Three Types of Kināyah: Referent, Attribute, and Attribution

1. The basis of classification

Kināyah moves from the overt expression to an intended meaning, but the object of that movement varies. Sometimes it identifies a person or thing, sometimes a quality, and sometimes it affirms or denies that quality of a subject.

Accordingly the three divisions are kināyah concerning a referent, a quality, and an attribution. The classification follows the destination of the inference, not simply the grammatical shape of the words.

2. The threefold division in the text

وهي ثلاثة أقسام
It has three divisions.

The first seeks a referent rather than merely a quality or its attribution. The second seeks a quality such as generosity or height. The third asks to whom the quality belongs, or from whom it is denied.

The same quality can thus be the endpoint of one expression, but its attribution to a named person can be the endpoint of another.

3. Alluding to the referent

المطلوب بها غير صفة ولا نسبة
The first seeks neither a quality nor an attribution.

This type combines distinctive signs or circumstances to identify a person, group, or thing. Martial features, for example, may identify the people characterized by them.

The qualities are means of recognition; the final destination is identifying the referent, not merely affirming an adjective.

4. Identifying by a single distinctive description

One form of kināyah concerning a referent uses a distinctive sign to identify the thing bearing that sign. The listener must move beyond the sign to its bearer.

For example, “the gathering place of resentments” can designate the heart in a suitable context. The target is not simply the quality of resentment but the organ conceived as its location.

An association can become recognizable through repeated usage or a well-established relation.

5. Identifying through combined features

حتى مستوي القامة عريض الأظفار
Even one of upright stature and broad nails.

Several features can together point to a recognizable referent. One feature alone may not identify the subject, while a combination narrows the reference.

The combination is a route to the bearer of the features, not merely the description of one compound attribute. This is another form of kināyah concerning a referent.

6. A practical identification test

Two questions should be separated when classifying an example:
1. What sign, feature, or condition is expressed?
2. Does that sign identify a person or thing, or is the quality itself the target?

If a referent is intended, it is kināyah concerning the referent. If only a property is sought, it belongs to the next class. The number of features is not decisive; the object of inference is.

7. Alluding to an attribute

الثانية ... المطلوب بها صفة
The second seeks a quality.

Here the expression leads to an unnamed attribute: generosity, courage, height, or dullness, for example. This division answers “Which quality is being conveyed?”

The bearer may be mentioned, but mentioning the bearer alone does not turn the expression into kināyah concerning attribution. What matters is the intended meaning.

8. Two axes within attribute-allusion

Two distinct axes are discussed within kināyah concerning an attribute. One is near versus remote: how many inferential steps are required? The other is clear versus subtle: how readily does the audience perceive the intended meaning?

A nearby inference is not necessarily stated explicitly, nor is a remote inference impossible. Number of steps and ease of understanding are separate tests.

9. Near and clear: simple and partly explicit

طويل نجاده
His sword strap is long.

The long strap points readily to the owner’s height. The link is familiar and the inference short, so it is a near and clear kināyah.

The source further distinguishes a purely indirect expression from one in which the construction carries a degree of explicit predication. The distinction concerns the attribution in the expression, not simply the occurrence of a noun.

10. Why “ṭawīl al-nijād” has a partly explicit element

طويل النجاد
One with a long sword strap.

This familiar allusion indicates tall stature, but its predicative construction bears a relation to the person described. That is why the source treats it differently from a more purely indirect form.

There is a difference between fully explicit predication and kināyah with an explicit element. “Tall in stature” names the target directly, whereas “long in sword strap” still involves inference.

11. A subtle allusion: “broad nape”

عريض القفا
One with a broad nape.

In certain conventional uses this alludes to dullness. The relation between a broad nape and dullness is less immediately recognizable than the relation between a long strap and tall stature. Familiarity with the convention or reflective interpretation is needed.

Subtle does not mean unintelligible; it means the intended route is not obvious without context or reflection.

12. Remote kināyah: “abundant ashes”

كثير الرماد
One with abundant ashes.

This is a classical allusion to generosity and hospitality. The inference is sequential: abundant ashes suggest frequent fires; frequent fires suggest much cooking; much cooking suggests guests; hospitality towards guests points to generosity.

It is remote kināyah because several connected steps intervene, not because the intended meaning is incoherent. Once the chain is known, the implication becomes clear.

13. The sequence behind abundant ashes

The inferential chain must be read in order:
Much ash — abundant remains of fires.
Much burning — fires are lit frequently.
Much cooking — considerable food is prepared.
Many eaters — many people eat.
Many guests — hospitality is extended.
Generosity — the intended quality.

The association is conventional and rhetorical rather than an exceptionless logical theorem: another explanation for ashes could weaken the inference in a specific case.

14. Table: proximity, distance, clarity, subtlety

TypeExampleCriterion
Near and clearṭawīl al-nijādFew steps and a familiar association
Near and subtleʿarīḍ al-qafāFew steps, but the link needs reflection
Remotekathīr al-ramādSeveral intermediate inferences

An example must still be read in its context. A conventional link familiar in one period may be subtle for another audience.

15. The third division: allusion to attribution

الثالثة من أقسام الكناية المطلوب بها نسبة
The third type of kināyah seeks an attribution.

Generosity, courage, or nobility may be understood, but the principal aim is not merely to define those qualities. It is to assign them to a particular person. Instead of directly saying that a named individual is generous, the speaker may locate generosity in that person’s house, clothing, or surroundings.

The central distinction is: the second class asks which attribute? while the third asks whose attribute?

16. Ibn al-Ḥashraj: placing qualities in a tent

إن السماحة والمروءة والندى في قبة ضربت على ابن الحشرج
Generosity, honour, and open-handedness are in a tent erected over Ibn al-Ḥashraj.

The qualities are named explicitly. The kināyah lies instead in the indirect attribution to Ibn al-Ḥashraj: qualities are placed in the tent occupied by him, thereby being associated with its occupant.

The purpose is to praise Ibn al-Ḥashraj, not merely to define generosity.

17. The location of the quality and its bearer

The poetic example has three layers:
1. Named qualities: generosity, honour, munificence.
2. Overt location: the tent erected over the man.
3. Intended attribution: these qualities belong to Ibn al-Ḥashraj.

“Ibn al-Ḥashraj is generous” would be a direct statement. Locating the virtues in his tent suggests their presence throughout his setting and conveys attribution by kināyah.

18. “Glory between his garments”

المجد بين ثوبيه والكرم بين برديه
Glory lies between his garments, and generosity between his cloaks.

The qualities are located in something closely attached to a person. This implies that the wearer possesses them.

The words for glory and generosity are explicit, but the act of ascribing them to the wearer remains indirect. That is the defining feature of kināyah concerning attribution.

19. Two layers in “ashes in Zayd’s courtyard”

كثير الرماد في ساحة زيد
There are abundant ashes in Zayd’s courtyard.

Two inferences operate. Ashes lead to generosity, which is kināyah concerning an attribute. Locating the ashes in Zayd’s courtyard further associates generosity with Zayd, which is kināyah concerning attribution.

These are two discernible allusive moves in one sentence, rather than a new, undefined fourth division.

20. Why a proposed fourth type is not required

An objection arises: if a sentence seeks both a quality and its attribution, should there not be a fourth class?

The answer is that multiple allusive operations may coexist. In “many ashes in Zayd’s courtyard,” one step establishes generosity and another ascribes it to Zayd.

A combination of two kināyahs need not constitute a fourth basic type of intended meaning.

21. Attribution may also be negative

Kināyah concerning attribution includes negation as well as affirmation. An expression may avoid directly assigning a bad attribute to a person and indirectly deny that it belongs to them.

For example, an utterance may imply that a person does not harm others. The target is the denial of an attribution, not the definition of a new virtue.

Both positive and negative forms concern the relationship between a specific bearer and a quality.

22. The import of “the Muslim from whom others are safe…”

المسلم من سلم المسلمون من لسانه ويده
A Muslim is one from whose tongue and hand other Muslims are safe.

The text uses this kind of statement to explain the denial of harmful conduct and how such conduct is or is not attributed to the subject. The point is not the physical state of tongue and hand; it is freedom from inflicting harm.

The ethical teaching and the particular rhetorical classification should be kept distinct.

23. Explicit quality, indirect attribution

A common error is to think that naming a quality such as generosity or glory excludes kināyah. We must identify the element being conveyed indirectly.

In “glory between his garments,” glory is named, but its possession by the wearer is inferred from the garment relation. Thus explicitness of the quality does not exclude allusion in the attribution.

“Long sword strap” instead primarily guides the hearer to a quality; the two structures have different intended endpoints.

24. Whether the bearer is expressed or omitted

In attributional kināyah the subject may be named, as with Ibn al-Ḥashraj, or represented by a pronoun or by something linked to them, such as clothing or a house.

The rule does not require the subject’s name to be omitted. It requires that the attribution be conveyed through a related sign rather than direct predication.

Proper names, pronouns, or contextual references do not change the category so long as the attribution remains the target.

25. A comparison of the three basic types

TypeIntended resultExample
ReferentIdentify a person or thingHeart via “place of resentments”
AttributeConvey a qualityHeight via long sword strap
AttributionAffirm or deny quality of someone“Glory between his garments”

All three depend on indirect indication. Their distinction lies in what sort of meaning is finally inferred.

26. Two levels in the same expression

“Many ashes in Zayd’s courtyard” illustrates two levels: ashes imply generosity; the courtyard then links that generosity to Zayd.

A one-dimensional reading as only attribute-kināyah misses the attribution to Zayd. An equally incomplete reading as only attribution-kināyah misses the inference from ashes to generosity.

A sound analysis states the target of each separate operation.

27. How explicit statement and allusion can coexist

Parts of an utterance may be explicit while other relations within it remain allusive. In “generosity and honour are in a tent...,” the qualities are named, but their attribution to the tent’s occupant is indirect.

Simply observing that an attribute is mentioned is insufficient. Ask separately: What is expressed directly? and Which relation is inferred?

This distinction resolves many difficult borderline cases.

28. A three-step analytical procedure

For an unfamiliar expression:
1. Establish its surface meaning.
2. Identify the conventional or conceptual relation that supplies the inference.
3. Decide whether the endpoint is a referent, an attribute, or the attribution of an attribute.

“Long sword strap” primarily conveys height; “glory between his garments” primarily attributes glory to the wearer. They do not have the same endpoint.

29. Maintaining the distinction from majāz

The earlier distinction continues to apply: in kināyah the literal sense remains permissible in principle, whereas majāz involves a contextual indication preventing the literal intended sense.

A generous person’s courtyard could literally contain ashes; that does not remove the rhetorical kināyah. But where context requires a transferred sense while excluding the literal one, the particular usage is analyzed under majāz.

The subtype of kināyah and the kināyah-versus-majāz distinction are separate questions.

30. Integrated conclusion

The threefold division follows the intended result: referent-kināyah identifies a subject; attribute-kināyah conveys a quality; attribution-kināyah affirms or denies a relation between quality and bearer.

Attribute-kināyah may be near or remote, clear or subtle. “Abundant ashes” demonstrates a chain of inferences, while “glory between his garments” illustrates indirect attribution.

The next lesson can examine taʿrīḍ, talwīḥ, ramz, īmāʾ, and ishārah and the differing rhetorical paths associated with these terms.