organisation of classical pedagogical manuals, this page explains the seven overarching principles that govern its design. Each of these principles interacts to form a methodological pipeline that transforms classical Arabic rhetorical science into an operational analytical framework for Arabic rhetoric.

Principle 1: The Encyclopedia's Typology is Based on Classical Sources

The Encyclopedia does not invent new rhetorical devices; it organises those already established in the classical tradition. It is grounded in published works of classical Arabic rhetoric, and references are provided. The Encyclopedia preserves the classical understanding of each device's mechanism and scope; what changes is only the organizational framework for accessing them. The Encyclopedia aims to organise, clarify, and structure the classical rhetorical tradition in a way that supports systematic analysis. This includes preserving the internal conceptual boundaries of Arabic rhetorical terminology without subordinating them to approximate categories inherited from Greek, Latin, or modern Western rhetorical traditions.

Principle 2: The Encyclopedia's Epistemological Foundation is the Model for Rhetorical Action

The Encyclopedia is founded upon the Model for Rhetorical Action, which distinguishes four analytically distinct, sequential levels of every rhetorical action:

1. The Communicator Intent Level - the pragmatic effect that the communicator wishes to invoke in the addressee, where one is intended.
2. The Linguistic Operation Level – the linguistic operation executed by the communicator through language, to achieve the Communicator Intent.
3. The Cognitive Relationship Level – the shared cognitive relationship established or activated between the communicator and the addressee through the communicator's execution of the Linguistic Operation, and the addressee's reception of it.
4. The Pragmatic Effect Level – the rhetorical effect invoked in the addressee through the Cognitive Relationship that the communicator established through the execution of the Linguistic Operation.

The distinction between these four levels is fundamental to the design of the Encyclopedia. A rhetorical device belongs to the Linguistic Operation Level and is analytically distinct from the communicator intent that may motivate its use, the cognitive relationship it establishes or activates, and the pragmatic effect that it may produce. The Encyclopedia therefore treats these levels as distinct analytical objects rather than conflating a rhetorical device with its possible intentions, cognitive relationships, or pragmatic effects.

The consequences of this distinction for the classification of rhetorical devices are described in Principle 3: The Encyclopedia Uses a Linguistic Operation-First Approach to Rhetorical Analysis. The Principles for Identifying Arabic Rhetorical Devices operationalise the Model for Rhetorical Action for practical rhetorical analysis.

Principle 3: The Encyclopedia Uses a Linguistic Operation-First Approach to Rhetorical Analysis

The Encyclopedia classifies rhetorical devices according to the linguistic operation by which they operate, rather than the pragmatic effect they produce. This is because a rhetorical effect – such as intensification, glorification, lamentation, amazement, rebuke, or emotional emphasis – is often open to interpretation and disagreement amongst analysts. For this reason, identifying the effect alone is not sufficient for consistent and reproducible analysis.

Instead, the analyst identifies the linguistic operation that produces the rhetorical effect, such as:

• Deletion
• Substitution
• Repetition
• Contrast
• Projection

Once the linguistic operation is identified, the rhetorical device can be classified consistently and reproducibly.

For example, rather than listing "Glorification" (taʿẓīm) as a standalone device, the Encyclopedia identifies the specific syntactic, lexical, or semantic deviation that produces the effect of glorification. The emphasis is therefore placed on how the effect is created, not merely on the fact that it occurs.

Consider the sentence: "He is a lion in battle." (huwa asadun fī al-maʿraka). The effect may be glorification or intensification. However, the linguistic operation itself can be identified independently of those effects: the human is presented through direct comparison with a lion. The rhetorical device is therefore classified as Simile, specifically an effective simile (tashbīh balīgh), because the classification is based on the linguistic operation of comparison rather than on the particular rhetorical effect it produces.

The Encyclopedia distinguishes between linguistic operation-driven rhetorical devices and their pragmatic effects. Only rhetorical phenomena involving a recognisable and reproducibly identifiable linguistic operation are classified as rhetorical devices. Effects such as praise, blame, intensification, sarcasm, or irony, which depend upon linguistic operations already accounted for elsewhere, are not treated as independent entries.

The Encyclopedia's linguistic operation-first approach enhances clarity, precision, and reproducibility in rhetorical analysis. The operation-first approach has direct consequences for rhetorical device identification. The corresponding Principle 2: Linguistic Operation-First Identification operationalises this design principle by requiring analysts to classify rhetorical devices according to their underlying linguistic rather than their downstream pragmatic effects.

Source Example

يَٰحَسۡرَةً عَلَى ٱلۡعِبَادِ

Ah! Alas for my servants
Quran 36:30

Explanation

This Quranic verse illustrates why the Encyclopedia adopts a linguistic operation-first approach. Classical sources differ themselves regarding the rhetorical effect produced by the vocative particle yā, variously describing it as astonishment, lamentation, grief, or emotional intensification. An effect-first analytical approach would result in this single rhetorical action being classified by different annotators according to a multitude of pragmatic effects. This would reduce the reproducibility of annotation.

The Encyclopedia addresses this by foregrounding comparatively observable and reproducible linguistic operations over more interpretive judgements about rhetorical effect. It distinguishes (a) the observable structural transformation within the language performed by the communicator, from (b) the context-dependent interpretive rhetorical effects that addressees may infer from it. The Encyclopedia describes the rhetorical effects as an aid to identifying the linguistic operation, but the rhetorical effects themselves are not treated as independently annotatable rhetorical actions.

In this verse, the underlying linguistic operation is consistent across interpretations: the vocative particle yā is used non-literally and departs from its primary function of calling. Within the Encyclopedia's linguistic operation-first approach, the linguistic operation is consistently identified as VOCATIV: The Vocative, regardless of interpretive variation in rhetorical effects.

Source Example

أَنَلْهُو وَأَيَّامُنَا تَذْهَبُ
وَنَلْعَبُ وَالْمَوْتُ لَا يَلْعَبُ؟

Shall we amuse ourselves while our days pass away,
and play while death does not play?

Explanation

Hashimi identifies the rhetorical effect of this interrogative statement as Prohibition (النهي, nahy) — prohibiting such play — but explicitly adds that it may also be interpreted as Mockery (التهكم, tahakkum). The example therefore illustrates the distinction between a comparatively identifiable linguistic operation and its more interpretive rhetorical effects: the linguistic operation remains The Interrogative, while the same utterance allows more than one analysis of its rhetorical effect.

Constructed Example

أَبَعْدَ كُلِّ هَذَا تَقُولُ إِنَّكَ لَمْ تُخْطِئْ؟

After all this, you still say that you did nothing wrong?

Explanation

In this example, the communicator is not genuinely seeking information about whether the addressee maintains their innocence. The identifiable linguistic operation is The Interrogative: an interrogative construction is used for a purpose other than genuinely seeking unknown information. Analysts may nevertheless disagree, depending on context and interpretation, over whether its rhetorical effect is primarily Rebuke (tawbīkh), Denial (inkār), Mockery (tahakkum / sukhriyya), Astonishment (taʿajjub), or some combination of these. The operation can therefore be identified consistently without requiring analysts to agree on the precise rhetorical effect.

These examples demonstrate that the relationship between linguistic operations and pragmatic effects is not one-to-one. A single linguistic operation may produce multiple context-dependent effects, while conversely, similar effects may arise from different linguistic operations. Because effects require a greater degree of interpretive judgement, using them as the primary unit of classification would increase disagreement between analysts. The Encyclopedia therefore classifies rhetorical devices primarily by their comparatively stable and identifiable linguistic operations, while recording rhetorical effects separately as context-dependent outcomes of those operations.

Principle 4: Rhetorical Devices Are Atomic Units

Each rhetorical device in the Encyclopedia corresponds to a single underlying linguistic operation such as deletion, substitution, repetition, contrast, or projection.

Some classical works describe compound devices that combine multiple linguistic operations. For example, Parallel Antithesis (muqābalah) combines semantic contrast (Antithesis) and structural parallelism (Parallelism).

From an analytical perspective, this presents a difficulty. Both Antithesis and Parallelism must also exist independently as devices in cases where they occur separately. Treating a compound as a single device can obscure the fact that multiple distinct linguistic transformations are taking place.

The Encyclopedia therefore defines devices as atomic units: one principal linguistic operation per device. If distinct, independently identifiable linguistic operations occur simultaneously in the same phrase or sentence, they are treated as separate devices. If an analyst encounters Parallel Antithesis (muqābalah), the Encyclopedia requires them to tag both the Antithesis and Parallelism separately, allowing for more precise analysis and clearer understanding of which linguistic operations are actually present. This reflects the Encyclopedia's objective of presenting rhetorical devices as discrete atomic units.

Where subtypes share the same underlying linguistic operation and are mutually exclusive realisations of the same rhetorical action, they are grouped under a single device (for example, the various subtypes of Metaphor, which all involve semantic transfer). Where similar phenomena involve distinct linguistic operations that can co-occur, they are treated as separate devices (for example, different structural forms of repetition). This approach allows layered rhetorical analysis without conceptual overlap.

The analytical consequences of this atomic approach are described in the Principles for Identifying Arabic Rhetorical Devices, Principle 4: Rhetorical Effects Can Be Multi-Layered, which explains how multiple atomic devices may be identified simultaneously when they contribute independent linguistic operations.

Principle 5: The Encyclopedia Operationalises Specifications of Arabic Rhetoric Devices

Classical Arabic rhetorical theory is rooted in a decentralised, genre-specific, historically and geographically fragmented scholarship which commenced in late antiquity and the early Islamic period, and continued until the post-Abbasid period. Unlike other Islamic and Arabic sciences that underwent later phases of formal standardisation, Arabic rhetoric remained largely descriptive and interpretive, allowing multiple overlapping frameworks to coexist without consolidation. This presents several problems when used for reproducible analytical and computational applications:

1. Rhetorical device names are not always standardised. Some rhetorical phenomena appear under multiple names, while others are described functionally without a stable technical label. This makes it difficult to compare definitions across sources and determine whether two scholars are describing the same device.

2. Rhetorical device definitions are inconsistent. Different scholars use different terminology to describe the same linguistic operations and pragmatic effects. One scholar's taxonomy of linguistic operations and rhetorical effects does not match another scholar's.

3. Rhetorical device definitions overlap. One scholar may state that a rhetorical device includes linguistic operations A, B, C, and D, while another scholar may state that C is an independent device and D is a subtype of A.

4. Rhetorical device definitions are incomplete. Every scholar's taxonomy of rhetorical devices is influenced by the breadth and depth of their exposure and analysis.

5. Rhetorical device definitions lack a consistent hierarchy or taxonomy. The boundaries between devices are not well-defined.

6. Rhetorical device definitions conflate linguistic operations and pragmatic effects. Classical definitions often do not clearly distinguish between what the rhetorical device does structurally and what pragmatic effect it produces.

7. Rhetorical device definitions lack operational criteria. Classical sources rarely provide step-by-step recognition criteria such as decision rules, boundary tests, or reproducibility criteria.

8. Rhetorical device definitions use inconsistent levels of abstraction. Some devices such as Paronomasia may involve the change of a single letter or vowel. Other devices such as al-muqābala (Parallel Antithesis) combine multiple devices in one device.

9. Rhetorical device definitions sometimes use examples instead of rules.

10. Rhetorical device definitions are sometimes evaluative rather than analytical. Some scholars described rhetorical devices in terms of effects on style, eloquence, impact, beauty, or linguistic efficiency, without defining reproducible tests for these effects.

The Encyclopedia does not seek to modify or "fix" classical Arabic rhetorical theory. Rather, it seeks to render it operational for systematic analysis, through a process described as "controlled abstraction".

Controlled Abstraction

Controlled abstraction distils classical rhetorical concepts into clearly bounded, operationally definable units, while preserving their core semantic identity. Where classical descriptions are implicit, overlapping, or insufficiently defined for consistent identification, controlled abstraction seeks to introduce the best approximation of explicit and standardised formulations grounded in attested usage. These interventions are minimal, transparent, and methodologically constrained, enabling reproducible analysis while preserving the underlying structure of the tradition. The process results in consistent and standardised operational definitions of Arabic rhetorical devices. This provides the necessary contemporary foundation for reproducible device annotation, computational analysis, and eventual automation of device identification.

Controlled abstraction also avoids imposing external rhetorical taxonomies onto Arabic rhetorical devices through approximate synonymy or inherited equivalence. Where non-Arabic rhetorical traditions contain partially overlapping concepts, these may be noted for comparative purposes, but they do not govern the operational definition of the device. The Encyclopedia defines Arabic rhetorical devices on their own structural and semantic terms, grounded in the Arabic rhetorical tradition itself.

Further reading

See the following blog post for a methodological reflection on why the Encyclopedia removed Greco-Roman labels for rhetorical devices: “A Roman, a Hellene, and an Abbasid walk into a café...” (3 February 2026)

The same principle applies to illustrative material. Examples are selected for their explanatory value in demonstrating the linguistic operation of a device. The Encyclopedia does not seek to catalogue every attested example found in the rhetorical tradition.

Principle 6: Organisation Aids Identification of Rhetorical Devices

The primary objective of the Encyclopedia is to support rhetorical analysis of Arabic discourse, rather than offering training in the use of rhetorical devices when composing new texts. Classical books of Arabic rhetoric are structured for teaching; the Encyclopedia is structured for identification, measurement and analysis. This difference is reflected in the Encyclopedia’s organisation.

For example, in classical manuals, ‘ilm al-badī‘ (Linguistic Embellishments) is typically divided into:

• Lexical embellishments (al-muḥassināt al-lafẓiyya)
• Semantic embellishments (al-muḥassināt al-maʿnawiyya)

While this subdivision may be suitable for teaching, it is not granular enough for analysis, considering that there are around 70 rhetorical devices in this field. The Encyclopedia therefore subdivides ‘ilm al-badī‘ into 11 thematic subcategories that group together devices which operate in similar ways, making them easier to locate and compare. If the analyst recognizes how a device operates (through sound, structure, or meaning transformation), a more granular classification helps to locate the device within the Encyclopedia faster.

In some cases, devices are arranged according to where an analyst might encounter them in discourse. For example, within the "Paragraph Structure & Flow" subcategory of ‘ilm al-badī‘, devices are ordered from those typically found at the beginning of a text, to those in the middle, and finally to those occurring at the end.

The Encyclopedia is not the first attempt in the contemporary era to bring a modern analytical re-ordering to the tradition of Arabic rhetoric. For example, the Encyclopedia draws upon the scholarship of Cachia who took al-Nabulsi's eighteenth century primer on Arabic rhetoric and attempted to "sift [it],... condense it, order it, and present it in the form most readily usable by others." However, the theoretical basis of the Encyclopedia's reorganisation strategy, as described in this document, is novel.

Similarly, classical manuals often treat certain devices in paired form, such as:

• Conjunction and Disjunction (al-waṣl wa al-faṣl)
• Definiteness and Indefiniteness (al-taʿrīf wa al-tankīr)
• Brevity, Verbosity, and Moderation (al-’ījāz wa al-’iṭnāb wa al-musāwāh)
• Quotation and Poetic Incorporation (al-iqtibās wa al-taḍmīn)

In pedagogical contexts, grouping these together may confer an advantage. For analytical purposes, however, the analyst must determine which specific linguistic operation is taking place in a given sentence. Annotating "Conjunction and Disjunction" as a single unit is not precise enough. The Encyclopedia therefore treats these as distinct devices, because meaningful analysis requires that they be identifiable separately.

At the same time, the Encyclopedia avoids both extremes of taxonomic design: an excessively flat hierarchy, where every device and subtype is exposed at the top level, and an excessively deep hierarchy, where users must navigate through multiple layers of nested subcategories to reach individual devices. Instead, the Encyclopedia adopts a balanced organisational model: enough hierarchy to preserve conceptual relationships, but enough surface visibility to aid discovery and identification.

This means that some linguistic operations treated in classical sources as subtypes are elevated to independent entries where their distinctiveness or operational recognisability warrants it. For example, Personification is given independent treatment despite its close relationship to Metaphor, and certain sound-based devices such as Alliteration and Palindrome are surfaced separately even though classical treatments often subsume them under broader categories such as Paronomasia. This organisational choice reflects the Encyclopedia's analytical aim: to make rhetorically salient and identifiable linguistic operations easier to find, compare, and annotate.

Principle 7: The Encyclopedia Is the Source of the Arabic Rhetorical Device Taxonomy

The Encyclopedia is a live and evolving compendium of Arabic rhetorical devices.

At defined intervals, snapshots of the Encyclopedia are published as the Arabic Rhetorical Device Taxonomy (ARDT) – a fixed, versioned, and citable taxonomy intended for use in Digital Humanities research and computational analysis.

To facilitate this, the Encyclopedia uses:

• Standardised formatting and layout
• Clear internal structure
• Version control
• Digital-first publication
• Persistent identifiers such as document object identifiers (DOIs)
• Predominantly English-language presentation.

The Encyclopedia is therefore both a scholarly reference resource and the foundational layer from which the ARDT is derived.

Summary

Together, these seven principles ensure that the Encyclopedia of Arabic Rhetoric serves as a bridge between classical Arabic rhetorical tradition and modern analytical needs, maintaining scholarly rigor while enabling systematic, reproducible analysis. These seven principles are crystallised in the form of the Criteria for Inclusion in the Encyclopedia of Arabic Rhetoric, a document which operationalises the theoretical framework presented here in the form of a transparent set of rules by which to decide which Arabic rhetorical devices are included in the Encyclopedia of Arabic Rhetoric.

Page History

• 2026-08-16 - Updated Design Principles with promotion of Model for Rhetorical Action and Criteria for Inclusion in the Encyclopedia of Arabic Rhetoric as separate documents.
• 2026-08-08 - Updated Design Principles with addition of The Model for Rhetorical Action
• 2026-04-30 - Updated Design Principles with addition of The Encyclopedia Recognises Four Consecutive Levels of Every Rhetorical Action
• 2026-03-27 - Updated Design Principles with re-organisation and addition of The Encyclopedia Operationalises Specifications of Arabic Rhetoric Devices
• 2026-02-14 - Page created: Design Principles of the Encyclopedia of Arabic Rhetoric.