Цветомира Пашова
1. ’Inna is a particle that is used in Modern Written Arabic (MWA) at the beginning of a declarative sentence, mostly followed by a nominal or a pronominal component in the Accusative. In modern grammars of Classical Arabic (CA) and Modern Standard Arabic (MSA), as well as in investigations devoted to concrete problems of Arabic syntax, the majority of scholars unite around two positions concerning the function of the particle. The first one tells us that ’inna emphasizes the proposition as a whole, and the second one that ’inna marks the topic component of the information structure.[1] The first opinion is closely connected with the way traditional Arabic grammar treats the particle, i.e. li-t-ta’k³d “for emphasis” (“wa ’inna tawk³dun li-qawlihi: zaydun muntaliqun“ S³bawaih IV/233). Fleischer maintains that the particle “keineswegs zur Hervorhebung des von ihr unmittelbar angezogenen logischen Subjects – sei dieses Nomen oder Pronomen – sondern zur Verstärkung der durch den Satz ausgedrückten Bejahung oder Verneinung dient.“ (1885:745,1ff, in: Nebes 1987:13) Reckendorf follows Fleischer as a whole and states that the component in the Accusative is “oft eine aus der Situation bereits wohlbekannte Vorstellung über die etwas neues und wichtiges erst jetzt hinzugefügt wird, so dass das Schwergewicht gerade auf diesem anderen Teile des Satzes liegt.“ (1921:127) In their respective grammars of CA Brockelmann (1982:174) and Fischer (1987:150) characterize the particle in much the same way. However, in the mentioned so far descriptions of the grammar, the functional definitions of ’inna are not substantiated by any proof. In an investigation devoted to the use of ’inna in CA Bloch tries to prove its function as a particle that “emphasizes the speaker’s certainty (in questions his doubt) that what is said in a sentence is a fact, is true, will indeed take place, etc.” (1986:102) from a diachronic point of view. He maintains that ’inna has developed from a particle with a deictic-presentative and/or existential function, etymologically and functionally related to Hebrew hinne, and only functionally to the Arabic proclitic demonstrative h¢aŒda, into a particle, whose only function is sentence emphasis. He finds evidence for this earlier presentative and/or existential function of ’inna in examples from pre-islamic poems, cited by S³baweiyh, such as ’inna m¢alan , that can be understood as analogous to àtamma m¢alun, hun¢aka m¢alun “there is money”. In order to explain the development of the nuclear presentative structure with ’inna, that contains only one nominal component in the Accusative after the particle, into a sentence with a second component functioning as a predicate, Bloch draws a parallel between this development and the development of a nuclear presentative sentence with a demonstrative as one of the main components into a sentence in which the demonstrative has a proclitic character and an emphasizing function. This development, according to him, has a middle stage in which the nuclear structure is amplified with a circumstantial (h¢al) component – nominal or sentential, which is subsequently transformed into a predicate: | Nuclear | Amplified | Proclitic | | H¢aŒda Zaydun (Nom) This/there is Zayd. | H¢aŒda Zaydun (Nom) munçtaliqan/yançççtaliqu This/there is Zayd setting out. | H¢aŒda Zaydun (Nom) munçtaliqun/yanççtaliqu This Zayd is setting out. | | ’Inna Zaydan (Acc) This/there is Zayd. | ’Inna Zaydan (Acc) munçtaliqan/yanççtaliqu This/there is Zayd setting out. | ’Inna Zaydan (Acc) munççtaliqun/yanççtaçlçiqu Zayd is setting out. | TABLE 1 (adapted from Bloch 1986:128) As can be seen from TABLE 1, the only difference between the structures with ’inna and h¢aŒda is the case of the nominal component. Bloch explains the Accusative after ’inna with the general possibility for the presented entity to be viewed in two different ways: “as an object, … or as a thing/person that is located (sits, stands, etc.) in a given place.” (1986:121) This diachronic analysis seems powerful enough. It can explain the two peculiarities in the syntax of a sentence introduced by ’inna, i.e. the word order, which differs from the postulated basic VS order for written Arabic, and the case of the nominal component after ’inna. In my opinion, however, it does not explain why ’inna cannot be classified as a topicalizing device, as Bloch puts it (1986:105). To mark the topic of the sentence, which can mean to present it, is a function that can result as naturally from earlier presentative function as sentence emphasis. The second view of the function of ’inna, namely that it marks the topic component of the information structure, has proponents such as Beeston (1979:58-9), Belova (1984:33), Holes (1995:209), Fakhri (1995:152-3). Their attention is focused on Modern Standard Arabic. According to Belova, ’inna requires, when used, the thematic component of the sentence be put immediately after it, thus marking it. Beeston and Holes simply state that sometimes “extraposed nominals” (Holes) or “enunciated themes” (Beeston) are marked by the particle ’inna. This means that the particle does not “work” by itself, but together with a change in the word order by which the topic, whatever its semantic function in the sentence is, is extraposed/put before the predicate. It is worth pointing out that no one mentions emphasis. Beeston even explicitly states that “…any special emphasis which might have resided in the use of ’inna has been completely lost in standard Arabic prose, and it can not be said that ’innah¢a jam³la differs at all, in sense of emphasis, from hiya jam³la.” (1979:59) By postulating a topic marking function for ’inna none of the three scholars tries to determine more precise conditions for the use of the particle. Such a condition, according to Fakhri, is for the topical component to denote a discontinuous (not mentioned for a long portion of the text or mentioned for the first time) discourse referent. Such topical components are full definite noun phrases. This condition should be able to explain why the particle is not used with every “extraposed nominal”. As proof for such a claim Fakhri mentions that the use of the particle “is often associated with important discourse boundaries, typically the beginning of paragraphs, where topic shifts are likely to occur.”(1995:152) However, this claim is based only on nine cases of the use of ’inna from one expository text, and this is quite insufficient for such a generalization. In addition, such a condition leaves unexplained the use of the particle with a pronoun in the accusative attached to it. Fakhri tries to circumvent this inconsistency by claiming that the use of what he calls “a grammaticalized ’inna” – when it functions as a conjunction after the verb q¢ala “to say” and at the beginning of a main clause with dam³r a„s-„sa’n (“a nonreferential pleonastic pronoun”) – with a pronominal form immediately after it “can be construed as a reflection of its discourse function as a topic marking device.” (1995:153) But what about the numerous cases in which ’inna is followed by a referential pronoun at the beginning of a main clause? In my opinion, the proposition about the topic marking function of ’inna draws on the fact that it is followed in principle by a definite noun or a pronoun that denotes what is talked about in the sentence. In addition, this word order differs from the basic or unmarked one in a sentence with a verbal predicate, so that it seems as though the particle attracts the topic to the fore in order to make it more salient. The explanation of the word order after ’inna with its topic marking function contradicts clearly with the diachronic explanation. Against the background of the two prevailing interpretations of the function of ’inna we can encounter some isolate voices that assign to the particle other functions connected with the information structure. Schub claims that ’inna as a presentative particle marks the nominal component following it as the focus (new information) of the sentence (1977:208), whereas Moutawakkil asserts that ’inna marks the whole sentence as new information, i.e. an all-focus sentence (1984:131). Neither scholar bases his assertion on the investigation of texts and each of them gives only one made-up example. The survey of the literature on the function of the particle ’inna shows that scholars try to postulate only one function. One exception is Holes, who asserts, on the basis of his impression from modern texts, that “clefted elements may also very often be introduced by ’inna, which seems, in modern writing, to indicate emphasis.” (1995:209) This means that ’inna may be used at the beginning of sentences with different information structures – a topic-comment structure and a contrastive focus structure (the information structure that a cleft-sentence is specialized to mark.)[2] 2. The present study arose in connection with my PhD thesis. In the latter I investigated word order in Modern Written Arabic from a functional point of view on the basis of 4228 clauses/sentences excerpted from a corpus of modern Arabic texts. The corpus consists of fictional, journalistic and scientific texts, published between the late 60-ies and the present day. The texts of fiction – short stories and excerpts from novels by 8 authors – are predominantly narrative. I have only restricted myself to monologue passages. The journalistic and scientific texts – articles from magazines, scholarly journals and collections of papers belonging to 15 authors – are predominantly expository. The number of sentences/clauses excerpted from the expository texts is approximately equal to the number of sentences/clauses excerpted from the narrative texts. In investigating the functions of the VS-SV alternation in sentences in which the subject is the topic, I had to decide whether to include the sentences in which the subject is preceded by ’inna or not, and this decision depended mostly on the function of ’inna that I will adopt – topic marking with word order as a result of the function of the particle, or sentence emphasis with word order as a result of a diachronically older function. I found that none of these two functions was well-grounded by the investigation of text corpora. In the scarce previous investigations of the VS-SV alternation in MSA based on corpora of various sizes, sentences with ’inna had been treated as sentences in which the SV order is functionally motivated and contrasted to VS sentences (e.g. Parkinson 1981, Raof 1998) without questioning the function of ’inna. I decided to attempt at finding out which one of the functions is the befitting one by examining the cases with ’inna in my corpus. If one assumes that ’inna is a topic-marking particle, it is clear from the outset that the particle is not like, for example, the Japanese wa, which marks the topic in every topic-comment sentence (see Golovnin 1979:171-9). Second, neither can one ascribe to ’inna the function of marking all the topics of sentences with a verbal predicate as salient by attracting them to the first position in the sentence. The impression of Beeston and Holes that ’inna marks only some “extraposed nominals” was corroborated by my corpus. The simple sentences and the main clauses with a verbal predicate that begin with ’inna followed by the sentence topic, be it the sentence subject or a nominal phrase in the nominative coreferent with an object or a genitive[3], were much fewer than the sentences with the same word order without ’inna or any other particle or conjunction (to the exclusion of wa “and” that is irrelevant to word order). I found 82 S(t)V and 5 TVS sentences with ’inna vs. 439 S(t)V and 44 TVS sentences without ’inna. In addition, there is a big number of sentences in which ’inna precedes a topical subject, the latter followed by a nominal predicate (P) - 50. It is known that the order SP is the normal, unmarked one in Arabic. Consequently, if one still insists on the topic marking function, one must look for some special characteristic of the topics preceded by ’inna in sentences with a verbal as well as a nominal predicate. Such a characteristic could be the one assumed by Fakhri, i.e. the discontinuousness of the topics. But the examination of my data base exemplified that this is a characteristic of less than half of the topics preceded by ’inna. In 50 sentences the particle is followed by a referential third person pronoun that denotes a topical referent the latter being part of the preceding sentence too, either as its topic or as part of the information focus; in 9 sentences it is followed by a first person pronoun. There remain 78 sentences in which ’inna is followed by a noun phrase, and in 76 of them the noun phrase is definite. In the remaining two noun phrases the noun is qualified, so that their referents can be topics. The fact that a topical referent is denoted by a noun phrase is not enough to qualify this referent as discontinuous. That is why I measured the referential distance (RD) of the referents of the respective noun phrases (the number of clauses preceding the current clause in which they are not mentioned – cf. Givon 1983). I assumed that a referent with an RD less than 10 should not be treated as discontinuous. It was found that 61 out of the 78 topical referents are mentioned for the first time or have an RD more than 10. But 17 have an RD less than 10. If they are added to the 50 highly continuous referents denoted by a third person pronoun, the result is 67 continuous vs. 61 discontinuous topics preceded by ’inna. Besides that there are many discontinuous topics in sentences with SV order not preceded by ’inna and in sentences with VS order. As for the statement of Fakhri that ’inna is often used at the beginning of paragraphs, I found in my corpus 44 such cases. This is not a small number, yet smaller than the number of the discontinuous topics. It is worth mentioning that besides the majority of new topics, I found at the beginning of some paragraphs topics with low referential distance. This is because the new paragraph means a new sub theme, but not necessarily a new topic. As a consequence, it cannot be claimed that the only or the main function of the particle is to mark discontinuous topics. I could not find another characteristic or characteristics of the topics preceded by ’inna that can explain the use of the particle with those topics. In my opinion, an argument against the postulating of a topic-marking function for ’inna is the fact that the particle is used also in sentences that do not have a topic-comment structure. In my corpus I have found two kinds of such sentences – cleft sentences with the clefted component in first position that express an information structure with a contrastive focus (1), and sentences with a nominal predicate in first position that express an all-focus presentative information structure(2): 1) ’inna h¢aŒda l-wahma huwa llaŒd³ ’awqa‘a l-mufakkir³na l-‘araba fi kaàt³rin min aŒhçt¢a’i wad‘i ’afk¢arihim mawdi‘a t-taçtb³qi. (ar-Rumayh³, p.115) It is this delusion that led the Arab thinkers to many errors while trying to apply their ideas. 2) ’inna ’am¢aman¢a fi l-hay¢ati l-luÌaw³yati l-‘arab³yati h¢aŒdihi z-z¢ahirata: z¢ahirata l-izdiw¢aji l-luÌaw¢³... (Faysal, p.41) There is in front of us in the life of the Arabic language this phenomenon: the phenomenon of the diglossia... It is true that those sentences are only a few – 4 with a contrastive focus information structure and 2 presentative, but it should be born in mind that sentences with such an information structure are generally rare in natural language communication. And because ’inna is used with such sentences too, and its use does not seem communicatively inadequate, the function (or the only function) of a topic-marking device cannot be postulated for it. Some sentences in which a nominal predicate denoted by a prepositional phrase precedes the subject do have a topic, namely the noun from the prepositional phrase, but as is known from the grammar, ’inna is used before such a predicate without attracting the noun (3) (9 cases in the corpus): 3) ’inna min çtab³‘ati ’ayyi hizbin d³n³yin ’an yattajiha ’il¢a l-‘unfi ... (an-Naqqas, p.25) It is natural for any religious party to turn to violence… If the particle attracts the topic in a verbal sentence because of its topic marking function, why does it not attract it in sentences like (3) too? Moreover, the extrapositioning of the noun in such sentences in order to achieve topic emphasis is a regular phenomenon: 4) ’ayyu hizbin d³n³yin min çtab³‘atihi ’an yattajiha ’il¢a l-‘unfi ... It should be borne in mind also that ’inna can be followed by a nonreferential, dummy pronoun, the so-called damir a„s-„sa’n. This type of pronoun is mostly used when a sentence with a verbal predicate lacks a topic, i.e. it has an all-focus structure and neither the subject, nor the object can precede the verb, or when the topic is a pronoun and is not the subject of the clause (5) (4 cases in the corpus): 5) ’innahu l¢a yaz¢alu bayna ’ayd³n¢a ’an na’mala fi niçt¢aqin àtaq¢af³yin muwahhadin ... (Fayâal, p.54) It is still in our hands to work in a united cultural sphere. When ’inna is combined with this pronoun, it is obvious that the former dominates the whole sentence. All the arguments advanced above gave me grounds to conclude in my thesis that ’inna does not fulfill a topic-marking function, and consequently, the word order after it is not functionally but diachronically determined. This is why I adopted the explanation of Bloch set out above. The assumption of an existential, in addition to the presentative function, allows one to explain not only the positioning of the topic immediately after the particle, but also the positioning after it of a prepositional phrase functioning as a nominal predicate, as in: ’inna fi d-d¢ari rajulan “In the house a man à There is a man in the house”. Such a construction can be an extension of a non-amplified original existential sentence, in which the prepositional phrase further specifies the location. The same is possible with hun¢aka “there” with a presentative function: hun¢aka (àtammata) fi d-dari rajulun. “There in the house man à There is a man in the house”. Thus, one can adopt the position that the function of ’inna is sentence emphasis, or in terms of modern linguistics – emphasis on the illocutionary force of the sentence as an assertion. I do not think that this function has changed principally since the time of al-Kindi and al-Mubarrid in the 9th century, who had allegedly the following conversation: “Rakiba l-Kind³ l-mutafalsifu il¢a Ab³ l-‘Abb¢as wa q¢ala lahu: “’Inn³ la-ajidu f³ kal¢ami l-‘arabi ha„swan.” Fa q¢ala la-hu Ab¢u l- ‘Abb¢as: “Fi ’ayyi mawdi‘in wajadta Œdalika?” Fa-q¢ala: “Ajidu al-‘araba yaq¢ul¢una: ‘Abdu l-L¢ahi q¢a’imun, àtumma yaq¢ul¢una:’Inna ‘Abda l-L¢ahi q¢a’imun, àtumma yaq¢ul¢una: ’Inna ‘Abda l-L¢ahi la-q¢a’imun, fa-l-’alf¢azu mutakarriratun wa-l-ma‘n¢a w¢ahidun.” Fa-q¢ala ’Abu l-‘Abb¢as: “Bali l-ma‘¢an³ muŒhtalifatun li-Œhtilafi l-’alf¢azi. Fa-qawluhum: ‘Abdu l-L¢ahi q¢a’imun, ’iŒhb¢arun ‘an qiy¢amihi, wa qawluhum: ’Inna ‘Abda l-L¢ahi q¢a’imun, jaw¢abun ‘an su’¢ali s¢a’ilin, wa qawluhum: ’Inna ‘Abda l-lLahi la-q¢a’imun, jaw¢abun ‘an ’ink¢ari munkirin qiy¢amahu...“ (al-Jurjani 218-9 ) “The philosopher al-Kindi went riding to ’Abu l-‘Abbas and told him: “I find in the speech of the Arabs a redundancy”. Then ’Abu l-‘Abbas told him: “Where did you find that?” He (al-Kindi) said: “The Arabs say: ‘Abd ’Allah (is) standing”, then they say: “’Inna ‘Abd ’Allah (is) standing”, then they say: ’Inna ‘Abd ’Allah (is) la-standing”. The words recur and the meaning is the same.” Then ’Abu l-‘Abbas told him: “On the contrary, the meanings are different because the words are different. The sentence “ ‘Abd ’Allah (is) standing” is an information that he is standing. The sentence “’Inna ‘Abd ’Allah (is) standing” is an answer to someone that asks. The sentence “’Inna ‘Abd ’Allah (is) la-standing” is an answer to somebody that denies that he is standing …” Al-Jurj¢an³ (11th century), with his outstanding flair for the language, corrects al-Mubarrid and notes that there must be a doubt in the question in order for the one who answers to use ’inna (al-Jurjani p. 227) These conditions provide evidence as to how and why should we use ’inna in a dialogue. Dialogues in Standard Arabic can be read today in novels, short stories and plays. Of special interest to me, however, is the use of ’inna in monologue written Arabic discourse. Some revealing observations can again be found in al-Jurj¢ani. According to him the use of ’inna is especially felicitous when the sentence asserts something that contradicts the widespread opinion on the issue (p. 227). Another felicitous use of ’inna is in places where the conjunction fa is typically used, i.e. when the sentence yuâahhahu bihi m¢a qablahu wa yuhtajju lahu wa yubayyanu wajhu l-f¢a’idati f³hi “presents that which is before as right, justifies it and clarifies its usefulness.” (p. 225). The examples are with sentences that come after directives. 3. The investigation of the cases with ’inna from the corpus on the basis of which I conducted my study on word order showed that the particle is used in expository (argumentative and descriptive) and never in narrative discourse. That is why the instances of ’inna I found in texts of fiction are less than those found in journalistic and scientific texts, respectively 46 vs. 107. It is of importance to mention also that only in 11 sentences out of 153 there is a past tense (suffixed) verb. This may be due to functional distribution – there is another particle by means of which emphasis on the illocutionary force of an assertion with a suffixed verb, namely qad, can be achieved. This “specialization” of ’inna, however, may be also explained with the diachronic development of the syntactic construction of which ’inna is a part, as proposed by Bloch. As stated above, it was possible for the construction with a presentative ’inna to be amplified by a circumstantial clause – jumla h¢al³ya – that turned with the time into a predicate. The verb of this circumstantial clause is in the majority of cases a prefixed (present tense) one, but it can also be suffixed attended by qad. That is why sentences with ’inna and a suffixed verb with or without qad are acceptable, yet rare. The instances in the journalistic and the scientific texts gave me some grounds to assume that the emphasis on the illocutionary force as a main function of ’inna makes it possible for the particle to be used in expository discourse in specific places – to mark a change of theme, a conclusion, some kinds of relation between sentences or groups of sentences, including that mentioned by al-Jurj¢ani. Those cases, however, were not enough for solid conclusions. To counteract it I excerpted 200 additional instances from another corpus that consists of scientific monographs, textbooks and articles and journalistic articles from magazines and papers[4]. From each book I monitored between 20 and 30 pages. I read through one issue of each of three papers. It was found that ’inna occurs only in analytic or feature articles on pages with headings such as qad¢ay¢a wa ’¢ar¢a’ “problems and opinions” and tahq³q¢at wa taq¢ar³r “investigations and sketches”, and never in short nor in long news articles, that report on past (occasionally future) events and can be deemed a narrative type of text. In the new 200 cases I came across one question only. Thus, the use of ’inna with a question can be considered an exception in MWA. The remaining 199 cases confirmed the findings of the old corpus: - 128 ’inna S/T V sentences vs. 327 S/T V sentences; - 27 sentences in which S/T after ’inna is a third person referential pronoun; - 65 SP sentences; - 4 sentences with a contrastive focus after ’inna; - 2 PS sentences in which P is a prepositional phrase; - 1 sentence with a dummy pronoun. On the basis of the 306 simple sentences and main clauses preceded by the particle ’inna it was possible to establish more concrete conditions for its use in expository discourse, based on its main function, namely emphasis on the illocutionary force of a statement. A. In 14 cases ’inna is used to introduce a sentence/group of sentences that follows a rhetorical question in order to emphasize the truthfulness of the answer: 6) wa hun¢a ’aq¢ulu: subh¢ana ll¢ahu, hal il-muhimmu mazharu d-dawlati ’am istiqr¢aruh¢a wa-sal¢amatu n-n¢asi? ’innahu mazharun z¢a’ifun, Œd¢alika llaŒd³ yan„suduhu l-ba’du … (a„s-…Sarq al-’awsaçt, p.9) Here I am saying: God be praised! Is it the appearance of the state that matters or its stability and the safety of the people? It is a false appearance, that which some people are looking for… I have included here three instances in which ’inna is not used after a question, but after the particle na‘m “yes”, as if there were an implicit question: 7) wa h¢akaŒd¢a fa-l-jih¢atu: fawqa wa-tahta wa-yam³na wa-„sim¢ala hiya ’amkinatun wa-hiya t¢ujadu mustaqillatun ‘an-n¢a. na‘m, ’inna „s-„say’a l-w¢ahida yumkinu ’an yak¢una ‘al¢a yam³nin¢a ’aw „sim¢alin¢a ’aw war¢a’an¢a ’aw Œhalfan¢a , mimm¢a yaj‘alu l-jih¢ati l-murtabiçtata bi-n¢a nahnu laysa àt¢abitatan. (al-Jabiri, p. 400) Thus the directions: over and under and right and left, they are places and they are independent of us. Yes, a thing may be to the right of us or to the left or behind us, which makes the directions that are connected with us not fixed. B. In 32 cases ’inna is used to mark a relation of correction or substitution between two sentences/groups of sentences in the sense that in the first sentence/group of sentences something is denied or denoted as inappropriate and in the second one the correct variant is asserted. The function of ’inna here is to emphasize the correct variant: 8) Ìayr ’anna l-‘arab³yata l¢a tastaçt³‘u ’an tataqaddama ’il¢a Œd¢alika wa-hiya tahmilu l-’a‘b¢a’a àt-àtiq¢ala. ’innahu l¢a budda la-h¢a ’an tataŒhallaâa min ba‘di m¢a tu‘¢an³hi wa-’an tuqaddama li-n-n¢asi â¢afiyatan naq³ya ...(Faysal, p.34) But Arabic can not progress towards that while it is carrying that heavy burden. It is necessary for it to get rid of some of its diseases and to be presented to the people in its pure form. In such cases the sense of correction can be “reinforced” by the negative particle kall¢a “not at all, by no means”: 9) wa min jihatin ’uŒhr¢a fa-laysa l-maqâ¢udu bi-l-istiqr¢a’i haâru jam³‘i l-juz’³y¢ati. Kall¢a, ’inna l-maqâ¢uda huwa l-qiy¢amu bi-‘amal³yati takàt³fin li-mu‘çtay¢ati l-w¢aqi‘i t-tajr³b³ ... (al-J¢abir³, p. 401) On the other hand, the purpose of the exploration is not to comprise all the details. Not at all, the purpose is to condense the data from the experimental study of reality… In cases such as the two above, where there are only two sentences and the first one displays some kind of negation, ’inna may be replaced by one of the conjunctions bal and ’innama. Yet, there are cases where it is difficult, even impossible, to use a conjunction: 10) ’inna naz‘atan¢a „s-„s¢uf³n³yata wa-kulla naz‘atin tub¢aliÌu fi tamj³d Œd-Œd¢ati hiya bi-d-dar¢urati z¢ahiratun l¢a tuqaddimu kaàt³ran, bal hiya baŒh³latun ‘al¢a „saŒhâ³yati miâra, wa-hiya fawqa Œd¢alika wa bi-t-ta’k³di z¢ahiratun Ìayru mujdiyatin. ’inna h¢aŒda l-‘¢alama llaŒd³ yumawwiju bi-t-taçtawwuri wa-l-hir¢aki yataçtallabu min-n¢a, bal wa-yantaziry, âiy¢aÌatan ’uŒhr¢a li-dawrin had¢ar³yin wa-rubbam¢a siy¢as³yin jad³din, wa-huwa dawrun y¢ujibu ‘alayn¢a t-tawf³qa l-Œhall¢aqa bayna ‘ur¢ubati l-ummati bi-çtum¢uhih¢a l-ma„sr¢u‘i wa-l-mustahiqqi wa-bayna nŒhir¢açtih¢a l-w¢aàtiqi l-w¢a‘³ fi harakati l-‘awlamati. (al-’Ahr¢am, p.12) Our chauvinistic inclination as well as all inclination that exaggerates the self-praise is necessarily a phenomenon that does not give much, but is stingy to Egypt. Besides that it is not useful. This world, that is full of movement and progress, requires from us and awaits another formulation of a new cultural and maybe a political role, a role that imposes on us to reconcile in a creative way the Arabism of the nation with its legitimate aspirations and its conscious joining in globalization. In (10) the second ’inna expresses a relation of correction between two groups of sentences. In addition there are 3 cases in which ’inna is employed before the first sentence, the one that denotes the denied variant: 11) la tu„sbihu s-sitt³n¢atu l-‘ir¢aq³yatu ’ayya ‘aqdin ’¢aŒhara min al-‘uq¢udi t-t¢aliyati llat³ marrat bi-l-‘ir¢aqi. ’inna l-’amra la yata‘allaqu hun¢a bi-tajd³din „sakl³yin li-l-kit¢abati kam¢a yatawahhamu ba‘du nuqq¢adi l-’adabi wa-mu’arriŒh³hi, wa-’innam¢a bi-tahawwulin k¢amilin fi l-wa‘³ l-fikr³yi wa-s-siy¢as³yi wa-l-ijtim¢a‘³yi ... (al-‘Azz¢aw³, p.13) The Iraqi sixties do not resemble any other of the following decades in Iraq. The things here do not have anything to do with a formal renovation of the way of writing, as some critics and historians of the literature believe, but with a complete transformation of the ideological and the political and the social consciousness… In this way the emphasis is operative on the couple of sentences simultaneously. C. In 28 cases ’inna is used where the conjunction fa would be used to denote a relation between the sentences as speech acts. In monologue discourse fa is used to connect two pairs of speech acts: the first consists of assertion and justification, and the second of assertion and elaboration. The justifying speech act has the function to prove the truthfulness of the preceding assertion. The elaborating speech act gives more details about the assertion. (cf. Pashova 2001b) As mentioned above, the medieval linguist al-Jurj¢an³ noted the use of ’inna where fa would be used, but only to introduce a justifying speech act after a directive. In my corpus, the particle is met also at the beginning of a justification or an explanation of a previous assertion (12), or at the beginning of an elaboration (13): 12) wa-l¢akinnan¢a na‘rifu ’anna d-diqqata wa-t-tahd³da fi t-ta„sb³hi lays¢a hum¢a kulla „say’in. ’inna bayta bni l-mu‘tazzi: “ ’unzur ’ilayhi ka-zawraqin min fiddatin qad ’aàtqalathu hum¢ulatun min ‘anbarin” yaq¢umu ‘al¢a ta„sb³hin daq³qin muhaddadin d¢una „sakkin, wa-l¢akinnahu l¢a yuqaddimu ’ilayn¢a ma‘rifatan jad³datan bi-l-hil¢ali ’aw bi-l-h¢al¢ati n-nafs³yati llat³ ‘¢an¢a min-h¢a „s-„s¢a‘iru ’aàtn¢a’a ru’yatihi la-hu ... (‘Usf¢ur, p.193) But we know that the exactness and the definiteness of the comparison are not everything. The strophe of ’Ibn al-Mu‘tazz … is based on a precise and clearly defined comparison without doubt, but it does not give us new knowledge about the crescent or the psychological state of the poet while he was looking at it… 12) hun¢a naq¢ulu ’innahu ’aâbaha min ad-dar¢ur³yi ka„sfu ’ab’¢adi l-‘al¢aq¢ati bayna s-sulçtati wa-â-âah¢afati wa-ra’si l-m¢ali laysa li-ka„sfi l-Œhab¢ay¢a wa-l¢akin li-tawd³hi l-maw¢aqifi.. wa-fi taqd³r³ ’anna hun¢aka Œhil¢afan jawhar³yan bayna h¢aŒda àt-àt¢al¢uàti.. ’inna s-sulçtata tatahammalu mas’¢uliyata l-‘amali t-tanf³Œd³yi, wa-â-âahafatu sulçtatun riq¢ab³yatun taktasibu „sar‘³yatah¢a min miâd¢aq³yatih¢a, wa ra’su l-m¢ali ’uŒhçtub¢uçtun lahu maâ¢alihuhu wa his¢ab¢atuhu ... (al-’Ahr¢am, p.33) At this point we say that it is necessary to disguise the dimensions of the relation between the (political) power, the media and the capital, not in order to reveal the secrets but to clarify the attitudes. In my opinion, there is substantial contradiction within this triad. The political power takes upon itself the responsibility of the executive work, and the media are a supervisory power whose legitimacy results from its veracity, and the capital is an octopus that has its interests and calculations… In both (12) and (13) fa may be used instead of or in conjunction with ’inna. The use of ’inna only is based again on its main function – putting emphasis on the illocutionary force. It reinforces the function of the justifying and the elaborating speech acts to verify the preceding assertion. D. In 88 instances ’inna marks the sentence as the beginning of a sub theme of the textual theme. In 81 instances the sentences are at the beginning of a paragraph. In 3 instances this is the first paragraph in the text. In 9 instances the paragraph is after a subtitle. And in 5 instances ’inna comes at the beginning of an item marked with a letter or a figure. Why should ’inna be treated in such instances as marking the sentence as the beginning of a sub theme, and not as marking the topic referent as new/discontinuous? It is true that in most instances the topic referent is new, not mentioned up to this point of the text, but there are 26 instances in which the topic referent has been mentioned in the last 10 clauses, as in (14), and 5 instances in which the topic referent is denoted by a first person pronoun.: 14) ’amm¢a l-hijratu l-Œh¢arij³yatu fa-’innah¢a ta‘n³ l-intiq¢ala ’il¢a Œh¢arija l-quçtri, wa-yak¢unu h¢aŒda n-naw‘u min al-hijrati ’imm¢a çtaw‘³yan, wa-yatimmu ‘¢adatan ’il¢a d-duwali l-Ìan³yati miàtlu d-duwali n-nifçt³yati ’aw id-duwali l-jad³dati mitlu ’amir³k¢a wa-kanad¢a wa-’ustr¢aliy¢a, hayàtu tataw¢afaru furaâu l-‘amali bi-raw¢atiba ‘¢aliyatin, wa-hun¢aka l-hijratu l-qasr³yatu wa-hiya n-n¢atijatu ‘an il-idçtih¢adi d-d³n³yi ’aw it-tamy³zi l-‘unâur³yi ’aw il-ihtil¢ali l-‘askar³yi ’aw nat³jata hamal¢ati l-’ib‘¢adi s-siy¢as³yi. ’inna l-hijrata l-Œh¢arijiyata ’aâbahat min al-mawdu‘¢ati r-ra’³s³yati llat³ tajtaŒdibu htim¢ama l-mas’¢ul³na l-huk¢um³y³na wa-l-b¢ahiàt³na l-’ak¢ad³m³y³na ... (al-®Hawr¢an³, p.44) As for the emigration, it means to move out of the country. This kind of migration can be voluntary, usually to one of the rich states, for example the petrol-producing states, or the new states as the United States of America, Canada, Australia, where there are high salaries. Emigration can be also compulsory, when it results from religious oppression, or racism, or military occupation, or expatriation for political reasons. Emigration became one of the main problems that draw the attention of the state authorities and academic research workers… In (14) there are two consecutive paragraphs with the same main topic referent, but with different sub themes. In the first paragraph ’amma denotes clearly change of topic by introducing an element of a mentioned set in a context of listing, while ’inna in the second paragraph introduces a new sub theme about the already introduced topic referent. If it is assumed that ’inna marks the new topic, then the 26 instances should be treated as some kind of exception. And if it is assumed that ’inna marks the whole sentence as important, then there will be no exceptions, all the more that the marking of the whole sentence as important because it announces a sub theme seems to be a natural result of the postulated basic function of ’inna, namely emphasis on the illocutionary force. E. In 46 instances ’inna is used to introduce a sentence/group of sentences that has the character of a conclusion/summary at the end of a text or a sub theme. When the conclusion/summary is at the end of a text, the sentence with ’inna is usually the first one in the last paragraph (23 instances). When the conclusion/summary is at the end of a sub theme, treated in one or more than one paragraphs, the sentence with ’inna is usually towards the end or the closing one in a paragraph. 15) ’inna t-ta„sb³ha âifatu „s-„say’i bi-m¢a q¢arabahu wa-„s¢akalahu, min jihatin w¢ahidatin ’aw jih¢atin kaàt³ratin, l¢a min jam³‘i jih¢atihi. (‘Uâf¢ur, p.173) The comparison is the characterization of something with what is similar and near it in one respect or in many respects, but not in every respect. This sentence is a summary definition, that comes after the exposition of the views of the medieval Arab rhetoricians, and is followed by some examples. F. Finally, there are 96 instances in which ’inna can be treated only as emphasizing some local importance of the sentence, as distinct from A, B, C, D and E, where it is used at boundaries connected with the structuring of the text. In some instances the sentences contain additional emphatic elements, e.g. contrastive focus (16) and (17), the particle la, which is traditionally treated as an emphatic particle too (18), a superlative (19): 16) ’inna kulla ‘al¢aqatin ’adab³yatin l¢a tajidu ma‘n¢ah¢a ’ill¢a f³ „sakli ‘al¢aq¢atih¢a ma‘a l-‘al¢aq¢ati l-’uŒhra ... (Darr¢aj, p.109) Every literary relation finds its meaning only in the form of its connections with the other relations. 17) ’inna h¢aŒda l-wahma huwa llaŒd³ ’awqa‘a l-mufakkir³na l-‘araba fi kaàt³rin min ’aŒhçt¢a’i wad‘i ’afk¢arihim mawdi‘a t-taçtb³qi. (ar-Rumayhi, p. 21) It is this delusion that led the Arab thinkers to many errors while trying to apply their ideas. 18) ’innahu la-yatamaàtàtalu ’a„sadda m¢a yak¢unu t-tamàt³lu fi h¢aŒdihi l-’awd¢a’i „s-„s¢aŒdŒdati ... (Fayâal, p.31) It finds its best representation in this extraordinary situation... 19) ’inna çt-çtar³qata l-muàtl¢a li-tafahhumi „s-„su’¢uri bi-l-‘uzlati wa-l-wahdati hiya ‘an çtar³qi fahâi çt-çturuqi llat³ yata‘¢amalu bih¢a l-fardu Œhil¢ala taj¢aribihi wa-hay¢atihi l-yawm³yati. (‘Abd ’Allah, p. 174) The best way for the understanding of the feeling of isolation and loneliness is to examine the means of communication that the individual uses in his everyday life. A big number of the sentences marked by ’inna for local importance expresses the authors opinion on the subject. The particle’s function is to emphasize the correctness of this opinion. But the marking of the local importance should be treated as a function broader than the emphasis on the illocutionary force, though originating from the latter. That is why sentences are encountered in which ’inna is combined with elements expressing uncertainty, or hypothetical modality, as in (20): 20) fi l-lahzati llat³ ta’izzu f³h¢a siy¢açtu l-jall¢adi fi l-haw¢a’i h¢awiyatan fawqa zahri d-dah³yati yanhadimu „say’un m¢a d¢aŒhila l-iàtnayni. ’inna ma nhadama qad l¢a yak¢unu mar’³yan li-n-nazrati l-’¢ul¢a, wa l¢akinnahu sawfa yantaâiru ma‘a z-zamani miàtlu waramin saraçt¢an³yin ya„smulu l-qalba kullahu. (al-’Azz¢awi, p.24) At that moment at which the whips of the torturer are whizzing in the air falling upon the back of the victim, something inside both of them is being destroyed. What has been destroyed may be invisible at first sight, but it will win with the time as cancer that spreads all over the heart. In 32 of the instances subsumed under the function of ’inna to mark local importance, the topic referent after the particle is denoted by a third person pronoun. Some of these sentences describe characteristics of the topic and follow or are surrounded by other sentences describing characteristics, in which the topic is denoted by a noun. What attracts the attention is that only the sentence with a pronoun is preceded by ’inna: (21) al-‘ur¢ubatu fi h¢aŒda l-manz¢uri hiya ma‘an al-’aâlu (al-fiçtr³yu, açt-çtab³’³yu) wa-l-muktasabu. ’Innah¢a fi ’¢anin inbij¢as¢atun min aŒd-Œd¢ati wa raw¢afidu min al-’¢aŒhari. Wa-h¢aŒdihi ma‘an, d¢una nfiâ¢alin, tu„sakkilu huy³yata l-‘ur¢ubati. (’Ad¢un³s, p.14) The Arabism from this point of view is at the same time the origin (the inborn, the natural) and the acquired. It is an outburst of the self and an influx from the other. Those two sources together represent the identity of Arabism. In (21) ’inna does not seem to have any function, connected with emphasis, not even the function of marking local importance. A number of such examples have also been found in the fictional texts from the corpus on which I based my investigation on word order. This use of ’inna seems to be purely stylistic. After this attempt at a functional subdivision of the use of ’inna in expository discourse, it should be mentioned that in some instances the use of the particle in a sentence with a verbal predicate co-occurs with a factor that favors the use of SV order: when the noun phrase denoting the subject consists of or contains a demonstrative pronoun; when it denotes a topic referent, that generalizes the content of one or more previous sentences; when the subject refers to the main topic of the following part of the text at the beginning of a thematic paragraph; when the subject is syntactically complex (cf. Pashova 2001a). If this is an instance, where one of the functions of ’inna expounded in A, B and C can be established, it can be treated as a coincidence of the two factors, the one for the use of ’inna and the one for the use of SV order. In the other instances it could be assumed that ’inna is used only to formally justify the preposing of the subject, i.e without any emphasis, as Parkinson has done (1981: 33-4). This assumption cannot be rejected categorically, but in my opinion ’inna can be used in such a way only by inexperienced writers that treat the grammar rule for the VS order of the verbal sentence as an absolute rule. SV order is freely used with different functions not only by modern, but also by medieval authors (cf. Pashova 1998). It should be pointed out that all authors from my corpus that use ’inna, also use SV sentences without the particle with one of the aforementioned functions. That is why I would rather treat all the uses of ’inna as having their own function different from marking some kind of topical referents and attracting them to first position in the sentence. 4. In conclusion, it can be said that the investigation of 306 instances from journalistic and scientific texts and 44 instances from texts of fiction in which the particle ’inna is used at the beginning of a simple sentence or a main clause corroborates the opinion that the main function of the particle is not to mark some kind of topic in a sentence with a topic-comment information structure, but to put emphasis on the illocutionary force of the sentence as an assertion. On the basis of this main function the particle has developed derivative functions with which it is used mainly in expository discourse. In cases A, B, C, D and E, indicated in §3, ’inna is used at structural boundaries of the text, i.e. to mark textual importance, and in F it is used to mark local importance. Consequently, ’inna can be qualified as a kind of discourse marker. As such its use is optional. It depends on the choice and the preferences of the author. This is further substantiated by the fact that the particle is used with different frequency in the different texts in the corpus. Shukr³ Fayâal has used it in “Qad¢ay¢a l-luÌati l-‘arab³yati l-mu‘¢aâirati” 47 times in addition to 40 S/T V sentences in 25 pages, whereas in 35 from the relatively short articles from magazines and papers the particle is not used at all. It can be noted also that the authors that use ’inna with a moderate frequency show a preference for one or two of its functions, yet as a whole the more frequent use of ’inna gives the impression that the author’s purpose is not only to expound the subject but to convince the reader of the validity of the author’s opinion. NOTEs
[1] It seems that the two points of view have been expressed with respect to CA as well as with respect to MWA, though the former is present more often in older works devoted to CA and the latter more often in more recent works devoted to MWA. This can be explained by the development and increasing influence of the theory of the Functional Sentence Perspective or the information structure of the sentence in the last decades. [2] The term “focus” is used here in the sense of Lambrecht (1994). He defines focus as “the semantic component of a pragmatically structured proposition whereby the assertion differs from the presupposition” (1994:213). The term “focus” is preferred to “comment” because there are different focus types depending on the type of information structure of the sentence. The “comment” type of focus is found in propositions that are informationally structured so as to say something about their topics. This type of focus includes the predicate and the nominal constituents of the sentence except the topic (unless there is a secondary topic), as in: “Mary ate a sandwich”, as an answer to the question:”What about Mary?” Another type of information structure is found in propositions that identify a missing argument or adjunct as in: “Mary ate the sandwich” or “The sandwich was eaten by Mary” as an answer to the question:”Who ate the sandwich?”. This one-componential or “narrow” focus type may have a contrastive, which means a counterpresuppositional, character, as in:”It was Mary that ate the sandwich” as a correction of the assertion “Robert ate the sandwich”. There are also all-focus or thetic propositions that do not contain a presupposed part. They either present a new entity into discourse or inform about an event as a whole, not about one of its participants (cf. also Sasse 1987:526) [3] Ar-ra’³su ya‘rifu kulla jaw¢anibi h¢aŒdihi l-qad³yati. (The president knows all aspects of this problem) Kullu jaw¢anibi h¢aŒdihi l-qad³yati ya‘rifuh¢a r-ra’³su. (All aspects of this problem, the president knows them.) H¢aŒdihi l-qad³yatu ya‘rifu r-ra’³su kulla jaw¢anibih¢a. (This problem, the president knows all its aspects.) [4] A list of the titles and authors in the corpus can be found at the end of the article. THE CORPUS FICTION - Farm¢an, ŒG¢a’ib ®Tu‘ma. Al-murtaj¢a wa-l-mu’ajjal (riw¢aya). Man„s¢ur¢at B¢abil. 1986. 7-27. - ’Ibr¢ah³m, San‘all¢ah. Al-lajna (riw¢aya). Bayr¢ut: D¢ar al-kalima li-n-na„sr. 1983. 19-29, 53-71. - ’Idr³s, Yusuf. ’£Aœhar ad-Duny¢a (majm¢u‘at qiâaâ), ®Tar¢abuls: al-Mun„sa’a al-‘¢amma li-n-na„sr wa-t-tawz³‘ wa-l-’i‘l¢an. 1983. 21-41, 93-103. - al-Kawn³, ’Ibr¢ah³m. Al-muj¢us (riw¢aya). D¢ar al-jam¢ah³r³ya li-n-na„sr wa-t-tawz³‘ wa-l-’i‘l¢an / D¢ar al-’¢af¢aq al-jad³da. 1991. I/9-41, II/331-343. - M³na, ®Hann¢a. Al-’aban¢usa al-bayd¢a’ (majm¢u‘at qiâaâ) Bayr¢ut: D¢ar al-’¢ad¢ab. 1981. 135-186. - S¢alih, Jih¢ad. Rajul bi-qadam w¢ahida (majm¢u‘at qiâaâ). D¢ar ’ Ibn Ru„sd. 1982. 61-80. - S¢alih, açt-®Tayyib. Mawsim al-hijra ’il¢a „s-„sim¢al (riw¢aya). Bayr¢ut: D¢ar al-‘awda. 1969. 23-64. - Zafz¢af, Muhammad. Muh¢awalat ‘³„s (riw¢aya). ad-D¢ar al-‘arab³ya li-l-kit¢ab. 1985. 5-44. JOURNALISTIC AND SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES - ‘Abb¢as, ’Ihs¢an. “al-Jus¢¢ur wa-l-‘al¢aq¢at f³ qiâaâ ŒGass¢an”. In: ŒGass¢an Kanaf¢an³ ’ins¢anan wa-’ad³ban wa-mun¢adilan. Al-’Ittih¢ad al-‘¢amm li-l-kutt¢ab wa-â-âuhuf³y³n al-filasçt³n³y³n. 1974. 13-41. - al-‘Abdull¢ah, H¢an³. ”Sir¢a‘ tab¢adul al-’adw¢ar”. In: al-Mawqif al-‘arab³, 432 (1990). 28-30. - Burj³, Nab³h. “Lu‘bat as-sar¢ab f³ „s-„sarq al-’awsaçt”. In: al-Kif¢ah al-‘arab³, 713 (1992). 18-19. - Darr¢aj, Fayâal. “F³ dal¢alat an-naqd”. In: al-Karmal, 2 (1981). 99-114. - Fayâal, …Sukr³. “Qad¢ay¢a al-luÌa al-‘arab³ya al-mu‘¢aâira. Bahàt f³ l-’içt¢ar al-‘¢amm li-l-mawd¢u‘ ”. In: Min qad¢ay¢a al-luÌa al-‘arab³ya al-mu‘¢aâira, T¢unis: al-Munazzama al-‘arab³ya li-t-tarbiya wa-àt-àtaq¢afa wa-l -‘ul¢um. 1990. 30-55. - al-®Hak³m, Ziy¢ad. “açt-®Tifl al-‘udw¢an³”. In: al-‘Arab³, 461 (1997). 164-167. - ‘Içtr³, Muâçtaf¢a. “Qalb al-mar’a wa-l-Œhaçtar”. In: al-‘Arab³ 457(1996), 154-155. - Ma„s¢a‘il, Jam¢al. “a„s-…S¢uf – tur¢aàt ‘ar³q fawqa Œdur¢a al-jib¢al”. In: al-‘Arab³, 461 (1997). 130-145. - Mizy¢an, Kar³m, “Ta‘addud al-‘aw¢alim ‘abra t-t¢ar³Œh”. In: al-‘Arab³ 461(1997). 96-99. - al-Muçtayl³, Ahmad. “ ‘Indam¢a yakrah al-mur¢¢ahiq jasada-hu”. In: al-‘Arabi:, 457 (1996). 150-153. - an-Naqq¢a„s, Raj¢a’. “ ’Isl¢am bi-l¢a ’ahz¢ab”. In: al-Muâawwar 3521 (1992). 24-26. - N¢aâif, Muâçtaf¢a. Nazar³yat al-ma‘n¢a f³ n-naqd al-‘arab³. Bayr¢ut: D¢ar al-Andalus. 38-49. - R¢afi‘, …Sawq³. “al-®Hur¢ub al-luÌaw³ya h¢arratan wa-b¢aridatan tahkum al-‘¢alam”. In: al-‘Arab³, 461 (1997). 124-128. - ar-Rumayh³, Muhammad. “ ’Azmat al-muàtaqqaf al-‘arab³”, In: al-‘Arab³, 457 (1996). 14-23. - al-Y¢af³, ‘Abdu l-Kar³m. “Nazar³yat al-juz’ al-laŒd³ l¢a yatajazza’ f³ t-tur¢aàt al-‘arab³ al-’isl¢am³”. In: at-Tur¢aàt al-‘arab³, 8 (1982). 5-22. ADDITIONAL CORPUS - ‘Abd All¢ah, Muhammad. „Lasta wah³dan fi „s-„su’¢ur bi-l-wahda“. In: al-‘Arab³, 510 (2001), 174-175. - ’Ad¢un³s. an-Niz¢am wa-l-kal¢am. Bayr¢ut: D¢ar al-’£Ad¢ab. 1993. 13-39. - Al-‘Askar³, Sulaym¢an. “ŒHaw¢açtir s³n³m¢a’³ya”. In: al-‘Arab³, 510 (2001). 8-13. - al-‘Azz¢aw³, F¢adil. ar-R¢uh al-hayya. …G³l as-sitt³n¢at fi al-‘Ir¢aq. S¢ur³ya: D¢ar al-mad¢a li-àt-àtaq¢afa wa-n-na„sr. 1997. 7-30. - Barr¢ada, Muhammad. „“„M¢a ma’n¢a k¢atib?“. In: al-‘Arab³, 510 (2001). 22-27. - Barak¢at, Sal³m. Falsafat al-had¢ara wa-t-t¢ar³Œh. Dima„sq: Man„s¢ur¢at „g¢ami’at Dima„sq. 1989-90. 12-43. - al-®Hawr¢an³, Muhammad. ’Iqtiâ¢ad al-‘amal. ‘Amm¢an: al-Mu’allif. 1987. 17-50. - al-…G¢abir³, Muhammad. | 
