Construct · 2 fields · 2 citations

Where does tautology collide?

One name. Different field. Different construct. One map.

● jingle · one word, two constructs Nearest construct by meaning·not indexed
tautology2 CONSTRUCTSLogical tautologyPOST · ⊤ ALWAYSRhetorical tautologyWIERZBICKA · 'BOYS'

Spokes are fields; dashed arcs are shared lineage. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.

1921Logical tautology1987Rhetorical tautology
2026

Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each field appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.

Logic

a propositional formula that comes out true under every assignment of truth values to its variables.

In logic, a tautology is a propositional formula that comes out true under every assignment of truth values to its variables ("P or not P" is the paradigm), so it is logically valid and conveys no factual information about the world. Post's 1921 Introduction to a general theory of elementary propositions introduced the truth-table method that defines and detects tautologies. The referent is a formula valid in virtue of its logical form alone.[1]

Unit
Whether a formula is true under every assignment of truth values
Recovery means
Not applicable
Measured by
Decided by truth tables or other validity checks over all possible assignments

Linguistics & rhetoric

A redundant or trivially-true utterance

In linguistics and rhetoric, a tautology is a statement that says the same thing twice or is trivially true by its wording: overt redundancy such as "free gift," or nominal tautologies like "boys will be boys" that nonetheless convey a pragmatic meaning. Wierzbicka's 1987 Boys will be boys argues that such apparently empty utterances carry culture-specific content. The referent is a redundant or trivially-true expression in natural language and its pragmatic effect, not a formally valid formula.[2]

Unit
An utterance that is redundant or trivially true by its own wording
Recovery means
Not applicable
Measured by
Identified by semantic redundancy or formal triviality, then analysed for its pragmatic import

Next

Run it through the Collider, or take the citations with you.

See how tautology sits against neighbouring constructs in the Collider, or export every reference on this page in one click.

Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this collision

Nearby collisions

disjunction2 fields · 2 citationsjingle · one word, two constructsassignment3 fields · 3 citationsjingle · one word, three constructscarry1 fields · 1 citationsanchor · a standalone construct

References

  1. Post, E. L. (1921). Introduction to a general theory of elementary propositions. American Journal of Mathematics, 43(3), 163–185. https://doi.org/10.2307/2370324
  2. Wierzbicka, A. (1987). Boys will be boys: ‘Radical semantics’ vs. ‘radical pragmatics’. Language, 63(1), 95–114. https://doi.org/10.2307/415385

Cited on this page?

Confirm your construct, or correct us.

If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.

Claim your construct