Defining Majāz: Conditions, Indication, and Classification by Convention

1. Figurative usage and transfer of meaning

تعريف المجاز وتقسيمه
The definition and classification of figurative usage.

In literal use, an expression conveys its conventionally assigned meaning. In figurative use, the speaker intends a different sense. Yet not every unusual designation is a figure of speech: there must also be an intelligible relation and contextual guidance toward the intended sense.

Compare:
“asad” — the animal lion: lexical literal use.
“raʾaytu asadan yarmī” — a brave human shooting: a possible metaphorical use.

The expression remains the same, but its assigned sense, intended sense, and contextual indication differ.

2. The lexical origin: passing from one sense to another

المجاز في الأصل «مَفْعَل» من جاز المكانَ يَجُوزُهُ
Majāz is originally connected with the verbal notion of passing or traversing a place.

Rhetorically, this suggests the transfer of a word from its assigned meaning to another intelligible meaning. The transfer is semantic rather than a physical journey from one location to another.

The metaphor of traversal is useful only if the route is clear. We must identify the original sense and the relation that enables the hearer to arrive at a second meaning, rather than treat any unusual word choice as figurative language.

3. The complete technical definition of majāz

الكلمة المستعملة في غير ما وضعت له في اصطلاح التخاطب على وجه يصح مع قرينة عدم إرادته
A word used, within the governing convention of discourse, for other than its assigned meaning, in an admissible manner, accompanied by an indication that its assigned meaning is not intended.

The conditions are:
1. An actual verbal occurrence.
2. A sense other than the assigned one.
3. Assessment within the relevant speech convention.
4. An admissible relation between the two senses.
5. An indicator ruling out the assigned sense.

Each qualification marks a boundary between figurative expression and related concepts such as literal use, mere error, established transfer, homonymy and allusion.

4. Why majāz requires an actual occurrence

الكلمة المستعملة
A word actually employed in speech.

Knowing that “asad” exists in a lexicon does not determine the status of all its occurrences. Literal or figurative classification attaches to a particular use with an intended meaning, not merely to a dictionary entry.

“An asad in the forest” suggests the animal in an ordinary context, whereas “an asad is delivering a sermon from the pulpit” directs the listener toward a human being. The surrounding speech determines what use is being evaluated.

5. Moving beyond the assigned sense

في غير ما وضعت له
For something other than that for which the word was assigned.

The divergence from ordinary assignment begins here. Use in the established sense is literal; figurative usage must depart from that sense. But departure is necessary, not sufficient.

“Asad” for the animal involves no transfer. “Asad” for a brave person involves a changed intended sense, but still needs a meaningful connection such as courage and an indicator that the word denotes a person rather than the animal.

6. Figurative status depends on the governing convention

في اصطلاح التخاطب
Within the convention applicable to the conversation.

A word may have an ordinary lexical sense and other established meanings in religious or professional discourse. Figurative status cannot be judged without identifying the register shared by speaker and audience.

Ṣalāh is conventionally assigned to ritual prayer in religious discourse. When that discourse uses it for supplication, the occurrence can be figurative relative to the technical religious assignment, even though “supplication” is recognized in ordinary Arabic. The same occurrence may receive different analyses relative to different conventions.

7. Transferred and newly coined senses versus majāz

مرتجلاً كان أو منقولاً أو غيرهما
Whether newly assigned, transferred to an established convention, or otherwise classified.

An expression that has acquired a recognized technical assignment differs from one used temporarily for a non-assigned meaning. A transferred term may be literally employed within its new register, even though its original lexical history is different.

This is why the convention-of-discourse qualification matters: conventional lexical transfer does not make every later use an original, fresh metaphor.

8. What makes a figurative transfer admissible?

على وجه يصح
In an admissible or appropriate manner.

This condition establishes the need for an ʿalāqah, a meaningful connection between the assigned and intended senses. A random incorrect label does not become rhetorical figurative use merely because the original designation no longer fits.

Using “lion” for a brave person can exploit resemblance in courage. Calling a book a “horse” with no intelligible relation or context does not thereby create a valid rhetorical transfer.

9. The semantic relationship is a route, not decoration

When a word is used figuratively, the original sense supplies a starting point; context helps the audience arrive at an intended sense. The semantic relation (ʿalāqah) licenses this move. Not all relations are likeness; the following section will distinguish types according to their underlying relation.

Examples:
A “lion” for a courageous person — similarity in bravery.
A place-name used to signify its inhabitants — potentially a spatial relationship in an appropriate context.

Do not confuse the relation with the contextual indicator: the relation makes the transfer intelligible, while the indicator helps identify the intended meaning.

10. Why context must accompany the transfer

مع قرينة عدم إرادته
With an indication that the original assigned meaning is not intended.

A relationship alone may leave the expression ambiguous. A contextual indicator makes clear that the speaker does not intend the ordinary meaning in this occurrence. Such an indicator may be verbal or situational.

In “I saw a lion shooting,” the action of shooting points toward a human archer. If someone merely says “I saw a lion,” the animal sense remains fully available unless further context supplies a reason to depart from it.

11. Blocking the literal sense and selecting the intended one

An indicator that blocks the literal sense rules out the original assigned sense in the context; an indicator that specifies the intended meaning guides interpretation toward a particular alternative. The same context may perform both tasks, but they are conceptually distinct.

In “the brave lion gave a speech,” speaking points toward a human agent. Courage is the semantic relation between lion and person; speaking supplies the contextual reason for not understanding the animal.

Keeping the two functions distinct prepares for a more precise account of metaphor and non-resemblance figurative transfer.

12. Why an erroneous label fails the definition

«خُذْ هَذَا الْفَرَسَ» مُشِيرًا إِلَى الْكِتَابِ
“Take this horse,” said while pointing at a book.

If no meaningful relation connects a book with “horse,” the intended referent differs from the established assignment without producing a valid trope. This is precisely why the definition specifies a transfer that is admissible.

“Error” here does not mean every novel expression. It refers to a use lacking a relevant interpretive connection. Rhetorical creativity depends on intelligible semantic work, not arbitrary misnaming.

13. Why kināyah is not the same as majāz

Majāz requires an indicator that the conventionally assigned sense is not intended. Kināyah may aim at an implication while leaving the surface meaning possible. Thus intending something beyond a literal expression does not alone make every occurrence an instance of majāz.

“Tall of sword-strap” can allude to a person’s tall stature while remaining compatible with a literally long strap. The survival of the surface sense differentiates this case from a figure in which an indicator prevents that sense.

The diagnostic question is whether the ordinary meaning remains admissible, not whether the expression sounds literary.

14. Literal use, figure, allusion, and error compared

TypeAssigned senseDiagnostic featureLiteralAssigned sense intendedMatches the governing assignmentFigurativeAnother sense intendedRelation + blocking indicatorKināyahAssociated sense intendedSurface sense need not be excludedErrorUnrelated misdesignationNo admissible relation

Both figurative and allusive expressions may convey more than a surface reading, but the role of the relation and contextual indicator distinguishes their technical treatment. Mere error is not a recognized trope.

15. Single-word and composite figurative expressions

فالمجاز مفرد ومركب
Figurative expression may be single-word or composite.

In single-word majāz, the transfer concerns a particular lexical item, such as “lion” for a brave person. In composite majāz, the shift concerns an expression or utterance taken as a whole, rather than only the meaning of one component.

The distinction is not simply counting words. We ask whether the semantic transfer belongs to a word or to the communicative force of the full construction. A question used rhetorically to make a point can illustrate a shift at the level of discourse without a single noun changing its referent.

16. What exactly is transferred in single-word majāz?

فهو الكلمة المستعملة
It is the word as actually used.

Single-word majāz concentrates on the lexical occurrence, not on an entire sentence. “Single” refers to the location of the figurative transfer; it does not simply mean a text containing only one word.

When “lion” denotes a brave person, the interpretive shift concerns that word. A multiword expression whose complete communicative meaning is transferred to another purpose belongs to a different kind of analysis.

17. Distinguishing coined, transferred and homonymous words

Three questions must be separated. Has a word been newly assigned a conventional sense? Has a sense become established through transfer from a previous convention? Does one form have more than one independently assigned meaning?

A new coinage, an established transferred term, and a homonym present different accounts of assignment. They cannot be reduced to one vague statement that a word happens to have several meanings.

This distinction matters because a new recognized assignment is not automatically identical with a temporary figurative departure from an assigned sense.

18. The same word across lexical and technical registers

Lexical reality is measured against ordinary linguistic assignment; religious reality against an established religious convention; and customary reality against common or specialized usage. Figurative expressions can be classified along the same axes, because every nonliteral use is judged against a baseline.

Examples:
“Asad” for the animal — lexical literal use.
“Asad” for a brave person with a suitable context — lexical figure.
“Ṣalāh” for ritual worship — religious literal use.
“Ṣalāh” for supplication within the contrasting religious convention — religious-relative figure.

Always ask which established convention supplies the baseline.

19. Lexical, religious, specialized and common customary types

وكلٌّ منهما لغويٌّ وشرعيٌّ وعُرفيٌّ خاصٌّ أو عُرفيٌّ عامٌّ
Both literal and figurative usage can be lexical, religious, specialized customary, or generally customary.

Lexical refers to linguistic usage; religious to a religiously established convention; specialized customary to a technical community; and general customary to broad accepted usage without a particular identifiable institution responsible for the transfer.

The technical sense of “fiʿl” among grammarians illustrates a specialized convention, while the restricted use of “dābbah” for a four-footed creature illustrates general conventional usage.

20. The grammatical term fiʿl as a specialized convention

فِعْلٌ
Fiʿl, a verb: in Arabic grammar, a word that denotes a meaning connected with tense.

Grammarians use this expression as a defined technical term. When the occurrence corresponds to that recognized technical meaning, it is literal within the specialized grammatical convention. The same lexical form can be evaluated differently in another discourse, but it is incorrect to call every technical use figurative.

The example shows how established professional usage and context work together to determine an assigned sense.

21. The broad conventional use of dābbah

دَابَّةٌ
Dābbah: broadly a creature that moves on the earth; in an established general convention, often a four-footed animal.

Ordinary usage may narrow a broad lexical category to a more specific class. Once that restriction is conventional, “dābbah” for a four-footed creature is literally correct within that customary register.

The older broader lexical usage and the newer customary usage need not be classified identically in every context. The governing question is which convention makes sense of the occurrence.

22. Avoid mixing the axes of classification

Two independent classifications are involved. The first asks relative to which convention an occurrence is literal or figurative. The second asks what relation licenses the departure from the assigned sense.

Convention-based division: lexical, religious, specialized customary, general customary.
Relation-based division: a resemblance-based metaphor or non-resemblance transfer (majāz mursal).

They are not interchangeable. Calling something a “lexical figure” does not yet tell us whether its relation is similarity or another kind of association.

23. A full diagnostic procedure for majāz

For any new example, apply each question in order:
1. What word is actually being used?
2. Which convention governs the discourse?
3. What sense is assigned within it?
4. Which different sense is intended?
5. What admissible semantic relationship connects the senses?
6. Which indicator rules out the assigned sense?

If no alternate sense is intended, the usage may be literal. Without a relation, it may be erroneous. Without a blocking indicator, the possibility of kināyah or unresolved ambiguity must be investigated. Each clause therefore has real analytical work to do.

24. Summary and transition to the two relation-based types

Majāz involves an occurrence that communicates something other than its assigned meaning in the governing register through an admissible relation and an indicator excluding the literal sense. Mere novelty, unusual word length, or incorrect labeling cannot establish it.

Literal and figurative uses may be lexical, religious, specialized customary, or generally customary. Single-word and composite expressions should also be distinguished according to where the transfer occurs.

The next stage considers the character of the semantic relation: resemblance gives rise to metaphorical transfer (istiʿārah), whereas other relations belong to the study of majāz mursal.