Abstract

In the Persian eloquence, the imagination forms mainly comprise simile and metaphor. However, metonymy and irony as well are discussed under the same title. Although in Persian eloquence, rhetoric discusses such four important subjects, it is somewhat different in the western eloquence. The present study deals in brief with these four subjects. Although the word metonymy can be considered as the approximate equivalent of the word 'majaz' and in both languages it is perceived as a kind of change, the general perception of these two topics is different. As a case in point one could refer to differences between metonymy in Persian and English. Basically, there is no counterpart in English to what is called the interest and analogy in Persian eloquence. In simile and 'tashbih', more common points could be found. However, diverse categorizations of 'tashbih' cannot be found for simile. Although some categorizations could be considered similar (for example 'submerged simile' and 'tashbihe nahofte (hidden simile) is near to the “tashbih”, the metaphor and “esteaareh” compared with other imagination forms have more points in common. Amongst the four types of diction techniques, irony and “kenayeh” have more differences. Irony is mostly used with the intension of broadening, radicalization, satire and criticism and is often encountered in the structure of a play, story. However, “kenayeh” is not simply used with the above said intentions for irony but it has implications for more obvious expression of concepts. Also “kenayeh” is often limited to words and expressions while irony is mostly used in long stories and plays.