ATLAS OF LANGUAGE

AT-172-0018 · ATLAS 260

Epibole

In Bullinger’s historical taxonomy, epibole repeats a phrase at intervals that need not follow a regular pattern.

Part of the subject path Rhetoric and Style

Why is this entry in the Atlas?

F · Figure / procedure R1 · Distinct contribution to understanding

A recurring phrase can organise attention across separated passages. Epibole helps compare this distributed recurrence with regularly positioned repetition without imposing one historical taxonomy on every tradition.

Colours and admission grounds

The rectangular label identifies the entry function: F – linguistic figure or procedure; A – analytical concept; G – foundational concept; E – selected concrete case. The rounded badge indicates the admission ground: R1 – distinctive contribution; R2 – necessary foundation; R3 – justified illustrative case. This editorial rationale explains the current selection rather than claiming an undocumented original selection history.

Explanation

A returning phrase can connect separated stages of an argument. Bullinger’s word-versus-phrase distinction is source-specific: contemporary accounts of anaphora can include multiword expressions too. Distributed recurrence, not phrase length alone, is the useful comparison here.

Movement of thought

1. Mark the recurrent phrase. 2. Compare its intervals and changing contexts. 3. Distinguish distributed recurrence from repeated beginnings without asserting a universal taxonomy.

Scientific use case

Textual analysis records intervals, positions and changes in a recurrent phrase and compares distributed recurrence with repeated beginnings.

Example

Original example: “The question remains open” returns after separate stages of an investigation, each time following a different provisional answer.

Counterexample

Three paragraphs discuss the same topic in entirely different wording. Thematic continuity or similarity of thought alone is not epibole as a verbal figure of repetition.

Distinction

Anaphora typically foregrounds repetition at successive beginnings. No universal boundary can be inferred simply from repeating more than one word.

Effect on thought and perception

The refined distinction makes the analytical test and its limits explicit.

Resonance

Comparison with a neighbouring concept changes how the initial example is revisited without collapsing the two concepts.

Provenance

Accepted editorial clarification, 15 October 2026, packages D01–D11; original canonical evidence retained separately.

Cite this entry

Reich, Michael (Hrsg./ed.): „Epibole“. Atlas der Sprache, AT-172-0018. ATLAS 260, data model 1.6.0. https://atlasoflanguage.com/concept/AT-172-0018

https://atlasoflanguage.com/concept/AT-172-0018

The address remains stable; editorial content may evolve. Editorial reading state: 2026-10-15. Include your access date for precise references.

Source-specific historical context · editorial revision

Bullinger’s Epibole entry (1898, pp. 346–347) describes overlaid phrase repetition. This historical taxonomy is explained without making it binding on every definition of anaphora.

Status of this clarification

Editorially accepted on 15 October 2026. The sources and limitations named in the profile support this reading. A superseded conflicting profile is not displayed as an additional current explanation; the original evidence remains archived unchanged. This does not assert a new first attestation or exhaustive verification.