Editing Pleonasm (section)

==Usage==
Most often, ''pleonasm'' is understood to mean a word or phrase which is useless, [[cliché]]d, or repetitive, but a pleonasm can also be simply an unremarkable use of [[Idiom (language structure)|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 (language structure)|idiom]], like ''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''&nbsp;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 [[Propositional logic|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 [[verb framing|satellite-framed]] language like English, [[verb phrase]]s containing [[grammatical particle|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" are [[legal doublet]]s that are part of [[Legal English|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), [[Richard Bethell, 1st Baron Westbury|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 literature|Victorian]] provide a counterpoint to [[The Elements of Style|Strunk]]'s advocacy of concise writing:
* "This was the most unkindest cut of all." — [[William Shakespeare]], ''[[Julius Caesar (play)|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 (novel)|Molloy]]''