apophasis / paraleipsis - Wordsmith.org

Quote:

apophasis / paraleipsis

Can anyone explain the difference between these two words?

for all things rhetorical try silva rhetoricae.

(I can't remember these distinctions myself; I swear by this anonymous quote from a college classics department chairman, "The subtle distinction between two terms [of rhetoric] is completely irrelevant.")

Well, thanks all the same.

I do know that "paraleipsis" is usually in the dictionary, while "apophasis" is usually not. So maybe the latter is just a rare synonymn for the former. This assumption sometimes turns out to be false, but in this connexion, I absolutely (and paraleipsistically) refuse to mention "synecdoche" and "metonymy".

I've never had any problem distinguishing between synedoche and metonymy. I just never remember which is which.

Presumably you mean cataphasis rather than apophasis? ~ the differenc between affirmation and denial. I share the regular puzzlement over these niceties of rhetorical figures: the examples offered don't always seem to me to well illustrate what the speaker claims they do.

The pair of cataphasis and paralipsis I understand to be really just a mattter of degree of emphasis: cataphasis merely states whilst claiming not to so do ("I will refrain from mentioning my opponent's diminutive stature"), whilst paralipsis seems more ironic in tone ("it would be cruel to draw attention to my opponent's diminutive height, which clearly has no bearing on his wish for smaller doorways").

Fong's pair are a typical example of classifications that, not only do I not remember the difference, but even when I look 'em up again I can't see clear water between!

cataphasis: a kind of paralipsis in which one explicitly affirms the negative qualities that one then passes over.

apophasis: allusion to something by denying that it will be mentioned, as in I will not bring up my opponent's questionable financial dealings.

paraleipsis: pretended or apparent omission by which a speaker artfully pretends to pass by what he really mentions; as, for example, if an orator should say, I do not speak of my adversary's scandalous venality and rapacity, his brutal conduct...

> apophasis: allusion to something by denying that it will be mentioned, as in I will not bring up my opponent's questionable financial dealings.

Not according to the standard online definition, as linked by tsuwm:

apophasis (Gk, denial) The rejection of several reasons why a thing should or should not be done and affirming a single one, considered most valid.

Quote:

> apophasis: allusion to something by denying that it will be mentioned, as in I will not bring up my opponent's questionable financial dealings.

Not according to the standard online definition, as linked by tsuwm:

apophasis (Gk, denial) The rejection of several reasons why a thing should or should not be done and affirming a single one, considered most valid.

What about this, this and this?

So if you knew the answer, pray tell why did you ask the original question?

Quote:

What about this, this and this?

Like much of the web these three links all draw on common data (in this case probably originally the American Heritage, I would guess). Mere cloning of data across sites neither validates nor invalidates its accuracy. The wiki link suggests the answer: Silva Rhetoricae is evidently giving a more technically accurate differentiation of terms based on its meaning in logical argument; indeed the external links at the foot of the wiki entry refer to the SR citation as an authority.

Apophasis was originally and more broadly a method of logical reasoning or argument by denial, a way of telling what something is by telling what it is not, a process-of-elimination way of talking about something by talking about what it isn't.

A useful inductive technique when given a limited universe of possibilites, the exclusion of all but the one remaining is affirmation through negation. The familiar guessing-game of "Is it bigger than a bread box?" is an example of apophatic inquiry.

This denotation has generally fallen into disuse and is frequently overlooked, although it is still current in certain contexts, such as mysticism and Negative theology. An apophatic theology sees God as ineffability and attempts to describe God in terms of what God is not.

PS: Michael, you may want to review your own site�s entry, since at the very least there appear to be two definitions, and you have the less worthless� (unless you judge duplicating the meaning of cataphasis makes this the more wwftd!

So, was Sherlock Holmes advocating an apophasisian method when he said to "Eliminate the impossible and whatever remains, no matter how unlikely, must be true." ?

Quote:

So, was Sherlock Holmes advocating an apophasisian method when he said to "Eliminate the impossible and whatever remains, no matter how unlikely, must be true." ?

Yes. If you ever play a reductive logic game like 'Animal, Vegetable or Mineral' or '20 Questions' or whatever your local version is known as, I guess you're using this apophastic methodology.