A LINGUISTICS ANALYSIS OF RHETORICAL DEVICES IN PAHARI PROVERBS

Authors

  • Raja Basit Ali Khan M.Phil Scholar University of Azad Jammu & Kashmir Author
  • Shahida Khalique Assistant Professor, University of Azad Jammu & Kashmir Author
  • Hamid Zia Lecturer, University of Azad Jammu & Kashmir Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.63878/qrjs522

Abstract

This study aims to analyze the use of rhetorical devices along with their functions in Pahari proverbs. It also aims to explore how frequent is the use of rhetorical devices in Pahari proverbs. In order to achieve this aim, mixed-method approach was adopted for the study. The data was collected from a book titled “Akhaan” by Sagheer (2002). The population of the study included 473 Pahari proverbs. Those 473 proverbs were investigated in the current study. During the analysis, it was found that the Pahari proverbs exhibit the use of rhetorical devices which are Apostrophe, Satire, Paradox, Hyperbole, Assonance, Alliteration, Antithesis, Personification, Symbolism, Epizeuxis, Synecdoche, Metaphor and Euphemism. The major functions being performed by the rhetorical devices in Pahari proverbs include; create the musical or poetic impact, making the statement appealing, giving advice, prohibiting, addressing indirectly, ridiculing the human vice and overstating something. The frequencies of the rhetorical devices indicated that Satire is the most frequent rhetorical device in Pahari proverbs and Paradox was found as the least frequent rhetorical device as it was implied only 3 times. This study contributes to the documentation of the Pahari language by analyzing the rhetorical devices in Pahari proverbs, their functions, and frequencies. The findings not only preserve a key aspect of Pahari oral tradition but also serve as a valuable reference for future researchers working on Pahari proverbs and rhetorical practices.

Downloads

Published

2025-10-29

How to Cite

A LINGUISTICS ANALYSIS OF RHETORICAL DEVICES IN PAHARI PROVERBS. (2025). Qualitative Research Journal for Social Studies, 2(4), 176-191. https://doi.org/10.63878/qrjs522