Chapter 12, Image Misconnection:
Feibai and Paradoxical Language (飛白與矛盾語)
In modern poetry, “image misconnection” belongs to intentional misconnection and includes two types: [1] deliberately using erroneous characters or mistaken words within vocabulary, the so-called “feibai”; and [2] contradictory semantic combinations of words, namely “paradox”: “refers to a kind of discourse or situation that seems ‘not’ yet is; on the surface absurd and abrupt, but in essence contains truth; seemingly contrary to common sense; in fact deeply meaningful.”1.
I. Feibai
Section 1. Definition and Function of Feibai
I. Feibai: the intentional preservation of erroneous original forms
“Feibai” refers to “a rhetorical device in which one knowingly records the original erroneous form by imitating mistakes, even though one is aware that the characters, pronunciation, word usage, sentence construction, and logic (reasoning of affairs) of the person being described are incorrect.”2; “it is a rhetorical method of knowingly recording or adopting mistakes as they are, even though one knows they are wrong.”3.
“From the standpoint that linguistic interest is increased due to error as the basic position of forming this rhetorical device, in addition to mistaken characters, mispronunciation, stuttering, and slips of speech, modern rhetoricians also include errors in word usage, grammar, semantics, and sentence patterns.”4. In terms of nature, feibai often consists of the “linguistic diseases” within sentences, such as speech sounds like stuttering, dialects, habitual utterances; graphic errors in characters; semantic misunderstandings; misuse of words; and sentences that violate grammatical rules and logical reasoning.
The functions of feibai are: (1) to preserve authenticity, enhancing the realistic sense of linguistic expression, helping to portray character images vividly, and highlighting the personality traits of such individuals (such as those who misuse characters, stutterers, ignorant persons, dialect speakers, immature individuals, and those with unique linguistic habits and habitual phrases), creating an immediacy of “hearing their voices as if present, seeing them as if before one’s eyes.” (2) to enhance interest, deliberately pronouncing, writing, or interpreting characters and words incorrectly can add humor to language, creating a humorous atmosphere and making language lively and vivid. (3) to provide satire, exposing and satirizing those characters who are ignorant and vulgar or full of erroneous writing and incoherent speech, producing satirical (humorous) effects5.
When correcting students’ essays, one often encounters amusing sentences:
“My parents work very hard; I want to take care of their ‘lower body’.”
Joy, anger, “decline” and happiness “fanfan” surge in my heart.
After getting up in the morning and tidying my “remains,” we gathered at school and took a bus to Kenting for the graduation trip.
Last night my left eyelid kept twitching; at that time I felt it was a “bra,” and indeed my wallet was stolen today.
There is no one around; do not pat my shoulder from behind, I am very easily “fertilized.”
When preparing to go out shopping on Sunday, in a hurry I accidentally got my “anus” pinched, really unlucky!
Sometimes one also encounters students randomly misusing idioms:
“My family has three people: father, mother, and me. Every morning when we leave home, the three of us go our separate ways, each pursuing different careers; at night we all arrive by different routes at the same destination. Father is an architect, drawing and gesturing at construction sites every day; mother is a sales clerk, welcoming everyone in the store; I am a student, sitting stiffly like a wooden statue in the classroom. The three members of my family are like-minded and get along harmoniously, the family is full of harmony; but when my grades are poor, father also turns on his own household, brutally beating me until I am completely prostrate, while mother stands by with folded arms, never helping the righteous.”
II. Historical Origin of Feibai
Feibai is mostly used in classical novels, especially in dialogue between characters, such as in Strange Tales from a Chinese Studio. Jia Ping Gongzi: “One day, the young master had a note of instruction placed on the desk, containing many errors: ‘pepper’ written as ‘bean,’ ‘ginger’ written as ‘river,’ ‘hateful’ written as ‘wild.’ The woman saw it and wrote after it: ‘What is wild? Flowers and beans grow in rivers. With a son-in-law like this, it is better to become a prostitute!’” This vividly portrays the seemingly refined Jia Ping Gongzi; the female ghost, attracted by his handsome appearance and willing to give herself to him, ultimately leaves heartbroken after seeing through his empty and foolish nature.
Feibai appears less frequently in the works of ancient poets and lyricists, unless it is a scribal error in later transcription. It only appears in cases where dialect or colloquial language is used in poetry, such as “Li Bai, with a jug of wine, wrote hundreds of poems; sleeping in wine shops on Chang’an streets. The Son of Heaven calls him, but he does not board the boat, calling himself the wine immortal among officials.” (Drinking Song of the Eight Immortals, Du Fu), where “does not board the boat” is colloquial speech.
Section 2. The Semantic Structure of Feibai
The semantic structure of “feibai” is such that, even though one knows it is wrong in speech or writing, one deliberately proceeds with the error. Through superficially erroneous vocabulary, absurd information is conveyed to highlight that the message is not credible, thereby prompting readers to reflect on the deeper true meaning. As for humor and amusement, this is an incidental “laughing effect” of feibai; it can refresh the mind, but it is only a function, not the purpose.
Modern poets use feibai more freely than classical poets; they deliberately employ erroneous characters, incorrect grammar, and contradictory logic to express “implications beyond words and meanings beyond language,” while simultaneously creating humorous “laughing effects” or humor, stimulating the reader’s “laugh reflex.”
Section 3. Types of Feibai Expression
Chen Wangdao divided feibai into two categories: “recorded” and “adopted”6. More recent rhetoricians from both sides of the strait, such as Cheng Weijun and Huang Lizhen, based on precision considerations, classify it into five types: “phonetic feibai,” “graphic feibai,” “lexical feibai,” “syntactic feibai,” and “logical (reasoning) feibai”7. After analyzing the definitions of Cheng Weijun and Huang Lizhen, the author finds that the concepts of “phonetic feibai” and “graphic feibai” are easily conflated; it is clearer to distinguish them as “phonetic feibai” and “character-form feibai.”
I. Phonetic Feibai
There are three situations:
- When writing or composing, deliberately using homophonous or near-homophonous characters with different meanings to represent incorrect written usage.
- When speaking, recording, or quoting, deliberately imitating mispronunciations caused by tongue-twisting, lisping, stuttering, or dialectal influence. (Cheng Weijun et al. call this “phonetic feibai”8.) In 2016, a very popular YouTube phrase was “lan shou xiang gu,” but what does it actually mean? It turns out it came from a young man in Nanning, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, who, after a breakup, recorded a video. His pronunciation was influenced by local dialect, turning “feeling sad and wanting to cry” into “lan shou xiang gu.”
- Deliberately imitating errors caused by low educational level, where a person does not understand a character’s meaning and uses a homophonous or near-homophonous character in place of the correct one. (Cheng Weijun et al. call this “graphic feibai”9.)
Gu Yanwu of the Qing dynasty defined mistaken characters in Rizhilu, Volume 20 as: “Mistaken characters are when one should use this character but mistakenly writes that character. Today people call them ‘white characters,’ a transformation of mispronounced sounds.” Thus, mistaken characters are “errors caused by similarity in pronunciation or shape,” such as writing “mo” as “mo (ink)” (phonetic similarity), or “yu (fish)” as “fish character substitution” (graphic similarity). Mistaken characters may appear in both written and spoken language.
Tang Juan, “With Moles: No. 6”10
Like a black lamp swallowing light
Like black tears corroding the eye sockets
In the heart it is a mole; inflamed it becomes a louse
A point of happiness is extremely void
“In the heart it is a mole; inflamed it becomes a louse” originally reads “in the heart it is intention, expressed as poetry when spoken.” The poet borrows phonetic similarity to create associative double meanings, deliberately “parodying” classical text to achieve satirical intent. Although the imitation uses feibai word usage, readers familiar with poetry are unlikely to misunderstand “in the heart it is intention, expressed as poetry,” thus not assuming the author mistakenly used wrong characters.
Chen Li, “A Love Poem Caused by Pressing the Wrong Keys While Drowsy While Typing”11
My dear, I swear to be faithful to you forever
I miss those nights we spent together in bed
Those nights full of joy, warmth, tenderness, and romantic feelings
I miss those wet songs we sang together
Those vigorous images of life
In every tangled night like tonight
They bring me a feeling of hunger and fullness
My dear, my love for you will never change
Even if there are three thousand streams of desire, I only take one cup to drink
I do not want to leave you
Do not want you to suffer sexual harassment
Our love is pure, clean
Like green plants performing photosynthesis
Under sunlight and moonlight
Unashamedly and sleeplessly engaging in union
Our love is sacred
The entire poem, as the title indicates, is “caused by pressing the wrong keys while drowsy while typing.” Each line deliberately embeds one or two character “bugs” (errors), which are homophonous substitutions, producing a strong humorous effect that makes readers laugh uncontrollably. “Humor and absurdity” is the intuitive aesthetic response to this poem. Although aesthetician Santayana considered this a form of aesthetic value implied by evil, it cannot be denied that it leads readers to wander along imaginative detours (see earlier chapter on “irony”). This poem deliberately operates in the direction of “language play,” such as: “those wet songs / those vigorous images,” “my love will never change / I only take one cup,” “like green plants performing photosynthesis / under sunlight and moonlight unashamedly and sleeplessly engaging in union.”
From many homophonous words, the author also perceives the interest of “double meaning”: “I do not want to leave you” may mean “I do not want to leave you,” or “I silently leave you”; the author also notices that some expressions in this poem, from the perspective of semantic structure (meaning structure), indeed allow multiple interpretations, i.e., “phonetic-semantic ambiguity”: what exactly does “my love for you will never change” mean? Does it mean “unchanging,” “inconvenient,” or “not casual”? Which is the surface meaning? And what is the deep meaning? It is indeed thought-provoking.
This kind of poem is like “language play”; used occasionally it is novel and interesting, but if written in large quantities, it may be suspected of hitching a ride on the so-called “Martian language”12 trend.
II. Character-Form Feibai
When writing or composing (including recording and quotation), one deliberately uses misshapen characters that are similar in form but different in meaning to express erroneous written usage.
So-called “incorrect characters” refer to characters that are not properly formed—such as structures with left-right inversion, wrong radicals, missing strokes, or extra strokes; that is, characters whose shapes are written incorrectly. Such incorrect characters generally appear only in written language (including recording and quotation). If they appear in speech, they should be regarded as “shape-similar variant characters.”
Lin Dejun, “A Street”13
There is a street, displaying profound and powerful philosophy
Gentleness that has not flowed through the veins for a long time can be purchased here
Standardized moaning, guaranteed uniform specifications, flawless
Adequate insurance measures are necessary
“Profound and powerful” is a homophone of “vast and profound.” “Powerful and profound” contains a phonetic pun; although the character “powerful” is deliberately used as a “variant character,” it here produces another layer of semantic ambiguity, stimulating imagination. However, this example is not a “homophonic pun,” because in puns the homophonic words are usually correctly written, and incorrect characters are rarely used in the surface form.
Tang Juan, “Dry Season”14
In the dry season
Rivers and oceans are written as “burning-melting”
Fish and shrimp have learned to swim in the soil
And those shameless suns
Commit crimes without wearing hoods
“In which rivers and oceans are written as ‘burning-melting’” uses in the phrase “burning-melting” characters that are graphically and phonetically similar variants to express the situation of extreme drought, where rivers and seas have evaporated completely, leaving a scorched wasteland. This is an application of “character-form feibai.” The set of variant characters “burning-melting” here will not be misunderstood by readers, because readers understand that the author deliberately uses incorrect characters for expressive necessity.
III. Lexical Feibai
Deliberately imitating the error of using word B where word A should be used; this is what is commonly called “improper word usage.”
Su Shaolian, “Sympathy”15
Letters (tears) that have not been written for a long time
Two eyes that have long been dry
A yellowing white shirt
Extends its left sleeve
Violently strikes my right cheek
With a slap, I faint inside the envelope
Not knowing who stamps me
And sends me into the eyes (mailbox)
From a thousand miles away
There is a tree that finally receives my
tears (letter)
Long
Eyes without fallen leaves (tears)
Use a row of eyelashes
To perch a crow
From
a thousand miles away
Extends a handless (letterless) hand (letter)
Violently shakes
A tree
Finally sheds many tears (leaves)
This poem employs a “cosmic inversion” technique, deliberately replacing words that should be A with incorrect B words, and then using C where B should be, resulting in grammatical disruption and unexpectedly novel and interesting sentences. These ungrammatical sentences are mostly semantically contradictory and ambiguous, such as “a tree / finally sheds many tears.” According to ordinary rational experience, trees do not shed tears; however, if it is raining or snowing, or someone is watering the tree from above, or snow on branches is melting, then “dripping water” is reasonable, but not “crying.” The author adds annotations to assist reading.
IV. Syntactic Feibai
Deliberately imitating grammatical structures that do not conform to standard Mandarin usage.
Qiu Huan, “Plan”16
Begin writing ten poems at 12:00 noon
Habitually cry a little before sleeping
Pick one flower every today
Daydream before snacks
Bathe when angry
Memorize one English word before kissing
Talk less with others
(If asked east, I decide to answer west)
Often look into infants’ eyes
Do not answer phone calls
Do not cover myself with a blanket
This is not a poem, but merely a “bullet-point” plan list, although it has the lineated appearance of poetry. If numbers were added at the beginning of each line, it would be even clearer that the author is drafting a life schedule.
If read as a “poem,” one finds that the semantic logical relations between lines are fragmented, making it difficult to infer meaning from textual clues. Each individual sentence is grammatically understandable, but the semantic connections between sentences do not cohere; this is what I call a “disjointed isolated structure” (jump-cut) syntax. If marked by a teacher, comments would likely include “mixing unrelated things” or “meaning unclear.” Modern poetry can occasionally play with such “malfunction,” but it is not acceptable in essay writing, because readers cannot understand what the author is “talking nonsense” about.
V. Logical Feibai
Deliberately imitating errors that violate logic (factual reasoning and common sense). This sometimes approaches the rhetorical device of “hyperbole.”
Lin Dejun, “Letter to a Friend”17
Seeing your smile on the campaign poster
Growing false teeth
“Seeing your smile on the campaign poster / growing false teeth” is either a “hallucinatory illusion” or simply “seeing a ghost.” This kind of logical syntax is humorous and carries a sense of black humor; its visual effect resembles magical realism. It is not rhetorical hyperbole, because it exceeds ordinary aesthetic experience and does not conform to Liu Xie’s principle of “exaggeration with restraint and embellishment without falsification.” However, occasionally inserting such abrupt sentences in poetry can create humor and amazement—this is still acceptable.
Zhang Yuguo, “Recollection of Entrance Examination”18
Shadows weakly drag along sneakers
Moving toward the so-called aspiration
Across the street the bus stop stands at attention
Becoming an ideology (those who believe me pass, those who do not are eliminated)
Of course, the bus stop across the street would not say to waiting students: “those who believe me pass, those who do not are eliminated.” The author is merely satirizing the former university entrance examination system, which included ideological indoctrination subjects such as “Three Principles of the People.” Such surreal poetic contemplation is often anti-logical and beyond most readers’ aesthetic experience, but lack of logic does not necessarily prevent acceptance; if it is “unreasonable yet marvelous,” it can still earn readers’ admiration.
II. Contradiction
Section 1. Definition and Function of Paradoxical Language
I. Paradoxical language: lexical misconnection
“Lexical misconnection” is a unique expressive technique in modern poetry, closely related to the concepts of “oxymoron” and “paradox.” It refers to the author deliberately combining two semantically unrelated or mutually opposite words into a phrase or sentence, forming a “paradoxical expression,” in order to express internal contradictions and complex emotions, thereby attracting readers’ attention.
“An oxymoron describes an object by juxtaposing opposing or mutually exclusive concepts; on the surface it appears contradictory, but in fact contains deep meaning.”19; “paradox is a rhetorical device that places two completely opposite words together, highlighting the intended meaning through opposition and achieving a special rhetorical effect.”20. Accordingly, it is close to the concepts of “double juxtaposition” and “antithetical contrast,” both of which concern the same object:
“Double juxtaposition” is “a rhetorical method that places the dual nature or opposing phenomena of a person or object together to highlight them”21, i.e., a two-sided mutual comparison of a single entity; “antithetical contrast” is “a method of describing an object using terms that are opposite to its phenomenon or essence.”22.
Paradox as a rhetorical device refers to placing semantically opposite words together to reveal the contradictory nature of a thing. In other words, it uses two incompatible or even completely opposing features to describe an object, thereby strengthening linguistic impact. In the process of interpretive decoding, paradox can produce two strong rhetorical effects.
- Unexpectedness
Because the semantic meanings of the two parts are mutually contradictory, and their combined use goes against common sense, paradoxical rhetoric strongly collides with the reader’s cognitive nerves, producing an unexpected effect and stimulating thought. For example, English “cruel kindness,” Chinese “true lies” and “sweet revenge,” or Zheng Chouyu’s poetic phrase “beautiful mistake,” and the tech nouveau riche expression “so poor that only money is left,” are all concrete manifestations of paradox. Upon reading such contradictory word combinations, readers will inevitably experience a sense of surprise.
- Engaging appeal
The impact of paradoxical language stimulates the reader’s desire to deepen understanding. After carefully examining such seemingly contradictory expressions, readers discover that the semantic contradictions expressed by paradox not only conform to logic but also make the text more vivid, rich, and profound in implication.
II. Historical Origins of Paradoxical Language
Ancient poets and lyricists were already well aware of the charm of “paradoxical language,” that state of “illogical yet fitting,” where “what seems unreasonable is in fact wondrously appropriate.” For example, Li Bai’s Tang dynasty poem “To cut water with a blade, the water flows even more; to drown sorrow with wine, sorrow becomes even more sorrowful” (Seeing Off Secretary Shu Yun at Xie Tiao Tower in Xuanzhou) expresses the irreconcilable opposition between subjective wishes (cutting water, drowning sorrow) and objective reality (water continues flowing, sorrow deepens). The Song dynasty poet Su Shi said: “Poetry takes strange interest as its essence; what is contrary yet fitting is what is interesting.” The novelty and abruptness of paradox provide sufficient “strange interest.” Another example is: “You wish to send you clothing, yet you do not return; if I do not send you clothing, yet you will be cold. Between sending and not sending, my situation is ten thousand times difficult.” (Yuan dynasty, Yao Sui, “Sending Winter Clothing”). This Yuan qu actually describes the wife’s delicate, painful, and deep affection for her husband before sending winter garments home. Through the contradictory psychology of “wanting to send yet not sending,” it unfolds in a flowing manner, rich in emotional charm, with restrained elegance and enduring poignancy.
Section 2. Semantic Structure of Paradoxical Language
Paradoxical rhetoric appeals to opposing or mutually exclusive words in order to create abrupt and unfamiliar linguistic tension, achieving a striking and impactful effect. So-called opposite or mutually exclusive words correspond in semantics to what linguistics calls antonyms, such as “cold and hot,” “light and darkness,” “clarity and obscurity,” all of which are semantically opposed and mutually exclusive. Paradoxical grammar deliberately juxtaposes and combines such words to produce a rhetorically deviant semantic effect.
Paradox involves the deliberate use of “antithetical structures,” forming a self-contradictory surface meaning in order to reveal the deeper dialectical relations and aesthetic value of unity of opposites in things. Both paradox and “contrastive foiling” are based on “contrast” as their formal aesthetic foundation. “Contrast is an important means of creating artistic beauty; its characteristic is to place clearly different, contradictory, and opposing elements within a unified artistic whole under certain conditions, forming a mutually supportive and echoing relationship.”23.
From the perspective of composition, paradoxical expressions may consist of words or sentences. Word-based paradoxes (i.e., paradoxical compounds) usually function as sentence components, appearing either as juxtaposed antonyms or as synonymous words preceded by negation to form paradoxical states, used to describe complex characteristics or attributes of objects or persons. Sentence-based paradoxes (i.e., paradoxical syntax), however, often reflect the overall nature and laws of things.
In practice, paradoxical rhetoric often merges with contrast, parallelism, foiling, and aphoristic force; therefore, works on Chinese rhetoric frequently classify such structures under related categories. In fact, paradox as an independent rhetorical device is highly distinctive, and its rhetorical features are very clear. Clarifying its relationship with related rhetorical devices helps establish the proper position of paradox within Chinese rhetoric.
Section 3. Forms of Paradoxical Expression
According to the deep semantic meanings expressed by antithetical structures, paradox is divided into three types24: interdependent paradox, mutually opposing paradox, and mutually transforming paradox.
I. Interdependent Paradox
A paradox formed by two mutually dependent sides. Both sides coexist yet remain disharmonious. Revealing such paradoxes often enhances humor or satirical effect.
Ya Xian, “To Surrealists”25
Fish fly, in the sky
Birds swim, in water
Your knees do not recognize their own
their own toes
“Fish fly in the sky / birds swim in water” appears to be a deliberate “crossed syntax,” swapping subjects to shape the theme: the absurdity and self-contradictory nature of surrealists’ imagination, carrying a tone of playful mockery. The “absurdity” of paradox in the poem reflects the writing style of many surrealists; such texts have in fact become so common that they appear normal. Thus, “fish flying in the sky / birds swimming in water,” and “your knees do not recognize their own / their own toes” each form their own internal logic; even when juxtaposed, they do not conflict. Such paradoxes, though disharmonious, can coexist without mutual exclusion or negation, and are called “interdependent paradoxes.”
Zhang Cuo, “Beauty and Sorrow”26
As if within the endless transformation of life
Forever revolving and alternating—
Rainy days and sunny days
The alternation of rain and sunshine, like day and night, cannot coexist “at the same time and place,” but may coexist “at different places at the same time,” or follow each other “at the same place at different times.” The poet describes his “beauty and sorrow” as alternating sun and rain, mutually dependent and continuously intertwined.
II. Mutually Opposing Paradox
A paradox formed by two opposing, irreconcilable sides. This contradiction may be objective reality or subjective imagination, and revealing it may serve criticism or satire.
Cai Yu, “Firecrackers”27
Whether
ending the old
or welcoming the new
a single explosion is already destined:
I am to be
born in a single sound
and extinguished in a single sound
“I am to be born in a single sound / and extinguished in a single sound” expresses a contradiction in which “life and death” cannot coexist within the same individual; both are absolute values in mathematical terms, isolated from one another and unable to reconcile. Through the imagery of firecrackers, the poet expresses the paradoxical existence of life and death at the instant of explosion.
Shang Qin, “Gangshan Head”28
Think about it, Gangshan Head, only one night
I already could not endure it, could not endure
your hot spring is strangely cold
your breath is strangely hot
making the night’s cheeks turn purple
glowing sweat freezing solid
“Your hot spring is strangely cold / your breath is strangely hot,” and “the night’s cheeks turn purple / glowing sweat freezes solid,” each contain semantic paradoxes. How can a hot spring be strangely cold? Yet breath is strangely hot. Purple cheeks and frozen sweat result from cold, while sweating results from heat. After repeated reflection, a possible interpretation is the poet’s perception of “your internal heat and external coldness”: the other person’s heart is actually warm, but due to emotional conflict, they deliberately speak coldly to the poet, causing confusion and discomfort. Such contradictions in love caused by poor communication are experiences most people who have been in relationships can understand.
Chen Feiwen, “Awakening”29
It turns out
joy and pain
are both unspeakable
a little spirit, upon a silent sigh
appears naked
and immediately
dresses again
This short poem uses simile, linking abstract emotions—“joy and pain”—with a “little spirit,” transforming abstraction into concreteness and transferring it onto the spirit for enactment: it “appears naked / and immediately / dresses again.” “Appearing naked” refers to a brief moment of self-reflection or honest confrontation with oneself; “dressing again immediately” refers to putting on the mask again and returning to a reality filled with deception and repression. This contradiction not only exists but continues to govern the poet’s body and mind; opposition and conflict remain unresolved.
III. Mutually Transforming Paradox
A paradoxical structure formed by two sides that can mutually transform into each other, often used in argumentation and reasoning.
Hsiung Hung, “Afterword to Poetry”30
Love is a poem written in blood
The blood of joy and the blood of self-torment are equally sincere
Scar marks and kiss marks are the same
Sorrow or happiness
Forgiveness or hatred
Because in love
You must forgive everything
“the blood of joy and the blood of self-torment are equally sincere,” “scar marks and kiss marks are the same / sorrow or happiness / forgiveness or hatred,” are all juxtaposed forms of “paradoxical contrast.” Although contradictions exist, through the intervention of “love,” the contradiction between the two sides obtains mutual “understanding” and “respect,” even though the contradiction still exists. This poem adopts a dialectical logic of “thesis, antithesis, and synthesis,” in order to develop the theme of “love”; it is concise yet highly thought-provoking.
Yu Guangzhong, “Kowloon-Canton Railway”**31**
An unbreakable, unending umbilical cord of helplessness
stretches toward the vastness of the north
that maternal body—both familiar and unfamiliar
that land which seems connected yet long severed
“that maternal body—both familiar and unfamiliar,” “that land which seems connected yet long severed,” these two parallel lines respectively convey the poet’s contradictory emotion of “fear upon nearing home.” For a wanderer who has long been away from home, the experience of “the closer to home, the greater the fear; I do not dare to ask the traveler” (Song Zhiwen, “Crossing the Han River”) is deeply felt. Such contradiction, unless one returns to settle permanently, is difficult to resolve and can only be kept as a form of homesickness.
---
**Notes**
(1) Zhang Chunrong, Yan Aizhu, eds., *English Rhetoric (I)*, Taipei: Wenhe, 1997, p. 127.
(2) Cheng Weijun et al., *Comprehensive Rhetoric Reference*, Beijing: China Youth Publishing, 1991, p. 777.
(3) Yang Chunlin, Liu Fan (eds.), *Dictionary of Chinese Rhetorical Arts*, Xi’an: Shaanxi People’s Publishing, 1991, p. 989.
(4) Huang Lizhen, *Practical Rhetoric (Revised Edition)*, Taipei: National Press, 2004, p. 130.
(5) See Lu Jiaxiang, Chi Taining (eds.), *Dictionary of Rhetorical Methods with Examples*, Hangzhou: Zhejiang Education, 1990, p. 81; and Yang Chunlin, Liu Fan (eds.), *Dictionary of Chinese Rhetorical Arts*, 1991, pp. 989–990.
(6) Chen Wangdao, *Foundations of Rhetoric*, Hong Kong: Dagong, 1964, p. 165.
(7) Cheng Weijun et al., see note (2), p. 777; Huang Lizhen, see note (4), p. 130.
(8) Cheng Weijun et al., *Comprehensive Rhetoric Reference*, 1991, p. 777.
(9) Cheng Weijun et al., *Comprehensive Rhetoric Reference*, 1991, p. 777.
(10) From Tang Juan, *In the Dark*, Taipei: Wen Shi Zhe, 1997, pp. 160–163.
(11) From Chen Li, *Island’s Edge*, Taipei: Nine Songs, 2003, pp. 111–112.
(12) The current popular “Martian language” (Mark words), as understood by the author, refers to writing that mixes English, numbers, symbols, phonetic notation, etc., using homophonic substitutions, pictographic substitutions, and erroneous characters to replace correct vocabulary for simplicity and convenience.
(13) From Xu Wenwei et al. (eds.), *Network New Poetry Chronicle: Poetry Road 2000 Anthology*, Taipei: Future Bookstore, 2001, pp. 139–143.
(14) From Tang Juan, *In the Dark*, 1997, pp. 167–169.
(15) From Su Shaolian, *I Lead a White Horse*, Taichung Cultural Center, 1998, pp. 21–22.
(16) From Bai Ling, Xiang Ming (eds.), *Selected Short Poems*, Taipei: Erya, 1997, pp. 84–85.
(17) From Xu Wenwei, Dai Ju (eds.), *Network New Poetry Chronicle: Poetry Road 2000 Anthology*, 2001, pp. 134–138.
(18) From Xu Wenwei, Dai Ju (eds.), *Network New Poetry Chronicle: Poetry Road 2000 Anthology*, 2001, pp. 116–120.
(19) Zhang Chunrong, Yan Aizhu, *English Rhetoric (I)*, 1997, p. 89.
(20) Chen Ding’an, *Chinese-English Rhetoric and Translation*, Taipei: Shulin, 1983, p. 51.
(21) Huang Qingxuan, *Rhetoric*, Taipei: Sanmin, 2002, p. 416.
(22) Huang Qingxuan, *Rhetoric*, Taipei: Sanmin, 2002, p. 419.
(23) Wang Shide (ed.), *Dictionary of Aesthetics*, Taipei: Mutuo, 1987, p. 48.
(24) Lu Jiaxiang, Chi Taining (eds.), *Dictionary of Rhetorical Methods with Examples*, Hangzhou: Zhejiang Education, 1991, p. 156.
(25) From Ya Xian, *Ya Xian Poetry Collection*, Taipei: Hongfan, 1981, pp. 181–185.
(26) From Zhang Cuo, *Complaints of the Double Jade Rings*, Taipei: Times Culture, 1984, pp. 99–101.
(27) From Bai Ling, Xiang Ming (eds.), *Selected Short Poems*, 1997, p. 110.
(28) From Shang Qin, *Dream or Dawn and Others*, Taipei: Shulin, 1988, pp. 71–72.
(29) From Zhang Mo (ed.), *Selected Readings of Short Poems*, Taipei: Erya, 2004, p. 271.
(30) From Hsiung Hung, *Hsiung Hung Poetry Collection*, Taipei: Dadi, 1979, pp. 131–132.
(31) From Zhang Cuo (ed.), *Island of a Thousand Songs*, Taipei: Erya, 1987, p. 48.
